칼빈과 개핀의 안식일 개념

R. B. J. Gaffin, “제5장 요약과 평가,” Calvin and the Sabbat, Fearn, Ross-shire, UK: Christian Focus Publications, 1998.

Chapter 5

Summary and Evaluation

칼빈의 제4계명 이해 요약 Summary

Calvin’s teaching on the Sabbath or Lord’s Day question may be summarized by the following set of propositions.

1. 십계명은 하나님의 불변 도덕법이고 모든 시대 인간에게 구속력을 갖는다 The Decalogue is a transcript of God’s immutable moral law and is binding on humanity in all ages.

2. 제4계명도 따라서 불변의 하나님의 법이고, 모든 시대 인간에게 유효하다. 안식일 제정은 창조 규례이다 The fourth commandment, being one element in the Decalogue, is one of God’s immutable laws and binding on humanity in all ages; in that sense the Sabbath institution (though not necessarily weekly Sabbath observance) is a creation ordinance.

3. 구약 시대 안식일은 영적 안식의 예표였다 The Sabbath day required under the old dispensation by the fourth commandment was a type or figure of spiritual rest.

4. 영적 안식은 우리의 죄악된 노동을 중단하고, 하나님께서 우리 안에서 거룩케 하는 일을 하시도록 함이다. 영적 안식은 또한 하나님의 뜻에 순응하고 그분을 본받는 일이다 Spiritual rest is ceasing from our own sinful works, mortifying our old nature, so that God may perform his sanctifying work in us; it may also be defined as conforming to God’s will or imitating him.

5. 구약에서 안식일 준수는 다른 6일간 노동에서 중단만 의미하지 않고 그 안식은 공적 예배와 그런 안식이 예표한 약속된 실체에 대한 사적 묵상을 위해 사용되어야 했다 Observing the weekly Sabbath in the Old Testament did not simply involve ceasing from the labors of the other six days; that rest was to be used for public worship and private meditation on the promised reality such rest typified.

6. 하나님은 자기 백성에게 실체에 대한 맛보기를 제공하셨고, 매주 안식일은 보이지 않는 은혜의 표지였다. 그러므로 그것은 중생의 성례였다 Since God was pleased to provide his people with a foretaste of the reality still only prefigured, the weekly Sabbath was a sign of an invisible grace; it was, therefore, a sacrament of regeneration.

7. 그리스도의 오심으로, 그분의 임재 하에서 모든 그림자가 사라지는 그 빛 때문에 영적 안식이 완전한 실체가 되었다. 따라서 한 예표와 성례로서의 안식일은 폐기되었다 At the coming of Christ, the light in whose presence all shadows disappear, spiritual rest became a full reality; consequently, the weekly Sabbath as a type and sacrament was abrogated.

8. 영적 안식의 완성은 종말 마지막 날에야 실현되겠지만, 그 안식은 현재 성도의 실제적 소유물이다. 영적 안식은 현재 향유되고 있고, 영원한 안식이나 본질상 동일하다 Although the perfection of spiritual rest will not be realized until the eschatological Last Day, that rest is now an actual possession of the believer; spiritual rest, presently enjoyed, and eternal rest are the same in substance.

9. 기독인들은 엄밀히 말해 더 이상 주 중의 하루를 지킬 의미가 더 이상 없다. 그러나 그런 요청의 완하는 4계명의 폐기로 이해될 수 없고 그 요청을 더 심화시키고 승화시키는 것으로 이해되어야 한다 Christians, strictly speaking, are no longer obliged to keep a weekly day of rest; the relaxation of that demand, however, should not be understood as abrogating the fourth commandment but as intensifying and elevating its demands.

10. 기독인들에게 안식일 준수는 결국 그리스도와 함께 장사지낸바 되고 일으킴 받은 그 영적 안식을 누림이다 (죄로부터 자유, 생명의 새로움) For Christians, keeping the Sabbath means, in the final analysis, experiencing the spiritual rest (freedom from sin, newness of life) they have by virtue of being buried and raised with Christ.

11. 그런 영적 안식은 주의 하루에 국한될 수 없고 매일 영구하게 향유 실천되어야 한다 Such spiritual rest cannot be limited to one day of the week but must be practiced daily, perpetually.

12. 영적 안식의 경험은 경건과 기독 예배, 하나님의 하신 일들에 대한 묵상, 경배 행위들로 반드시 드러나야 한다. 영적 안식은 영구적이므로, 매일의 공적 예배가 기독인들에게 바람직하다 The experience of spiritual rest necessarily expresses itself in deeds of piety and Christian service, meditation upon God’s works, and acts of worship; since spiritual rest is perpetual, daily public worship is the ideal for Christians.

13. 기독인들은 구약 시대 사람들처럼 동일한 죄악된 연약에 처해지므로, 시간을 정하고 구분해서 성도들이 세상적 관심과 염려에서 해방되어 자유가운데 사적으로 묵상하고 공적으로 모야 경배할 수 있도록 해야 한다. Since Christians are subject to the same sinful weakness as those under the old covenant, a practical necessity exists for certain stated times to be set aside so that believers, being released from worldly cares and distractions, might be free to meditate privately and to assemble publicly for worship.

14. 유대교 안식일은 그런 필요를 충족시키기에 완벽하였지만, 저들은 예표적 신비가 그리스도와 함께 지나갔다는 사실을 보지 못함으로 말미암아, 너무 많은 미신이 그것과 연관됨으로 초대교회는 유대교 안식일을 대체해서 주의 날을 제정하였다. 그런 주일에로의 대체는 그리스도의 부활을 기념하기에 아주 적절한 것이었다 The Jewish Sabbath was perfectly suited to meet that need, but because so much superstition became associated with it by the failure to see that the typical mystery had passed away with Christ, the ancient church substituted the Lord’s Day for it; that substitution was particularly appropriate because it memorialized Christ’s resurrection, the day on which the Old Testament figure ceased to exist.

15. 오늘날 주의 날은 여전히 이전에 충족시키고자 고안된 그 필요를 충족시키고 있다. 하지만 원리상 초대 교회 사람들을 주중의 한 안식의 날이 아닌 다른 제도를 만들지 않았다고 정죄할 수 없다. 저들은 시간을 정해서 경배와 묵상을 할 수 있도록 하고자 했기 때문이다 Today the Lord’s Day still serves the need it was designed to meet; in principle, however, those Christians cannot be condemned who may wish to set apart some other day or even to pattern their lives by some other arrangement than a weekly day of rest, as long as they keep in view the need for stated times of worship and meditation.

16. 그러므로 기독인들은 주의 날이 어떤 신앙적 의의가 있어서 지키는 것이 아니라 (즉 그것이 하나님의 규정이기 때문에 지키는 것이 아니다) 오히려 자원해서 교회에서의 질서와 조화를 위해서 그리한다 Christians, therefore, do not keep the Lord’s Day because it has some religious significance (that is, because it is a divine requirement); rather, they observe it freely and voluntarily, solely out of a concern for harmony and order in the church.

17. 종들이나 다른 노동자들을 위해 4계명이 제공한 그 육체적 안식은 그 규정의 기본 관심사에 부대적인 (비본질적인) 것이다. 유대교 안식일이나 주의 날의 안식은 그 자체로 목적이 아니라 묵상과 공적 예배를 위한 수단이다 The physical rest provided by the fourth commandment for servants and other laborers is extrinsic to the basic concerns of the precept; the rest of both Jewish Sabbath and Lord’s Day is not an end in itself, but a means to the end of meditation and public worship.

18. 이런 안식의 제공은 주인이나 노동자들에게 자신은 자기들의 권세 하에 굴복하는 자들을 비인도적으로 압제하지 말아야 함을 상기시킨다. 그러나 그것은 엄밀히 말해서 대신 계명이 아니라 대인 계명들에 속하는 고려 사항이다. This provision of rest does remind masters or employers that they must not inhumanly oppress those who are subject to their authority; that, however, is a consideration that, strictly speaking, belongs to the second table of the law rather than the first.

19. 제4 계명의 핵심과 안식일 제정의 본질은 피조물이 창조주를 닮아야 한다는 거이고 그런 모방은 공적 예배와 하나님의 하신 일들에 대한 사적 묵상으로 표현되어야 한다 The core of the fourth commandment and the essence of the Sabbath institution is that the creature should be conformed to the Creator, and that such imitation should express itself in a life characterized by public worship and private meditation upon God’s works.

