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. 

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?  

Government Money Policy and the Bible on Weights and Measures

Here is an article from a non-Christian economics think tank about the historical impact of profligate government printing of currency. As I write this, an estimated 80% of US dollars in existence have come into existence under the expansions of presidents Trump and Biden, partly, they claim, as economic incentive during the covid pandemic. The most famous example of such an economic program was under the pre-Nazi Weimar Republic of Germany, in which the currency was so debased that the inflation was part of the instability which inspired German voters to turn to the Nazi Party as an alternative. More recently, we have seen the same events in Mugabe's Zimbabwe and Chavez's Venezuela. 

The result of such a policy is that the same currency loses value with the passage of time. The government benefits from this devaluation because it spends the money before it has entered the market, where it will lose its value. The same is true for businesses favored by government with access to the new money, such as Wall Street and the banks. They have access to the money before it has lost its value, giving them a benefit of privilege that unfavored businesses and the general public cannot have. 

In the Bible, God expresses His divine displeasure with such manipulations of money. In Leviticus 19:35-36, He tells Israel, "You shall do not wrong in judgment, in measures of length or weight or quantity. You shall have just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin: I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt." He repeats this command in Deuteronomy 25:13-16: "You shall not have in your bag two kinds of weights, a large and a small. You shall not have in your house two kinds of measures, a large and a small. A full and fair weight you shall have, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. For all who do such things, all who act dishonestly, are an abomination to the Lord your God." The references to "weights" may seem strange to our modern ears, since we think of money not as weight but as slips of paper, or even just as a plastic card. However, in the days of Moses, exchanges occurred through the use of scales, which told the weight in specie for a certain weight of commodity. 

The wisdom literature, too, warns against financial cheating. For example, in Proverbs 20:10, the Holy Spirit tells us, "Unequal weights and unequal measures are both alike an abomination to the Lord." He repeats the warning in verse 23: "Unequal weights are an abomination to the Lord, and false scales are not good." In both proverbs, cheating through monetary manipulation is named an abomination to the Lord. 

A policy of inflating the currency by government is a policy of theft, which is why it is an abomination to the Lord. it is government which should be the agent of God, not in stealing, but in suppressing theft. Yet our government has a continuing policy of such theft, especially from the poor and elderly. As such, it should be an abomination to every moral person. 

God Hates Divination

One of the worst condemnations of Israel found in the Old Testament prophets is found in Zephaniah 1:12: "I will search Jerusalem with lamps, and I will punish the men who are complacent, those who say in their hearts, 'The Lord will not do good, nor will He do ill.'" God's judgment against His covenant people is not a matter of their denying of Him. They didn't become atheists or convert to a pagan religion. Rather, they denied His relevance. They professed that this God who had brought them out of captivity in Egypt had no place in their lives. 

One claim that the triune God of the Bible makes is to be the source of truth (e. g., John 14:6 and 17:17). Moreover, He claims to be the determiner of history: "I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and, from ancient times, things not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all My purpose'" (Isaiah 46:9-10). Yet, they turned to other sources of immanency, or so they imagined, accusing Him of irrelevancy and insufficiency. 

God, being the jealous God that He is, rebukes them for such syncretism: "You shall not interpret omens or tell fortunes... Do not turn to mediums or necromancers; do not seek them out and so make yourselves unclean by them: I am the Lord your God" (Leviticus 19:26, 31). 

These things occur in today's America, and even more so in Europe. In some European countries, mediums outnumber Catholic clergy. Most Americans consider ourselves to be too sophisticated for such superstitions. Yet, do we not look to scientists in the same way? As I write this, we keep hearing "follow the science" as we deal with the covid-19 virus. However, we have been seeing it for much longer in the orthodoxy of Darwinian evolution. Rather than the determinative witness of the Creator, we look to the presumptions of, not science, but of scientists, people who have a vested interest in philosophical domination, but not in evidence. The declarations of orthodox scientists have become the Tarot cards and sheep entrails of the modern unbeliever. 

A Diagram For Interpreting Sheep Liver

The Potter, the Clay, and the Doctrine of Reprobation

"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 of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?" (Romans 9:20-21).

"Now in a great house, there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and clay, some for honorable use, some for dishonorable. Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable, he will be a vessel for honorable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house, ready for every good work" (II Timothy 2:20-21). 

