What is the “Sabbath Rest” for the people of God discussed In Hebrews 4? (By Chris)
I am doing a detailed study of the sabbath and thought that a discussion on the meaning of Hebrews 4 would be a profitable study for us. What is the author speaking of when He says:
Hebrews 4:9 (NASB95)
9 So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God.
What do you think?
02 August 2009
402 Comments
Leave a Reply
Latest Blog Comments
David,
There is nothing in the emails that “those...
By April
Thank you Sister Teresa,
It was silly. You didn't...
By David (Editor)- April, Lisa, scotty,
I believe the adversary is trying...
By David (Editor) - Lisa,
Post the words of the emails, you have...
By April 
I have never called anyone a liar or...
By scotty-taylor
Gman, that's wonderful that Abba was so faithful...
By Lisa (Editor)
Recently Active Sheeple
Comments
I also found it interesting in Acts the reply to the charge of heresy was…
“As for me I believe ALL that is written in the Law & the prophets.” Many translations say “sect” instead of heresy in which case every denomination\sect would apply. A denomination and a sect are one in the same and most can be used interchangeably with “cult”. Cults all have a few less than redeeming qualities.
Usually surrounds a belief in one diety
One heavy handed leader that wields autonomy
Extract monies from the victims
Use guilt to bind adherents the organization
People are afraid to leave them for “fear of being outside of God’s will”
Share at least one set of esoteric beliefs unique to the order
Sounds like church most of the time. I would say 95% of the time. They way we find out is how they handle doctrinal issues. The works of wickedness are don under the cover of darkness and not in an exoteric format. Doing church is sin…one cannot “do or go to church,” one can assemble and hope and pray that some of the ekklesia show up…very different.
Scot,
You really want to align yourself With Avi Ben Mordechai?
Good call…I wish to opine…
The sabbath is eternal and cyclical, not linear and dispensational as the young man in the video is coming to realize (other post). It is a gift and points to the sabbath which is coming and is a picture of the consummation of the marriage between Israel of YHWH and Y’shua, the Son. Heathen will try to crash the part after the door is closed as they did when the door of the ark was shut and the response will be the same. You wouldn’t obey…depart…”and the end shall come like a flood.”
Good point Scot,
He also says, in the Acts reference in verse 16, “And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men.”
Quite a profound statement for one just accused of heresy. His practice of what they called heresy was an “exercise” in maintaining a conscience void of offense to Eloheim and men.
WILL THE ACTUAL HERETICS PLEASE STAND UP AND IDENTIFY YOURSELVES?
IT IS GETTING AWFULLY UNCOMFORTABLE BEING NUMBERED WITH YOU!
Like intheway said, the definition of a false prophet/teacher is one who teaches against Torah, not that Yeshua is not deity (whatever Christians understand by Yeshua being/not being deity).
The way I see it, the reason Trinitarians (most Christians) use “is Jesus God or not test” and are so fixated, is because they need Him to be GOD to approve their Torah-less doctrines. Every new religion needs a god that approves it. Instead of YHVH said this, Jesus said this. They are fixated on noun, instead of verb or who God is, what He does, His character, or Torah.
If Jesus wasn’t God (as they understand it), their Torah-less doctrines wouldn’t be so authoritative. They have replaced Torah observant Yeshua with Greco-Roman Torah-less Jesus. This Jesus has to be God for them to believe in their/his doctrines.
I was there, we all were. I am not saying they don’t love God or Yeshua, I am not saying they are not saved. What I am saying is that they have replaced Him with a Torah-less image that they call God. Again, in Christianity Jesus HAS to be God, EQUAL (or actually in place of Him, same with holy spirit, mary, etc.).
Larry,
If Jesus is not God then none of us are saved. This is a theological issue of infinite importance. If you reject the divinity of Christ you reject the biblical Jesus. This is not an “optional” matter. Many believe Jesus is a “good teacher” but they actually insult God by rejecting His Son. If he is the “Son” of God then He has a divine nature. I cant even believe this is an item of discussion here.
Chris,
I knew you were going to respond like this. Please re-read my post. Also, in the past I said that Yeshua has a divine nature. That is not the point of my last post. The problem is that most Christians make Yeshua EQUAL with God when He never ever said that. Scot has some good posts on this too. This is actually discussed in the “trinity” thread.
