In Scotland Sunday is traditionally known as 'the Sabbath,' as well as 'the Lord's Day,' because the Scottish church, for at least three hundred years, has recognized the Lord's Day as the continuation into the New Covenant of the Old Testament Sabbath, albeit with certain modifications. This position is summed up by the Westminster Confession of Faith as follows: 'As it is of the law of nature, that, in general, a proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in His Word, by a positive, moral and perpetual commandment, binding men in all ages, He hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a sabbath, to be kept holy unto Him; which from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which in Scripture is called the Lord's Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath' (XXI.7).

Recent years have seen a gradual, but radical, shift from this position, culminating in 1964 in the acceptance by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland of the report prepared by its Church and Nation Committee on The Christian Use of Sunday. This report drew a fairly sharp distinction between the Jewish Sabbath and the Christian Sunday concluding that,'the evidence of the New Testament for observing the Lord's Day as a day entirely distinct from the Sabbath, both in origin and purpose, is very strong.

This growing tendency to regard the Sabbath as exclusively an Old Covenant institution and altogether different from the Lord's Day is by no means confined to Scotland or the British Isles. For several years a Committee of the Reformed Ecumenical Synod which embraces 36 churches with a world-wide membership of some five million, has been studying this problem. The majority of the Committee which reported to the 1972 Synod introduced their section of the report as follows: 'We as members who sign this report have been reared in churches which regarded Sunday as the Christian Sabbath. And we are not asking Synod to reject this view. But we feel compelled to point out that there are certain weaknesses in this doctrine which should make us hesitant to impose it upon the churches as the will of the Lord.'

This tendency leads, in turn, to a more liberal form of Lord's Day observance. The majority of the RES Committee went on to assert.that, while Christians will desire to interrupt all their ordinary activities on the Lord's Day, 'nevertheless, ordinary activities do not become sinful because they are performed on the Sunday.' The Westminster Confession rakes a different view:'This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations; but also are taken up the whole time in the public and private exercise of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy' (XXI.8).

In the face of this growing tendency to question the Westminster view of the Sabbath within churches which have traditionally upheld it, we must ask what is to be the reaction of the Free Church of Scotland which, from its inception in 1843 has unambiguously upheld the Lord's Day as the Christian Sabbath?

First of all, we must resist the temptation to resort to censorious criticism as a substitute for courteous Christian debate. To yield to it would be to repeat the mistake of the Pharisees who so devastatingly belie the simplistic equation that strictness equals correctness.

Secondly, and more positively, we must look again at the Scriptures in an effort to study the whole problem afresh, praying that the Holy Spirit, whom Jesus has given to his church to lead her into the truth might make clear the will of the Lord in this matter. The Scriptures alone are our ultimate authority.

Thirdly, we must recognize that this difference of opinion regarding the Sabbath arises from what appears to be a tension within the New Testament itself. On the one hand Paul calls it a shadow of things to come now fulfilled in Christ, while on the other, the apostolic church followed a seven-day week and observed the first day as belonging specially to Christ.

Fourthly, it should disturb us that Christians are divided in their understanding of the mind of Christ in relation to one of the ten commandments. The fact that some aspects of Scriptural truth are not immediately clear is no reason for abdicating our responsibility to seek a common understanding of them. Should we not see this, then, as a divinely-given challenge to our faith to claim the guid ance of the Spirit according to Jesus' promises

Our first task is to define the basic principles of interpreting the Bible, with special reference to its division into two distinct testaments or dispensations, with their differing religious orders and institutions. Under the old covenant the church was a nation, and it looked forward to the coming of the Messiah (or the Christ). In contrast, under the new covenant the church is no longer a nation but a voluntary society composed of those from all nations who profess faith in Jesus as the Christ. This contrast is sharpened by the discontinuation in the New Testament church of many of the Old Testament forms of worship.

The difference between the old and the new dispensations must not, however, be exaggerated. When the New Testament speaks of the new covenant it nearly always uses the Greek word meaning 'renewed,' rather than that meaning 'completely different.' There is continuity as well as discontinuity. For example, the simple form of synagogue worship became the pattern for Christian worship, and the Old Testament institution of the eldership was adopted by the Christian church, even in Gentile areas.

But the line between what was to be discontinued and what was to be carried over was not always cear. How then are we to approach this area of uncertainty! Are there any criteria by which we may distinguish the permanent from the merely preparatory, commands ofthe Old Testament!

A Commentary on the Confession of Faith by A. A. Hodge offers some very helpful guidance here:'(I) When the continued obligation of any commandment is asserted or practically recognized in the New Testament, it is plain that the change of dispensations has made no change in the law .... On the other hand, when the enactment is explicitely repealed, or its abrogation implied by what is taught in the New Testament, the case is also made plain. (2) Where there is no direct information upon the question to be gathered from the New Testament, a careful examination of the reason of the law will afford us good ground of judgment as to its perpetuity. If the original reason for its enactment is universal and permanent, and the law has never been explicitely repealed, then the law abides in force. If the reason of the law is transient, its binding force is transient also' (p. 255)· These two principles rightly assume that the New Testament, as the later and fuller revelation, is to interpret the Old for us.

Let us see how Hedge's principles work. On the basis of the first principle, we are, for example, to regard the eighth commandment as still binding because of Mart. 5.21-26, but the prohibition of 'unclean' food as having been relaxed because of Mark 7.I9b (RSV 'Thus he declared all foods clean'). On the basis of the second principle, the requirement of Deuteronomy 22.8 to build parapets on the roofs of houses, while no longer literally obligatory, does impose on us the duty to ensure personal safety on our property. However, many of the civil laws of Israel--e.g. the prohibition to wear garments of mixed cloth (Deut. 22.II)--and all the ceremonial ritual regulations, relate only to the historical setting and religious circumstances of the time, and, therefore, are not binding on the Christian.