The first text above, Romans 9:20-21, is one of the classic prooftexts for the biblical doctrine of reprobation, the understanding that God has chosen the nonelect to remain in unbelief, and receive the judgment of damnation in Hell. The Apostle did not create this analogy, but rather borrows it from Isaiah 29:16: "You turn things upside down! Shall the potter be regarded as the clay, that the thing made should say of its maker, 'He did not make me': or the thing formed say of Him who formed it, 'He has no understanding.'" And Jeremiah 18:6: "'O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done?' declares the Lord. 'Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel.'"

People who hold to any level of Pelagianism avoid Romans 9:21, as they do, in fact, the entire chapter. To say that God claims the right of creator to use His creations as His glory requires is to deny any amount of sovereignty in humans. Yet, just as Satan offered Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:5, the semi-Pelagian advocates an autonomy in men, as if we were self-created and self-redeemed. 

God knows nothing of such autonomy, but, instead, claims the same sovereignty over His human creations as the potter claims over the clay, to make some into vessels of honor, that is, of holiness and blessedness, and others into vessels of dishonor, that is, into holders of wastes to be shattered and discarded (See Leviticus 6:28, 11:33, etc.). 

By What Standard? New Testament Love and the Law

"[L]ove is not a replacement of the Law of God but rather its highest manifestation or fulfillment (Romans 3:10). In addition..., there is no biblical distinction between Old Testament commandments and New Testament commandments, Old Testament law and New Testament law; these distinctions are traditions and doctrines of men."

- Roger Hadad, "Apologia for the Law and the Sabbath," p. 60 

Part of the decay of American Evangelicalism has been the rise of antinomianism, the claim that biblical law has no role in the life of the Christian. While it is orthodox protestantism to say that the Law has no role in our

Moses with the Commandments

justification, it has always been considered heretical to say that it also has no role in our sanctification. 

What, according to these evangelicals, has replaced the Law for the Christian? The law of Christ, they answer. What is that? The law of love. 

In the New Testament, Jesus tells us the two highest laws: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets" (Matthew 22:37-40). And, as the antinomians say, there is much of love stated there. But then the antinomians stop. 

I understand why they stop. Those verses are a problem for the view which I oppose here. How so, you may ask? 

"And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength." Isn't that just quoting the verse again? No, it isn't. This verse is Deuteronomy 6:5. "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." And where is this found? Matthew 22:39, you answer, and correctly. However, before Matthew wrote, it was found in Leviticus 19:18.

Do you see the problem for the antinomian? He claims that love is the law of Christ, in opposition to the law of Moses. Yet, Jesus quoted the law of Moses in order to state His law of love! Unlike the American Evangelical, Jesus was no antinomian.

Apostolic Usage Demonstrates the Continuing Authority of the Law

One of the greatest errors of dispensationalism has passed to a wider audience of evangelicalism. It has become to claim that the moral law is not authoritative for the Christian. Except when quoting Leviticus 18:22 in conversations regarding homosexuality, the evangelical will dismiss quotations from the Pentateuch with a dismissive, "That's Old Testament," or "We're under grace, not under law." 

But, wow, do those same evangelicals turn mean when you cite particular examples in the New Testament of apostolic application of those laws. I have already discussed Paul's application of a law from Leviticus (and repeated in Deuteronomy) to the church at Corinth (I Corinthians 5:1).

I want to bring up another example today. In I Timothy 5:18, Paul write, "For the Scripture says, 'You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,' and, 'The laborer deserves his wages.'" And in I Corinthians 9:9, he writes again to the church at Corinth, "It is written in the Law of Moses, 'You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.' Is it for oxen that God is concerned?" So, from where does that quotation come? From Deuteronomy 25:4 (his other quotation to Timothy is from Luke 10:7). That is an Old Testament law. 

These usages should make it clear that the doctrine of the dispensationalists and the attitude of evangelicals toward the Old Testament moral law is not that of the Apostles. The Apostles took Jesus at His word: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:17-19).

God's Judgment on Christendom for Child Sacrifice

Before starting, I want to mention that this post represents a major moment. It is my 800th post!

