God's Rest and His Blessed Sabbath for His People

I want to relate two passages of Scripture here. 

The first is Genesis 2:1-3: "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." This passage is well-known and straightforward. After six days of creative work, God rested on the seventh day. Not literally, of course, since God cannot tire. However, using an anthropomorphism, Moses describes God in terms that his readers could understand. Notice that God is not described as resting from everything, but specifically from the work of creation. The physical universe and its denizens were complete, as He had designed them to complement one another. 

However, one phrase is consistently overlooked: "and made it holy." That phrase necessarily relates to men, since God need do nothing in relationship to Himself to be holy. We will come back to that. 

The second passage is Hebrews 4:1-13: "Therefore, while the promise of entering His rest still stands, let us fear lest any of you should seem to have failed to reach it. For good news came to us just as to them, but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened. For we who have believed enter that rest, as He has said, 'They shall not enter My rest,’ although His works were finished from the foundation of the world. For He has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: 'And God rested on the seventh day from all His works.' And again in this passage He said, 'They shall not enter My rest.' Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, again He appoints a certain day, 'Today,' saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted, 'Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts.' For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on. So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God’s rest has also rested from his works as God did from His. Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience. For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And no creature is hidden from His sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account." 

This passage is the theological explanation of what Jesus said during His earthly ministry: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27). 

There is a claim often made by anti-Sabbatarians that the Sabbath was part of the law of Moses, and was, therefore, abrogated along with the other ceremonies, such as the sacrifices and the food laws. When in response I have pointed to the reference from Genesis 2, these people have claimed that, since the word "Sabbath" isn't used in it, this passage refers only to an act of God, not to the continuing Sabbath. However, look at what I have already mentioned from Genesis 2:3, that God made the day holy. That can only refer to men's use of it, since God cannot do anything unholy. Also, notice in Hebrews 4 that the author there relates the rest awaiting believers in Heaven to God's rest, which, in turn, is withheld from unbelievers. It is even explicitly called a Sabbath rest in verse 9! How, then, can anyone claim that the Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment is different from God's rest in Genesis? 

To my mind, the logic of Hebrews 4 requires us to believe in the continuing validity of the Sabbath for Christians, not as a burden, but as a blessing intended for us by Jehovah, the Lord of the Sabbath, the preincarnate Jesus (Matthew 12:8).

Whom Does God Love? And Why?

A doctrine of humanism has seeped into the Christian Church: God loves everyone unconditionally. Thus, our culture has done away with the holiness and wrath of God. It is acceptable to say, "My god doesn't hate." That small "g" is not a typo; I did it on purpose, because that god is an idol, not the God of the bible. 

Even though it wasn't an issue in His time, Jesus said something which addresses this error: "The Father Himself loves you [i. e., the disciples], because you have loved Me and have believed that I came from God [the Father]" (John 16:27). So, His audience is His disciples, not people in general, and He gives a reason for the love of the Father to them, i. e., their love to Jesus and belief in His messianic work. 

Therefore, in one sentence, Jesus tells us that God does not love everyone; and that those whom He loves, it is on the condition of their relationship to, and, therefore, salvation by, Jesus His Son. The supposition that God loves everyone unconditionally is, thus, shown to be a doctrine foreign to biblical religion. 

God, the Just Justifier

"The righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by His grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by His blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in His divine forbearance He had passed over former sins. It was to show His righteousness at the present time, so that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."

- Romans 3:21-26 

In prehistory, when God decided to save a Church from their sins, God faced a dilemma (I am putting this in human terms). If sin is contrary to His nature, how could He save sinners without denying His own nature? How could God remain the holy deity which is He is, if He merely ignored the wickedness in men? As verse 26 puts it, how could God remain just while becoming the justifier of His people?

 First, let us consider whether the wickedness of men is contrary to God's nature. The Prophet Habakkuk asks God this question: "You who are of purer eyes than to see evil and cannot look at wrong why do You idly look at traitors and remain silent when the wicked swallows up the man more righteous than he?" (Habakkuk 1:13). The prophet asks the exact question that we are considering. How can the righteous God, to whom evil is an alien and contrary condition, allow wicked men to continue? Such a God cannot receive the evil of men into His fellowship. Therefore, the problem of sin requires a solution. How can His justice be satisfied apart from the destruction of every sinner? 

