Our Sabbath Rest

I have been hearing talk of Sabbatarianism lately and how Sunday is to be placed aside as a day of entirely no work.  That this day should be strictly for bodily rest and meditation in order to fulfill the 3^rd commandment (“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.”)  Let me say from the onset I agree that the commandment is to be obeyed, however I disagree with many Sabbatarians on what/when this day is and what it means for a believer to obey it.  I by NO means am saying that Sunday is not the “Lord’s Day” and I am by NO means saying that dedicating one day a week for public worship is in error.  On the contrary if you do not do this, you place yourself in danger of sin.  We are one church body in Christ; we are not to forsake fellowship (Hebrews 10:25). We need to encourage one another.  We need to worship our Lord together.  So, get any ideas about not going to church because of this exegesis out of your head.  That is not the authorial intent here.  What needs to be seen in this article is that in attempting to obey the Sabbath as it was given in Exodus 20 we miss it’s New Testament fulfillment in Hebrews 4.   Please read the entire chapter 4 of Hebrews: 

4 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. ² 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.³ For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said,

“As I swore in my wrath,
‘They shall not enter my rest,’”

although his works were finished from the foundation of the world. ⁴ For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.” ⁵ And again in this passage he said,

“They shall not enter my rest.”

⁶ Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, ⁷ 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.”

⁸ For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on. ⁹ So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, ¹⁰ for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his.

¹¹ Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience. ¹² 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. ¹³ 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.

¹⁴ Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. ¹⁵ For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. ¹⁶ Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

Let’s break this up into some questions I had after reading it.

1. What is “our rest”?

This is key.  According to verse 3, it is we who believe who have entered “rest”.  It cannot be the belief itself that is “rest”.  There is no hope in hope alone.  Our rest must come from the object of our belief and chapter 3 (as well as the entire Holy Scriptures) tells us that Christ, his completed work, and sovereign rule is who/what we believe in.  Right off the bat our rest has its source in Christ.  

2. But doesn’t Exodus 20:8-11 specifically point out a day? When are we supposed to set aside our time to rest in the Lord?

Hebrews 4 points out a day as well.  Verse 7 says our appointed day to rest in Christ is “Today”.  Here and Now.  At this moment.  We are to always rest in the peace of Christ that surpasses understanding (Colossians 3:15, Philippians 4:7).  Everything we do is to in Christ and should be for God’s glory (1 Corinthians 10:21) 

The Sabbath rest is everyday for those who believe, for we are now fellow heirs with Christ because of the work he has accomplished for us, undeserved and while we were yet sinners.  You see, that’s the point of chapter 4….the work is done.  We have no other choice but to rest in its completion.  If the gospel doesn’t make you wipe your brow and say, “whew!”  if the gospel doesn’t buckle your heavy laden knees, collapsing you before the throne you can now boldly go to, than no amount of Sunday abstention will give you the slightest true joy and ease.  However, if taking extra time on Sunday to focus on Christ and his work is what you choose to do, than glory be to God!  That’s wonderful.  But this should be done everyday and in everything we do.  So, if going over to friends house to help them with their yard (after church) is how you plan to spend your Sunday.  Praise the lord!  But whatever you do it must be for the glory of God always resting in the belief (the fact) that “Jesus paid it all and all to Him I owe, sin had left a crimson stain but He washed it white as snow.”

Christian Liberty by: "good and necessary consequence"

The Word of God is our only rule of faith and practice. This is the doctrine of sola scriptura: we must not contradict Scripture, and we must not add to Scripture. When the church would bind the conscience, the Christian can appeal to the Word of God and find liberty. A church without this guarantee will be at the mercy of ambitious bureaucrats or repressive moralists, and it binds the conscience by the word of man.

"Good and Necessary Consequence"

The principle that Machen was honoring found its clearest expression in the Westminster Confession of Faith: "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men" (1.6).

The Westminster Confession explains that there are two ways in which God reveals himself in Scripture: explicit truth ("which is expressly set down in Scripture") and implicit truth (which "by good and necessary consequence can be deduced from Scripture"). Together these truths constitute the whole counsel of God, and both are equally obliging on the church. Herman Bavinck explains: "[T]hat which can be deduced from Scripture by legitimate inference is as binding as that which is expressly stated in it." (3)

It is important to underscore that "good and necessary consequence" is not the voice of human wisdom. Because it is reason that submits to the rule of Christ, it is the voice of Scripture itself. As James Bannerman, the nineteenth-century Scottish Presbyterian, explained, good consequences "must be truly contained in the inspired statements from which they profess to be taken."Necessary consequences must be "unavoidably forced upon the mind, upon an honest and intelligent application of it to the Scripture page." (4)

In a helpful essay, C. J. Williams points out that this phrase can be juxtaposed with the wording of the Westminster Larger Catechism (Q/A 105), which warns against "bold and curious searching into [God's] secrets." Where there is not good and necessary consequence, there is exegetical recklessness. This is "presumptuous theological creativity." The deductive reasoning that the confession commends is no license for "an uncharted world of interpretive possibilities," writes Williams. "Good and necessary consequences will propound specific truths, not unveil mysterious layers of meaning in Scripture." (5) The confession goes on (in 1.6) to explain that the Holy Spirit guides the church in identifying these consequences: "the inward illumination of the Spirit of God [is] necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word." Bavinck writes, "This is how the church acts every minute of the day in the ministry of the Word, in the practice of life, in the development of its doctrine. It never stops with the letter but under the guidance of the Holy Spirit deduces from the data of Scripture the inferences and applications that make possible and foster its life and development." (6)

The "good and necessary" principle can be demonstrated by way of illustration. We do not have a positive command or historical example to administer the Lord's Supper to women. But the practice of admitting women to the Table is a clear argument from inference that the church has never questioned. Similarly, there is no explicit statement in the New Testament that the Sabbath day has been changed from the last to the first day of the week. But the New Testament practice of meeting on the first day and John's reference to the Lord's Day (Rev. 1:10) establish the warrant, by good and necessary consequence, of recognizing the Lord's Day as the Christian Sabbath.

