And God Rested...

[0isez]

As I read Genesis as my morning bible study, I often read a few theologians saying that "rested" does not mean that God quit working otherwise all of creation would fall apart. At those times I didn't think about quoting names, dates and times of who said what, but now that I'm going public I wish I did. The only name that comes to mind is R.C. Riley who is a partaker of this paraphrased idea above.
Some are so adamant about God not truly resting that they seem defensive and protective of that point. One even said that creation was not inertia.
Considering this last statement (R.C. Riley, hope I have that right if memory serves) Inertia plays an important part in our world or reproduction.

I do believe that God did indeed put things on Automatic (if you will). Consider the seeds and plants mentioned in Genesis 1:9-12. Aren't those seeds following an algorithm? God planted "orders" in his creation. In seasons, in tides, in births and deaths most of creation in movement have been implanted these functional orders invented and set in place by God. We even have evidence by discovering DNA, how it sets a protocol for life. An algorithm that produces sires from plants and animals according to their species and seed. Even down to hereditary characteristics. True science mimics God by thinking God's thoughts after Him. The computer is a scientific observance of God's orderly protocol of an algorithmic creation. Not life, but an example of God's orderly commands to generate what He put in motion. Which, to me, makes more sense. Now coming around to my quasi question; Does this make a difference in the kind of rest God took if indeed he set creation in motion by implantation of genetic orders?

 

[davejonescue]

I am not a Bible scholar, but it may be due to John 5:17 . I look forward to hearing someone more knowledgeable than I explain this. Seems interesting.

 

[TheInquirer]

Resting doesn‘t mean doing nothing. Look at the kind of work Jesus did on the Sabbath to heal and the justification he used (sustaining life) for further insight.

 

[Knight]

As I read Genesis as my morning bible study, I often read a few theologians saying that "rested" does not mean that God quit working otherwise all of creation would fall apart. At those times I didn't think about quoting names, dates and times of who said what, but now that I'm going public I wish I did. The only name that comes to mind is R.C. Riley who is a partaker of this paraphrased idea above.

I am currently reading Ryan McGraw's The Day of Worship, and he too makes this point. I will find the quote(s) when I get home, unless someone can supplement them before then.

 

[Knight]

The following comes from chapter 2 of McGraw's book, "The Day of Worship:

"The crux of the debate over what is lawful on the Sabbath is if the purpose of the day is rest or of "spending time in the public and private exercises of God's worship" (Shorter Catechism, Q. 60). The manner in which you answer this question determines how you will seek to observe the day... If you believe that the purpose of the day is rest, then the emphasis of your Sabbath-keeping will be upon what makes you feel most rested. Conversely, if you believe the purpose of the Sabbath is setting the day apart for corporate, private, and family worship, you will exclude all practices that are inconsistent with or do not immediately promote worship...

The "rest" required on the Sabbath cannot be equated with inactivity; it was not so with God Himself, who has never ceased to labor in His works of providence (John 5:17), and neither should it be in the case of His creatures as they imitate His rest. Robert L. Reymond has observed that "rest" cannot mean mere cessation from labor, much less recovery from fatigue... 'Rest' then means involvement in new, in the sense of different, activity. It means cessation of the labor of the six days and the taking up of different labors appropriate to the Lord's Day. What these labors of the Sabbath rest are is circumscribed by the accompanying phrase, 'to the Lord.' They certainly include both corporate and private acts of worship and the contemplation of the glory of God." (Robert L. Reymond, "Lord's Day Observance," in Contending for the Faith: Lines in the Sand That Strengthen the Church (Fearn, U.K.: Christian Focus Publications, 2005), 181)...

...when God sanctified the Sabbath and made it "holy," the natural conclusion is that He set it apart for worship. In every case, whether an object is declared holy, devoted to the Lord, or sanctified, the emphasis always rests upon setting something apart exclusively to the service of the Lord. This means that the operative phrase in the fourth commandment is "Keep it holy," not "You shall do no work."

See also B. B. Warfield here:

We have no such formal commentary from our Lord's lips on the Fourth Commandment. But we have the commentary of his life; and that is quite as illuminating and to the same deepening and ennobling effect. There was no commandment which had been more overlaid in the later Jewish practice with mechanical incrustations. Our Lord was compelled, in the mere process of living, to break his way through these, and to uncover to the sight of man ever more and more clearly the real law of the Sabbathóthat Sabbath which was ordained of God, and of which he, the Son of Man, is Lord. Thus we have from him a series of crisp declarations, called out as occasion arose, the effect of which in the mass is to give us a comment on this commandment altogether similar in character to the more formal expositions of the Sixth and Seventh Commandments. Among these such a one as this stands Out with great emphasis: "It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath day." And this will lead us naturally to this broad proclamation: "My Father worketh even until now, and I work." Obviously, the Sabbath. in our Lord's view, was not a day of sheer idleness; inactivity was not its mark. Inactivity was not the mark of God's Sabbath, when he rested from the works which he creatively made. Up to this very moment he has been working continuously; and, imitating him, our Sabbath is also to be filled with work. God rested, not because he was weary, or needed an intermission in his labors; but because he had completed the task he had set for himself (we speak as a man) and had completed it well. "And God finished his work which he had made"; "and God saw everything that he had made, and behold it was very good." He was now ready to turn to other work. And we, like him, are to do our appointed work "Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work" and then, laying it well aside, turn to another task. It is not work as such, but our own work, from which we are to cease on the Sabbath. "Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work," says the commandment; or, as Isaiah puts it; "If thou turn thy foot from the Sabbath" (that is, from trampling it down) "from doing thy pleasure on my holy day" (that is the way we trample it down); and "call the Sabbath a delight, and the holy (day) of the Lord honorable; and shalt honor him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words; then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord; and I will make thee to ride upon the high places of the earth; and I will feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father; for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it." In one word, the Sabbath is the Lord's day, not ours; and on it is to be done the Lord's work, not ours; and that is our "rest." As Bishop Westcott, commenting on the saying of the Lord's which is at the moment in our mind, put it, perhaps not with perfect exactness but with substantial truth; "man's true rest is not a rest from human, earthly labor, but a rest for divine heavenly labor." Rest is not the true essence of the Sabbath, nor the end of its institution; it is the means to a further end, which constitutes the real Sabbath "rest." We are to rest from our own things that we may give ourselves to the things of God.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

