Why the weekly Sabbath (Saturday) is the Lord's Day, in the Bible

[GDL]

Thus whatever inference one might be tempted to pour into "in the law" vs "under the Law" -- it can't be redirected away from its end point - which is all the world.

The point is that "in the law" can apply much easier to every mouth and all the world than "under law" the way Paul speaks of "under law."

 

[Leaf473]

A different topic. I will join your thread if you want to start that subject and you let me know about your thread

Thanks for the offer to join a different thread

It relates to the thread topic in how we go about defining the "Lord's Day".

In the Didache, it's
"Κατὰ κυριακὴν δὲ κυρίου συναχθέντες..."

That section in English starts:
But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one who is at odds with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Thank you SB, if Christ the one who gives the sabbath to man, why then His rest be different to the one he gave to man?

This is how Hebrews 4:10 is written without inserting our own words into the text.

Hebrews 4:10..for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from their works, just as God did from His..

So, by looking at the text I can only see one rest that we need to enter into which is called "God's rest", and once enter we rest together with God..

You’re missing ALSO, not inserted by me which means in addition to…. when did God rest from His works? If allowed the scripture tells us plainly…

“On the seventh day God rested from all his works. Hebrews 4:4.
We do rest together on the seventh day same day as God rested same as the commandment and God gives us spiritual rest. He blesses us. Isaiah 58:13-14

The way you and others seem to be reading Hebrews that God gave Himself a commandment and that is not biblical or sensible.

 

[Leaf473]

Hebrews 4:10 says "also", probably in the sense of "and".

Hebrews 4:10 Interlinear: for he who did enter into his rest, he also rested from his works, as God from His own.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Hey there,
What makes you think I think that

It seem you are disconnecting Isaiah 56:6 from v 7-8 and if 7-8 are fulfilled, than verse 6 would be as well, I‘m sure I am misunderstanding, which I was hoping you would clarify.

 

[BobRyan]

The point is that "in the law" can apply much easier to every mouth and all the world than "under law" the way Paul speaks of "under law."

I see - good point.

But in one sense "under the Law" as "under the condemnation of the Law" takes us back to the start of the covenant in Gen 2 - where the conditions were "obey and live". All have sinned, all have a sinful nature that is at war with God according to Rom 8:4-11. So then under that same system of "obey and live" all are condemned under the Law.

In Rom 7 we are reminded that the Law binds someone as long as they live, specifically condemnation under the law - the penalty that the law demands. It is only by our death in Christ discussed in Rom 6 that we can get out of that arrangement and still survive it. So then who would this rule not apply to ?

 

[Leaf473]

Bible Gateway passage: Hebrews 4:10 - New International Reader's Version

God rested from his work. Those who enjoy God’s rest also rest from their works.

www.biblegateway.com

 

[BobRyan]

Without using any tradition, how does a person come to the knowledge of what is the word of God?

A different topic. I will join your thread if you want to start that subject and you let me know about your thread

Thanks for the offer to join a different thread

As we can all see - I made the offer of joining your new thread on your selected topic should you choose to start one.

It relates to the thread topic in how we go about defining the "Lord's Day".

If you want to claim that every doctrine that is discussed on this entire board should first derail onto topics about how the Bible came about.. then that would be counter productive.

In the Didache, it's
"Κατὰ κυριακὴν δὲ κυρίου συναχθέντες..."

Which is not in the Bible. And it is not even a dispute among Christians that only the 27 books of the NT are in the NT. The Didache is of unknown authorship.

That section in English starts:
But every Lord's day gather yourselves together,

are you sure that is the same thing as "the Lord's day is week-day-1"? Because that is what you "need it to say" if you are looking for something that says the term "Lord's day" means "week day 1" to NT writers. Clearly you do not have it.

And worse -- you have to contend with some inconvenient facts in that document

"Chapter 14 opens up with one of the most controversial phrases in the entire Didache. Without any introduction or explanation, the Didache states that the community will be gathered together on “the day of the Lord.” This is not presented in command form but rather assumes that the audience knows exactly what this term means and is well aware of the practice. The Apostolic Constitutions renders this in command form: “Gather together, without fail” (7.30)."

"Although the opening words of chapter 14 are usually translated into English as “the day of the Lord” or “the Lord’s day,” the Greek is more ambiguous. Kuriaken de kuriou is a redundant phrase that can be translated literally as “Lord’s of the Lord,” which is something to the effect of “Lord’s day of the Lord” or “the Lord’s own day.” Some scholars have suggested that this is a Semitism based upon the Torah’s phrase “Sabbath of the LORD,” where the Didache replaces “Sabbath” with “Lord’s” to mimic the Hebrew designation."

 

[Leaf473]

As we can all see - I made the offer of joining your new thread on your selected topic should you choose to start one.

Yes, and I thanked you for it

But there's no need, because it is related to this topic:

If we say that the early church can be trusted to pick out the scriptures, then it is consistent to say that it can be trusted to understand which day is the Lord's Day

 

[Leaf473]

And it is not even a dispute among Christians that only the 27 books of the NT are in the NT.

Exactly! And if we respect the church's authority on that, it makes sense to respect the church's authority about the Lord's Day.

 

[Leaf473]

are you sure that is the same thing as "the Lord's day is week-day-1"?

Not absolutely certain, no. But it probably is.

It goes on to talk about gathering and breaking bread as a kind of sacrifice.

The early church was known for gathering on the first day and celebrating Communion/Mass.

A clear pattern begins to emerge when comparing this with other early Christian writings. Are you interested in looking at those together?

Bible Gateway passage: Psalm 133 - New International Reader's Version

A song for those who go up to Jerusalem to worship the LORD. A psalm of David. How good and pleasant it is when God’s people live together in peace! It’s like the special olive oil that was poured on Aaron’s head. It ran down on his beard and on the collar of his robe. It’s as if the dew of...

www.biblegateway.com

 

[Leaf473]

This is not presented in command form but rather assumes that the audience knows exactly what this term means and is well aware of the practice.

I see you edited your post after I responded, but that's cool

That's one of the keys, both the Didache and Revelation assume a practice firmly in place. And other writings/scriptures seem to show that the practice was to meet on the first day.

 

[GDL]

In Romans 14 Paul says that some people observe one of the holy days in Lev 23 above the others while another man observes them all. He says neither one is to be condemned.

Are you certain Rom14 points to Lev23? Do you have any Scripture that is more definitive re: this?

Since the Sabbath command begins Lev23, why is it also not OK to consider Sabbath as one's conscience allows? When was it ever OK to consider God's laws the way men wanted to consider them? Is it different now?

By contrast in Gal 4 Paul condemns even one observance of a pagan holy day.

There is quite a bit of context in Gal3 and Gal4 speaking of Jews and being under law. The immediate context of Gal4:8 certainly speaks of the ones who are not gods by nature, but IMO it's not this simple and there is more to the days, months, and years in Gal4:9.

I see - good point.

But in one sense "under the Law" as "under the condemnation of the Law" takes us back to the start of the covenant in Gen 2 - where the conditions were "obey and live". All have sinned, all have a sinful nature that is at war with God according to Rom 8:4-11. So then under that same system of "obey and live" all are condemned under the Law.

In Rom 7 we are reminded that the Law binds someone as long as they live, specifically condemnation under the law - the penalty that the law demands. It is only by our death in Christ discussed in Rom 6 that we can get out of that arrangement and still survive it. So then who would this rule not apply to ?

Thanks. I think original wording is always a good point to look at closely. Translators and theologians are not infallible and we're all to be Bereans IMO. My Berean DNA says we need to go at minimum to the original languages.

It's all ultimately obedience, which you and others well know is also love. It's also faith.

IMO, we do look at law too narrowly. But context for "under law" seems to be re: the Law of Moses. I at this point of understanding would leave it there. And this is one of the reasons I brought out the "in" in Rom3:19. Although "en" lexically may be considered by some concepts of "under the influence or control of" it is not the primary meaning and seems interpretational. Also, there can be quite a bit of difference between influence and control or subjugation.

The preposition "en" has a more literal meaning of "in" - i.e., within a limit, in the range of, within an area - which IMO works extremely well with "every mouth" and "the whole world" in Rom3:19 and "no flesh" in Rom3:20.

So, this verse may be telling us something that most don't seem to like to consider - God has His whole world within the limit of His law. From there it's just a matter of what the points of that Law are.

 

[HIM]

FWIW, IMO, Rom3:19 is mistranslated. When Paul speaks clearly of his thoughts of being "under law," which he uses in quite a technical way, he uses the preposition "hupo." In Rom3:19 Paul uses the preposition "en" which is most literally and basically translated "in."

