Jesus claimed He came to fulfill the Law, Did He?

[Leaf473]

Brother, there are two announcements in the message of Hebrews 3 and 4 about God's "rest" on the seventh day of creation. First, why didn't they enter His "rest" during the 40 years that they kept the seventh day of the week with Manna from morning to morning near the Promised Land?

I think Hebrews 3 says they didn't enter God's rest because of unbelief, and Hebrews 4 says because of disobedience.

Does that answer your question?

 

[guevaraj]

I think Hebrews 3 says they didn't enter God's rest because of unbelief, and Hebrews 4 says because of disobedience. Does that answer your question?

Brother, happy Sabbath! It was unbelief and disobedience that angered God! In His anger, He made an "oath": "They will never enter my place of rest," this He achieved with Manna. With Manna, He gave them a seventh day Sabbath which was right in Eden, but not near the Promised Land, where the Sabbath falls from evening to evening and not from morning to morning. Those who died in the desert for 40 years could not enter His "rest" because they kept the wrong Sabbath near the Promised Land. The Sabbath in the Promised Land falls between two days of the week from evening to evening and is not a day of the week established in Genesis from morning to morning because God taught them to remember the Sabbath in the Eden time zone. Judaism since Joshua wrongly assumed that the Sabbath in the Promised Land is the seventh day of the week because they did not benefit from the lesson that God taught them with Manna during 40 years in the desert.

God’s promise of entering his rest still stands, so we ought to tremble with fear that some of you might fail to experience it. For this good news—that God has prepared this rest—has been announced to us just as it was to them. But it did them no good because they didn’t share the faith of those who listened to God. For only we who believe can enter his rest. As for the others, God said, “In my anger I took an oath: ‘They will never enter my place of rest,’” even though this rest has been ready since he made the world. We know it is ready because of the place in the Scriptures where it mentions the seventh day: “On the seventh day God rested from all his work.” But in the other passage God said, “They will never enter my place of rest.” (Hebrews 4:1-5 NLT)​

United in our hope for the soon return of Jesus, Jorge

 

[Leaf473]

In His anger, He made an "oath": "They will never enter my place of rest," this He achieved with Manna.

Well, I see that differently. Not entering the place of rest for the Israelites in the wilderness meant not getting into Canaan. They died in the wilderness.

 

[guevaraj]

Well, I see that differently. Not entering the place of rest for the Israelites in the wilderness meant not getting into Canaan. They died in the wilderness.

Brother, there is no need to speculate what God meant by the word "rest" because the passage in Hebrews 3 and 4 identifies the word "rest" as a reference to the time that God rested from His work after creating the world on the seventh day of the week of creation. The word "rest" refers to the Sabbath on which they entered in the Promised Land, but not during the 40 years in the desert. In both places they kept a Sabbath, but those two Sabbaths were different. The Sabbath with Manna for 40 years in the desert did not enter God's "rest" as did the Sabbath in the Promised Land since Joshua because they were different Sabbaths: one was from morning to morning and the other from evening to evening.

God’s promise of entering his rest still stands, so we ought to tremble with fear that some of you might fail to experience it. For this good news—that God has prepared this rest—has been announced to us just as it was to them. But it did them no good because they didn’t share the faith of those who listened to God. For only we who believe can enter his rest. As for the others, God said, “In my anger I took an oath: ‘They will never enter my place of rest,’” even though this rest has been ready since he made the world. We know it is ready because of the place in the Scriptures where it mentions the seventh day: “On the seventh day God rested from all his work.” But in the other passage God said, “They will never enter my place of rest.” (Hebrews 4:1-5 NLT)​

United in our hope for the soon return of Jesus, Jorge

 

[Leaf473]

Brother, there is no need to speculate what God meant by the word "rest" because the passage in Hebrews 3 and 4 identifies the word "rest" as a reference to the time that God rested from His work after creating the world on the seventh day of the week of creation. The word "rest" refers to the Sabbath on which they entered in the Promised Land, but not during the 40 years in the desert. In both places they kept a Sabbath, but those two Sabbaths were different. The Sabbath with Manna for 40 years in the desert did not enter God's "rest" as did the Sabbath in the Promised Land since Joshua because they were different Sabbaths: one was from morning to morning and the other from evening to evening.

God’s promise of entering his rest still stands, so we ought to tremble with fear that some of you might fail to experience it. For this good news—that God has prepared this rest—has been announced to us just as it was to them. But it did them no good because they didn’t share the faith of those who listened to God. For only we who believe can enter his rest. As for the others, God said, “In my anger I took an oath: ‘They will never enter my place of rest,’” even though this rest has been ready since he made the world. We know it is ready because of the place in the Scriptures where it mentions the seventh day: “On the seventh day God rested from all his work.” But in the other passage God said, “They will never enter my place of rest.” (Hebrews 4:1-5 NLT)​

United in our hope for the soon return of Jesus, Jorge

I agree that Hebrews references God's rest on the 7th Day in Genesis. I think that's a great example of how ancient writers often take multiple ideas from different places and mix them together.

But I think the oath that God takes is the one here:
Numbers 14
20 The Lord said, “I have pardoned according to your word; 21 but in very deed—as I live, and as all the earth shall be filled with my glory— 22 because all those men who have seen my glory and my signs, which I worked in Egypt and in the wilderness, yet have tempted me these ten times, and have not listened to my voice; 23 surely they shall not see the land which I swore to their fathers, neither shall any of those who despised me see it.

So, to bring it around to the thread topic,
we obtain that rest,
we enter into God's promised land,
when we accept that Jesus fulfilled the entire law when he came.

 

[guevaraj]

I agree that Hebrews references God's rest on the 7th Day in Genesis. I think that's a great example of how ancient writers often take multiple ideas from different places and mix them together.

Brother, happy Sabbath! God is not mixing ideas, you have to contradict what the passage says the word "rest" means to speculate a different meaning for the word "rest" than what God says it means in the passage.

But I think the oath that God takes is the one here: Numbers 14:20 The Lord said, “I have pardoned according to your word; 21 but in very deed—as I live, and as all the earth shall be filled with my glory— 22 because all those men who have seen my glory and my signs, which I worked in Egypt and in the wilderness, yet have tempted me these ten times, and have not listened to my voice; 23 surely they shall not see the land which I swore to their fathers, neither shall any of those who despised me see it.

That is a different oath than Hebrews 3 and 4. To link these two oaths you must contradict what God says the word "rest" means in Hebrews 3 and 4. You are speculating a link between these two different oath that contradicts what God says the word "rest" means in Hebrews 3 and 4.

So, to bring it around to the thread topic,
we obtain that rest, we enter into God's promised land, when we accept that Jesus fulfilled the entire law when he came.

Now you have returned to a bad translation abusing the "simple past" to say something that Jesus never said in the original. Jesus used the unambiguous aorist in the original language that does not have the same form of the verb as the past tense like the "simple past" in English. The original does not say that completed was Jesus' work in the past as the English translation seems to say because the "simple past" has the same verb form as the past tense. United in our hope for the soon return of Jesus, Jorge

 

[Leaf473]

Brother, happy Sabbath!

Thanks! And happy Advent, my Brother!

God is not mixing ideas, you have to contradict what the passage says the word "rest" means to speculate a different meaning for the word "rest" than what God says it means in the passage.

That is a different oath than Hebrews 3 and 4. To link these two oaths you must contradict what God says the word "rest" means in Hebrews 3 and 4. You are speculating a link between these two different oath that contradicts what God says the word "rest" means in Hebrews 3 and 4.

I disagree. What is the oath that God swears that Psalm 95 is referring to? Does God take an oath at Meribah? Maybe he does. I couldn't find it. If you are aware of it, please give the reference.

Now you have returned to a bad translation abusing the "simple past" to say something that Jesus never said in the original. Jesus used the unambiguous aorist in the original language that does not have the same form of the verb as the past tense like the "simple past" in English. The original does not say that completed was Jesus' work in the past as the English translation seems to say because the "simple past" has the same verb form as the past tense. United in our hope for the soon return of Jesus, Jorge

It is not a bad translation. The aorist tense may refer to a single completed act in the past, though it is not limited to that.

