Two Highly Recommended Books on the Historical Adam

New evangelicalism as a whole has caved in on a literal Adam, a young earth, and death before the fall.  Yet they plead with everyone that it has no effect on the gospel or a healthy church.  Yet in droves their young people are leaving their own churches.  It is not the music?  It is not being real, trendy or relevant.  It is simple.  New evangelicalism as a whole has lost their authority found in the scriptures alone.  They want a gospel found in the scriptures but not the historical narratives it is based upon.  Adam was the real first person in a real first historical narrative.  I offer the following two texts for your study.  The church has truly been weakened by years of evolutionary undercutting of biblical authority.  Even worse is the trendy, cool-kid popular pastors who say is doesn't matter.  Pragmatism is still king in evangelical church effectiveness.



The Quest for the Historical Adam by William Vandoodewaard (345 pages)
Forward by Albert Mohler

Synopsis from AiG website, "The Quest for the Historical Adam provides a faith-affirming survey of the theological perspectives on man's origin. Like a crime scene investigator, the author meticulously traces the development, and, at times, disappearance of critical hermeneutical and exegetical insights. This semi-technical book equips readers to stand firm in their faith, and should be read by every Christian leader."



Searching for Adam: Genesis & the Truth About Man's Origin (600 pages)
Edited by Terry Mortenson

From AiG, "

Though there are a growing number of books out on Adam, in this unique book 16 experts present biblical, historical, theological, paleontological, genetics, archaeological, and ethical arguments in defense of the literal truth about Adam and the Fall. In the process you will see the lie that man evolved from some ape-like creature over millions of years. An increasing number of professing evangelical leaders and scholars are doubting or denying a literal Adam and a literal Fall (or at least some of the details in Genesis about Adam), which thereby undermines the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Last Adam, who came to undo the damaging consequences of Adam’s sin and restore us to a right relationship with our Creator. Know that you can be confident in the truth of Genesis and in the gospel!"

Contributing authors are Dr. William Barrick, Dr. David Croteau, Dr. Michael Naylor, Dr. Eugene Merrill, Dr. Tom Nettles, Dr. David Menton, Marvin Lubenow, Dr. Stuart Burgess, David Casas, Marvin Lubenow, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins, Steve Ham, Dr. Jerry Bergman, Don Landis, and Tim Chaffey, as well as Dr. Mortenson.

Enjoy!

So are the police racist? Opinion of a concealed carry owner who still believes the 2nd Amendment

So are the police racist?  Opinion of a concealed carry owner who still believes the 2nd Amendment applies to me.

The police protect me.  If they are in danger I will gladly help them.  I have many friends in law enforcement.

So are police racist?  That would depend on how you define the term?  It also would depend on whether you are the family member of someone shot by police.  Also on how you define racism.  Technically there is one human race, all made in God's image.

Sadly, the big city near me is again have a trial for a police officer who shot and killed another person in the line of duty.  The police officer was white and the man shot was black.  Just as a reminder, I don not like either evolutionary based designation for individuals.  We have one creator who made all mankind in his image.  Anyway back to the farm.

Check out this video.  What do the actual facts show in relation the the ad hominem verbal thrashes by the liberals toward our public servants.  Why can't liberals just tell the truth.  Answer:  It would destroy all their name calling and social justice rhetoric.

Don't expect the liberal media like (Foxnews and CNN) to report on this one.  Sorry, Foxnews this last election as voided my respect for them and who they hire.

Enjoy!

Evangelical Study Bibles: A Last Evaluation and Warning concerning evolutionary compromise

Evangelical Study Bibles: A Last Evaluation and Warning concerning evolutionary compromise (simply: why they don't believe in a literal 24-hour, six day creation week and a young earth)

This small three part series has investigated the introductory notes and verse comments found with several well-known evangelical study Bibles.  By way of review we have previously covered the following list of study Bibles: The MacArthur Study Bible, The Reformation Heritage Study Bible, The Zondervan Study Bible (KJV Edition), the Ryrie Study Bible, the ESV Study Bible and lastly the Reformation Study Bible.