He is co-equal, and co-eternal, otherwise He is not “God” by very definition.
Larry,
He is equal but he emptied himself of His power etc. to become human. He chose to become subordinate to the Father, but He is indeed equal.
Philippians 2:5-11 (HCSB)
5 Make your own attitude that of Christ Jesus,
6 who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be used for His own advantage.
7 Instead He emptied Himself by assuming the form of a slave, taking on the likeness of men. And when He had come as a man in His external form,
8 He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death—even to death on a cross.
9 For this reason God also highly exalted Him and gave Him the name that is above every name,
10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow— of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth—
11 and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Chris,
“He is co-equal, and co-eternal, otherwise He is not “God†by very definition.”
THIS is the problem, this is pretty much trinitarian doctrine. Mary is also considered co-redemptrix, this is birthed from the same erroneous doctrine. This should be discussed in the “trinity” thread.
That simply means Yeshua being in the form/image of God thought it not robbery to be LIKE God.
Getting back to the Sabbath Rest discussion. In both the old and new covenants there was a rite of passage, or a sign that was required before one could enter the covenant. In the Old Covenant the rite of passage, the sign of becoming one with Israel was Circumcision. In the New Covenant the sign is baptism.
The sign of the Old Covenant was the Sabbath.
God stated in the Old Covenant Exodus 20:8 (ESV)
8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
The sign of the New Covenant was the Lord’s Supper
Luke 22:19-20 (ESV)
19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.
Notice each sign, sabbath observance, and the Lord’s supper are about “rememberance”. This is a wonderful demonstration of how the Two covenants parralel each other. The New Covenant has replaced the old and we are blessed who walk in the New Covenant of Christ.
Chris
Isn’t the sign of the new covenant the Holy Spirit?
Because they had immersions before too. Actually there are a lot of immersions in the law.
Roberta,
The Holy Spirit is more than a sign.
The signs of the covenant are external rites. This is true in both the OT and the NT. It is true the outward signs are symbolic of internal, spiritual realities, but the external rites are always there. This is part of the covenant model used during biblical times, that is the suzerain covenant structure.
It is also fascinating to compare the “Blood of the two covenants”. This blood was the seal ratifying each covenant with those under the Covenant.
Exodus 24:7-8 (HCSB)
7 He then took the covenant scroll and read [it] aloud to the people. They responded, “We will do and obey everything that the Lord has commanded.â€
8 Moses took the blood, sprinkled it on the people, and said, “This is the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you concerning all these words.â€
Matthew 26:27-28 (NKJV)
27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you.
28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
I can not see the connection Chris.
Roberta,
Each covenant is ratified, made official by blood. The Old Covenant was made official (binding) by the blood of the Covenant mentioned in the passage I cited. The New Covenant was made official (binding) by the blood of Jesus. The same is true with the Adamic Covenant, and the Noahic & Abrahmic Covenants. I suppose it is true for the Davidic Covenant as well, but I have never actually looked into that.
Chris,
The Lord’s supper is actually a dinner, the last dinner…not the institution of Pagan communion…and it was done the evening before the lamb was slaughtered as a symbol of what he was doing for them. They were “sopping” a raised loaf on the evening of preparation day which was NOT a sabbath, rather the day before the High Sabbath of Unleavened bread which Paul still celebrated nearly 2 decades later…so did Polycrates or Polycarp’s students\talmidim. <——same root as talmud
Circumcision in the NT deals with adult male circumcision every time that I can think of… Rabbinic tradition "added to" the requirement of torah and Christian tradition takes away, both are sin. Rabbis actually had a RE-CIRCUMCISION for those who have "left Judaism," that was popular I am sure.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Trinity doctrine has moved to the trinity thread…all three of them…lol
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Scot,
The supper was was indeed a dinner, it was passover. The point is that the Passover lamb ratified the covenant with His blood and stated such in the upper room. He said “do this in rememberance of me”. So the sign of the new covenant is the Lord’s supper. Just as sabbath observance was the sign of the Old Covenant so Communion is the sign of the New Covenant. They remembered the sabbath day and the covenant it represents, and we remember Christ and the covenant He gave. It is actually quite beautiful!
