De Moor VIII:30: The Sabbath Day

After the accomplishment of His Works God rested on the Seventh Day, Genesis 2:2; Exodus 20:11; 31:17, which is to be understood θεοπρεπῶς, in a manner suitable for God:  not as if God were wearied by His labor, Isaiah 40:28:  nor even as if in this manner God would not attain a new Rest; since in creating He did not pass from Rest to Labor, see above, § 11, and after the first Creation God goes on to work continuously by Providence, even indeed in the Creation of souls, John 5:17.  But this Rest includes two things:  1.  the Perfection of the structure created, in such away that God produced no more new species or additional bodies; and, 2.  the Acquiescence of God in it, Exodus 31:17, in comparison with Psalm 104:31.  What things thereafter sprung forth from the conjunction of diverse species among plants and animals, they are not so much to be called new species, as alterations and minglings of prior species.

But, when Moses narrates in Genesis 2:2,וַיְכַ֤ל אֱלֹהִים֙ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִ֔י מְלַאכְתּ֖וֹ אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשָׂ֑ה וַיִּשְׁבֹּת֙ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִ֔י, etc., and on the seventh day God ended His work which He had made; and He rested on he seventh day, etc.:  in order to avoid the inconvenience, as if, with the Sixth Day ending, the work of Creation were not yet perfect, but it was being signified that only on the Seven Day did it meet with its completion; we ought, α.  Neither against the reading of the authentic text to change the Seventh Day into the Sixth with the Samaritan and Septuagint, as the latter has it:  καὶ συνετέλεσεν ὁ θεὸς ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ἕκτῃ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ ἃ ἐποίησεν·  καὶ κατέπαυσεν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ἑβδόμῃ, etc., and on the sixth day God completed His works which He made:  and He rested on the seventh day, etc.; which reading is to be followed with ALPHONSUS DES VIGNOLES, Chronologia Sacra, tome 2, book VI, chapter II, page 621, as WHISTON[1] contends, but is refuted by CARPZOV,[2] Criticis Sacris Veteris Testamenti, part III, chapter I, pages 809-811.  β.  Nor to imagine in Moses the consummation of the new Work of Redemption, expressed by the language of Making, and the Rest following after this, as our AUTHOR declares.  Which MARESIUS, Systemate Theologico, locus V, § 24, note d, calls the invention of the fanatic Walker, refuted by himself, Disputatione de Sabbato.  Yet JACOB ALTING assumed this hypothesis in his tractatu de Sabbato; compare MARCKIUS’ Historiam Paradisi, book III, chapter VII, § 5, page 637, § 10, pages  648-651.  But, 1.  in this manner the whole thread of the Mosaic narration is inverted.  For thus, between the work of Creation and the following Quiet of the Day, we ought to interpose the Satanic Temptation of Man, his subsequent Fall, the denunciation of the divine Sentence both upon the Serpent and upon Man, together with the promise of the Gospel, which was contained in the sentence denounced upon Satan, all which Moses narrates only in the third Chapter.  Neither ought there to be an Exception taken, that in chapter 3 Moses only more fully sets forth what things he had already briefly recorded before, when in Genesis 2:4 and following he treats of the Creation of Men, the planting of Paradise, etc.  For, no or minimal mention was previously made of the Fall of man, which was not able to be the case.  And indeed, 2.  apart from the fact that it is nowhere related, that Man fell from his Integrity on the same Sixth Day on which he had been created; Moses expressly relates, that, at the end of the Sixth and the beginning of the Seventh Day, when God had brought to perfection the work of Creation, all things were very good; wherefore on the Seventh Day God rested and at the same time hallowed this Day; which is the nexus of the Mosaic narration, Genesis 1:31; 2:1-3.  In Genesis 2:25 he also mentions the Nakedness of Man without shame, as a matter not momentary, but of some longer duration; since afterwards, soon after the transgression, they were seeking fig-leaves, which were for them in the place of coverings.  If on the very day of his Creation man had already sinned, not only would Paradise have been planted in vain, but man in the state of integrity would have hardly had any experience of the divine Wisdom and Goodness, and the primeval happiness would have been to man after the likeness of a dream, slippery and passing quickly.  3.  If the Fall of man does not pertain to the Sixth Day, it shall not be able to be referred with any greater likelihood to the beginning of the Seventh Day:  for human sin is not able to be reconciled with the subsequent denunciation of severe divine Judgment, which at least partly was then given to execution; with the divine Rest having regard to the whole Day, and the subsequent Blessing and Sanctification of that Day.  4.  Finally, in what manner is the work of Redemption able to be said at that time to have been consummated or Perfected, to such an extent that God rested from it, when we only find the first beginnings of it here in the announcement of the Protevangelium?  Since with respect to the procuring of Redemption this work of Grace is not able to be said to be perfect, before the promised Seed of the Woman bruised the head of the Serpent:  and we await the Perfection of the same work with respect to its full execution on the last day.