 

칼빈의 제4계명 이해에 대한 평가 Evaluation

Any assessment of Calvin’s view of the Sabbath and his explanation of the fourth commandment needs to keep in view the observations made at the close of the previous chapter. For Calvin, like the other Reformers, matters relating to keeping the ten commandments, particularly the fourth, while surely important, were not their dominating concern.

칼빈이나 종교개혁자들이 처했던 상황에 비추어 이런 칼빈의 안식일 이해를 고려해야 한다 It may be difficult for Christians today to appreciate fully the spiritual and intellectual turmoil the Reformers experienced in breaking with the Roman Catholic Church. At the same time, however, we can understand how those called to spend their lives in dispelling the centuries-long darkness that had engulfed truths that are the indispensable life source of Christianity, would not likely be as concerned with questions related primarily to a specific and less central aspect of piety. For Calvin, forced to spend an entire lifetime contending for a fully gracious salvation and the Scriptures as our sole authority in matters of doctrine and practice, the Sabbath question never received the attention it might have, nor was it subjected to the full force of his exegetical powers. In short (and at the risk of suggesting an ultimately false disjunction), his dominating preoccupation was gospel, not law.11 This is a particularly risky way of putting things for Calvin, who among the major Reformers perhaps most clearly maintained the “third use” of the law (the positive role of the law as a guide to the believer for daily living). In fact, he calls it “the principal use, which pertains more closely to the proper purpose of the law …” (Institutes, 1:360 [2:7:12]). The question of Lord’s Day observance never was the issue for Calvin that it became to subsequent generations of Protestantism, especially in the Reformed tradition. Consequently, we should not expect a formulation from him in terms of later debates.

하지만 칼빈이 처한 상황의 견지에서 칼빈을 이해하는 일은 그의 안식일 개념의 적절성을 인정한다는 말과 같은 것은 아니다 Understanding Calvin in terms of his milieu, however, is not the same as ascertaining the validity of his views. A viewpoint, with the factors that shape it, is one thing; whether or not it is true, quite another. The latter is our interest now. How do Calvin’s views of the Sabbath institution and the fourth commandment stand in the light of Scripture? 성경에 비추어 칼빈의 안식일 사고는 어떻게 평가받아야 할까?

나의 여기서 주 관심은 그의 견해에서 드러난 특정한 결점들이다. 이런 일방적 평가는 그의 견해가 지닌 여러 장점을 묻어 버릴 염려가 있다 In addressing that question here my primary concern is to note what seem to me to be certain deficiencies in his views. In that respect, my appraisal is one-sided and does not do justice to the value of so much that Calvin teaches for the church today.22 For a further elaboration of lines along which this critique unfolds, see my “Westminster and the Sabbath,” forthcoming in a symposium commemorating the 350th anniversary of the completion of the work of the Westminster Assembly. There I also defend the validity, assumed here, of the three-fold distinction between moral, ceremonial, and judicial laws, held by Calvin and subsequently adopted in chapter 19 of The Westminster Confession of Faith.

1. 4계명의 핵심은 영적 안식을 실천하라는 명령이다. 영적 안식이란 우리 안에 하나님께서 거룩케 하는 일을 하시도록 죄로부터 완전 손을 떼는 일이다 I begin with a consideration drawn from the nature of the Decalogue. The heart of the fourth commandment, Calvin says repeatedly, is the injunction to practice spiritual rest. Spiritual rest, he likewise makes abundantly clear, is perpetual cessation from sin so that God may perform his sanctifying work in us.

이런 영적 안식 개념과 예수님의 전체 율법의 요약에 관한 가르침 사이에 실제적 차이를 보기란 어렵다 It is difficult to see any real difference between this notion of spiritual rest and Jesus’ teaching, consonant with the rest of Scripture, about the summary of the whole law, including the ten commandments (e.g., Matt. 22:35–40). 칼빈에게 영적 안식이란 죄를 중단하는 일이다 그 적극적 측면은 주 너희 하나님을 마음을 다하고 영혼을 다하고 정성을 다하여 사랑하고 네 이웃을 자신처럼 사랑하라이다 For Calvin, spiritual rest is ceasing from sin, and the positive side of such cessation is loving “the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind … and … your neighbor as yourself.”

십계명은 하나님의 법의 상세한 선언이고 하나님과 이웃을 사랑하라는 명령으로 요약된다 But, also according to the uniform teaching of Scripture, the Decalogue is a detailed declaration of God’s law, the explicit kind of enunciation that sinners need, more generally summarized by the command to love God and neighbor. 다시 말해 십계명의 개개 요소들은 종이 (species) 속에 (genus) 연관되듯, 구체적 측면들이 통합시키는 전체에 연관되듯 그리스도의 사랑 요약에 연관된다 In other words, the particular elements of the Decalogue are related to Christ’s love summary as species to genus, specific aspects to integrating whole.

따라서 십계명의 하나 중 어떤 것에게 그리스도의 요약에 속하는 포괄적 힘을 부여하는 것은 십계명에서 그 의도된 원래 자리를 그 개별 계명에서 박탈하는 일이다. 그것이 바로 칼빈이 4계명을 논하는 때 일어난다. 칼빈이 안식일에서 발견하는 그 영적 안식 개념은 성경적으로 그것이 가질 수 없는 근본적 힘을 그것에 부여한다. 십계명의 일부가 전체를 위해 하나님이 의도하신 의미를 취한다. 요나단 에드워즈는 이미 이 점을 파악했다. 칼빈의 견해를 설명하면서 그는 말하길, 만약 4계명이 영적 안식과 영구적인 거룩한 행위를 의미하는 것으로만 현재 효력을 내고 있다면, 그것은 10계명의 하나로서 머물지 않고 모든 계명들의 요약으로 존재한다 Consequently, to attribute to any one of the ten commandments, the comprehensive force that properly belongs to Christ’s summary effectively deprives that particular commandment of its intended place in the Decalogue. That is precisely what happens when Calvin discusses the fourth commandment. The notion of spiritual rest he finds there gives to it a basic force that it cannot have biblically; a part of the Decalogue receives the meaning divinely intended for the whole. Jonathan Edwards, for one, already grasped this point. In commenting on Calvin’s views, he says, “And if it [the fourth commandment] stands in force now only as signifying a spiritual, Christian rest, and holy behavior at all times, it doth not remain as one of the ten commands, but as a summary of all the commands.”33 Works, 3 (London: 1834): 95; quoted in J. Bannerman, The Church of Christ, 1 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1868): 401.

It remains perplexing how Calvin, who elsewhere correctly formulates the relation of each element of the Decalogue to Christ’s summary, could have failed to observe that distinction in discussing the fourth commandment. At any rate, he plainly does give it a force that properly belongs only to the summary of the Decalogue. He has overlooked its specific place in God’s law and, consequently, missed its true meaning. This contention will be substantiated by a more direct examination of his views.

2. 근본적 오류는 칼빈이 안식일 제도를 창조 규례로 정당하게 파악하지 못한 것이다 그의 안식일 개념의 결점들은 바로 이 근본적 결점 때문이다. A basic error is Calvin’s failure to reckon adequately with the Sabbath institution as a creation ordinance. Other deficiencies in his views are due to this fundamental defect. He did recognize, as we have seen, that the Sabbath is mandated at creation and, correlatively, that the fourth commandment is perpetually and universally binding.44 It is perhaps worth recalling here the concluding words of his comments on Genesis 2:3: “… but inasmuch as it was commanded to men from the beginning that they might employ themselves in the worship of God, it is right that it should continue to the end of the world” (Commentaries on Genesis, 1: 107). But the creation Sabbath is not given sufficient attention; its meaning does not have the controlling place it must in determining a fully biblical notion of the Sabbath institution.

How substantially Calvin has missed biblical teaching about the Sabbath given at creation is easily seen in his notion of spiritual rest. This basic concern of the fourth commandment is to cease from our own sinful works in order that God may perform his sanctifying work. 여섯 날의 노동은 죄악된 육체의 일들로 파악했다 The six days of labor mentioned are seen as a reference to the works of sinful flesh.