“Trinity doctrine has moved to the trinity thread…all three of them…lol”
loool
No it was NOT passover. It was a last dinner. They were eating a RAISED LOAF on the preparation day the day BEFORE the lamb is killed and then consumed before daybreak. Neither was it on a sabbath day. It was actually the day before the HIGH sabbath day as is clear by the statement.
Joh 19:31 The Jews therefore, because it was the PREPARATION, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.
Scot,
WHy does every sinlge major evangelical scholar disagree with you? Why does my Messianic Pastor friend in Las Vegas disagree with you? Brother I think you are wrong about this. You are also wrong about the resurrection taking place on Saturday.
Scot <———————-here is a guy who did not come to take a Poll. Get him on the phone we can do a three way on my dime?
Sunday is nowhere in the book EXCEPT for Firstfruits which begins the counting of the omer…
Chris, we love those sweeping statements….make your case regarding sunday and I will show you the 5-15 verses it violates.
I already made my case at the beginning of the post and my argument was basically ignored. I suppose it was to well reasoned.
I have some free time and would love to talk to my messianic pastor friend
“I have some free time and would love to talk to my messianic pastor friend”
Scot,
If you meant my messianic pastor friend, I dont think you want to talk to him, he made it clear during passover this year that he believes that the HRM is filled with Judaizers. He told me that he is saddened by how much legalism is in the Messianic churches via HRM.
If you were refering to me, I’d love to talk but you never called me back, Dryer your a slacker!
This tells me that he doesn’t have a clue what a Judaizer is and is luke warm riding the fence and is probably lining is wallet speaking half truths. I would love to talk to him…
Passover, why does he celebrate passover? I am preparing for a conference and have been working like crazy. I will be here tomorrow. You know what is worse than not knowing the truth? Knowing it, packaging it in a more palatable manor, bringing in “the jews for Jesus” to entertain us and then continuing in our rebellion. Sad…
Chris,
Show me ONE instance where the term “Judaizer” is used in reference to someone that is telling people to obey the commandments of YHWH and if you can’t, stop using it.
Scot,
Richard is a bi-vocational pastor in a small congregation. He is not “lining” his wallet. He is teaching what he believes to be true. He is also a dispensationalist. I am sure you’ll declare that he is damned now!
Judaizers were the issue in Galatians, but you and I totally disagree about what that book means and what it says. We agree on very little in any of the Pauline letters. So our definition of Judaizers is never going to be consistent.
Who cares WHAT YOU OR I “BELIEVE” what is written? The verse please?
Read Galatians friend.
Nowhere can it be presented that I have said anyone that is Dispensationalist is damned. Messiah died to pay for that sin as well.
Scott said ” Nowhere can it be presented that I have said anyone that is Dispensationalist is damned. Messiah died to pay for that sin as well.’
I was exaggerating. But you act like dispensationalism is the worst sin! I dont like the teaching but around here it is like being called a heretic.
The verse brother…the verse where Judaizer is used in reference to someone pointing people to Moses…Messiah is Judaizer based on that standard.
Scot,
The trouble in Galatians was with Judaizers trying to lure Galatians back undera a yoke of slavery, the law.
Of course you can’t present a verse, there are none.
Slavery? The SLAVERY is sin. Sin is violation of the law.
Joh 8:34 Jesus answered them, Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin.
Rom 7:25 I thank God–through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.
He does what? He serves the LAW OF GOD because the ENMITY toward it is destroyed in Messiah.
Scot
I once heard a Rabbi saying that this supper was a graduation party. It was a tradition back them that when a Rabbi finished training his disciples he would offer them a banquet. He made some remarks that there was more than just the 12 of them in the room. I would have to go back and read the scriptures, but it is something to think about…
Brother Scot,
Shabbat Shalom.
Following the conversation between you and Chris regarding the Passover, I know this is a very deep and mysterious subject and I would consider it a blessing if you would clear it up in my thinking because I can’t figure it out after 40 years of trying. BTW, Chris hasn’t either, nor his Messianic friend who sounds like a Southern Baptist in lambs clothing.
Lets, start with Luke 22:14-16, And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve Apostles with Him. And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: For I say unto you, I will not anymore eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” There’s a whole lot of Passover talk here.
Next, Matthew,26:17, “Now the first of the unleavened bread the disciples came to Yeshua, saying unto Him, where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover? Obviously the first of unleavened is the day following Passover. Mark makes it a little clearer in Chapter 14:12, “And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?”
This could probably be explained by the eating of unleavened bread with the Passover meal. If I have my thinking straight, they killed the Passover between dusk and dark the 14th as it was going into the 15th, so the meal was eaten on the 15th, the first day of unleavened, but what today on the pagan calendar would still be the 14th because it is not midnight yet.
But still, there is a lot of passover language in all the gospels surrounding this meal. Were they looking forward to the passover but this meal wasn’t it, or what?
David,
Passover and Unleavened bread are in and the same feast according to many Rabi’s. One of the reasons this is communicated this way is because Unleavened bread is one of the feasts you must come to Jerusalem for. Passover, even though it is not stated as such, is the same.
(Deu 16:5) Thou mayest not sacrifice the passover within any of thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee: (Deu 16:6) But at the place which the LORD thy God shall choose to place his name in, there thou shalt sacrifice the passover at even, at the going down of the sun, at the season that thou camest forth out of Egypt.
Therefore we see that Pasech is another feast of which it was commended to come to the temple. So, Juciasm put them together and ditched the commandment of when Passover was to be started and had it start on the 15th. Attaching the two together
Yeshua on the other hand came to exalt the Torah and make it honorable according to Isaiah 42. Thus He celebrated it with His disciples on the right evening. There is so much, much more about this. Write me, johnschutte@yahoo.com if you want to discuss it more.
John,
Thank you for your response. I sent you an email that will help you understand my questioning.
John,
The e-mail delivery failed. I will try again.
In actuality, the meal they were eating WAS NOT a passover meal…Y’shua said he had “desired” to eat this but would not eat it again until the kingdom.
John was correct in stating that they had combined 14th(not a sabbath rather preparation day) + 15h (1st of Unleavened Bread) as one weekly celebration they referred to as Passover.
The lamb is eaten at the time you stated during dark after twilight of the 14th (when the lamb) is killed transitioning into the High Sabbath of the 15th. The disciples were eating a last supper on the “evening of the 13th-14th transition” and NOT a passover seder which would have been the following night. He IS the lamb and as a result was killed prior to the meal. If you remember Messiah sent Judas out and the disciples thought it was to “buy items needed for the meal” which was the next night 14th/15th. They were also eating a “raised loaf” and “sopping” it…matzah is non-soppable…lol.
Scot,
Why does every major commentary say that it was a passover meal? Dont just tell me that the church is wrong. They obviously have good reasons for believing this.
“Why does every major commentary say that it was a passover meal? Dont just tell me that the church is wrong. They obviously have good reasons for believing this.”
You really are a baby bird and headquarters is the mamma, now open wide baby bird…..
Menorah,
Stop trying to pick a fight.
Scot,
I am studying this passage in Luke and it is the passover! You are going to have lay out your whole case in detail. This teaching radically departs from what is common knowledge and the plain reading of the Gospels.
I have the rice edition KJV and he spells out the last supper as the “preliminary supper” before Passover.
I already laid it out in a tutorial. Passover IS NOT the 14th, it is the 15th…the 14th is a “preparation day” when the lamb is kille just before dusk which begins the 15th. You can’t be the lamb & be at dinner…plus the 15th is a High Sabbath (no buying, no selling).
At the time Judaism lumped them together referring to the whole 8 days as Passover but the 14th is NOT…15-21st is…
14th
Now you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month. Then the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it at twilight.
15th
And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the Feast of Unleavened Bread to the LORD; seven days you must eat unleavened bread. On the first day (of the seven) you shall have a holy convocation; you shall do no customary work on it. (a sabbath)
I love this book. Torah really is a hook in the jaws of the people causing them to stumble…it is Messiah.
menorah,
that is a rarity…virtually every western commentary misses it…anomian bias…can’t blame em, its not their book…jk
Scot,
I am following you but I still have something troubling me.
Is the “evening of the 14th” at dusk as the 13th ends and the 14th begins, or is it the closing of the 14th as it goes into the 15th?
The reason I ask is, if it is the close of the 13th just as the 14th begins then the Lamb would have to be cooked immediately and then it would set for 24 hours until the 15th starts which is the first day of unleavened, a Shabbat in which no work could be done. If it is at the close of the 14th before the 15th begins then they could cook the Lamb and eat it anytime after sundown because it would then be the 15th, the first day of unleavened.
