R: The line of Christ is given as Nahshon, Salmon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse.  That is the line of Christ came through Boaz. In the story of Ruth, Boaz is presented as a kinsman redeemer. As I understand the title, Boaz was to perpetuate the line of the deceased branch of the family. To this end the firstborn son was considered heir to the dead.  Should not the line of Christ include Elimemelch and Mahlon?

Pastor: My assumption would be that since the purpose of a kinsmen redeemer would be, as you said, to perpetuate the line of the family that Boaz would be given the honor of his name being included in the genealogy especially since Mahlon and Elimelech had been unfaithful (having left the promised land for Moab and living there for some time without returning to Israel; Mahlon marrying outside of the covenant house of God). That is their names were ‘erased’ from the line and replaced with Boaz. Besides Ruth had no children through Mahlon but only by Boaz. So at the very least Mahlon should not be included since he was never a father and the line of the covenant is usually through the father (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob etc.). This does not account for Elimelech but as we examine the genealogy at the end of the book of Ruth we see that the author is tracing a new, Davidic line more than trying to explain what happened to the other line. The same thing, albeit more broader, is communicated in Matthew. Matthew wants to account for the Judaic line of Christ through David; Elimelech, though of the house of Judah, does not need to be mentioned in order to prove the Davidic descent of Jesus since, technically, He did not descend from Elimelech since Ruth was not his biological daughter and Boaz was not his biological son.

The other consideration, and one that I have not verified or am fully persuaded of yet, is that Matthew’s genealogy is intentionally not complete (or not thorough) but symbolic since there are 14 generations from Abraham to David and 14 generations from David to Babylon and 14 from Babylon to Christ (14 = 2 x 7, 7 being, of course, a number of perfection or holiness). 40 years for a generation x 42 generations = 1680 which does not really account for the 2000 or so years that are between Abraham to Christ. 

For if we want to hold to the Jewish Sabbath then we would have to say, if we are consistent, that all the laws of the Old Covenant are still in effect now (including the priesthood, sacrifices, punishments etc.). This is why in Colossians 2:16 Paul can say we are not to judge one another in food or drink, festivals or Sabbaths: the old is passing away.

We have to wrestle with this text to understand its true meaning but it seems obvious that the Sabbath as commonly practiced by the Jews has no hold on Christians now. Note that the context says that Christ has “wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us.” The meaning of “wiped out” is to destroy, or make clean. And then Paul says “so” in verse 16 to connect it to the meaning of verse 14 and 15. In other words he says (my paraphrase) ‘since Christ in his atonement destroyed the necessity of keeping these laws, you no longer should judge each other in these matters.’

Added to this is the evidence of the meaning of the word ‘Sabbath’ for it does not mean ‘Saturday’ but simply means ‘rest’ or ‘stop.’ Therefore, the fact that the Jews rested or stopped working on Saturday is a particular application of the fourth commandment but not of its essence. “Remember the Sabbath day” is to do our work in six days and rest the seventh (Exodus 20:8-10). It doesn’t specify in the text what day of the week the Sabbath is. For a Christian to work Monday-Saturday and then to rest on Sunday in no way violates the fourth commandment because they are living by it’s basic principle. And indeed the principle is the thing: the controversy is not over the commandment per se, but its application. (1) In other words the moral idea is the same ‘rest and worship’ but the application, the day, has changed. But why?

If we want to get to the meaning or application of the Sabbath in the New Testament we must see it in its fullness; it’s relation to the Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28).(2) This is evident from 1 Corinthians 16:1-2. In context we are told to abound “in the work of the Lord, knowing that [our] labor is not in vain in the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 15:58) This is why we gather to give offerings on “the first day of every week” (16:2), which are a token of our thankfulness to God in his deliverance of us from death and sin (1 Corinthians 15:56-57). Note that this is similar to the Old Testament practice of bringing animals and birds to be sacrificed on the Sabbath. (Numbers 28:9-10) Offerings in the Old Testament were a sign of forgiveness as well as thankfulness, just as they are in the New Testament.

The author of Hebrews reflects on this fulfillment aspect of the Sabbath as well when he says that “a rest for the people of God” remains (Hebrews 4:9) The rest in this passage reflects the rest which we receive from God by faith in His Son Jesus Christ. The place of rest is heaven because the readers are warned in verse 6 of chapter 4 that some did not enter into it. For there we “have a great High Priest,” Jesus Christ. (4:14). He has entered “into heaven itself” because he has offered Himself to God for our sins (Hebrews 9:24-26) The Sabbath day in the New Testament, therefore, must specifically reference Christ’s atoning work. The Messiah was resurrected; He is now seated in heaven. He then imparts life through His atonement as the resurrected Lord because His work is finished. This life is imparted to us by the Holy Spirit and results in our regeneration unto eternal life (1 Corinthians 15:51-57).(3) And the day of resurrection, the day of life, was on the first day of the week or Sunday, as we call it (Luke 24:1,6) In other words, the New Testament is relating to us the observance of the Sabbath through the lens of the new redemptive situation.