Then another steps forward and volunteers. This one is Himself God; not a different God, but God the Son, both the one God and a distinct Person within the Godhead. He voluntarily offered Himself, sinless and holy, just as God the Father is, on behalf of those whom the Father would give Him to be His body the Church (John 6:37-39, 10:7-18, 17:1-19, Ephesians 5:25). As represented by the Mosaic priestly sacrifices, Jesus's priestly offering of Himself as the true sacrifice (Hebrews 9:14) achieved the Father's desire. His judgment of sin fell on His own Son, so that His justice was satisfied, and the justification thus purchased was imputed to His elect, so that He could become their justifier. 

"Apart from the obedience and death of Christ in the stead of elect sinners, God may not justify guilty sinners. Apart from the cross of Christ, God would show Himself unrighteous were He to justify the ungodly. the Christian gospel is not simply that God justifies the sinner who believes in Jesus Christ. The Christian gospel is that God justifies the sinner who believes in Jesus Christ, on the ground of Christ's substitutionary obedience, especially the obedience of His suffering and death" (Rev. David Engelsma, "Gospel Truth of Justification," p. 266; emphasis in the original).

Forgiving Sins and Priesthood Authority

I have been having discussions with Mormons recently on the place of "priests" in the Christian Church. They claim to have an exclusive "priesthood authority." According to the organization's website, that means "in mortality, priesthood is the authority that God gives to man to act in all things necessary for the salvation of God's children." What is that authority? From the organization's handbook: "The keys of the priesthood are the right to preside and direct the affairs of the Church within a jurisdiction. Jesus Christ holds all the keys of the priesthood pertaining to His Church. He has conferred upon each of His Apostles all the keys that pertain to the kingdom of God on earth. The senior living Apostle, the President of the Church, is the only person on earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys." 

When I talk to Mormons, they claim that Jesus Himself created this authority in the church, when Peter first professed His Messianic office in  Matthew 16. Jesus said, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in Heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven" (Matthew 16:17-19). Mormons (and Catholics) claim that Peter and his successors received here from Jesus his imprimatur allowing them to forgive sins, and, thus, mediating salvation to everyone else. 

To my mind, that claim is blasphemous, a denial of the sufficiency of Christ for the salvation of His people. As the Scriptures say, "There is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all" (I Timothy 2:5-6). That is what is said about Him. 

But is there anything which Jesus Himself said that directly refutes this claim of priesthood? 

Yes, there is. In the story of the paralytic, Jesus says to the frowning scribes, "Which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins - (He then turned to the paralytic) - Rise, pick up your bed and go home" (Matthew 19:5-6). In the parallel passage in Mark, we get an additional piece of information. That is that the scribes accused Him of blasphemy, because, "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (Mark 2:7). And notice that Jesus does nothing to disabuse them of this opinion! They were correct that God alone can forgive sins. And in claiming that authority, Jesus blasphemed, in their view, because His claim was a claim to deity, equal to that of the Father! 

More to my point is that Jesus agreed that the authority belongs to God alone, and, therefore, cannot be held by any mere man, including Peter or anyone who claims to be his successor. Rather, as the representative of the only Head of the Church, Peter, the other apostles, and every true minister since their time has declared, not that they forgave sins, but rather that they brought the Gospel, the news that Jesus has purchased forgiveness of sins for everyone who believes (Acts 10:43). Jesus forgives, and the messenger announces. 

"With God are wisdom and might; He has counsel and understanding. If He tears down, none can rebuild; if He shuts a man in, none can open. If He withholds the waters, they dry up; if He sends them out, they overwhelm the land. With Him are strength and sound wisdom; the deceived and the deceiver are His. He leads counselors away stripped and overthrows the mighty. He deprives of speech those who are trusted and takes away the discernment of the elders" (Job 12:13-20). 

Judgment According to the Imputed Righteousness of Jesus

When I am dealing with members of Pelagian sects, such as Mormons and Catholics, on the issue of justification by faith alone, some of them think they are clever by citing, for example, Revelation 20:13: "The sea gave up the dead that were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done." Aha! the Pelagian proclaims. If we are judged according to our works, then we must be saved in part by our works, and not by faith alone! And taken in isolation, that verse may be taken that way. 