On the other hand, there may appear to be, in a very literal reading, an explicit command from Christ for his disciples to practice foot washing (John 13:14). However, this was a common practice in first-century Palestine, and Christ cites it in order to instruct Christians to perform humble service for one another, not to bind the church in a particular liturgical practice. As an ordinance for the church, foot washing fails to meet the burden of good and necessary consequence.

Good and necessary consequence, then, is a principle that safeguards the consistent application of the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura. The church has no right to impose on its members any teaching, commandment, or ordinance that is contrary to or cannot be deduced from Scripture.

The Battle for Christian Liberty

The temptation to impose non-biblical demands derived from "bold and curious" reasoning is not limited to theological liberals. Some conservative churches have constructed a "catalog of sins," highlighting particular "bar-room vices" that comprise a legalistic picture of the Christian life. As soon as Machen and his associates founded the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, a minority within the new church pressed for a declaration against the use of alcohol. The majority in the church, while opposed to intemperance, countered that loyalty to Christ forbade their adopting rules that went beyond the Word of God.

Of course, none of the advocates of abstinence were consciously challenging the authority of the Bible as the church's standard of conduct. But the effect of their crusade was to deny the sufficiency of Scripture and ultimately its authority as well. If it is denied that the Bible provides principles that serve as infallible guides to the Christian in all matters of conduct, then additional authorities must enter the picture. The addition of such man-made rules to the Scripture is as harmful as any subtraction from God's Word.

The principle of Christian liberty is not a popular cause in many circles today. A refusal to condemn alcohol may leave the Christian vulnerable to the impression of being opposed to personal holiness and in favor of sinful license. On a social level, consider the zeal of some churches to take a stand against a social evil by organizing boycotts or political campaigns for particular laws or candidates for office. The church that safeguards liberty of the Christian in this way is not likely to join such social bandwagons. It may be accused of being cowardly in the face of apparent grave threats to the moral fabric of the nation.

Speaking in the early years of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, shortly after some prominent fundamentalists had left the church over this issue, R. B. Kuiper of Westminster Seminary conceded the unpopularity of the church's stand: "The mere mention of Christian liberty causes some of you to worry. You see smoke and smell liquor, and you wonder whether I may not be about to utter some awful indiscretion. Forget it. Christian liberty is something big. It is truly broad."

Kuiper's point is that in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and other Reformed churches, there has been a recognition of the rights and duties of Christians to follow the dictates of their own consciences in matters where the Bible has not pronounced judgment.

Who Binds the Conscience?

The "something big" to which Kuiper referred comes into view as the Westminster Confession goes on to describe in 20.2: "God alone is Lord of the Conscience and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to His word, or beside it in matters of faith and worship." This is often misunderstood by Christians who assume that because God is Lord of the conscience, the church cannot bind consciences. But the church has real God-given authority, and the elders of the church, in the execution of their rule, inevitably and unavoidably bind the consciences of their members. The question, rather, becomes: On what basis is the conscience bound? Is it by the Word of God or by the word of man?

In Christ, Christians are free from all the condemnation of the law, but this liberty never descends into license. Christians are enabled to live for that great end for which they were created: the glory of God. We pursue that aim according to God's own will revealed in the Bible. That standard, given by inspiration of God, is absolute and final. It was designed so that "the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3:16).

In this context, we see that Christian liberty is not an end to itself. Rather, Christian liberty serves the Lordship of Christ, who alone is Lord of the conscience. Christian liberty limits the church to ministering and declaring only the Word of God and not human opinion.

Nowhere do we find greater violations of this principle than with innovations to public worship. There are many Reformed Christians who regard the regulative principle as a narrow-minded rule that robs worshipers of the freedom that God would have them express in worship. This argument completely misses the genius of Christian liberty. Imagine a worship service that entails something without biblical warrant, such as a personal testimony or a dramatic skit. What recourse does a worshiper have who finds that objectionable? By not participating, one sins by violating the divine command to worship with God's assembled people. By joining in, one sins by violating one's conscience. The only way the church can worship God and protect liberty of conscience is by observing the regulative principle of worship. The freedom of the Christian is found in serving one Lord and Master, Jesus Christ.

So what is at stake in the principle of Christian liberty is something far greater than a craving for single malt scotch or the inclination to vote Democrat. It is liberating the believer from arbitrary human rules and the church from a false agenda that distracts it from its calling. Should the minister contend that America is a Christian nation that will receive the blessing from God in return for civic righteousness? Does he promise health and wealth to the believer who follows the Bible's formula for success? We may be quick to dismiss those claims when they come from a crass televangelist, but they come in more subtle forms in churches that follow "brash and curious" principles rather than good and necessary consequence.

Modern Reformation Magazine
Issue: "Sola Scriptura" Nov./Dec. 2010 Vol. 19 No. 6 Page number(s): 14-17