Sabbatarianism is the movement within Christianity that teaches
the Seventh Day of the week (Saturday) is the day of rest, dedicated to the worship
of God, and that to disregard this teaching is an abomination. It's
strongest appeal is that the Ten Commandments seem to plainly teach
that man is to "Keep the Sabbath Day holy," in which the Third Commandment states, "six days you shall labor, but the
seventh day is the Sabbath". Though historically in the
minority, Sabbatarians (especially the Seventh Day Adventists) have been very vocal and quite often very
anti-Catholic. The reason for this is because they (rightly) realize
that to boldly disregard one of the Ten Commandments is a grave
error, and since the Catholic Church has been very strongly promoting
Sunday worship then this can only mean the Catholic Church is some
sort of anti-Christ movement set out to "hide" the Ten Commandments from mankind. Since the number 7 is the theme of this
post, I will give seven reasons why Christians should reject
Sabbatarianism.
(1) Keeping the Sabbath was a commandment given only
to Israel, not to mankind in general. Most
people don't know this, but the first time men are instructed
to "Keep the Sabbath" (i.e. rest on the 7th day of the
week) is in Exodus 16:23-30. In that context, it is given by God to
Moses, instructing the Israelite to rest on the Seventh Day. There is
no mention of men keeping or being commanded to keep the Sabbath
anytime from Eden to Egypt. That is a huge span of time in which, of
all the types of sins the recorded throughout Genesis, no mention of
keeping or breaking the Sabbath is mentioned. All the Sabbatarian can
do is assume the great saints like Abel and Abraham "must have
kept" the Sabbath, but that's projecting one's assumptions onto
Scripture - the very thing Sabbatarians accuse Catholics of doing.
Instead, the Scriptures give very clear evidence that the Sabbath
is something given only to Israel, not to other nations. Consider
the following passages:
Exodus 31: 16 The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. 17 It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed. ’” 18 When the Lord finished speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two tablets of the covenant law, the tablets of stone inscribed by the finger of God.
Deuteronomy 5: 1Moses summoned all Israel and said: Hear, Israel, the decrees and laws I declare in your hearing today. Learn them and be sure to follow them. 2 The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. 3 It was not with our ancestors that the Lord made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today. ... 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the Lord your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.
Nehemiah 9: 13 “You came down on Mount Sinai; you spoke to them from heaven. You gave them regulations and laws that are just and right, and decrees and commands that are good. 14 You made known to them your holy Sabbath and gave them commands, decrees and laws through your servant Moses.
Clearly, the Sabbath as a legal commandment was revealed
only at the time of Moses, to the Israelites, as a sign between them
and God. To suggest that all mankind is to keep the Sabbath is to
mock these passages of Scripture and degrade the covenant God gave to
Israel.
(2) The Ten Commandments are not the greatest
commandments. Those who insist on making the Ten Commandments an
eternal standard of morality become guilty of cutting and pasting
their doctrine from the Bible. Jesus teaches us that there are two
great commandments: loving God with all our heart and loving our
neighbor as yourself (Mt 22:34-40). Yet these two greatest commandments are taken
not from the Ten Commandments, but rather two separate passages from the Torah (Deut 6:5; Lev 19:8). It would be quite ironic to say the Ten
Commandments remain eternal while the greatest commandments can be
either ignored or appended at will to the Ten Commandments. In
reality, Christian tradition has shown the two greatest commandments
are the only supreme commandments, and summarize the entire Mosaic
Law and Prophets. The Ten Commandments are thus only a very handy
guideline summary for the two greatest commandments.
(3) Sabbatarianism is a form of
Judaizing. One of the biggest heresies in the Apostolic age was
that of Jewish Christians pressuring Gentile Christians to get
circumcised and thus live by the Mosaic Law (Acts 15:5). This was
especially 'visible' in the avoiding of certain foods and keeping of
certain holidays. Yet the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15
demonstrates that keeping the Mosaic Law is not required for Gentile
Christians, only Faith in Jesus. In fact, there are two passages
where Paul clearly refutes the idea that the Sabbath is still
binding. The Epistle to the Galatians was focused upon refuting
Judaizing, since many Gentile Christians had fallen prey to the
heresy. In Galatians 4:10 Paul rebukes them by saying, “You
observe days and months and seasons and years.” It is plain
that Paul is not speaking of pagan holidays, so these “days” can
only be referring to the weekly Sabbath days, along with the monthly,
seasonal, and yearly Jewish holidays. Some Sabbatarians object saying
the “days” here are the yearly feast days, but Paul has already
covered this in the “seasons and years” category. Notice that
Paul is talking from smaller time frames “days” to larger ones “years”. An
even more powerful text is Colossians 2:16-17, which says:
16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.