분면 칼빈에게 죄의 존재와 그 이후 거룩하게 함의 필요는 4계명의 기본 의의에 필수불가결이다 Clearly, then, for Calvin the existence of sin and the consequent need for sanctification is indispensable to the basic thrust of the fourth commandment. 그에게 안식일 제도는 구속의 범주 안에서만 의미를 갖는다. 죄와 타락 이전의 안식일 제정은 고려 대상에서 제외되고 말았다 In other words, the Sabbath institution has meaning only within the orbit of redemption. Considerations arising from the prefall institution of the Sabbath, where sin and (the need for) redemption are necessarily absent, could not be more effectively excluded.

창 2:3에서 타락 이전에 아담에게서의 안식일 제정의 의미에 관하여 약간의 설명도 필할 것이지만, 경배와 묵상을 위한 특정 시간의 구분을 요청한 영적 안식과 연약함에만 초점을 맞추었다. 이렇게 타락 이전의 안식일 제도의 의미는 그에게 다가오지 않은 듯 하다 Even in his commentary on Genesis 2:3, where we might reasonably expect some reference to the meaning of the Sabbath institution for Adam before the fall, discussion instead focusses on spiritual rest and the sinful weakness that requires certain times to be set aside for worship and meditation. The meaning of the Sabbath institution prior to the fall seems not to have crossed his mind.

칼빈은 안식일을 오로지 죄가 만연한 상황에서만 고려하기 때문에, 육일 간의 노동에 대하여는 적극적인 어떤 것을 보지 못했다 This failure to reckon with the creation (prefall) Sabbath explains the characteristic emphases in Calvin’s view. Since he considers the Sabbath entirely within a context where sin is endemic, he finds nothing “positive” in the commandment’s mention of six days of labor. Since the fall, all human efforts, of themselves sinful and worthless, deserve only divine condemnation. Accordingly, the command to rest on the seventh day is cut off from any positive correlation to the six days of work; these two elements can only be related antithetically, or the days of work viewed, at best, concessively.55 The way Calvin construes the language of the commandment is questionable. In his view, the six days of labor are a fact; the rest on the seventh day, on the other hand, is a command. His meaning is fairly paraphrased as follows: “you are laboring for six days and doing all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work.…” In the Hebrew text (both Exod. 20:9–10 and Deut. 5:13–14) the three verbs in question, “laboring,” “doing” (work), and not “doing” (work), all have the same stem and tense (qal imperfect), which can be used as an imperative, though generally it has an indicative force. In this instance, in other words, Calvin takes the first two verbs, referring to the six days of labor, as indicatives, but the third, for resting on the seventh day, as an imperative. This reading, while there is nothing that excludes it grammatically, is unlikely; certainly it cannot be insisted on. The three verbs, in close conjunction, are syntactically parallel. Accordingly, apart from some contrary indication in the text, such as appears to be lacking here, all three verbs have the same force. Since the third (not working) can only be an imperative, so, too, the other two are most likely imperatives. But that conclusion is unacceptable to Calvin; it would leave him faced with the intolerable consequence of introducing an exhortation to sin into one of God’s commandments.

3. We are now able to see how Calvin arrived at the ideal of daily public worship. The mention of six days of labor is a recognition of sinful actions, not a command to engage in legitimate human callings or other cultural activity. The command to rest on the seventh day is the only positive precept. Further, such rest receives its definition from being antithetically related to the six days of work; it is rest from sin, in that sense, spiritual rest. In short, the core of the fourth commandment, on its negative side, may be summed up by saying, “Stop sinning.”66 This reinforces the observation above that in viewing the fourth commandment as enjoining spiritual rest, Calvin in effect makes it a summary of the whole law.

Spiritual rest finds outward ｅxpression in exercises of piety; mercy, kindness, and love of neighbor are its reflexes. Before the Lord, it expresses itself directly in acts of worship and devotion. But such rest, by the nature of the case, is to be enjoyed (we might also say, exercised) perpetually or not at all. So Calvin, with no other positive considerations in the fourth commandment to qualify the notion of spiritual rest he finds there, is left to conclude that public worship is to be constant. As the heart of spiritual rest, it may not be confined to any one day of week but should be practiced daily.

Still, in the Old Testament economy this commandment obviously required the Jews to spend the seventh day of each week in worship and physical rest. That Calvin can only explain, as he does in the Institutes and elsewhere, by maintaining that the fourth commandment given to Moses at Sinai was an accommodation to sinful human inability to practice daily public worship. The ideal at the heart of the Sabbath ordinance was relaxed and modified out of consideration for the sinful weakness of the Jews, and also to show them typically (the seventh day of each week) the spiritual rest that would one day be brought by the promised Messiah. Similarly, Christians, although they no longer keep a typical Sabbath, observe the Lord’s Day because they, like the Jews, are subject to the same sinful weakness that prohibits keeping the ideal Sabbath.

To highlight the central strand of our argument in the preceding paragraphs: 칼빈의 실수 곧 엿새 동안의 노동 명령을 긍정적으로 보지 못한 실수 때문에 영적 안식에만 집착하여 매일의 공적 예배를 4계명의 본질적 요청이며 이상적이라 제안했다. Calvin’s failure to take the command for six days of work positively fixes spiritual rest, and particularly the aspect of daily public worship, as the essential requirement of the fourth commandment.

Two further conclusions, implicit in the discussion to this point, may be accented. 1) Given Calvin’s understanding of spiritual rest as the essence of the fourth commandment, Sabbath-keeping (the reflex of spiritual rest) must be practiced either perpetually or not at all. 2) Sabbath-keeping for Calvin is only meaningful in a context where sin is a reality.77 That does not mean that Calvin cannot hold something approximating to Sabbath-keeping (spiritual rest) for Adam before the fall. The spiritual rest enjoined in the fourth commandment, however, must always be seen against the background of existing sin. Rest, strictly speaking, implies cessation from something, and he is quite clear that in the commandment that “something” is sinful works.

4. 칼빈의 4계명 이해의 최고 문제는 이렇다: 만약 그가 그 모든 표현을 긍정적으로 취한다면 (안식만 아니라 엿새 동안의 일들) 칼빈은 죄를 하나님께서 자기 피조물을 통치하는 영원하고 불변하는 원리들 중의 하나에 속한 필수적 요소로 만들 위험에 직면한다 The greatest difficulty with Calvin’s view of the fourth commandment, then, is this: If he takes all its language positively (the working in view, as well as the rest), he is faced with making sin an integral element in one of God’s eternal and immutable principles for governing his creation. It might be objected at this point that virtually all the other parts of the Decalogue contemplate a situation where sin is present. For instance, the sixth commandment presupposes the reality of murder. Even more basically, however, it also has in view the inherent sanctity of human life, made in God’s image. That sanctity was certainly as true before the fall as it is after sin enters the scene. Similarly, the negative, sin-conditioned language of the seventh commandment reflects the ideal of chastity and sexual purity, an ideal with meaning even before the fall.

No similar line of reflection, however, is open to Calvin on the fourth commandment. He understands it as referring too pervasively to the postfall situation. In failing to see the positive connection between the days of work and the day of rest, he can find no meaning for it in anything other than a redemptive context. To be sure, the core of the commandment in his view, spiritual rest—understood as the imitation of God—does have meaning apart from sin. But that core, as I have tried to show, is a summary of the whole law and misses whatever may be the specific force of the commandment. The only instance where Calvin does anything approaching full justice to the language of the fourth commandment is in the case of Old Testament Israel: the people were to rest each week on the seventh day, after six days of labor; but the significance of that Sabbath rest is still entirely redemptive.88 Even here he considers the six days of labor a concession to Israel (i.e., God required only a seventh of their time), rather than a divine commandment.

Calvin’s view of the fourth commandment, all told, impales him on the horns of a dilemma. on the one hand, when he deals with its specific language, the result is Sabbath-keeping with no meaning outside of the scope of redemption. on the other hand, when he states its core, that the creature is to imitate the creator, a notion with relevance apart from redemption, the result is equivalent to a summary of the whole law and so misses its specific force. Calvin is unable to do justice to the fourth commandment at its most basic level, as one among God’s eternal and immutable principles for governing his creation and the unfolding of history.

