God's Sabbath rest is not a weekly seventh day rest

[woobadooba]

Even more clear, no sense in arguing here.

No doubt there comes a point when it's good to walk away from a debate. But keep in mind that if you are speaking the truth and the person you are trying to correct doesn't accept it, it doesn't mean your time is wasted. Other people are reading.

When I post a comment, I don't just think about the person I am responding to but also the people who think like him or her (I can use what I write later if needed), as well as those who may be following the thread, and those who might stumble upon it in the future. My response is for them. They will be the ones to read and judge who is speaking the truth or not.

Your response may not be helpful to the specific person you are writing to, but it can be helpful to others, providing you are speaking the truth.

 

[Kenny'sID]

No doubt there comes a point when it's good to walk away from a debate. But keep in mind that if you are speaking the truth and the person you are trying to correct doesn't accept it, it doesn't mean your time is wasted. Other people are reading.

When I post a comment, I don't just think about the person I am responding to but also the people who think like him or her (I can use what I write later if needed), as well as those who may be following the thread, and those who might stumble upon it in the future. My response is for them. They will be the ones to read and judge who is speaking the truth or not.

Your response may not be helpful to the specific person you are writing to, but it can be helpful to others, providing you are speaking the truth.

I agree, but walking away at the appropriate time also speaks to the reader.

I will often stick around an push my point relentlessly for the very reason you mention but for some reason, on this one, the OP has shut down completely, calling everything an opinion, and if we show him verses, it'll then just be, "that's your opinion on what the verse means." Even if the scripture is crystal clear like some introduced here already.

So my message to any audience would be, when someone shuts down like this they simply don't want to hear the truth, and if shutting the opposing views out is how they defend their point, they must not have much of a point.

It's a kin to sticking ones fingers in their ears and yelling out a song when you try to talk to them.

I even told the OP he my have a good point in general but he's handling it badly, still, he's not hearing disagreement from anyone, about anything.

 

[woobadooba]

I agree, but walking away at the appropriate time also speaks to the reader.

I will often stick around an push my point relentlessly for the very reason you mention but for some reason, on this one, the OP has shut down completely, calling everything an opinion, and if we show him verses, it'll then just be, "that's your opinion on what the verse means." Even if the scripture is crystal clear like some introduced here already.

So my message to any audience would be, when someone shuts down like this they simply don't want to hear the truth, and if shutting the opposing views out is how they defend their point, they must not have much of a point.

It's a kin to sticking ones fingers in their ears and yelling out a song when you try to talk to them.

I even told the OP he my have a good point in general but he's handling it badly, still, he's not hearing disagreement from anyone, about anything.

I understand. But like I said, I can use what I post later. I keep a file of my responses to certain verses that are often taken out of context. Whether I agree or disagree with the response I get, it is still helpful. For I can go back and take a closer look at what I have written and see if I need to make my argument stronger or throw it out altogether. It may be that I am wrong about something, and need to change my perspective. We need to be open to correction.

I think that as long as people have a good attitude, discussions like this can be helpful to all. For we can learn from one another, and possibly even become friends. But that's not going to happen if people start throwing insults at each other.

If we approach the discussion with the intent to prove the other guy wrong, then we won't learn anything. But if we are humble and open to correction, we might just see that the guy whom we think is in error is the one whom God is using to try to get through to us.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I keep a file of my responses to certain verses that are often taken out of context.

Good idea. I've considered doing the same but haven't as of yet, nothing to speak of anyway.

 

[bugkiller]

Buggy is talking about the 4rh commandment in Exodus 20:8-11 and you can't find the word wherefore. What version of the Bible are you using? I'm pretty sure Buggy uses the KJV. Buggy said the word is ki translated wherefore, literally for. This (ki) is original language. Buggy also posted the definition of the word ki for support. Buggy discussed English usage of the KJV. How much more clear can he be?Calvinism doesn't teach your view. Maybe you're claiming calvinism while participating in another religious system. My bet is if your were posting calvinist beliefs Buggy would have no problem with you.

I agree that calvinism does not teach what is being posted.

And thinks for actually reading my post and responding about the contents.

bugkiller

 

[fromtheearth]

I do agree there is much we can learn from the Jewish Sabbaths. There is much spiritual meaning behind them, and we do still benefit from their spiritual meaning.

But we do not have to observe the Jewish Sabbaths to obtain their spiritual meaning. We can obtain their spiritual meaning and apply them without observing the Jewish Sabbaths. The same is true of Jewish circumcision and Jewish animal sacrifice.