Again, the lesson is plain. The
Judaizers were judging and snubbing the Gentile Christians who were
not eating kosher and observing certain days. Sabbatarians dislike
this passage very much and seek to find all sorts of excuses why the
“Sabbath” mentioned here is not the Seventh Day Sabbath. For
example, they claim that since the Greek term here has “Sabbath”
in plural, sabbaton, that
this must be speaking of yearly Sabbath feast days like the Day of
Atonement (e.g. Lev 16:31). This fails for two reasons. First,
the plural form of Sabbath appears in texts clearly speaking of the
Seventh Day, notably the day one reads Scripture in the synagogue (Lk
4:16; Acts 16:13), the day prior to when Jesus resurrected (Mt 28:1),
and even in the very laying out of the Third Commandment itself (Ex 20:8; Deut 5:12,15
LXX)! (Also see Numbers 15:32; Jer 17:22; Eze 46:1, which all use the
plural form of Sabbath but are clearly speaking of the Seventh Day.)
Secondly, as noted in the prior text, the length of time Paul cites
is that of year-month-week, and since year is covered in “religious
festival,” that means “Sabbath day” must correspond to the
week. Just as powerful is Leviticus 23, which is speaking of
the Jewish calendar feasts, and includes explicitly the Seventh Day
Sabbath as one of the feasts (Lev 23:1-3), meaning it isn't it's own
'moral command' independent of feast days (rather, it is the epitome of all
feast days). If all of the Old Testament is a shadow of things to
come, fulfilled in Christ, as 2:17 says, then it would be absurd for
something as central as the Sabbath to have no fulfillment in Christ.
(4) The Ten Commandments are the heart of Mosaic Law and
abolished as a legal code; they now only serve as guidelines.
Many people think the Ten Commandments are an eternal code of laws
that only accompanied the Mosaic Law, rather than being at the heart
of it. Contrary to this, the fact is the Ten Commandments were the
very core of the Mosaic Law, given specifically to the Jews, by which
all other laws would be built around (see
Ex 34:27-28; Deut 4:10-13; Deut 9:9). So when Jesus ended and
fulfilled the Mosaic Law, the Ten Commandments most certainly were
abolished along with it! Anything else is a form of Judaizing and
denial that Jesus came! And yet Sabbatarians like the Seventh Day
Adventists follow the Mosaic law on many points, including Sabbath
day regulations and dietary laws. After the Mosaic Law was abolished,
Christians only kept the Ten Commandments format to use as guidelines
for general morals (e.g. don't kill, steal, lie), but not as a legal
code with detailed regulations and legal penalties. A crucial passage
to be aware of in this regard is 2 Corinthians 3, which says the Ten
Commandments are the “ministry of death” (2 Cor 3:7)! Now
Paul is not saying the Ten Commandments are evil, but rather that
they being the heart of the Mosaic Law represent a dead-end
path to salvation. To treat the Ten Commandments as a law in itself
as a rule to follow is saying the Mosaic Law is the path to
salvation, which is a great heresy!
(5) The New Testament never commands
Sabbath Keeping for Christians. The only time
Sabbath keeping is mentioned in the New Testament is in reference to
either the Jews keeping the Sabbath or for the Apostles going to
preach in the synagogue on the Sabbath (since that's when the Jews
assembled). Of all the teachings and commands given, never does Jesus
nor the Apostles mention the need to keep the Sabbath. This is quite
astonishing if, as Sabbatarians believe, Sabbath breaking was to
become one of the most brazen and nearly universal attacks on God's
moral teaching. This is why the Seventh Day Adventists must go to
embarrassing extremes to try and find any shred of proof from
Scripture, settling on the idea that the “Mark of the Beast” must be
Sunday worship (despite the fact no such connection can be made).
(6) Sunday is not the Sabbath. One of the biggest mistakes made by Sabbatarians is thinking that the Catholic Church “moved the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday”. The truth is, the Catholic Church never did such a thing, and that's because Sunday worship is not at all the same as the Sabbath. They are two different things. Christians worship on Sunday because Jesus Resurrected on Sunday and began the Church on Pentecost Sunday. In other words, we celebrate new creations on Sunday. On the flip side, Saturday is a day of ceasing from work, and is embodied in Jesus' “resting” in the tomb. The emphasis for Christians on Sunday is to take time off to devote to worshiping the Trinity, while the emphasis for the Sabbath is to take time off to rest from the work week. This is not to say there isn't some sense of overlap in terms of duties, but to suggest the Sabbath was “moved” by Catholics
is a total mistake.