"The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 'Say to the people of Israel, 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 20:1-5

Molech was a prosperity deity of the Canaanites, worshiped by human sacrifice. In particular, a worshiper sought prosperity for himself by sacrificing his own infant by fire (see, e. g., Jeremiah 32:35). The Israelites absorbed this practice from the surviving Canaanites among them after they settled in the Promised Land. This was exactly the reason that God had ordered that no survivors were to remain of the Canaanites after the Conquest: "When the Lord your God brings you into the land that you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations more numerous and mightier than you, and when the Lord your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them, then you must devote them to complete destruction. You shall make no covenant with them and show no mercy to them. You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following Me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the Lord would be kindled against you, and He would destroy you quickly" (Deuteronomy 7:1-4).

What made this crime of Israel particularly heinous, even more so than among the Canaanites, was that God claimed the Israelite children as His own (Ezekiel 16:20). As evil as human sacrifice always is, the Israelites were sacrificing the children of God to a demon (Deuteronomy 32:17)! What greater act of sacrilege could there have been?

Roughly 70% of Americans profess to be Christians, yet almost three-thousand babies are killed by abortion every day in that same America. Why? Because the parents of those children believe that their lives will be better iF those children are dead. How is that not the same crime described by Moses roughly forty-three centuries ago? I see no significant distinction.

And that should bring each of those professing Christians bolt upright in his seat, because the God they profess warns of dire consequences for that ritual of child sacrifice. More importantly, He also warns of consequences for those who sit idly by as the crime of child sacrifice occurs around them. Silence is not innocence. Silence is complicity, and God judges it as such. In God's eyes, the silent Christian is the accomplice in every child sacrifice.

What Is the Fear of God?

To the modern reader, there may be nothing written in Scripture more bewildering than one short phrase: "the fear of God." For example, believers are given this commandment: "You shall not wrong one another, but you shall fear your God, for I am the LORD your God" (Leviticus 25:17). In contrast, the fear of God is described as the one thing that unbelievers lack: "There is no fear of God before their eyes" (Romans 3:18).

Then we have this verse: "Do not fear, for God has come to test you, that the fear of Him may be before you, that you may not sin" (Exodus 20:20). Do not fear, but fear?

Ah, but then we see some light at the end of this tunnel: "That you may not sin."

Consider also this verse: "You shall walk after the LORD your God and fear Him and keep His commandments and obey His voice, and you shall serve Him and hold fast to Him" (Deuteronomy 13:4).

From our own cultural perspective, we naturally see "fear" as meaning "be afraid." And the example from Exodus shows that it means that in the Bible sometimes, too. However, it has a broader meaning than we give it today.

We Americans have never had a king, so we sometimes miss some of the imagery of the Bible, which unreservedly portrays God as an absolute king, even calling Him, "He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords" (I Timothy 6:15). The God of the Bible is King in such an absolute sense that He is king of all kings, and lord so absolutely that He is lord of all lords. We are to understand His rule as so singularly absolute that we have no higher words by which to name it.

Now think of the average person on the street who randomly runs into the President, or Prince William, or some TV or sports celebrity. In such a circumstance, the person is often struck dumb with awe, trembling even. He isn't afraid of the personage in the sense that he fears that he will be hurt. Rather, he is struck with such an awe that he cannot conceive of any other thought or action.

To a greater extent, that is the fear of God described in Scripture. The believer is so in awe that he cannot be distracted by any lesser concern or influence. That is why Moses can say that it is fear of God that inspires us to serve Him and hold fast to Him. This isn't a fear of punishment. Rather, it is an awe that precludes any lower considerations. Moreover, the hard part for an American is that it leaves no room for personal autonomy. God is the absolute sovereign, not me. This is not a democratic concept!

The Sabbath in the Pre-Mosaic Period

Anti-Sabbatarians often argue that the Sabbath was part of the Mosaic ceremonial law, and was, therefore, abrogated by the incarnation, atoning work, and resurrection of Jesus. I addressed that argument in part here.

One of the reasons that I disagree with that argument is that the Sabbath was not created by Moses, unlike the actual ceremonies, such as the sacrifices or the priesthood. Rather, the Sabbath was a creation mandate, established by God in the creation period of Genesis: "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 Sabbath day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all His work that He had done in creation" (Genesis 2:2-3). Thus the Sabbath was not a Mosaic ritual, but was rather a creation mandate, just as marriage was.

