Sabbath Keeping
Introduction
The
Ten Commandments or “Ten Words” lie at the heart of biblical ethics. Matthew
Beal states that they “serve to create an exclusivist religious monotheism
within a devout community characterized by social justice.”[1]
Jesus summarized the law in Matthew 22:37-40, ‘“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with
all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great
commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as
yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”[2] Beal
argues, “The moral vision of the Ten Commandments plays a central role in both
Old Testament and New Testament ethics.”[3]
Perhaps
the most controversial of the Ten Commandments is the fourth, “Remember the
Sabbath day, to keep it holy” (Ex. 20:8). Controversies and clashes, debates
and dialogues concerning the day of rest have raged throughout history.
Legislative activity concerning the Sabbath is not relegated to Moses or even
to biblical times. Laws governing
Sabbath activity appear in the sixth century and became common practice by the
late Middle Ages.[4] English
laws governing the same appear as early as the thirteenth century, were
expanded throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth century, and spread to
America in the eighteenth century.[5]
The
ethical and theological controversy and debate concerning the Sabbath is
understandable. First, this is not an abstract issue one merely intellectually
assents to or rejects. Instead, it effects behavior and practice on a weekly
basis. Second, it is not a tangential matter of adiaphora. The Sabbath connects and relates deeply to
many important theological areas. John Donato explains, “The Sabbath question
cannot be relegated to the shelf, for it serves as a microcosm of much larger
questions fundamental to the nature of the worshipping community of Christ
itself. Hermeneutical presuppositions and the covenantal (dis)continuity of
God’s redemptive plan, among a great many other elements, are at once exposed when
discussing this question.”[6]
Though
variations and nuances exist, the main Scriptural question can be boiled down
to whether the Sabbath is a creation ordinance and part of the moral law of God
to be observed and kept by Christians for their benefit or whether the Sabbath
is a ceremonial law of the Jews fulfilled by the advent of Christ and no longer
to be observed by Christians. This essay will argue for the former, providing a
Scriptural argument for the continuity of Sabbath observance and evaluate the
question from a Deontological, Consequentialist, and Virtue Theory approach to
ethics.
Part. 1 Scriptural Response
Scriptural Response
The Scripture presents
the Sabbath as both a day of rest and a day of worship. It calls for one not
only to take rest but also to give rest to others (Ex. 20:10). This concept can
be expanded to include acts of mercy, generosity, tithing, compassion, healing,
release from bondage, and feasting (Deut. 14-17).[7]
The Lord’s Day is also a day of worship devoted to God and to our spiritual
growth and edification (Lev. 23:3). It is a day to commemorate both creation
and redemption, a day to contemplate and celebrate the mighty and merciful works
of the Lord. The day encompasses and gives opportunity both for the greatest
commandment, to love God, and for the second, to love our neighbor (Matt.
22:37-40).
The Sabbath was not
instituted by Moses at Mount Sinai. Like marriage, the day of rest is a
creation ordinance established by God before the fall. It was “founded in the
nature and development of the created world, not for Israel only, but for all
mankind, or rather for the whole creation.”[8] The second chapter of Genesis reads, “On the
seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh
day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and
sanctified it.” God was obviously not exhausted from his labor, but instead
rested as an example to us that we should imitate. [9] The fourth commandment
utilizes this example of God resting at the end of the creation week as the
reason for observing the day (Ex. 20:11).
Calvin writes, “For God cannot either more gently allure, or more
effectually incite us to obedience, than by inviting and exhorting us to the
imitation of himself.”[10] God not only rested on the seventh day, but
he also blessed and sanctified it. Calvin continues, “Wherefore, that
benediction is nothing else than a solemn consecration, by which God claims for
himself the meditations and employments of men on the seventh day.”[11]
Charles Simeon argues that because God instituted and consecrated the Sabbath
as a creation ordinance before the ceremonial law was given “God himself
considered its duties, not as ceremonial, limited, and transient, but as moral,
universal, and permanent.”[12]
That the Sabbath is
included in the Ten Commandments also points to its moral and abiding nature. Lange
explains, “The law of the Sabbath would not stand in the decalogue, if it did
not have a moral principle to establish as much as the commandments not to
kill, commit adultery, or steal.”[13] The
fourth commandment begins, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy” (Ex.
20:8). The use of the word remember “presupposes an acquaintance with the Sabbath,
as the expression “remember” is sufficient to show.”[14] Even before the giving of
the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai (Ex. 20) the Sabbath was already in effect
in Exodus 16. It can further be argued that there are other examples of Sabbath
observance in earlier times.[15]
The fourth commandment
expounds on the merciful nature of the commandment. The day applies not only to
oneself, but also to family, servants, workers, “strangers within your gates,”
and even animals (Ex.20:10)! Douglas Stuart writes, “Envisioned instead is an egalitarian work stoppage that
benefits everyone and leaves everyone free and ready for worship and spiritual
emphases.”[16] Rather
than being a commandment to burden and restrict people, Sarna Nahum argues, “Human
liberty is immeasurably enhanced, human equality is strengthened, and the cause
of social justice is promoted by legislating the inalienable right of every
human being, irrespective of social class, and of draft animals as well, to
twenty-four hours of complete rest every seven days.”[17]
In the New Testament Jesus teaches that the “Son
of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath” (Mk. 2:28). He gives multiple correctives
to Sabbath understanding and practice occurring during those times. He
corrected inappropriate traditions which crept in concerning the Sabbath. He
reminded them of the priorities and purpose of the day of rest, “The Sabbath
was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath” (Mk. 2:27). Much of the
controversy between Jesus and the Pharisees revolved around Jesus doing good and
healing on the Sabbath. As has been argued, giving rest, relief, release from
bondage, etc. was a core element of the Sabbath (Is. 58, Deut. 14-17). By
healing on the Sabbath, Jesus is neither breaking nor abrogating the Sabbath,
instead he is “filling up” or implementing the fuller meaning and purpose of
the Sabbath. Luke 13:14-17 is a good example of this.
But the ruler of the synagogue
answered with indignation, because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath; and he said
to the crowd, “There are six days on which men ought to work; therefore come
and be healed on them, and not on the Sabbath day.” The Lord then answered him
and said, “Hypocrite! Does not each one of you on the Sabbath loose his ox or
donkey from the stall, and lead it
away to water it? So ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom
Satan has bound—think of it—for eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the
Sabbath?” And when He said these things, all His adversaries were put to shame;
and all the multitude rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by
Him.