We must now apply these two criteria to the Sabbath. So, first of all we must ask, Does the New Testament rarify or abrogate the Sabbath! And, if this question cannot be answered with certainty, we will have to go on to ask a second, Was the original reason for the Sabbath commandment permanent or transient'

In order to ascertain the New Testament's attitude to the Sabbath we shall have to look, in turn, at the teaching and practice of Jesus, and the teaching and practice of the early church.

The conflicts between James and the Scribes and Pharisees over the Sabbath are prominently reported in all four gospels. Obviously the evangelists were of the opinion that this was an important matter on which young converts (for whose instruction the gospels were originally written) should be informed. These conflicts revolved round two issues. First, the incident in the cornfields when the disciples plucked the ears of grain on the Sabbath (Mark 2.22-28; Matt. 12:1-8; Luke 6.I-5). And second, the various healing miracles performed by Jesus on the Sabbath.'There are seven such miracles recorded--the cripple at the pool of Bethesda (John 5·1-6), the demoniac in the synagogue at Capernaum (Mark 1.21-28), Peter's mother-in-law (Mark 1.29-3I), the man with the withered hand (Mark 3.1-6), the blind man at Siloam (John 9:I-4I) the woman with the spirit of infirmity (Luke 13.11-17), and the man with the dropsy (Luke 14·1-6). In the cornfields incident it is the disciples who were accused of Sabbath breaking; in the case of the Sabbath miracles it is the Lord himself. These events, along with the sayings of Jesus which they gave rise to, provide us with a considerable amount of evidence on which to decide whether Jesus ratified or abrogated the Sabbath.

The article on sabbaton in Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament maintains that the dialogue between Jesus and the Pharisees following the healing of the cripple at Bethesda (John 5) affords conclusive proof that Jesus abolished the Sabbath. Verse 18 is regarded as crucial:'therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his father, making himself equal with God.' The Greek verb luo, which literally means 'to loose,' and is translated here as 'broken,' sometimes means 'to abrogate,' as, e.g. in Matt. 5·19 (RSV (relax,' NEB 'set aside'). It is contended that this must be the meaning here since Jesus justifies his healing on the Sabbath by asserting that God the Father works on the Sabbath,'My Father worketh hitherto and I work' (v. 17)· The argument is that Jesus revokes the Sabbath commandment by declaring that God is working on the Sabbath, and not resting as the commandment assumes. This repeal of a divine commandment led to the Jewish charge of making himself equal with God.

However, this interpretation of John 5 is open to very serious question. Let us look at the facts in turn. First, the meaning of the verb luo. Most English translations understand it here in the sense in which it is used in 7.23--also in relation to the Sabbath-of 'to infringe.' The use of the imperfect tense ('was breaking') supports this, and suggests that the verb refers to Jesus' habitual action of healing on the Sabbath rather than to the saying in the previous verse specifically spoken on this occasion.

Secondly, the statement that Jesus broke the Sabbath is not the opinion of the Fourth Evangelist, but of the Jews.

Thirdly, the charge that Jesus claimed equality with God should probably be distinguished from that of breaking the Sabbath ('not only ... but also'). The saying in v. 17 in which Jesus puts his activity on a par with the Father's would have provided sufficient grounds in the Pharisees' eyes for formulating the charge of blasphemy.

Fourthly, had Jesus abrogated the Sabbath we would expect him to have been charged with this offence at his trial. But in fact his enemies found it impossible to sustain a genuine charge of any kind.

Fifthly, if Jesus did abrogate the Sabbath on this occasion, then the manner in which he did this is in sharp contradiction to his declared relationship to the Old Testament law. He came to fulfil the law, not to destroy it (Matt.5:17)· When this messianic fulfilment took the form of rendering the ceremonial aspects of the law unnecessary and obsolete, it was always on the grounds that with his coming their preparatory role had been exhausted, and never that he questioned or denied their original divine authorization. Surely, then, it would be most surprising to find him here abrogating the Sabbath in terms of contradiction rather than of fulfilment! But in fact there is no contradiction. Jesus is simply reminding the Pharisees that God's Sabbath rest involves his preserving and governing the completed creation, and that in consequence he himself is perfectly justified in sustaining created life on the Sabbath day.

This dialogue in John 5 illustrates well the fundamental rift between Jesus and many of his contemporaries on Sabbath observance. For them Sabbath observance was essentially cessation from all avoidable activity. But Jesus saw it as a day for doing the work of God. Deliberately and regularly he defied the scribal law by tending non-emergency cases of illness on the Sabbath. His quarrel was with the Scribes and Pharisees, not with the fourth commandment itself.

We must now enquire whether there is positive evidence that our Lord ratified the Sabbath. It is clear that he and his disciples regularly attended the synagogue on the Sabbath and that he often preached during the service (Mark 1.21-22; 1·39; 6.2; Luke 4.16-21; 13.10; John 6.59; 15.20). And his several sayings about the Sabbath suggest that this practice involved much more than religious convention and evangelistic opportunism.

The climax of the group of Jesus' sayings which arose out of the cornfields incident is undoubtedly the sentence,'the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.' It is recorded by all three synoptic gospels and may be alluded to in the fourth (John 9·35)· Closely associated with it is the well-known saying (recorded only by Mark),'The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath' (Mark 2.27). The sayings found in the Sabbath healing accounts are perhaps summed up by that uttered immediately before the healing of the man with the withered hand,'It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath' (Mart. 12.12 RSV). These three sayings encapsulate Jesus' teaching on the Sabbath, and a close study of them in their contexts will show that he believed that the Sabbath possessed both a divine authority and a humanitarian purpose.

First of all, Jesus' emphasis on the divine authority of the Sabbath. His declaration that 'the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath' was made in order to explain by what authority he had pronounced his disciples 'guiltless' (Matt. 12.7) after the Pharisees had accused them of doing 'that which is not lawful to do on the Sabbath day' (Matt. 12.2). He asserts his messianic Lordship of the Sabbath over against the authority claimed by the Scribes to determine what is lawful and what is unlawful on the Sabbath. According to the Scribes, the disciples were guilty of Sabbath-breaking on four counts--they were reaping, they were threshing-for they plucked the ears of grain (Matt. 12.1)-they were winnowing ('rubbing them in their hands,' Luke 6.1), and they were preparing a meal. They argued that the Mosaic prohibitions of these activities on the

Sabbath, by implication condemned the disciples' action.

