These feasts were acts of celebration, and they were to be received by the Israelites with joy, for they were being summoned to “appear before the Lord GOD.” They were being called into the presence of the King of kings to eat feast with Him and eat at His table. How could they not rejoice at such a command! And if Israel had reason to rejoice, how much more do we!

Chapters 20-23 of Exodus form a section called in 24:7 the Book of the Covenant. In 21:1-22:15, Yahweh gave Israel laws relating to how they were to treat their slaves and how they were to make restitution for physical harm done to others or the damage of someone else’s property. 22:16-23:9 then provided a number of eclectic laws that each gave Israel a vision for how they were to distinguish themselves from the nations around them. Preceding those large sets of laws were the brief instructions regarding altars and worship in 20:22-26. Those regulations are now paralleled in the text before us, which also focuses upon Israel’s worship of Yahweh. Yet while the laws of the altar largely concerned the place of Israel’s worship, the commands before us will center predominately upon Israel’s time of worship.
Sabbaths Years & Days
Our text begins with God’s commands regarding Sabbath years and days:
For six years you shall sow your land and gather in its yield, but the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie fallow, that the poor of your people may eat; and what they leave the beasts of the field may eat. You shall do likewise with your vineyard, and with your olive orchard.
Did this mean that no one in Israel was allowed to farm on the seventh year? Some, like Douglas Stuart, say no. He argues that this command was for allowing particular fields to lie fallow every seventh year, but other fields could still be cultivated because they would be on a different seven-year cycle. This would mean that the poor would always have fallow fields in Israel to eat from.
Other, like Tremper Longman III, believe that all of Israel was called to cease from farming on the seventh year. He writes of Leviticus’ more detailed description:
Leviticus 25 describes a system whereby every seventh year was a Sabbath, when no field was to be planted, pruned, or harvested. Indeed, the Israelite farmer was not even permitted to store any crop that was produced naturally. Everyone could eat this food, but it could not be stored. Israel’s observance of this regulation was totally a matter of trusting God. The agriculture of the area was tenuous enough normally. To actually give up a year of work and expect to eat the following year was to believe that God could and would take care of his people.
IMMANUEL IN OUR PLACE, 171.
Which is correct? We do not know for certain, but we do know that this was for Israel’s good. Stuart writes:
Here Israel learned that their farming practices must include a regular pattern of noncultivation. The purpose of such a practice every seventh year of letting the land lie fallow centered on the way such a routine helped the poor and wildlife. From an agri-science point of view, it also would allow the land some time for additional nitrogen fixing as natural grassing-over would occur on most of the surface of the uncultivated land, and this would be good for the land in the long run. The focus of the command, however, is ecological-humanitarian and not on improving productivity.
EXODUS, 530.
We would do well to take that principle to heart. More and more studies continue to find positive benefits that come from the spiritual disciplines that God commands. Meditation greatly improves focus and mental health. Prayer relieves stress and anxiety. Songs sink further into the heart than mere pieces of information ever could. Gathering regularly with and belonging to a community is a great buffer against the epidemic of loneliness and gives plenty of opportunities to do good to others, which naturally makes us feel better. However, all of these positive benefits are not the point themselves; rather, they simply prove what Christ said: “But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you” (Matthew 6:33). The long-term health of Israel’s soil was a benevolent by-product of trusting in Yahweh’s provisional hand.
Verse 12 then describes the Sabbath day:
Six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; that your ox and your donkey may have rest, and the son of your servant woman, and the alien, may be refreshed.
Notice that, as with Sabbath year, this particular command to observe the Sabbath day does not mention the worship of Yahweh; instead, it focuses upon the rest of the Israelites and the rest that they ought to provide to their servants and animals. As Ryken notes:
The Sabbath was not just something the people owed to God, but also something they owed to one another. When they were slaves in Egypt, the Israelites never had a chance to rest. However, God did not want that sin to be repeated in Israel. Workers, including household servants, needed to be refreshed by celebrating a weekly Sabbath.
EXODUS, 711.
Indeed, that is the main difference in the Ten Commandments as listed in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. Exodus 20 commands the Sabbath to be remembered because of the pattern that God established in creation, but Deuteronomy 5 commands it because He liberated Israel out of slavery and they were to also give rest to their servants.
Regardless of how we believe a Sabbath should or should not be observed by Christians today, it is difficult to deny the inherent goodness behind this command. There is certainly plenty of legalism that can be conjured up, as there was in Jesus’ own day, but keeping to Jesus’ principle always in mind is the safeguard against such legalism: “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27). Of course, as with everything that Jesus said, this was not a new teaching; He was simply making the principle behind the Old Testament commands.
To revolt against rest is childish. As any parent knows, fully half of all parenting takes place while trying to get a child to nap or sleep. And we prove ourselves to be no less childish whenever we rebel against God’s good design for us to rest. Of course, we could go even further, for a steadfast refusal to rest is an idolatrous refusal to trust in the Lord. It is easy to say that we trust in God’s provision, but it is another thing entirely to actually place our trust in God’s provision by resting in Him and not taking everything into our own hands. And as these commands particularly show, refusal to rest also does harm to those around us. Stuart rightly gives particular application, saying:
Thus the family that expects a wife/mother to prepare twenty-one meals per week without respite and serve the needs of the family equally on all days violates the command, as would the dairy farmer who never takes a break from the twice-daily milking, or the policeman who does special-duty shifts on days off from regular shifts, or the pastor who never sets for himself or herself a day off or its equivalent. People who do not observe the Sabbath, either in one day or its distributed equivalent, deny themselves or others the sort of life God intended.
EXODUS, 533.
Indeed, we should take care to rest in the Lord because if we fail to do so, like the loving Father that He is, He will often force us to rest or give rest to those who we have kept from rest. Consider how He did so with Israel, as recorded in 2 Chronicles 36:17-21:
Therefore [Yahweh] brought up against them the king of the Chaldeans, who killed their young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary and had no compassion on young man or virgin, old man or aged. He gave them all into his hand. And all the vessels of the house of God, great and small, and the treasures of the house of the LORD, and the treasures of the king and of his princes, all these he brought to Babylon. And they burned the house of God and broke down the wall of Jerusalem and burned all its palaces with fire and destroyed all its precious vessels. He took into exile in Babylon those who had escaped from the sword, and they became servants to him and to his sons until the establishment of the kingdom of Persia, to fulfill the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed its Sabbaths. All the days that it lay desolate it kept Sabbath, to fulfill seventy years.
More importantly, however, we should have a desire to happily rest in our Lord. Hear Christ’s call to you today: “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Matthew 11:28-30). We certainly go to Christ for our spiritual rest from attempting to earn our own salvation, yet we also go to Him for wholistic rest of heart, soul, and body. We have terrible judgment of what kind of rest is best for us. We often turn to entertainment to “unwind,” yet rest is hardly ever the result. Should we not instead take Christ at His word and go to Him for rest?
Read More
Related Posts:

The Bible clearly shows that God favors some and not all. But God’s “favor” is not sin, where “favoritism” is indeed sin, as James rightly points out. Favoritism is when someone chooses a person or thing because of some perceived merit, worth, or bias; but, as Paul declares in Romans 3:23, all people have sinned and fallen short of God’s righteous requirements. There is no human being who justly deserves God’s favor. Instead, all people deserve the wrath of God. Yet, God, by his grace, chooses to give some people faith in Christ and the resulting righteousness that comes through this faith. This reality was as much in play in Israel’s history as it is today.

Have you ever seen someone play favorites based on a person’s appearance, bank account, employment, or some other factor—and you weren’t the chosen one? It’s not a good feeling.
Favoritism is nothing new under the sun, and it most certainly was an issue in the early church (James 2:1-4). If favoritism is bad, why do we find numerous passages in the Bible where God clearly favors some people over others, even in the matter of salvation? In his greeting to the Ephesian church, the apostle Paul states:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will. (Eph. 1:3-5)

Is God showing a form of favoritism in his election of only some of humanity for salvation? Let’s look closely at this issue and see why God’s electing grace is not favoritism.
What does the apostle James say about favoritism?
One of the earliest writings in the New Testament is the letter by James to “the twelve tribes in the Dispersion,” a way of referring to the Christian church that was scattered throughout Asia Minor due to the persecution of Christians circa AD 40 in Jerusalem. James’s letter was most likely intended to be read among many congregations to address issues that were becoming problematic in all the churches, one being favoritism—the giving of special attention to people because of their position, influence, or wealth.
In the first verse of chapter two, James warns believers against showing favoritism. He writes, “My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory” (James 2:1). James is concerned about us, and he denounces this practice as one that should never be characteristic of God’s children. He goes on to write:

For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, “You sit here in a good place,” while you say to the poor man, “You stand over there,” or, “Sit down at my feet,” have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? (James 2:1-4)

God’s favor versus favoritism—what’s the difference?
The favoritism James warns against in James 2:1-4 is different in every way from the favor God shows in choosing to save some but not all humans. The salvation God graciously provides by the gift of faith (Eph. 2:8-9) begins in Genesis 3:15 with the promise to Adam and Eve of a Savior. His favor begins to take further shape in Genesis 4:25 with the birth of Seth to Adam and Eve. Even though sin seems to have won when Adam and Eve’s firstborn, Cain, murders his brother Abel, hope returns in Seth through whom the God-fearing ancestral line would run to the promised Messiah.
In the days of Noah, the increasing corruption on the earth results in God bringing judgment on all mankind. Yet, God, being rich in mercy, shows favor toward Noah (Gen. 6:9-22). God preserves Noah and his family through the water judgment so that the plan of God—announced in Genesis 3:15—would continue.
Of Noah’s three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, God chooses Shem, who alone is favored by being given faith to continue the ancestral line that would eventually lead to Jesus (Gen. 4:26). In Genesis 11:10-26, we read the list of Shem’s descendants.
Read More
Related Posts:

The Gospel is not that God “accepts people as they are.” The Gospel involves radical repentance and change. The “progressive” Gospel involves no change, no curing of our sinful hearts, and no suppression of evil within us. Instead, we become as God.

One of the most influential books in the 20th Century Church was J Gresham Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism. Machen was prophetic in his analysis of the crisis facing the Church in the US in the first half of the century—some would argue that it was because of his (and others’) stance that the US Church did not go down the path of decline that Churches in most other Western countries did.
In his prophetic book he warned: “A terrible crisis unquestionably has arisen in the Church. In the ministry of evangelical churches are to be found hosts of those who reject the gospel of Christ. By the equivocal use of traditional phrases, by the representation of differences of opinion as though they were only differences about the interpretation of the Bible, entrance into the Church was secured for those who are hostile to the very foundations of the faith.”
These words came to mind as I listened to the latest debate on conversion therapy on Premier’s Unbelievable, between Jayne Ozanne, the chair of Ban Conversion Therapy, and Peter Lynas of the Evangelical Alliance. Ozanne is, like Steve Chalke, a former evangelical who has a significant voice in the Anglican church and beyond.
As I listened to the somewhat (one-sided) heated discussion, I realised that this was not just a disagreement between two different versions of Christianity, but a disagreement between two different Christianities—which is why there was no possibility of agreement.
Francis Schaeffer, another prophetic writer who saw what was coming down the road, argued in The God Who Is There, that a new theology conditioned by modernistic and post modernistic would infiltrate the Church and create chaos.
He said that this new theology would have certain advantages because “the undefined connotation words that the new theology uses are deeply rooted in our Western culture. This is much easier and more powerful than using new and untraditional words.”
Ozanne used Christian words, but within progressive ideology they have radically different meanings:
1. Love
Ozanne told us, “God is love, anything that harms a child or adult goes against that.” But she never defines what love is. It’s so easy to say ‘love is love’, but without definition, that statement is completely vacuous.
The Bible on the other hand makes it explicitly clear. 1 John 4:10 says, “This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.”
Furthermore, our love is also clearly defined: “This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands. And his commands are not burdensome” (1 John 5:2-3).
When people reject the commands of God, they are being the opposite of loving.
2. Harm
Ozanne kept accusing Peter and the EA of causing harm. Helen Joyce in her book Trans lays out how accusations of harm are used by trans activists to emotionally bully people into accepting their agenda. It always ends up with accusing those who disagree with them of causing suicide. Yet there is no evidence that the teaching of Jesus is the cause of suicide.
But Ozanne went further: “There is no evidence of Jesus teaching something that is going to cause people harm.”
I would have thought that most modern people would regard telling people to pluck out their eye if it is going to cause them to sin; to let the dead bury their dead; to hate their own father and mother; and to cast people into Hell as somewhat harmful! Perhaps Ozanne should heed his warning in Matthew 18:6 about those who cause people to stumble?
Read More