Interpreting the Sabbath Among the Swiss Reformed

Abstract

Among the many changing practices during the Reformation, Sabbath observance gained increasing importance as interpretations and practices evolved, leading to divisions among different traditions and disagreements within those traditions. Sabbath theology helped distinguish confessional identity. This study aims to delve deeper into Swiss Reformed interpretations of specific Scriptures that provide the basis for theological conclusions and practical applications regarding Sabbath. It focuses on four key passages in Isaiah (1:13–15, 56:2–8, 58:13–14, and 66:22–24) that contributed to the biblical basis for interpretations of Sabbath among the reformers. By comparing interpretations, we gain a more complete picture of the Swiss Reformed perspectives on Sabbath and observe a pattern of religious change as these religious ideas spread across different regions of the Swiss Confederation from the 1520s to the 1580s. The Swiss Reformed interpreters include Johannes Oecolampadius (1482–1531) in Basel, Ulrich Zwingli (1484–1531) and Konrad Pellikan (1478–1556) in Zurich, Wolfgang Musculus (1497–1563) in Bern, and Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575) and Rudolf Gwalther (1519–1586) in Zurich again. The questions addressed in working through their interpretations include which meanings of Sabbath they emphasize, distinctions they make regarding the Sabbath commandment, aspects of Sabbath they think are perpetual, and the day of the week they argue Christians should observe Sabbath. This portrait of Sabbath interpretations among the Swiss Reformed depicts the gradual development toward stricter and more comprehensive views on Sabbath practice among Reformed Christians and gives voice to the unique understandings of these individual Swiss Reformed theologians in the sixteenth century.

1. Introduction

Among the many changing practices during the Reformation, Sabbath observance gained increasing importance as interpretations and practices evolved, leading to disagreements and divisions among different traditions like Reformed and Lutheran, as well as within these traditions. The limited scholarly research on Reformed interpretations of the Sabbath has mainly concentrated on prominent confessions like the Westminster Standards and key figures like John Calvin. Other studies have explored Sabbath practices and attempts to enforce Sabbath observance. This study aims to take a different direction by considering Swiss Reformed interpretations of specific Scripture passages on Sabbath that enable us to see what they understood this term for rest, or the day of rest, to mean. Focusing on interpretations of key passages in Isaiah offers us a more complete picture of Swiss Reformed perspectives on Sabbath, gives voice to theologians often not included in these conversations, and reveals a pattern of religious change from the transmission of these religious ideas across different regions of the Swiss Confederation from the 1520s to the 1580s.

1.1. Approach

On a smaller scale, this study parallels Dieleman’s research on Sabbath in the Dutch Reformation that both corrects and expands “incomplete and unhelpful understandings of how the Sabbath functioned, both theologically and practically” from the time of the Reformation (Dieleman 2019, p. 16). His research highlighted that “almost no attention has been given to the Sabbath understandings that individual theologians” articulated (ibid., p. 18). Utilizing the method of comparative exegesis in the history of biblical interpretation, this study gives attention to Swiss Reformed theologians in the sixteenth century to see how beliefs regarding the Sabbath varied and evolved over time. Amy Nelson Burnett adopts the common Swiss phrase, “it varies from canton to canton” to name the need to avoid conflation with, or an overemphasis on, the ideas of Zurich as the representative view of the Swiss Reformation (Burnett 2009, p. 252). She calls for further study on the formulation, transmission, and reception of Reformed theology “to acknowledge the rich variety within the Swiss Reformation” (ibid., pp. 261, 262). As we will see from the exegesis of these biblical passages, views on Sabbath can be included among the theology that varied among the Swiss Reformed. By comparing the interpretations of Sabbath passages in Isaiah by Swiss reformers, we gain a more complete picture of the Swiss Reformed perspectives on Sabbath and how those developed within this network of interconnected theologians and churches.

The biblical commentaries serve as an important source for identifying the religious thought of the reformers since they provide the material, and often the language, used in formulating statements of belief and instructions for living. The reformers used sermons and lectures as the primary way to convey their views and the theology behind them. While the catechisms and confessions contained summaries often recited by the people, the sermons and lectures provided the opportunity for these reformers to express their views more fully. As preachers, professors, and influential figures in the formulation of confessions, the teachings of these prominent Swiss Reformed theologians greatly influenced the average Christian and typical churchgoer.

1.2. Isaiah Passages

Commentaries on the book of Isaiah, in particular, serve as a useful source to discover overlooked and less considered aspects of Sabbath. The exegetical and interpretive comments display key aspects of how interpreters expressed their views on Sabbath. For one, as an Old Testament book, commenting on Isaiah compels the Christian interpreter to differentiate between Christian and Jewish perspectives on Sabbath. Additionally, Isaiah includes specific passages on keeping Sabbath and reasons why mere adherence to external regulations is inadequate and even rejected by God, a theme that resonated with those during the Reformation. The New Testament also draws from specific aspects expressed in Isaiah that extend beyond commands regarding Sabbath. Four passages in Isaiah discuss the Sabbath, raising important issues and providing language for these Swiss Reformed theologians. In Isaiah 1:13–15, the prophet communicates that the Lord says to the people he “cannot bear your worthless” offerings, assemblies, and Sabbaths. As part of its emphasis on incorporating foreigners into the covenant community, Isaiah 56:2–8 repeats the phrase, “keeps the Sabbath” three times. Isaiah 58:13–14 warns the people about “breaking the Sabbath” and “doing as you please on my holy day” rather than calling “the Sabbath a delight”, and “honoring the holy day”. And the final words of the book, in Isaiah 66:22–24, speak of a promised future when those in the new heavens and earth “will come and bow down” before the Lord “from one Sabbath to another”. These specific passages provide opportunity for interpreters to articulate their views on Sabbath in a way that other Scriptures do not necessarily offer. Descriptions of theologians’ views typically have not included their interpretations of Sabbath from Isaiah. Yet these passages prompt explanation and applications that shed light on the various aspects of Sabbath. Their comments on these passages demonstrate what each interpreter emphasized about how people should keep the Sabbath in their time and territory.

1.3. Isaiah Commentaries

The interpretations of these passages from Isaiah are organized chronologically and by canton, based on when each Isaiah commentary was published. The very first Protestant commentary on Isaiah represents the earliest views of the Swiss Reformed and the canton of Basel at that time. Johannes Oecolampadius (1482–1531) published his commentary in 1525, based on lectures from 1523. The second group of Swiss reformers is from Zurich in the late 1520s into the 1530s. The annotations on Isaiah by Ulrich Zwingli (1484–1531) published in 1529, along with sermons on Isaiah preached before his death in 1531, provide insights on his perspectives on Sabbath. The relatively short commentary on Isaiah by Konrad Pellikan (1478–1556) published in 1534 also represents Zurich at this time. The third representative of a time and place is Wolfgang Musculus (1497–1563), who taught in Bern beginning in 1549 and published one of the most substantial commentaries on Isaiah in 1557. The final representative group brings us back to Zurich, from the late 1560s into the 1580s. The commentaries on Isaiah produced from the preaching of Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575) and Rudolf Gwalther (1519–1586) represent this group. Bullinger’s series of 190 sermons was published as a commentary in 1567. Gwalther, likewise, had his 327 weekday homilies published as an Isaiah commentary in 1583. Other important writings from these places and times correspond to what is found in their Isaiah commentaries. These include the catechism and confession of Basel in the 1530s, Leo Jud’s catechism from 1534, Musculus’s Commonplaces of Christian Religion in the 1560s, Bullinger’s Decades from 1557, and the First and Second Helvetic Confessions from 1536 and 1566, respectively. The teaching and preaching of these six prominent Swiss reformers demonstrate several consistent themes regarding Sabbath keeping and a few significant developments over time.

Of course, these interpreters inherited a prior exegetical and theological tradition on Sabbath that led them to retain certain elements and reject or modify others. Gonzalez refers to the “new complexities” that arose during the Reformation, especially related to the “competing and often antagonistic theological traditions” that developed (Gonzalez 2017, p. 97). For example, breaking away from the established church teaching on mandated observance of saints’ days and liturgical seasons also raised questions whether the Sabbath could be observed on any day of the week. Some simply continued with the assumption from the Middle Ages that Sunday functioned like the Sabbath day from the Old Testament. Others conceded that the New Testament did not explicitly mandate Sunday, or the Lord’s Day, as a complete replacement for the Sabbath, even if it was designated as the day of worship for Christians. Gonzalez demonstrates that “connecting Sunday with the fourth commandment finds very little warrant in the early church, and calling Sunday ‘the Sabbath’ is a relatively new phenomenon” (Gonzalez 2017, p. viii). This controversy is evident among the Swiss reformers. Additionally, the different meanings or layers of Sabbath required explanation as each group sought to distinguish themselves from the medieval Catholic church and from one another. The various terms for these layers of meaning included “spiritual sabbath”, “mystical sabbath”, “legal sabbath”, “heavenly sabbath”, and “perpetual sabbath”.