Clearly our Lord rejects this legalistic form of casuistry. But he does much more. He is in fact challenging the right of the Scribes to take it upon themselves to legislate for conscience. It is not they, but the Son of Man, who is Lord of the Sabbath, he reminds them. By adding to what was divinely written they were usurping the divine sovereignty over the Sabbath. So as God's special re-presentative (the term 'Son of Man' is a messianic designation) Jesus asserts the divine sovereignty over the Sabbath.

Furthermore, Jesus found support for his acquittal of the disciples in the Scriptures. He cites three Old Testament passages in support of his more liberal interpretation of Sabbath observance. First, he refers to the account in 1 Samuel 21.6 Of David's eating the shewbread when in dire hunger (Matt. 12·3)· The incident was relevant not only on account of the parallel between David's hunger and that of the disciples (Matt. 12.1), but also because it, too, probably took place on the Sabbath. According to Leviticus 24·8 the supply of shewbread was to be replaced with fresh bread every Sabbath, and the I Samuel reference suggests that this had been done on the day of David's arrival. Next, Jesus alludes to passages such as Numbers 28.9-10 which prescribed extra sacrifices for the Sabbath involving the priests in additional Sabbath work (Matt.12.5-6). Thirdly, he quotes Hosea 6.6,'I desire mercy and not sacrifice' (Matt. 12.7). This three-fold appeal to the Word of God underlines Jesus acknowledgment of the divine authority of the day of rest.

Jesus' second emphasis was on the humanitarian purpose of the Sabbath. 'The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath' (Mark 2.27) 'It is lawful to do well on the Sabbath days' (Matt. 12.12). Divine in origin, the Sabbath is humanitarian in purpose.

Our Lord is recalling that the Sabbath was given to help man in his physical weakness. Our physical constitution is such that we cannot live without the rest and recuperation which the Sabbath affords us. It is God's gift to us in our frailty. Thus the Pharisees are condemned by Jesus for perpetuating hunger by their Sabbath observance. It should be noted that the Greek verb peinao used in Matthew 12:1 indicates that the disciples were famishing, not merely peckish. The quotation of Hosea 6.6 makes it clear that in our Lord's view the Sabbath for the Pharisees was no longer an instrument of mercy, but a ritual in its own right, an end in itself, just as the sacrifices had become in the prophet's time.

Similarly Christ's deliberate choice of the Sabbath as a day particularly suited to healing, confirms this humanitarian aspect. It is a day for doing good. We fall into the error of the Pharisees if, when thinking of the Sabbath observance, we place 'works of mercy' on a level with 'works of necessity.' Works of necessity are unavoidable, but the works of mercy in which our Lord engaged were not. For him the Sabbath was a day particularly suited to performing works of mercy. He declared that the woman with an infirmity for eighteen years 'ought' to be loosed from her bond on the Sabbath day (Luke

13.16). To do well on the Sabbath is lawful not because it is permitted, but because it is commanded.

However, Jesus did not view the humanitarian purpose of the Sabbath only--or even principally--in terms of physical rest and healing. After all he taught that man cannot live by bread alone (Mart. 4·4). So we find him commending not only work which mediates mercy to the hungry and the ill as appropriate to the

Sabbath, but also the work which is involved in worship. In the temple the priests profane the Sabbath, but, like his disciples in the cornfields, they are 'guiltless' (Av 'blameless'; the RSV preserves in English the link between verses 5 and 7 by translating the same Greek word 'guiltless' in both instances). A related saying is found in John 7·23 where Jesus reminds his enemies that the work involved in circumcising male infants born eight days previous to any Sabbath is justified in order that the ceremonial law be fulfilled.

The worship aspect of Sabbath observance played a relatively minor role in the Sabbath conflicts of Jesus not because Jesus considered it to be of lesser importance, but because it was not in dispute.

The keynote of Jesus' teaching and practice on the Sabbath seems to have been 'reform' rather than 'repeal,' for again and again he sought to purge it of Pharisaic distortions and restore it to its original spiritual purpose.

Of course, some would argue that the evidence of the gospels is of little importance to us, since, in his conflicts with the Jews, Jesus was simply meeting men on their own grounds. While it is conceivable that Jesus may have done this on occasion, to claim that this technique played a prominent role in his teaching method is surely to make him guilty of the slick oratory and mental adroitness which Paul shunned as utterly unworthy of the Christian message (1 Cor. 1·17 ff.). In fact Jesus relied no less on the authority of the

Scriptures in his Sabbath teaching than in his own spiritual life, whether when facing the devil in the wilderness, or bearing the wrath of God upon the cross.

Turning from the gospels to the Acts and the epistles, we find that the seventh day appears not to have been generally observed in the Christian Church. The general rule in all churches - Jewish and Gentile - was for believers to meet together for worship and fellow- ship on the first day. The questions we must seek to answer is this: Does this abandonment of the seventh day in favour of the first indicate the end of the Sabbath?

In reply we must, first of all, bear in mind that the new arrangement retained the Sabbath principle of one day in seven. The Lord's day was observed once every seven days, not once every three or every ten. This is more significant than it may appear at first sight, for it indicates that although the Jewish seven-day Sabbath was not laid upon the Gentile churches, the Jewish seven day week was. In the New Testament era the seven day week was not observed outside of Semitic and Egyptian spheres of influence. The Romans had for centuries followed a clumsy threefold division of the twenty-eight day month and the evidence available to us suggests that the seven day week was not adopted throughout the Roman empire until late in the first century. So H. P. Porter is almost certainly correct in his assertion that,'The Corinthians would not have known what the First Day was unless he (Paul) had taught them' (Day of Light, p.I8). Apparently the churches of Galatia were similarly instructed (1 Cor.16.1). The seven-day week was determined by the Sabbath, and it is difficult to see why the week should be retained if the Sabbatic principle of one day in seven specially dedicated to the Lord was not still valid. If, as will be argued later, both the Sabbatic principle and the seven-day week are creation ordinances and, therefore, valid for ail men in all ages of history, then Paul's action makes sense. On the other hand if these were not creation ordinances, as some maintain, we are presented with the very tricky problem of explaining why Paul should arbitrarily foist a purely Jewish convention on the Gentile churches, thus contradicting all that he said against the Judaizers.