As has been shown there is a dramatic pull or push (which ever is worse) within new evangelical circles to present nearly every possible position on the creation account of Genesis chapter one.  Whether motivated by a broader audience appeal from particular publishing houses or simply a desire to be a respected scholar within the new evangelical sphere is besides the point.  What matters is that people read these study notes from these well-known and influential writers and walk away believing it doesn't matter.  In essence, these modern new evangelical "scholars" have redefined historical doctrine and made it of secondary importance.  Worse case (in this new way of thinking) it has not effected the content of the gospel (which in the end is all they want you to believe is important).  I would challenge you to produce a list of theological journal articles which actually support and defend a literal 24-hour, six-day view of the creation account found in Genesis One.  If and when you are actually able to produce a list take note of the journal and the date when it was published.  New evangelicalism does a very good job keeping these articles from appearing in print.

Today in this last episode concerning the view of creation found within study Bibles we shall review three remaining sources: the NET Bible, the Apologetics Study Bible and lastly the Archaeological Study Bible.

First is the NET Bible from Biblical Studies Press (2006).  This is a lesser known study Bible, the notes located within it appear to be more focused on translation and exegetical concerns.  Most study Bibles do not comment on manuscripts, variants, and various other details such as case uses and grammatical sentence structure.  Concerning the NET Bible comments on 1:1, "If the first view is adopted, then we have a reference here to original creation; if the second view is taken, then Genesis itself does not account for the original creation of matter."  In relation to these two positions later on in the notes they comment, "This second view presupposes the existence of pre-existent matter."  How then do they evaluate this alternative in the notes, "The following narrative strongly favors the second view..."  Did you catch that detail?  Pre-existing matter prior to creation and this is the favored view.  Please let me know if I am wrong and misunderstood this.  I'll gladly make correction to be academically correct and honest.

Well, on to the Apologetics Study Bible.  They list in their notes on page four, "Both sides believe they have strong arguments favoring their interpretation and rebutting the other side."  Ultimately, they take no position and offer no rebuttal for any position.  They are at least willing to acknowledge theistic evolutionists have sold out to Darwin, "those who accept evolution as God's mechanism in creation."  They simply don't understand the issues at stake and allow evolutionary scientists to define what "science" is and don't question it, "Some YCs accuse OCs of compromising the Bible with evolutionary science.  Some OCs charge YCs with undermining biblical credibility by generating a false conflict between science and the Scriptures."  Can you read what they are saying about broader new evangelical scholars?  Since OCs refuse to question the unbelieving views of evolutionists, everyone who opposes their accommodating Biblical interpretations is a trouble maker.  The end of their section really sums up the views of broader evangelical's refusal to take the text at face value, "even if the correct interpretation of the creation days is not readily apparent in the present generation."

Lastly, we shall discuss the Archaeological Study Bible.  The back cover explicitly identifies it as a joint project with Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.  It's main editors are Walter C. Kaiser and Duane Garrett. We begin with comments on 1:1-31, "The length of the creative days of Genesis 1 is not specified in the Bible."  They continue after listing three views for the gloss "day", "There is no indisputable indication as to which of the three is meant in Genesis 1."  We go on, "The Bible provides no specific statement as to how long ago matter was created, when the first day or creation began or when the sixth day ended."  To their credit concerning 1:1-2 and a supposed long gap, "Hebrew syntax, leaves no room for such a view."  So at least their willing to take a stance again the gap theory but won't give any critique of the compromised views of new evangelical scholarship.

This series has come to a conclusion.  So in conclusion in evaluating study Bibles in their handling of the account of creation and accommodation to new evangelical scholarship only three stand out as the least compromised or again evolutionary theory.  These three are the MacArthur Study Bible, Ryrie Study Bible and the Reformation Heritage Study Bible.

Hope this helps some.  Again if any facts or copied quotations straight from their own notes are not accurate please let me know.  In the end, keeping reading and memorizing the scriptures.  Don't forget the notes are not given by inspiration from God.

Comments of course as always encouraged.

Evangelical Study Bibles Continued: How do they interpret Genesis Chapter One?

Evangelical Study Bibles Continued: How do they interpret Genesis Chapter One?

This is part two of a short series concerning how well-known evangelical study Bibles handle the account of creation as recorded in the historical narrative of Genesis chapter one.  Chances are you may not invest heavily in commentary sets but you may be willing to purchase a study Bible (either in paper or digital form).  It is for this very reason that we must understand what viewpoints appear in the notes.  

Our previous articles discussed the MacArthur Study Bible, the Reformation Heritage Study Bible, the Ryrie Study Bible and the Zondervan Study Bible (KJV Edition).  It would be only fair to state that the exact same notes for the KJV edition also appear in the the edition using the NASB and NIV.  So simply dismissing an English translation does not solve the problem (s) found within the study notes.