1.4. Key Questions

In examining these Swiss Reformed commentaries on Isaiah, we will use four key questions to uncover each interpreter’s perspectives and emphases on Sabbath. This will provide us with a fuller portrait that incorporates individual and representative views, and it will help us see the changes and developments over the decades in the Swiss Reformation. Based on the recurring themes in the theological conversations of the time (Gonzalez 2017; Dieleman 2019), the questions applied to these commentaries include:

• Which meaning(s) of Sabbath gets most emphasized (spiritual rest from sin, physical rest from labor, any rest to facilitate worship, or complete rest from all work)?
• Which aspects of the Sabbath commandment are moral and which are ceremonial, resulting in them being abolished, abrogated, or fulfilled?
• What aspects of Sabbath are perpetual and when does this begin (at creation, with the Law, or in the new heavens and earth)?
• What day of the week can or should one keep Sabbath (the seventh day, any day, or Sunday), and why (convenient day for worship, commemorate the resurrection, designation by the apostles, commanded in Scripture)?

2. Reformed Swiss Interpreters

2.1. Johannes Oecolampadius—Basel, 1520s

The first Swiss theologian for our exploration is Johannes Oecolampadius from Basel and his 1525 commentary. In the preface, Oecolampadius highlights that Christ himself preached from Isaiah on the Sabbath. He rhetorically asks:

Do you think that it is for no reason that he did this on the Sabbath? … Learn now why he read it on the Sabbath day, for this also pertains to us. For he admonishes us to sanctify the Sabbath as worthy to God, abstaining from servile works, I say, from evil affections: greed, jealousy, empty fear, trifles, delights, and similar things—if indeed we hope to benefit from the reading.

(Oecolampadius 1525, pp. 2r–v)

This theme of “sanctifying the Sabbath” as abstaining from evil thoughts and actions permeates his Isaiah commentary as his primary emphasis.

In his exposition of Isaiah 1:12–15, Oecolampadius highlights the spiritual nature of ceremonies and practices, including the Sabbath. He opens this section stating, “Observe here that naked ceremonies are not approved by God” (p. 12r). He describes them as “no more honorable than if someone were to offer a few carts of worthless mud to a king” (p. 12r). Oecolampadius clarifies that God condemns these ceremonies “when they are naked, that is, lacking in faith and mercy, and are used for a purpose other than that commanded by God” (pp. 12r–v). A little later he reiterates that “God desires not so much ceremonies as faith and charity. Saved by faith, which operates through love, there is no need for ceremonies. Without faith, they are entirely harmful” (p. 12v). Then, again, he contends, “God required two things in ceremonies, faith and charity, and those who neglected them were truly abominable, mocking hypocrites before God” (p. 13v). He insists that God is not pleased with merely external actions, but rather “God demands the whole person. Even if you take leisure on the festive day, unless you have a sincere mind, it will not benefit you” (pp. 13v–14r). A significant theme for Oecolampadius’s theology of Sabbath is the necessity of faith and charity for it to have any meaning.

Oecolampadius also indicates in his comments on this passage a ceremonial aspect of the Sabbath commandment when he responds to the rhetorical question, “And to what extent are these commanded by God?” His answer includes that “God wanted these to be preserved until Christ”, since “most of them also foreshadowed Christ, and confirmed the faith of weaker consciences as symbols”. He specifically refers to these ceremonies as a type that was fulfilled in the coming of Christ, “Yet now, our faith is not confirmed in type and figure, but in the truth of Christ … Therefore, to keep those ceremonies now as necessary would be nothing but lighting candles in broad daylight: indeed, it would be to declare that Christ has not yet come in the flesh” (p. 12v). Oecolampadius uses these strong words to stress that only the “few and familiar symbols of his word, baptism, and eucharist” are consecrated, so that one is “free to keep or not to keep” all the other ceremonies and symbols based on how it benefits one’s neighbor (p. 12v). This corresponds to his view on whether Christians should keep Sabbath on a certain day. Oecolampadius states:

A true Christian is to celebrate perpetual sabbath, never to do any servile works, nor to distinguish between days, according to Rom. 14, Gal. 4, and Col. 2. Yet the joy of Christ’s resurrection has rendered a better festive day for us, on the Lord’s Day, in the meantime … I have not heard any wise man who does not think that a great part of other feasts should be abolished.

(p. 14r)

Oecolampadius makes two significant points here. One is that celebrating “perpetual sabbath” includes not distinguishing days such that Sunday, the Lord’s Day, was simply the replacement or substitute day for the Sabbath day. He does not identify the Lord’s Day as the Christian Sabbath, but rather a “better festive day” entirely. Secondly, Oecolampadius includes in the celebration of “perpetual sabbath” refraining from “servile works”. Yet, this should not be assumed or misunderstood to mean any and all labor, or even labor of any kind.

Oecolampadius’s comments on Isaiah 56 and 58 reveal that “servile works” refers specifically to sins regarding interpretation of Sabbath. Sabbath as rest from sin is clear from his comment on Isaiah 56:2.

He only requires this: that you keep the Sabbath and refrain from evil deeds; everything else he himself will work, he will make it be worked in you. … To keep the Sabbath is not to offer many sacrifices, but to refrain from doing servile work on that day, that is, to abstain from evil deeds, as will be said more clearly in chapter 58 below.

(Oecolampadius 1525, p. 270v)

This same sense is apparent where he links the phrase “keep Sabbath” in 56:4 with refraining from sin. Twice he comments, “if they would keep sabbath, that is, keep away from sin…” and then later, “if they keep the Sabbath holy, that is, they do not do servile works, that is, sins, …” (p. 271r–v). This view is also evident from Oecolampadius’s comment on Genesis, “We know Sabbath observation is perpetual among Christians, in order that they should abstain from sins and wickedness that offend God (Oecolampadius [1536] 2013, p. 113). His comments on other passages in Isaiah that refer to rest, but not specifically to Sabbath, reinforce this perspective. His comments on Isaiah 23:15–18 and 30:15 show the parallel he makes between repentance and a soul that “rests from sins and takes Sabbath rest from this work” (Oecolampadius 1525, p. 149v), or “rest and true Sabbath” (ibid., p. 174v).

In addition to the theme of Sabbath as refraining from sin, Oecolampadius’s comments on Isaiah 58:13–14 exhibit his emphasis on letting God work in you as keeping Sabbath. After multiple times commenting earlier that he would say more on chapter 58 (p. 11r, 270v), Oecolampadius expands on what he previously taught about Sabbath.

For Sabbath pleasing to God is that we should deny ourselves and renounce our own will. Just as God rested on that day from creating new works, so let us also cease from our own works, so that God may work his work. This Sabbath has been completely fulfilled by our only Lord Jesus, who perfectly fulfilled the will of the Father. Therefore he says: “If you had decided to do any of your own things on the Sabbath and you bring back your foot from the Sabbath”, that is, you refrain from doing it because it is the Sabbath and the commemoration of the Sabbath, so that you give place and glory to God and let him work his work, then you will rightly sanctify the Sabbath. For such a Sabbath is pleasing to God.

(pp. 280v–281r)

This concept of letting God “work his work” as Sabbath that pleases the Lord suggests that Oecolampadius primarily understood Sabbath in terms of internal attitude and much less about external actions or concerns about what one might consider “work” on the Sabbath day. In fact, Oecolampadius specifies here that “a work done in faith for the benefit of one’s neighbor does not violate the Sabbath, for that is God at work” (p. 281r). In contrast, though, even an action that may appear holy on the outside, “if you seek your own benefit in it, it is servile and violates the Lord’s Sabbath” (p. 281r). For Oecolampadius, truly keeping Sabbath required refraining from evil thoughts and useless words every day, and especially on a day for Sabbath.

Oecolampadius’s discussion on the final reference to Sabbath in Isaiah (66:22–24) reiterates the main themes of his views on Sabbath. Here, he describes the future time when Christians “will not celebrate the Sabbath in the manner of the Jews, nor distinguish between days, but will have perpetual holidays, never performing servile works, that is, sins, and will always be in the temple, that is, they will always praise God in spirit and truth, in adversity as well as prosperity, and will not turn to idols or any creature, but only to the Lord, bending the knees of their hearts in worship” (p. 309v). This statement pulls together and succinctly summarizes several of the themes Oecolampadius accentuates throughout his Isaiah commentary.

It should not be surprising that themes in Oecolampadius’s Isaiah commentary correspond to Basel’s confessional statements since Oecolampadius authored the Catechism for Basel in 1526 and drafted the 1534 Confession of Basel before his death in 1531 (Fairbairn and Reeves 2019, p. 285; Gordon 2002, p. 289; Cochrane 2003, p. 90). Both documents articulate extremely little about Sabbath. The only relevant reference to Sabbath in the Basel Confession is where Article V, “Concerning the Church” states, “This Christian Church … has no fellowship with sects and the rules of religious orders which are determined to distinguish between days, food, clothing, and ecclesiastical pageantry” (Cochrane 2003, p. 92). There is no specific statement about keeping Sabbath or observing the Lord’s Day, but it does reiterate the theme not to distinguish between days, which Oecolampadius had applied to the Sabbath, among other ceremonies and festivals, in his comments on the Isaiah passages.