 

[guevaraj]

I disagree. What is the oath that God swears that Psalm 95 is referring to? Does God take an oath at Meribah? Maybe he does. I couldn't find it. If you are aware of it, please give the reference.

Brother, we have the task to understand God's message in His way and not in our way. You want Him to give where He took the oath, when He doesn't have to because He has given enough information to understand Hebrews 3 and 4 without giving you what you asked for. The clarification is not found in asking where or when He took the oath, but understanding that saying that it is the other mentioned oath contradicts what He says that the word "rest" means in Hebrews 3 and 4 and therefore cannot be the oath which you think it is.

It is not a bad translation. The aorist tense may refer to a single completed act in the past, though it is not limited to that.

You contradict the definition! The Aorist is well-defined, there is no ambiguity. The use of the Aorist is to say that the action began in the past and nothing about when it ends. Here is the official definition!

Definition of aorist: an inflectional form of a verb typically denoting simple occurrence of an action without reference to its completeness, duration, or repetition. (Merriam-Webster)​

The ending is not important when using the Aorist tense. Also in English, when you use the "simple past", the end of the action is not important. If I say that "I raised four children", using the "simple past" in English, I am saying that the raising began in the past, but nothing about when it ended. I am still raising these children and that does not matter when I use the "simple past". In English it is not clear that I am not saying anything about the end of the action as it is with the Aorist. Therefore, an Aorist will never tell you that the action ended in the past. That is why it is better to translate Matthew 5:17 as "have come to fulfill" and not the ambiguous tense in English of the "simple past". Although it is technically correct to use the "simple past" in English, it seems to say something about the end of the action that is not present in the original.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17-20 NIV)​

United in our hope for the soon return of Jesus, Jorge

 

[Leaf473]

Brother, we have the task to understand God's message in His way and not in our way. You want Him to give where He took the oath, when He doesn't have to because He has given enough information to understand Hebrews 3 and 4 without giving you what you asked for.

I think the information is there in Numbers 14. God says they "have tempted me these ten times."

Was one of those times Meribah? That's what's mentioned in Psalm 95, so it all fits imo.

The original readers of Hebrews would have had that in their minds when they saw Psalm 95 referenced as well as God's oath in Numbers 14.

The clarification is not found in asking where or when He took the oath, but understanding that saying that it is the other mentioned oath contradicts what He says that the word "rest" means in Hebrews 3 and 4 and therefore cannot be the oath which you think it is.

We definitely see it definitely, don't we?

You contradict the definition! The Aorist is well-defined, there is no ambiguity. The use of the Aorist is to say that the action began in the past and nothing about when it ends. Here is the official definition!

Definition of aorist: an inflectional form of a verb typically denoting simple occurrence of an action without reference to its completeness, duration, or repetition. (Merriam-Webster)

The ending is not important when using the Aorist tense. Also in English, when you use the "simple past", the end of the action is not important. If I say that "I raised four children", using the "simple past" in English, I am saying that the raising began in the past, but nothing about when it ended. I am still raising these children and that does not matter when I use the "simple past". In English it is not clear that I am not saying anything about the end of the action as it is with the Aorist. Therefore, an Aorist will never tell you that the action ended in the past. That is why it is better to translate Matthew 5:17 as "have come to fulfill" and not the ambiguous tense in English of the "simple past". Although it is technically correct to use the "simple past" in English, it seems to say something about the end of the action that is not present in the original.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17-20 NIV)

United in our hope for the soon return of Jesus, Jorge

I believe Matthew 21:1 uses the same verb form. Does it mean that Jesus came to Bethsphage many times in that story?

No, it was a single action. It was completed in the past.

 

[guevaraj]

I think the information is there in Numbers 14. God says they "have tempted me these ten times." Was one of those times Meribah? That's what's mentioned in Psalm 95, so it all fits imo. The original readers of Hebrews would have had that in their minds when they saw Psalm 95 referenced as well as God's oath in Numbers 14.