It is better to render ‎וַיְכַל in the pluperfect, and God had ended/ completed on the Seventh Day His work which He had made, and He rested, or so He was resting on the Seventh Day.  Or the Perfection of the work of Creation ‎בַּיּ֣וֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִ֔י, on the seventh day, is to be explained of the coming of this Seventh Day, while the Sixth assumes the end, just before the evening of the coming Seventh Day, so that thus God rested while the Seventh Day was passing.  Thus one may translate it, He perfected upon the Seventh Day.  Upon which matter PAULUS FAGIUS[3] wrote:  The ancient Hebrews, whom Rabbi Salomon also follows, say, that by this form of speech is indicated, that God at the very moment of the beginning of the Sabbath finished His work, for to God alone are known the moments and points of time, etc.  Others contend that the servile letter ב/beth on ‎בַּיּוֹם has the force of the preposition קודם, that is, before, so that the sense might be, and He completed before the seventh day, etc.  LE CLERC not incorrectly suggests, during the Seventh Day, comparing Exodus 12:15, where there is a commandment on the first Day of Unleavened Bread, that is, before the first Day, before that Day begins, to cease from the use of leaven or to remove leaven from their houses:  compare MEIER, de Temporibus et Diebus festis Hebræorum, part II, chapter IX, § 22, page 182.

With which Rest is then joined the Blessedness of the Seventh Day above the others, through its special Sanctification to the Worship of God.  For God to Bless is to Confer Benefit.  But the Blessing of a certain Time is now an expression not so familiar, but the sense of which we learn in this passage from the Sanctification conjoined.  The Blessing of the Seventh Day, in opposition to the Cursing of a Day, concerning which Job 3:1-9, will indicate a special prerogative bestowed upon this Day above the others, through the added Sanctification of the same, or its segregation unto the Worship of God, a separation required of man by God, and to be observed by man in act.  Which signification of the verb to Sanctify is common, when God commands various persons, places, and times to be dedicated to His Worship; but thus it is also emphatically narrated concerning God Himself, 1 Kings 9:3,הִקְדַּ֗שְׁתִּי אֶת־הַבַּ֤יִת הַזֶּה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר בָּנִ֔תָה לָשֽׂוּם־שְׁמִ֥י שָׁ֖ם עַד־עוֹלָ֑ם, I have hallowed this house, which thou hast built, to put my name there for ever.  Now, it is overly nice, that in Genesis 2:3 and Exodus 20:11 is found, not הִקְדִישׁ in the Hiphil, but קִדֵּשׁ in the Piel,[4] as if therefore this verb in the passages cited, as also in Exodus 20:8,[5] does not denote, by a law or decree made to appoint that the day is to be considered holy and to be spent holily, but rather to spend the day holily, as VRIEMOET maintains:  since the illustrious Man himself grants, that elsewhere the Piel קִדֵּשׁ also occurs with the former signification, and even supplies examples of this very thing; and since the distinction of the signification of the verb קִדֵּשׁ in Exodus 20:8, 11 is sufficiently evident from the persons to whom Sanctification is ascribed:  see VRIEMOET’S Adnotationes ad Dicta classica Veteris Testamenti, tome 3, chapter XIV, pages 159-162, compared with page 154.  That the Blessing is referred to the separation of this Day unto a sacred use, is not incorrectly gathered from the similar use of the Greek term εὐλογεῖν, to bless, 1 Corinthians 10:16,[6] where the marginal Notes of the DUTCH VERSION are able to be seen, which also explain the Blessing of the sacramental Cup as of its sanctification, or separation from a common use to a sacred use, by prayer, thanksgiving, and explanation of the thing signified, justifying their explanation by an appeal to Genesis 2:3 also.