The catechism echoes Oecolampadius’s emphasis that “the precepts of the Decalogue are not kept when they are only observed externally… For God demands first and foremost the heart” (Oecolampadius [1534] 1587, p. 3v [unnumbered]). Yet the entire teaching in the Basel Catechism on Sabbath is the response to the question, “Q. Who keeps the Sabbath rightly?” where the expected answer is, “The one who on the Lord’s Day hears the word of God, and who withdraws from sin and rests in God” (ibid., p. 3v [unnumbered]). While this response links the Lord’s Day and keeping the Sabbath, it does not equate the Lord’s Day as a Christian version of the Sabbath day but expects that hearing the word on the day set aside is one piece of keeping Sabbath rightly, along with resting from sin and resting in God, presumably every day of the week. At minimum, the scarcity of confessional statements related to Sabbath-keeping signals that it drew relatively little attention in early Reformed Basel. Using our grid of key questions, we can summarize Oecolampadius’s Sabbath views. Oecolampadius most emphasized Sabbath as spiritual rest from sin, which he understood as the perpetual aspect of Sabbath. For him, much of the Sabbath commandment has been abolished, because it was a type and symbol that was fulfilled in Christ’s arrival in the flesh. One result is that there is no longer a distinction between days, so no particular day is associated with Sabbath. A person is free to keep Sabbath on a specific day or not. Oecolampadius viewed the Lord’s Day as a better festive day that commemorates Christ’s resurrection, which may include elements related to Sabbath, such as hearing God’s word, but is not considered the Sabbath day itself. Beyond not sinning and allowing God to work his work in a person, Oecolampadius and the Basel confessions offer little about what specifically should or should not be done on a day for Sabbath.

2.2. Ulrich Zwingli and Konrad Pellikan—Zürich, 1520s and 1530s

The second set of Swiss reformers in this analysis are Ulrich Zwingli and Konrad Pellikan in Zurich during the 1520s and 1530s. In Zurich, there seems to be a shift in emphasis regarding Sabbath from this early time period of Zwingli to the later era under Bullinger. The annotations on Isaiah by Zwingli published in 1529 and his collected sermons on Isaiah, along with the relatively short commentary on Isaiah by Pellikan published in 1534, represent this time period. It is worth noting that in the publication of his commentary on Isaiah, Zwingli states, “I do not want you to suspect me of calling the most learned and most godly commentary of Oecolampadius into doubt”. He praises Oecolampadius’s commentary as a “cornucopia” that “truly made clear” the genuine sense of Isaiah (Zwingli [1529] 1959, pp. 87–88). While certainly not true in every case, it would seem likely that where Zwingli does not comment on a particular passage, he would have at least general agreement with what Oecolampadius had previously taught. In some cases, such as his comments on Isaiah 66:22, Zwingli explicitly states, “For this view seems more convincing to me than the one followed by Oecolampadius” (ibid., p. 409).

Zwingli’s comments on the relevant passages in Isaiah on Sabbath are quite few. His annotations of Isaiah 1:12–15 are only a kind of paraphrased translation with no articulation that would help reveal his perspectives on Sabbath. There is nothing in his sermons on that specific passage. His exposition of the repeated phrase “keeping sabbath” in 56:2–8 addresses why Moses so strongly urged observance of the Sabbath. The main action for every Sabbath was that “the law is to be explained to the congregation”. He argues that passages in Deuteronomy and Acts provide “the reason for the Sabbath”, since those explain “that one should refrain from all evil” and that “since the hand must always be restrained from any wrongdoing, it follows that we ought to observe eternal festivals. For by the term ‘Sabbath’ alone, the prophet pulls us away from every crime” (ibid., p. 379). Like Oecolampadius, a primary interpretation of Sabbath for Zwingli was to stay away, or “rest” from sin, which is what it means to observe the “eternal festival” of Sabbath.

In his sermons on Isaiah 56, Zwingli indicates that others differ on their understanding of keeping Sabbath when he acknowledges that “those who learn to keep the feast day holy with good words and deeds, do not learn wrongly” (Zwingli [1530] 2013, p. 201). He distinguishes this from his own view when he equates the phrases, “keep my covenant”, “keep Sabbath”, and “restrains his hand” to mean that keeping Sabbath simply means that one “does not do what pleases oneself, but rather relies on God’s grace” (ibid., p. 201). Similarly, Zwingli’s sermon that includes 58:13 identifies that the prophet “declares what Sabbath is, what God requires from us: That we only do what God wants and commands, even demands, and let go of what we think is good for pursuing our own plans” (p. 207). In his annotations on the same verse, Zwingli uses the literary term for the spread of themes throughout a writing to suggest a kind of development with the Sabbath concept. He contends, “There is an elegant metastasis in the term Sabbath. Earlier it was established for keeping free from crime; but now it is established for all kinds of happiness, which those recorded among the saints enjoy” (Zwingli [1529] 1959, p. 387). Zwingli ascertains both a negative and positive expectation for keeping Sabbath.

The only comment Zwingli makes on the Isaiah 66 reference to the future Sabbath is a rhetorical question about why those who maintain that the priesthood is perpetual do not establish perpetual New Moon festivals (ibid., p. 409). However, in his Genesis commentary, Zwingli appeals to this passage as evidence that “the Sabbath is established in the unchanging law of piety; it will never be abolished, but there will be the ‘Sabbath of Sabbaths,’ as Isaiah says” (Zwingli [1527] 1963, p. 16). He quickly makes the distinction, ”However, the external and plainly ceremonial aspect of the Sabbath has been clearly abolished by Christ in the Gospel writings” (ibid., pp. 16–17). This distinction between the “law of piety” and the “ceremonial aspect”, which he calls the “mystical meaning of the Sabbath”, allows him to hold its continual function and purpose while at the same time maintaining that “no one should think that God had attributed anything special in terms of sanctification to this day over others. For the Sabbath is not in itself better or holier than other days, if considered on its own” (p. 16). Zwingli specifies that God sanctified the Sabbath “not because He delighted in our holidays or leisure, but so that on that day we may gather free from all work, remember God’s blessings with gratitude, hear His law and word, worship Him, serve Him, and then take care of our neighbors” (p. 16). This summary of what one can do because of a day dedicated to Sabbath corresponds to Zwingli’s summary that the Old Testament commanded Sabbath for “partly focusing on faith and the worship of God, and partly on charity towards our neighbors” (pp. 16–17). For Zwingli, the rest tied to the day for Sabbath is primarily to facilitate worship and charity.

Zwingli’s sabbath theology is also evident from the expanded version of one of his most significant sermons, “Liberty Respecting Food in Lent”, in March 1522. Zwingli applies his understanding of Sabbath to support his contention that “the time which men have imposed upon us”, such as Lent, carries no weight since “even the Sabbath, which God established, is now subject to people” (Zwingli [1522] 1912, pp. 80–81, 112). Based on the words of Jesus in Mark 2:27, Zwingli points out, “Notice here that need is superior not only to human law, but also to divine law; for observing the Sabbath is divine law” (ibid., p. 81). Zwingli further argues, “the Sabbath is in the power of man, not man in the power of the Sabbath. In a word, the Sabbath and all times are subject to man, not man to the Sabbath” (pp. 81–82). He even specifies that “it is not the intention of Christ, that people should not keep the Sabbath (for us Christians Sunday is ordained as the Sabbath), but where our use or need requires something else, the Sabbath itself, not only other times, shall be subject to us” (p. 82). Notably, at the same time he inserts that Sunday is “ordained as the Sabbath”, he offers several qualifications for the ways it functions under human power and subjectivity, including its time and what is permissible on it. Even “ordinary, daily necessity” is permissible on the day for Sabbath, not just “extreme necessity, when one would be near death, as the mistaken theologians dream” (pp. 82–83). At a later point, Zwingli also interjects a note about Sunday when he pronounces, “No one shall reject you or consider you good on account of any food, or holy day, whether you rest or not (always with the exception of Sundays, after God’s Word has been heard and communion administered)…”. At the same time, he declares that the Sabbath has “become only symbolical of a Christian holiday, when one is to cease and leave off sinning…” (p. 107). These juxtaposed statements reveal some of the different layers in Zwingli’s understanding of Sabbath. His point in all this, of course, was to conclude, “Then as far as time is concerned, the need and use of all foods are free, so that whatever food our daily necessity requires, we may use at all times and on all days, for time shall be subject to us” (p. 83). In arguing his case for eating sausages on a Friday during Lent, we see several elements of Zwingli’s theology of Sabbath at work that correspond to his teaching and preaching on the Sabbath passages in Isaiah.

From these examples, we can summarize several aspects of Zwingli’s sabbath views through our grid of questions. Zwingli most emphasizes Sabbath as a kind of spiritual rest that includes ceasing from sin and pursuing one’s own will, and instead relying on God’s grace to do what he commands. According to Zwingli, the eternal nature of Sabbath refers to these aspects. Zwingli also includes worship of God as an aspect of keeping Sabbath that continues after all ceremonial aspects have been abolished by Christ. For Zwingli, the particular day for Sabbath is one of the elements abolished, even though he recognizes Sunday as a day to rest after gathering for worship, which is facilitated by being freed from work. That day is designated to hear God’s word, give thanks, administer communion, and care for neighbors. And should ordinary necessity require one to act, a designation of times or days like the Sabbath cannot take precedence over that. In many ways Zwingli’s theology of Sabbath aligns with Oecolampadius.

Konrad Pellikan’s 1534 Isaiah commentary represents another theologian from Zurich during this time. Pellikan’s comments on the Sabbath passages in Isaiah reflect similar views as Zwingli and Oecolampadius, with a few minor differences. His brief comments on Isaiah 1:12–15 echo Oecolampadius when he insists on the need for faith and “love of virtue” for ceremonies, such as the Sabbath, to not be empty or “even an abomination” (Pellikan [1534] 1582, p. 2r). Pellikan summarizes that the people in Isaiah’s time abused the Sabbath because they treated it as if it were “only for idleness, and the wanton display of pride, with gluttony and all kinds of luxury, not for prayer or listening to the word of God” (ibid., p. 2r). He paraphrases the Lord as saying, “you offer me material things when I desire spiritual ones” (p. 2r). These two themes of the spiritual nature of the Sabbath as more important than the external observance and the implication that this time was to be set aside for prayer and hearing God’s word reflect earlier Swiss Reformed views expressed.