Our first stop for this article is the ESV Study Bible, General Editor Wayne Grudem.  As we shall see the notes in this study Bible clearly make room for the vast views of new evangelical scholarship within their churches and seminaries.  The study introductory and study notes don't even attempt to place a literal six-day interpretation as more favorable.  
Note on page 44, "Faithful interpreters have arguments for ...."  From here faithful interpreters can hold to the following positions "ordinary days" "a sequence of geological ages" "analogical days" or simply as a "literary framework."  So basically when it comes to the the creation account in Genesis, evangelicals can believe whatever they want.  This is patent new evangelicalism, "You call me a scholar and I'll call you a Christian."

The introductory notes continue on to make full liberty of interpretation for the many evangelicals that believe in evolution and the earth being millions of years old and the opened door for a local flood (another series forthcoming).

Concerning 1:1 they write, "This opening verse can be taken as a summary, introducing the whole passage; or it can be read as the first event, the origin of the heavens and  the earth (sometime before the first day), including the creation of matter, space, and time."  Later on they write, "The text indicates that God created everything in the universe, which thus affirms that he did in fact create in ex nihilo."

Discussion of how they describe the first six days is more fuzzy, which actually matches the all-embracing comments found within the introductory notes.  The comment, "By a simple reading of Genesis, these days must be described as days in the life of God, but how his days relate to human days is more difficult to determine."  This is a rather odd statement considering the first two humans were created on day six.  I think this is double talk to make room for broader evangelical scholars who don't take Genesis literally, don't believe in a literal Adam and Even, and the new trend of believing in death before the fall.

From here we move on to the The Reformation Study Bible, General Editor R. C. Sproul.
Unfortunately, Sproul's handling of the text fits well within the broader new evangelical landscape.  Again broad strokes will be made for the positions held by "scholars."  
The introductory notes for Genesis  don't start off very well, "The tension between Genesis and modern science about the origins of the universe and of living species is largely resolved when it is recognized that they are speaking from different perspectives."  In other words, modern evolutionary science tells us what we are to believe without ability to question to believes, motives, or assumptions.  Reading on in his introductory notes shows this conclusion to be correct.

Interestingly enough, Sproul first critiques one alternative view to holding to a literal six-day creation.  His notes on 1:2 state, "Some suggest that vv.1 and 2 refer to two separate creative acts separated by a span of time...this view is very doubtful."  He moves on from here in his notes on 1:5 to include four other positions held by "Reformed scholars."  He mentions a literal 24-hour day young earth position, a day-age theory, literal days separated by long lengths of time, and a literary framework view.  He spends the most time defending the "framework hypothesis" view and compares it to several other positions as obviously it being superior to the other positions.

Due to the lengthy overviews and warnings found in the ESV Study Bible and the Reformation Study Bible, we shall hold off on our comments for the following study Bibles.  It doesn't hurt to know what your Study Bible actually teaches in the notes before spending money on these publishing house products.  Next we will tackle the following:

The Apologetics Study Bible, Numerous Authors

The Archaeological Study Bible, General Editor Walter Kaiser Jr.

The NET Bible, Biblical Studies Press.

Hope this helps some.  Comments of course encouraged.

Evangelical Study Bibles and a Literal Six-Day Creation Narrative

Study Bibles and a Literal Six-Day Creation Narrative 
(Part One)

If you are an avid Bible reader then you know doubt have purchased or seen personally something called a Study Bible.  They come multiple fonts, sizes, English translations, and theological viewpoints.  It is this last comment that is our focus of attention for this article.

We should not be naive in believing that Study Bible are unbiased in their note presentations.  Don't forget the notes are not scripture they are simply notes to help the reader better understand the meaning of the text (or at least to make sure the reader understands it the way the note writer wants them to).

Some study Bible dig deep and others are rather shallow.  Some provide actual exegetical comments from syntax and grammar for actually defending a literal six-day creation week.  On the other hand, others go to great length to defend nearly every other possible interpretation of the text.

I am including a sampling of the notes from some well-known study Bibles so you the reader can see first hand the position taught and encouraged by each.  Please make careful note as to what each study Bible teaches (positively) and teaches against (negatively).  The danger enters when they simply start espousing other (acceptable positions) held by other new evangelical pastors and teachers.

Our first stop will be the The MacArthur Study Bible, authored and general editor being John MacArthur. His study notes on Gen 1:1-2:3 are as follows:
     "This description of God creating heaven and earth is understood to be: 1) recent, i.e.,    thousands not millions of years ago; 2) ex nihilo, i.e., out of nothing; and 3) special, i.e., in 6 consecutive 24 hour periods called "days" and further distinguished as such by this phrase, "the evening and the morning."  Scripture does not support a creation date earlier than about 10,000 years ago."'