Your explanation of the word “Passover” in the gospels makes sense. His desire was to eat the Passover with them but since He was about to be sacrificed as the Lamb of Eloheim that takes away the sin of the world, he would not be able to eat it. It would have to wait for the Kingdom. Probably in a couple of years from now.
We know that Yeshua was crucified about noon. The gregorian calendar would mean that is the middle of the day. The true calendar makes that the closing of the day. At this point there has already been 18 hours past. There is plenty of time between noon and the closing of the day at about 6:00 p.m. to kill and cook a lamb, then the first of unleavened bread would begin and they could eat the meal. So, in light of this it would have been impossible for this meal to have been the Passover meal.
Our imaginations are still active in the gregorian indoctrination of what a day is. We imagine dusk as growing dark when it is actually the period of time beginning one second after noon and ending at dark.
Is the “evening of the 14th†at dusk as the 13th ends and the 14th begins
That is correct
The lamb is killed at twilight on the 14th…just before the 15th begins and that is called erev. he gave up the ghost (killed) @ twighlight
Scot,
Thanks. Now I understand where you are with all this. There is a lot of confusion on this subject. Christianity is still trying to get 3 days and 3 nights to fit between sundown Friday and Sunday morning.
David,
Sorry I typed my email wrong johnschutte92@yahoo.com
Thanks John,
I don’t believe we need to discuss the Passover. I think it is cleared up for anyone who can accept the truth.
However, I enjoy fellowship by e-mail so write anytime. There is plenty to talk about. drnowlin@bendbroadband.com. That goes for all my brothers and sisters here.
No salesmen please, unless you want a good old fashioned sermon. lol
Here are a few scriptures to look at about Shabbat.
There is around 100, must be kinda important?
Exo_16:23; Exo_16:25; Exo_16:26; Exo_16:29; Exo_20:8; Exo_20:10; Exo_20:11; Exo_31:14; Exo_31:15; Exo_31:16; Exo_35:2; Exo_35:3; Lev_16:31; Lev_23:3; Lev_23:11; Lev_23:15; Lev_23:16; Lev_23:24; Lev_23:32; Lev_23:39; Lev_24:8; Lev_25:2; Lev_25:4; Lev_25:6; Num_15:32; Num_28:9; Num_28:10; Deu_5:12; Deu_5:14; Deu_5:15; 2Ki_4:23; 2Ki_11:5; 2Ki_11:7; 2Ki_11:9; 2Ki_16:18; 1Ch_9:32; 2Ch_23:4; 2Ch_23:8; 2Ch_36:21; Neh_9:14; Neh_10:31; Neh_13:15; Neh_13:16; Neh_13:17; Neh_13:18; Neh_13:19; Neh_13:21; Neh_13:22; Psa_92:1; Isa_56:2; Isa_56:6; Isa_58:13; Isa_66:23; Jer_17:21; Jer_17:22; Jer_17:24; Jer_17:27; Eze_46:1; Eze_46:4; Eze_46:12; Amo_8:5; Mat_12:1; Mat_12:2; Mat_12:5; Mat_12:8; Mat_12:10; Mat_12:11; Mat_12:12; Mat_24:20; Mat_28:1; Mar_1:21; Mar_2:23; Mar_2:24; Mar_2:27; Mar_2:28; Mar_3:2; Mar_3:4; Mar_6:2; Mar_15:42; Mar_16:1; Luk_4:16; Luk_4:31; Luk_6:1; Luk_6:2; Luk_6:5; Luk_6:6; Luk_6:7; Luk_6:9; Luk_13:10; Luk_13:14; Luk_13:15; Luk_13:16; Luk_14:1; Luk_14:3; Luk_14:5; Luk_23:54; Luk_23:56; Joh_5:9; Joh_5:10; Joh_5:16; Joh_5:18; Joh_7:22; Joh_7:23; Joh_9:14; Joh_9:16; Joh_19:31;
Chris,
A few words from some of your favorite people.
“You will observe my Sabbaths; for it will be a sign between Me and you for your generations.” These things, then, were given for a sign…The Sabbaths taught that we should continue day by day in God’s service,…abstaining from all avarice and not acquiring or possessing treasures upon earth…However man was not justified by these things. Rather, they were given as a sign to the people.”
Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.481.
Sounds like Irenaeus was teaching Sabbath, but not for justification just as we say that the Torah is not kept for justification.
“The seventh day is recognized as sacred, not only by the Hebrews, but also by the greeks.” Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E) 2.469.
Looks like Clement had a little truth also.
“You will observe the Sabbath on account of Him who ceased from His work of creation. However, He did not cease from His work of providence. So the Sabbath is a rest in order to meditate on the law; it is not a day of idleness of the hands. Apostolic Constitutions (compiled c. 390, E) 7.461
This is not unique to our day or the HR movement. Though I have much to disagree with these writings about it is clear that not everyone in the first two centuries agreed that the Sabbath should be abandoned.
Paul led the largely GENTILE congregation at Ephesus for no less than 3 years in sabbath, kept Passover & Pentecost only a few years before dying.
So did Polycarp, and his followers did the feasts for DECADES after he died. Ignatius says that “those who do not have the Law of Moses are false christs”
Some quotes from these men:
Tertullian:
Tertullian calls the TEN commandments “the rules of our regenerate life that is to say the rules which govern the life of a converted man”
Clement of Rome:
On account of those therefore who by neglect of their own salvation please the evil one and those who by study of their own profit seek to please the good One TEN THINGS have been prescribed as a test to this present age according to the number often plagues which were brought upon Egypt.
Origen says this as an idictment against Celsus
”
For he Celsus knows nothing of the day of the Sabbath and rest of God which follows the completion of the world’s creation and which lasts during the duration of the world and in which all those will keep festival with God who have done all their works in their six days”
Tertullian DEFINES Christ’s relation to the sabbath
“He was called Lord of the Sabbath because he maintained the Sabbath as his own institution 23 He affirms that Christ did not abolish the Sabbath”
Archelaus of Cascar in Mesopotamia REGARDING SABBATH BEING ABOLISHED
“Again as to the assertion that the Sabbath has been abolished we deny that he has abolished it plainly for he was himself also Lord of the Sabbath 26″
Irenaeaus ON WHEN SABBATH was instituted and for who:
“And he says in another place If my sons keep the Sabbath then will I cause my mercy to rest upon them The Sabbath is mentioned at the beginning of the creation thus And God made in six days the works of his hands and made an end on the seventh day and rested on it and sanctified it”
EVEN BETTER
These things promised are to take place in the times of the kingdom that is upon the seventh day which has been sanctified in which God rested from all his works which he created which is THE TRUE SABBATH in which they shall not be engaged in any earthly occupation
Hi all. I just came across this article (original here) – really worth reading. Sorry Chris, you probably won’t like the conclusion…
Being Deceived About the Sabbath
Sunday, July 04th, 2010 | Author: Skip Moen
My friend and colleague Barry Jenkins wrote the following:
In 2001, Dr. John MacArthur Jr., the pastor of Grace Community Church, was asked are the Sabbath laws binding on Christians today. He responded as follows: “We believe the Old Testament regulations governing Sabbath observances are ceremonial, not moral, aspects of the law. As such, they are no longer in force, but have passed away along with the sacrificial system, the Levitical priesthood, and all other aspects of Moses’ law that prefigured Christ.†According to a 2008 edition of Pulpit Magazine, Dr. MacArthur reasoned in part that the New Testament never commands Christians to observe the Sabbath. This appears to be the standard evangelical answer concerning Sabbath observance by “New Testament†believers. This article advocates the position that a non-biased translation of Hebrews 4:9 commands Sabbath observance for the people of God.
The following are four different translations for Hebrews 4:9:
1. There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. (KJV)
2. So then, there is still awaiting a full and complete Sabbath-rest reserved for the [true] people of God…. (AMP)
3. So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God…. (ESV)
4. So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. (NASB)
The 17TH Century English nonconformist theologian Matthew Poole provided a typical protestant interpretation of the verses above: “Here the Spirit concludes from his former proofs, that there is a more excellent rest revealed to faith in the gospel, which is
remaining, future, and to come
, and will surely and most certainly do so; though it be behind, yet it will be enjoyed. A sabbatism, which is a state and season of a most glorious rest, (see Heb 4:10), shall be enjoyed by sincere believers, the true Israel of God, of whom he is the Proprietor, and who are for their eternal state so excellently holy, and of so Divine a nature, that he is not ashamed to be called their God.†(Emphasis supplied)
There has been an effort to remove the present duty of Sabbath observance for a futuristic “Sabbath†celebration. I submit that the translators are misleading the readers. This is another example of the purposeful attempt to disconnect followers of Yeshua with his Hebraic roots. An examination of the Greek text supports this view. The Greek word for “remains†is the verb apoleipo and it indicates that the sabbatismos is “left behind.†It still remains.