When Pellikan comments on the repeated phrase “keeping the sabbath” in 56:2–8, he specifies that one “will most diligently keep sabbath, not so that you cease from all work, but that you choose for yourselves a time of rest from servile works so that you may reflect on me as the creator of you and the whole world, who created all things for your service and benefit” (p. 68r). Pellikan instructs the one who wants to fulfill the Lord’s will on Sabbath, “Listen, learn, and ponder my law, the word of faith and examples of my providence, and the prophetic writings. Visit the poor with kindnesses and the sorrowful with consolations” (p. 68r). In contrast, “to profane the Sabbath is to be idle, to be lustful, to be insolent, to recall debts, to grieve and oppress the poor” (p. 68r). Like Zwingli, Pellikan’s comments show that he did not view the Sabbath day as fixed, but a time of rest they could choose for themselves to allocate for the purposes of hearing and learning God’s word and caring for others or treating them justly.

Pellikan did not want Sabbath to be treated as a means for idleness or merely physical rest, but a way to let God do his work. In his comments on 58:13–14 he admonishes:

Do not think that you have kept the Sabbath if you take your time for bodily rest, if you perform sacrifices, psalms, vestments, banquets, and jubilee, for by these you will not particularly please the Lord. But if you deny yourself, renounce the will of the flesh and your own senses so that the Lord may work his work in you; if you propose any of your works on the Sabbath and yet forsake it on account of God so that you may be free to benefit and help your neighbor in need, such a Sabbath will be pleasing to God. And you will truly call that Sabbath holy and a delight, and most pleasing to the Lord.

(p. 71r)

Pellikan’s phrase, “that the Lord may work his work”, draws right from Oecolampadius’s comments on this passage that keeping Sabbath is to “cease from our own works, so that God may work his work”, and commemorating the Sabbath is to “let him work his work” (Oecolampadius 1525, pp. 280v–281r). Both these interpreters insist that external actions are not what God desires in the Sabbath, but rather a way to make oneself available for God to do his work in them. Pellikan goes so far as to say, “If in any seemingly spiritual and holy work, you look to your comfort, it will be servile and will violate the true Sabbath of the Lord” (Pellikan [1534] 1582, p. 71r). Even doing good things on the Sabbath is wrong if one seeks their own merits or to do their own will rather than God’s.

A final aspect of Pellikan’s theology of Sabbath comes from his description of the future heavenly Sabbath in Isaiah 66:23. Here he demonstrates the main components of his views on keeping Sabbath and specifies his understanding of Sabbath as perpetual.

Moreover, the Sabbath will not be celebrated as physical rest after seven days of labor, but in a certain continuous holy joy of conscience, lasting forever for those righteous ones. With no other intent than to please the Lord by worshiping worthily with certain faith, and in pleasing him also taking care of neighbors out of charity, totally dependent on God, and always giving attention to the will of God alone. This will be the perpetual Sabbath of the faithful, when finally, the Sabbath of the church triumphant is reached in heaven.

(p. 81r)

Pellikan differs from his predecessors in his use of the term “perpetual Sabbath” to refer to this future time when the church will be in heaven and will experience continuous Sabbath every day. However, his final statement on Sabbath from Isaiah takes mostly the exact same phrasing as Oecolampadius, simply reversing the order. Pellikan concludes, “All the chosen and true Christians will worship the Lord in spirit and truth, praising in prosperity and adversity, not turning to idols, but worshiping the Lord alone continuously, and daily keeping the festivals to the Lord, resting from servile works and sins, they will always be in the temple, and God in them by faith” (p. 81r). Oecolampadius had first described this heavenly Sabbath as “never performing servile works, that is, sins, and will always be in the temple”, which he equated with “they will always praise God in spirit and truth, in adversity as well as prosperity, and will not turn to idols or any creature, but only to the Lord”, (Oecolampadius 1525, p. 309v). Pellikan replaced some of Oecolampadius’s words with “continuously and daily keeping the festivals to the Lord”. This clearly shows much similarity between Pellikan and Oecolampadius, with the slight difference that Pellikan viewed the perpetual Sabbath as the future time in the new heavens and earth when the festivals would be kept continuously.

Based on Pellikan’s interpretations of the Sabbath passages in Isaiah, we can summarize several aspects of his sabbath theology through our grid of questions. Pellikan emphasizes the spiritual nature of the Sabbath over external observance, similar to Oecolampadius, but he also highlights keeping Sabbath as time for worship, especially prayer and hearing God’s word, and time freed up to take care of one’s neighbors like Zwingli. Interestingly, Pellikan does not specifically address the moral and ceremonial aspects of the Sabbath commandment or specify what aspects have been abolished, abrogated, or fulfilled. He also differs from Zwingli and Oecolampadius in his view that the perpetual Sabbath will be the continuous time of worship in the new heavens and earth. However, like Oecolampadius and Zwingli before him, Pellikan also maintains that the day for rest does not have to be either the seventh day or Sunday, but Christians could choose any day to take Sabbath.

2.3. Wolfgang Musculus—Bern, 1550s

Wolfgang Musculus represents the next location and time period for this analysis, Bern in the 1550s. His 1557 commentary on Isaiah is one of the most substantial among all Protestant reformers. Musculus’s views expressed in that commentary can also be seen in his Commonplaces of Christian Religion that was translated into English in 1563. Many themes from previous interpreters are found in Musculus’s teaching, but they also show crucial differences and developments.

Musculus’s comments on Isaiah 1:12–15 provide minimal information about his views on Sabbath. He identifies the Sabbath as one of the “four kinds of sacred times for universal holidays”, with it specifically being “appointed for sacred leisure every seventh day” (Musculus 1557, p. 35). He observes that when God rejects the assemblies, the prophet “does not express what their iniquity was”, and he finds “no definite information” in the text, but states that more will be “explained below in chapter 58” (ibid., p. 35). He provides little contemporary application for Sabbath or theological reasoning in this passage.

On the repeated phrase “keeping sabbath” in Isaiah 56:2–8, Musculus expresses ideas on the “legal piety” of Sabbath similar to those before him. He describes keeping Sabbath as “not only leisure, but also frequenting the church of God, the study of sacred doctrine, prayers, and sacred rituals, all things by which the people were imbued with piety” (ibid., p. 751). He also clarifies that only those who “have piety in their hearts” have “truly kept Sabbath religiously” (p. 751). Distinct from the previous Swiss reformers, Musculus identifies an order in the Isaiah passage with “those keeping judgments and doing justice” in verse 1 as the magistrates and judges, and those “who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it” in verse 2 as the common people. He concedes, “Let me not, however, be opposed to anyone who thinks that this whole verse refers to all the godly in general” (p. 751). It is plausible that this indicates a view that the civil authorities have a responsibility in ensuring Sabbath keeping happens, or at least is made possible. Gonzalez and Dieleman both observe that as Sabbath theology developed among the Reformed, the trend was to attempt to apply Sabbath rules to the broader society and call for the civil authorities to legislate the rest required on the Lord’s Day (Gonzalez 2017, p. 116; Dieleman 2019, pp. 24–25).

In a way similar to the previous Swiss reformers, Musculus specifies the Lord’s Day as the day for Sabbath, “So among Christians, the day we call the Lord’s (Dominicum) is very valuable to the truly faithful ones, because of their devotion and participation in the sacred assembly, holy doctrine, prayers, psalms, and mystical communion; but it is not to the carnal and the atheists, except perhaps due to their leisure and the corruptions which accompany leisure” (Musculus 1557, p. 751). He associates the activities for keeping Sabbath with what truly faithful believers do on the Lord’s Day. These are primarily for worship and not abusing the rest on that day. He reinforces that Sabbath keeping is not merely leisure or avoiding profane actions, but “not to violate the Sabbath” also includes “to fulfill all those things which concern one’s spiritual care” (ibid., pp. 751–52).

The entries in the index to Musculus’s Isaiah commentary on Sabbath point to the Isaiah 58 passage. Already in his notes on 58:12, Musculus states, “the Sabbath was instituted for this purpose, that the people might assemble for the formation of religion” (p. 777). Musculus brings out two key aspects of keeping Sabbath rightly from this passage. He highlights that the Lord calling the Sabbath his day means that “he set it aside and consecrated it for their leisure and rest, as can be seen in the Decalogue. For this reason, he calls it his Sabbath day, and he made it holy, that is, consecrated, sanctified, and separated from the other six for religious exercises” (p. 777). Because it is his day, and not theirs, “the people were not allowed to pursue their own pursuits—which were not forbidden on the other six days”. (p. 777). In his explanation of the phrase, “turn away your foot” (58:13), Musculus equates this to turning away from “their pursuits, from what pleases and delights themselves, so that they do not do it. To turn our foot away from our own pleasure is to restrain ourselves from following our own desires and pursuits” (p. 777). In fact, he concludes this whole section, “Therefore, above all, he demands that on the Sabbath day they ‘restrain their feet’ from the pursuit of their own desires” (p. 777). Yet keeping Sabbath goes beyond not pursuing one’s own interest. Similarly to what he explained earlier, “the sanctification of the Sabbath requires both hearts and bodies to be free from the cares and labors of the world, so that they could more freely engage in heavenly meditation and the teaching of the word of God” (p. 778). Musculus connects these two pieces together when he articulates that for Sabbath to be a delight and glorifying to God, it means “abstaining from your own pursuits”, and “delighting yourself in the meditation on God’s law and on faith in his providence, and observing the truth of his commandments” (p. 778).