Obviously The MacArthur Study Bible is a strong advocate for a young earth creationist position.  He clearly is not endorsing any possible form of day age, theistic evolution, or a gap theory.  And certainly not a multi-million year old earth.

Our next stop will be the Zondervan King James Study Bible, general editing done by Kenneth Barker.  Associate editors were Burdick, Stek, Wessel, and Youngblood.  Concerning 1:1 they write, "The opening verse is a summary statement introducing the six days of creation."  Later in the notes for 1:5 they include, "Some say that the creation days were literal 24-hour days, others that they were indefinite periods.  Several factors, however, support the first interpretation." 

It is only academically honest to say the do fill nearly three inches worth of note space for providing a defense for literal 24-hour days.  These notes do include pointing out problems with other understandings of the text.

Thirdly, we shall visit a newly published The Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible, general editor Joel Beeke.  Other editors were Barrett, Bilkes and Smalley.  Concerning 1:1 they write, "The beginning of time, space, and matter.  All cam from Him and is under His control."  Later on 1:2 they state, "What the original creation was at the beginning, not what it became.  The gap theory tries to argue original creation became corrupt, but the expression means empty and uninhabited."

So clearly they do not believe in any form of theistic evolution and take creation as six-literal days.  They also directly disagree with and refute a gap theory position.  Directly after Genesis one they include a full page article on creation which was adapted from John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion.  Later in an appendix they include a full length rendering of the Westminster Confession of Faith, which clearly stands on a literal six day, 24-hour creation week.

Fourth, we shall visit the time-tested Ryrie Study Bible, General Editor Charles Ryrie.  His introductory notes include a roughly 6500 years old timeline.  He writes against the gap theory, "Some understand a "gap" of an indeterminate period of time between verses 1 and 2, and translate "became' rather than "was."  He includes a lengthy paragraph showing the problems with this gap period position.  Later arguing against those seeing large period of time he writes, "Evening and morning cannot be construed to mean an age, but only a day; everywhere in the Pentateuch the word day, when used (as here) with a numerical adjective, means a solar day (now calibrated as 24 hours)."

Our next post shall include comments from the following Study Bibles:

The ESV Study Bible General Editor Wayne Grudem
The Reformation Study Bible, General Editor R. C. Sproul
The Apologetics Study Bible, Numerous Authors
The Archaeological Study Bible, General Editor Walter Kaiser Jr.

Hope this helps some.  Comments Encouraged. 

The Historical Adam: If Adam is not Real then Neither are the Gospel nor Scriptural Authority even Necessary



The Historical Adam:  If He's not Real then Neither are the Gospel nor Scriptural Authority even Necessary

This is an inescapable reality which New  evangelicalism must avoid at all costs.  They will tell you its okay to believe in evolution just believe the gospel.  Its okay for Genesis to be a myth just believe the gospel.  Adam and Eve never existed but just believe the gospel.  Noticing a trend yet?  Plenary verbal inspiration is not needed just believe the gospel.  Liberals on the other hand will simply deny both.  No need for a literal Adam, creation, or even the gospel.  It would probably shock you if I listed by name the new evangelical authors, seminaries, (and even preachers) who don't believe in a literal historical man named Adam.

Next question, who then decides what these non-issues are?  Second, once you compile the long list of ecclesiastical-determined secondary issues, it makes it that much easier to say only the gospel matters.  See how the logic flows.  This has been played out through history.  Let's be clear that to deny certain doctrines is not necessarily a salvation issue however, it present a very inconsistent position.  Not only this but it presents a stumbling block to those who are trying to teach the truth concerning a literal Adam and a six-day creation.

There are groups, very large groups to be fair, which want to fellowship (or for that matter extend fellowship) to anyone who will believe the limited gospel content alone.  This makes for the perfect formula to say the other issues don't matter or are of secondary importance.  Again does church history agree with this scenario?  What happens then when actual fundamental doctrines are rejected but they still believe this gospel content?  Seem far fetched?  Trinity? Incarnation? Vicarious Atonement? Plenary Verbal inspiration?  Young-earth Creationism?  It's very easy and convenient to make something secondary if the gospel become the only allowable priority.  Back to the discussion of a literal and historical person named Adam.    