But the responsible Bible reader doesn't take individual verses in isolation. A doctrine must be built by comparing verse to verse to learn the overall teaching. 

For example, we have Romans 5:19: "As by one man's [i. e., Adam's] disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one Man's [i. e., Jesus's] obedience the many will be made righteous." Paul shows us the contrast between the two imputations, of sin to Adam's posterity (except Jesus), and of righteousness to the posterity of Jesus (i. e., believers). The Apostle makes the same point in II Corinthians 5:21: "For our sake, God made Him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God." 

The problem is that the Pelagian doesn't understand justification by faith as well as he thinks he does. Pelagianism misrepresents justification as merely the cancellation of the sin debt, returning the sinner to a neutral state. That is why the Pelagian also believes that a believer can lose salvation; after the cancellation of his previous debt, he sins more and incurs new debt. That view is false. Rather, as Paul says, there is the complementary imputation of Christ's righteousness. The new believer is not brought merely to a neutral state by faith. Rather, he also receives to his heavenly account, by means of that same faith, all of the righteousness of Jesus. 

In the eyes of God, the believer is never a person of neutral moral status. Rather, the believer stands before God as a sinless and righteous man or woman. Thus, there is no judgment which we must fear.

Everyone Whom God Calls Will Hear the Call

There is a common claim among some semi-Pelagian groups, namely Mormons, universalists, and professed unbelievers, that there is something unfair in God's judgment of all unbelievers to Hell, because such a large portion of the world's population has never had an opportunity to hear the Gospel. How can He justly condemn those who are ignorant of His existence and requirements? 

That the challenge comes from various varieties of Pelagians is a clue to the answer: They don't believe that men deserve to be judged for sin. Therefore, they object to the judgment of some, because they reject the biblical truth that all men deserve that judgment. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). With all of the talk of equality in our modern culture, this is an equality that they want to deny. 

However, we have the hope given to us in the Gospel: "God shows His love for us in that, while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8). For us, these people say, but what about those who don't know about that? 

Not understanding the sovereignty of God, the Pelagian cannot rationally connect two ideas: If God's love and wisdom could create a way to save His people, then that same love and wisdom can find a way to bring His people to a time and place in which they can hear of it. To the Calvinist, that logic is obvious; to the Pelagian, that logic is impossible. 

We see God's inspired description of that plan in the words of Paul at the Areopagus in Acts 17:26-27: "He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and, perhaps, feel their way toward Him and find Him." If we understand that God has planned all of history (Isaiah 46:10), then it is easy to conceive that He has organized that history, in part, to the end that all those for whom Jesus died would unfailingly come into contact with the gospel and to be converted (John 6:37-39; Acts 13:48). 

So the answer to the challenge of Mormons, universalists, and unbelievers, when they ask, "What about those who haven't had a chance to hear?", is that there are no such people. 

The Marital Faithfulness of Jesus to His Church

"I will betroth you to Me forever. I will betroth you to Me in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love and in mercy. I will betroth you to Me in faithfulness. And you shall know the Lord." 

- Hosea 2:19-20 

This is a sweet promise. If you have read the rest of Hosea, then you know that much of it is about the unfaithfulness of Israel, the covenant community. Yet God takes it upon Himself to describe a time in which He will abolish the unfaithfulness of that community. 

First, I want to point to the last word in that passage: Lord. That English word is used as a gloss for the tetragrammaton, Yahweh, or Jehovah, the name used by by the preincarnate Christ whenever He acted in His mediatorial role. It is Jesus, His cross work, and His resurrection that have purchased the Church, faithful Israel in the Old Testament and the united Jews and Gentiles in the New Testament. His purchase, being effectual in all for whom it was intended (John 6:37-39), cannot fail to make every true believer, not just a believer, but a faithful servant. 

He uses marital imagery, a common theme in both testaments (such as Isaiah 54:5-6, Jeremiah 3:14, and Revelation 19:6-9). This is why our own marriage ceremony includes the vow to be faithful "until death do us part." Granted, that vow has become a mere anachronism among us, but it is not an anachronism to God. His vows are eternal and unfailing, even though we, who call ourselves by His name, are certainly not. "If we are faithless, He remains faithful - for He cannot deny Himself" (II Timothy 2:13).  