In Musculus’s comments on the promised heavenly Sabbath in Isaiah 66:22–23, he offers a perspective he identifies as different from other interpreters who “explain a distinction between the new covenant and the old, that there are no longer certain Sabbaths and festival days sacred to the Lord, but continuous and constant ones” (p. 855). This is the view of Oecolampadius and Pellikan. While Musculus acknowledges, “Indeed, each day is a spiritual Sabbath, sacred to the Lord, in the New Testament”, he understands this passage to be “simply predicting the future, that believers from all nations will gather on every Sabbath and New Moon to worship the hidden God” (p. 855). His interpretation of the heavenly Sabbath as a weekly gathering for worship parallels his understanding of the current practices of Sabbath. He reasons that because the Israelites “were not yet capable of worshiping the Lord in a spiritual form, which was future in the New Testament, it was therefore necessary to have such customary expressions of months, Sabbaths, offerings, etc., all of which were to come to an end after the coming of Christ, so that God should be worshiped not in a legalistic manner in Jerusalem, but spiritually throughout the whole world, and in truth” (p. 855). From these comments, one can deduce that Musculus recognized a spiritual nature to the Sabbath that is true for every day and that the legalism of Sabbath ended with Christ’s first coming, but that the weekly rhythm of gathered worship would actually extend into eternity.

These views on Sabbath articulated by Musculus in his Isaiah commentary find correspondence in his Common Places where he specifies “three ways the Sabbath is to be considered: the one is as it is grounded in the law, the second is spiritual, the third is heavenly” (Musculus 1563, p. 60v). He summarizes these later as three “manners” of sabbath, “(1) legal, literal, bodily and shadowing; (2) spiritual, and (3) heavenly, perfect, and everlasting” (p. 68v). Near the conclusion, he identifies these as three “degrees” with the first being “gross, outward, and elementary”, the second being “inward and spiritual”, and the third “of perfection and consummation” (p. 68v).

Musculus spends the most time on the legal manner of Sabbath, with a primary emphasis that the day set aside for rest from working and letting others rest is so that “the mind may be instructed, exercised and grounded in things concerning the faith and knowledge of God, and the seeking of true godliness” (p. 61r). People are to withdraw from their daily duties so that their whole mind can “come unto the reading of the holy Scriptures, the blessed sermons, the hearing of God’s word, prayers—both private and of the holy Church, the celebrating and communion of God’s mysteries, and similar things” (p. 64r). Musculus contends that sanctifying the Sabbath day is to embrace that God chose the day so that “it should not be at the people’s liberty to appoint any day for this rest at their own discretion” (p. 60v). He clarifies, though, that the specific day is not because God has “any great care of the days” or “because of the number of seven or any other qualities of itself, but because it was consecrated by the Lord for rest, and therefore named the day of Sabbath, which is to say, a day of rest” (p. 62r). This enables him to rule out people establishing any other holy days, such as those named after saints. Accepting God’s choice for the day of keeping Sabbath also reinforces his emphasis that on the Sabbath, people should do what God wants, not what they want.

Musculus more specifically draws out that since the Law says one should do “no work” on the Sabbath—and does not say one “shall not do evil work on it”—, even things that are lawful, honest, necessary, profitable, and good themselves are forbidden “in respect of sanctifying the Sabbath” (p. 64r). This emphasis on no work at all, even necessary work, on the day for Sabbath distinguishes Musculus’s perspective from Oecolampadius, Zwingli, and Pellikan before him, and is a movement toward later expectations for keeping Sabbath in the Reformed tradition.

Musculus dedicates much less attention to the spiritual and heavenly aspects of Sabbath. He notes “this spiritual sabbath is not tied to any certain time, as the legal Sabbath is, but is continual and at all seasons” (p. 68r). The arrival of the heavenly Sabbath will remove all troubles, travails, sorrows, errors, temptations, and anguishes “which the spiritual does not rid us of” (p. 68r). Musculus summarizes a kind of Sabbath progression, “The same which is shadowed in the legal Sabbath is begun and fashioned in the spiritual sabbath, and in the heavenly Sabbath in the life to come, is perfected and composed” (p. 68r).

In this treatment of the abrogation of the law regarding Sabbath, Musculus maintains that because Sabbath was instituted at creation, it belongs to the law of nature, so “we should on some day give ourselves to holy occupations and exercises. In this respect we must not forsake the sanctifying of the Sabbath or rest” (p. 69v). However, the Sabbath commandment is only binding as law for the Israelites, so the specification of the seventh day for the Sabbath “was but for a time, until the coming of the New Testament, when both the law of Moses and the priesthood also gave way to Christ our Savior” (p. 69v). From this he concludes that Christians “leaving the Jewish Sabbath, keep our holy rest on that day when our Savior delivered [us]… and triumphed over all three: death, sin, and Satan. This day is called the Lord’s Day, to the intent the memory of the resurrection of our Lord should be celebrated until the end of the world” (pp. 69v–70r). Here Musculus makes it clearer that the Lord’s Day is when Christians keep holy rest, or Sabbath, because it commemorates Jesus’ resurrection.

From his interpretations of the Sabbath passages in Isaiah and his exposition in his Common Places, we can summarize several aspects of Musculus’s Sabbath views through our grid of questions. Musculus emphasizes the legal aspect of Sabbath as a day set aside for worship and learning that honors God by not pursuing one’s own will on that day, which belongs to him because he chose it. He identifies the selection of the specific day on the seventh day as part of the law specific to Israel, and therefore not applicable to Christians. By implication, nearly all other elements of Sabbath continue since they are part of the law of nature. And the gathered worship in the weekly sabbath rhythm will even continue with the heavenly Sabbath when both body and mind are truly at rest. While Musculus does not label these continuing elements as “perpetual”, he identifies the rhythm of weekly rest as instituted at creation and the spiritual Sabbath as daily putting sin to rest. He views physical rest as a means to enable worship, prayer, hearing God’s word, and caring for others. Musculus adds an emphasis on “no work” on the day of Sabbath, even that which is considered necessary. And he associates this day of rest with Sunday, the Lord’s Day, because it commemorates Christ’s resurrection and distinguishes the Christian practice from the Jewish observance.

As was the case in Basel, the catechism used in Zurich and Bern at this time exhibits affinity with the respective theologians and indicates some of the development on Sabbath views among the Swiss Reformed. Leo Jud (1482–1542) published various length catechisms for Zurich in 1534, with a revised version adopted by Bern in 1536 (Priestley [1538] 2017, p. 200). In the Larger Catechism, the introductory comments on Sabbath categorize the lessons around the “external and ceremonial” and the “internal and spiritual” aspects (Jud 1534, pp. 12v–13r). The Shorter Catechism summarized this as doing good on the day for Sabbath and not doing evil in the answer to “What is celebrating or sanctifying the Sabbath?” (Priestley [1538] 2017, p. 215). These catechisms also reiterate the theme of Christian observance of the Sabbath, as asserted in the Larger Catechism, “Christians should not be compelled to observe the Sabbath in a Jewish manner as it goes against Christian freedom, and they should sanctify the Sabbath out of their own faith and love” (Jud 1534, pp. 15r–16v).

Of particular note to the various Swiss theologians’ comments on Isaiah, the Larger Catechism cites both Isaiah 56 and 58, drawing from these passages that resting from one’s temporal work enables a person to be “more prepared and unhindered to hear God’s word” and participate in worship, and “to serve one’s neighbor in love and engage in good works throughout the day” (ibid., pp. 14v, 15r). These explanations bring together the themes from Zwingli that Sabbath is for taking care of one’s neighbors and from Pellikan that it is also a day set aside for worship, prayer, and the Word. Though not as strong as Musculus’s view that one should do no ordinary work on the day for Sabbath, the Shorter Catechism does contain a specific list of good works that one should do to celebrate the Sabbath and “ungodly works” that desecrate the day (Priestley [1538] 2017, p. 215).

More closely related to Musculus’s views is the catechism’s association of the day of rest with Sunday. Multiple times the Larger Catechism refers to “doing such things on Sunday”, (Jud 1534, p. 13v) or doing what “does not keep the Sunday holy, but rather desecrates and dishonors it” (p. 14r), and even specifically equating “sanctifying the Sabbath” with what “shall be observed on the Sabbath, our Sunday and day of rest” (p. 15r). Likewise, the Shorter Catechism teaches that, “People should cease from these works [of the flesh] on Sunday and be diligent in God’s works” (Priestley [1538] 2017, p. 215). The catechism used in Zurich and Bern reiterates the prominent themes found in our Swiss Reformed interpreters and articulates more directly some of the developing Sabbath themes.

2.4. Heinrich Bullinger and Rudolf Gwalther—Zurich, 1560s to 1580s

The final grouping of Swiss reformers are Heinrich Bullinger and Rudolf Gwalther as representatives of Zurich from the 1560s to 1580s. These two both produced substantial Isaiah commentaries based on the sermons they preached. After Zwingli’s death, Bullinger functioned as the leading theologian for the Zurich church, and then Gwalther succeeded him after Bullinger’s death (Gordon 2020, pp. 218–23; Opitz 2004, pp. 101–16). Once again, many similar and recurring themes from earlier Swiss Reformed theologians exist in these commentaries, but some significant departures and developments arise in their theology and application of Sabbath.