Jesus could have healed on the other six days of the week. But, as
Jesus argues, the Sabbath was the perfect and most appropriate day to heal, to
loose from bondage, to give rest from affliction. A similar occasion and rational is recorded
in John 7:21-24:
Jesus answered and said to them, “I
did one work, and you all marvel. 22 Moses therefore gave you
circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and you
circumcise a man on the Sabbath. 23 If a man receives
circumcision on the Sabbath, so that the law of Moses should not be broken, are
you angry with Me because I made a man completely well on the Sabbath? 24 Do
not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.
Here Jesus argues a fortiori, from the lesser to the
greater. If circumcision, which made a man partly well is appropriate for the
Sabbath, how much more is it appropriate on the Sabbath to make a man
completely well? Jesus’ actions reflect the fuller and complete understanding
and implementation of the Sabbath.
In Jesus’ teaching of the Olivet Discourse concerning the “great
tribulation” he says, “Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the
Sabbath. For then there will be great tribulation…” (Matt.
24:20-21). Here Jesus assumes the continuance of the Sabbath. Whether one
accepts a Preterist perspective that the tribulation occurred in A.D. 70 or a
Futurist perspective which sees the tribulation as a still future event, Jesus
expects the Sabbath day to still be in effect in the New Covenant era. The
tribulation event is after the crucifixion, after the resurrection, after the
ascension, after Pentecost.
We also see Jesus’ disciples observing the Sabbath in the New
Testament. Luke records that after Jesus’ crucifixion, his women followers
noted where Jesus was buried, “returned and
prepared spices and fragrant oils. And they rested on the Sabbath according to
the commandment” (Lk. 23:56). In Acts 16 Luke states that “on the Sabbath day
we went out of the city to the riverside, where prayer was customarily made;
and we sat down and spoke to the women who met there.” Luke records that Paul “reasoned
in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks” (Acts
18:4). John records the occasion of his receiving the revelation, “I was in the
Spirit on the Lord’s Day” (Rev. 1:10).
The Sabbath points back to
creation and to redemption. It also points forward to heaven, to our
eternal rest. This is seen in Hebrews 3-4. John Currid comments, “When Israel (and indeed the church!)
celebrates this day which has been set apart, they show that they are a people
who have been set apart. The Sabbath is … also a foretaste of what the believer
in Christ will experience in heaven. The writer to the Hebrews declares that
‘There remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God’ (Heb. 4:9).”[18]
Objections
One can divide objections
to Sabbath observance into two categories: practical objections and theological
objections. Practical objections stem from a desire not to rest, not to devote
a whole day to spiritual exercises, not to cease from work, and not to refrain
from buying and selling. Amos 8:4-5 reflects this situation in part, speaking
of those who couldn’t wait for the Sabbath to be over that they may sell grain
and trade wheat. Nehemiah had to post guards at the gates to stop people from
buying and selling on the Sabbath (Neh. 13:14-22)! Commenting on Isaiah 58,
Calvin explains, “Nothing can be more pleasing or acceptable to God, than the
observation of the Sabbath, and sincere worship. He carefully inculcates this,
that men do wrong, if, laying aside the commandments of God, they esteem highly
those things which are of no value.”[19] Anecdotally, after
presenting my view of the Sabbath with an acquaintance a few years back, her
first reply was, “Well, then when would I have time to mow my lawn?!”
Another practical
objection is that people fear or worry that if they set aside the Lord’s Day
they won’t have time to take care of their needs. This is a common concern
voiced throughout Scripture. However, God responds that he will supply that
forgone potential by giving an increase in other time periods. For example,
Exodus 16:29 reads, “See! For the LORD has given you the Sabbath; therefore He
gives you on the sixth day bread for two days.”[20]
One can say that God is promising a paid day off to those who dedicate the day
to him! Gary Smith writes, “By not setting the day apart as completely holy,
people were showing that they did not think God could supply all their physical
needs if they did not work on a fast or Sabbath day. Thus they were not
trusting God to meet their needs.”[21]
Theological objections are
raised primarily from passages in Paul’s epistles, particularly Romans 14 and
Colossians 2:16. Those who object see
Paul in Romans 14 making Sabbath keeping a matter of adiaphora; an indifferent
matter neither commanded nor forbidden in Scripture. Romans 14 reads,
Receive
one who is weak in the faith, but not
to disputes over doubtful things. For one believes he may eat all things, but
he who is weak eats only vegetables… One
person esteems one day above another;
another esteems every day alike. Let
each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not
observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he
who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks… Therefore
do not let your good be spoken of as evil; for the kingdom of God is not eating
and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
As we see, the
Sabbath is not specifically named here. Rather, Paul mentions eating, drinking,
and observing days. But to what is he referring to? What is the context? Some
see references to food and observing days and reflexively interpret this as
referring to Old Testament dietary laws and the Sabbath.[22]
Leon Morris writes, “This has often been
taken to mean that the weak brother observes the Jewish Sabbath. But Paul does
not say this, and it is equally possible that he is referring to feast days and
fast days, either those laid down in the Jewish law or those derived from other
sources.”[23]
Upon closer
inspection, we see that Paul is referring to eating meat verses vegetables.
Further, Paul links drinking to the same issue. He then closely connects the
two to the observance of a day. The eating of meat is not a “doubtful thing”
(Acts 10:13-15) and there is no biblical prohibition against wine. Additionally,
the Sabbath day doesn’t have any specific eating or drinking practices
associated with it. Barrett explains, “It is natural to think of the Weak as
Jewish Christians who retained the food laws and calendar of Judaism. In its
simple form this view will not stand. There is no Jewish law against eating
meat and drinking wine.”[24]
It seems a more
fitting scenario is that Paul is speaking of voluntary fasting days. Harrison
observes, “The close contextual association with eating suggests that Paul has
in mind a special day set apart for observance as a time for feasting or as a
time for fasting."[25]
This was a current practice both in the New Testament period and
the early church. We see a biblical example of this with the Pharisees fasting
twice a week, which was not commanded in Scripture (Luke 18:12). Likewise, a
similar early church practice is seen in the Didache, “But let not your fasts be with the hypocrites; for
they fast on the second and fifth days of the week. But do you either fast the
entire five days, or on the fourth day of the week, and on the day of the
Preparation.”[26] Paul speaking of voluntary fasting days fits both the matter of
adiaphora or “doubtful things” and the linking of eating and drinking with a
specific day.