(7) The mention of Sabbath and Marriage in the Garden of Eden
each have a fulfillment. Some Sabbatarians will argue that the
only two commands given in Eden were the Sabbath and Marriage (Gen 2:24), and
that these are perfected in themselves, with no greater fulfillment.
The problem here is that not only is this 'rule' made up and not
derived from Scripture, but Scripture does indeed recall the passage in Genesis 2:24
about marriage and says this is a deep mystery referring to Christ
and the Church (Eph 5:31-32). Thus, it is very possible that the Sabbath has a
greater fulfillment, and the New Testament says just that. In Hebrews
4:3-10, it teaches that the “rest” (which is what Sabbath means)
that is spoken of in reference to God ceasing from His “work” has
a deeper reality in that of man receiving the spiritual “rest” of
being in Heaven some day.
16 comments:
Nick,
I've enjoyed reading your arguments re: Reformed theology and am in total agreement about the falsity of Seventh Day Adventism, but it seems to me your statements regarding the Decalogue are not entirely correct. Here is what St. Thomas says regarding the Decalogue:
"...Now the precepts of the decalogue contain the very intention of the lawgiver, who is God. For the precepts of the first table, which direct us to God, contain the very order to the common and final good, which is God; while the precepts of the second table contain the order of justice to be observed among men, that nothing undue be done to anyone, and that each one be given his due; for it is in this sense that we are to take the precepts of the decalogue. Consequently the precepts of the decalogue admit of no dispensation whatever." (ST 1-2.100.8c)
The Catechism states: "The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them; the Second Vatican Council confirms: 'The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments.'" (CCC #2068)
Growing up Catholic, I always learned that Commandments 1-3 (tablet 1) fall under first of the two greatest Commandments, whereas Commandments 4-10 (tablet 2) fall under the second. So there is a relation between them and what Jesus teaches. Further, Jesus instructs the rich young man to keep the Commandments (cf. Mt. 19:16-19).
As regards the Sabbath, St. Thomas does note that the aspect of its time is a ceremonial precept and as a result dispensable:
"The precept of the Sabbath observance is moral in one respect, in so far as it commands man to give some time to the things of God, according to Ps. 45:11: 'Be still and see that I am God.' In this respect it is placed among the precepts of the decalogue: but not as to the fixing of the time, in which respect it is a ceremonial precept." (ST 1-2.100.3 ad 2)
This is also reflected in the Catechism: "The celebration of Sunday observes the moral commandment inscribed by nature in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible, public, and regular worship 'as a sign of his universal beneficence to all.' Sunday worship fulfills the moral command of the Old Covenant, taking up its rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and Redeemer of his people." (CCC #2176)
We are morally obliged to attend Mass on Sundays on pain of mortal sin unless reasonable justification to miss exists (cf. CCC 2192), and this does seem to have some reference to the 3rd commandment. I don't see what is wrong with the explanation that the Church moved the Sabbath observation (now the Lord's Day) to Sunday by virtue of the authority invested in it by Our Lord. Granted, we do not observe the Sabbath as the Jews did under the Law, but as St. Thomas explains the moral aspect to render due worship to God is still obligatory. The CCC seems to imply this: "The sabbath, which represented the completion of the first creation, has been replaced by Sunday which recalls the new creation inaugurated by the Resurrection of Christ." (CCC #2190) Of course the SDAs reject any such replacement because as Protestants they reject the authority of the Church.
God bless.
Hello,
Thank you for your comments. It is true that in a real sense the Ten Commandments are always binding, but only in so far as they pertain to eternal principles. But there is a very real sense in which the Ten Commandments are 'limited' in some sense to a dispensation.
Here is an important thing that the Council of Trent teaches on this very point:
Canon 19.
If anyone says that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel, that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor forbidden, but free; or that the ten commandments in no way pertain to Christians, let him be anathema.
The key here is the phrase "in now way", since it implies that there is a sense in which the Ten C's do not apply to Christians. Yet since the Ten Commandments do in a very real way pertain to Christians, and I've not denied that, then I believe nothing I have said is unorthodox.
