Written by Nicholas T. Batzig |
Monday, November 13, 2023
The Sabbath day reminds image bearers of their obligation to worship and serve the Lord, and to trust God for the redemption that He freely provides in Christ alone. Where Adam failed in the covenant of works, Christ succeeded. As the last Adam (Rom. 5:12–21), Jesus came to secure the eschatological Sabbath rest for His people. Jesus performed numerous healing miracles on the old covenant Sabbath day, revealing Himself to be the One who alone can provide rest for the souls of His people. The restorative Sabbath-day healings foreshadowed the ultimate healing that Christ secured for believers in the resurrection on the last day. 

It has become increasingly common for business professionals, life coaches, and pastors to talk about embracing sabbath or taking a sabbatical. The idea is that people need prolonged seasons of rest and refreshment. The focus on taking a sabbath is, of course, that people would become more productive in their employments while also caring for their spiritual, physical, and emotional well-being.
While sabbaticals may address a common, therapeutic need for rest, God has given us the Sabbath day to serve as a sign of the greater spiritual need we have for the rest that He provides in Christ alone. From the beginning of time, the Sabbath day was set as one of God’s creation ordinances (Gen. 2:2–3). In redemptive history, it was the fourth of the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15). Both at creation and in the fourth commandment, the Sabbath served as a covenantal sign holding out the promise of a greater Sabbath rest.
After creating a world in which His image bearers could dwell, the Lord set apart the seventh day as the Sabbath day. The Sabbath day served numerous purposes at creation. It was to be a day of worship and rest. It was also a reminder that mankind is finite and dependent. Since we are dependent creatures, God saw fit to give Adam this creation ordinance to remind him of his need for rest from his physical labor. Adam was to set apart the Sabbath day to worship the God who “gives to all mankind life and breath and everything” (Acts 17:25).
However, it was not simply a day in which man was to cease from his labors and embrace physical and spiritual rest; it was a sign pointing to something higher—the hope of entering eternal rest. The eschatological-sign nature of the Sabbath day was tied to God’s covenantal dealing with man in the garden. In Eden, God condescended to initiate a covenantal relationship with Adam. Had Adam obeyed the command related to the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, it’s likely he would have secured an eternal dwelling place for righteous image bearers to reflect the holy character of God. Had he obeyed, he would have gained a right to eat from the Tree of Life. The two trees in the garden served as signs and seals of the covenant of works, together with the Sabbath day. That is, the Sabbath ordinance was one of the signs and seals of this covenant in Eden. The Sabbath was a sign insomuch as it pointed to the promise of the eternal rest that man would have entered had Adam obeyed the demands of the covenant of works.
Read More
Related Posts:

As fallible humans we all sometimes succumb to haste, emotion, and the influence of others, especially the media, whose sole occupation lies in seeking to get us to believe its narratives and to think and act along its preferred lines. Add in the rigors and tedium of pastoral and publishing work and mistakes are apt to happen sometimes, even large ones. In such cases a little public or private contradiction that seeks to set one right is justified, provided it is moved by charity and expressed courteously.

On April 24th, byFaith, the official magazine of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), published an article titled “Prayer and Work in the Face of Violence,” in which it was claimed that “gun violence” is “the leading cause of death among children in this nation.” I published an article showing that was false on the basis of mortality statistics provided by the CDC (available here). Others also took umbrage to the April 24th article, and I dispatched a personal message to byFaith requesting a removal of the article and a full retraction. That has not occurred, and as of May 24th the article is still available at byFaith, unamended and unaccompanied by any editorial clarifications.
Mistaken claims are rather common in the world of the published word. The careful observer will note, for instance, that I misnamed David Cassidy’s church in the first sentence of my first Aquila Report article, accidentally referring to it as Spanish River Presbyterian rather than Spanish River Church due to an editing error. Are Dominic Aquila and I to then be regarded as wholly unreliable in our claims? Hardly. But the answer in all such cases is to correct the mistake when it is brought to one’s attention and to be more careful in future, hence why I have mentioned my fault here and why I have checked with a former professional proofreader to ensure my pronoun usage is correct in the phrase above about the proprietor of this site and me. (And in fairness, I reversed them the first time around.)
It is a rather more serious fault, however, to make a claim as large and consequential as that gun violence is the leading cause of death of children in this nation when it is easily verified that it is not. And it is significant as well that this claim seems to be that of a certain political faction in our nation, as evidenced by the fact that I passed by a waiting room the other day and found a pair of activists making the claim verbatim on a major news outlet. The PCA’s magazine should not be parroting the false claims of the political left. Nor should it be repeating the claims of any other political faction, unless they involve questions in which the church has a vital interest or unambiguous questions of public morality, such as matters of liberty of conscience, the free exercise of our faith, abortion, euthanasia, and the like; and even in those questions I think the church’s involvement should be as an independent witness of right and wrong, and that she should never allow herself to become a de facto organ of any political party.
But even granting that it is a more serious offense, we need not assume the worst as to its reasons. As fallible humans we all sometimes succumb to haste, emotion, and the influence of others, especially the media, whose sole occupation lies in seeking to get us to believe its narratives and to think and act along its preferred lines. Add in the rigors and tedium of pastoral and publishing work and mistakes are apt to happen sometimes, even large ones. In such cases a little public or private contradiction that seeks to set one right is justified, provided it is moved by charity and expressed courteously.
What I am suggesting, then, is that we provide a collective remonstrance against byFaith’s error of fact. If you are reading this and are a member of the PCA I ask you, dear reader, to take a moment to drop byFaith a line here or via email at [email protected], and to tell them that you are disappointed that the public news outlet of our church has done poorly by its departure from its proper mission, and that it needs to retract its errors by removing the source of offense in question and offering a public acknowledgment and correction of its published errors of fact. The reason I suggest this is simple: byFaith is an official agency of the PCA, paid for by her funds and subordinate to her government. Our magazine should not be publishing false claims which venture into the territory of the purely political and have no direct relation to the church or her duties of disciple making.
I believe, moreover, that any PCA member should be able to do this in good conscience, regardless of his or her beliefs about criminal justice policy. For while we may differ as to our beliefs about civil or political questions, yet the proper focus of the church is a matter which we should all respect, and upon which we should all insist. Christ’s “kingdom is not of this world” (Jn. 18:36), and when the people of Israel were about to make him king he withdrew from them (Jn. 6:15), lest their mistaken popular enthusiasm should distract from his true mission of redeeming his elect. The PCA (including her agencies like byFaith), being a manifestation of Christ’s body, the church, ought to take heed and beware lest in her concern with the things of this life she diverts people’s attention from things above (Col. 3:1-2; comp. Matt. 16:23).
Tom Hervey is a member of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church, Five Forks (Simpsonville), SC. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not of necessity reflect those of his church or its leadership or other members. He welcomes comments at the email address provided with his name.
Related Posts:

The nature of truth is under attack in our culture and we are woefully unskilled in debating truth. Truth is debated in the public square with snarky memes. I’ll admit that I like snarky memes, but let’s be honest, memes do not educate or persuade. We need church leaders who will stand for truth regardless of whether truth is popular in the larger culture. Further, we need church leaders who will teach about how truth is established. Archbishop Welby has failed us in this regard.

Who better than the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) to report on a conference of Anglican bishops? The BBC is satisfied that the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby has brokered a compromise on one of the most controversial issues of the day, namely, which sexual expressions the churches in the Anglican Communion should countenance.
How does one compromise irreconcilably different positions? Archbishop Welby’s solution is that the traditional doctrine remains on paper, but those who flout the doctrine will not be sanctioned. So, everyone is happy?
In a piece headlined, “Lambeth Conference: Welby unites bishops with compromise on sexuality,” the BBC states that the archbishop has “found the formula for now,” which suggests that even the BBC knows the compromise will not stand the test of time. Indeed, archbishops from Nigeria, Rwanda, and Uganda chose not to attend the Lambeth Conference, believing that compromise was inconsistent with the truth-preserving role of the church.
The bishops from these and other African countries support maintaining traditional teaching while those bishops who want to liberalize the church’s teaching are from Western nations. This same geographic divide prevails in parallel debates within the United Methodist Church. It is not unique to Anglicanism. And therein is a significant spoiler alert: the United Methodist Church has begun splitting over such issues. Past compromises to preserve traditional teaching on paper but not in behavior have not unified.
As the BBC explains the situation, the positions of both the African churches and the Western churches can be best understood by understanding the surrounding cultures in which they serve. Thus, the African churches will be most respected by those in their surrounding culture if they maintain traditional teachings about sexuality while the Western churches will have more respect from their cultures if their teaching is liberalized.
Missing from the BBC analysis is a consideration of how bishops, or anyone else, knows what is true. What is truth? Both the BBC and Archbishop Welby seem to argue for the position that truth must be acceptable to the larger culture. Experiencing “derision” or “contempt” would be dangerous for the church.
Yes, Christians are to avoid antagonizing the larger culture for the sake of antagonizing it. We should not bring suffering upon ourselves by doing evil. But Jesus told us that as the world hated Him, it would hate us. Neither approbation nor condemnation from the larger culture determine the truth of Christian doctrine.
Fidelity to Biblical teaching is the standard by which doctrine must be judged. It is disappointing that the BBC does not even consider the possibility that doctrine should have a Biblical foundation. An educated reader, however, should understand that historically Christians have used the Bible as the foundation for church doctrine.
I am not sure the BBC is demonstrating ignorance or neutrality with its news report. Rather, I think the BBC is showing a complete disregard of the claim that the church offers truth authored by God; truth that applies in all times and cultures. The BBC is going beyond disagreeing with the African bishops. The BBC is undermining the relevance of the African bishops and the faith they represent by pretending that the church makes no meaningful truth claims.
The BBC would have the church promote whatever makes people in each time and place feel warm and safe. This appears to be Archbishop Welby’s approach, too. But this has never been the church’s mission. Jesus was not crucified because he made everyone feel warm and safe.
Ultimately Welby’s compromise will please no one for more than a moment. Worse, the archbishop has weakened the church’s claim to be a possessor of cross-cultural timeless truths and has undercut a historical approach to ascertaining the truth.
The nature of truth is under attack in our culture and we are woefully unskilled in debating truth. Truth is debated in the public square with snarky memes. I’ll admit that I like snarky memes, but let’s be honest, memes do not educate or persuade. We need church leaders who will stand for truth regardless of whether truth is popular in the larger culture. Further, we need church leaders who will teach about how truth is established. Archbishop Welby has failed us in this regard.
The issue of truth has implications that go beyond an international gathering of bishops. We must consider what our schools and colleges are teaching about truth. Is truth knowable, and if so, how is truth knowable? Education should move us to a more sophisticated understanding than memes can provide. May God bless us with more institutions that educate well.
Dr. Joseph J. Horton is professor of psychology at Grove City College and the Working Group Coordinator for Marriage and Family with the Institute for Faith and Freedom. He is also a researcher on Positive Youth Development. Used with permission.
Related Posts: