The bottom line is that the Sabbath’s moral component is two-fold: first, the purpose of the Sabbath is for rest and worship (with allowance – as Jesus taught – for genuine works of necessity and acts of mercy/piety); and, second, one-seventh portion of time is to be consecrated to God (Exodus 20:8-11).

For brevity’s sake, this piece assumes that readers agree with the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), chapter 21:7, or the (London) Baptist Confession of Faith (1689), chapter 22:7, both of which address religious worship and the Sabbath day (the two are nearly identical). If such readers have ever wondered how any part of one of the ten commandments (the summary of the moral law) can legitimately be changed, please read on.

Westminster Confession of Faith (21:7) reads as follows:

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: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which, in Scripture, is called the Lord’s day, and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath [emphasis added].

With the help of several nineteenth-century churchmen, this essay seeks to distinguish between the moral and positive components of the Sabbath commandment.

The bottom line is that the Sabbath’s moral component is two-fold: first, the purpose of the Sabbath is for rest and worship (with allowance – as Jesus taught – for genuine works of necessity and acts of mercy/piety); and, second, one-seventh portion of time is to be consecrated to God (Exodus 20:8-11).

The particular day to be observed in a given era, however, is not part of the moral law. Rather, it is positive law – which may be changed, either by the one in authority or by the termination of a previously specified period or condition (like a contract).

Excerpts follow from three selected churchmen – one Baptist, two Presbyterians – who wrote intelligently on these matters. They were not writing something new – the seventeenth-century Westminster and London confessions ably addressed the subject – but in terms of their era, the writers below are much closer to us, being situated midway from Westminster to our day. Their words are excellent reminders of important matters, perhaps helpful in part because their un-familiarity to most confessional, reformed, believers today may promote fresh thinking and stronger conviction of the truth.

1. William Bullein Johnson, Baptist State Convention, South Carolina.

In 1828, W.B. Johnson, the convention’s president, authored a circular address to the affiliated Baptist churches throughout the State. Later to serve as the first president of the Southern Baptist Convention, Johnson observed that the term “‘Sabbath,’ denotes rest from earthly labour, [while] the term ‘seventh,’ denotes the portion of time for that rest.” He argued for “a moral reason, that is, a reason originating in the constitution of things, for such a portion” to be set apart. The setting apart one-seventh of time unto God was unchanging; and constituted one of the commandment’s moral components (the other was that the day’s consecration was for rest and worship). But whether that time “should be in the beginning, the middle, or the end of the week” depended on the pleasure of the Creator; it “might be altered at his pleasure” without weakening its design or authority.[1]

2. Southern Religious Telegraph (Richmond, Virginia).

In 1834, editor-proprietor Amasa Converse published several letters on the subject of the Sabbath. One writer, identified as “P.D.A.,” was most likely a Presbyterian minister or elder. He clarified the Sabbath commandment’s purpose within the Ten Commandments which comprised “the core of Bible morals, the moral looking glass of the world.” P.D.A. argued that the observing of “one day out of seven to be kept holy” constituted the moral principle at issue in the commandment, rather than one’s resting on the seventh day of the week following the pattern of creation. Buttressing his point, he recalled the other portion of the commandment: “‘Six days shalt thou labor;’ an express grant for six sevenths of time for secular and worldly uses.”

The writer took notice of the Sabbath’s institution prior to the Jewish dispensation (Genesis 2:3), and that none “would contend that it was not wrong to be profane until Moses said, ‘thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain;’ nor that it was right to steal or murder before the law of the ten commandments was given on Mount Sinai. Of like nature are all the commands of the decalogue.” Countering the somewhat popular view of Alexander Campbell and others that the Sabbath commandment was not to be treated as moral in the New Testament administration (the Jewish having passed), P.D.A. boldly declared it “monstrous to suppose that a document would have been produced and preserved in such a peculiar manner, of statutes purely moral, but containing in the very heart of it one statute forming a complete exception.”[2]

The unnamed penman dealt with the “great deal of controversy” over the change of the Sabbath’s observance from the seventh to the first day: “When was the change made? Nobody knows any farther than this: the Bible notices in various places the religious meetings of the disciples and first christians taking place on the first day of the week,” in recognition of Christ’s resurrection on that day. “They called it the Lord’s day. . . . And so it is as far as the Sabbath is honored . . . throughout Christendom.”

Returning to the nature of the command, “Moral truth is no respecter of days any more than it is of persons,” expounded P.D.A., “. . . but in this it does not let go its hold upon the right to its reserved proportion of time.” He again highlighted the commandment’s moral import, that “one day out of seven, or one-seventh portion of time, shall be regarded as consecrated to religious purposes.”[3]

3. Robert Lewis Dabney, Systematic Theology.

A generation later, Presbyterian R.L. Dabney wrote on the 4th Commandment:

We expressly contrasted the Sabbath precept as it stands in the “ten words” with all the rest, with reference to its perpetual, moral nature. The precept there contains only two points—rest from secular labour, and the sanctification of the day, which means in our view its appropriation to sacred services. The matter which is of perpetual moral obligation in the Sabbath law, is only this, that a finite, sensuous, and social being like man, shall have some periodical season statedly consecrated to religious services, (such season as God shall see fit to appoint). And all matters of detail and form which do not clash with this great end, are matters of mere positive enactment, which may be changed or repealed by Him who enacted them [emphasis added].[4]

From the pens of Johnson, the anonymous “P.D.A.,” and Dabney, we may readily grasp the moral, perpetual components of the Sabbath as rest-and-worship and the consecration of one-seventh of time for “religious services.” The particular day to be observed, however, not being moral in nature but merely positive, is subject to change by the one in authority.

And it has been.

Perceiving this moral-positive law distinction, perhaps some present-day Christians may be strengthened in their personal conviction and better prepared to make that day a delight.

Forrest L. Marion is a ruling elder in the First Presbyterian Church (PCA), Crossville, Tennessee.

[1] Minutes, State Convention (Baptist), South Carolina, Dec. 6-9, 1828.

[2] Southern Religious Telegraph [S.R.T. hereinafter], Jun. 27, 1834

[3] S.R.T., Jul. 4, 1834.

[4] R.L. Dabney, Systematic Theology (Banner of Truth Trust, 1985 [1871]), 384-85.