I find it interesting that St Thomas says on one hand there is no dispensation and yet on the other that the 3rd C has a dispensable component. I would agree with the gist of what he's saying, but I think it's best expressed by stating that the Ten Commandments as a legal code (with specific regulations and punishments) is abolished, and only a framework remains.
St. Thomas distinguishes the Old Law into moral, ceremonial and judicial precepts (cf. ST 1-1.99.4c). In his view, the moral precepts are determinations of the natural law and thus binding always and forever, whereas the ceremonial precepts are no longer binding:
"[T]o worship God, since it is an act of virtue, belongs to a moral precept; but the determination of this precept, namely that He is to be worshiped by such and such sacrifices, and such and such offerings, belongs to the ceremonial precepts. Consequently the ceremonial precepts are distinct from the moral precepts." (ST 1-2.99.3 ad 2)
Based on the other text cited, he also holds the time of the Sabbath to fall under the ceremonial precepts. The reason the ceremonial precepts have passed is because they express a faith and mode of worship that is no longer valid:
"All ceremonies are professions of faith, in which the interior worship of God consists. Now man can make profession of his inward faith, by deeds as well as by words: and in either profession, if he make a false declaration, he sins mortally. Now, though our faith in Christ is the same as that of the fathers of old; yet, since they came before Christ, whereas we come after Him, the same faith is expressed in different words, by us and by them. For by them was it said: 'Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son,' where the verbs are in the future tense: whereas we express the same by means of verbs in the past tense, and say that she 'conceived and bore.' In like manner the ceremonies of the Old Law betokened Christ as having yet to be born and to suffer: whereas our sacraments signify Him as already born and having suffered. Consequently, just as it would be a mortal sin now for anyone, in making a profession of faith, to say that Christ is yet to be born, which the fathers of old said devoutly and truthfully; so too it would be a mortal sin now to observe those ceremonies which the fathers of old fulfilled with devotion and fidelity. Such is the teaching Augustine (Contra Faust. xix, 16), who says: 'It is no longer promised that He shall be born, shall suffer and rise again, truths of which their sacraments were a kind of image: but it is declared that He is already born, has suffered and risen again; of which our sacraments, in which Christians share, are the actual representation.'"
On a related note as regards 2 Cor. 3:7, St. Thomas's gloss, following St. Augustine, is that the Old Law is not a cause of sin and death, but an occasion of it:
"As St. Augustine proves (De Spiritu et Litera xiv), even the letter of the law is said to be the occasion of death, as to the moral precepts; in so far as, to wit, it prescribes what is good, without furnishing the aid of grace for its fulfillment." (ST 1-2.99.2 ad 3)
"The reason why the New Testament was given by the Spirit is indicated when he says, for the written code kills, not as a cause but as an occasion. For the written Law only gives knowledge of sin: 'For through the Law comes knowledge of sin' (Rom. 3:20). But as a result of merely knowing sin, two things follow. For the Law, although sin is known by it, does not repress concupiscence, but is the occasion of increasing it, inasmuch as concupiscence is enkindled the more by something forbidden. Hence such knowledge kills, when the cause of concupiscence has not yet been destroyed. As a result it adds to the sin. For it is more grievous to sin against the written and natural law than against the natural law only: 'But sin, finding opportunity in the commandment, wrought in me all kinds of concupiscence' (Rom. 7:8). But although it is the occasion of killing inasmuch as it increases concupiscence and increases the sin, the Law is not evil, because at least it forbids evil; nevertheless, it is imperfect, inasmuch as it does not remove the cause. Therefore, the Law without the Spirit inwardly impressing the Law on the heart is the occasion of death; hence, it was necessary to give the Law of the Spirit, who gives life by producing charity in the heart: 'It is the Spirit that gives life' (Jn. 6:63)." (Super II Epistolam ad Corinthios 3-2, #91)
Hello Sobieski,
From what I see in those quotes, they actually agree with what I'm saying. The Ten Commandments are an instance of the Natural Law being put in concrete terms, but simply being an instance they can/do reflect distinctive marks applicable to only certain circumstances (in this case the Israelite covenant between them and God). So the Christian (or any outsider) can only read the Ten Commandments 'abstractly', otherwise we'd be impeding on the unique relationship the Israelites formed with God by downplaying the context in which the Ten Commandments were given.
I used to be a member of Herbert Armstrong's cult 30 years ago. All of the pro-sabbath arguments (and their refutations) you presented were the same ones I heard while in the cult.
Nick, I know of two more argument against universal sabbath keeping. It's impossible to keep the sabbath near the north and south poles. The days and nights are six months long!