Brother, you must read the word of God carefully and not assume that your first thought on an issue is right, especially when it contradicts the context of what God says the word "rest" means in Hebrews 3 and 4.

“My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts,” says the LORD. “And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine. For just as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts. (Isaiah 55:8-9 NLT)​

I believe Matthew 21:1 uses the same verb form. Does it mean that Jesus came to Bethsphage many times in that story? No, it was a single action. It was completed in the past.

Brother, the passage gives us an orderly narrative of when these events began, but nothing about when completed were they, except that we know that they were all completed before Jesus entered Jerusalem on a donkey. We know that such journeys on foot can take days and it seems that they first approached Bethphage before reaching Jerusalem, giving a different order of completion than the beginning order provided. The approach to Jerusalem did not end before reaching the town of Bethphage, nor did the approach to Bethphage end before sending two of them ahead. The focus is on when these events started and not when they ended.

As Jesus and the disciples approached (aorist) Jerusalem, they came (aorist) to the town of Bethphage on the Mount of Olives. Jesus sent (aorist) two of them on ahead. “Go into the village over there,” he said. “As soon as you enter it, you will see a donkey tied there, with its colt beside it. Untie them and bring them to me. If anyone asks what you are doing, just say, ‘The Lord needs them,’ and he will immediately let you take them.” (Matthew 21:1-3 NLT)​

United in our hope for the soon return of Jesus, Jorge

 

[Leaf473]

Brother, you must read the word of God carefully and not assume that your first thought on an issue is right, especially when it contradicts the context of what God says the word "rest" means in Hebrews 3 and 4.

“My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts,” says the LORD. “And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine. For just as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts. (Isaiah 55:8-9 NLT)

I don't think it contradicts the context of Hebrews 3 and 4. It actually provides the context imo.

Hebrews 3:17 With whom was he displeased forty years? Wasn’t it with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness?

They died in the wilderness. That's part of the oath, isn't it?

Brother, the passage gives us an orderly narrative of when these events began, but nothing about when completed were they, except that we know that they were all completed before Jesus entered Jerusalem on a donkey. We know that such journeys on foot can take days and it seems that they first approached Bethphage before reaching Jerusalem, giving a different order of completion than the beginning order provided. The approach to Jerusalem did not end before reaching the town of Bethphage, nor did the approach to Bethphage end before sending two of them ahead. The focus is on when these events started and not when they ended.

As Jesus and the disciples approached (aorist) Jerusalem, they came (aorist) to the town of Bethphage on the Mount of Olives. Jesus sent (aorist) two of them on ahead. “Go into the village over there,” he said. “As soon as you enter it, you will see a donkey tied there, with its colt beside it. Untie them and bring them to me. If anyone asks what you are doing, just say, ‘The Lord needs them,’ and he will immediately let you take them.” (Matthew 21:1-3 NLT)

United in our hope for the soon return of Jesus, Jorge

I agree that the trip may have taken several days, but it was a single action.

How about Mark 6
Immediately the king sent out a soldier of his guard, and commanded to bring John’s head, and he went and beheaded him in the prison, 28 and brought his head on a platter, and gave it to the young lady; and the young lady gave it to her mother.

29 When his disciples heard this, they came and took up his corpse, and laid it in a tomb.

Do you take this to mean the disciples went several times to get the headless body? And picked it up several times? And laid it in a tomb several times?

 

[guevaraj]

I don't think it contradicts the context of Hebrews 3 and 4. It actually provides the context imo.

Brother, to say that they could not enter God's rest because they died in the desert contradicts the context and what God says the "rest" means: His rest on the seventh day of creation week. God plainly tells us that this "rest" has been ready since He made the world and that for 40 years they failed to experience it because of an oath and not because they died.