It is possible, of course, that the adoption of the seven day planetary week throughout the Roman empire may have been earlier than known sources indicate. If so Paul's action could readily be understood in terms of prevailing custom. But even if this were the case we must ask why in Gentile churches--in Galatia, Corinth, Troas--the Jewish designation 'first day' was used instead of the

Gentile designation 'Sunday'? Furthermore, Sunday was not the first, bur the second, day of the planetary week which began on Saturday,-Saturn being regarded as the most powerful planet. Although the Christian church very soon accepted the names of days from the planetary week it resisted tenaciously that week's sequence, insisting that Sunday, and not Saturday, was the first day.

Although the New Testament has no explicit command to worship on the first day, this was undoubtedly the custom of the apostles and the early church. Their example should be sufficiently authoritative for us. Almost certainly an apostolic command lies behind this early practice. In Luke's account of Paul's visit to the church in Troas (Acts 20.6-12) we read that 'upon the first day of the week when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them.' The vocabulary--'came together,''to break bread,' 'preached'--implies Christian worship. The reference in the Corinthian letter to the collection for the famine-stricken Christians in Judea indicates that the Christian use of the day focused on service to one's fellows as well as on the worship of God--a striking correspondence with our Lord's use of the Sabbath. This is surely more than coincidence and warns us against dismissing out of hand the possibility of a connection between the Sabbath and the Lord's Day simply because this is not explicitly made by the New Testament.

Other evidence in favour of regarding the Sabbath as obsolete is allegedly found in Paul's teaching that for first-generation Jewish Christians, Sabbath observance is a matter of indifference (Rom. 14·5-6), and that for Gentile Christians it is tantamount to apostacy (Col. 2.16; Gal. 4·10).

One cannot be absolutely certain that Paul is here referring to the weekly Sabbath. The Colossian reference is to sabbaths in the plural, and in Galatians and Romans the more general term 'days' is used. Accordingly, some maintain that the references are to Jewish holy days other than the weekly Sabbath. But, although these days may have been included, it is more likely that the seventh day Sabbath is principally in view. The Greek plural sabbata signified a single Sabbath day when it reflected the Aramaic singular sabatha' (cf. Mark 1.21; 2.23; 3:2-4), and its singular coordinatesa a'feast' (AV 'holyday') and 'new moon' in Colossians suggest that this is the case here. Therefore, Fairbairn, Lightfoot and many others are probably correct in seeing the primary reference to be to weekly Sabbath days. There are, however, certain factors which make it precarious to read into these apostolic condemnations of Sabbatarianism the end of the Sabbath.

There is, for example, their background. Judaizers were seeking to impose Jewish customs on Gentile converts to Christ as conditions of their salvation. So what Paul is dealing with in these passages is not so much Sabbath observance as Sabbath perversion, which, we must recall, was as much a heresy under the Old Covenant as under the New (cf. Isaiah 1·13)· Again, the general term 'days' in Galatians and Romans might be used with equal force against Lord's day observance as against Sabbath observance. But these passages can hardly mean that no day at all was to be specially observed in the churches, for Paul instructed the Galatians and the Corinthians to assemble on the first day (1 Cor. 16.1-2), and, although he was in Troas for seven days, it was on the first day that he and the disciples there met together for worship (Acts 20.6--7).

Colossians 2.16-17 classifies the Sabbath along with the dietary laws and ceremonial festivals of the old covenant as 'a shadow of things to come.' On the most natural reading of his words, Paul is saying that the Sabbath has been fulfilled in Christ. For him to say this of Jewish food and festivals is readily understandable in the light of our Lord's teaching on these matters. But not so his inclusion of the Sabbath, for, as we have seen, Jesus reaffirmed its divine authority and its humanitarian purpose. Are Jesus and Paul then in disagreement! Not if we see in Colossians 2.16 a reference to the Seventh-day Sabbath only.'The Sabbath is here regarded not as it was primevally (Gen. 2.3) 'made for man' (Mark 2.27) ... but as it was adopted to be a symbolic institution of the Mosaic Covenant, and expressingly adapted to the relation between God and Israel (Exodus 31.12-17). In that respect the Sabbath was abrogated.' (H. C. G. Moule, Cambridge Bible, Colossians and Philemon, pp. I09 f.). Because of its role as a sign of the old covenant 'it became necessary to assign to such Sabbaths--the Jewish seventh day of rest-a place among the things that were done away, and so far to change the ordinance itself as to transfer it to a different day, and even call it by a new name' (Patrick Fairbairn, The Typology of Scripture, Vol. 2, p. 147)·

This interpretation of Colossians 2.16 is confirmed by the terms of Hebrews 4.9 which suggest that Christ's fulfilment of the Sabbath is not yet absolute and final. 'There remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God' (RSV). The great day of rest--the eternal Sabbath--although come in Christ, is not yet fully come.

When we look back over the ground we have covered in this section, what pattern emerges! First, that the Christian church adopted the seven day week of the Jews. Second, that it observed one day in seven--the first day--as the Lord's day. Third, that what we know of the church's activities on this day corresponds strikingly with the twin emphasis on worship and service of our Lord's Sabbath observance. Fourth, the Sabbath has been fulfilled in Christ, but is not yet consummated in the eternal rest of the people of God.