5. 이런 주장에 대한 나의 비판은 안식일은 구체적인 창조 규례이고 그 규례의 본질은 4계명에 반영되었다는 가정에 놓인다. ekl 말해 4계명은 타락 이저놔 이후의 인간 삶과 행위를 지도하도록 의도된 원리를 표현한다. My criticism to this point rests on the assumption that the Sabbath institution is a specific creation ordinance and that the essence of that ordinance is reflected in the fourth commandment. In other words, the commandment embodies a principle intended to govern human life and conduct both before and after the fall. Further, this principle is specific; within the Decalogue it is coordinate with the other nine commandments, and so subordinate, not identical, to Christ’s summary of the law.

그러나 이런 가정이 성경적인가? 만약 성경적이라면, 그런 가정이 함축하는 바는 무엇인가? But is this assumption biblical and, if so, what are some of its implications? In taking up that question, a further observation about Calvin is in order.

칼빈의 4계명에 대한 견해에 영향을 끼친 한 요소는 모든 예표들은 그리스도의 지상 사역으로 폐기되었다는 신념이다. one factor that influenced his view of the fourth commandment is the belief that all types have been abolished by the earthly ministry of Christ. As we have seen, he emphasizes that point repeatedly. Consequently, he plainly has difficulty in accepting the fourth commandment, without qualification, as binding for all times and places. The precept obviously contains a typical element and so, he reasons, has in some sense been modified or its typical part abrogated with the advent of Christ. That conclusion, coupled with neglect of the significance of the creation Sabbath, influenced his thinking toward the idea of spiritual rest as the basic concern of the commandment.

그리스도의 오심으로 모든 예표들은 폐기되었다는 사고를 어떻게 평가해야 할까? 히브리서는 그 점에 일말의 의심도 남기지 않는다 (히 9:1-10:18 참조). How ought we to evaluate the notion that all types have been abolished with the coming of Christ? To raise that question here, I should be clear, is not to question that under the Old Testament economy, particularly for Israel as a theocracy, a body of types and symbols prefigured the ministry of Christ incarnate and so was abrogated by that ministry. The writer of Hebrews, for one, is emphatically clear on that point (e.g., 9:1–10:18). 그렇다면 타락 이전의 특별 계시에서 에표적 요소는 어떻게 할 것인가? But what about typical elements in special revelation prior to the fall? Calvin’s mind on that question is difficult to know exactly, since, as far as I can tell, he does not address it directly. But from those places where he says that Christ has abolished all types by his coming it seems likely that he includes all types, prefall, preredemptive, if any, as well as redemptive.99 E.g., Institutes, 1:426 (2:9:3), 451–456 (2:11:2–6); 2:1433 (4:18:4).

6. 칼빈의 견해가 무엇이건 간에, 모든 구속 이전 예표가 그리스도의 오심으로 기능이 중지되었다는 사고는 고전 15:44-49와 같은 구절을 고려할 때 합당하지 않다. Whatever Calvin’s view may be, the notion that every preredemptive type has ceased to function with the coming of Christ runs counter to biblical considerations that come to light in a passage like 1 Corinthians 15:44–49.10 The following exegetical reflections are heavily indebted to Geerhardus Vos, “The Eschatological Aspect of the Pauline Conception of the Spirit,” Biblical and Theological Studies (New York: Scribners, 1912), pp. 231–34 [ed. R. Gaffin, Jr., Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation. The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980), pp. 105–07]; cf. The Pauline Eschatology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979 [1930]), pp. 169–70 (footnote 19). For my own fuller treatment of the passage, see Resurrection and Redemption. A Study in Paul’s Soteriology (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1987 [1978]), pp. 78–92, esp. 81–83.

The immediate context (vv. 42–49) contrasts the bodies of believers before and after the resurrection. The former, subject to the ravages of sin (cf. Rom. 5:12ff.), is mortal, dishonorable, and weak; the latter is marked by immortality, glory, and strength (vv. 42–43). The one, in a word, is “psychical” (ψυχικόν), the other, “Spiritual” (πνευματικόν, v. 44a).11 The adjective “spiritual” (lower case) too easily suggests what is inherently “immaterial” or “nonphysical.” In order to avoid that misunderstanding, particularly serious here, where it is applied to the resurrection body, as well as to keep clear, what more careful exegesis is bound to conclude, that the Greek adjective in v. 44 has the activity of the Holy Spirit in view, I will capitalize the English, where appropriate, as well as “Pneumatic” (used interchangeably). But beginning in the middle of verse 44, it appears, the contrast broadens, on the one side, to include the original creation body as well as the body effected by sin. 종말론적 부활체에 대한 종말 이전의 궁극적 상응체는 타락 이전의 인간의 몸이다 (창 2:7, 고전 15:45). In other words, the ultimate preeschatological counterpart to the eschatological, resurrection body is the prefall body of Genesis 2:7 (cited in v. 45).

Is this a correct reading of verses 44b-45? Does Paul in fact include the prefall, creation body with the body in need of redemption when he refers to the psychical body? Initially, that may seem to be finding more in these verses than is there.

The adjective “psychical” (ψυχικόν)12 A satisfactory English translation of this adjective here is notoriously difficult, facing the apparently insurmountable challenge of not obscuring the obvious tie in the Greek text with the noun (“soul,” “being,” “person”) in v. 45. The usual proposals, “natural” or “physical,” are deficient, the latter downright misleading. From the normative viewpoint of the original creation, the sin-ravaged, mortal body is in fact “unnatural” “physical,” by virtue of the main contrast of the passage, leaves the seriously erroneous impression that the resurrection body, by contrast, is nonphysical or immaterial. Consequently, I have settled here for the transliteration, “psychical.” appears in the New Testament only six times13 It is not found in the canonical portions of the Septuagint, and only once in the pseudepigrapha (4 Macc. 1:32).—in this passage (twice in v. 44, once in v. 46) and elsewhere in 1 Corinthians 2:14, James 3:15, and Jude 19. In each of the latter three instances, the notion of sin and what is conditioned by sin is clearly constitutive (in that sense, “natural”). In other words, any preredemptive (prefall) connotations are necessarily excluded. Apparently, then, the other three occurrences in 1 Corinthians 15, especially in view of Paul’s use in 2:14, are limited to having the same, sin-conditioned force, excluding any preredemptive associations.

More careful reflection on the passage, however, brings us to a different conclusion. Verse 44a states no more than that the psychical body precedes the Pneumatic body, antithetically, in point of time. Verse 44b, however, adds the additional thought, “If there is a psychical body, then there is also a Spiritual body.” The flat antithesis between the two bodies maintained up to this point (vv. 42–44a), is significantly modified; Paul now argues, in a direct, linear fashion, from the one body to the other. The psychical body does not simply precede the Spiritual, but, much more, anticipates it; the psychical body, by its very nature, implies the Pneumatic.

In verse 45, to support (“so also”) the assertion of verse 44b, Paul cites Genesis 2:7 (with the interpretative glosses, “first” and “Adam”): “the first man Adam was made a living soul (ψυχὴν ζῶσαν).” Plainly, Adam by virtue of creation and before the fall is in view.

This use of Genesis 2:7 as support for the argument of verse 44b, together with what Paul goes on to say in the rest of verse 45, prompts a further observation. The psychical nature with which Adam was endowed at creation anticipates the endowment of “life-giving Spirit” received by the second Adam, Christ, at his resurrection.14 Note that Paul is not saying that Adam’s psychical nature looked forward to life-giving ρνεῦμα specifically in the way the Spirit became Christ’s possession shared with believers, as if, necessarily, that were the only way the Pneumatic could have been realized. That would saddle Paul with the elsewhere thoroughly unbiblical notion that from the outset, prior to the fall, creation was inherently in need of redemption. Nothing more is in view here than the de facto means (the work of the incarnate Christ necessitated by the fall) by which the psychical has found its fulfillment in the Pneumatic.

Verse 46 confirms this observation. There Paul expands his outlook by introducing a generalizing principle that includes not only the body but its context or environment.15 The neuter singular substantives in v. 46 (τό πνευματικόν, τό ψυχικον) are most likely generalizing ｅxpressions, after which it would be a mistake, missing the broadening already given to the contrast in verse 45 (between Adam and Christ as whole persons), to read an implied “body” (σῶμα). Note, too, that in the immediately following verses (47–49) the basic contrast of the passage is continued in explicitly cosmological or, one could say, “environmental” terms (“heaven”/“earth”). Elsewhere in Paul, Romans 8:20–22 especially intimates the cosmic dimension of future eschatological renewal. It is not the Pneumatic, the complete, the eschatological, that comes first in the unfolding of history. Rather, first comes the anticipatory, the prefiguring, the preeschatological order (the “psychical” order) and then, consequently, the Pneumatic or eschatological order; the first, original creation looks forward to the new and final creation. That is so even apart from the fall and human sin.