The other
prominent textual objection to the Sabbath comes from Colossians 2:15-23,
Having
disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them,
triumphing over them in it. So let no one judge you in food or
in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow
of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. Let no one
cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false
humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not
seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, and not holding fast to the Head… Therefore,
if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you
subject yourselves to regulations— “Do not touch, do not taste,
do not handle,” which all concern things which perish with the using—according
to the commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an
appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.
Unlike Romans 14, this text does mention “sabbaths” which
admittedly makes it a more formidable objection. Like Romans 14, there are a
number of contextual anomalies and connected issues which don’t fit well with
interpreting this passage as referring to the biblical fourth commandment. Scholars
notice that the words and phrases Paul uses are keyed to the false philosophy
which include: “fullness,” “philosophy,” “tradition,” “rule and authority,”
“powers and principalities,” “elemental spirits of the world,” “wisdom,” and
“mystery.”[27]
In addition, we find discussion of angel worship, asceticism, visions,
circumcision, sabbaths, and new moons.
The occasion of
the epistle and the identification of the “empty and vain” philosophy is
notoriously difficult to pin down. Some point to Judaizers, others to a proto-Gnosticism,
others to a syncretic mix including Hellenistic ideas and Phrygian folk belief,
among others.[28]
Moo explains, “We have to recognize that the false teaching may be composed of
a mixture of elements, drawn from various religious, philosophical, and
cultural contexts, and that we may not be able to affix a simple label to it.”[29]
What Moo finds “troublesome” about the Judaizing view is “the silence of
Colossians on three key elements of Judaism (in virtually any form): the Old
Testament, circumcision, and the law. Colossians has no quotations from the Old
Testament.” [30]
He continues, “While allusions to the Old Testament are certainly present, we
would have expected a more overt appeal to the Old Testament if the rival
claims of Jews and Christians were being debated in Colossae.”[31]
The
descriptions of the “empty and vain” philosophy and the practices of its
adherents simply don’t fit well with a Judaizing sect insisting on biblical
Sabbath keeping. Like Romans 14, Paul brings up food and drink, which Walter
Taylor states is “certainly not kosher laws.” [32]
“Elemental spirits of the world” and the “worship of angels” don’t readily find
their home in Old Testament revelation. Even James Dunn, who is a proponent of
the Judaizing view admits, “How does this
fit with the strongly Jewish character …“Humility” as fasting is certainly
Jewish enough. But worship of angels is something one would not expect in any
of the forms of Judaism known to us for this period.”[33] On the other hand, Melick
explains, “If the situation reflects a pre-Gnostic and Gentile context, worship
directed to angels makes good sense. This, in fact, is the biggest obstacle to
seeing the false teaching as completely Jewish.”[34] Finally, would Paul describe
the law of God as the “commandments and doctrines of men,”
having “an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion,” and including “false humility” (Col. 2:22)?
It seems then
that it is unlikely that Paul is addressing biblical Sabbath keeping according
to the fourth commandment. Rather, it is more likely that Paul is addressing
some difficult to identify syncretistic philosophical/religious mix which
focused on “mysteries,” “worship of angels,” “elemental spirits of the world,”
“asceticism,” and “false humility” which included “food and drink” stipulations
as well as “new moons” and “sabbaths.” With such abounding difficulties in
ascertaining the identity of the false teaching as well as the disjunctive
characteristics which do not match biblical religion, Colossians 2:16 is insufficient
to overturn the biblical mandate of Sabbath keeping rooted in creation for the
benefit of all mankind as well as animals, kept as an example by God himself,
included in the moral law of the Ten Commandments, and observed by Jesus and
his disciples.
Part
2. Ethical Theories Evaluation
Three main ethical
theories will be described and then applied to the issue of the Sabbath in this
section: deontology, consequentialism, and virtue/personalist ethics. Each of
these approaches find “echoes in the Bible and defenders among Christian
ethicists.”[35] Gill notes that the deontological,
consequential, and virtue ethical approaches are “not entirely separable” and
maybe described as “emphases rather than as discrete theories.” [36]
He continues noting that, “however interrelated, an ability to distinguish
their differing characteristics is important for the analysis necessary in
Christian ethics.”[37]
Deontology:
Deontology comes from the
Greek word deon which refers to “ought,”
“duty,” or “obligation.”[38] One might summarize it as “duty for duty’s
sake.”[39] This theory of ethics appeals to a norm or
ultimate absolute, oftentimes divine command or natural law. Gill explains, “If
one maintains that murder is wrong and is asked to give a reason, a
deontological response would be: ‘Because it is against the law of nature’, or
‘Because it is against God’s will’, or ‘Because it breaks the Sixth
Commandment’, or even ‘Because it is simply wrong.’”[40]
Given that the standards being appealed to are ultimate and absolute, a
deontologist neither argues beyond them nor validates the position by
evaluating the consequences or effects.
It is argued that “in
some form, deontology is an essential feature of all Christian ethics.”[41]
Augustine and Martin Luther utilized deontological thought for most of their
biblical arguments.[42]
The Reformation teaching of sola
scriptura, with its appeal to Scripture as the highest authority, employs
aspects of deontological thinking. Today concepts of fundamental or God-given
“rights,” such as the “right to life,” are examples of deontological ethics
being used.[43]
A prominent proponent of
deontology is Immanuel Kant. He developed the “categorical imperative” which calls
people to “act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time
will that it should become a universal law without contradiction."[44]
Kant stressed the a priori character
of morality and its universality[45] and
saw the conscience as simply practical reason.[46] He also stressed viewing
humanity as ends and never as means.[47] McKnight summarizes, “What
is true for one must be true for all, and if we treat others as an end and
therefore value humanity inherently, we will act in such a way as to live
rationally and ethically.”[48]
Some see Kant’s categorical imperative as a variation of Jesus’ Golden Rule, “Therefore,
whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and
the Prophets” (Mt. 7:12). McKnight argues that this is not “entirely accurate,”
for Kant appeals not to Scripture, but to natural law and is dependent “solely
and squarely on reason, and reason alone.”[49] McKnight explains, “It
might be better to argue, especially if one thinks that Kant’s imperative moves
in the direction of the Golden Rule, that Kant’s categorical imperative had
already been (spiritually, intellectually, etc.) formed by a culture shaped
broadly by a Christian ethic.”[50]
Analysis
There are many strong
deontological arguments attached to keeping the Sabbath. There can scarcely be
a more a more simple and straightforward deontological argument than the
Sabbath’s inclusion as one of the Ten Commandments. As John Currid argues, “The
Decalogue is law that lays down foundational principles which need to be
applied to life. It is primary and permanent, absolute and everlasting truth.