Where, α.  a Prolepis is without justification feigned in the one verb, more than in the other, etc.  Thus GOMARUS already some time age, whose Investigationem sententiæ et Originis Sabbati see before all others, and his Investigationem Originis Sabbati Defensionem; he, fetching the first law and observation of the Sabbath from the times of Moses, thought the mention of it in Genesis 2:3 was made by Prolepsis:  but whom RIVET[7] opposed with many arguments in his Disseratatione against Gomarus de Origine Sabbati.  Thereafter, various men, so that they might all the more easily repudiate the Morality of the Fourth Commandment, assumed this opinion concerning the proleptic mention in Genesis 2 of the Sanctification of the Seventh Day:  which response BURMAN, in his Synopsi Theologiæ, book II, chapter V, § 11, thinks to have been the simplest to the objection produced from this passage for the most ancient institution of Sabbath Worship:  It appears simpler, that the words of Moses in Genesis 2:2, 3, by prolepsis are explained of the weekly Sabbath, not at that time, but afterwards, with the peculiar blessing and sanctification instituted by God, Exodus 16.  Examples of which prolepsis are many in Moses, etc.  While, on the other hand, MOMMA[8] rejects this Prolepsis as harsh, de Statu Ecclesiæ, tome I, page 313.  Prolepsis certainly appears, says he, harshly enough to be put in this place.  Against this Prolepsis extensive argumentation is presented by RIVET, in the place cited; WALÆUS, Dissertatione de Sabbato; BROWN,[9] libro contra Anti-Sabbatarios; AMES,[10] Medulla Theologiæ, book II, chapter XV, § 6-9, pages 291-293.  We note briefly with our AUTHOR, 1.  That Prolepses of this sort ought not to be feigned in history without sufficient foundation or indication, of which sort there is no appearance here.  2.  That, on the other hand, such a Prolepsis is able decisively to be refuted from the text of Genesis 2 and the Decalogue.  For in the Blessing and Sanctification of the Seventh day mentioned in Genesis 2, it is treated with sufficient delimitation of the Seventh day itself, on which God rested, that it is not suitable enough to explain one word here without Prolepsis, and two words according to Prolepsis.  Especially, when that Rest is the foundation and reason for the Blessing and Sanctification of Day, which is here alleged to be singular; since it has obtained from the beginning, its consequence even then, and not at length after many centuries, ought to be acknowledged out of Moses.  At least, if Moses had meant this, it seems that he ought now to add to those words, He blessed and sanctified, some indication of the other time, distantly removed.  Indeed, contrariwise, the Lawgiver, commanding in the Fourth Precept the Remembrance of this more ancient commandment, narrated there at the same time, as thing already past, the Blessing and Sanctification of the Sabbath Day plainly conjoined with its original Rest.  For it is altogether clear that in that place the present Legislation itself is not regarded; and it is evident, that from no other mention of the Blessing and Sanctification of the Seventh beyond that in the beginning of Genesis, Genesis 2:3, to that very mention we are led back in the Decalogue.  What things our AUTHOR thus set forth briefly in his Compendio, he drew out at length in his Historia Paradisi, book II, chapter VIII, § 7, page 400.  Add MEIER, de Temporibus et Diebus festis Hebræorum, part II, chapter IX, § 12-14, pages 178, 179, § 20, 21, pages 181, 182.