7. 이런 구절들의 가르침은 다음과 같은 세 가지 원리들을 추론하게 해 준다 The teaching of these verses prompts us to draw from them the following three principles:

1) 창조물은 처음부터 있었고 지속해서 종말을 향해 나아간다. 그 본질 때문에 (신체적) 그것은 종말론적인 것을 (영적인) 예기한다 Creation was from the beginning and continues to be oriented toward eschatology; by its very constitution (“psychical”) it anticipates the eschatological (the “Spiritual”).

2) 첫 창조물은 이처럼 새창조의 궁극적 부상을 함의하므로, 원래 창조에 예표론이 본질적이며, 그러므로 타락에 앞선다. 신체적인 것이 예표적인 것으로, 영적인 것을 예표하고 예기한다 Since the first creation thus implies the eventual emergence of the new creation, typology is inherent in the original creation and therefore antedates the fall; the psychical is typical, prefiguring and anticipating the Pneumatic.16 Further confirmation for this principle may be found in Paul’s statement elsewhere that Adam is a “type” or “pattern” (τύπος) of Christ (Rom. 5:14). M. Kline (“The Intrusion and the Decalogue,” Westminster Theological Journal, 16, 1 (Nov. 1953): 1–22) argues that typology is a postfall phenomenon, confined to the covenant of grace. He defines typology in terms of the notion of intrusion that he develops (p. 6), and outlaws appeal to this verse for a prefall typology, on the basis that it proves no more than the relationship between Adam and Christ as federal heads. It appears to me, however, that to recognize that they are federal heads in God’s dealings with humanity, concedes the point he denies. Neither Adam nor Christ can be dissociated from the ultimate outcome of their respective tasks as federal heads. In the terms of 1 Corinthians 15:45–49, Adam, in his representative capacity, was endowed with a psychical nature whose eschatological destiny he failed to achieve but rather, by his sin, subjected to pollution and decay. Christ, in contrast, has achieved what Adam forfeited; he has secured for himself and those he represents the eschatological destiny of the original psychical nature: consequent on the fall and redemption, a Pneumatic nature. Both are endowed with a psychical nature—Adam by creation, Christ by incarnation—but only Christ succeeds to the state that nature anticipates. Adam as a psychical being, then, is typical of Christ as a Pneumatic being.

3) 타락에 비추어 보건대, 구속이 신체적인 것이 영적인 것에서 완전 실현되도록 하는 절대 본질적 수단이다. 구속은 타락으로 필ㅇ하게 되었는데 종말론적 상태에 그 자국을 남긴다. Given the fall, redemption is the absolutely essential means for the psychical to come to its full realization in the Pneumatic; redemption, made necessary only because of the fall, leaves its imprint on the eschatological state.

셋째 원리를 약간 확장하자면, 바울 신학에서 일관되게 영적인 것이 종말론적인 것의 구성요소이고 그것과 동의어적이다. 왜냐하면 영이 생명의 수여자이기 때문이다. Uniformly in Paul’s theology, to expand briefly on the third principle, the Spiritual is constitutive of and so synonymous with the eschatological, because the Spirit is the giver of life. Verse 45 expresses that in a sweeping and christologically qualified fashion.17 Cf. Romans 7:6 8:2, 11 2 Corinthians 3:6, 17. (There is no more fundamental eschatological reality than life, in the ultimate, eternal sense.) The realm of the Spirit is the eschatological realm because the Spirit is the source of (eschatological) life; the Spirit and life cannot be separated.

To speak of life brings into view another important strand of Paul’s teaching. Throughout his writings, but notably in Romans 5:12ff., righteousness and life are inseparable. As an invariable rule, righteousness receives the verdict of justification, issuing in eternal life. In contrast, sin earns condemnation, resulting in death. on the positive side, then, righteousness is absolutely prerequisite for attaining eschatological life. The Pneumatic state is exponential of righteousness;18 Vos, “Eschatology and the Spirit,” p. 236. (consummate) righteousness is the indispensable basis for life and guarantees it.

It may now be clearer how the eschatological state, anticipated in the original creation order, has its complexion colored by redemption. To say that righteousness is the basis of the eschatological state is to say, as far as sinners are concerned, that Christ is the basis of the eschatological state; apart from him, sinners remain unrighteous. Moreover, only in Christ is found the confirmed and consummate righteousness on which the eternal state rests. only as believers share in Christ’s death and resurrection do they share in the life-giving Spirit, who raised him up.19 This is likely Paul’s thought in Romans 4:25: Christ “was raised again for our justification.” In raising up the Son, the Father demonstrated the righteousness of the Son accomplished in his messianic capacity. The resurrection was thus a de facto justification. For believers to share in Christ’s resurrection implies sharing in both the ground and goal of the justification his resurrection implies, that is, sharing in both confirmed righteousness (imputed, Rom. 5:18–19, as well as inwrought, Rom. 6:2ff, 15ff.), and eschatological life. For the sinner there is no life without redemption in Christ. The christological and the eschatological can never be separated. To be “in the Spirit” is to be “in Christ” (Rom. 8:9).

8. 고려 중인 예표론에 대한 이런 설명들과 함께 우리는 안식일에 대한 성경적 가르침을 고려할 수 있다. 기본은 안식 개념이다. 안식일은 종말론적 의의를 갖는다. 칼빈은 사 66:23을 인용하여 안식일은 마지막 날에야 온전히 향유되리라고 했다. With these comments on typology in view we can reflect further on biblical teaching concerning the Sabbath. Basic is the notion of rest. The Sabbath, therefore, has eschatological significance. Calvin recognizes that in quoting Isaiah 66:23 to show that the Sabbath will not be fully celebrated until the Last Day. The eschatological reference of the Sabbath is also implied in passages which teach that Israel’s Sabbath was a sign of sanctification (Ezek. 20:12–20 Exod. 31:13–17). Sanctification, as an ongoing process of personal renewal in righteousness, reaches its ultimate realization in the eschatological realm of the Spirit, where all righteousness finds its consummate ｅxpression.

Several themes in the teaching of Jesus, to take one New Testament example, provide further insight into the eschatological nature of the Sabbath institution in the unfolding of revelation. In John’s Gospel, particularly, he presents salvation as an offer of life (e.g., 6:35 11:25 14:6)—an inherently Spiritual, eschatological reality (cf. 6:63), as we have already noted.20 It is worth observing here that the “eternal life” so characteristic of John’s Gospel and 1 John (3:15–16 5:24 6:27 1 John 2:25, passim) is not “eternal” in the sense of being above or beyond history, “timeless” in some ahistorical sense, but because it has been revealed at the end of history and comes to believers out of that consummation; eternal life is eschatological life.

Similarly, his proclamation of redemption is an offer of freedom (John 8:32, 36), peace (John 14:27), and, of special interest for this study, rest (Matt. 11:20–28). All these notions of salvation/redemption—life, freedom, peace, and rest—are coordinate facets of consummate blessing. Each finds its supreme realization in the eschatological realm. Sabbath rest, therefore, is ultimately related to and characterizes the order of the Spirit.

9. 원래 창조에 내재된 예표론과 안식일의 종말론적 예시에 비추어 보건대, 타락 이전 안식일에 대한 모습이 다음과 같이 나타난다. 창 2:2-3은 안식일 계명에 대한 그 설명과 함께, 아담에게 주어진 매주 하루의 안식일은 창조주에게 창조의 1주간의 7일째와 유사한 기능을 피조물 영역에서 감당하였다. Given both the typology inherent in the original creation and the eschatological reference of the Sabbath, the following picture of the prefall Sabbath emerges. Genesis 2:2–3, together with their commentary in the fourth commandment, show that the weekly Sabbath given to Adam served a function in the creaturely realm similar to the seventh day of the creation week for the Creator. 하나님께서 창조 사역을 완성시키고 안식 하셨듯, 인간은 피조물에 대한 하나님의 대리자로서 하나님이 주신 일들을 완성한 후에 안식에 들어간다. 이런 창조주와 형상 소유자 사이의 유추는 중요한 차이를 보인다. 하나님의 창조 사역은 완성되고 그의 안식이 시작되었지만, 아담에게 주어진 일은 여전히 완수되어야 했고 그의 안식은 여전히 미래였다 As God rested from his completed work of creation, so man would enter into his rest after completing his God-given tasks as vicegerent over the creation (cf. Heb. 4:10). This analogy between Creator and image-bearing creature involves an important difference. The creating work of God had been completed and his rest begun (cf. Heb. 4:3b–4). The task entrusted to Adam/man had yet to be performed; his rest was still future (cf. Heb. 4:9).