As one scholar has noted, Peter speaks in a similar vein in Acts 4:10-11. He is speaking about the risen Lord. (vs. 10) Verse 11 is a quotation from Psalm 118:22 to prove that He still lives or reigns in power insofar as the cripple is healed in His name. In the context of the quote from Psalm 118 we read “this is the day the Lord has made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.” Again, the resurrection brings forth a new perspective; one wherein a man who could not walk now can (the power of the resurrection). This is related to the day of resurrection so as to make us rejoice and be glad! Thus in the worship of the saints we commemorate the resurrection of Christ as the new Sabbath day which was made. 

We should also note that in Acts 20:7 Paul gathered with the disciples (“on the first day of the week”), which should be understood to be as Sunday. (cf. 1 Corinthians 16:2). Why? Because verse six mentions “for seven days” which is an indicator that the week has passed since in Jewish practice Friday-Saturday was a week, so the Saturday functions as the seventh day. The next day, “the first day” is a day where the disciples gather, break bread and hear Paul preach. Thus Sunday is the acceptable day of worship for the New Covenant people.

We must remember this is the pattern in the Old Testament: a continual cycle of seven days. The eighth day (the day after the Sabbath) has a rich meaning behind it as (see Leviticus 23:36,39; Numbers 29:35) reflected in the New Testament fulfillment in Christ. On the eighth day, in certain circumstances, there was to be no work but there was atonement offered. So Christ rested on the resurrection day from His works in relation to His atonement (cf. discussion above on Hebrews 4).

Furthermore, Christ is called the “first-fruits” of the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:20&23 which is a reference back to the Old Testament practice of offering the first part of the harvest unto God. This was given on the day after the Sabbath (Leviticus 23:10-11), that is, the eighth day. Thus our Sunday worship is a commemoration of the New Testament first-fruit, Jesus Christ, whose resurrection is now a sure promise of our resurrection.

By now it should be clear by what I have said that Sunday observance is not a matter of finding a text that says, “worship on Sunday.” It is by inference that we establish this truth. As Reformed Christians we do believe in a type of Sabbath observance. For the fourth commandment is not based on theocratic law (laws that pertained only to the Jews in the state of Israel) but creation law. After all, God reminds even the Jews of their obligation to keep the Sabbath for the very reason that God Himself rested on the seventh day of creation. (Exodus 20:8-11) There are differences in the way the Sabbath is upheld between the Old and the New Testament but the essence of the commandment remains.

In conclusion we cannot just ignore the fourth commandment; it is applicable today as ever. But it does not command us now to keep the Jewish ceremonies. Indeed all of the Ten Commandments are relevant for us today but not in the exactly the same way that they were in the Old Testament. The ceremonies of the Old Covenant are done away in Christ, but the essence of the Law remains. If we obey the fourth commandment we must observe it unto the Lord Jesus Christ but we cannot be bound to Saturday but to Sunday: the new Sabbath day that He has made.

Footnotes:

What may we have to comfort and encourage us if our children should prove wicked and vile; if they should forsake their God, and the God of their fathers, and walk in the paths of the destroyer, notwithstanding our utmost endeavours to engage them for Christ? It is very often a case in fact; we cannot deny it; it is possible that the best parents may have the worst children; yet if we should suppose a falling from grace and holiness adherent, which, through the divine condescension and compassion, might have availed to the salvation of such as die in infancy, that will not infer a falling from grace and holiness inherent: what Christ does herein, we know not now, but we shall know hereafter (John 13:7).

But disputes in this case are cold comforts to the poor parents whose hearts bleed and break to see the destructive courses which their children take, whom they thought they had lodged safe in the hands of the Mediator, for whom they have prayed many a prayer, and shed many a tear. They thought Christ had taken them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them, but it does not prove so. What shall we say to comfort such?

It may be some satisfaction to them, that however it goes with their children, Christ will be glorified; if they do not give honour to him, he will get him honour upon them. And if God be sanctified, we ought to be satisfied, and with reverence to behold both the goodness and severity of God; on them which fall, severity; but towards them who stand, goodness, if they continue in his goodness (Rom. 11: 22).