Bullinger already indicates his views on the purpose of the Sabbath in his fourth homily on Isaiah, which includes 1:12–15. He explains that the ceremonial festivals, including the Sabbath, were instituted by God because “it is necessary that there should be a definite and appointed time, and a suitable place in which to assemble for the sacred things. Leisure must also be sacred. God therefore instituted holidays for his people and arranged them beautifully throughout the year” (Bullinger 1567, p. 6v). Among that beautiful and convenient arrangement, “Months are divided into weeks; each week having its own sabbath” (p. 7r). Bullinger further explains:

God had instituted holidays, so that the people could make good use of sacred leisure, listen to the exposition of the Law and holy sermons, to pray, and religiously use the sacraments. But when they neglected these things, they spent their leisure on stupid matters and were celebrating festivals with the devil. The Lord was rebuking this, and thus he rejects the festivities. But these things should be applied to us, when we also abuse the remembrance of the resurrection on the day called the Lord’s Day, with carnal pleasures and not allowing sacred leisure for ourselves, etc.

(pp. 6v–7r)

Several elements regarding Sabbath are already evident from this sermon that get repeated at other points in his preaching on Isaiah, including his association of Sabbath with the Lord’s Day as a remembrance of Christ’s resurrection (p. 303r).

Bullinger’s 158th homily, where he addresses the repeated phrase “keep Sabbath” in Isaiah 56:2–8, includes the same emphasis on what should be done on the Sabbath day.

For the Sabbath, among the others, was instituted also for the exercise of religion. For this reason, the Lord commanded rest from labor on the Sabbath day, so that people resting from exercise of the body could devote themselves entirely to holy works to be done on the Sabbath day. These would be going to sacred assemblies, listening to the preaching of the word of God, praying with the congregation in the public assembly of the church, and participating in the sacraments, and of course, resting from evil. And those who do not do these things profane the Sabbath. Nothing concerns us here with the Jewish Sabbath. So, in this view, it is required of us to listen religiously to the word of God, render due worship to God, and not be profane. Hence interpreters consider that by Sabbath, the first table of the precepts of the Law was understood by the prophet.

(p. 281v)

Bullinger includes here a brief comment that indicates a distinction between the Jewish Sabbath and how Christians keep Sabbath. Yet he recognizes similarities in how the Sabbath was wrongly treated. Bullinger’s 167th homily on the portion of Isaiah 58 related to Sabbath specifically addresses “the sabbath of hypocrites”, at the time of Isaiah, during the time of Christ, and in his own day. He laments, “Even today, there are those who attribute everything to external leisure and external rituals, as if by observing these in their holidays they would achieve righteousness. But this is a serious error” (p. 302v). At the same time Bullinger asserts that “sacred leisure” should facilitate listening to sermons, praying, participating in the sacraments, and other sacred activities, he rejects the mere observance of them.

Gathering for worship also gets emphasized by Bullinger in his exposition on the phrase, “you will call the Sabbath a delight” (58:13).

With these words, the Lord requires two things from us. One, that we consider the Sabbath, or what is done on the Sabbath, as our delights, certainly heeding the word of God, public prayers, that holy rest, and the exercise of brotherly love. The other, which naturally follows from the first, is that what we do, we do not do reluctantly or under compulsion, but willingly and with such delight. For God seeks a cheerful giver. And truly, the glory of God’s majesty invites spontaneous and delightful worship of God. For just as God is of immense majesty and glory, so quite truly is it most pleasant and filled with all delight for the pious and wise to worship God alone.

(p. 303r)

Here, Bullinger is getting at both the proper external actions and the internal attitude for Sabbath. He observes that this passage “clearly indicates that these and no other things are required by the Lord, who if other things pleased him, could have said so, and not repeat and emphasize the same ones” (p. 303r). For Bullinger it boils down to “three things that we should strive to fulfill in the just observance of the Sabbath”, which are related to what a person does, what they desire, and what they say.

Unique from the other Swiss reformers, Bullinger uses the phrase, “turning one’s foot from the Sabbath” (Isa 58:13) to engage with Jewish teaching that “it was not allowed to go further than a certain prescribed number of steps on the Sabbath” (p. 302v). He notes the phrase “a Sabbath’s day journey” from the New Testament and the teachings of Rabbis Akiva and Hillel. However, Bullinger contends that here “the prophet was penetrating from external to internal matters”, with the analogy that “restraining the foot is to control the emotions”, so that what the Lord requires for keeping sabbath is not restricting steps, but “not to loosen the reins of their emotions or evil desires” (p. 302v). This lends itself to Bullinger emphasizing the notion that Sabbath is resting from sin and indulgence. He concludes, “Therefore, we must abstain from anger, hatred, slander, revelry, lust, greed, and other crimes. For this finally is truly to rest and to observe Sabbath to the Lord. This is something that hypocrites neither care about nor do, content with external appearances” (p. 302v). Throughout his sermons, Bullinger recognizes the connection between “keeping sabbath” and doing justice, as well as the notion that “whoever has kept sabbath has persevered in carrying out repentance” (p. 282v). These themes of Sabbath as repentance and treating others rightly continues key emphases from the previous Swiss reformers.

In his final, 190th, homily on Isaiah, Bullinger preaches on the “Greatest and Pure Joy of the Saints in Heaven”. He interprets the Sabbath in Isaiah 66:23 as signifying “that there will be continuous and never-ending holidays in heaven” (p. 351r) and there will be a rest that is eternal. He explains based on Hebrews 4 that the Sabbath in the Old Testament foreshadowed this heavenly and eternal rest. Bullinger illustrates this with a saying expressed “elegantly in our own native tongue, ‘There will be one Friday after another, that is, there will be nothing but Fridays and rest.’” (p. 351r). He notes that others read the passage as saying that people will gather to worship in a weekly Sabbath rhythm, but Bullinger understands these as separate ideas so that the heavenly and eternal sabbath simply refers to “neither hunger, nor thirst, nor disgust, nor sickness, nor pain, nor death, nor anything of the sort” (p. 351r) for the saints in heaven, but rather the most pleasant and eternal rest. Bullinger differs from Musculus on this view of the heavenly Sabbath but teaches similarly to the previous Swiss reformers.

What Bullinger addressed in his Isaiah sermons regarding Sabbath is also present in the sermons included in his Decades (1557). Bullinger’s views on Sabbath include the three main themes of a spiritual sabbath that is continual, the external institution of religion, and the perpetual sign that God alone sanctifies those who worship him (Bullinger [1557] 1849, pp. 253–67). Similar to Musculus’s treatment above, most of Bullinger’s attention to these three meanings of Sabbath goes to the use and application of the second meaning, the expectations on the day for “exercising religion”. Bullinger acknowledges that even though the transfer of the Sabbath day from Saturday to Sunday happened in the early church and is not a New Testament command, Christians still “are commanded to have a care of religion and the exercising of outward godliness, [so] it would be against all godliness and Christian charity, if we should deny to sanctify the Sunday” (ibid., p. 260). He still does not argue that the Lord explicitly mandates Sunday as the day of rest, but like his predecessors Bullinger maintains that the Sabbath is “a particular day set aside to allow God to work in the individual” rather than doing work for its own purposes (p. 255). The rest required on the day for Sabbath provided the people with “leisure to attend to our spiritual business” that would not be hindered by “bodily business” (p. 255).

Although Bullinger does not directly address questions related to the moral and ceremonial aspects of the Law in his Isaiah sermons, he does in his Decades. Bullinger categorizes the Sabbath commandment as a moral law because it is one of the Ten Commandments, and so it was not abrogated by Christ entirely. At the same time, he categorizes the Sabbath as “ceremonial, so far as it is joined to sacrifices and other Jewish ceremonies, and to the extent it is tied to a certain time; but in respect that on the Sabbath-day religion and true godliness are exercised and proclaimed, that a just and seemly order is kept in the church, and that the love of our neighbor is thereby preserved, therein, I say, it is perpetual, and not ceremonial” (p. 259). For Bullinger, then, the “perpetual Sabbath” refers to the requirement from God that applies in all times, everywhere, and for all people related to gathering for worship and caring for one’s neighbor. When addressing the indulgence of “fleshy pleasures” on the Sabbath day, Bullinger denounces things like drinking, playing dice, and dancing, but he does not indicate that all forms of recreation or necessary work are violations of the Sabbath (pp. 259, 262).

The Helvetic Confessions serve as another significant source for this period in Zurich, as well as Bullinger’s own views, since he was heavily involved in the composition of both the First and Second Helvetic Confessions in 1536 and 1566, respectively (Gordon 2002, pp. 149, 183). The differences between these two confessions parallels the shifting emphases on Sabbath among our Swiss Reformed interpreters.

Among the 27 brief articles of the First Helvetic Confession—also known as the Second Confession of Basel—there is no statement related to the Sabbath or the Lord’s Day, even in the articles where it would make the most sense to address it, such as article IV on human traditions, XIII on the Christian and his responsibilities, or XV on Church (Schaff [1876] 1977, pp. 211–23). Rather, in article XXIV on “The Sacred Assemblies”, the confession states:

Moreover, we believe that sacred assemblies should be conducted in such a way that above all the word of God is publicly proclaimed to the people every day, the hidden truths of Scripture are daily explained and expounded by suitable ministers: the sacred Eucharist should be celebrated to exercise the faith of the faithful, and constant prayer should be offered for the needs of all.