We feel that the cumulative effect of this evidence points towards the identification of the Lord's day with the Christian Sabbath. But it would be a rash person who would claim that thus far the case is proved. Nowhere does the New Testament explicitly record the Fourth commandment. Nor does it command Christians to rest from work on the Lord's day. This silence may well be explained by the impracticability of first day Christian rest in a hostile society. But we cannot be sure. For this reason it is impossible, from the New Testament itself, to assert with certaintythat the Lord's day is the Christian Sabbath.

It is for this reason that we must now go back to Hodge's second principle and ask, What was the original purpose of the Sabbath? The answer the Bible gives to this question is crucial to our enquiry, for as the Reformed Ecumenical Synod Committee observes,'all problems relating to our subject hinge on the question whether or not the Sabbath is a creation ordinance.' If it is, it has a universal significance and continuing obligation. If not, it is merely a statute belonging exclusively to the ceremonial ritual and civil order of the Jewish nation.

On the face of it there seems to be little doubt as to how the Old Testament answers this question for it traces the origins of the Sabbath back to the creation of the world. This is the case in both the creation narrative in Genesis 2 and the fourth commandment in Exodus 20. Genesis 2.3 tells us that it was at the foundation of the world that,'God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it. Along with marriage it was revealed as an integral part of God's will for men from the very beginning. In passing it might be noted that the seven-day week, as well as the Sabbath which defined it, seems to have been regarded as a creation ordinance. (The Hebrew word for 'week' comes from the same root as 'seven' and means 'a period of seven days'). The rhythm of six days of work followed by one of rest is the divine blueprint for mankind's activities for it reflects God's own activity during and after the work of creation. The rhythm of divine activity is to be reflected in the rhythm of human activity. The Sabbath commandment rests on the same fundamental premise of all biblical ethics,--viz., that man's duty is to imitate God (cf. 1 Peter 1.16; Mart. 5·48)·

The fourth commandment also regards the Sabbath as a creation ordinance. It commands us to keep the Sabbath holy. Why? Because 'in six days the Lord made heaven and earth and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day' (Exodus 20.11). The point could scarcely be made more clearly. Furthermore, the introductory phrase 'remember the Sabbath day' assumes that the Sabbath was instituted before Sinai.

If the Sabbath is indeed a creation ordinance we would expect it to be found in the moral law of Israel. And this is in fact the case, for it is an integral part of the decalogue which was clearly demarcated from the purely ceremonial and civil laws in the Mosaic code in the following ways:

First, the ten words alone were spoken by the Lord directly to the people 'And the Lord spake all these words, saying .. .' (Exodus 20.1-19; Cf. Deut. 5·22)· Secondly, of all the Mosaic legislation only they were engraved on tables of stone (Exodus 34·28; cf. 32.I9; Deut. 4·13; 5.22; 10.4). Thirdly, only these two tables were accorded the honour of being placed within the Ark of the Covenant below the mercy seat in the most holy place of the sanctuary. The decalogue is thus differentiated from the other Mosaic laws because it is the moral law of God, a republication of the creation ordinances or life-norms given to the human race at the beginning of history. And this differentiation led the Westminster Assembly to regard the Sabbath as 'of the law of nature' and its sanctification as 'a positive, moral and perpetual commandment, binding in all ages.

However, there are many who maintain that Genesis 2 and Exodus 20 only appear to teach that the Sabbath is a creation ordinance, and that in fact it was a later and purely Jewish rite.

Some arrive at this conclusion as a result of questioning the integrity of the text in both passages. Neither passage, they contend, is a literary unity, but rather an interweaving of several different sources brought together nearer the end than the beginning of Old Testament history. This view, known as the documentary hypothesis, identifies Genesis 2.2-3 as belonging to a source originating sometime after the exile in Babylon in the sixth century B.C. On this view the presentation of the Sabbath as a creation ordinance in Genesis and Exodus is no more than a pious reconstruction in which doctrines, later associated with the Sabbath, were read back into the narrative of ancient events. The documentary hypothesis seeks to accommodate the Pentateuch to pre-conceived theories of the evolution of Israel's religion, and raises fundamental issues which we do not have time to go into here. We shall, therefore, restrict our survey of arguments against the Sabbath as a creation ordinance to those which respect the integrity of Scripture.

Some regard the account in Genesis 2.2-3 of God's blessing and sanctifying the Sabbath as a prospective reference to the fourth commandment to be imposed on the Israelites later. There is, we are told, no specific command in the passage to observe the Sabbath. However, this interpretation does not take the passage in its most natural sense, which surely is that man is to follow God's example by observing Sabbath rest. Further, the divine example would have been sufficient ground of obligation for unfallen man. Before the Fall it was not necessary for all divine commandments to be formally enacted. And finally, it is surely highly unlikely that God would have ordered his whole method of procedure at the creation of all things simply to facilitate the later establishment of a temporary ritual.

Others maintain that the creation narrative cannot be taken as normative in any universal sense for the observance of weeks and the consecration of one day in seven, because, according to them, the creation week of God's work and rest is not of the same order as our calendar time. Genesis 1.1-2.3 Simply casts its description of the divine activity into the 'conceptual mode' of a week. But surely whether or not the creation week can be regarded in exactly the same terms as our calendar week is beside the point which is that the pattern, or rhythm, of the creation process is, by divine arrangement, reflected in the pattern, or rhythm, of our calendar week. The seventh day of God's post-creation rest need not be identical with the seventh day of our weekly cycle in order to be the prototype of the latter. The most natural reading of the passage would suggest that the seventh day of Genesis 2.2 belongs to the creation week and the seventh day of Genesis 2.3 is that of the calendar week.

