Pentecost and the Christian Sabbath

In Leviticus 23, God reveals to Moses the holy festivals that He has given to Israel for His worship. He introduces these festivals with a renewal of the Sabbath: "Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation. You shall do not work. It is a Sabbath to the Lord in all your dwelling places" (Leviticus 23:3). That opening may strike us as odd, because we don't think of the Sabbath as feast day. However, it is significant, because it sets the context of what is to follow, a not accidental introduction. 

Moses then describes the Passover, perhaps the most important of the Jewish festivals. Then the Feast of Firstfruits, a holiday much like our American Thanksgiving. 

Then, in verse 15, God turns to the Feast of Weeks, better known to us by its Greek name, Pentecost. "You shall count seven weeks from the day after the Sabbath, from the day that you brought the sheaf of the wave offering. You shall count fifty days to the day after the seventh Sabbath. then you shall present a grain offering of new grain to the Lord" (Leviticus 23:15-16). So fifty days was to be counted from the Sabbath of Passover. That would be seven weeks, each ending on the seventh day. Then one more day, the first day of the eight week. "You shall make a proclamation on the same day. You shall not do any work. It is a statute forever in all your dwelling places throughout your generations" (Leviticus 23:21). 

So we have the account of instructions to Moses, in which he was to celebrate the day of Passover, the anniversary of the day that the angel of death passed over every Israelite household that was marked by the blood of a sacrificial lamb. To whom did that point? To Jesus, the Lamb of God who would mark the elect with blood so that God's judgment would pass over us. Then another holiday is commanded, following seven Jewish Sabbaths plus one day. What happened on the day to which the feast pointed? The coming of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2) as the gift to His people from the resurrected and ascended Christ. 

That next day was Sunday, just as Sunday was the day on which Jesus rose from the dead, and just as the Apostles made Sunday the day of Christian gathering and worship (Acts 20:7 and I Corinthians 16:2). After a transitional period in Acts, we never see again a Christian activity on a Saturday. 

Did the Apostles use the word "Sabbath" for that day? No. We can grant that without affecting the argument presented here. However, we have a saying in America: "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck." In the same way, as Moses foretold the shift of the Sabbath from the last to the first day of the week and the Apostles treated the first day like the Sabbath, then it is the Sabbath, whether the word occurs there or not. 

God's Judgment on Human Sacrifice: Abortion

"Any one of the people of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech shall surely be put to death. The people of the land shall stone him with stones. I Myself will set My face against that man and will cut him off from among his people, because he has given one of his children to Molech, to make My sanctuary unclean and to profane My holy name. And if the people of the land do at all close their eyes to that man when he gives one of his children to Molech, and do not put him to death, then I will set My face against that man and against his clan and will cut them off from among their people, him and all who follow him in whoring after Molech." 

-Leviticus 20:2-5 

There is a lot in this short passage. 

First, what was it to give one of ones children to Molech? Molech was a Canaanite deity. After the Conquest, he was adopted by the degenerating people of Israel, and that adoption flowered into a cult to an idol, marked by the sacrifice of small children, their own children, to the idol in return for material prosperity. Of course, no one walks into Planned Parenthood for an appointment with a priest of Molech, but the mindset is the same. The mother, at least, expects that her life will be better if she executes the child within her womb. The father may or may not be party to that choice. 

Second, what is the reaction of God, the true and living God of the Bible? His judgment is severe, demanding the public execution of the father of that child. And that itself is interesting, that He directs his judgment less toward the mother and more toward the father. After all, he conceived a child on this woman, and then failed to give her the material and emotional support necessary for her to sustain that new life. Not, of course, that we can assume that He places no blame on the mother. It is a matter of the greater accountability for fathers, the same fathers that are denied a legal right to block the murder of their children in modern America. Yet no law requires fathers to be silent. 

Notice, third, that God does not stop merely at the parents of the aborted child. Rather, He castigates the community which turns a blind eye to the horror of human sacrifice. Ignoring murder is a crime in its own right. Not as severe, perhaps, as the murder, but bringing, not material blessings, but rather material curses on that community. Do we not see this in America? As we have devalued life in the womb, we have devalued life everywhere in society, even as many act bewildered at the cheapness of death in these times. 

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).