아담에게 주어진 임무는 정확하게 무엇이었나? 전통적으로 개혁신학은 선악과를 먹지 말라는 금지와 함께 제의적, 문화적 성격의 특정 명령에의 순종의 견지에서 그것을 이해했다. 그러한 임무는 의의 상태로 인간이 세워지기 위함이었다 (행위 언약). 의로 세워지면 생명을 얻는다. 생명은 종말론적 질서인 성령님의 영역이다. What exactly was the task incumbent on Adam? Traditionally, Reformed theology has formulated it in terms of the obligation to obey certain commands of a cultic and cultural nature, with the specific prohibition of eating the forbidden fruit, so that he/humanity might be confirmed in a state of righteousness (the covenant of works). Now confirmed righteousness, as we have noted, issues in life, the realm of the Spirit, the eschatological order. 고전 15:44b-45의 견지에서 볼 때, 아담의 사명은 책무로 이해될 수 있는데, 성공적인 시련을 (probation) 통해서 아담이 종말 이전, 신체적 질서를 그것이 예기하는 종말론적, 질서에로 들어 올려야 하는 책무였다. So, in terms of 1 Corinthians 15:44b-45, Adam’s task may be understood as the obligation, by means of successful probation, to raise the pre-eschatological, psychical order to the eschatological order,21 Which, in view of the fall and redemption in Christ, is the de facto Pneumatic order. which it anticipates. As Vos puts it:

The only reasonable interpretation of the Genesis-account (e mente Pauli) is this, that provision was made and probation was instituted for a still higher state, both ethico-religiously and physically complexioned, than was at that time in the possession of man. In other words the eschatological complex and prospect were there in the purpose of God from the beginning.22 The Pauline Eschatology, p. 304.

Adam’s weekly Sabbath, then, involved two basic, interrelated facets. on the one hand, eschatological Sabbath-rest was a still future goal; he had work to do. At the same time, he was not to think that his labors were meaningless, submerged in an endless historical flow. He was to toil, but that toil would result in rest. A weekly day of rest was instituted to remind him of the purposefulness of his work; it also provided rhythmic refreshment of body and soul (periodic psycho-physical rest, in other words), appropriate to him in the integrity of his psychical nature. The weekly Sabbath was a continual reminder to Adam that history is not a ceaseless repetition of days. Rather, at the beginning of each week he could look forward to the rest of the seventh day. That weekly cycle impressed on him that he, together with the created order as a whole, was moving toward a goal, a nothing less than eschatological culmination.

Seen in this light, the creation Sabbath was the preeminent type of the prefall period. The psychical rest of each week prefigured the ultimate, eschatological goal of the whole created order and, at the same time, emphasized its present state of pre-eschatological incompleteness. This conclusion prompts at least two related observations.

1) The language of the fourth commandment does not suggest anything but a positive correlation between the six days of labor and the seventh day of rest. In fact, that latter is unintelligible without the former and vice versa; the day of rest gives meaning to and, in turn, receives its meaning from the six days of labor. The seven day week is a divinely ordained whole; it implies a philosophy of history that even the most unreflective mind can intuit.23 A basic weakness in Calvin’s view, as we have seen, is the failure to see this positive correlation. Even were it to be granted that the fourth commandment only applies in the context of redemption, it remains puzzling how he finds a contrast between our sinful works and the rest that God commands (or, at best, a concessive relationship between our work and the rest commanded). Since the fall sinners are no more capable of rest acceptable to God than they are of performing acceptable works.

The primary concern of the fourth commandment is not pragmatic—to provide time for public and private worship and religious instruction. Rather, the original concern of the weekly Sabbath continues. It is for restful reflection on our lives, before God, in view of the ultimate outcome of history, when the present psychical order will be transformed into the Spiritual; it is for reviewing our cultural calling and activities of the past six days in that eschatological light. This is not at all to imply that cultic elements do not have a proper, even integral, place on the Sabbath. Indeed, such worship is crucial and ought to be prominent, especially in the post-fall Sabbath, when believers must focus attention on Christ, rather than themselves, as the one who for them has fulfilled the command for six days of labor and in whom they are fulfilling that command (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:58 Rev. 14:13 19:7–8). Where the Sabbath institution is properly appreciated and functions as it should, cultural concerns and avocations, on the one hand, and cultic activities, on the other, are neither confused nor polarized.

Vos is worth quoting at length here:

From what has been said about the typical, sacramental meaning of the Sabbath it follows that it would be a mistake to base its observance primarily on the ground of utility. The Sabbath is not the outcome of an abnormal state of affairs in which it is impossible, apart from the appointment of a fixed day, to devote sufficient care to the religious interests of life. on such a view it might be maintained that for one sufficiently at leisure to give all his time to the cultivation of religion the keeping of the Sabbath would no longer be obligatory. Some of the continental Reformers, out of reaction to the Romish system of holy days, reasoned after this fashion. But they reasoned wrongly. The Sabbath is not in the first place a means of advancing religion. It has its main significance apart from that, in pointing forward to the eternal issues of life and history. Even the most advanced religious spirit cannot absolve itself from partaking in that. It is a serious question whether the modern church has not too much lost sight of this by making the day well-nigh exclusively an instrument of religious propaganda, at the expense of its eternity-typifying value. Of course it goes without saying that a day devoted to the remembrance of man’s eternal destiny cannot be properly observed without the positive cultivation of those religious concerns which are so intimately joined to the final issue of his lot. But, even where this is conceded, the fact remains that it is possible to crowd too much into the day that is merely subservient to religious propaganda, and to void it too much of the static, Godward and heavenly-ward directed occupation of piety.24 Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), p. 157. Though Calvin is not named, a critique of his views, among others (as one of “the continental Reformers” mentioned), seems unmistakable.

2) The distinctiveness of the weekly Sabbath as a type needs to be appreciated. We should ponder that the entire sum of eschatological considerations, the fullness of consummate blessing, is comprehended under a figure (rest) that, strictly speaking, typifies just one element of that Pneumatic state of affairs. Despite coordination with other elements such as peace, freedom, and even life, rest, eschatologically considered, has a prominence of its own. When the difference between the psychical and the Spiritual—the contrast between the anticipatory and prefiguring character of the former and the permanence and perpetuity of the latter—is to be highlighted, (psychical) rest does that most aptly. That is why, at creation, the weekly Sabbath was made the comprehensive, all-inclusive type it is. Rest, more than anything else, reflects the permanence and perfection of the Pneumatic state. Rest points to that state where no more (pre-eschatological) work is necessary, because nothing remains to be perfected. It pictures the ultimate realization of the entire scope of eschatological interests.

10. We may now consider in more detail than we so far have the effects of the fall upon the Sabbath institution or, in other words, the relation of the creation Sabbath to the redemptive Sabbath. Above all, the fall does not abrogate either the creation Sabbath or its typical function. The psychical creation still anticipates the Pneumatic creation, albeit with the added burden of sin and its corrupting consequences (Rom. 8:19–22). Man is no longer capable of living up to the demands of the fourth commandment (work and rest) or, for that matter, any other of God’s commands. The task of bringing the psychical creation to its eschatological fulfillment has been taken from him and given to the better and more worthy Servant. The Father has begun, through the redemptive work of his Son, to bring history to its climax. The second and last Adam takes up the task forfeited by the first Adam.

The history of redemption undoubtedly began to have an effect on the Sabbath institution soon after the fall. That impact on the weekly Sabbath is apparent in the theocracy, an impact that Calvin readily saw. What is not so apparent in analyzing the Mosaic Sabbath, however, is the distinction between the fourth commandment as it reflects a universally binding creation ordinance and what in the commandment was peculiar to its Old Covenant administration. That distinction, it appears, Calvin did not always observe, particularly when he argues that the typical element in the fourth commandment has been abrogated.