(ibid., p. 227)

The reference to “daily” rather than weekly assemblies for explanations of Scripture further reveals that rules or expectations regarding the day for Sabbath had less emphasis in the 1530s. It seems likely that the discarding of “useless and innumerable trappings of ceremonies” (ibid., p. 227) received much greater attention than specific instructions regarding Sabbath.

The publication of the Second Helvetic Confession (1566) thirty years later expands on many of the original statements and adds others, including those relevant to Swiss Reformed views on Sabbath. Chapter 24 of the confession incorporates statements on “The Time Necessary for Worship”, and “The Lord’s Day”. Reflecting what Bullinger preached in his Isaiah sermons, the Second Helvetic Confession provides summary statements on the key themes related to the day for Sabbath and its purpose.

• Although religion is not bound to time, yet it cannot be cultivated and exercised without a proper distribution or arrangement of time. Every Church, therefore, chooses for itself a certain time for public prayers, the preaching of the Gospel, and the celebration of the sacraments. No one is permitted to overthrow this appointment of the Church by his own decision. For unless some due time and leisure is conceded for the outward exercise of religion, certainly people would be drawn away from it by their own activities.
• Hence we see that in the ancient churches there were not only certain set hours in the week appointed for assemblies, but that the Lord’s Day itself, from the times of the Apostles, was set aside for them and for a holy rest. And that is now rightly kept by our churches for the sake of worship and charity. We do not permit anything here of the Jewish observance and superstitions. For we do not believe that one day is more holy than another, nor do we consider that rest in itself is approved by God, but we celebrate the Lord’s Day and not the Sabbath as a free observance (ibid., p. 298).

These additions in the Second Helvetic Confession, published when Bullinger was preaching through Isaiah not only reflect his theology on Sabbath and its application, but also indicate the different emphases that evolved after the time of the Isaiah commentaries by Oecolampadius, Zwingli, and Pellikan, and the publication of the First Helvetic Confession. Bullinger’s comments on the Sabbath in Isaiah, his Decades, and the Helvetic Confessions demonstrate his views which can be summarized through our grid of questions. While Bullinger identifies a spiritual meaning of Sabbath that equates to refraining from sin, repenting, and treating others rightly, and he identifies the “perpetual Sabbath” as the requirement given to all people to gather for worship and care for one’s neighbor, he gives most attention to expectations on the day for Sabbath. Very similarly to Musculus in this way, Bullinger describes the Sabbath command as calling for sacred leisure that facilitates the exercise of religion, particularly for the reading and preaching of Scripture, praying, administration of the sacraments, and other sacred activities such as giving to the poor. Like those before him, Bullinger views Sunday as the day for those religious activities, even if nothing in Scripture commanded the change from the seventh day to the Lord’s Day. He asserts that because the Lord’s Day commemorates Christ’s resurrection, it serves as the one day per week set aside specifically for rest and worship. He is not as clear as those before him that any day could be chosen to keep Sabbath. Finally, Bullinger’s view that the heavenly Sabbath will be the constant eternal rest when all things are made right differs from Musculus’s understanding that the new heavens and earth will continue a weekly Sabbath rhythm of gathering for worship, but reflects the prior views expressed by those in Zurich.

The last Swiss Reformed voice in this study comes from Rudolf Gwalther’s 1583 Isaiah commentary based on his homilies. His interpretations further demonstrate the shift in emphases regarding the Sabbath in Zurich, and among the Swiss Reformed more broadly. Gwalther’s comments on Isaiah 1:12–15 reflect much of what his predecessors also taught as he specifically identifies a kind of “spiritual Sabbath” from that passage.

For this is actually to keep the Sabbath spiritually: when we rest from fleshly works and sins, and we are intent on those things that pertain to the worship of God. Let one add to these the pursuit of kindness so that when we are rejoicing in the Lord and renewing our exhausted bodies, we also bring joy to those who are overwhelmed with hard poverty, as they indeed cannot rest and rejoice when they are commanded to abstain from the labor of their hands.

(Gwalther 1583, pp. 7r–v)

In addition to the common theme that the rest related to the Sabbath day has the purpose of providing opportunity for worship and being kind to others, Gwalther here concedes that there are some for whom keeping the Sabbath-day command may not be possible. Yet he rejects this as an excuse for people to disregard the Sabbath.

Therefore, their ungratefulness is plainly detestable, who do not even have any regard for the Sabbath, and on those days that commemorate the most important kindnesses of Jesus Christ, they spend them all on business. So, what he has done for us, or what we owe him in return, hardly ever comes to their minds.

(ibid., pp. 7r–v)

In his 276th and 277th sermons, which addresses the phrase “keeping Sabbath” from Isaiah 56:2–8, Gwalther begins his treatment of the precept of Sabbath by saying it is about “the whole worship of God” (p. 349r) and reiterates, “We recently said that the whole external religion is encompassed by the Sabbaths. He distinctly names them as ‘his Sabbaths’ to show that he is speaking about those who, having abandoned all foreign superstitions and ceremonies, observe the prescribed formula of religion itself” (p. 350r). Likewise, Gwalther’s 288th homily, which includes Isaiah 58:13–14, reiterates that “the worship of God primarily consists in true knowledge of Him, and in grateful remembrance of His blessings and works, and for this reason the Sabbath day is consecrated; often in the Scriptures the entire worship is comprehended under the Sabbath and its observance”(p. 367v). Using essentially the same order and nearly identical phrases, Gwalther declares in his sermons on the Isaiah 56 and 58 passages that those rightly keeping Sabbath “will attentively listen to the Word of the Lord, devote themselves entirely to the meditation of His works and blessings, give thanks for them as much as they can, unite fervent prayers of thanksgiving with action…” (p. 349r) and because “the purpose and proper use of the Sabbath is to serve the worship of God, and to dedicate ourselves entirely to its exercise, this includes attending sacred assemblies, hearing the Word, meditating on his works and blessings, giving thanks for them, and praying that He may protect and save us, and finally, that our soul may be freed from sins, not just in body but in spirit” (pp. 367r–v)”. These specific “exercises of religion” on the Sabbath repeat what the other reformers previously taught.

Gwalther espouses the idea that the Sabbath command “contains the entire first table of the Decalogue”, since “true and absolute observance of the Sabbath contains everything that is commanded by those four precepts of the first Table” (Gwalther, pp. 349r, 350r). He summarizes this by stating that “true Sabbath-keeping (Sabbatismus) consists in resting from all external or servile work, not to mention sin, which is never allowed on any day, and in dedicating ourselves entirely to God and His worship” (Gwalther, p. 349r). Already there is a subtle, but noticeable difference with Gwalther as he not only repeats the common themes of Sabbath as dedicating time to worship God, resting from sin, and doing good for others on that day, but he also distinguishes between “external or servile work” and sin, which previous interpreters had mostly equated. He also states here that keeping Sabbath includes resting from all that kind of external work on the day for Sabbath.

Gwalther’s sermon on the Isaiah 58 passage provides the most detail regarding his theology of Sabbath since he identifies that the prophet “dwells more diligently on the Sabbath and is therefore most worthy of careful consideration” (p. 367r). In this sermon, he exhibits significant differences from the previous Swiss reformers. When commenting on the phrase “turn away your foot from the Sabbath” (Isaiah 58:13), Gwalther addresses “What should be omitted on the Sabbath day” since God “calls the Sabbath day his own and holy”. For him, this entails that there are actions which should not be indulged on the Sabbath day, in addition to sinful acts that should never be indulged in. He states, “the general teaching contained here is that we should not give any place to our own desires in the worship of God”. He further adds that “we should not do what seems good to us in our own eyes, and that we should not turn away from the path of His Word even with a good intention”. When he applies this message from Isaiah to his own time, Gwalther laments:

So what shall we say about the Christians of our age, who care so little for the Sabbath that they cannot be said to observe it religiously, as they spend it in labor and tire themselves and their servants with cares and servile works to make some profit? Do not most of them profane the Sabbaths impiously, spending those days in drinking, dancing, consorting, adultery, and in short, passing them in such a way that they serve the devil and the world more than ever, when they should be entirely consecrated to God alone? Those are little better who give excuses at home or trade so that the Lord’s Day does not differ much or at all from any other day of business. These actions show minds alienated from religion and profane contempt for the divine will.

(p. 349r)

This brief diatribe indicates that Gwalther expects keeping the Sabbath to include religious observance and avoiding sinful actions, but here he also specifies that profaning the Sabbath includes engaging in labor or business in trade or at home and tiring oneself or others to make a profit. Gwalther’s stronger association of the Lord’s Day as the Sabbath day fits with an emphasis not as prominently found in the earlier Swiss reformers that the labor or business on the other six days of the week should be distinctive from what one does on Sunday.

A further related difference in Gwalther is his specific rejection of “those fanatics who contend that the Sabbath, along with other ceremonies, has been abolished in the New Testament” (Gwalther, p. 367r). His reasoning is that since “true religion still consists in the preaching of the Word and the works of God”, it is necessary that there be certain times given for “alternating rest and recreation from labor”, especially that one can participate in worship “free from other cares and labors”. He adds to his grounds:

Therefore, the Apostolic Church did not abolish the Sabbath, but lest Christians should be thought to have anything in common with the Jews, it transferred it to the next day, which they called the Lord’s Day, because it ought to be entirely consecrated to God. Therefore, what Isaiah says in this place is no less relevant to us, so that we may know what should be omitted on the Sabbath and what should be observed.

