John Owen on the Sabbath as a Day of Worship

"Thus, the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day, God finished His work that He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work that He had done. So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because, on it, God rested from all His work that He had done in creation" -Genesis 2:1-3 

At the completion of the creation week, it was culminated by a day of rest. Which is not to say that God was tired. Rather, the implication is a cessation for the sake of enjoying the product of the preceding labor. For which enjoyment, God blessed the seventh day, and made it holy (KJV, "sanctified it"). We must ask what those actions mean for God. To bless that day was to make it a source of blessing, not to Himself, since God can never be more blessed, but for those to whom He gave it, the humans, male and female, the creation of whom would be recapitulated in the next verses. To sanctify it, or to make it holy, again, cannot be for His own sake, because God is the standard of holiness, the standing apart from mere creation. So, again, His action could only be for the man and woman, created the previous day. 

That distinction is essential, because there are some, influenced by antinomianism and dispensationalism, who claim that the Sabbath, as the day came to be called, was for God alone, and the human elements were created under the law for Israel, not the church, and that it was never properly a day of worship. Yet the words applied, and the attributes of God, preclude the use of the Sabbath for Himself. 

As Puritan John Owen comments on the passage, "'Sanctified' is further instructive in the intention of God, and is also explanatory of the former [word, i. e., 'blessed']. For suppose still (and the text will not allow us otherwise) that the day is the object of this sanctification, and it is not possible to assign any other sense of the words, than that God set apart by His institution that day to be the day of His worship, to be spent in a sacred rest unto Himself, which is declared to be the meaning of the word in the decalogue" (A Treatise on the Sabbath). "He set it apart to sacred use authoritatively, requiring us to sanctify it in that use obediently." 

Owen continues by pointing to Exodus 16:22-23: "On the sixth day, they [i. e., Israel] gathered twice as much bread, two omers each. And when all the leaders of the congregation came and told Moses, he said to them, 'Tomorrow is a day of solemn rest, a holy Sabbath to the Lord...'" Owen remarks, "The reason of it is plain and evident, for, there being a previous institution of the seventh day's rest (the observation of which was partly gone into disuse), and the day itself being then to receive a new peculiar application to the church state of that people [i. e., Israel], the reason of the people's act, and the rulers' doubt, and Moses' explanation, is plain and obvious." 

Yet, Owen did feel a need to deny that the Mosaic law added ceremonial elements to the sabbath, though he denied that the Sabbath, per se, was part of those Mosaic ceremonies. "The command of the Sabbath, in the renewal of it in the wilderness, was accommodated to the disciplinary state of the church of the Israelites. I admit, also, that there were such additions made to it, as to the manner of its observance and the sanction of it, as might adapt it to their civil and political state, and thus bear a part in that ceremonial instruction, which God, in all His dealings with them, intended... It is no argument, therefore, that this command was not in substance given before to mankind in general, [simply] because it has some modifications added in the decalogue to accommodate it to the existing state of the Hebrews." 

Owen's comments point us to the formulation of the Fourth Commandment, as it is found in Exodus 20:8-11 [emphasis added]: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore, the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." Not only does the commandment begin with a command to "remember," but it the makes explicit what is to be remembered, that is, the actions of God on the seventh day of creation. 

Furthermore, though Owen does not mention it, I would refer the reader to Leviticus 19:30: "You shall keep My Sabbaths and reverence My sanctuary: I am the Lord." The keeping of the Sabbath is explicitly connected to their revering of His sanctuary, making that connection explicit, though still not exclusive. 

Apostle Peter on the Perseverance of the Saints: Trinitarian and Gracious

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to His great mercy, He has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in Heaven for you, who, by God's power, are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time" (I Peter 1:3-5). 

What a blessed passage, promising to us that God the Father has reserved for us a salvation in Christ that can never be lost. Among the Reformed, this is called "perseverance of the saints" (not identical to "once saved always saved," the Arminian version). 

First, let us consider to whom Peter is speaking. Lazy Christians often ignore the audience in determining the meaning of a passage, but it is essential here. We see it in verses 1-2: "To those who are elect... according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling with His blood." So, Peter is not speaking to men in general, but specifically to believers. And notice how he marks believers, as the elect! 