I don't think many farmers would survive today if they allowed their land to rest for a whole year every seven years.

Actually, an interesting thought I had some time ago, relevant to this, was after hearing about the "Haber-Bosch Process" which allows nitrogen to be produced from the air and turned into things like fertiliser. Without this process, farmers would not be able to continually grow crops without replacing the nitrogen that is taken from crops.

I wondered whether the 7th year resting of the land was intended to allow the nitrogen to regenerate?

 

[woobadooba]

It is true that Paul is not against Sabbath keeping, but he is certainly against Sabbath-day observance being binding on Christians. Paul made it clear that observing days is not a standard by which a Christian is to be judged:

Who are you to judge another's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. -- (Romans 14:4-6).

We can choose to observe the Sabbath day to the Lord, or we can choose not to observe the Sabbath day to the Lord. We will still continue to be accepted by God either way, because God is able to make us stand.

The context doesn't appear to support your conclusion. I don't see any reference to the Sabbath in Romans 14:4-6.

And you have left an important detail out of verse 6, which appears to tell us what Paul was really talking about. Here is the reference in its entirety:

Romans 14:4-6 (NKJV) "Who are you to judge another's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand. 5: One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. 6: He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks."

Paul appears to be talking about designated days for fasting. It seems some were judging others who did not fast on certain days. What I see Paul saying is it is up to the individual to decide which day he or she wants to designate for fasting.

Can you prove from the context that Paul was saying God no longer requires believers to keep the Sabbath day holy?

And how could every day be alike within the context of a sabbath day when God only sanctified the seventh day (Gen. 2:2-3)?

What right do we have to take the day God set apart as holy and say it makes no difference now? I don't see Paul saying that.

 

[Steve Petersen]

There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own works, just as God did from His. - Hebrews 4:9-10

The Sabbath rest for the people of God is a permanent, unceasing rest from the physical works of our human nature, just as God’s Sabbath rest is a permanent, unceasing rest from the physical works of His creation.

Why did the author use the future tense then when he referred to that rest? 'There remains a rest...'
meaning it still isn't here.

From Myer's NT Commentary on Hebrews 4:9:

Hebrews 4:9. Deduction from Hebrews 4:7-8, and consequently return to the first half of Hebrews 4:6. “Thus still remaining, still awaiting its advent, is a Sabbath rest for the people of God,” inasmuch, namely,—what the author in reasoning with the Hebrews might presuppose as admitted,—as from David’s time down to the present no one had entered into the κατάπαυσις of God. As Sabbatic rest the author characterizes the rest of God, in adherence to the thought of Hebrews 4:4. As a type of the everlasting blessedness do the Rabbins also regard the Sabbath. Comp. e.g. Jalkut Rubeni, fol. 95. 4 : Dixerunt Israëlitae: Domine totius mundi, ostende nobis exemplar mundi futuri. Respondit ipsis Deus S. B.: illud exemplar est sabbatum. R. D. Kimchi et R. Salomo in Psalms 92.: Psalmus cantici in diem Sabbati, quod hic psalmus pertineat ad seculum futurum, quod totum sabbatum est et quies ad vitam aeternam. See Wetstein and Schöttgen ad loc.​

 

[bugkiller]

A Warning Against Traditions of Men

Colossians 2:16-17 (KJV) "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.”

The word, “therefore,” tells us we need to pay attention to the verses that come before it to understand the intent of Paul’s words in Col. 2:16-17. I encourage anyone reading this post to read the entire chapter before moving on.

So what do you want us to pay attention to? I read in v 14

Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

What ordinances that were against us do you want to talk about? Ordinances are laws. Paul focus is on what we call ceremonial ordinances in v 16. All of those things are the very issues the Apostles considered in Acts 15 and said no to.

Having said that, Paul’s argument wasn’t against keeping a commandment of God, but rather a warning against falling victim to a legalistic system "according to the tradition of men” (Col. 2:8). It was a salvation by works theology that Paul was objecting to, not the binding nature of the fourth commandment.

Keeping the law is legalism no matter how it is sliced. If you want to say you keep the law because you love God and want to please Him, what happens if you do not keep the law? Would you not be found guilty? What happens tot he guilty? I think they are condemned and receive punishment. If we are delivered from the condemnation of the law as some say, what power does the law have?

Condemn and condemned both are defined as:

sentence (someone) to a particular punishment, especially death.

condemnation is defined as:

the action of condemning someone to a punishment; sentencing.

24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. Jn 5

8 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. Rom

18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. Gal 5

If you are under something, you are obligated to its weight/force whatever that might be. What would be the weight (force/obligation/result) of the law?