Generally, the response I get is something to the effect of, "Then prove that anyone celebrated the Sabbath between the creation and Moses." There is so little thought put into that statement that it is obvious that they are merely repeating something that they have been told. The reason I don't believe that it is the result of study is that it is an argument from silence that cuts both ways: if I can't prove that people kept the Sabbath during that period, neither can the anti-Sabbatarian prove that they didn't. Additionally, even if the argument were correct, it is not to the point. The failure of the people to keep the commandment is not proof that the commandment was... Well, was what? Good advice? The anti-Sabbatarian doesn't say. They also don't say why failure to obey the land sabbaths didn't abrogate that law (Leviticus 26:45, II Chronicles 36:21).

Now lets fast-forward to Moses, in the receiving of the Ten Commandments. What we notice is that eight of the Commandments begin with "you shall" or "you shall not." The Fifth Commandment starts with"honor." However, only the Fourth Commandment begins with "remember." "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, 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" (Exodus 20:8-11). Remembering involves something that existed in time before our effort to remember it. The commandment even refers to the creation in its phrasing. Therefore, that one word proves that the Fourth Commandment wasn't creating the Sabbath; it was restoring it.

Jesus, Justice, and the Woman Caught in Adultery

There is a strange and controversial story found in John 7:53-8:11. In the story, the Pharisees bring to Jesus a woman who was caught in adultery. They say, and correctly, that the Law required those convicted of adultery to be put to death (see Leviticus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 22:22). Yet, we notice at least one problem with their presentation: Where was the man caught with her? So, the Pharisees ask Jesus, what do You say that we should do with her?

Jesus does not respond with law. Rather, His response is to point at the character of the woman's accusers. Rather, He says, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her" (verse 7). In our popular culture, this has been taken to mean that any person with any sin has no grounds for criticizing the actions of any other person. Well, we know that Jesus meant no such thing, because He had prescribed righteous judgment just before this story (John 7:24). And that indicates the problem that He had with the Pharisees in this case. Their accusations did not come from righteous grounds, regardless of their pious citation of Moses. Note that these are men who had allowed a guilty man to depart without punishment, while they were prepared to punish the woman with death! I think that this was the specific intent of the response of Jesus, quoted above. These men had justified the man because they shared his same proclivities for illicit sex, but they still wanted to play at being righteous! They all walked away in shame because Jesus had torn off the bandage with which they had been hiding their perversion. 

If the text is a legitimate part of John, a question which I am not qualified to answer, then why is it here? 

I started thinking about this story because of something I read in my private Bible study this morning: "I will not punish your daughters when they play the whore, nor your brides when they commit adultery; for the men themselves go aside with prostitutes and sacrifice with cult prostitutes, and a people without understanding shall come to ruin" (Hosea 4:14). Doesn't that sound a lot like the story from John? And in it I found what I surmised about the story that I described above. Jesus was exemplifying the same redemptive purpose that He, in His preincarnate state, had inspired in the prophecy of Hosea. 

Jesus was not, and is not, opposed to true justice. After all, He was also the source of the Law. He was the Yahweh who revealed the commandments to Moses in Exodus 20:1. However, He is also our compassionate Redeemer who went to the cross on behalf of His people. Notice how He deals with the repentant thief on the cross next to Him (Luke 23:40-43). He promised the thief that he would be with Him in Paradise in just a few hours. However, He did not take the thief down from the cross. The thief was redeemed and forgiven, but still received the due temporal, legal consequence of his wicked acts (Luke 23:41). There is no sign here of the sentimental supposition that no one can judge the sins of someone else.

The Effectual Atonement of the Cross

"It is, and must be, an indispensable element in anything which deserves the name of atonement that it satisfies the justice of God, or lays the foundation of a claim of right to exemption from punishment" James Henley Thornwell, "The Necessity and Nature of Christianity"). 

This statement from one of the forefront theologians of the Southern Presbyterian Church in its heyday represents why the Calvinist view of atonement is logically necessary (together with its biblical evidences) and the Arminian doctrine cannot satisfy the simple meaning of the word.  