Peter is making  a logical argument. He assures God's people of our eternal security, not from anything found in ourselves, but as a logical conclusion from his prior assumption of gracious election, bringing all three Persons of the Trinity into the activation and sustaining of the salvation of the church. He starts with election, to effectual calling, to perseverance. 

Apostle Paul on Irresistible Grace

One of the distinguishing doctrines of the Reformed Faith, the "I" in the so-called Five Points of Calvinism is irresistible grace, the biblical assertion that an elect person does not have the ability to refuse to be saved. We see this doctrine in, for example, the answer of Paul to a hypothetical opponent of God's sovereign grace: "You will say to me, then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who can resist His will?'" (Romans 9:19). 

And that opponent is correct. No mere creature can resist the will of God. Yet this doctrine was formulated in response to the assertion of the Arminians that is actually possible for men to resist God's will. Astounding in the light of Paul's statement! How can this be? 

Ever since the temptation and fall of our first parents, the hearts of men have naturally set out to establish the illusion of autonomy. That is, it is now natural to men to believe ourselves to be sovereign, the captains of our own fates, the creators of our own destinies. After all, that was the promise of Satan to Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:5, that eating of the forbidden tree would make them like God, the interpreters of reality and masters of good and evil. 

I have never understood why Arminians are not more cautious of advocating the explicit doctrine of Satan. Except of course, to know that it is God's purpose that they do so. 

How does God respond to the declaration of the sovereignty of men? "Who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?'" (Romans 9:20-21).

Abortion and God's Love of Life

"Do not boil a goat in its mother's milk" -Deuteronomy 14:21. 

I remember the first time I read this verse in an Old Testament course in college, a long time ago. It struck me as very odd. 

Another one was, "If you come across a bird’s nest in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs and the mother sitting on the young or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young" (Deuteronomy 22:6). 

Why, I wondered, would God put in His Scriptures such commandments about what we might have for dinner? And it has taken until now, my mature years, to understand what seems so plain now. 

There are many passages in Scripture that show God's concern for the family. They start with the creation mandate in  Genesis 1:28: "God said to them [i. e., Adam and Eve], 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.'" The welfare of the family is the concern of the Fifth and Seventh Commandments, and of such extended portions of Scripture as Ephesians 5:22-33. 

The two verses from Deuteronomy above reflect that concern. Notice that the command is not to avoid cooking a kid in milk, or to avoid eating eggs. In both cases the restriction is against the relationship between the animal mother and her offspring. The perpetuation of life is precious to God, both for mankind and for the animals. 

The reason that this has become clear to me in the past few years is because I have become more involved in the fight against human sacrifice in America, nicknamed euphemistically as "abortion." When a baby is aborted, that is the new generation murdered not just with his mother, as in the animal texts of Deuteronomy, but by his mother. What can more destroy the family than does mothers, often with the concurrence of fathers, who kill their preborn children. 

"Religious Neutrality" in Government Is Treason Against King Jesus

One of the stories which we best remember about the Prophet Elijah is his confrontation with the prophets of Baal (I Kings, chapter 18). The people of Israel had reached an historical point in religion in which they had eschewed fanaticism, giving equal devotion, in their own eyes, to Jehovah, their covenant God, and Baal, a fertility deity popular in much of the region around Israel. They chose to be neutral, giving both gods some attention, in the hope that one or the other would reward them. 

However, Elijah rejected the religious neutrality of the rest of Israel, challenging them, "How long will you go limping between two different opinions? If the Lord is God, follow Him; but if Baal, then follow him" (I Kings 18:21). His challenge was outside the cultural norm of that time, in which Israel was lackadaisical about religious devotion. Neutral, if you will. Trying to cover all of their bases. 

However, Jehovah rejected the neutrality of Israel. While the prophets of Baal received no answer from that deity, Jehovah certainly responded: "Then the fire of the Lord fell and consumed the burnt offering and the wood and the stones and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench" (verse 38). When the Israelites saw that Jehovah answered while Baal remained silent, they saw the emptiness in their illusion of neutrality: "When all the people saw it, they fell on their faces and said, 'The Lord, He is God; the Lord, He is God'" (verse 39) Then, in the words of Elijah ("my God is Yah"), "'Seize the prophets of Baal, let none of them escape.' And they seized them. And Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon and slaughtered them there" (verse 40). 