For some, a strong argument against the creation ordinance doctrine is the absence of all reference to the Sabbath commandment in the biblical record covering the centuries between Genesis 2 and Exodus 16. It is true that we are not explicitly told that the Patriarchs observed the Sabbath, although there is evidence that they divided time into periods of seven days (Genesis 7·4-10; 8.10-12) and that weeks were known in Padan-Aram (Genesis 29.27-28) and in Egypt (Genesis 50·10-11)· But arguments from silence are unreliable and, in this case, by no means conclusive, for any disregard for the Sabbath on the part of the patriarchs would no more disprove its divine appointment than their polygamy would deny that monogamous marriage was a creation ordinance. The unsatisfactory nature of this kind of argument can also be demonstrated from later history, for the accounts of the period from Sinai to the days of Elisha--which covers several centuries--contain no reference to the Sabbath either.

None of the evidence we have cited so far would justify us in interpreting Genesis 2.2-3 in any other way than in its most natural sense--viz. that God instituted the Sabbath for man at the creation of the world. However, we have still to consider two further arguments often cited against this conclusion. They concern the clear ceremonial overtones in the Mosaic legislation about the Sabbath and the typological use of the Sabbath in both testaments. We shall now turn to each of these in turn.

It cannot be denied that the Sabbath was a covenant sign between the Lord and Israel (Exodus 3I·I3), a mark distinguising the Jews from other nations. As such it celebrated the deliverance of Israel from slavery in Egypt to become the people of God (Deut. 5·I5). However, this later adoption of the Sabbath as a sign of God's covenant with Israel does not contradict the creation ordinance doctrine any more than the adoption of the rainbow as the sign of the Noahic covenant implied that sunlight refracted differently through water before that covenant was made. Nor does a practice require to be exclusive to Israel to become a sign of God's covenant with her, for circumcision, the sign of the Abrahamic covenant, was widely practised in the ancient world by other nations.

To regard the Sabbath purely as a sign of God's covenant with Israel is to isolate one of the ten commandments as possessing a different genre from the other nine which are universally regarded as being moral and permanent. But surely this is to put asunder what God has joined together ! As we have seen, the decalogue was clearly distinguished from the ceremonial laws. How strange then that the Sabbath should have been misplaced ! The fact that Scripture tends to regard the moral law as an organic unity--to keep one commandment is to keep all and to break one is to break all--should warn us against imposing arbitrary divisions.

To regard the fourth commandment as possessing the same moral genre as the other nine is not to deny that there were aspects of Sabbath legislation which were indeed purely ceremonial or civic and, therefore, of temporary validity. There were, after all, ceremonial and civic ramifications of most of the ten commandments, e.g. the Mosaic regulations governing the offence of adultery. Into this category fell the regulations governing the Sabbath sacrifices, new moon Sabbaths, the Sabbatical year, and the sanction of capital punishment for Sabbath-breaking (Exodus 35·2; cf·Numbers 15·35). Indeed some of the Sinaitic legislation surrounding the Sabbath probably fell into desuetude after the nomadic life of the wilderness years had passed, The prohibition to leave one's tent (Exodus 16.29) was specifically related to the gathering of manna which ceased at the conquest, and the prohibition to kindle a fire (Exodus 35·3) should probably also be understood against the background of life in the desert. Apparently not even the Sadduccees and the Pharisees considered it applicable in the cold wintry conditions of the Judean highlands, for Josephus, the Jewish historian of the first century, informs us that only the Essenes regarded Exodus 35·3 as perpetually binding.

We must now consider the argument that the typological use of the Sabbath implies its temporary validity. It is alleged that this places it in the same shadowy and preliminary category as the levitical sacrifices and laws on diet and hygiene. Now, as we have already seen, there are aspects of the Old Testament Sabbath which indeed have been fulfilled in Christ and are in consequence, no longer binding. But this cannot be said of the Sabbath institution as such, on typological grounds, for two reasons. First, in its original authorization there was nothing shadowy or typical of salvation. Man was unfallen, so as yet there was no need of salvation. Originally Sabbath typology was exclusively eschatological; only after the Fall did it assume soteriological significance. Second, while the writer to the Hebrews argues strongly that the sacrificial types have been completely fulfilled and done away with once for all in the death of Christ, in contrast he insists that the spiritual rest symbolized in the Sabbath still falls short in this life of complete fulfilment--' So then, there remains a sabbath rest for the people of God' (Hebrews 4:9,RSV).

It is helpful to compare the Sabbath with marriage in this regard.Both are creation ordinances, and, therefore, instituted before there was any need of redemption. Both were later taken as types of the end of salvation, the Sabbath of the eternal rest purchased for the people of God by Christ, and marriage of the union between the end of salvation, the Sabbath of the eternal rest purchased for the people of God by Christ, and marriage of the union between Christ and his church (Ephesians 5·32)· On the principle that the type remains until the antitype has come, both have continued and will continue as spiritual, viable institutions until that rest and union are consummated in the new order.

No survey of any aspect of Old Testament morality would be complete were it to ignore the prophets of the eighth century B.C. onwards. Fearlessly they denounced all legalistic reliance on form and ceremony, insisting that if men did nor do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with God, then all their religious observances would be of no avail. The Sabbath, like the sacrifices and festivals, had become for many a religious end in itself. So inevitably its abuse was denounced by Isaiah along with the abuse of the sacrifices: 'To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to me! saith the Lord .... Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and the sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting' (Isaiah 1. 11-13).

In contrast one cannot but be impressed how Isaiah upholds the observance of the Sabbath as an integral part of the great moral responsibilities of man. 'Thus says the Lord: "Keep justice, and do righteousness .... Blessed is the man who does this, and the son of man who holds it fast, who keeps the Sabbath not profaning it, and keeps his hand from doing any evil"' (Isaiah 56.1-2, RSV). Note how the prophet cites Sabbath keeping along with doing justice and righteousness.