An atonement is a sacrifice given to assuage the just wrath of God upon an action or person. We see this first in the Old Testament, in which there is even a Day of Atonement (still celebrated, though deprived of content, by modern Jews): "It shall be a statute to you forever that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall afflict yourselves and shall do no work, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you. For on this day shall atonement be made for you to cleanse you. You shall be clean before the Lord from all your sins. It is a Sabbath of solemn rest to you, and you shall afflict yourselves; it is a statute forever. And the priest who is anointed and consecrated as priest in his father’s place shall make atonement, wearing the holy linen garments. He shall make atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make atonement for the tent of meeting and for the altar, and he shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly. And this shall be a statute forever for you, that atonement may be made for the people of Israel once in the year because of all their sins" (Leviticus 16:29-34). This follows the description of the sin offering. These requirements indicate several things. First, that all of the people are guilty of sin. It is presupposed in the requirement of an atonement for all of the people, not excluding the children or the clergy or any other class among them. Second, it implies that the sin condition brings the judgment of God. And third, it demonstrates the heinousness of, not just particularly bad sins, but of all sins. God hates sin, and requires that a price be paid for it. 

In the New Testament, those implications are stated briefly and explicitly. That all have sinned, we find in Romans 3:22-23: "There is no distinction, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." And that sin brings the judgment of God we find in Romans 6:23: "The wages of sin is death." And that all sin, whether men consider it great or small, is under the wrath of God, we find in James 2:10: "Whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it."  

However, there is also a strong contrast between the atonement displayed in the Old Testament and that achieved in the New Testament. In both testaments, we have one lesson: "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins" (Hebrews 9:22). Old Testament believers saw that truth displayed in the daily slaying of animals. However, "since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins" (Hebrews 10:1-4). Israel saw this annual atonement, yet they continued to be aware of sin and its consequences. Therefore, it was not the sacrifices themselves which provided atonement. Rather, when observed with faith, they pointed to an atonement which was to come. 

It is in the New Testament that the atonement was no longer merely displayed but was truly, once for all achieved. "Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer Himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then He would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for Him" (Hebrews 9:24-28).

Here we see the fulfillment of what is described by Thornwell, satisfying the justice of God and relieving the consciences of believing men. It fully saves everyone for whom it was given (6:39). As He promises, it cannot fail to achieve its purpose.

The Crucifixion, and What It Reveals About the Law

"That representation of Christianity which makes the sufferings of Jesus a full and perfect satisfaction of the penalty of the law, and His life of spotless obedience the ground to all claim of eternal bliss... rears the fabric of grace, not upon the ruins, but [upon] the fulfillment of the law. God is never seen to be more gloriously just, nor the law more awfully sacred, than when He spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all. The impression which this event makes is, indeed, solemn, awful, sublime. It was a wonder in Heaven, a

Aspects of Crucifixion

terror in Hell, and is the grand instrument through which the rebellion of earth is subdued and the stout-hearted made to melt at the remembrance of sin" (James Henley Thornwell, "The Necessity and Nature of Christianity").

There is a common teaching among Evangelicals that God has rid us of the Law with the coming and crosswork of Jesus. That is not just the ceremonial law, with which I would agree, but also the moral law, with which I cannot. Some people simply deny the distinction between ceremonial and moral. However, then they have to ignore the usages of Paul who describes the abrogation of the former in Galatians, but maintains the latter in I Timothy 1:8-10, even referring to it as "in accordance with the gospel" in verse 11. And he specifically applies the law to members of the church at Corinth in I Corinthians 5:1 (Leviticus 18:8, Deuteronomy 22:30). Paul certainly didn't believe in the abrogation of the moral law!

There is also the problem of Christ's crosswork. Have we forgotten that He was beaten, whipped, and crucified? If the Son of God had to suffer so horribly "to magnify His law and make it glorious" (Isaiah 42:21, in one of the Servant passages), just for the law to be dispensed, was His suffering not unnecessary? What a horror for the Father to treat His Son in such a manner, when He was just going to get rid of the law anyway! Can we truly accuse God of such injustice?

Rather, as Isaiah says, the suffering and death of Jesus did not abrogate the law. Rather, it glorified it! The justice and holiness of God was revealed to the eyes of all men. The high price of rebellion against Him was revealed. At the same time, it revealed His grace, indicating what the love of the Son required that He undertake for His people.

The Continuing Validity of the Sabbath, as Demonstrated by Israel's Exile

In discussions about the Sabbath, I often get challenged by people, often from dispensationalist backgrounds, who claim that the Sabbath was part of the Mosaic ceremonial law, an was, therefore, abrogated by the cross work of Jesus.