Apoleipo is in the present tense indicative mood. The present indicative asserts a statement of fact which is occurring while the speaker is making the statement. Conservative scholarship dates the book of Hebrews from the mid to late 60’s. The writer is expressing a statement of fact about keeping the Sabbath approximately thirty years after the resurrection of Yeshua. This is not about the future; it is about now. It is unfortunate that even Dr. Zodhiates falls victim to replacement theology in his lengthy discussion of sabbatismos. He explains in part: “Therefore, the intimation is that the Sabbath was instituted as a symbol of that eternal rest at the completion of God’s work.†He clearly is referencing a future rest. A lot of linguistic gymnastics has to occur to move this statement in Hebrews into an event in the future. The Greek word for “rest†is sabbatismós and it means to keep the Sabbath. The use of the word “rest†was added by replacement theologians in an effort to change the commandment to keep the Sabbath into a futuristic event.
The correct translation should be:
“There is left behind a keeping of the Sabbath by God’s people.â€
The Sabbath is the sign of God’s people being separated to Him. It is written in Exodus 31:13, 16: “Say to the people of Israel, ‘You shall keep my sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I, the LORD, sanctify you. Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the sabbath, observing the sabbath throughout their generations, as a perpetual covenant. (RSV) An accurate translation of Hebrews 4:9 reveals the failure of the modern church to obey God’s command to keep the Sabbath. It is not a futuristic fulfillment; it is a command. We should now concentrate on what it means to keep the Sabbath as God’s people in the 21st Century. If we are the people of God, we should keep the Sabbath.
Chris, you wrote, “…the church believes what she does today as a result.”
Your use of the feminine pronoun for the “church” is interesting. Unconscious, perhaps, a Freudian slip, maybe, but interesting nevertheless, given Scot’s point that much of the “church” still shows many characteristics of the daughters of Babylon…
“The truth is self evident.”
Yes, it is.
“Read the Baptist faith and message and it will all make sense”
I prefer to read the scriptures, Chris, and to try to understand them as the original audience would have understood them.
I grew up in the Baptist church, I know their teachings and doctrines. I also know that God is doing something among many Baptist churches around where I live and they are beginning to realise that there is much more the scriptures than what they’ve been traditionally taught.
Our Father is opening hearts to His love and truth evreywhere. We heard a person who has been teaching a long time (40+yrs.) say that while they were partaking of a live stream message out of Oklahoma that the light came on that the Father communicates through more than just english. This is a well traveled, mission oriented person who would say yes God has spoken to people in all languages. But, the light had come on that the Father was not be heard and seen only through the western-english culture. It is great, restoration is the Father in this present time writing His instructions in us and drawing us out of the darkness of lies and false religions.
Rodney,
Are you serious? The church is the bride of Christ, ofcourse I refer to her as a “she”. I don’t care for the spirit behind that statement friend.
Scriptures, Chris? Israel (the whole of reunited Israel) is the bride, not the church. Go back and check the Torah, the Prophets, the Psalms, the Wisdom writings and the NT. There are no contradictions here.
As Scot has pointed out on many occassions, Israel is in (and out of) the “church” – not all of the “church” is Israel and therefore the “church” cannot be the bride.
True, the requirements for the Bride is to Believe in the Messiah and to keep the Commandments (Rev.) Who will the guests be?
again…no more scripture because you know it doesn’t hold up…dishonest again.
Scot,
The particle Te means: te, enclitic particle and; and so, so; , both . . . and, not only . . . but also .It is used just as our word and. Your attempt to create a linguistic rule to support your view is troubling. Scot, you are wrong. This would destroy the meaning of the text. Please buy a Greek Grammar. It is not slander it is love.
Acts 15:1 says , Acts 15:1 (NASB95)
1 Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”
These men mentioned above were not saved, they were teaching salvation by faith, the text makes that VERY clear.