It is valid for every age. That being the case, we must take great pains to
apply it.”[51] One
will note the deontological aspects in the above quote: the “foundational principles,”
“primary and permanent, absolute,” the duty elements which “need to be
applied,” and “must apply.” One will also note that no appeal is made here to
the consequences or benefits of obedience, but instead to the duty of obedience
to God’s commandment.
The Sabbath as a creation
ordinance kept by God can be seen as deontological. Although God “blessed” and
“sanctified” the day, a direct appeal to benefits or consequences is not given
here. Instead, it is “an example equivalent to a command that we also should
cease from labor of every kind.”[52] Calvin
commenting on this verse in Genesis 2 also highlights the duty aspect of the
passage when he argues that God’s example “incites us to obedience.”[53] The
duty and obligation to love is argued from Isaiah 58, “The third part of the
prophecy now adds to the duties of human love the duty of keeping the Sabbath…;
i.e., it adds the duties of the first table to those of the second.”[54] The
appeal to God’s commandment is the reason given in Exodus 16 for observance of
the Sabbath, “This is the thing which the Lord has commanded” (vs. 16) and “This is what the Lord has said: ‘Tomorrow is
a Sabbath rest, a holy Sabbath to the Lord”
(vs.
23). Likewise, the duty of obedience to the commandment is mentioned of the
women followers after Jesus’ crucifixion, “And
they rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment” (Lk. 23:56).
The Westminster
Confession of Faith argues both from the command of God and from natural law. Article
VII of Chapter 21 reads, “As it is the law
of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the
worship of God; so, in his Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual
commandment binding all men in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day
in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto Him.”[55] The deontological aspect of fundamental rights, such as
the “right to life” may also apply to a “right to rest” either through natural
law or through divine command relying on the creation ordinance and the
Decalogue.
One can make the argument
that the Sabbath fits the deontological ethic of Kant’s categorical imperative.
He wrote, “act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time
will that it should become a universal law without contradiction."[56]
The Sabbath as a creation ordinance and a perpetual and universal commandment
fits this paradigm. In particular, the inclusion in and application of the
fourth commandment to you, your sons and daughters, your servants, cattle, and
strangers (Ex. 20:10) aligns well with a
“universal law without contradiction.” Kant emphasized viewing humanity as ends
and not as means. Jesus’ teaching that “The Sabbath was made for man, and not
man for the Sabbath” (Mk. 2:27) highlights humanity as the end and rejects man
as a mean of utility for the Sabbath. To whatever extent Kant’s categorical
imperative approaches the “Golden Rule,” this line of reasoning can be seen as
well with respect to Sabbath rest. Deuteronomy 5:14-15 argues, “that your male
servant and your female servant may rest as well as you. And remember that you
were a slave in the land of Egypt.”
Consequentialism:
Consequentialism, as the
name implies, looks at the consequences, effects, benefits, utility, or
outcomes of an action to determine or argue for its ethical nature. Thus
morality is not an end in itself, but rather a means to some good or benefit. This good or benefit may take the form of
benefiting the individual agent or in a more altruistic form, benefiting all persons
affected or the whole of society. For the consequentialist, one is called to be
moral because of the incentives; for rewards or punishments, to gain happiness,
joy, or pleasure and/or to avoid pain and suffering. This may be present
oriented or “in the more distant form of an earthly utopia or of a transcendent
eternal life.”[57]
Gill explains, “Murder is thought to be wrong, not because it is wrong in
itself, but because it leads to something else which is thought to be wrong or
perhaps just undesirable – for example the breakdown of society, the absence of
general happiness or the reception of eternal punishment.”[58]
Christian
consequentialist arguments have taken both a near term perspective and also a
strongly eschatological or future oriented nature.[59]
Consequentialist arguments can be seen in the Didache, the Rule of Benedict,
Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin and many others.[60]
Consequentialist arguments are utilized often in theodicies. It is argued by
many that God allowed evil for some greater good, such as human freedom. It is
claimed that “pleasure and pain have different sources or sanctions—physical,
political, moral, and also religious, since God himself wills his children to
be happy.”[61]
The Bible itself is
replete with references to incentives, rewards and punishments, blessings and
curses. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 3:8,
“Now he who plants and he who waters are one, and each one will
receive his own reward according to his own labor.” Hebrews 11:6 reads, “But without faith it is impossible to please
Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder
of those who diligently seek Him.” Proverbs
13:13 states, “He who despises the word will be destroyed, but he
who fears the commandment will be rewarded.” Jesus calls for charitable deeds
to be done in secret that “your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward
you openly” (Mt. 6:4). In the same chapter Jesus teaches to “lay up for
yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where
thieves do not break in and steal” (Mt. 6:20). Examples could be multiplied.
The notion of incentives, rewards, and punishments make some
uncomfortable. McKnight writes, “Jesus
mentions rewards and punishments often enough to make adherents of both
traditional Christian and modern altruistic ethical viewpoints thoroughly
uncomfortable and grasping for explanations.”[62]
William Paley “rested all
obligation to duty on its tendency to secure everlasting happiness.”[63] In
consequentialist fashion he argued, “It is the utility of any moral rule alone,
which constitutes the obligation to it.”[64] He argued that the will of
God is the sure way to obtain everlasting happiness.[65] It is also noted that Rashdall
“sought to interpret the Christian ethic as an ‘Ideal Utilitarianism.’”[66]
The most famous
consequentialists, however, were Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. They “reformulated
a cultural Christian ethic and rejected the adequacy of Kant’s deontological
ethics.”[67]
They held to a specific type of consequentialism termed utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism is consequential in nature, but it is specifically universal; it
evaluates the consequences not only of the individual agent but for everyone
affected by the action.[68] For
Bentham, the concept of good was linked to the increase of pleasure and the
avoidance of pain.[69]
Smede argues that for Bentham, “the happiness of the whole will carry with it
that of the individuals who compose the whole.”[70] However, Bentham “had to
admit that without a doctrine of ultimate retribution few could be persuaded of
the rationality of this collective outlook.”[71] Instead of strictly
pleasure and pain, Mill sought to ascertain “first what people really find
‘desirable.’”[72] Mill
is said to have “rounded out the system of utilitarianism, freed it from its
narrowness, and made it acceptable to statesmen and theologians.”[73] Mill
himself believed that the Golden Rule was “Jesus’ version of utilitarianism.”[74]
Analysis
The consequentialist will
find himself quite at home arguing for keeping the Sabbath. Connected to the
fourth commandment are both positive and negative consequences; both rewards
for keeping it and punishments for not. Exodus 31:14 reads, “You shall keep the
Sabbath, therefore, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall
surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be
cut off from among his people.” Nehemiah similarly records, “Then I contended
with the nobles of Judah, and said to them, “What evil thing is this that you
do, by which you profane the Sabbath day? Did not your fathers do thus, and did
not our God bring all this disaster on us and on this city? Yet you bring added
wrath on Israel by profaning the Sabbath” (Ne. 13:17-18).