β.  Our AUTHOR adds in his Compendio, Neither ought the Blessing and Sanctification to be diminished, contrary to the force and representation of the terms in Exodus 20:11.  This has regard to COCCEIUS, who, although on Genesis 2:3, with the words cited by our AUTHOR in his Historia Paradisi, book II, chapter VIII, § 7, page 401, he rejects Prolepsis, writing:  Some think that this verse has been posited by way of anticipation….  Therefore, the intention of Moses would have been, that God thereafter, because of that occasion of resting, in the wilderness sanctified the seventh day of each week.  And so the words of the Law in Exodus 20:1 would not commemorate the past sanctification of the Sabbath….  But it is not at all likely, that Moses used blessing and sanctification in no manner of the Sabbath γενέσεως, of Genesis, but only of the Jewish Sabbath….  Now, absolute violence is done to the text, if one day that God blessed and sanctified is understood, and another on which He ceased from His work:  Nevertheless, the Blessing and Sanctification in words that follow in our AUTHOR, pages 402-404, he explains in such a way that no institution of the Sabbath is here discovered.  The Blessing of this Day he explains of a singular honor attributed to this Day, which is to be sought, not in the Sanctification of it, but in the cheering of God on this Day as a pleasant Day.  But the Sanctification he explains of the operation of God in man, whereby He sanctifies Himself in man, when to man He manifests Himself and His virtues, so that he might Love Him, give thanks to Him, worship and glorify Him.  Contrariwise, our AUTHOR observes, pages 404 and following, that the authors of the Prolepses should consider carefully, both that to each Seventh Day, together with that first Day of divine Rest begun, something special is here attributed; and that so emphatic a Blessing and Sanctification of that Day leads us with perfect simplicity to the commandment to observe it religiously.  Upon which matter he wants it to be considered, how could that Blessing and Sanctification, not human but Divine, not of man or any other thing but of a certain day, and that not preceding or constituting the Rest of the Day, but following it, denote anything other than the lifting and separation of it from the common use of man to the special and most holy worship of God Himself in His rest?  Upon which matter he especially commends the apt words of CHRYSOSTOM out of Sermon X on Genesis 2:  He believes that we have here an infallible interpreter, namely, God in His Law, Exodus 20:11, where to the Sabbath Day or each Seventh after six others of daily labor He manifestly refers this Blessing and Sanctification, and distinguished that as the consequence of the Rest of the Day from this, so that from this foundation He might urge the religious remembrance of the human Sanctification and Rest of that Day among the Israelites.  Where the force of this reason our AUTHOR from his interpretation thinks to be altogether manifest:  namely, observe well this ancient day, because God, of old resting on it, first solemnly consecrated the same already at that time for His Worship.  But, on the other hand, no force of this reason appears to be adequate for him, if the Seventh Day in our text embraces all days after the first six as altogether equal with itself, neither is its Blessing and Sanctification anything other than the perfection of the divine work in the creation of man with its celebration, and the special sanctification of God perpetual in man.

Like unto which manner our AUTHOR maintained a rule against the third παρερμηνείαν/misinterpretation of these words, which he also noted in his Compendio, saying:

γ.  Finally, the Seventh Day is not able to be equal with all the following, since God designated the Seventh alone, in opposition to the other Six Days of Labor.  Nevertheless, COCCEIUS thus teaches in more than one passaged cited by our AUTHOR in the place alleged, page 403, saying, that this Sanctification is not only of the seventh day, but also of the remaining time.  The seventh day is not sanctified in such a way that God willed the eighth, etc., to be profane, but that on the seventh day God made a beginning of the sanctification of all time.  As Christ, rising again on the first day, sanctified the first day, but in it also all the days of the world unto the end, etc.  So also WILHELM MOMMA, de Statu Ecclesiæ, tome I, book II, chapter VII, § 79:  That Sanctification does not pertain to the seven day alone, etc.  As, that God blessed the seventh day, pertains also to the eighth, ninth, and subsequent days; so, that God blessed the seventh day, also pertains to all subsequent days, etc.  Thus they vigorously argue for their hypothesis.  While, 1.  on the other hand, Moses expressly distinguishes the Seventh Day from the remaining Six and sets them in opposition.  2.  The words of Moses Paul expressly expounds of the Seventh Day in particular, Hebrews 4:4.  3.  God, in the Decalogue having regard to the text of Genesis 2, orders the Sanctification, not of all days equally, but of the Seventh Day separately, which is set in opposition to the other Six continually returning in a circuit.  If only the sanctification of all time equally, through the dedication of oneself to the worship, love, and glorification of God, be treated in the fourth Commandment, nothing would now be commanded distinct from that which was prescribed in the first Commandment.  But if the words of Genesis 2:3 have not regard to the Seventh Day of the week in particular, neither should the words of the Fourth Commandment have regard to it.  On the other hand, since in the Fourth Commandment is prescribed the solemn Worship of the Seventh Day in opposition to the remaining Six Days; also the Blessing and Sanctification of Genesis 2 is to be understood particularly of this Dy:  compare MEIER, de Temporibus et Diebus festis Hebræorum, part II, chapter IX, § 15-17, pages 179, 180.

MOMMA objects in the passage just now cited:  The First man was obliged to serve God with his whole heart and whole soul, not only on one Day, but on all the Days of his life.  I Respond:  It does not follow from this, that the Seven Day was not able to be Sanctified unto solemn worship and the exercises of religion.  Israel also was obliged to worship God at all times with the whole heart and soul; nevertheless, in the Old Testament the Seventh Day was instituted to be sanctified in a special manner unto it.  Coordinate things are not in opposition.  Therefore, let the internal and external, ordinary and solemn, acts of Religion be distinguished, and all difficulty vanishes.

[1] William Whiston (1667-1752) was an English mathematician, historian, and theologian, most remembered for his translations of Josephus and his Arianism.

[2] Johann Gottlob Carpzov (1679-1767) was a Lutheran divine and Old Testament scholar.  He served at Leipzig as Professor of Theology (1713-1719), and Professor of Hebrew (1719-1730).

[3] Paul Fagius (1504-1550) was among the early Reformers and a Hebrew scholar of some ability.  He studied in Germany and labored there, first as a schoolmaster, then as a minister.  Feeling pressure from the rising tide of the Counter-Reformation, he left Germany for England in 1549, and died at Cambridge in 1550.  His bones were later burned during the reign of Queen Mary.

[4] Genesis 2:3:  “And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified (‎וַיְקַדֵּשׁ) it:  because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.”  Exodus 20:11:  “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:  wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it (‎וַיְקַדְּשֵׁהוּ).”

[5] Exodus 20:8:  “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy (‎לְקַדְּשׁוֹ).”

[6] 1 Corinthians 10:16:  “The cup of blessing which we bless (τὸ ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας ὃ εὐλογοῦμεν), is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?  The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?”

[7] Andrew Rivet (1573-1651) was a Huguenot minister and divine.  He ministered at Sedan and at Thouara; he went on to teach at the University of Leiden (1619-1632) and at the college at Breda.  His influence among Protestants extended well beyond France.

[8] Wilhelm Momma (1642-1677) was a Reformed theologian of the Cocceian school, and pastor.  He served as Professor of Theology at Hamm (1674-1676).

[9] John Brown of Wamphray (1610-1679) was a Scottish Covenanter theologian and minister.  After the Restoration of the Monarchy, in 1662 Brown was banished.  He supported the Covenanter cause from the Netherlands, and, shortly before his death, took part in the ordination of Richard Cameron.

[10] William Ames (1576-1633) was taught by William Perkins and Paul Bayne.  Because of his strict Puritan views, he departed from England for Holland.  At the Synod of Dort, Ames served as adviser to Johannes Bogerman, the synod’s president.  Later, he was appointed as a professor at Franeker (1622).  His Medulla Theologiæ was heavily influential throughout the Reformed world