There is validity, of course, in Calvin’s idea that the Jewish Sabbath typified the spiritual rest25 I use this ｅxpression here and subsequently in Calvin’s sense, unless otherwise noted. brought by Christ. That has to be so because all the forms and rituals of Old Testament religion, instituted after the fall and especially at Sinai, anticipated the work of Christ. on the other hand, it is plainly less than biblical, as I have already argued, for Calvin to view spiritual rest generically, equivalent, in general, to freedom from sin and its positive counterpart, love of God and neighbor. Spiritual rest, typified under the Mosaic economy by the Sabbath and fulfilled by Christ, has its sense in terms of the specific issues and concerns of the fourth commandment. The spiritual, redemptive rest already brought by Christ assures believers of the eventual future realization of the eschatological rest typified by the creation Sabbath. It does so by granting them to share in the perfect righteousness of Christ, on which basis the Spirit is now at work in them, preparing them for the consummate enjoyment of all the blessings of that rest. Spiritual rest in Christ is a foretaste in this life of the eschatological blessings subsequently to be enjoyed in their fulness.26 Note, especially, Paul’s metaphors for the present activity of the Spirit in believers: “down payment” (2 Cor. 1:22 5:5 Eph. 1:14) and “firstfruits” (Rom. 8:23). Vos calls this state of affairs—already present in part, not yet in fulness—“semi-eschatological” (The Pauline Eschatology, p. 38); more usual designations are “realized” or “inaugurated eschatology.” Accordingly, we may properly speak of the abolition of the Jewish Sabbath at the coming of Christ,27 As does Paul, Galatians 4:10, 11 Colossians 2:16, 17. in the sense that the purely redemptive typical element that had become associated with it under the Old Covenant, distinguishing it from the New Covenant Sabbath, has been abrogated. Spiritual rest, as it has become a reality in Christ, is no longer typified by the weekly Sabbath.

The relation between the creation and redemptive Sabbaths may be further clarified along the following lines.

1) The weekly Sabbath instituted at creation is a type of eschatological rest. But, as we have also seen, as such and more concretely, it points to the order of the Spirit in its perfect, consummate finality. It therefore continues to serve a typical function until what it prefigures is realized. That eschatological consummation, 1 Corinthians 15, for one, makes clear, will not be until the resurrection of the body (vv. 42–49), until the time “when he [Christ] hands over the kingdom to God the Father …, so that God may be all in all” (vv. 24–28).

Certainly, believers have already received the Spirit as an actual deposit on their eschatological inheritance (Eph. 1:14); the blessings they enjoy are “semi-eschatological.” But to reason, on the basis of these incipiently enjoyed blessings, that the weekly Sabbath has ceased, reflects a greatly impoverished view of biblical eschatology. To conclude that the Sabbath institution has been abrogated because all the blessings of the eschatological order are in principle realized in the New Testament church, as if nothing essentially new remains to be realized, is to lose sight of the present incomprehensibility of the consummate glory of the new heavens and new earth that God, in Christ and through the Spirit, has prepared for his people, glory that neither eye has seen nor ear heard (1 Cor. 2:9). The weekly Sabbath is the type of that still future perfection and will continue to picture it until it becomes reality.

2) The Old Covenant redemptive Sabbath was not, strictly speaking, the Sabbath institution expressed in the fourth commandment, but the particular ｅxpression that creation ordinance took in redemptive history from the fall until Christ. Since the redemptive considerations it typified have been fulfilled in Christ, it is no longer in force. That fulfillment, however, has left an indelible imprint on the creation Sabbath. The fulfillment of the redemptive Sabbath was absolutely indispensable to realizing the ultimate outcome in view, typically, in the creation Sabbath. Without the redemptive rest brought by Christ, Spiritual rest would be an unobtainable goal for sinners. Confirmed redemption rest, achieved by Christ for believers, is their guarantee of the full realization of the eschatological rest in view already in the creation Sabbath.28 These considerations, to my mind, provide the most satisfying rationale for the change of the weekly Sabbath from the seventh day to the first. The guaranteed realization of the eschatological Sabbath, by the fulfillment of the redemptive (old covenant typical) Sabbath, marks a significant turn in history. In Christ the ultimate goal of the created process, typified by the creation Sabbath, is assured; the probationary element is no longer present. Specifically, Christ’s resurrection is the signal event of such certainty achieved, so that the day of the week on which it occurred is now appropriately the day of rest. The day that points to that consummate state is now enjoyed at the beginning of the week rather than at the end, thereby indicating that the goal of creation is now certain and no longer a matter of probation.

To give a concluding focus to much of the preceding discussion, Scripture teaches that the weekly Sabbath was a creation ordinance and that it was given as the type par excellence of the eschatological state toward which creation is moving. To be sure, the realization of that Spiritual order cannot now be realized, given the fall, apart from redemption. But to fail to see the significance of the creation Sabbath before the fall and apart from redemption, is to render the fourth commandment largely meaningless. Calvin’s view is a clear illustration of that failure.

The typical element is a permanent aspect of the fourth commandment. The Lord’s Day, as the weekly Sabbath, remains a type until the present created order (the psychical) gives way to one that is consummately higher and better (the Pneumatic). To say that believers are still bound to keep this type is not to compromise the freedom brought by Christ. Rather, observing the Lord’s Day is an ｅxpression of that freedom. The weekly rest day, faithfully kept by the church, is a concrete witness to a watching world that Christians are not enmeshed in the turmoil of an impersonal historical process but look with confidence to sharing in the consummation of God’s purposes for the creation, a witness that there does indeed remain an eschatological Sabbath-rest for the people of God (Heb. 4:9).29 For a treatment of the Sabbath theology of Hebrews, see my “A Sabbath Rest Still Awaits the People of God,” in Pressing Toward the Mark. Essays Commemorating Fifty Years of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (ed. C. Dennison and R. Gamble; Philadelphia: the Committee for the Historian of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 1986), pp. 33–51 (including a critique of Calvin’s interpretation of 4:10, p. 45).

11. Finally, a brief evaluation of the possible notion that the Christian Sabbath is sacramental in the sense that, along with baptism and the Lord’s Supper, it is virtually a third sacrament.30 Although I am unaware of anyone who actually argues this view, I take it up here as a potential view, toward which some may be disposed, and in order to highlight and clarify some of the conclusions already reached in this chapter.

The Sabbath is not a sacrament of the new covenant in the full sense for the following reasons.

1) If the Sabbath is a sacrament, then it should be observed only by believers. Rules similar to those Paul gives respecting the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:17ff.) ought to regulate Sabbath keeping. In other words, unbelievers should be warned against observing the Sabbath to avoid bringing condemnation on themselves. The complete anomaly of that scenario ought to be apparent. To view the Sabbath as a sacrament implies not only that a part of humanity is exempt from the obligation to keep one of the commandments of God’s immutable and universally binding law, but also that non-Christians are positively to be encouraged in breaking that law. This difficulty, it appears to me, is insurmountable; it cannot be gotten around by any amount of biblically-based reasoning.

2) If the Sabbath is a sacrament of the new covenant, then its meaning lies solely within the orbit of redemption, as do baptism and the Lord’s Supper. But to draw that conclusion entails denying, contrary to Scripture, that the Sabbath is a creation ordinance.

3) The teaching of 1 Corinthians 15:45–49 makes clear certain implications of holding that the Sabbath is a sacrament of the new covenant. For one, to take that view would mean that, to those who observe it, the Sabbath seals what it signifies.

The weekly Sabbath typifies/signifies the perfection of the Pneumatic state. Even when that is granted, however, the distinctiveness of the Sabbath’s typical function can be overlooked or misunderstood. That can happen all the more easily because eschatological perfection is inseparable from any redemptive manifestation of the Spirit. So, when we consider, for instance, that believers, already, in this life, have received the Spirit as the actual deposit on their eschatological inheritance (2 Cor. 1:22 Eph. 1:14), we may be inclined to conclude, in the light of that present possession, that the Sabbath is its sacramental sign and seal.