God rested the 7th day from creation. He did not rest from his providence, he did not become inert. Yet, he did cease that specific labor, and paused, and enjoyed his achievement, and invited creation itself into the admiration. Sabbathing unto God is, for the creation, the goal of itself. The first 6 days are so we may have the seventh.

 

[0isez]

Thanks to all for you thoughtful answers. I thought to bring a point to bare but brought another altogether. Sorry, but I made everyone focus on God's activity after creation when my real objective was to bring out the fact that there was and is an inertia in God's creation. R.C. Riley (I believe) commented that there was no inertia in the creation and that is what I was taking issue with in the second half of my post. I didn't mean to imply that this inertia was a sort of "Auto-Pilot either where God just sat back and let all of creation run on its own. No, far be it from me to imply that God did nothing on the 7th day. Providence still requires God's attention which was an excellent point, but I have always believed that. I must say, from your posts, none of you seem have a problem with God implanting a sort of algorithm in his creation which shows me that Riley is in the minority over the creation/inertia issue (If there every was a controversy over this issue,I don't know but wanted to see if one existed).
In HIm...Ken

 

[Knight]

Thanks to all for you thoughtful answers. I thought to bring a point to bare but brought another altogether. Sorry, but I made everyone focus on God's activity after creation when my real objective was to bring out the fact that there was and is an inertia in God's creation. R.C. Riley (I believe) commented that there was no inertia in the creation and that is what I was taking issue with in the second half of my post. I didn't mean to imply that this inertia was a sort of "Auto-Pilot either where God just sat back and let all of creation run on its own. No, far be it from me to imply that God did nothing on the 7th day. Providence still requires God's attention which was an excellent point, but I have always believed that. I must say, from your posts, none of you seem have a problem with God implanting a sort of algorithm in his creation which shows me that Riley is in the minority over the creation/inertia issue (If there every was a controversy over this issue,I don't know but wanted to see if one existed).
In HIm...Ken

Can you clarify if you are asking whether God's act of creation instituted biological determinism? Would this include that idea that our genetics predetermines our choices? If that is what you are asking - and it is what the bold sounds like you think that we think - I doubt many here would agree with that.

 

[0isez]

Hi Ryan,
I absolutely am NOT implying anything about biological determinism which I think is materialistic voodoo and flies in the face of all I believe about the contents of the bible in reference to our relationship with God. My intent and view is simply a seed (which is not an intelligent entity) has indwelling marching orders to produce like seeds and plants and trees. Further, chickens create other chickens, human eggs create humans indicating that God put this in motion, which gives us a glimpse into His methodology concerning creation.
My statements are restricted to the physical aspects of these things only. What I tried to uncover was this; before computers and DNA discoveries, was the idea of a creation which included an auto-centric/self reliant reproduction system a repugnant idea to reformed theology? I actually don't know if ever this was a controversy or not, Because Riley was shouting (it should have been written in bold with an exclamation mark) one sentence..."Creation was not inertia" quote and unquote. I will look for the reference again...Ken

 

[Knight]

Hi Ryan,
I absolutely am NOT implying anything about biological determinism which I think is materialistic voodoo and flies in the face of all I believe about the contents of the bible in reference to our relationship with God. My intent and view is simply a seed (which is not an intelligent entity) has indwelling marching orders to produce like seeds and plants and trees. Further, chickens create other chickens, human eggs create humans indicating that God put this in motion, which gives us a glimpse into His methodology concerning creation.
My statements are restricted to the physical aspects of these things only. What I tried to uncover was this; before computers and DNA discoveries, was the idea of a creation which included an auto-centric/self reliant reproduction system a repugnant idea to reformed theology? I actually don't know if ever this was a controversy or not, Because Riley was shouting (it should have been written in bold with an exclamation mark) one sentence..."Creation was not inertia" quote and unquote. I will look for the reference again...Ken

In that case, while I don't know why Riley emphasized the point, the natural principle of "like begets like" etc. would seem to be historically uncontroversial in Reformed circles, even if certain metaphors were not yet available to theologians. Traducianism vs. soul creation has been debated, for example, but I don't recall reading anything about "inertia."

 

[DNA=XX]

God rested the 7th day from creation. He did not rest from his providence, he did not become inert. Yet, he did cease that specific labor, and paused, and enjoyed his achievement, and invited creation itself into the admiration. Sabbathing unto God is, for the creation, the goal of itself. The first 6 days are so we may have the seventh.

Even in the manger, our Lord sustained all that exists by the word of His power.
So, even as you say, during the Sabbath all is sustained by Him.
Also, doesn't creation's ontology depend upon the omnipresence of God?
"for in Him we live and move and have our being ... " (Acts 17:28)