Tests are part of our everyday experience. Airplanes are tested, cars are tested, nuts and bolts are tested, even people are tested. This testing is intended to relieve us of some of the stress of not knowing what a product or person will do when placed in service.

The purpose of testing is prediction. What will happen if this man practices medicine? What will happen if this woman teaches? What will happen if this car is put on the road? What will happen if this plane is put in the air? These are the kinds of questions that advance testing attempts to answer in order to reduce the element of risk.

Testing persons is much more difficult than testing products. A demonstration of that problem may be seen in the United States legal system. Parole boards that are supposed to certify that a criminal has been rehabilitated and is safe to be released into society receive much criticism today because in many cases their tests apparently fail. There is a dismaying amount of recidivism, the repetition of criminal acts by freed criminals. Innocent people become victims and are crying out for a better solution to the problem.

I am sure that the people on these parole boards are not insincere or irresponsible. They must be as concerned as others about the safety of their families. I think that the problem comes from an imperfect testing procedure, which results in many mistakes. It certifies as rehabilitated many criminals who in fact are not rehabilitated. As a result, society suffers, and the parole boards are criticized. I believe that the greatest need in that situation is for better testing procedures whereby future human behavior can be predicted more accurately.

Is this not what is involved in Jesus’ present work? He is planning to release many criminals from a huge penitentiary, the earth. He plans to let these criminals enter the society of unfallen worlds. Revelation 12:12 says, “Rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them.”

Many worlds in which unfallen beings live have never known the miseries of sin and do not want to know them. So the Lord is in the position of the parole board. He needs a test whereby He can certify a criminal to be rehabilitated and safe to release into the society of the universe at large. It needs to be a test that the watching universe can observe and understand.

Consider what would be required of such a test. First, it would need to be a test that could be used uniformly in all parts of the earth. Second, it would need to be a test that could be used for people of all ages and characteristics. Third, it would have to be fair in content, not based upon things that people have in different amounts. If it were based upon money, for example, some people would be discriminated against. If it were based upon property, talent, or education, the same would be true; and the test would be discriminatory and unfair. Fourth, it would have to be fair in application, not requiring of people more than they are able to do. Fifth, the test would have to be unique so that motivation would be clear. If the Lord requires something for a test that people do for other reasons, issues are confused and motives are unclear.

What is there in the world that meets all of these criteria? I can think of only one thing that persons of all ages have in equal amounts, everywhere, and that is time. In a given week, everyone has exactly the same number of days, hours, minutes, and seconds. So it would seem that time could be used for a test without discrimination against anyone.

But how could the test be set up? Could there be a requirement that a certain amount of work be done in an amount of time? That is an appealing idea, but it quickly encounters problems of both discrimination and motivation. Some cannot work, and some must work less than others for reasons beyond their control. And regarding motivation, we observe that people work for reasons that have nothing to do with religion or loyalty to Christ, because there are benefits from work that are not religious in nature, such as the benefit of financial gain, of exercise, and of something accomplished or produced. So motivation in a time-work test would be unclear, making the results of such a test doubtful and making it difficult to avoid discrimination.

What about recreational use of time? Again, some people are not able to engage in recreation and some enjoy recreation for reasons that have nothing to do with religion. If we think of requiring a certain time for study, or meditation, or self-improvement, the same problems would be present, to some degree. In a test involving the use of time for any of these reasons, discrimination would be difficult to avoid; and motivation would be unclear. So what do we have left?

What about rest? Not everyone can work, but everyone can rest. Although it might appear that motivation still would be unclear, since there are nonreligious benefits from rest, there is a way to deal with that problem and make time spent in rest an adequate test. If it simply were required that a portion of time be used for rest, there would be benefits from resting that would not be religious in nature, and resting could be accomplished in a variety of ways to gain those benefits. People could work half a day and rest half a day, or work one day and rest one day, or rest one day of each five, or one day of each six or even seven, and gain the benefits of resting, even though they had nothing religious in mind at all.

But there is something that could make resting a valid test. If a requirement should be made that human beings rest on a specific time period that the Lord chooses, it would be a most adequate test because it would be arbitrary. It would not be justified by reasoning or rationale; it simply would attest the Lord’s will. If Christ were to single out one specific 24-hour period of the 168 hours that make a week and require that the entire human family use this time, and this time only, for rest, some risks would be involved.

What about the time when a crop is ready to be harvested, or seed is ready for planting and the climatic conditions are right and might never be so again? What about work situations? What about the run of fish that occurs only on certain days? or irrigation water for the farm that comes only on certain days? Many situations would entail risks for the man or woman who would be required to use that time, and no other time, for rest.

And observe that this requirement makes no appeal to reason. Rest appeals to reason, but a particular day of rest does not. That is exactly what is needed, because the greatest test that the human being faces in relationship to God is this: What do we do when God makes a requirement that we do not understand? That is the greatest of all tests. This seems to me to be the question that the inhabitants of other worlds are most concerned about.

Try to visualize yourself as an inhabitant of a world where there never has been sin. You learn that Jesus is planning to release some rehabilitated criminals on your planet. You would have a right to feel some concern and would be justified in asking some questions. “Lord, do You think it is really safe to do this?”

And the Lord can say, “I believe it is. But judge for yourself. Let Me ask this candidate for eternal life some questions and see what you think.”

So the Lord asks the earthling, “We have a requirement that no one shall kill anyone else. Are you willing to obey that requirement?”