Instead of looking to Jesus as the only way to salvation (John 14:6), advocates of this false gospel relied heavily on human effort to secure a place in heaven. What Jesus accomplished on the cross wasn’t good enough for them, they had to add something more to that sacrifice, as if to give the impression God needed an extra pair of hands to save the elect.

I am having problems with what you are calling a false Gospel. Is it the keeping of the law, ordinances of Col 2? or is it Jn 14:6? From your wording I think you are trying to play a switch-a-roo. For me that means switching from law to grace.

The Colossians were warned not to let such people judge them in this way, for their thoughts weren’t right with God. When the righteousness of Christ should have been the focal point of their faith, their eyes were locked on a list of rules and regulations.

I’m reminded of something Jesus said to the Pharisees: John 5:39 (NKJV) “You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.”

Sabbaths

Regarding the word, “Sabbath” (v. 17), it appears in some translations like so. However, the underlying Greek is “sabbaton,” which can be singular or plural depending on the context. Here, it is plural. This can be seen even in the NIV, which makes use of the indefinite article, “a Sabbath day”.

The NKJV has a more accurate rendering, “sabbaths”.

I am not convinced that verse 17 is inclusive of the fourth commandment. For I see no place in Scripture where the seventh day Sabbath is called a “shadow”. Moreover, Paul was speaking out against traditions of men (v.8), not commandments of God. The Sabbath is not the byproduct of a man made tradition, but was made by God (Gen. 2:2-3). Therefore, it doesn’t seem likely Paul was referring to the fourth commandment here.

I do not see how when v 16 and 17 are the same sentence. V 17 has to include holy day (the sabbath). You then go back to Gen 2 for support of the sabbath. The word sabbath does not appear in the chapter or even the book of Genesis. Yet the same order of (holy) days appears in Lev 23 and Col 2.

Nevertheless, I am open to the possibility that “sabbaton” is inclusive of the Sabbath here. But it will take some strong evidence to persuade me to accept this. For the context referring to traditions of men doesn’t seem to support this conclusion.

Col 2:16 is a list. These same problems were addressed in acts 15 by the Apostles, who all said no to the law for the (gentile) believer. Then the issue becomes a gentile believer becomes part of Israel and obligated to the covenant issued at Sinai. There is no passage in Scripture supporting that idea. I will be happy to take on your idea of sabbath observance and what you actually do.

But even if it is inclusive of the fourth commandment, that doesn’t mean Paul is suggesting that God no longer requires us to keep the command. I don’t see Paul saying that the Sabbath has been done away with or changed. What I see him saying to the Colossians is that it’s our faith in Jesus that leads to salvation, not the traditions of men.

Acts 15 really says it all. Paul was at the heart and center of the debate issues.

Another Matter

But now there’s another matter that needs to be discussed, which puts a twist on things.

Paul warned the Colossians not to let others judge them according to the tradition of men. But what about judgement according to the Spirit?

What specific tradition of men are you aiming at? Is your post not a discussion and argument for keeping the sabbath?

John 16:8 (NKJV) “And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment”

The Bible is clear that God expects us to keep His commandments.

What are these commandments? You claim its the famous 10 Cs. Jesus says no in Jn 15:10. Jesus kept the 10 Cs as He stated. Those have to be the commandments of His Father which Jesus did not require. John also says -

23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. I Jn 3

1 John 2:4 (NKJV) “He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.”

You have the pronouns misaligned or improperly assigned. I had this problem for years.

Furthermore, we are instructed to test the spirits.

1 John 4:1 (NKJV) “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.”

I beg every one here to do exactly that.

So if God’s word tells us that we must keep His commandments, and someone who claims to be His messenger says we don’t have to keep God’s commandments, then according to the Bible, that man is a liar. Was it a tradition of man that exposed him as a liar or did we arrive at that conclusion because the Scriptures opened our eyes to the truth?

The Scripture and especially the Gospel of john disagree with your position. Your above statement clearly intends to place all under the law issued at Sinai fully denying the NC.

It’s not our judgment that exposed the lie, but God’s word that made it known to us.

Yeppers!!!!!!

Having said that, if keeping the Sabbath day holy is required, and I go out and tell others to keep the command, but some pastor comes along and says, "Paul said it doesn’t matter anymore.” then who is the liar? The liar is the person who twists the Scriptures in order to support a tradition of men.

You just said Paul is a liar right along with the Apostles. Acts 15.

It's not I who judges the man, but God's word which judges him, exposing him as a liar.