The second argument is that all of the annual sabbaths were tied to the harvest cycles in Israel. It makes no sense to keep festivals that are tied into the local ecology of one land in another one.
Hi Nick,
It seems like you are saying that the Commandments are now only abstract guidelines instead of concrete, binding precepts. But I think this is a confused division as regards the status of the Decalogue before and after the coming of Christ.
In the moral sphere, something which is abstract would more correctly said to be a general principle, like "do good and avoid evil," which is applied to concrete circumstances. I grant that "You shall have not strange gods before Me" and "You shall not steal," for example, though not as general as the first principle of moral action, are nonetheless general as regards particular circumstances to which said principles are applied (e.g., "Should I worship Baal or Yahweh?" or "Should I take that piece of jewelry on the counter?") But because moral principles are general does not mean they are not morally obligatory. We are never allowed to do evil or worship false gods or steal in any circumstance. I fail to see how idolatry, proscribed in the context of OT Judaism, is not now similarly proscribed after the coming of Christ. Sure the contexts are different, but that seems incidental to the issue of obligation. The principles are in fact general and obligatory in both contexts.
As for a guidelines, it seems to me that a guideline is something which is suggested or recommended, but not necessarily required or obligatory. Our Lord instructs that the Evangelical Counsels (poverty, chastity and obedience) are a surer path, but not morally obligatory on all Christian believers. A moral principle could be considered a guideline, but is also obligatory at the same time.
The Church says we are obliged to follow the Decalogue; you apparently agree, but it is hard to see how based on your explanation. You say for example:
"Those who insist on making the Ten Commandments an eternal standard of morality become guilty of cutting and pasting their doctrine from the Bible."
"[W]hen Jesus ended and fulfilled the Mosaic Law, the Ten Commandments most certainly were abolished along with it!"
"To treat the Ten Commandments as a law in itself as a rule to follow is saying the Mosaic Law is the path to salvation, which is a great heresy!"
It seems to me this just flatly contradicts Church teaching inasmuch as the moral precepts of the Old Law were never abolished. To be fair, you say the Decalogue still serve as guidelines, and it is true to say that following OT Judaism after the coming of Christ is (objectively) heretical and sinful. So in my view your account is more confused than purely erroneous.
continued...
It seems to me the problem is in treating all the precepts of the Old Law as being of the same type and nature. On your account, they must all pass away with the coming of Christ. St. Thomas, however, distinguishes the Old Law into moral, ceremonial and judicial precepts. So he has no problem explaining how some precepts persist, while others do not.
I also see why you want to argue the way that you do because it makes easy work of dismissing the SDA assertion that we are bound to keep Saturday Sabbath worship. But it seems to me St. Thomas can make the same argument as regards the time of the Sabbath (or weekly worship) which has indeed passed away, without needing to abolish the moral precepts of the Old Law or the obligation to weekly worship. He can still consistently hold that the moral precepts of the Old Law, whether it be the Decalogue or the two greatest commandments, are still morally binding. The latter, in fact, are coextensive rather than opposed or exclusive, and as I cited, Christ tells the rich young man to keep the Commandments.
Sobieski,
You are correct, I should have been more careful in using terms like "abstract" and "guidelines," since that can give the idea the Ten Commandments don't exist in a more 'concrete' form (as you said "do good, avoid evil" is not specific as "don't steal," which is a level of detail man needs to follow). I should have used something like "general principles".
Someone pointed out to me the wording of the Catechism, which I think uses a better term:
"2072 Since they express man's fundamental duties towards God and towards his neighbor, the Ten Commandments reveal, in their primordial content, grave obligations. They are fundamentally immutable, and they oblige always and everywhere. No one can dispense from them. The Ten Commandments are engraved by God in the human heart."
The key words of "primordial content" indicate the principles that have always been binding, and thus the Ten Commandments read without the Israelite specific language strung throughout (e.g. not coveting a slave or an ox).
I want to emphasize that there is a very strong obligation in Christians (and all men) being aware of and keeping specific commands like don't steal, don't kill, don't lie, don't make idols, etc, etc.
I am not saying OT morality was 'abolished', but rather the legal-framework in which it was given was abolished. A Jew who wanted to be faithful to the Torah had to obey all 613 Mitzvot, and could not simply carve out of them the Ten Commandments as a stand-alone set of Mitzvot to obey and neglect the rest. Similarly, a Christian cannot say "I follow the Ten Commandments as they are strictly stated in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5," since these are addressed specifically to the Jews and are to be kept within the Jewish Covenant as a whole. This is why I think it's weak and wrong to divide the 613 Mitzvot into categories of moral, ceremonial, and civil, since it suggests one can pick and choose which of the 613 Mitzvot one wants to obey rather than seeing them as a complete all-or-nothing covenant. The argument gets even less convincing to SDAs when we say the Sabbath Commandment is partly moral and partly ceremonial, since they would see that as arbitrary and not ruling out the Seventh Day at all.