Perhaps the best known Sabbatic passage in Isaiah is chapter 58.13-14 where the prophet urges us to honour the Sabbath and call it a delight. The Sabbath could not have been given a more elevated moral context, for these verses form the climax of the chapter which contains one of the most powerful moral appeals in all Scripture. The prophet 'places the keeping of the Sabbath on a level with the practice of love' (George Adam Smith, The Book of Isaiah, Vol. 2, p. 420)· The older prophet Amos similarly gives the Sabbath a strong moral focus, albeit in a negative way, when he tells us that the merchants who found its strict observance unbearable were those who trampled on the needy, who dealt deceitfully with false balances and sold the poor for a pair of shoes (Amos 8.4-6). This prophetic emphasis on the moral nature of the Sabbath commandment follows on logically from what we have already learned of the Sabbath as an integral part of the creation order and the moral decalogue. Of course, as we would expect the prophets--especially Ezekiel--also underlined the ceremonial aspects of the Sabbath as a sign of the old covenant (see Jeremiah 17.19-27; Ezekiel 20.12, 16, 20, 24; 22.8, 26; 23.28; 31·13, 17;44·24), but this does not detract from the Sabbath as a moral commandment.

Thus far we have established that the Sabbath was a primitive and important moral commandment in the Old Testament. We must now go on to ask what was its significance! For it was no meaningless taboo, but a 'sign' which was intended to be understood helpfully by man.

First of all, the Sabbath was a reminder of man's origin as the creation of God. Its recognition of the need for physical rest reminds us that we are made from the dust and derive our physical life from God. Along with the seven day week it reflects the rhythm of the work of creation itself, regularly reminding us that we live in an ordered cosmos.

Secondly, the Sabbath is a pointer to man's duty as the creature of God. If its provision for physical rest reminds us of our finite nature, its insistence that this rest take the form of acts of worship and service reminds us of our spiritual nature. It tells us not only that we are dust, but also that we are made in the image of God. It asserts that the worship of God is our highest human function--and that we are to worship him in the totality of our being, with our body as well as with our mind. Further, its humanitarian motif (Deut. 5·15) insists that we worship God in the totality of our relationships.

Thirdly, the Sabbath is a pointer to man's destiny. The weekly rhythm for human activity of six days of work followed by one day of rest reflects the pattern of human history. Long before it assumed a soteriological significance, the Sabbath was an eschatological symbol. It symbolized the telos, or the end, of time, reminding us that history is not an aimless existence--either as a blind chaos or an endlessly recurring cycle--but a linear development which will climax in a great consummation. Before the Fall Adam would have been reminded by the weekly Sabbath of the eternal life which he and his race were promised should they live by faith and obedience. After the Fall the Sabbath did not lose this significance, for God in his grace promised to save his people and give them, through the work of Christ, the eternal life forfeited by Adam. Had Adam's probation been successful,'then the sacramental Sabbath would have passed over into the reality it typified, and the entire subsequent course of the history of the race would have been radically different. What now is expected at the end of this world would have formed the beginning of the world-course instead' (Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology, p.'57)· This eschatological dimension of the Sabbath lies behind the prophetic vision which saw the new heavens and the new earth as a perpetual Sabbath (Isaiah 66.22-23), and is taken up in the New Testament by the writer to the Hebrews.

It is a logical step to pass from consideration of what the Sabbath symbolized to how it was observed. Most commentators agree that it was observed both by rest from work and by special religious worship, but there is no unanimity as to which aspect had priority. Patrick Fairbairn argues that physical Sabbath rest, however needful and beneficial, was never meant to be an end in itself:'It is no part of the fourth commandment, fairly interpreted, to prohibit ordinary labour, excepting in so far as it tends to interfere with the proper sanctification of the time to God' (op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 143)· On the other hand, the majority Reformed Ecumenical Synod report (1972) reckons that we must understand the Sabbath command 'first of all as an order to refrain from working.'

The question at issue is, could the Sabbath be kept merely by resting? Or was participation in worship also essential to its observance? This is not a quibble, for it has an important bearing on whether the Lord's day is basically continuous with the Sabbath. If the Sabbath was a day of rest rather than of worship, and the Lord's day one of worship rather than of rest, then the case for discontinuity is strong. But if, on the other hand, the Scriptures regard both days as primarily days of worship, then there is more likelihood of a connection between them.

While it is true that the fourth commandment is consistently stated as an injunction to cease from working (Exodus 16.29, 30; 20.10; 23.12; 31.12-17; 34.21; 35·2-3; Numbers 15·32-36; Deut. 5.12-15; Nehemiah 13.15-22), it hardly follows that the day is hallowed merely by cessation of labour. We must not forget that most of the ten commandments are couched in the negative form, and that the same principle of interpretation which covers them must also surely apply to the fourth--viz., that the prohibition of one kind of works is made with a view to works of an opposite kind being performed. For example, the commands not to commit adultery or to bear false witness are truly obeyed by loving our wives or husbands, and telling the truth. Not for a moment do they imply that avoiding adultery is more important than loving one's marriage partner, or that not bearing false witness is more important than telling the truth.

Furthermore, there are many passages where Sabbath observance is inextricably bound up with worship. For example, in Leviticus 23 the Sabbath stands at the head of the list of the religious festivals of Israel. It is one of the 'appointed feasts' (RSV) and is described as a'convocation' (verses 2-3)· Numbers 28.9--I0 prescribes special sacrifices for the Sabbath in addition to the normal daily offerings (cf. 1 Chron. 23.31; 2 Chron. 2·3; 8·13; 31·3), as did also Ezekiel's vision (Ezekiel 45.17;46.41). The Sabbath--designed to be a joyous festival (Hosea 2.11)--is desecrated by unethical worship (Isaiah 1.12-17) as much as by unnecessary labour. The Sabbath was considered an appropriate time to consult a prophet (2 Kings 4·23)·

Finally, and most significantly of all, the divine rest upon which the Sabbath rest was patterned was certainly not a rest of inactivity. When God ceased from the work of creation immediately he was actively rejoicing over it, sustaining and governing it. The raison d'etre of the Sabbath institution was to give man a special opportunity every seventh day to enter into communion with God, sharing in his rejoicing in the works of creation (and, later, of redemption). Hence our Lord's insistence that his Father 'is always at work to this very day' (John 5·'7 NIV)·

So the worship of God seems to have been the primary aspect of true Sabbath observance. However, cessation from work, was also an integral part. The works proscribed on the Sabbath included jobs essential to Israel's economy, such as sowing and reaping (Exodus 34.21), treading the winepress, trading and carrying burdens (Nehemiah 13.15-22; Jeremiah 17.19-27).