But it will be yet more satisfaction to them, if they have the testimony of their consciences for them that they have done their duty; which they did, with a resolution to leave the event with God. They knew they could not give grace to their children; but their hearts can witness for them, that to the best of their power, they digged about these barren trees, and dunged them, as the dresser of the vineyard did (Luke 13: 8-9); and if they bring forth fruit well, they shall have the comfort, and God the glory; but if not, they must be content to see them cut down, and though they cannot have comfort in that, yet God will have glory, and they acquiesce.

But the greatest comfort of all in such a case is, that the unbelief and disobedience of their children shall not make void God’s promise to them, and therefore ought not to make void their comfort in God. ‘Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious’ (Isa. 49: 5). Abraham is happy in heaven, though there be those in hell who can call Abraham father. It was the comfort of holy David, though he saw a great deal of sin and trouble in his family: Although my house be not so with God as I could wish it, yet I am sure of this, he has made with me an everlasting covenant, which is well ordered in all things and sure, and that is all my salvation, and therefore shall be all my desire (2 Sam. 23:5).

I will only add one more point which is this: we must never stop praying for our children for while they are alive there is still hope for “now is the day of salvation” (2 Corinthians 6:2). It appears that the prodigal’s father never gave up hope as he saw his son afar off: he looked for him day after day and did not see him, until, one day, he did and then ran to meet him. And who knows? They may even come to faith after we have died and gone to be with the Lord. May God grant us rest in these things. 

And we examine the next portion of our liturgy we see that we are called to understand or comprehend the magnitude of our sins as well the greatness of God’s forgiveness. The law, which was just read, has demonstrated that we are guilty of transgressing it and are worthy of punishment and divine wrath. (Romans 3:19-20; Ephesians 2:3). We should be delighted to hear the assurance of pardon for our sins which is freely given in Christ. However it is appropriate first and indeed a necessity to make a confession of sins (1 John 1:9). But it is not sufficient to merely proclaim a general inclination to sin or a worldwide fall into sin but rather when God’s people hear the law they confess their sins. 

And it is particularly instructive that we are confessing our (plural) sins and not just my (singular) sins. Certainly we must do the latter (Psalm 32:5) but we follow the ebb and flow of the biblical pattern when we also do so as a body in our public worship. Aaron was commanded to lay his hands on the head of the goat, and confess “over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, concerning all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and shall send it away into the wilderness “ (Leviticus 16:21). In the dedication of the temple, Solomon envisioned a time when Israel, repenting of their sins and failures, would confess God’s name pray for the forgiveness of the “sin of your people” (1 Kings 8:34). Daniel prayed by himself and yet said “we have sinned and committed iniquity” (Daniel 9:5). And our Lord Himself taught us to pray “Forgive us our debts”. (Matthew 6:12)

But what practical significance does this hold or have? First of all, it reminds me that these people who I worship with and fellowship and commune with are (surprise!) just like me. It is not just I who is a sinner, nor is it only that publican over there (Luke 18:11ff.) but we all have fallen short of the glory of God. It reminds me that I ought to treat my brother and sister with compassion because, without Christ, we are all condemned and without hope (1 Corinthians 15:14-17). Rather, since I am forgiven and you are forgiven we can forgive one another and willingly so (Ephesians 4:32). So then I may not think of myself as outside the fellowship for my sins, but included as “first among equals” (as Paul would say – see 1 Timothy 1:15).(2)

Second, it tells a listening world that these Christians, amongst whom they may find themselves one day, are not so hypocritical as they thought and maybe more humble than they give them credit. For sin is a universal problem with a particular solution; the Christian has no monopoly on sin but has or knows the only way for its removal: in Jesus. To confess our sins in light of our witness to the world, then, is to say: yes, you need Christ because you are condemned without Him (John 3:18) but without Him so are we! So our corporate confession of sins gives ‘traction’ to the Gospel by proclaiming the Saviour instead of the self. For there is only one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 2:5). The biggest hypocrites of all are not the Christians who call sin ‘sin” but those who have no need for forgiveness and (thus) have no antidote to sin. 

But what then of the assurance of pardon? Like the confession of sins, it is corporate since Christ died for His people (Matthew 1:21).  We have a common Saviour and we are called to serve Him. No one person in the body of Christ is to be abandoned or left behind by the Lord’s servants because Christ Himself never abandons His sheep (John 10:28). Our mutual pardon in Christ’s sacrifice is a mutual calling or reminder to our sacrifice for one another (Romans 12:1-3). 