Let's consider a sampling of Biblical texts connecting the salvation found in the gospel of Christ's death, burial, and bodily resurrection (as revealed in the scriptures) in close context with a literal person named Adam.  We'll consider Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15, and 1 Timothy 2.  All three of these texts refer to the Historical person named Adam.

Romans 5:14-19, "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come."
(v. 17) "For if by one man's offence"
(v. 18) "Therefore as by the offence of one"
(v. 19) "For as by one man's disobedience"

Paul's very argument in relation to salvation is based upon the reality of two federal heads (not saying everyone would agree with this understanding).  The introduction of sin into the world is through a literal historical person named Adam.  It is through his headship that all humanity sinned.  Note the parallel with Christ as head over another group of individuals.  If the parallel is lost than the Christian gospel is affected. We can't just throw this aside because some in liberal and new evangelical circles don't want to believe the scriptures.  Worse case when "conservative" evangelicals won't even acknowledge there is a problem here.  

First Corinthians 15:45-47, "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.  Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.  The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven."

Please note that Jesus Christ (the God-man, 2nd person of the Trinity), is identified as the "last Adam."  Obviously Paul had to base this title and reference based on an original person.  He also identifies the man Adam as "the first man Adam" and later as "the first man."  So whatever parallel or association Paul is making between Jesus and Adam, it is lost if there was no historical person called Adam.

1 Timothy 2: 12-13, "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.  For Adam was first formed, then Eve.  And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."

Again by the the same author a third time.  It should be clear that Paul under inspiration of the Holy Spirit believed in an original historical person Adam.  This reference I'm sure is every egalitarians favor memory verse.  Apart from how it is used and abused by liberals and feminists, the fact remains Paul's argument is based on the original creation order.  A literal Adam (male gender) was born (created) before a literal Eve (gender female).  He bases his argument on the literal and historical existence of these two individuals.  It is not based on a local Ephesian, Corinthian, or Roman context but straight back to a literal creation with a historical man named Adam.

In conclusion, this issue is simple.  Evolutionary ideas have caused liberal and new evangelical scholars to deny the historical reliability and authority of scripture.  They deny a literal creation and they deny a first literal and historical man named Adam.  This not an issue of secondary importance.  You believe scripture or you don't or you try to make it more academically, socially or culturally acceptable.  Another danger emerges when Bible-believing folks read the books and articles by these men and are influenced and drawn into their pragmatic views.

This won't solve all the problems.  But at least I can help provide a banner of warning to those concerned about these matters.  Comments again encouraged. 



Historic Creeds, Confessions and a Literal Six-Day Creation

Historic Creeds and Confessions and a Literal Six-Day Creation

It appears to me that every orthodox Christian confession I can find declares a literal six-day creation (not to say the list below is all inclusive).  If not this specifically, then God directly made man and woman in his own image.  Evolution (in any form) does not appear at all.  To say so is academically dishonest.  Shame on new evangelicals who try to make evolution fit with their Bibles.  According to every standard creed and confession, this is not a secondary doctrine.

I challenge you to read the statements made by the big "Gospel-based" groups.  Their beliefs (in writing) concerning creation are not what you think.  Notice how much space is spent on defending other views of creation and not a literal creation alone.  Is this a historical position of Christianity?  If you check out the membership and speakers in these groups it will be clear why a literal creation is not necessary (or even allowable).

New Evangelicalism for years has placated to evolutionary and old earth compromise in their ranks.  It infects both their pulpits and their seminaries.  Please read the following from a recent Gospel Coalition blog (please note, that creation was not considered a secondary issue in historical church creeds),

"The length of the Genesis 1 days, the age of the earth, and animal death and predation before the fall are all secondary or tertiary matters which must be worked out in ways consistent with our first-order commitments."


I would suggest that solving society's problems, whether social, political, or any form of social justice issues starts with a teaching of Genesis, a literal Adam and Eve, and a defense for a literal creation.  As long as main stream new evangelicalism believes the Calvinistic Gospel alone will fix all our problems, they are not only not historical, but further avoiding a cure to help society's real problem with sin.  Added to this an avoidance of teaching against evolution and then making room for evangelical leaders who embrace it does Christianity a great disservice.  Worst case this is simply false teaching not addressed because pragmatism works.

The Apostles' Creed, "I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth"

The Nicene Creed. "Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible"

Belgic Confession (Article 12) "created of nothing the heaven, the earth, and all creatures as it seemed good unto Him"

Heidelberg Catechism (Lord's Day 9, Of God the Father) "who of nothing made heaven and earth, with all that is in them"

Westminster Confession of Faith, 1647 (Chapter IV, of Creation) "to create, or make of nothing, the world,...,, in the space of six days, and all very good."