On the other hand, the prohibition of work was not absolute. As our Lord reminded the Pharisees, the priests did extra work on the Sabbath--offering special sacrifices (Numbers 28.9-10), preparing fresh shewbread (Lev. 24·5-9; I Chron. 9·32) and circumcising infants (John 7.27-28). Such work obviously helped to sanctify the day to the Lord and was not merely permitted, but positively commanded. The same principle seems to have operated in the case of ordinary Israelites travelling to consult a man of God (2 Kings 4·23)· 2 Kings 11.4 if indicates that a state of military alert was maintained on the Sabbath, and the writer tacitly commends the action of Jehoiada the priest in organizing the coup d'etat on the Sabbath which saw the young Joash crowned, his evil grandmother assassinated and the temple of Baal razed to the ground. However, military actions such as this and the conquest of Jericho cannot be taken as indicative of normal Sabbath observance in Israel. They merely demonstrate that the Old Testament made allowances for emergency situations.

One further aspect of Old Testament Sabbath observance remains to be discussed--that is, whether the prohibition of work was extended to include cultural and recreational activities. The fact that the cultural mandate of Genesis I and 2 is regarded as part of man's work as steward of the creation strongly suggests an affirmative answer to this question. So does Isaiah 58 13-14, for there the prophet warns the people against seeking their own pleasure on the Sabbath. To do this is to tread the Sabbath underfoot. Clearly, in the prophet's view, self-centred pleasure is inconsistent with the Sabbath ethos. The delight of the Sabbath is rather to come from taking delight in the Lord Himself. The Hebrew word hephets, translated 'pleasure' in the AV and RSV, is sometimes rendered by 'business' or 'affairs' (see RSV margin and NEB), but there is no justification for departing in this passage from the primary meaning of the root which is 'to delight in.'

Our study leads us to conclude that the Westminster view of the Lord's day as the Christian Sabbath still remains the most consistent and satisfactory interpretation of all the biblical evidence available. It does not solve all the problems, but it leaves us with fewer and less serious questions than does the contrary view. Although the New Testament evidence is inconclusive, the Old Testament does explicitly assert that the Sabbath is a creation ordinance. This assertion is not contradicted in the New Testament and it helps to make both our Lord's positive approach to the Sabbath and the Gentile church's attitude to the Lord's day more intelligible than they would otherwise be.

This study would be incomplete were it to end without some attempt to approach the practical implications of Christian Sabbath observance today, so we shall try and outline briefly three biblical lines of approach.

First of all, our Lord's day observance should be characterized by obedience.

Today the predominance of Sunday work in many industries throughout the greater part of the country makes obedience to the Lord of the Sabbath no easy matter for a large number of people. Most Sunday work is done purely for economic reasons. Management wants a quicker return on its investment and workers grasp at the double pay. As a result Christian worship and service tend to be accorded a low priority. This surely illustrates why unnecessary Sunday work is considered sinful by the fourth commandment. However, some secular work on Sunday is unavoidable. Works of necessity have multiplied both with the growth of vast connurbations and their web of supporting services, and with the establishment of modern industrial plants featuring continuous processes. In these complicated situations Christian workers will seek to bear a clear witness to the Lord's day. This will not be as simple as it may appear, for if Christians are ready to benefit from the system they should be prepared to play their part in maintaining it where and when this is necessary. On the other hand, where the work is unnecessary, Christians should be prepared to stand up and be counted for the Lord of the Sabbath regardless of the economic sacrifice this may involve.

The growth of Sunday entertainments also militates against our observing the Lord's day in modern society. Commercialized amusements and sports on Sundays are inconsistent with the Christian Sabbath. Private forms of entertainment and recreation are more problematical because many regard them as a form of relaxation. However, the fact that the Sabbath rest is to be distinguished from self-centred pleasure has convinced many Christians that they should abstain from what the Shorter Catechism calls 'worldly recreations' (Answer 61) on the Lord's day in order to demonstrate in a special way their love for God and for their neighbour.

The second feature of our Sabbath keeping should be love. Jesus and Paul taught that love is the fulfilling of the law. The clear implication is that mere respect for the commandments which does not spring from grateful love to God and neighbour is fleshly legalism, not Christian obedience. This point must be made with considerable emphasis for, traditionally, in Scotland an external obedience to the fourth commandment has been regarded as the measure of the community's acceptance of the Christian way of life. Too often we may have repeated the error of the Pharisees in thinking that the commandment is honoured in some measure by sheer inactivity. We must never forget that the Sabbath commandment demands from us a response of love. A total love to God expressed in private and public worship. And a sacrificial love to our neighbour demonstrated in acts of thoughtfulness and kindness.

Thirdly, our celebration of the Lord's day should be characterized by joy. It is the day of resurrection and ascension on which the Son of God entered into his rest after completing his work of redemption. Easter Sunday is every Sunday ! Along with the Lord's Supper, the Lord's day shares the unique distinction in the New Testament of being given the Greek adjective Kuriakos, meaning 'belonging to the Lord' (i.e. Jesus). The Lord's Supper commemorates the Lord's death, and his day, his resurrection, and both are to be observed with the joy of sharing in Christ's triumphant rest as the early church did at Pentecost. The Christian Sabbath thus fulfils in the deepest sense Isaiah's challenge to call the Sabbath a delight (Isaiah 58·I3)

The Sabbath's purpose is similar to that of all the commandments. It is to bring us to Christ (Galatians 3·24)· So it becomes truly the Lord's day for us when our observance of it brings us to a greater obedience to Jesus' Lordship, to a more ardent love for his person, and to a more exquisite delight in his creation and redemption.