A few English translations recognize this:

YLT Romans 3:19 And we have known that as many things as the law saith, to those in the law it doth speak, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may come under judgment to God;

NTE Romans 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it is speaking to those who are ‘in the law’. The purpose of this is that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be brought to the bar of God’s judgment.

DRA Romans 3:19 Now we know, that what things soever the law speaketh, it speaketh to them that are in the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may be made subject to God.

cc: @expos4ever @BobRyan

Sad thing too. Most translations mess that one up.

 

[HIM]

Are you certain Rom14 points to Lev23? Do you have any Scripture that is more definitive re: this?

Since the Sabbath command begins Lev23, why is it also not OK to consider Sabbath as one's conscience allows? When was it ever OK to consider God's laws the way men wanted to consider them? Is it different now?

There is quite a bit of context in Gal3 and Gal4 speaking of Jews and being under law. The immediate context of Gal4:8 certainly speaks of the ones who are not gods by nature, but IMO it's not this simple and there is more to the days, months, and years in Gal4:9.

Thanks. I think original wording is always a good point to look at closely. Translators and theologians are not infallible and we're all to be Bereans IMO. My Berean DNA says we need to go at minimum to the original languages.

It's all ultimately obedience, which you and others well know is also love. It's also faith.

IMO, we do look at law too narrowly. But context for "under law" seems to be re: the Law of Moses. I at this point of understanding would leave it there. And this is one of the reasons I brought out the "in" in Rom3:19. Although "en" lexically may be considered by some concepts of "under the influence or control of" it is not the primary meaning and seems interpretational. Also, there can be quite a bit of difference between influence and control or subjugation.

The preposition "en" has a more literal meaning of "in" - i.e., within a limit, in the range of, within an area - which IMO works extremely well with "every mouth" and "the whole world" in Rom3:19 and "no flesh" in Rom3:20.

So, this verse may be telling us something that most don't seem to like to consider - God has His whole world within the limit of His law. From there it's just a matter of what the points of that Law are.

Romans fourteen isn’t even about the law. As you might know Verse one and two set the context

 

[GDL]

Romans fourteen isn’t even about the law. As you might know Verse one and two set the context

I don't think there's much of anything in Romans that doesn't touch on law in some way. Romans is bookended (Rom1:5; Rom16:26) with Paul saying his mission is to bring the nations to faith-obedience and Rom15:18 speaks of Christ making the nations obedient through Paul. Law is a factor under discussion in Romans in regard to this faith-obedience.

Leaving out the chapter breaks, Rom13:9-10 is about law and fulfillment of law and continues into Rom14 in how to treat one another in light of the summary commandment from Lev19:18. It's also about the conscience which has much to do with law being written on hearts, and about judging one another and appearing before the judgment seat of Christ where law will be a factor.

 

[GDL]

Sad thing too. Most translations mess that one up.

There's simply a lot of input from theology in translations.

 

[Leaf473]

"Although the opening words of chapter 14 are usually translated into English as “the day of the Lord” or “the Lord’s day,” the Greek is more ambiguous. Kuriaken de kuriou is a redundant phrase that can be translated literally as “Lord’s of the Lord,” which is something to the effect of “Lord’s day of the Lord” or “the Lord’s own day.” Some scholars have suggested that this is a Semitism based upon the Torah’s phrase “Sabbath of the LORD,” where the Didache replaces “Sabbath” with “Lord’s” to mimic the Hebrew designation."

It very possibly is related to "the Sabbath of the Lord". The early church saw that seventh day Sabbath as having its fulfillment or reinterpretation in the 8th day:
Ye perceive how He speaks: Your present Sabbaths are not acceptable to Me, but that is which I have made, [namely this,] when, giving rest to all things, I shall make a beginning of the eighth day, that is, a beginning of another world. Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead.

The Epistle of Barnabas (translation Roberts-Donaldson)

The Epistle of Barnabas (translation Roberts-Donaldson). On Early Christian Writings.

www.earlychristianwritings.com

 

[pasifika]

You’re missing ALSO, not inserted by me which means in addition to…. when did God rest from His works? If allowed the scripture tells us plainly…

“On the seventh day God rested from all his works. Hebrews 4:4.
We do rest together on the seventh day same day as God rested same as the commandment and God gives us spiritual rest. He blesses us. Isaiah 58:13-14

The way you and others seem to be reading Hebrews that God gave Himself a commandment and that is not biblical or sensible.

Hi SB,

I will just leave it out there my own understanding regarding, God's Sabbath rest.