And I agree with the part about the abrogation of the Mosaic ceremonies. they pointed to the atonement purchased for His people by Jesus, and, therefore, have no place in the lives of Christians. However, I firmly deny that the Sabbath was part of those ceremonies.

rather, the sabbath was a creation ordinance, together with marriage and productive labor. We see it in Genesis 2:3: "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." Other than to deny it, I have never gotten a coherent explanation as to why that reference is not to the Sabbath.

The problem with that objection is what Moses actually does say in the Fourth Commandment: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, 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" (Exodus 20:8-11). So Moses tells us that God's declaration in Genesis 2:3 is the basis for the Fourth Commandment. It is not the other way around, as these dispensationalists claim.

The implication of this is that the claim of these same people that the Sabbath was part of, and, therefore, abrogated with, the Mosaic ceremonies is unbiblical. Some of them go on to add, to reinforce their weak abrogation argument, that there is no record of the celebration of the Sabbath between Genesis and Exodus. Well, that is an argument from silence, and is insufficient evidence with no other biblical support. Also, even if correct, it is not to the point. The failure of the people to obey the command does not abrogate the command. We see this in regard to the land sabbaths (Leviticus 25:1-7). We are explicitly told that Israel never obeyed the command to give the land a rest every seven years, so those missed land sabbaths are the basis of their seventy years of exile in Babylon (II Chronicles 36:21).

I think this brief case refutes any view of the Sabbath as an abrogated ceremony, or that failure to obey it is proof that it was nonbinding.

Sovereign Grace, the Trinity, and the Christian Life

"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the

sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with His blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you."

- I Peter 1:1-2 

This is the opening salutation from Peter's first epistle. Notice that it is not written to men in general but specifically to Christians, whom he identifies as the true Israel (compare Romans 9:8, Galatians 3:7, 6:16, etc.), gathered by the sovereign grace of God. 

And when I say God, I don't mean in a vague, generic sense. Rather, Peter identifies our election as the work of the triune God of the Bible: the foreknowledge of the Father, the sanctification of the Holy Spirit, and the obedience of the Son, applied, figuratively speaking, by the sprinkling with His blood, an image from the Old Testament sacrifices (such as Leviticus 7:2 and 14:7). Peter does not contemplate a unitary deity, whether of the Arian type or the Sabellian. 

Nor does Peter contemplate any sort of works religion, as is taught by those pseudo-Christian sects. Rather, he tells us that the Father chose us, the Holy Spirit changed us, and the Son fulfilled all righteousness for us, that it might be imputed to us. In just these two verses, Peter teaches us to see our reunion with our God as fully trinitarian and fully by His sovereign grace, which is why he could add, in verse 4, that we have "an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you." The same sovereign, trinitarian grace that saved us also keeps us secure until we reach our heavenly goal."I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Philippians 1:6).

One God and One Salvation, Contra Dispensationalism

One of the worst doctrines found in classical dispensationalism is that history is divided into periods when believers were saved in different ways. For example, the Jews were supposedly saved by obeying the Law, while Christians live in a different dispensation, in which we are saved by grace. While most self-described dispensationalists now repudiate that concept, it has crept into a more-general evangelical audience. You will often run into people who claim that Old Testament salvation was by law, but the New testament is grace.

That assertion is false.

On one hand, it is true that the Bible says, "You shall therefore keep My statutes and My rules; if a person does them, he shall live by them: I am the LORD" (Leviticus 18:5). On the other hand - and no one seems to notice this - it is never stated that any person has achieved eternal life in that way! Even David, the man after God's own heart (I Samuel 13:14, Acts 13:22) is described as a sinner (Psalm 51), and never as one saved by his law obedience.

Why is that? Because, as David himself says, every man, woman, or child since the fall of Adam (excluding Jesus) is born a sinner, and any sin, even just one, makes that man, woman, or child a rebel under the Law (James 2:10). So, what about Leviticus 18:5? It is God's word, and, therefore, necessarily true. However, it is just hypothetical. If there were a man who was 100% consistent with the Law in thought and action, from his conception forward, then that man could claim eternal life as his due. However, besides Jesus, there has not been, nor could ever be, such a man.

