Among the number of alarming trends growing in the broader evangelical church is the prevailing attitude of “Bible alone” in hermeneutics and theological interpretation. More and more, laypeople and pastors alike are looking to lose tradition in favor of biblicism. This trend is unhelpful at best and dangerous at worst. Creeds and confessions are vital for the church’s overall health and future. The question one must ask is what the proper role of a creed or confession in the life of the church looks like, and how much authority is too much when it comes to subscription? What role does scriptural exegesis have in guiding or correcting our understanding of the dogma of the creeds and confessions? This essay will seek to show that there needs to be a mutual commitment where faithful exegesis forms the confessions, and in turn, the confessions regulate how we are to interpret a passage faithfully by using the confessional teaching of the fourth commandment as a test case. 

It is not uncommon in many presbytery exams today to hear of someone taking exception to Westminster Standards’ view of the Sabbath. They often state that Jesus had fulfilled the law’s demands (true) and refocused the observance of the Sabbath not on a strict keeping but on the spiritual significance or foreshadowing of the great Sabbath to come. The Westminster divines offer what many see as an antiquated position in WCF 21.7 and 8. The divines argue that as the Sabbath changed from Saturday to Sunday, the commandment to keep observance was perpetual and that all Christians should not only observe the day but cease from worldly employments and recreations. The entire day should be devoted to public and private worship, save for the duties of mercy that may arise. 

Our relationship to the law is an integral part of how we approach the teaching of the Lord’s Day. How we view the role of the law should determine what we are to do with the commandments as a whole. The WCF has already established that there are three uses to the moral law and that the civil and ceremonial law has passed away. The observance of the third use of the law was established in chapter 19 of the WCF. Their understanding helps form the right categories to understand difficult texts of scripture, both in Old and New Testaments in our approach to the commandments.

One of the more miraculous examples of the third use of the law in all of scripture is found in the account of the Exodus. The covenant God, Yahweh, has faithfully brought forth his people’s salvation from the hand of Egypt and is going to bring them through the wilderness to the promised land. Then in Exodus 20, God gives the ten commandments to Israel but not before he declares an indicative, in which he states, “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery” (Ex. 20:2). The nature of Israel’s relationship to the law is one of grace and founded upon their redemption from bondage and slavery. Our relationship, then, is similar. We have been given the law not to fulfill a covenant demand per se, but as a guide to living a life of gratitude to our Redeemer and as a gift for our benefit. This is why John can declare that “his commandments are not burdensome” (1 John 5:3).

It is within this context of a gracious covenant that we find the fourth commandment: to obey the Sabbath and to keep it holy. Some may argue that Christ abolished what we think of as Sabbath-keeping in Mark 2:23 – 28. Jesus allowed his disciples to pick grain on the Sabbath, which threw the Pharisees into an uproar. Then Jesus makes an interesting statement in verse 27 that “the Sabbath was made for man.” Immediately following in chapter 3, Jesus heals a man on the Sabbath. In each case, Jesus points out that what was done on the Sabbath was done out of mercy. First, the disciples were hungry and needed food, and secondly, the man had a withered hand that needed healing. Jesus does this while pointing out that it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath (Mark 3:4).

How are we to understand what seems to be a violation of the Sabbath? This is where we are able to turn to our confession to see how those who have come before us have addressed this text. Interestingly enough, the Westminster divines used the parallel account in Matthew 12 as scripture proof for their view of the observance of the Sabbath under the New Covenant. Instead of throwing out the commandment as a whole, the divines give us proper categories to approach the text of scripture. The temptation is to overreact to pharisaical teaching and allow the pendulum to swing to full freedom—the confession safeguards against this danger. 

The confessional teaching on the Sabbath is entirely consistent with how we see Jesus approach the topic himself. He devotes it to public and private worship (Luke 4:16; 13:10-17) and acts of mercy (Matthew 12; Mark 2:23 – 3:5). Nowhere is the commandment to obey the Sabbath abolished in the New Testament. One could ask if that commandment has been abolished, what of the other nine? The confession provides boundaries so that our exegesis doesn’t run us off into a ditch of error.

As I mentioned earlier, our relationship to the law was established in previous chapters of the WCF. The confession does a wonderful job of building a logical flow starting with the scripture and moving through the major points of Christian doctrine, building one upon the other like bricks for a house. Confessions serve the church well by correcting our faulty exegesis and keeping us in line with the historic Christian tradition. Often, we are tempted to become Biblicists who do not read the text with any tradition in mind, which allows our own presuppositions and cultural context to be the hermeneutical grid by which we understand the text. We cannot rely on a Biblicist approach due to our fallibility.

When we read the confessions, we are reading along with the historic Christian church and the Reformation. This shows a great deal of commitment to the authority and inerrancy of scripture. Those who are committed to the confessions are not subject to trying to reinvent their beliefs to fit any particular cultural trends or pressures; rather, it’s the commitment to confessionalism that proudly proclaims that Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8). Since this is true, we can allow the confessional documents to be the governing rule for our doctrinal interpretation, so long as they are faithful to the text of scripture. Given that this is the case, the confessions should hold a great authoritative weight in our hermeneutical approach, allowing them to correct our faulty notions and inconsistent beliefs. The church would do well to commit to faithful biblical confessions which safeguard the peace and the purity of the church.