God’s promise of entering his rest still stands, so we ought to tremble with fear that some of you might fail to experience it. For this good news—that God has prepared this rest—has been announced to us just as it was to them. But it did them no good because they didn’t share the faith of those who listened to God. For only we who believe can enter his rest. As for the others, God said, “In my anger I took an oath: ‘They will never enter my place of rest,’” even though this rest has been ready since he made the world. We know it is ready because of the place in the Scriptures where it mentions the seventh day: “On the seventh day God rested from all his work.” But in the other passage God said, “They will never enter my place of rest.” (Hebrews 4:1-5 NLT)​

God does not say that He did not give them this "rest" in the Promised Land, but instead says Joshua did not give them this "rest". They did enter God's "rest" in the Promised Land, but Judaism since Joshua wrongly assumed that the Sabbath in the Promised Land is the seventh day of the week, when God says that they did not enter His "rest" while they kept the seventh day of the week with Manna for 40 years in the desert near the Promised Land. God had them keep the wrong Sabbath for 40 years with Manna because of an oath.

Hebrews 3:17 With whom was he displeased forty years? Wasn’t it with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? They died in the wilderness. That's part of the oath, isn't it?

That is part of the other oath, but not all of them died in the desert, yet none of them received God's "rest", although only those who died did not experience it. That means that the "rest" is not future but something that they experienced in the Promised Land that God prevented them from entering those 40 years with Manna. Those who came to the Promised Land entered God's "rest" from evening to evening, which was not the morning to morning Sabbath with Manna they kept for 40 years near the Promised Land because remembered is the Sabbath in the Eden time zone.

So God’s rest is there for people to enter, but those who first heard this good news failed to enter because they disobeyed God. So God set another time for entering his rest, and that time is today. God announced this through David much later in the words already quoted: “Today when you hear his voice, don’t harden your hearts.” Now if Joshua had succeeded in giving them this rest, God would not have spoken about another day of rest still to come. So there is a special rest still waiting for the people of God. For all who have entered into God’s rest have rested from their labors, just as God did after creating the world. So let us do our best to enter that rest. But if we disobey God, as the people of Israel did, we will fall. (Hebrews 4:6-11 NLT)​

United in our hope for the soon return of Jesus, Jorge

 

[Leaf473]

Brother, to say that they could not enter God's rest because they died in the desert contradicts the context and what God says the "rest" means: His rest on the seventh day of creation week. God plainly tells us that this "rest" has been ready since He made the world and that for 40 years they failed to experience it because of an oath and not because they died

They died because of the oath that God gave in Numbers 14. That oath was in part because of the testing that is the context of Numbers 14, Psalms 95, and Hebrews 3 and 4.
The context all fits beautifully.

I agree that God's rest on the seventh day of creation is talked about. Do you believe this constitutes a mentioning of the fourth commandment, which is what I believe the main subject is that we are talking about,
that is, which laws have disappeared and which remain?

If so, I think a clearer mentioning is Acts 1:12
Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mountain called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey away.

 

[guevaraj]

They died because of the oath that God gave in Numbers 14. That oath was in part because of the testing that is the context of Numbers 14, Psalms 95, and Hebrews 3 and 4. The context all fits beautifully.

Brother, the oath in Numbers cannot be the oath in Hebrews 3 and 4 because the leader after Moses who led the people to the Promised Land did not give them this "rest".

Now if Joshua had succeeded in giving them this rest, God would not have spoken about another day of rest still to come. (Hebrews 4:8 NLT)​

I agree that God's rest on the seventh day of creation is talked about.

God's rest on the seventh day of creation is the only meaning that the message of Hebrews 3 and 4 gives to the word "rest", any other meaning is speculation that contradicts what God said the word "rest" means.

Do you believe this constitutes a mentioning of the fourth commandment, which is what I believe the main subject is that we are talking about, that is, which laws have disappeared and which remain? If so, I think a clearer mentioning is Acts 1:12 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mountain called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey away.

The message of Hebrews 3 and 4 mentions the Sabbath independently of the fourth commandment. Even if you mistakenly believe that the commandments are no longer binding, the Sabbath remains because of this message in the new covenant with Jesus as our High Priest.