(p. 367v)

Here, among the Swiss reformers, is the clearest example of a “transfer theology” of Sabbath from the seventh day to Sunday, or the Lord’s Day. Unlike the previous interpreters, Gwalther claims no abolishment of the Sabbath commandment. Instead, he maintains that “among all the institutions of God, there is nothing more ancient than the Sabbath, whose day he consecrated by his own example in the very origin of things: and its use is great and manifold” (p. 367v).

Gwalther reasons that “it can be inferred that the profaners of the Sabbath sin not only against God and the laws of divine worship, but also against the charity owed to their neighbor; therefore, God cannot be called unjust or cruel for having established punishment for them” (p. 367r). In his sermon on the Isaiah 56 passage, Gwalther had similarly stated that the reason the Sabbath command was so strictly enforced, including capital punishment in Numbers 15 and harsh rebukes from the prophets, was because those who “find it burdensome to consecrate one day out of seven to God, to whom we owe our whole selves, clearly show how little they value him” (p. 349r). Toward the end of this sermon, Gwalther returns to applying Sabbath matters to his own time, again specifically equating the day with the Lord’s Day and lamenting that based on “the customs of our time, it will soon be clear why today the world is so unfortunate”, because of “how variously and shamefully sins are committed concerning the Sabbath”. Gwalther gives examples of these sins concerning the Sabbath when he expounds:

Greed and insatiable desire for possessions incite others to do menial work themselves and tire themselves out with their labors, or anxiously gather their treasures on that day, or delay in demanding what is owed to them, whom they should support with every act of charity. These and other such things happen everywhere today.

(Gwalther, p. 367v)

Both this emphasis on God’s harsh punishment of those who violate the Sabbath, and its application beyond the “works of the flesh” or forsaking the assembly for worship, are absent in the comments of the previous Swiss interpreters.

Finally, in his 327th homily on Isaiah, Gwalther reiterates that “the Sabbath had been designed for rest and sacred leisure, so that they would refresh their minds with the joyful consideration of the creation of the world and other works of God” (p. 427v). In that sermon on Isaiah 66, he also articulates that the current Sabbath is a type of the “eternal rest and Sabbath, which Christ the Lord has obtained for us in heaven … [when] there will be continuous joys and observances in the Church” (p. 427v). Gwalther concludes that “there is not going to be fixed or established festival days, as in the past, but continuous ones that will never end, with one following another” (p. 427v). Consistent with his earlier teaching on Sabbath, these comments indicate that for Gwalther, the rest that Sabbath provides is intended to be used for religious practices, and when that is continuous, so also will joy in God.

Gwalther’s interpretations on the Sabbath passages in Isaiah enable us to summarize several aspects of his views on Sabbath through our grid of questions. He primarily emphasizes gathered worship as the purpose of the physical rest required on the Sabbath day. He includes the expectations of doing good for one’s neighbor, refraining from sin as a spiritual Sabbath, and the eternal sabbath as an unceasing time of rest for worship and joy, but these are far less prominent. He views the Sabbath commandment as part of the moral law with nothing abolished from it. However, he affirms that, for Christians, the day of rest is now Sunday, the Lord’s Day, because it was transferred to that day by the Apostolic Church. The expectation is that the requirements for Sabbath in the Old Testament continue to Christians in the New Testament. For this reason, Gwalther adds that the labor or business on the other six days of the week should be distinctive from what one does on Sunday. Gwalther’s stronger insistence on Sunday as the Sabbath day with all its legal expectations carried over from the Old Testament differs from his Swiss Reformed predecessors and reveals an important stage in the gradual development toward Sabbatarian theology and practice among Reformed Christians more broadly.

3. Conclusions

The exegetical, theological, and practical comments on Isaiah by various Swiss reformers in the first sixty years of reform show numerous similarities, and yet there are many significant differences and developments. Their views varied over the decades and from canton to canton. Beginning in the 1520s with Oecolampadius, the spiritual meaning of Sabbath as rest from sin received the primary emphasis. This kind of spiritual Sabbath as ceasing from sin gets expressed in all the Swiss reformers with varying and declining degrees of priority. Zwingli and Pellikan in the 1530s add the emphasis that keeping Sabbath is related to having time freed up for worship, prayer, hearing God’s word, and caring for one’s neighbors. While Musculus in the 1550s and Bullinger in the 1560s discuss the spiritual aspect of Sabbath, they both emphasize the legal aspect of Sabbath as the day set aside for worship and learning that honors God. By the 1580s, Gwalther also focuses on gathered worship as the purpose of the physical rest required by the Sabbath command that remains in effect as part of the moral law.

Although not all these interpreters utilized the distinctions of moral and ceremonial aspects of the Law, they each identified elements of Sabbath that pertained to all people, only to Israel in the Old Testament, and to Christians in the present. Oecolampadius understood most elements of the Sabbath command as abolished, having been fulfilled in Christ. Oecolampadius understood the “perpetual Sabbath” as resting from sin. Zwingli viewed resting from sin, relying on grace, and worshiping God as aspects of keeping Sabbath that were not abolished as ceremonial elements of the Law. Pellikan used the term “perpetual Sabbath” to refer to the future continuous time of worship in the new heavens and earth. Musculus held a similar view without using the phrase but taught that the future time of worship would continue to follow the weekly Sabbath rhythm rather than be continuous and unceasing. Bullinger identified the perpetual Sabbath as the requirement given to all people to gather for worship and care for one’s neighbor. Bullinger and Gwalther both followed everyone except Musculus that the eternal Sabbath will be constant eternal rest when all things are made right in the new heavens and earth. The variety of options for what constituted the “perpetual Sabbath” appears among these Swiss reformers, as well as much difference regarding which elements of Sabbath have been abolished, abrogated, or fulfilled in the New Testament so that they no longer apply to Christians.

All the Swiss reformers operated with the acceptance that Sunday, the Lord’s Day, functioned as the day for Sabbath. Yet variety existed among them as to why. From the 1520s to 1550s, Oecolampadius, Zwingli, Pellikan, and Musculus held similar views that no particular day had to be considered the Sabbath for Christians. Oecolampadius specified that the Lord’s Day was actually a better festive day than the Sabbath since it commemorates Christ’s resurrection. The others saw Sunday as a worthwhile choice to set aside as a day for rest to facilitate worship. Musculus identified that the specification of the seventh day was part of the law that no longer applied to Christians, while at the same time highlighting that the day was God’s choice and not something people could choose for themselves. So, to distinguish it from Jewish observance, the day of rest is the Lord’s Day in remembrance of Christ’s resurrection. Bullinger in the 1560s similarly asserted that because the Lord’s Day commemorates Christ’s resurrection, it serves as the day for rest, worship, and religious activities, even if nothing in Scripture commanded that change. It is not until the 1580s with Gwalther that the view is taught that the Sabbath day of rest was transferred to the Lord’s Day with its accompanying requirements and expectations.

These perspectives on the relationship between the Lord’s Day and the Sabbath day shaped what the theologians instructed about keeping the Sabbath day holy. Widespread agreement existed among the Swiss Reformed theologians that rest on the day for Sabbath freed one to be able to gather for worship and care for others. In all the locations over the decades, the exercises, or practices, expected to be observed on the day for Sabbath are consistent with only slight variations, and often listed in the same order. Consistently from the 1520s through the 1580s, the Swiss reformers taught that Sabbath keeping included gathering to worship God, hearing the Word read and preached, praying publicly and privately, reflecting on God’s blessings and providence to give thanks, celebrating the sacraments, collecting offerings for the poor, and showing care for one’s neighbors. Related to their views on the degree of equivalence between the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day, the earlier theologians allowed for other ordinary work on that day if it was necessary, but the later theologians began insisting on no ordinary work on the Lord’s Day. Beginning with Musculus’s view in the 1550s–1560s that the Sabbath was part of the law of nature, the ramification was that nearly all its elements continue, including no ordinary, or even necessary, work on the Lord’s Day. Finally, by the 1580s, in Zurich, Gwalther continues the development toward equating the Sabbath day and the Lord’s Day so that all its legal expectations carried over from the Old Testament, including not engaging in labor, business, or work at home, even what would be legitimate to do the other six days of the week.

This portrait of Sabbath interpretations by several prominent reformers helps exhibit the variety within the Swiss Reformation and some of the components of the gradual development toward stricter and more comprehensive views on Sabbath theology and practice among Reformed Christians. Further research could be pursued on how the sociological, political, and economic situations of each of these cantons during these times differed from one another and may have shaped their teachings on Sabbath. Additionally, while some related confessions have been included in this study, a similar analysis of their formation and development would contribute to filling out this portrait further. The scope of this project could not present each theologian’s entire theology on Sabbath and certainly not the full development of Sabbath views among all those in and connected to the Reformed tradition. This particular contribution gives voice to these individual Swiss Reformed theologians with their unique understandings in their contexts. Their comments on the Sabbath passages in Isaiah reveal ways that Reformed perspectives remained consistent and ways they evolved over time. They provide more texture to the picture of the Swiss Reformation. And they further document that no singular view on the Sabbath has existed within the Reformed tradition, even within the first few generations of the Swiss Reformation.