The positive consequences
of observing the Lord’s Day result in many benefits. Sabbath observance
provides rest and refreshment for all (Ex. 23:12). Exodus 31:13 states consequentially
"that you may know that I am the LORD who sanctifies you." God says
in Isaiah 56:4-7, "To the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths…even to them I will
give in My house and within My walls a place and a name better than that of
sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut
off. Also the sons of the foreigner ... everyone who keeps from defiling the
Sabbath, and holds fast My covenant— even them I will bring to My holy
mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer." Isaiah 58:14
repeats the benefit of joy connected with Sabbath observance and adds to it,
"Then you shall delight yourself in the LORD; and I will cause you to ride
on the high hills of the earth, and feed you with the heritage of Jacob your
father." Motyer comments on the benefits promised in this Isaiah 58, “we
will ride on the heights, rise above
earthly difficulties, enjoy an uplifted life (Deut. 32:13; 33:29; Hab. 3:19)
and enter into the sufficiency and provision (feast) that the Lord has for us, including all his past promises
and covenanted mercies (your father Jacob).[75] That
the "Sabbath was made for man" (Mk. 2:27) points to the Sabbath being
for the good of man and for his benefit.
This “wise and beneficial
law” guards against and remedies the “strong tendency to forget God and His
claims.”[76]
Calvin points to the spiritual benefits of men “being released from all other
business, might the more readily apply their minds to the Creator of the world.”[77] Charles
Simeon marks out the spiritual benefits to the whole community, “The very
circumstance of multitudes meeting together with raised expectations and
heavenly affections, must operate like an assemblage of burning coals, all of
which are instrumental to the kindling of others, while they receive in
themselves fresh ardour from the contact.”[78] A “further benefit” is that
“the attention of all must necessarily be directed to the eternal Sabbath,
which awaits them at the expiration of their appointed week of labour.”[79] One
can also appeal to the consequential benefits of having time to spend with
family, fellowshipping with believers, health benefits, stress reduction, and a
host of other like items. John Currid suggests “that if we kept the Sabbath as
Christians then our lives would improve dramatically.”[80] He explains, “How many of
us never do an in-depth study of God’s Word for lack of time? How many of us
never visit the lonely or the sick for lack of time? How many of us begin the
week exhausted for lack of rest? How much time do we spend in prayer and
evangelism? The Lord has made provision for all these things by giving a
Sabbath to his people”[81]
In summary, a
consequentialist would see observing the Sabbath not as an end in itself, but
rather as a means to obtaining any or all of these benefits. The nature of the
benefits applies both to the present and to the eternal, to the eschatological.
Many of these benefits would affect not only the individual agent, but also fit
the more altruistic utilitarian form by benefiting others.
Virtue
Theory:
Virtue ethics or
personalist ethics emphasizes the virtues and moral character of the person. It
neither emphasizes duties, rules, and laws (as is the case with deontology) nor
does it emphasize the consequences or outcomes of an action (as is the case
with consequentialism).[82]
Morality is “an expression of individual
feeling, conscience or love.”[83]
It asks the question “what kind of person do I want to be?” It is argued that
this form of ethics fits a more “organic model” which concentrates “on the
growth of the person to maturity.”[84]
Virtue ethicist
sometimes argue that moral dilemmas “cannot be resolved in advance of
particular situations.”[85]
The emphasis is said to be situational and individualistic and that “the most
that the personalist can offer are general moral guidelines, which can be
overridden in particular situations.”[86]
In the case of murder, the virtue ethicist might say that murder is wrong “‘Because
I feel that it is wrong’, or ‘Because my conscience tells me that it is wrong’,
or ‘Because it would contradict my love or my respect for her as a person.’”[87]
Virtue ethics’
“founding fathers” were Plato and Aristotle.[88]
Luther used arguments which are “characteristically personalist.”[89]
Virtue ethics are also evident in Bonhoeffer.[90]
Because of a somewhat recent loss of confidence in natural law and a distaste
for consequentialism, virtue ethics has “proved to be very attractive to a number
of recent moral philosophers and theologians.”[91]
This revival of virtue ethics now “dominates ethical
inquiry.”[92] It
is argued that “Anscombe’s “Modern Moral Philosophy” (1958) gave the original
impetus, and the works of MacIntyre (1981, 1988), have been crucial.”[93]
Theologians also find
support for virtue ethics in the Scripture. N.T. Wright states, “As I have
argued elsewhere, Paul does indeed teach what we may call a virtue ethic. He
believes in moral progress, and in the hard work required to make it happen.”[94]
Wright distinguishes between the virtue ethics of say Aristotle and Paul, “At
the head of [Paul’s] list of virtues he regularly places agapē, the
‘love’ which he has seen revealed in the Messiah. Like other early Christian
moralists he adds three other virtues which, like agapē itself, were
more or less unknown in the world of paganism: patience, chastity and humility.”[95]
Analysis
The virtue ethicist may
not be persuaded of the morality of Sabbath keeping because of its inclusion in
the Decalogue since this appeals to duty and law, which the virtue ethicist
does not emphasize. Similarly, appeals to the consequential benefits of observing
the Lord’s Day may not carry much weight since this also is not an emphasis of
virtue ethics. Setting aside a specific one day in seven for particular set
purposes might also find difficulty given the situational character of virtue
ethics.
Though it may be verging
too far in the realm of utility, Sabbath keeping may be valued by virtue
ethicists as way to enhance character, moral progress, and spiritual formation.
As noted, Wright marked out “moral progress” and the “hard work required to
make it happen.”[96]
This seems to fit well with observing the Lord’s Day. Sabbath keeping is a
spiritual discipline which shapes and molds a person; it develops the virtues
of patience, self-discipline, faith, devotion, loyalty, and agape.