The earthling replies, “Why, yes, that makes sense. That is reasonable. I will go along with that.”

“The next requirement is that you shall not steal. What about that?”

“Surely, that makes sense. I understand that. I will go along with that.”

“You shall not bear false witness,” Jesus says.

The same answer is given. “Of course, that makes sense; that is reasonable. I’ll cooperate.” And so the Lord goes on through all of the commandments, except the fourth, the Sabbath.

After the earthling is questioned, you reply, “No, Lord. He is not obeying You; he is agreeing with You. In every case he will do Your will because it appears to him to be reasonable. But given his limited knowledge and his limited experience, it is entirely possible that there may sometime be a requirement of the govern- ment of the universe that does not make sense to him. What will he do then? That is what I want to know.”

The Lord is able to answer, “I anticipated that problem and built into the Ten Commandments a question to cover it.” Pointing to the fourth command- ment, He asks the earthling, “We have a requirement that the seventh day of the week be devoted to rest and to worship rather than to your own inclinations and pursuits. What do you say about that?”

The earthling may reply, “Lord, I clearly see the value of resting. You can depend on me to rest. I will go along with that. But as far as resting on a particular day is concerned, I do not see any reason why I should rest one day when another day might be more convenient for me.”

I can hear you saying, “No, Lord! We do not want him here! He is exalting his human reason above Your requirement.”

On the other hand, the earthling may respond to the Sabbath question, “I believe in resting. You can count on me to rest. As far as the day of rest is concerned, it is not at all clear to me why one day needs to be the particular day of rest, but it does not need to be clear to me, Lord; if that is what You want, that settles it for me.”

Then the Lord turns to you and asks, “What do you think?”

I believe that you would say, “I think he is all right. Let him come.”

The supreme test of a person’s relationship to God is What does that person do when the reason for one of God’s requirements is not clear to him?

The terrible problem of sin began when Eve was faced in the Garden of Eden with a requirement that did not make sense to her. The forbidden tree looked much like the other trees. The fruit was comparable to other fruit, and the serpent was eating of it without apparent harm. Yet God had said not to eat that fruit. It does not make sense, she thought; it just does not make sense.

Eve was faced with the decision, What do I do when the requirement of God does not appear to me to be reasonable? And what Eve decided, in essence, was, I will obey God when His requirements seem reasonable to me; but when they do not seem reasonable, I will not obey them.

This attitude—I will obey God when I understand His requirements, and I will disobey Him when I do not understand His requirements—reflects the thinking of millions of people today who call themselves Christians. It does not indicate a proper relationship with God.

Abraham faced the same test when the voice of the Lord, which he knew so well he could not mistake it, said to him, “Take now thy son, thine only son, Isaac, whom thou lovest, and offer him on Mount Moriah for a sacrifice.” Genesis 22:2. To say that it did not make sense would be a massive understatement. It seemed to Abraham a cataclysmic command.

Not only did it not appeal to his reason, but it also devastated all his hopes and dreams. Consequently Abraham, as did Eve, faced the critical test: What do I do when the requirement of God does not appear to me to be reasonable? What do I do when God gives a requirement that I do not understand?

The great test facing mankind has always been whether he will render perfect obedience even when it runs contrary to his own inclination and nature and even though he does not fully understand the reason.

Abraham did not make the same decision that Eve made. Abraham did not say, “I will obey God when I understand, and I will not obey when I do not understand.” Abraham said, “I will obey whether I understand or not.” As a result, he became known as the father of the faithful, the role model for those who want to have a proper relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ; a model of trust, faith, love, and submission.

Jesus faced this same test in Gethsemane. He went into the garden troubled in heart because He knew the end was near. There He faced something unbelievably dreadful as part of His test—separation from God.

“Then saith He unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with Me. And He went a little further, and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me.” Matthew 26:38, 39. Three times He prayed that prayer. What does that prayer mean? It means, “Father, is it necessary for You to withdraw Yourself from Me?”

Sometimes we say glibly, “He bore the weight of all our sins.” Have you ever internalized what that means? It means rejection. You know how painful rejection is from anyone. Rejection by the Almighty brings the ultimate anguish to a soul. In the Garden of Gethsemane, in order to bear the punishment of sinners, Jesus must be rejected by God. As He felt His unity with the Father being broken, He trembled and cried out in anguish, “Why? Father, is there no other way?”

The fate of the entire universe hung in the balance while He grappled with that problem. And the universe won its reprieve when He made the decision, “I will obey, even though I do not understand. ‘Not My will, but Thine, be done.’ ” He had passed the greatest of all tests.

The greatest test any human faces is not martyrdom. It is comparatively easy to surrender your life for that which you understand fully; but to surrender your will when you do not understand is a greater test, a test that must be met by everyone who wants to live in the universe at large.

The provision for a Sabbath rest is found in the heart of the Ten Commandments. It provides a test of trust, a test of love, a test of submission. Resting is reasonable, but resting on a particular day has no basis in reason. And the Sabbath test provides a means by which everyone may know himself and by which every other being in the universe may know: What does a person do when he does not understand? Will he obey anyway? or will he put his reasoning powers above the command of God and disobey?

For this reason it is astounding at those theologians who say that they recognize some moral value in the principle of resting in the fourth commandment but see nothing of moral value in the specification of a time for rest. Is not the time specification the only moral value there. Rest, of itself, is a principle of health, not morality. The only moral value incorporated in the fourth commandment is in the seventh-dayness of that commandment.