The distinctiveness of the Sabbath as a type, however, can not be found in any such semi-eschatological considerations. The weekly Sabbath is a type of the Pneumatic state in its absolute perfection, a state of perfection that is fully eschatological, where not even a single noneschatological vestige remains. In terms of the fundamental distinction of 1 Corinthians 15:44, a distinction with its roots, as we have seen, in the original, prefall creation order, the Sabbath points to the situation where the psychical creation will have been entirely transformed into the Pneumatic creation.

That state of affairs, signified by the Sabbath, does not yet exist. It will not arrive, as this passage teaches, until the resurrection of the body at Christ’s return, until, at that time, the entire creation, along with believers, is delivered from its present groaning futility and bondage to decay (Rom. 8:19–23), until the day of the Lord arrives in all its cataclysmically transforming upheavals (2 Pet. 3:3–13). The catastrophic is necessary to bring in the purely Pneumatic. No matter how much is effected by the transforming power of the Spirit in this life, believers will still not be equipped to enjoy the blessings of the eternal Sabbath until they themselves have experienced personally the nothing less than apocalyptic transformation (bodily resurrection) that ushers in that Sabbath. The fulness of blessing the weekly Sabbath signifies cannot be sealed to those still with a psychical nature. So, both in view of the overall flow of redemptive history (the “already-not yet” structure of eschatological fulfillment in Christ) as well as the present (psychical) condition of believers within that flow, it should be clear how thoroughly inappropriate it is to view the Sabbath as a sacrament of the new covenant.

To find a sacramental element in the Sabbath misses its significance in the economy of revelation. So far as the church is concerned, it is there each week as a constant reminder that no matter what heights of redemptive blessing are experienced in this life, the new heavens and earth to come will arrive with a splendor and glory beyond the imagination of the most sanctified believer. The Sabbath is there to remind us that the rich and full blessings we now enjoy in Christ will, by comparison, appear insignificant to those we will possess “when he appears, [and] we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2). About that comparison Calvin would surely agree.

*필자의 견해에서 개핀이나 개혁파 신학의 약점

개혁파 신학은 에덴동상에서 타락 이전에 선악과만 금지한 것이 아니라 엿새 동안 육체 노동을 하라고 명하셨다고 이해한다. 그런데 창 2:3에서 하나님이 그 일곱째 날을 복되게 하사 거룩하게 하셨으니 이는 하나님이 그 창조하시며 만드시던 모든 일을 마치시고 그 날에 안식하셨음이니라고 하였으나, 6일간 육체 노동하고 7일은 하나님처럼 쉬라고 하신 것은 아니었다. 

그런 명령은 오직 타락 이후 시내산 율법을 통해서 성문화되었고, 타락 이후에 불문율로 지켜졌을 것이다:

출 20:8 안식일을 기억하여 거룩하게 지키라  9 엿새 동안은 힘써 네 모든 일을 행할 것이나  10 일곱째 날은 네 하나님 여호와의 안식일인즉 너나 네 아들이나 네 딸이나 네 남종이나 네 여종이나 네 가축이나 네 문안에 머무는 객이라도 아무 일도 하지 말라 11 이는 엿새 동안에 나 여호와가 하늘과 땅과 바다와 그 가운데 모든 것을 만들고 일곱째 날에 쉬었음이라 그러므로 나 여호와가 안식일을 복되게 하여 그 날을 거룩하게 하였느니라  

타락 이전 에덴동산에서 엿새 동안 육체 노동을 하였다는 사고는 성경적으로 지지 받을 수 없다:

창 2:15 여호와 하나님이 그 사람을 이끌어 에덴 동산에 두어 그것을 경작하며 지키게 하시고  

16 여호와 하나님이 그 사람에게 명하여 이르시되 동산 각종 나무의 열매는 네가 임의로 먹되 

17 선악을 알게 하는 나무의 열매는 먹지 말라 네가 먹는 날에는 반드시 죽으리라 하시니

15절은 에덴동산에 두어, 그것을 지키고 섬기게 하였다고 한다. 하나님의 계명을 (16-17절) 지키고, 하나님을 섬기라 (경배하라) - 이것이 아담에게 주어졌던 임무였다. 엿새 동안의 육체 노동은 타락 이후에 제정되었다고 추정된다. 왜냐하면 타락으로 인하여 땅이 저주를 받아 먹을 산물을 내지 않고 척박해 졌기 때문이다: 창 3:18 땅이 네게 가시덤불과 엉겅퀴를 낼 것이라 네가 먹을 것은 밭의 채소인즉 19 네가 흙으로 돌아갈 때까지 얼굴에 땀을 흘려야 먹을 것을 먹으리니 라고 하였기 때문이다. 그리고 하나님은 창 3:23에서 에덴 동산에서 그를 내보내어 그의 근원이 된 땅을 갈게 하시니라 하였다. 즉 땅의 경작은 오직 에덴에서 추방된 이후에야 시작되었다. 

이렇게 본다면, 개핀이나 개혁파 신학이 타락 이전의 엿새 동안의 육체 노동을 가정하고 긍정적으로 이해하는 것은 타락 이후에야 제4계명이 제정되었다는 사실과 함께 (타락 이전에는 모든 날이 안식이었고, 영적 충만이었다고 추정된다), 그 4계명의 이해에 지대한 영향을 끼칠 것이다. 

따라서 칼빈이 4계명을 구속의 맥락 안에서만 이해한 것이 결정적 결점이라고 비난하는 개핀의 비난은 잘못된 것이다. 4계명은 타락한 이후에야 주어졌기에 구속의 맥락에서만 이해될 수 있다는 것이 당연하다. 타락 이후 주어진 4계명은 영원한 안식을 예표하는 것이며, 에덴동산에서의 온전한 안식을 상기시키는 것이기도 하였다. 따라서 칼빈의 지적대로, 신약시대 성도들은 매일 공적 예배를 드리고 하나님의 위대한 일들을 묵상하는 시간을 가짐이 이상적이다. 그러나 현실적 삶이 팍팍해서 그렇게 하지 못한다 해도 매일의 새벽 기도회를 통해 일정 필요를 채워야 하고, 가능하면 주중에 열심으로 많이 모여 찬양과 기도로 새 힘을 얻고 주님 안에서 하늘의 능력을 덧입고 영적 안식을 향유함이 요청된다. 

개핀이나 개혁파 신학은 타락이전에 아담은 육체 노동과 선악과 금지 명령 등을 책무로 받아 완수해야 했다. 그래서 엿새 동안 육체 노동을 해야 했다고 가정하고 그런 육체 노동의 시련과 선악과 금지 시험의 기간을 성공적으로 통과하면 생명에 이르고 완전한 안식에 들어갈 것이었다고 가정한다. 그렇게 이해하는 결정적 근거는 고전 15장 44절 부분 말씀이다. 아담의 물리적 신체는 종말 때의 영적 몸의 전단계로서 반드시 시련과 시험을 통해 종말 단계로 나아갈 것을 요청했다는 것이다. 

그러나 우리는 에덴동산에서 타락이전에 아담의 물리적 신체를 반드시 부정적으로 볼 이유가 없다고 본다. 영광의 광채가 있었고 구름 옷과 같은 옷을 입었다고 추정하기도 하는데, 타락 이전의 물리적 신체는 타락으로 상실되었고 우리가 지금 입고 있는 육체는 죽을 몸, 연약한 몸, 썩을 몸, 천한 몸일 뿐이다. 부활하신 주님은 제자들에게 영은 뼈와 살이 없으되 자기는 있다고 만져 보도록 명하셨다.

내 손과 발을 보고 나인 줄 알라 또 나를 만져보라 영은 살과 뼈가 없으되 너희 보는 바와 같이 나는 있느니라(눅 24:39)

타락 이전의 아담의 신체가 타락 이후와 동일하리라는 전제는 그릇된 듯 보인다. 우리는 에덴동상에서 선악과 금지를 잘 지켰다면 생명수 과일을 먹고 영생했으리라는 가정도 재고해야 한다고 본다. 왜냐하면 타락 이후에 너는 흙이니 흙으로 돌아가라고 명하실 때 (창 3:19), 죽음이 도입된 것이지, 타락 이전에 죽음이 있었다거나 부패가 있었다고 하기 어렵기 때문이다. 타락은 아주 엄청난 변화를 모든 것에 야기했음이 분명하다.