Moreover, it forms a person in such a way to diminish vices such as greed,
selfishness, anxiety, materialism, lack of sympathy, self-indulgence, etc. It
is argued by virtue ethicists that “much invaluable action guidance comes from
avoiding courses of action” which are seen as vices.[97]
Perhaps the most
significant correspondence with virtue ethicists and Sabbath observance is
answering the question “what kind of person do I want to be?” Instead of
keeping the Sabbath because it’s a creation ordinance, the virtue ethicist may
look at God resting in Genesis 2 and desire to be more like God, to do what he
does, to be like he is. The virtue ethicist might see Sabbath observance as an
expression of his love for God and his love for his neighbor. He may see it as
an expression of his concern for social justice and his value of giving rest to
others. He may want to be a person of principles and convictions, who stands up
against the tide of secularism and materialism. He may also want to be the kind
of person who also feasts, celebrates, and is thankful. He may want to be the
kind of person who regularly exercises faith, living in the promises of God,
trusting the Lord to provide for them, resting in his providence despite the
large list of “to-dos” and financial obligations. He may want to be a person
who devotes time to God, to his family, and to his neighbor; who prioritizes
and values spiritual growth and relationships over goods, wealth, and
entertainment. All of these items could emphasize the virtues and moral
character of the person as well as provide good answers to the question of who
that person wants to be.
Respond to the theories’ treatments of the issue.
General
During the course of
taking this class, wrestling with these issues, and evaluating these ethical theories
I have found myself continually taking stock of why I perform various actions
and analyzing to which of the theories my understanding best fits. I would
summarize that I am primarily a consequentialist, but that I utilize deontology
(God’s word and law, not natural law) as the foremost mechanism for deciphering
the most beneficial course of action. In practice I look and behave very much
like a deontologist. But, consequentialism is the theoretical motive and
understanding behind the deontological behavior.
I appreciate Gill’s
insight noting that the three theories may be seen as “emphases rather than as
discrete theories.”[98]
Initially, I didn’t think that virtue theory informed any of my decisions.
However, upon closer examination I discovered that this wasn’t the case. First,
Paul especially emphasizes identity, identity in Christ, and connects behavior
to this ontological reality. Second, I found that I, for example, tip well.
When examining my motives, it was neither for duty; because I was “supposed to,”
nor was it because I wanted better service or even heavenly rewards for
generosity. Rather, it seemed it was
because that was “the kind of person I am and want to be.”
Finally, in general, I am
suspicious that, to some degree, both deontology and virtue ethics are back
doors to consequentialism. At some point, both the deontologist and the virtue
ethicist often appeal to benefits and consequences to validate or support their
view. This may be explained by Gill’s notion of the theories being emphases and
not discrete. However, this seems to be sometimes an excessive borrowing from
consequentialism and at some point it seems to conflict with the respective
theories main tenants and methodology.
Deontology
The strengths of
deontology, especially as it relates to God’s law, is that it is specific,
concrete, and absolute. It sets actionable norms and standards to measure
behavior and actions by. It is also
accessible to all strata of mankind, “The testimony of the Lord is sure,
making wise the simple” (Ps. 19:7). Similarly, Psalm 119:98-100 reads, “You,
through Your commandments, make me wiser than my enemies… I have more
understanding than all my teachers, for Your testimonies are my
meditation. I understand more than the ancients, because I keep Your precepts.”
The “widespread loss of
confidence in natural law theories”[99]
seems understandable. One may be able to get somewhere with natural law if one
is able to untangle the massive web of sin from the creation, but it seems this
is often difficult. Moreover, when compared to divine command, natural law
seems inefficient and less reliable comparatively. The noetic effects of sin
also affect and undermine the ability to reach sound conclusions based on
natural law.
Alexander’s criticism of
Kant’s categorical imperative seems correct. He argues that it “tells us
nothing of the objective side, of the content of duty.”[100] He continues stating that
it is “abstract and contentless, without relation to the matter of practical
life.”[101]
“Duty for duty’s sake” also seems too abstract and not strongly compelling. As
argued above, deontologists oftentimes, either implicitly or explicitly, appeal
to some kind of consequential benefit for obedience and fulfilling one’s duty. Descartes
theoretically postulated the possibility of an evil god who deceives mankind
and hates us. Would the strict deontologist still obey such a god and conform
to his norms?
Consequentialism
Some form of
consequentialism seems the most compelling. It’s difficult to imagine
intentionally performing an action for no benefit at all. The Westminster
shorter catechism states that the chief end of man is “to glorify God, and to
enjoy him for ever.”[102] Paul
seems very consequentialist when he argues, “If in this life only we have hope
in Christ, we are of all men most miserable” (1 Cor. 15:19). He doesn’t answer
that hope is a virtue to be cultivated for its own sake. Similarly, in verse 30
he asks, if there is no resurrection “why do we stand in jeopardy every hour?”
Paul is “banking” on the resurrection and of a benefit to his labors. He
doesn’t answer deontologically that it is our duty to stand in jeopardy for the
truth. These statements do not seem to comport to either deontological or
virtue theory.
One objection to
consequentialism is that pursuing benefits, our own good, and happiness is
selfish, unloving, and unchristian. But, this is not the case. Psalm 16:11
reads, “You make known to me the path of life; in your presence there is
fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures forevermore.” Paul contends “So
husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his
wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but
nourishes and cherishes it.” (Eph. 5:28-29). Examples could be multiplied. As
argued, the Bible itself is replete with incentives, punishments, and rewards. This
criticism seems more like a “baptized Buddhism,” with its asceticism, the
quenching of desire, and the annihilation of the self. John Piper argues that,
“The desire to be happy is a proper motive for every good deed, and if you
abandon the pursuit of your own joy, you cannot love man or please God."[103]
C.S. Lewis similarly contends,
If there lurks in
most modern minds the notion that to desire our own good and to earnestly hope
for the enjoyment of it is a bad thing, I suggest that this notion has crept in
from Kant and the Stoics and is no part of the Christian faith. Indeed, if we
consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the
rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that our Lord finds our desires,
not too strong, but too weak.[104]
A second common objection
is that “to work properly, utilitarianism demands that finite creatures know
what will bring the greatest good to the greatest number in the long run. We
are seldom certain what will bring the greatest good even in the short run.”[105] This
objection seems over stated and the level of skepticism is unwarranted. Is
absolute certainty really required to make ethical and beneficial choices and
behaviors? Furthermore, given that all humans are “finite creatures” this same
criticism would apply to any ethical system or theory. Geisler continues, “Only
an infinitely wise, good God could be a utilitarian.”[106] But, this is precisely
what we as Christians have access to; the revelation of an infinitely wise and
good God. This is why utilizing aspects of deontology (God’s word/law) makes
consequentialism feasible and practical. As Paley argued, the will of God is
the sure way to obtain everlasting happiness.[107] The trust in the benefits
of obedience can be seen in this quote from Luther, “If God should order me to
eat dung, I would do it, with the assurance that it would be salutary.”[108] A
consequentialist could argue that God’s will, God’s word, God’s laws aren’t
just “right,” but that they are also good, loving, and beneficial. David argues
that by God’s law “Your servant is warned, and in keeping them there is great
reward” (Ps. 19:11).