I believe my approach also saves one from having to say at the end of the day that 9 of the 10 Commandments are still binding. It should not sit well with someone that says 9 of the 10 Commandments are still binding, for that sounds not only a bit arbitrary but also kind of embarassing since it makes calling them the Ten Commandments a 'misnumeration'. This is, in fact, where Sabbatarians make their biggest advances, when they can trick Christians into admitting only 9 of the 10 are to be kept. My argument gets around that by showing we are not keeping the Ten Commandments PER SE, but rather using the ten examples of sins/obligations as a reference sheet of what grave sins/obligations are.
Hi Nick,
My argument gets around that [saying only 9 of 10 Commandments are to be kept] by showing we are not keeping the Ten Commandments PER SE, but rather using the ten examples of sins/obligations as a reference sheet of what grave sins/obligations are.
That is not what the Catechism says; it does not qualify the obligation of the Ten Commandments in any way as you do. As you quoted, #2072 states: "They are fundamentally immutable, and they oblige always and everywhere. No one can dispense from them. The Ten Commandments are engraved by God in the human heart." This flatly contradicts your account, but is the exact teaching of St. Thomas. The Decalogue:
- express man's fundamental duty towards God and neighbor (cf. two greatest Commandments)
- are serious obligations
- are immutable
- oblige always and everywhere
- are indispensable
- are written on the human heart (i.e., are of natural law)
You say that it is not essential (per se) that they be followed as these precepts under the label "Ten Commandments" were only applicable to a certain context, time and people. If that is so, then how can they always oblige or be written on the human heart (i.e., be of human nature which has never changed) as the Catechism plainly states? Again no qualification is made with respect to "ten examples" or decoupling context. The prohibition of idolatry is the same always and everywhere. We must never worship false gods, just as we may never steal, fornicate, murder, lie, etc. without sin. These precepts are not provisional like the prohibition to eat pork. The fact that they are interspersed with other provisional precepts is not relevant.
"As is evident from what we have stated above [ST 1-2.95.2c; 99.4c], in every law, some precepts derive their binding force from the dictate of reason itself, because natural reason dictates that something ought to be done or to be avoided. These are called 'moral' precepts: since human morals are based on reason. At the same time there are other precepts which derive their binding force, not from the very dictate of reason (because, considered in themselves, they do not imply an obligation of something due or undue); but from some institution, Divine or human: and such are certain determinations of the moral precepts. When therefore the moral precepts are fixed by Divine institution in matters relating to man's subordination to God, they are called 'ceremonial' precepts: but when they refer to man's relations to other men, they are called 'judicial' precepts. Hence there are two conditions attached to the judicial precepts: viz. first, that they refer to man's relations to other men; secondly, that they derive their binding force not from reason alone, but in virtue of their institution." (ST 1-2.104.1c)
The Jews were obligated to follow the entirety of the Old Law, but it is plainly evident that the precepts of which it consisted were not all of the same nature. St. Thomas explains his division; it is not arbitrary or merely picking and choosing. The moral precepts are of the natural law and human nature, which has never changed, whereas the ceremonial and judicial precepts are Divine institutions only, which with the coming of Christ have passed away. For you, it's the whole shootin' match. To be consistent, it seems to me you should apply your interpretation to the two greatest Commandments as well as they are found in the Old Law. Our Lord says, however, that we are to observe both the two greatest Commandments and the Decalogue, which as St. Thomas explains are mutually inclusive and related as principles to conclusions.
continued...
To say in effect that St. Thomas holds there are only "Nine Commandments" is unfair because he says nothing of the sort. I have certainly not argued that way. The underlying moral precept of the 3rd commandment is to render due worship and time to God. That is what is per se and obligatory, whereas the determination of time (Saturday or Sunday) is per accidens. That is the claim, not that the 3rd commandment is somehow no longer obligatory while the others are. As St. Thomas explains, the ceremonial and judicial precepts are determinations of the moral precepts, which themselves are derived from the natural law. But the derivation in both cases is not the same. The first is of premise to conclusion (e.g., from "do no evil" and "harm no man" to "do not murder"), whereas the second is of generality applied to particular (e.g., the evil doer should be punished in such and such a way). The latter is thus not universal and as a result changeable:
"[I]t must be noted that something may be derived from the natural law in two ways: first, as a conclusion from premises, secondly, by way of determination of certain generalities. The first way is like to that by which, in sciences, demonstrated conclusions are drawn from the principles: while the second mode is likened to that whereby, in the arts, general forms are particularized as to details: thus the craftsman needs to determine the general form of a house to some particular shape. Some things are therefore derived from the general principles of the natural law, by way of conclusions; e.g. that 'one must not kill' may be derived as a conclusion from the principle that 'one should do harm to no man': while some are derived therefrom by way of determination; e.g. the law of nature has it that the evil-doer should be punished; but that he be punished in this or that way, is a determination of the law of nature.
"Accordingly both modes of derivation are found in the human [and Divine] law. But those things which are derived in the first way, are contained in human [and Divine] law not as emanating therefrom exclusively, but have some force from the natural law also [i.e., moral precepts]. But those things which are derived in the second way, have no other force than that of human [or Divine] law [i.e., ceremonial and judicial precepts]." (ST 1-2.95.2c)
So again in the case of the 3rd Commandment the obligatory moral precept derived from natural law is to render due time and worship to God, whereas the further determination of "on Saturday" is ceremonial and dispensable as it only has the force of Divine institution, which after the coming of Christ has been replaced with the determination "on Sunday." This explanation is clear, consistent and principled. It maintains the obligatory nature of the Decalogue, which is in keeping with the plain statements of the Catechism.
Regardless, I am sure this explanation would be a stretch for SDAs. So would Marian dogma or transubstantiation, but the beliefs and dispositions of heretical sects are not a measure of Catholic truth. We shouldn't base our theology on apologetic pragmatism in an effort to appeal to such groups. It seems to me we have already had enough of that sort of thing in the Church lately and with catastrophic results.
Hi Sobieski,
I have two questions:
(1) How do you interpret the CCC 2072 part that speaks of "primordial content"?
(2) How do you get around the claims that the Ten Commandments were establishing a covenant between Israel and God?...such as passages like:
"2 The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. 3 It was not with our ancestors that the Lord made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today. 4 The Lord spoke to you face to face out of the fire on the mountain."
And claims like:
"Honor your father and your mother, as the Lord your God has commanded you, so that you may live long and that it may go well with you in the land the Lord your God is giving you"
And:
"15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the Lord your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day."
These are not general statements of natural law, but rather very specific 'instances' relating directly to Israel and not mankind in general.
(3) I agree with your quote about morals being based upon reason. I just think there is an equivocation going on when the Ten Commandments read VERBATIM are equated with something immutable, for that entails the Mosaic Covenant is immutable, since the text is plainly speaking to Israel. I agree with the notion the ceremonial precepts can pass away, but what I'm trying to show is that this means we have to read the "spirit" of a given law and not the "letter". This is essentially how St Thomas is speaking.
(4) When I spoke of people having to claim to hold to "Nine Commandments," what I am saying is that to argue we are to read *verbatim* from the text where the Decalogue is given means one has to modify the language of the 3rd Commandment (and second half of the 4th Commandment). So while a Christian can turn to Deuteronomy 5 and read the commandments and say "No lying, check; No theft, check; No killing, check; No other Gods, check; Keep the Sabbath, well yeah but not the Seventh Day but rather devote some time to God, which the Church now deems to be Sunday." You see how once we come upon the 3rd Commandment we have to ignore the actual language of the text of Scripture and turn to a philosophical argument?
I'm just trying to grasp how one can logically say the Ten Commandments WORD-FOR-WORD are immutable. I can understand how each specific commandment has an essential and an accidental aspect, with the essential aspect being immutable, but that's no longer WORD-FOR-WORD of the Inspired Text. That's why I feel the teaching of St Thomas is actually in full agreement with what my 'fundamental' point is.
Hi Nick,
In response to (1), I would take "primordial" to mean fundamental, basic or elementary in the context of that paragraph.