Furthermore the law should never be proclaimed without the gospel (Romans 3:21ff.). The assurance of pardon is a rich promise that all who come to Christ in true repentance and faith are truly forgiven in Him. And everyone of the pages of the God’s Word brim with this wonderful announcement or good news. Thus we should never be tired of hearing it though is repeated from Lord’s Day to Lord’s Day. It is a celebration and it should be received as such (Revelation 5:9ff.).  

Finally, we might ask, how does this assurance to ‘work’? When the pastor reads the text or summary of scripture pronouncing our forgiveness, must we understand that to mean that God is forgiving us through him? We see in John 20:23, for example, that our Lord tells His disciples “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” These are strong words and, in the opinion of some, they teach that pastors and priests have power and influence over our ‘forgiven state’. Let me say first of all that the Jesus’ opponents were correct: only God can forgive our sins (Mark 2:7) and He has done so in His Son (vs. 10). Indeed Paul and the other apostles never make the forgiveness of their readers dependent upon their intercession or help. Quite the contrary Paul, like David, ‘conditions’ forgiveness on faith in God’s mercy (Romans 4:5ff.). 

Rather our Lord Himself commanded that we disciple the nations thus presenting the understanding that we may call all people to forgiveness in Him regardless of what they have done. Indeed, as John Calvin notes, Jesus sent His disciples (John 20:21) for this purpose: that all who preach God’s Word forgive in the sense of proclaiming forgiveness. For we have to understand that a proclamation of forgiveness is, in a sense, as good as the act of forgiveness. Though we were not present at the cross or doing any of Jesus’ suffering and did not witness His love for us or His righteous works in our stead we do have the scriptures and we do have the gospel. And when the gospel is faithfully proclaimed we can be assured that we are truly forgiven by God Himself as we trust in His Son for that forgiveness. That is why Paul says Jesus has given him and other gospel preachers “the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Corinthians 5:18) which grants them the authority as ambassadors of Christ to call others to ”be reconciled to God” though they themselves, do not reconcile anyone (1 Corinthians 1:12ff.). Thus, like Paul, the pastor or minister has an official calling to bring that gospel message of the forgiveness of sins (Romans 1:1,5; Galatians 1:1,11-12). When we believe in the assurance of pardon as brought to us by the minister we are forgiven; if we do not believe we are condemned.

“‘Now the just shall live by faith; but if anyone draws back, My soul has no pleasure in him.’ But we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul.” (Hebrews 10:38-39)

Footnotes:

1. For an outline of our worship services I invite you to visit our “Bulletin” page. There you may download a bulletin to see the order of worship. 

2. Please note that this principle does not ignore or do away with church discipline. Rather it underscores its necessity for sin in the body does not just corrupt one but all (1 Corinthians 5:6ff.). Also because sin is no respecter of persons we judge the public and scandalous transgression being worthy of church discipline on the basis of the act not the person we think they should be. (James 2:1ff.). 

Next post: Liturgy – Prayer

One might ask: has the objector really thought about what they are saying? For, in reality, they are making a religious claim themselves. To say that religion is not allowed in schools, city hall, parliament or in any public discourse is to make a universally binding rule that has been imposed upon everyone else. It is a non-negotiable principle that, it would seem, requires every person who hears it to comply. In essence here is no difference between a demand such as that and the command that “everything that has breath praise the LORD” (Psalm 150:6). Do they not both require something of their hearers?

Of course, our interlocutor will say his statement has nothing to do with God or faith. Rather this is simply the idea(l) of our culture or society. And typically we will be led at this point to consider the separation between church and state. However this is only a facile defense of his or her position. Even if it reflects the consensus of our culture or society this is no sound or sufficient reason to believe it or uphold it, whether in conversation or in the courts of the land. Simply because something ‘is’ does not make it ‘ought’ (for example: there is much racism that exists in the world today, but that does not mean there ought to be racism).

Indeed to say that their argument or worldview has nothing to do with God or faith is also wrong because they have made themselves god by requiring that, at least by my silence in matters of religion in the public sphere, not only respect but pay homage to their authority and to their worldview which has trumped my own. Indeed, as long as one requires that religion, God, faith or any other such thing not be mentioned, alluded to or otherwise referenced, they also infer, if not require, that we should not express our faith in public and will be silenced if we try. Now any attempt to do so may not be as dangerous as far as the consequences that are reaped, but there is no essential difference between this practice and that of ancient Rome’s who demanded that Christians worship the emperor. We may thank God that we are not there yet but essentially we have embraced pluralism not only as (supposed) celebration of diversity but also as a means to censor public discourse. And people should be told that is precisely what they have done. 