God’s promise of entering his rest still stands, so we ought to tremble with fear that some of you might fail to experience it. For this good news—that God has prepared this rest—has been announced to us just as it was to them. But it did them no good because they didn’t share the faith of those who listened to God. For only we who believe can enter his rest. As for the others, God said, “In my anger I took an oath: ‘They will never enter my place of rest,’” even though this rest has been ready since he made the world. We know it is ready because of the place in the Scriptures where it mentions the seventh day: “On the seventh day God rested from all his work.” But in the other passage God said, “They will never enter my place of rest.” (Hebrews 4:1-5 NLT)​

United in our hope for the soon return of Jesus, Jorge

 

[Leaf473]

Brother, the oath in Numbers cannot be the oath in Hebrews 3 and 4 because the leader after Moses who led the people to the Promised Land did not give them this "rest".

Now if Joshua had succeeded in giving them this rest, God would not have spoken about another day of rest still to come. (Hebrews 4:8 NLT)​

God's rest on the seventh day of creation is the only meaning that the message of Hebrews 3 and 4 gives to the word "rest", any other meaning is speculation that contradicts what God said the word "rest" means.

The message of Hebrews 3 and 4 mentions the Sabbath independently of the fourth commandment. Even if you mistakenly believe that the commandments are no longer binding, the Sabbath remains because of this message in the new covenant with Jesus as our High Priest.

God’s promise of entering his rest still stands, so we ought to tremble with fear that some of you might fail to experience it. For this good news—that God has prepared this rest—has been announced to us just as it was to them. But it did them no good because they didn’t share the faith of those who listened to God. For only we who believe can enter his rest. As for the others, God said, “In my anger I took an oath: ‘They will never enter my place of rest,’” even though this rest has been ready since he made the world. We know it is ready because of the place in the Scriptures where it mentions the seventh day: “On the seventh day God rested from all his work.” But in the other passage God said, “They will never enter my place of rest.” (Hebrews 4:1-5 NLT)​

United in our hope for the soon return of Jesus, Jorge

Joshua did give them rest.

Joshua 21:44 The Lord gave them rest all around, according to all that he swore to their fathers.

Two possible explanations:
It actually says that God gave them rest, not Joshua.
Or
The rest spoken of in Psalm 95 and Hebrews 3 is of a different order.

*****************

But wait, before we go any further... You're saying that the fourth commandment is not here in Hebrews?

I thought we were discussing which laws have disappeared and which still remain. I thought you were using Hebrews 3 and 4 to show that the fourth commandment still remains.

Are you saying something different?

 

[guevaraj]

Joshua did give them rest. Joshua 21:44 The Lord gave them rest all around, according to all that he swore to their fathers. Two possible explanations: It actually says that God gave them rest, not Joshua. Or The rest spoken of in Psalm 95 and Hebrews 3 is of a different order.

Brother, the "rest" in Hebrews 3 and 4 is not associated with other rests found in other messages. Used is the word "rest" in the message of Hebrews 3 and 4 to refer to the "rest" of God on the seventh day of creation entered in the Promised Land from evening to evening, but not during the 40 years with Manna from morning to morning near the Promised Land. This "rest" is God's Sabbath restored from the incorrect human tradition that the Sabbath is a day of the week when it actually falls between two days of the week in the Promised Land because remembered is the Sabbath in the Eden time zone.

But wait, before we go any further... You're saying that the fourth commandment is not here in Hebrews? I thought we were discussing which laws have disappeared and which still remain. I thought you were using Hebrews 3 and 4 to show that the fourth commandment still remains. Are you saying something different?

I'm saying that regardless of what you think about the commandments, in Hebrews 3 and 4 surely God wants us to keep His true Sabbath rescued from human tradition. United in our hope for the soon return of Jesus, Jorge

 

[Leaf473]

Brother, the "rest" in Hebrews 3 and 4 is not associated with other rests found in other messages. Used is the word "rest" in the message of Hebrews 3 and 4 to refer to the "rest" of God on the seventh day of creation entered in the Promised Land from evening to evening, but not during the 40 years with Manna from morning to morning near the Promised Land. This "rest" is God's Sabbath restored from the incorrect human tradition that the Sabbath is a day of the week when it actually falls between two days of the week in the Promised Land because remembered is the Sabbath in the Eden time zone.