Virtue Ethics
If deontology is “duty
for duty’s sake,” it could be said that virtue ethics is “virtue for virtue’s
sake.” The consequentialist might ask, “Why be virtuous?” It seems difficult to
answer that question without appealing to some benefit or consequence. Moreover,
where does one come up with which qualities are virtuous without appealing
either to deontological or consequentialist notions? Appeals to individual
feelings and expressions of conscience seem very subjective and relativistic.
It seems better to view virtues as means rather than ends.
Gill lists three primary
reasons why virtue theory has been attractive to some theologians: “(i) the
anti-legalism of Paul (and possibly Jesus) seems to conflict with some forms of
deontology; (ii) personalism fits in well with the Dominical Commands to Love;
and (iii) the aims of some forms of utilitarianism seem distinctly unchristian.”[109]
With respect to the first
item, legalism is not equivalent to obedience. Further, I disagree that either
Paul or Jesus were antinomian. Paul writes that “the law is holy, and
the commandment holy and just and good,” that he “delights in the law of God
according to the inward man,” and that “with the mind I myself serve the law of
God, but with the flesh the law of sin”(Rom. 7:12, 22, 25). Jesus likewise
warns, “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not
come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and
earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till
all is fulfilled” (Mt. 5:17) He continues, “Whoever therefore breaks one of the
least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the
kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called
great in the kingdom of heaven” (Mt. 5:18-19). I appreciate the second point
listed by Gill, “the Dominical Commands to Love.” However, by itself, it is
vague, subjective, and open to much abuse. The third point listed concerning
consequentialism being “unchristian” has been addressed above.
I appreciate Wright’s
emphasis on “moral progress and in the hard work required to make it happen.”[110] I
value the spiritual disciplines and the spiritual formation it provides. It’s
difficult to see the question “what kind of person do I want to be?” by itself
as a good ethical guide or determiner of what is ethical. Like Kant’s
categorical imperative, it seems contentless. Better ethical questions may be
“who am I in Christ?” or “what kind of person should I be?”
To the extent that these
two questions can be subsumed under virtue ethics, it seems more biblical,
especially Pauline. Paul often calls people to be who they are; to act in
accordance with their identity in Christ. In this sense, the ontological
precedes and leads to the ethical; the ethical is grounded in the foundation of
the ontological. In Romans 6:2 Paul asks, “How shall we, that are dead to sin,
live any longer therein?” He continues arguing that since “we are buried with
him by baptism into death … even so we also should walk in newness of life”
(Rom. 6:4,10). Similarly, in Colossians 3: 1-3 Paul argues, “If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things
which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God. Set your
mind on things above, not on things on the earth. For you died, and your life
is hidden with Christ in God.” Identity is very important to Paul and he links
it to behavior, to ethics. If this is what Wright has in mind, then one can more
easily agree that “Paul does indeed teach what we may call a
virtue ethic.”[111]
[1] Matthew S. Beal, “Ten
Commandments,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary
(Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015).
[2] The New King James Version (Nashville:
Thomas Nelson, 1982).
[3] Beal, Ten Commandments.
[4] Christopher John Donato et al., Perspectives on the Sabbath (Nashville:
B & H Pub. Group, 2011), 8.
[5] Daniel G. Reid et
al., Dictionary of Christianity in
America (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990).
[6] Donato, Perspectives on the Sabbath, 3.
[7] These items occur under the topic
heading of the fourth commandment in Deuteronomy as structured after the
Decalogue. For discussion and outline of the structure of Deuteronomy after the
10 Commandments see for example: Allan M. Harman, Deuteronomy: The Commands of a Covenant God, Focus on
the Bible Commentary (Ross-shire, Great Britain: Christian Focus Publications,
2001) and John D. Currid, A Study
Commentary on Deuteronomy, EP Study Commentary (Darlington, England;
Webster, New York: Evangelical Press, 2006).
[8] Carl Friedrich
Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on
the Old Testament, vol. 1 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 42–43.
[9] Robert Jamieson,
A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary
Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, vol. 1 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos
Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 18.
[10] John Calvin and
John King, Commentary on the First Book
of Moses Called Genesis, vol. 1 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software,
2010), 106.
[11] Calvin, Commentary on the First Book of Moses,
105.
[12] Charles Simeon, Horae Homileticae: Genesis to Leviticus,
vol. 1 (London: Samuel Holdsworth, 1836), 8.
[13] John Peter Lange,
Philip Schaff, and Charles M. Mead, A
Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Exodus, vol. 2 (Bellingham, WA: Logos
Bible Software, 2008), 79.
[14] Keil, Commentary on the Old Testament, 398.
[15] Simeon, Genesis to Leviticus, 8.
[16] Douglas K.
Stuart, Exodus, vol. 2, The New
American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2006), 459.
[17] Nahum M. Sarna, Exodus, The JPS Torah Commentary
(Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1991), 112.
[18] John D. Currid, A Study Commentary on Genesis: Genesis
1:1–25:18, vol. 1, EP Study Commentary (Darlington, England: Evangelical
Press, n.d.), 94.
[19] John Calvin and
William Pringle, Commentary on the Book
of the Prophet Isaiah, vol. 4 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010),
241.
[20] See also Leviticus 25:20-22.
[21] Gary Smith, Isaiah 40-66, vol. 15B, The New American
Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2009), 584.
[22] Colin G. Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, ed. D. A.
Carson, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Cambridge, U.K.; Nottingham,
England; Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Apollos, 2012),
510.
[23] Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, The Pillar
New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans;
Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 480.
[24] C. K. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, Rev. ed.,
Black’s New Testament Commentary (London: Continuum, 1991), 237.
[25] Everett F. Harrison, Romans (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan
Pub. House, 1995), 146.
[26] Alexander
Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds., “Constitutions of the
Holy Apostles,” in Fathers of the Third
and Fourth Centuries: Lactantius, Venantius, Asterius, Victorinus, Dionysius,
Apostolic Teaching and Constitutions, Homily, and Liturgies, trans. James
Donaldson, vol. 7, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature
Company, 1886), 469.