That person is no better than those whom Paul warned the Colossians of.

Yeppers!!!!!!

bugkiller

 

[woobadooba]

What I Said in Post #45

Having said that, if keeping the Sabbath day holy is required, and I go out and tell others to keep the command, but some pastor comes along and says, "Paul said it doesn’t matter anymore.” then who is the liar? The liar is the person who twists the Scriptures in order to support a tradition of men.

Your Response

You just said Paul is a liar right along with the Apostles. Acts 15.

I said no such thing about Paul or the Apostles.

Comments like yours are inappropriate, and counterproductive to learning. Moreover, your false accusation against me is highly offensive. You need to be more respectful when addressing the thoughts of others. Anymore remarks like this will result in me ignoring you.

There is a better way to communicate, and you need to seek advice on how to be a better communicator.

 

[Bob S]

The reason for giving Israel the Sabbath was for them to remember what God had done for them. It was to be one of the laws governing them while living in the land of Canaan. All of Torah was given as the way God wanted them to live. You live under the laws of your state, I live under Tennessee law and Israel lived under Torah. Torah was not given for salvation, Your state laws will not save you and if you come to Tennessee and bring your state laws with you and practice them it would be futile. Likewise, bringing Torah (old covenant) to the new covenant is futile. The laws in the new covenant are for salvation. The laws in the old covenant were for the way God wanted the Israelites to live so that they could be a Holy Nation. Ex 19:5 5 Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, 6 you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.”

As you can plainly see the Sabbath had nothing to do with eternal life. In fact all of the ritual laws found in Torah had nothing to do with eternal life. Any laws dealing with morality are forever.

I pray this helps someone realize the real truth as found in the Holy Writ.

 

[listed]

Actually, an interesting thought I had some time ago, relevant to this, was after hearing about the "Haber-Bosch Process" which allows nitrogen to be produced from the air and turned into things like fertiliser. Without this process, farmers would not be able to continually grow crops without replacing the nitrogen that is taken from crops.

I wondered whether the 7th year resting of the land was intended to allow the nitrogen to regenerate?

Interesting how a thread gets derailed. The "Haber-Bosch Process" only allows a cheaper solution and produces empty worthless food. Nitrogen is put in the soil when it rains. Organic matter puts nitrogen in the soil.

 

[listed]

The context doesn't appear to support your conclusion. I don't see any reference to the Sabbath in Romans 14:4-6.

And you have left an important detail out of verse 6, which appears to tell us what Paul was really talking about. Here is the reference in its entirety:

Romans 14:4-6 (NKJV) "Who are you to judge another's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand. 5: One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. 6: He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks."

Paul appears to be talking about designated days for fasting. It seems some were judging others who did not fast on certain days. What I see Paul saying is it is up to the individual to decide which day he or she wants to designate for fasting.

Can you prove from the context that Paul was saying God no longer requires believers to keep the Sabbath day holy?

And how could every day be alike within the context of a sabbath day when God only sanctified the seventh day (Gen. 2:2-3)?

What right do we have to take the day God set apart as holy and say it makes no difference now? I don't see Paul saying that.

Upon reading the entire post, I've some questions.

The context should include the entire book of Romans. Paul says even the Jew is delivered from the law in 7:6 meaning the entire law. So how could one day not include the 7th day or the sabbath day in your quoted passage? Isn't Paul battling the Judaizer just as he did in Acts 15? The whole book of Romans is against the law for the Christian.

I don't understand from your post what detail was left out. Would you please say this detail ...... was left out?

It is OK with me if you want to say a particular day isn't addressed. But then you can't say another day is stressed without it being named. Granted it is possible fasting days are also an issue. That clearly points to legalism and traditions of men. The sabbath has no significance to others besides Israel in Scripture. Some gentiles here wrongly claim obligation to the 7th day sabbath given to Israel as a sign of the covenant as mentioned in Exodus 31.

Romans 14 is addressing the very same issue as Colossians 2.

 

[listed]

Why did the author use the future tense then when he referred to that rest? 'There remains a rest...'
meaning it still isn't here.