As for (2), I would say the Ten Commandments were a part of the covenant God established with Moses and the Israelites and were it's most fundamental component. But it seems to me you are saying that they can't be disentangled from their historical context such that when we say we follow the "Ten Commandments" it is misleading or an equivocation as that label in the OT sense only applies to a certain time, place and people. I don't disagree that the Old Covenant was for a certain people and time and that that dispensation has ceased to exist. Further I agree that certain of the precepts found in the Old Law were dispensable, namely, those which solely had the force of Divine institution. The moral precepts entailed in the Old Law, however, are of natural law and human nature, which existed before its institution and exists now after its ceasing to be. As CCC #2072 states, the moral precepts of the Decalogue are obligatory "always and everywhere." So while they may have been revealed by God and applied in that context, they nevertheless preceded it and when that dispensation ceased to exist after many years, they persisted beyond it. I don't see any problem with abstracting them from their historical context. It seems to me the Church speaks of the Decalogue in this sense.
It also seems to me that St. Thomas's explanation of the relationship between faith and reason could be helpful here because God has revealed two kinds of truth to mankind, ones that are accessible to reason and others that are not. Truths like the Trinity and Incarnation are truths that we can only know by Divine Revelation and accept in faith. Truths like the moral precepts of which the Ten Commandments consist are accessible to reason. St. Thomas explains why God profitably revealed the latter truths to mankind in the Summa Contra Gentiles.
So while God originally revealed these truths to the Jews (as part of the Old Law), they were still knowable to varying degrees and obligatory on all human beings. The entirety of the Old Law, which included the ceremonial and judicial precepts, however, was only binding on the Jews. Again, I agree that they were revealed in a historical context, but their moral aspects are also universal precepts of natural law. We are all human beings after all, sharing in the same human nature, so they must be applicable to all and for all time.
"The Ten Commandments belong to God's revelation. At the same time they teach us the true humanity of man. They bring to light the essential duties, and therefore, indirectly, the fundamental rights inherent in the nature of the human person. The Decalogue contains a privileged expression of the natural law:
'From the beginning, God had implanted in the heart of man the precepts of the natural law. Then he was content to remind him of them. This was the Decalogue.' [St. Iraneus, Adv. haeres. 4,15,1:PG 7/l,1012]
"The commandments of the Decalogue, although accessible to reason alone, have been revealed. To attain a complete and certain understanding of the requirements of the natural law, sinful humanity needed this revelation:
'A full explanation of the commandments of the Decalogue became necessary in the state of sin because the light of reason was obscured and the will had gone astray.' [St. Bonaventure, Comm. sent. 4,37,1,3]
"We know God's commandments through the divine revelation proposed to us in the Church, and through the voice of moral conscience." (CCC #2070-1)
The Church's language here refers to the same Decalogue revealed to the Jews, not a new or quasi-Decalogue, but the same one abstracted from its historical circumstances.
continued...
(3) I think "letter" vs. "spirit" of the law in the context of the Decalogue makes more sense in terms of its determinations to particular circumstances. So the spirit of the law is to remain free of sin as opposed to say engaging ritual cleaning while committing sin as Our Lord explains in today's Gospel. Nevertheless, in both the old and new dispensations people are to follow the Ten Commandments always as Our Lord instructs, but in a true as opposed to exterior or superficial way. I.e., we are not to strain the gnat and swallow the camel, leaving aside the weighter aspects of the law.
(4) I don't see why we need to read the text verbatim or why we have to say the Decalogue as revealed and applied word-for-word can't be disentangled from that context. The moral precepts found in that text are the same "always and everywhere," while the circumstances or further determinations (Saturday worship) have changed. I think we ultimately do agree in terms of the moral precepts of the Law, but your position seems to be that we can only truly speak of the Ten Commandments in the context of the Mosaic Covenant. But that seems to plainly go against the text of the Catechism and teaching of the Church as no such qualification or distinction like this is made as regards the Commandments. So again I think comments like the following are misleading at best:
"Those who insist on making the Ten Commandments an eternal standard of morality become guilty of cutting and pasting their doctrine from the Bible."
"[W]hen Jesus ended and fulfilled the Mosaic Law, the Ten Commandments most certainly were abolished along with it!"
"To treat the Ten Commandments as a law in itself as a rule to follow is saying the Mosaic Law is the path to salvation, which is a great heresy!"
Hello Sobieski,
Thank you for that link showing the Ten Commandments 'abstracted' from their historical context. That is precisely what I'm getting at! In that sense, yes, the moral precepts preceded and existed beyond the dispensation. But this also means there is a danger of equivocation between the Abstracted Decalogue and the Historical Decalogue, which is what I've been trying to avoid doing.
For the purpose of doing moral theology and philosophy, we would be dealing with the Abstracted Decalogue, but for the purpose of doing historical theology and exegesis, the Historical Decalogue is what is being dealt with.
Post a Comment