[27] Walter F. Taylor
Jr. and John H. P. Reumann, Ephesians,
Colossians, Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament (Minneapolis, MN:
Augsburg Publishing House, 1985), 139.
[28] Douglas J. Moo,
The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon, The Pillar New Testament Commentary
(Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2008), 57–58.
[32] Taylor, Ephesians, Colossians, 144–145.
[33] James D. G. Dunn,
The Epistles to the Colossians and to
Philemon: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament
Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle: William B. Eerdmans Publishing;
Paternoster Press, 1996), 179.
[34] Richard R.
Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon,
vol. 32, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman
Publishers, 1991), 270–271.
[35] A. Scott Moreau,
Harold Netland, and Charles van Engen, Evangelical
Dictionary of World Missions, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids, MI;
Carlisle, Cumbria, UK: Baker Books; A. Scott Moreau, 2000), 320.
[36] Robin Gill, A Textbook of
Christian Ethics (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1985), 8.
[37] Gill, Christian Ethics, 8.
[38] S. McKnight,
“Ethics of Jesus,” ed. Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Second
Edition (Downers Grove, IL; Nottingham, England: IVP Academic; IVP, 2013),
244.
[39] Arch. B. D.
Alexander, “Ethics,” ed. James Orr et al., The
International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia (Chicago: The Howard-Severance
Company, 1915), 1019.
[40] Gill, Christian Ethics, 4-5.
[41] Gill, Christian Ethics, 4-5.
[42] Gill, Christian Ethics, 4-5.
[43] Gill, Christian Ethics, 4-5.
[44] Immanuel Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals; with, On a
Supposed Right to Lie Because of Philanthropic Concerns, trans. James W.
Ellington (Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co, 1993), 30.
[45] L. B. Smedes,
“Ethics,” ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, The
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised (Wm. B. Eerdmans,
1979–1988), 186.
[46] Alexander, Ethics, 1019.
[47] McKnight, Ethics of Jesus, 244.
[48] McKnight, Ethics of Jesus, 244.
[49] McKnight, Ethics of Jesus, 244.
[50] McKnight, Ethics of Jesus, 244.
[51] John D. Currid, A Study Commentary on Exodus: Exodus 19–40,
vol. 2, EP Study Commentary (Darlington, England; Carlisle, PA: Evangelical
Press, 2001), 42.
[52] Jamieson, Critical and Explanatory, 18.
[53] Calvin, Commentary on the First Book of Moses, 106.
[54] Keil, Commentary on the Old Testament, 558.
[55] Joseph A. Pipa
Jr., The Westminster Confession of Faith
Study Book: A Study Guide for Churches (Fearn, Ross-shire, UK: Christian
Focus Publications, 2005), 309.
[56] Kant, Metaphysics of Morals, 30.
[57] Gill, Christian Ethics, 5-7.
[58] Gill, Christian Ethics, 5-7.
[59] Gill, Christian Ethics, 5-7.
[60] Gill, Christian Ethics, 5-7.
[61] Samuel Macauley
Jackson, ed., The New Schaff-Herzog
Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge: Embracing Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal,
and Practical Theology and Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Biography
from the Earliest Times to the Present Day (New York; London: Funk &
Wagnalls, 1908–1914), 122.
[62] McKnight, Ethics of Jesus, 247.
[63] Milton Valentine,
Theoretical Ethics (Chicago: Scott,
Foresman & Co., 1897), 153–154.
[64] William Paley,
Moral and Political Philosophy, Chap. VI. Cited in Milton Valentine,
Theoretical Ethics (Chicago: Scott, Foresman & Co., 1897), 153–154.
[65] Valentine, Theoretical Ethics, 153–154.
[66] F. L. Cross and
Elizabeth A. Livingstone, eds., The
Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005),
1685.
[67] McKnight, Ethics of Jesus, 244.
[68] McKnight, Ethics of Jesus, 244.
[69] Gill, Christian Ethics, 5-7.
[70] Smedes, Ethics, 186.
[71] Smedes, Ethics, 186.
[72] Gill, Christian Ethics, 5-7.
[73] Jackson, Ecclesiastical Biography, 121.
[74] McKnight, Ethics of Jesus, 244.
[75] J. Alec Motyer, Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary,
vol. 20, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 1999), 411.
[76] Jamieson, Critical and Explanatory, 18.
[77] Calvin, Commentary on the First Book of Moses, 106.
[78] Simeon, Genesis to Leviticus, 7.
[79] Simeon, Genesis to Leviticus, 7.
[80] Currid, Exodus, 43.
[81] Currid, Exodus, 43.
[82] Rosalind
Hursthouse, "Virtue Ethics," Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
last modified Winter 2015, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/.
[84] Nijay K. Gupta,
“Ethics, Christian,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015).
[87] Gill, Christian Ethics, 7-8.
[92] R. C. Roberts,
“Virtue, Concept of,” ed. David G. Benner and Peter C. Hill, Baker Encyclopedia of Psychology &
Counseling, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999),
1251–1252.
[93] Roberts, Virtue, 1251–1252.
[94] N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, vol.
4, Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
2013), 1374.
[95] Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 1374.
[96] Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 1374.
[97] Hursthouse, "Virtue
Ethics," Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
[98] Gill, Christian Ethics, 8.
[99] Gill, Christian Ethics, 8.
[100] Alexander, Ethics, 1019.
[101] Alexander, Ethics, 1019.
[102] Archibald
Alexander Hodge, J. Aspinwall Hodge, The
System of Theology Contained in the Westminster Shorter Catechism: Opened and
Explained. (New York: A. C. Armstrong and Son, 1888), 7.
[103] John Piper, "We Want You to
Be a Christian Hedonist!," Desiring God, last modified August 2006,
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/we-want-you-to-be-a-christian-hedonist.
[104] C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory
and Other Addresses (New York: Macmillan, 1949), 1-2.
[105] Norman L.
Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian
Apologetics, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999),
449.
[106] Geisler, Christian Apologetics, 449.
[107] Valentine, Theoretical Ethics, 153–154.
[108] J. H. Merle
D’Aubigné, History of the Reformation in
the Sixteenth Century, trans. Henry Beveridge and H. White, vol. 4,
Collin’s Select Library (Glasgow; London: William Collins; R. Groombridge &
Sons, 1862), 79.
[109] Gill, Christian Ethics, 8.
[110] Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 1374.
[111] Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 1374.
No comments:
Post a Comment