London Baptist Confession. 1689 (Chapter IV, of Creation) "to create or make the world, and all things therein,...in the space of six days, and all very good."

Unfortunately history will once again be ignored.  New Evangelical churches will continue to teach their people creation doesn't matter.  Just repent and trust in Jesus.  Don't worry about creation or the age of the earth.

I will in the near future list the positions found within major study Bibles.

Hope this helps those who are confused on the Church's historical position on this issue.

Comments welcomed and encouraged.

The Lord's Day or Sabbath: Prescriptive, Descriptive, or Just a Matter of Christian Liberty? Part One

The Lord's Day or Sabbath: Prescriptive, Descriptive, or Just a Matter of Christian Liberty?

I have gathered some thoughts here after reading many books on this topic.  Sadly, a growing many in Evangelical Christianity treat this day like any other day of the week.  Consider your church attendance, which service is the most attended?  Least attended?  Is there a dramatic drop off on Wednesday night (assuming there is still a prayer meeting/Bible study still held)?  Ever wondered why?  Perhaps your the victim or proponent of the latest post-modern fad: small groups.  We will address this topic in another article.  But for now just consider it in relation to the Lord's day.

Just by way of reminder, prescriptive texts are more command based in nature.  Descriptive texts showed what was going on in that point in history.  Christian Liberty and conscience is greatly affected by these two categories.

As we begin consider the view of our past.  Chapter 21, para. 7 of the Westminster Confession of Faith: Of Religious Worship, and the Sabbath Day,

"As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in His Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men, in all ages, He hath particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto Him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which, in Scripture, is called the Lord's Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath."

Lets not forget, this one of the main driving forces causing the Pilgrims to flee all they knew and come to the new world.  Packed on the Mayflower sailing across the ocean, for one of many reasons: the liberty and license of practice displayed on the Lord's day (and that was nearly 400 years ago).  I'm sure they would role over in shame for what goes on in many evangelical churches in the name of worship on the Lord's day.

This is how good and godly men thought of this day.  How do we think of it today in 2016?  What do we offer up in the name of worship on this day?  I would simply like to overview the scriptural data on the subject, because quite frankly most people have not be taught concerning this subject.  On the other hand, many others know its content but are governed by another principle known simply as Christian Liberty (which is appropriate in Biblical proportion but unfortunately today is simply another category under the title of grace).

So with that aside, let's consider some basics of the Biblical data.  This is the first area of debate: the origin of the Sabbath.  And yes this has been disagreed upon throughout church history (the puritans and reformers didn't even agree on this one).

Is it based on the original creation?  "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made" (Genesis 2:2-3).  Is this the foundational text needed to establish that sabbath existed before the giving of the Mosaic law (which could then be dismissed as only a civil or ceremonial law)?  To be fair with those who see no connection, there is no command in this verse to observe the sabbath.

Consider two different study Bible comments here, first the ESV Study Bible (Zondervan), "These words provide the basis for the obligation that God placed on the Israelites to rest from their normal labor on the Sabbath day."  Notice how the notes don't make any application directly from this text, not even a principle for humanity, but tie it to Israel and the Mosaic law.  On a similar note the KJV Study Bible (Zondervan), "The first record of obligatory sabbath observance is of Israel on her way from Egypt to Sinai (Ex 16, and according to Neh 9:13-14 the sabbath was not an official covenant obligation until the giving of the law at mount Sinai."

Notice the opposite from the notes from the Reformation Heritage Study Bible, "The principle of setting apart one day in seven for rest and devotion to God is a creation ordinance" and then again later "the establishment of the Sabbath at creation shows that its moral obligation was not limited to the law of Moses, but abides as long as creation."

Note the key difference: when does the obligation begin for humans.  Does it begin in the creation account (Gen 2) or in the giving of the law (Ex 20)?  I would suggest based on Ex 16:22-30, the principle for a day of rest has started before the giving of the Mosaic Law.

I would suggest this fundamental disagreement finds itself later played out in applications toward the Lord's day, especially worship services and liberty of conscience.  There are many texts and topics to discuss in relation to this issue.

We will pick up this topic next in relation to the giving of the Decalogue (the ten commandments).  Especially the fourth commandment, "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy" (Exo 20: 8).

Comments and discussion encouraged.