From Myer's NT Commentary on Hebrews 4:9:

Hebrews 4:9. Deduction from Hebrews 4:7-8, and consequently return to the first half of Hebrews 4:6. “Thus still remaining, still awaiting its advent, is a Sabbath rest for the people of God,” inasmuch, namely,—what the author in reasoning with the Hebrews might presuppose as admitted,—as from David’s time down to the present no one had entered into the κατάπαυσις of God. As Sabbatic rest the author characterizes the rest of God, in adherence to the thought of Hebrews 4:4. As a type of the everlasting blessedness do the Rabbins also regard the Sabbath. Comp. e.g. Jalkut Rubeni, fol. 95. 4 : Dixerunt Israëlitae: Domine totius mundi, ostende nobis exemplar mundi futuri. Respondit ipsis Deus S. B.: illud exemplar est sabbatum. R. D. Kimchi et R. Salomo in Psalms 92.: Psalmus cantici in diem Sabbati, quod hic psalmus pertineat ad seculum futurum, quod totum sabbatum est et quies ad vitam aeternam. See Wetstein and Schöttgen ad loc.​

Where do you get your bolded quote from?

 

[listed]

What I Said in Post #45

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...seventh-day-rest.8016620/page-3#post-71491330
Having said that, if keeping the Sabbath day holy is required, and I go out and tell others to keep the command, but some pastor comes along and says, "Paul said it doesn’t matter anymore.” then who is the liar? The liar is the person who twists the Scriptures in order to support a tradition of men.

Your Response

I said no such thing about Paul or the Apostles.

Comments like yours are inappropriate, and counterproductive to learning. Moreover, your false accusation against me is highly offensive. You need to be more respectful when addressing the thoughts of others. Anymore remarks like this will result in me ignoring you.

There is a better way to communicate, and you need to seek advice on how to be a better communicator.

I think you really need to consider what you said in post 45 as quoted above. You really need to think about Romans 14 and what it actually says. Your intent is that Paul says keeping the sabbath is important. Just isn't true.

Relying on exact words. You post implied what you claim to not have said so well only the ignorant could miss it. Buggy is talking about the contents of your post and Scripture. He isn't making a false accusation against you.

 

[listed]

Actually, He did.
God commanded Israel only to observe the seventh-day rest, but God commanded all people everywhere to find true rest in Christ:

“Come to Me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest…and you will find rest for your souls.” -- (Matthew 11:28-29).
Yes, Christ died to bring true rest to the entire world, a rest which the Israelites rejected.

I'm sorry but I missed something in your post and don't understand it. I said God didn't command the whole word in Ex 20.

I think we're on the same page.

 

[listed]

You've been refuted several times by myself and others. We've all seen it happen before, and when people refuse to see what's right in front of them, there isn't much sense in trying to force them.



Of course I do, and it's included in the post you are replying to...what an odd question.

Best to read the full post before you reply.

Why? If a post states a wrong premise wouldn't anything that follows also be wrong?

 

[Steve Petersen]

Where do you get your bolded quote from?

Hebrews 4:9 Commentaries: So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God.

Thayer's Greek: 620. ἀπολείπω (apoleipó) -- 1. to leave, leave behind: one in some place, [URL='http://biblehub.com/interlinear/titus/1-5.htm']Titus 1:5 L T Tr WH; 2 Timothy 4:18, 20. Passive ἀπολείπεται it remains, is reserved: Hebrews 4:9; Hebrews 10:26; followed by the accusative and an infinitive, Hebrews 4:6.[/URL]

 

[listed]

No doubt there comes a point when it's good to walk away from a debate. But keep in mind that if you are speaking the truth and the person you are trying to correct doesn't accept it, it doesn't mean your time is wasted. Other people are reading.

When I post a comment, I don't just think about the person I am responding to but also the people who think like him or her (I can use what I write later if needed), as well as those who may be following the thread, and those who might stumble upon it in the future. My response is for them. They will be the ones to read and judge who is speaking the truth or not.

Your response may not be helpful to the specific person you are writing to, but it can be helpful to others, providing you are speaking the truth.

I think there's some truth there. It does seem at times each of ys here are trying to convert the other. That's why we have people here posting about being personally attacked.

 

[listed]

I agree, but walking away at the appropriate time also speaks to the reader.

I will often stick around an push my point relentlessly for the very reason you mention but for some reason, on this one, the OP has shut down completely, calling everything an opinion, and if we show him verses, it'll then just be, "that's your opinion on what the verse means." Even if the scripture is crystal clear like some introduced here already.

So my message to any audience would be, when someone shuts down like this they simply don't want to hear the truth, and if shutting the opposing views out is how they defend their point, they must not have much of a point.

It's a kin to sticking ones fingers in their ears and yelling out a song when you try to talk to them.

I even told the OP he my have a good point in general but he's handling it badly, still, he's not hearing disagreement from anyone, about anything.

How long does it take to understand some here have no desire to learn and only try an force others to take their opinion. It's very clear to me the OP isn't open to discussion or the fact they could be wrong.