This is why I believe so passionately in the perseverance of the saints. I don't use the phrase "once saved always saved," because of its antinomian implications. Rather, God's faithfulness works in His blood-bought people by keeping them faithful, both in the sense of having faith and in the sense of faithful obedience to His word. 

The Imputation Alone of Righteousness Required by the Nature of Men

"To the one who does not work but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: 'Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.'" 

- Romans 4:5-8.

Referring to the passage above, Rev. Davis Engelsma wrote, "[T]his is truly the state of the justified sinner when God justifies him: he is only, wholly, and truly 'ungodly,' not only devoid of any working of faith,  of any works of faith, of any love of God and of the neighbor, but also guilty of unbelief, of the working of unbelief, of hatred of God, and of hatred of the neighbor. He is only, wholly, and truly 'ungodly' regarding the means of his justification and regarding his righteousness before God that is the content of his justification" ("Gospel Truth of Justification," p. 204).

The contrast in both Romans and in Engelsma's response is between the prior condition of the unbeliever which is changed upon true faith. Paul speaks negatively of lawless deeds forgiven and sins covered, to describe what is done by the imputation of righteousness. Engelsma describes the condition of the unbeliever for which he needs the imputation of righteousness. 

In theology, we call the unbeliever's condition "total depravity." "Total" here is used for extent not for depth. That, the unbeliever's condition is that sin has corrupted all of his faculties, spiritual, mental, emotional, rational, emotional, not that he is as wicked as is possible. Even an exemplar of evil such as Hitler could have done even more evil than he did. And since ever faculty has been corrupted by sin, there can be no contribution from the sinner to his own salvation. It is possible only by grace alone through faith alone in the person and work of Jesus Christ alone. 

Peace of Spirit Through Justification by Faith Alone

The primary issue of controversy between the Reformers of the Sixteenth Century and the Roman Catholic Church was the question of justification: What is its basis? Faith alone? Or faith and works? The Reformers held, and correctly so, that justification before God occurs by grace alone through faith alone, and is, therefore, instantaneous. In contrast, Rome mixed (and continues to mix) faith with works, such that justification is a process, one which may not even be completed in this life, but continue into Purgatory. 

Here is the Protestant definition: "Justification is the divine declaration, the judicial verdict, that instantaneously and perfectly acquits the sinner of guilt before the tribunal of God and constitutes him perfectly righteous. Upon the instantaneous verdict of justification, there is nothing imperfect about the justified sinner regarding righteousness with God, nothing to improve and nothing to increase. It is with the justified sinner as though he were as guiltless as the perfect Jesus Christ, as though he had fully atoned for all his sins and perfectly obeyed all the commandments of God, and as though he had completely satisfied the justice of God" (Rev. David Engelsma, "Gospel Truth of Justification," p. 225, emphasis added). Notice his use of words such as "perfect" and "instantaneous." Biblical justification is a legal verdict, and, just like a judge's declaration of "not guilty" in a human court, justification occurs at a point of time, fully, and can never be increased or decreased, or wait for some additional action. If the justified sinner were to die immediately after professing his faith, such as the thief on the cross (Luke 23:42-43), he would be transported to the presence of Jesus just as surely as the man of God who has been faithful for decades before his death. 

In contrast, Rome denies those qualities of justification, because she blends justification with sanctification. She holds that a person is justified by faith plus the works that come from it. Her foundation for that claim is a misreading of James 2:24: "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." However, the context of that verse is not justification before God, but rather how that justification is demonstrated before men. Since no man can see the heart of another, he has no way to know whether his friend's profession of faith is real or false. How can he tell? By his friend's works or lack of them. 

One result of that difference is the assurance of salvation. The Protestant view of instantaneous justification apart from works enables the believer to know of his eternal welfare immediately and for the rest of his life, as the Apostle John told us: "This is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in His Son" (I John 5:11). Notice the present tense. He doesn't say "may have" or "could have" or someday could have." In contrast, Rome claims that it is arrogant to believe that one has eternal life now. In Rome's system, the believer can never know for sure his eternal status. He must continue to work, hoping that he has done enough, but unable to know. That is a system of bondage and fear, while the true Gospel brings peace: "Since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Romans 5:1).