I'm saying that regardless of what you think about the commandments, in Hebrews 3 and 4 surely God wants us to keep His true Sabbath rescued from human tradition. United in our hope for the soon return of Jesus, Jorge

Before we go further...
is the fourth commandment mentioned in Hebrews in your view?

Our discussion of Hebrews has been enlightening to me. However, it is only on topic for the thread if it relates to specific laws that are fulfilled or not fulfilled imo.

 

[guevaraj]

Before we go further...is the fourth commandment mentioned in Hebrews in your view? Our discussion of Hebrews has been enlightening to me. However, it is only on topic for the thread if it relates to specific laws that are fulfilled or not fulfilled imo.

Brother, the law concerning sin is never fulfilled in us until we no longer sin. God manages to separate us from our sin in two ways:

• First He takes away past sins to place them on Satan so that we can rise again like a falling child while learning to walk.
• Second He expects us to grow through His daily forgiveness as our High Priest in the heavenly temple until we stop sinning.

Hebrews 3 and 4 is a call to keep the Sabbath just like the fourth commandment, but asked we are in Hebrews 3 and 4 to keep the Sabbath without mentioning the rest of the commandments. If you believe that replaced are the commandments with something better in the new covenant, it does not affect the Sabbath because repeated is the Sabbath in Hebrews 3 and 4 under the new covenant with Jesus as our High Priest in isolation, separate from the commandments. United in our hope for the soon return of Jesus, Jorge

 

[Leaf473]

Brother, the law concerning sin is never fulfilled in us until we no longer sin.

I thought you had said that some of the laws had achieved their purpose and so had disappeared.

Did I misunderstand you?

 

[guevaraj]

I thought you had said that some of the laws had achieved their purpose and so had disappeared. Did I misunderstand you?

Brother, we would like God to make it easier, either by overriding our will or allowing us to continue to sin, but He offers His repetitive growth cycle of forgiveness in the daily as our High Priest to separate sin from our character. Nothing disappears because what was before better illustrates what comes after, like the repetitive way that God separates sin from our character. Rather than repeatedly offering animals as sacrifices for our sins, we now repeatedly turn to the daily in the heavenly temple of our High Priest in prayer to forgive our past sins and have another chance to rise again as a falling child learning to walk without sin by many attempts that bring the child closer to the goal. It works! I don't repeat the misuse of God's name by quickly turning to God's forgiveness when I hear it from others.

Here is the main point: We have a High Priest who sat down in the place of honor beside the throne of the majestic God in heaven. There he ministers in the heavenly Tabernacle, the true place of worship that was built by the Lord and not by human hands. And since every high priest is required to offer gifts and sacrifices, our High Priest must make an offering, too. If he were here on earth, he would not even be a priest, since there already are priests who offer the gifts required by the law. They serve in a system of worship that is only a copy, a shadow of the real one in heaven. For when Moses was getting ready to build the Tabernacle, God gave him this warning: “Be sure that you make everything according to the pattern I have shown you here on the mountain.” (Hebrews 8:1-5 NLT)​

The laws against sin continue in Jesus. Now Jesus is our High Priest and we turn to Him daily in prayer to forgive our sins. This faster cycle of forgiveness is more efficient in separating us from our sins than the death of so many animals. Jesus' death is just the beginning of His daily in the heavenly temple. Jesus as our High Priest ultimately transfers through His blood our punishment for our confessed sins to Satan. Satan will pay not only for his sins, but also for our sins handed over to our High Priest to transfer, as shown in the earthly copy of the heavenly temple service with Jesus now as our High Priest. "A far better covenant with God" is that Jesus lives forever to complete the cycle of rapid growth that will ultimately separate all sin from our character, as illustrated earlier by repeated animal sacrifices.

But now Jesus, our High Priest, has been given a ministry that is far superior to the old priesthood, for he is the one who mediates for us a far better covenant with God, based on better promises. (Hebrews 8:6 NLT)​

United in our hope for the soon return of Jesus, Jorge