Then men who were among the believers and who believed and were themselves saved are mentioned they say in Acts 15:5
Acts 15:5 (NASB95)
5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses.”
Verse 5 makes it clear that these pharisees were saying that the new believers needed to 1.) Be circumcised and 2.) observe the Law of Moses. The Greek text makes it clear that these pharisees were asserting that New Believers must keep the Law, the word for keep is Tereo which means to guard and protect, this is plain in the text.
In the following Verse the apostles reject this understanding of how to walk with God. The apostles in the passage are dealing specifically with the issue of Circumcision and the Law of moses. Their ruling was clear, new believers do NOT have to keep Torah and are only expected to focus upon the things given in the letter. This passage destroys the entire Torah observance paradigm. It is a death blow. the Greek makes it proof positive, the Law is not to be forced upon believers, they live by a different standard under a New Covenant!
Again you teach falsely…
You say “they were unbelievers” and then you quote verse 5 which clearly says:
“But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had BELIEVED stood up, saying”
The particle joins the two PRINCIPLES together by adding what comes AFTER the particle to what comes before it as on principle in keeping with the singular issue\matter as verse 1-2 clearly states. Then they apeal to the law which you say was abolished as requirements as the new babes in Messiah were assimilating into the commonwealth having been “TAKEN OUT” of the nations…”no longer gentiles\heathen.”
Dead argument, the BELIEVING Pharisees were struggling with Rabbinic Tradition…circumcision to become a Jew\saved\part of Judaism. You should study the traditions of Judaism regarding “becoming a Jew (nonsense)” and you would understand and stop looking silly on this blog. You should also investigate more closely the scripture passages before you quote on that destroys your own argument.
I have to agree with the idea that the issue at hand was circumcision and obedience to the law *being necessary to come to salvation* in verse 5…as opposed to the idea of never needing to be circumcised or obey the law *at all* as a believer.
When Peter makes his statement in verse 11 “No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”, the phrase “just as they are” implies to me that the issue specifically dealt with the point of one’s initial conversion/salvation.
Then, when we read further, James states in verse 19 “It is my judgment, therefore that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.” This seems clear to me that the phrase “who are turning to God” is referring to a particular point in time, such as an initial conversion, rather than a new everyday lifestyle because otherwise why would there be a concern for “making it difficult”?
I find it hard to believe that these elders are going to have the final say as to whether or not believers need to obey the law of God…and then the idea that they are going to determine which laws should be kept and which should be ignored…after oodles of centuries of prophecy claiming the need for God’s people to return to Him and obey all of His commands.
Also, why would James tack on the statement in verse 21, “For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.” What does that have anything to do with presenting the idea that only four laws make the cut and everything else is done away with? That statement doesn’t make sense to me if James was truly saying believers don’t have to obey all of the law. Big deal…Moses is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath. Why would that be a concern to new believers…especially to those who have never kept the Sabbath in the first place?
And another thing…why would these four make the cut yet engaging in homosexual acts, witchcraft/divination, and using dishonest scales would no longer be considered unacceptable?
It seems much more reasonable that the issue at hand was making circumcision and obedience to all of the law a “requirement” in order to *initially convert*. Obedience to God’s commands are necessary *after* conversion because they produce fruit in line with repentance. Both John the Baptist and Paul state that.
We need to use logic here. If these four laws were it, then wouldn’t somebody have spoken up about the appointed feasts or the unclean animals? “What? We don’t need to keep the Passover anymore? And we can now eat vultures and bats and still be considered holy?” I think those are pretty big commands that would have deserved a council decision, don’t you?
Scot,
Your argument is the dead one…..it was settled roughly 1900 years ago and that is why the church has adopted the doctrine that it has to this day. This important event forever changed the destiny of the church. No matter how hard you try my friend you cannot re-write history or reinterpret the accounts of Acts. The Judaizers lost the argument and the church believes what she does today as a result. The truth is self evident. Read the Baptist faith and message and it will all make sense
Tell me Chris, where in the Bible can one be circumcised “to be saved”…NOWHERE! The believing Pharisees were struggling with their TRADITION in Judaism – circumcision to be saved. The torah teaches NO SUCH THING. You say they were UNBLEIEVERS and again you lie, having been shown the truth more than once.