For Sabbath rest to make sense we first have to see the restlessness of the world. What was true of ancient empires (Egypt, Babylon, and Rome) is true of us as well: we do not know how to be still, and we don’t like to be still. The arrogance of the Tower of Babel, the slave-driving of Egypt, the hungry aggression of the Babylonians, and later the ruthless “peace” of the Romans, have much in common with the modern way of life: anxiety, ceaseless movement, a drive for achievement and greatness, oppression, lust for power, and an insatiable desire for more stuff.

If we see this restlessness clearly, then we can see the Sabbath as not just some ancient rule for Jews and Christians, but as the door to a different kind of world. The Sabbath leads us to look at life and everything we have as gifts, rather than scarce resources we have to fight and scrabble over. It calls us, not to a lazy life of porch sitting or a blur of constant toil and responsibility, but to a pattern of work and life-giving rest. It opens up God’s alternative to slavery: independence and equality of opportunity for all, not as disconnected individuals, but as communities and especially as households. And best, the weekly Sabbath points us to the Sabbath: the rest that awaits all God’s people, the rest that God enjoys himself, which we will enter if we persevere (Heb. 4:11).

Daniel Howe, Worship, Feasting Rest, Mercy: The Christian Sabbath, 5-6.

Change in society begins as Christian families, individuals, and churches one by one decide it’s okay to be weird, and maybe miss out on some things, in order to rest and give others rest. The revolution starts on Sunday — the Sabbath.

Daniel Howe, Worship, Feasting, Rest, Mercy: The Christian Sabbath, 8.

God’s invitation to “call the Sabbath a delight” (Is. 58:13) is not a command to make-believe, like pretending quinoa is steak. It’s a call to delight in something delightful, rich, life-giving — something given to us for our blessing and refreshment, not as a trial. I hope that in the course of this book you will start to feel that delight.

Daniel Howe, Worship, Feasting, Rest, Mercy: The Christian Sabbath, 4.

Although the Law holds forth the promise of eternal life to those who obey God no less than the Gospel does (Matt 19:16), the latter differs from the former in that while the Law promises eternal life to each and every man on the condition of one’s own perfect righteousness, the Gospel does so on the condition of an alien righteousness, namely of Christ, and applied through faith.

Synopsis of a Purer Theology, 245.

The principal efficient cause of the Gospel is God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with respect to both the divine decree of declaring it to mankind and the declaration itself.

Synopsis of a Purer Theology, 238.

There are two commands in the Gospel; one is the command of repentance, and other of faith in Jesus Christ; Mark 1:15 “repent and believe the Gospel.”

Synopsis of a Purer Theology, 242.

Do not all ministers struggle at some point with the question of how to preach Christ from the Old Testament? Do we not wrestle often with unraveling the manner in which Christ and His apostles interpreted the Old Testament? Do we not need to draw sermon applications directly from the text of Scripture in our preaching? Good and necessary consequence was the tool by which our forefathers in the Reformed faith accomplished these ends.

RYAN M. MCGRAW, BY GOOD AND NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE, 36.

Gillespie provides biblical support for using good and necessary consequences, first by citing Christ’s appropriation of the burning bush passage (see chapter 1), as well as by giving several more examples of the way in which the New Testament authors used the Old Testament. Second, the law of God in the Old Testament was designed to be a summary of principles from which other applications should be derived by “good and necessary consequence.” Third, since the opinions of men are often refuted by showing them the consequences of their words, we must assume that the all-wise God is fully aware of the consequences of His words. To deny that the consequences of God’s Word represent His will is “blasphemous,” for, according to Gillespie, “This were to make the only wise God as foolish man, that cannot foresee all things which will follow from his words. Therefore we must needs hold, ’tis the mind of God which necessarily followeth from the words of God.” Fourth, if we deny the legitimacy of good and necessary consequence, then many absurdities will result, such as denying that women may come to the Lord’s Supper. Fifth, in reality, no one is able to avoid using necessary consequences in theological discussions. All people must deduce conclusions from Scripture if they intend to make any assertions regarding what the Scriptures teach. Every controversy in the history of the church has been over “the sense of Scripture” rather than over its express statements. Sixth, even civil magistrates deduce consequences from civil law in order to prove that a particular offense is in violation of the law, and “[we must not] deny to the Great God that which is a privilege of the little gods or magistrates.”

RYAN M. MCGRAW, BY GOOD AND NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE, 32-33.

When a necessary doctrine or application is legitimately drawn from the text of God’s Word, then that doctrine or application has the very power of the authority of God to enforce it.

RYAN M. MCGRAW, BY GOOD AND NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE, 30.

Reformed principles of biblical interpretation were both a correction and an expansion of earlier methods. Typology was retained in Old Testament exposition based upon the example of Christ and His apostles, but careful rules were established in order to prevent abuses and outlandish allegorizing. Scripture was compared with Scripture (analogia scriptura) in order to harmoniously understand the mind of the single divine Author of the Bible. Clearer passages were used in order to understand more obscure ones and passages that seemed, at first glance, to conflict with one another were woven together into theological formulation, often balancing two sides of the truth.

RYAN M. MCGRAW, BY GOOD AND NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE, 27-28.