What Israel learned that day is that there could be no neutrality between the living God of their forefathers, and the pagan idols of the peoples around them. "Limping between two opinions" did not rescue them from the consequences of equating truth with falsehood. 

In a similar way, we in the United States live on land that was dedicated to that same God of the Bible. Then, when our nation was founded, our leaders included a provision in the Constitution saying that the new federal government could not establish a religion. Did they mean to equate Islam, Hinduism, and atheism with Christianity? Not at all. Rather, they intended for the federal government not to show favoritism among the Christian denominations of the new country. 

That plan did not remain in force, especially since the 1960's, when the courts unilaterally decided to eliminate the Christian religion from public forums. Those courts decreed that no establishment of religion meant neutrality toward all religions and irreligion. Prayer and bible reading were removed from government schools, and Christian symbols, such as crosses and placards of the Ten Commandments, were removed from government buildings, parks, even from "polite" discussion. 

Has this "neutrality" fared any better than did that of Elijah's day? Not by any definition. Rather, we have discovered the awful fact that neutrality toward God makes the state the new arbiter of all absolutes. As should have been anticipated. Where Jesus told us, "Your word, [Father], is truth" (John 17:17), now the state is the dispenser of truth. And where Jesus told us, "All authority in Heaven and on earth has been given to Me" (Matthew 28:18), the state says that all authority now belongs to it. Thus, "neutrality" has become an opportunity for tyranny, and our health as a nation sinks further every day.

How Does the Bible Define Sexual Immorality?

"Let marriage be be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous" -Hebrews 13:4. 

When warning the wicked of the consequences of sexual immorality, we often get a response of, "What's immoral about what I am doing? Everyone else is doing it! The Bible doesn't even define 'sexual immorality.'" Who are you, we are asked, to judge what I do? 

First, let us ask what consequences the Bible warns us will apply to sexual immorality. Is it important enough to worry about it? Here is the Bible's answer: "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" (I Corinthians 6:9-10). So, the Apostle tells us, the sexually immoral are precluded from the kingdom of God. That is, from eternal life with the godly. No more serious consequence can be imagined! 

So what, then, constitutes sexual immorality? We see it in Hebrews 13:4, quoted at the top. The author does not give us a list of forbidden acts (for such, refer to Leviticus 18). Rather, this is one of the few cases in which we are given one moral answer, leaving all others to be excluded. He explicitly tells us that sexual immorality is that which is outside of or besides the marital relationship. And who can be married? "[Jesus said], have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore, a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh" (Matthew 19:5-6). In these two sentences, Jesus tells us that marriage in God's plan consists of one man joined to one woman, precluding any other combinations, regardless of the tides of political or social opinion. 

It has become defined among the politically correct, whether they claim to be Christians or not, that speaking against any "alternative lifestyles" is judgmentalism, and to be excluded from social discourse or the teachings of church leaders. Yet, what can we say of people who refuse to warn people of the consequences of their choices, given what we know from I Corinthians 6? What could be more hateful than to allow the wicked to go in ignorance into an eternity in Hell?  

The Consequences of Sexual Sin: Are They Hate?

"Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience." - Ephesians 5:1-6 

America is a country which has become unrecognizable, just in my own adult lifetime. As I write this, we see schools and libraries sponsor sexually-explicit "story times" featuring drag queens performing for audiences of schoolchildren. There is a new push to normalize child molestation as a sexual orientation as valid as any other. The new name for it is "minor-attracted individuals." 

Where is the church in this process? There are some churches who are promoting "diversity" by ordaining, not just female pastors, but openly gay and transgendered pastors. In such "churches," the only sin is to criticize such ordinations. Supposedly, Jesus accepted everyone as they are, so we are hateful not to do the same. 

Of course, the Bible is not the standard for making such declarations, because the Bible qualifies as "hate speech," according to such Christians. However, as we see in the passage above, it is the "tolerant" church member who is the real hater. In the holiness of God, sexual immorality is an insurmountable barrier to entry into eternal life. Yet, these Christians choose to withhold any warning of the consequences of sexual sin. They even go further to point the finger, not at perverts, but at true Christian who strive to warn the wicked of the consequences of their wickedness (Ezekiel 3:18-19).