Has the Law then deceived us with an impossible dream? Not at all. Rather, the Law should lead us to despair of that way of salvation. And, indeed, that same Law points us to the only alternative: "I will not spurn them, neither will I abhor them so as to destroy them utterly and break My covenant with them, for I am the Lord their God. But I will for their sake remember the covenant with their forefathers, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, that I might be their God: I am the Lord" (Leviticus 26:44-45). In that same Law, God promises the salvation of His people, not on the basis of Law, but on the basis of His covenant to be gracious to His chosen people! 

Therefore, whenever anyone claims that there are two (or more) methods of salvation in the Bible, or that Jews are saved in a different way from Gentiles, then he is parroting something which he has been taught, because there is no such dichotomy in Scripture.

Transubstantiation and Eating Blood

Before I start, I wanted to mention that this is my 600th post!

In the Old Testament, God makes clear the point that He didn't want His people to consume blood.

It started when men first started eating meat, after the Flood: "You shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood" (Genesis 9:4). Thus, it wasn't part of the Mosaic laws of ceremonial cleanness.

It did, however, continue under the Mosaic ceremonies: "If any one of the house of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people" (Leviticus 17:10). And, "Only be sure that you do not eat the blood, for the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh" (Deuteronomy 12:23).

It is also found in the New Testament: "You [shall] abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well" (Acts 15:29).

I bring this up because of the Catholic doctrine of the eucharist, according to which Rome claims that the wine and bread of communion literally become the blood and flesh of Jesus. Their official statement on the matter comes form the Council of Trent: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation" (CCC 1376). 

Do you see the conflict? While the scriptures repeatedly condemn consuming blood, the Church of Rome claims that her members do literally that in the eucharist! That shows, first, that Rome's eucharist, in spite of the name, is no act of thanksgiving, but is, instead, a rite of superstition; and second, that the words of Jesus, "This is My blood," cannot be taken literally.

Why did God forbid the consuming of blood? Because it is life. The animal cannot live if it loses its blood. And, more importantly, it is the blood of Christ that is ultimate life, because it alone is the basis of eternal life. While Rome is correct in pointing to the blood of Jesus for salvation (John 6:54), she is wrong in how it is applied. There is no salvation in ceremonies. It is only by faith that the benefits of Christ's blood are received: "We 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" (Romans 3:24-25, see also Ephesians 2:13, Hebrews 9:14, and I Peter 1:19). While talking about the blood of Christ, Rome makes her priests the conduits of salvation, in place of faith. that is one of the reasons that the Catholic eucharist is a blasphemy, in which no true Christian should participate.

The Old Testament Law for the New Testament Believer

Dispensationalists and followers of "New Covenant Theology" (hereafter "NCT") unite in claiming that the Old Testament law is not binding on Christians. However, Paul's use of the Law showed that he had no such opinion. I want to examine three places where he describes the abiding authority of the Law, including for Christians.

First is Romans 3:31: "Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law." While both dispensationalists and NCT claim that one is either in faith or in the law, implying a dichotomy between the two, that is certainly not Paul's doctrine. That's because of a bait-and-switch in the dispensationalist and NCT arguments. They properly point to a dichotomy of the two in the realm of justification. And I (and every other covenantalist) agree whole-heartedly that no one can be saved by the Law. However, the same people act as if that is the end of the discussion, sweeping the issue of sanctification under the rug. Yet that is Paul's point: the man saved by faith is now freed and enabled to love and obey God's law.

Second is I Corinthians 5:1: "It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife." We know the story: The Apostle rebukes the church at Corinth for failing to exercise discipline against this member who is living in a sexual relationship with the wife of his own father (probably the man's step-mother). But how does Paul determine that such a lifestyle is wicked? It is never addressed anywhere else in the New Testament! However, in Leviticus 20:11, we read, "If a man lies with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them" (see also Deuteronomy 27:20). Paul applies an Old Testament law, and one not repeated in the New Testament, something which both dispensationalists and NCT claim is necessary for a law still to be valid.

And third is I Corinthians 14:34: "The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says." Paul again issues a rebuke to the church for acting contrary, not to a principle stated in the New Testament, but rather to one in the Old Testament Law!

So, here we have three New Testament examples that refute the antinomianism of the dispensationalists and New Covenant Theology. Their rejection of the Law is contrary to the apostolic testimony, and, therefore, false. Rather, the Scriptures demonstrate the accuracy of the confessional covenant theology: "The moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator who gave it. Neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen, this obligation" (Westminster Confession of faith XIX:5).