But perhaps it is true that most of us think believe that religion is a private matter. And even the courts of our land will (likely) uphold this dogma. And yet it should be apparent that one needs to have a better defense of this principle than a bare reference to the authority of one’s fellow man. Yes it is true (and even the Christian agrees) that the government has authority over us (see Romans 13:1ff.). But the difference between the Christian and the world is that the latter thinks this authority is self-appointed (or to be taken) and the former believes that it is given by God. Thus the authority of man is limited and subject to the authority of God. It is not an end to itself. For if so it has no transcendental right or power because it only exists insofar as we agree with it or allow it to exist. And therefore the current ‘requirement’ to keep religion out of public discourse is good or right only as long as it is supported by the people who believe in it. But it could easily be overturned by the shifting tide of opinion that is our political and social landscape. Potentially one could envision a time in which only persons of (organized) faith would be allowed to hold public office. Surely this would make our objector rather irate? Perhaps he would be even more frustrated than you and I feel at the present moment.

So whatever we decide with respect to religion’s right to exist in a public fashion, we are always doing so or have done so; we just don’t know it. We don’t realize that religion will have its way, whether true of false. In this way, the Christian and the world are on equal footing.  

But, we might say: is there no difference at all between our culture’s demand to heed them and the scripture’s demand to worship God? It is true; there is a difference. Indeed this is ultimately where we need to bring the objector. Namely one demand is a mere statement of man and one is the demand as stated by Almighty God. That is to say that the former is laughable (Psalm 22:4) and the latter is laudable (Psalm 22:11).

Now please don’t misunderstand me. I am not advocating disrespect for our opponents. No am I saying that we should be haughty or self-righteous in our answer. For we are called to speak with grace when we answer those who are outside (Colossians 4:6). But this does not change the fact that the natural man has clearly embraced pure folly and is now on a mission to impose it on us all. And therefore we now have an opportunity to oppose it (if God gives us the means to do so).

Let us then speak the truth. Indeed I am reminded and encouraged by one man who, while in the public ‘arena,’ spoke the following to those who questioned his faith:

I perceive that in all things you are very religious...  but [God] commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead (Acts 17:22,30-31).

Many Pastors at funerals openly say that the congregate at this persons funeral has gone to Heaven and is in the presence of Jesus. How can one really know that to be true? how does a Pastor know the HEART of the congregate? I hear this at reformed funerals as well. No one knows the heart of man -really – except God alone. Only the person themselves know of saving Grace in -their own- heart. Does scripture have anything to say about another person telling others he/she has gone to Heaven? [I realize the confessing of sin accepting Jesus as their Saviour....but the heart?]

First of all, I agree that only God can judge the heart  (1 Samuel 16:7).

But, in the case of a person who has died in the Lord, I believe we have every reason to speak of them as now with the Lord. In fact I believe that a pastor is well within his rights to speak this way because Paul (and the others apostles) does so as well. If we examine many of his letters he addresses professing Christians as “saints” and speaks to them and amongst them (that is to one another in the body of Christ) as believers. Clearly he rebukes them at times and, in some cases, warns them of their ways but he always talks of them as believing unless perhaps they have committed a sin worthy of excommunication and did not repent of it (see 1 Corinthians 5:4-5). 

So, in my opinion, the pastor speaks not from what he infallibly knows but from what he is compelled from scripture to say. This is not to preach everyone into heaven (though we certainly shouldn’t preach them out of there either!) but rather to speak from our hearts: what we believe and have every reason to believe. In the case you mentioned above the person has God’s sign and seal (baptism placed on them) and so we know that they are received into His covenant and church (Ephesians 4:5). And they have professed faith in Christ, and so we know that they have done all that is necessary to be saved. (Romans 10:9-13). So even though we could be wrong about their confession and maybe, in their heart, they despised their baptism, but we cannot judge that and we have no right to judge that now after their death anymore than we did when they were alive.

What does it mean that God created all things? How did God create all things? Does the doctrine of creation contradict the teaching of evolution?  What does this all mean for us?

These are the questions we seek to answer this Sunday on “A Profitable Word” as we continue to explore the scriptural teaching of the Belgic Confession. Our focus will be on Article 12, “The Creation of All Things”. If you live in Leduc or Wetaskiwin county, tune in to 93.5 FM (CIHS) at 1:00 pm (MST). Otherwise you can also listen via the internet by clicking on the live link on the CIHS homepage.

These are the questions we seek to answer this Sunday on “A Profitable Word” as we continue to explore the scriptural teaching of the Belgic Confession (Article 11) If you live in Leduc or Wetaskiwin county, tune in to 93.5 FM (CIHS) at 1:00 pm (MST). Otherwise you can also listen via the internet by clicking on the live link on the CIHS homepage.