"God sabbath rest" on the 7th day in creation week is the same sabbath rest that the Gospel is offering us, also the same rest the 4th commandment is for, (since the 4th commandment of OC is based on 7th day rest of creation).

But, since they (israel generation in wilderness) Heb 10:11 Did not enter into "God's Sabbath rest" due to disobedience and unbelief of the Gospel message unlike those who obeyed and believe the message.

God then declare on "oath" that they (Israel "generation in wilderness") shall never enter my Rest" (Heb 4:5) this refers to His 7th day rest from creation.

Which means the "7th day" is not a day to enter into "God's Sabbath Rest".

the only option for God's people to enter into "God's Sabbath rest" is the Gospel. And a different day was set called "today" to enter into His "Sabbath rest" by way of the Gospel. "we who have believed enter that Rest" Heb 4:3 (ie God's Sabbath rest).

But, we can agree to disagree on this matter until another time.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Hi SB,

I will just leave it out there my own understanding regarding, God's Sabbath rest.

"God sabbath rest" on the 7th day in creation week is the same sabbath rest that the Gospel is offering us, also the same rest the 4th commandment is for, (since the 4th commandment of OC is based on 7th day rest of creation).

But, since they (israel) Did not enter into "God's Sabbath rest" by way of the 4th commandment of the law under the OC due to disobedience or unbelief God then declare on "oath" that they (Israel) shall never enter my Rest" (Heb 4:5) this refers to the 7th day rest of creation given in the 4th commandment.

That doesn't make a lot of sense or what the scripture states.

Because the Israelites couldn't obey God, God say no worries, don't obey Me instead I will change My unchangeable commandment that I said could not be edited Duet 4:2 to accommodate you. This is an error in peoples thinking that God accommodates His law for us, when its the other way around and not what happened to the Israelites who disobeyed and is a warning to us. This whole passage is about the Israelites and their example of their unbelief and disobedience in the wilderness and how we are to not follow the same example of disobedience. What they disobeyed was the Sabbath Ezekiel 20:13, Ezekiel 20:21 and it is a warning to us that we do not follow their same path....the rest the Israelite's could not enter was Canaan, their promise land, what they disobeyed was the Sabbath and we need to not follow the same path of disobedience so we can enter Christ rest, His promise land for us.

Hebrews 4:11 Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience.

You also seem to be leaving out verse 9 which says very clearly Sabbath-rest (4th commandment) remains (not changed) for the people of God, so it doesn't sound like God changed His mind.

Hebrews 4:9 NIV There remains therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God.

Rest here is sabbatismos which literally means keeping of the Sabbath. So this verse says there remains a keeping of the Sabbath for the people of God.

σαββατισμὸς (sabbatismos)
Noun - Nominative Masculine Singular
Strong's 4520: A keeping of the Sabbath, a Sabbath rest.

the only option left for God's people to enter into "God's Sabbath rest" is the Gospel. And a different day was set called "today"

Where is the scripture that says the Sabbath is today, you left the reference to this out for some reason and where does God say the Sabbath is no longer on the seventh day Exodus 20:10 but instead is "today" or any day we choose. It certainly does not say that in Hebrews 4 passage. It says today if you hear His voice do not harden your heart Hebrews 4:7 which is a quote from David Psalms 95:7-8 and the warning is the exact opposite of what you are claiming we can do, be disobedient to God and His commandments.

to enter into "God's Sabbath rest" by way of the Gospel. "we who have believed enter that Rest" Heb 4:3 (ie God's Sabbath rest).

Yes, those who believe and obey enter Christs rest compared to those who disobey do not enter into His rest. Hebrews 4:6

God is not the 4th commandment, God did not command Himself to give us rest, this is a dangerous doctrine that if we believe the Word of God has some consequences.

Hebrews 4:3 For we who have believed do enter that rest, as He has said:

“So I swore in My wrath,
‘They shall not enter My rest,’ ”

Hebrews 4:6 Since therefore it remains that some must enter it, and those to whom it was first preached did not enter because of disobedience,
Hebrews 4:11 Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience.

Belief and obedience are interchangeable and if God was going to allow one of His eternal commandments to be changed, it would be just as clear as how He wrote and spoke it. There is no scripture that says any of the Ten Commandments can be changed or edited. The earthy temple was an exact replica of God's Heavenly Temple where the Ten Commandments are in the Most Holy of God's Temple, just the way He wrote them unchanged. Deut 4:2 Revelation 11:19