Which Day of the Week is the Sabbath? (2)

[stone]

This is another simple minded question that sounds smart, but isn't.

The anwere is obvious: The Ten Commandments were written in stone (permanent), by Jesus' own finger. The law of Moses was written on paper with Moses' fingers (not permanent).

It is written in scripture that the law was preserved by a man named Moses by the grace of our father.

Jesus also says that not one letter of the law shall pass away until all else has passed away. Here he must be speaking of the commandments to love g-d and your brother.

 

[BigDave]

[/b]
Good question. But your answer is wanting:


Yes. There were changes made:
Specifically, sacrifice was no longer required.

The sacrifices only?
a) What support do you have from Scripture for this assertion?
b) Are you then saying the ALL the rest applies as well - dietary laws, circumcision, etc.?

In short, on what basis do you claim that only part of the law no longer required is the sacrifices?

Yes. the old Covenant between God and Israel.
The Covenant is the agreement between God and Israel.

Although it included Law, and indeed specific national laws,
It is not at all identical with the Law of God for mankind,
which includes commandments like "Thou shalt not murder."
These Laws (commandments) are for everybody, and are not exclusive to the Covenant.

You are correct in that the Old Covenant included laws which are applicable to all of humanity. However, the Mosaic law was given ONLY to those who were part of the Old Covenant. Thus, while there are part of the Old Covenant which are applicable to all men, to reason that therefore other parts apply to all men is a fallacy. So while we would recognize that 'thou shalt not murder' is applicable to all men, it is a fallacy to then conclude 'thou shalt keep the Sabbath' is applicable to all men.

Secondly, while they are not identical, the basis for the Mosiac law is the Old Covenant. Without the Old Covenant the Mosaic law has no jurisdiction since it is applied specifically to those who are part of the Old Covenant, not to anyone outside of the Old Covenant.

Therefore, with the Old Covenant having passed away, there is no longer a people to whom the Mosaic law applies. Thus, the Mosaic law is no longer a basis for determining conduct. In fact, it was never meant to be universally or eternally applicable, but was instead merely a shadow of better things. Instead, we have the law of Christ on which Christians are to base their conduct - a law which, in some points, contradicts the Mosaic law (ie. in the area of divorce).

Wrong! Obviously you aren't reading the word of God or your own post carefully enough
to keep the concepts of Law and Covenant from being confused in your mind.
The final leap in your erroneous non-sequitous logic is you equate change with 'no longer applicable'.
Wrong again. Change means SOME laws are no longer applicable in the old form.

You are forgetting one keep thing. The Mosaic law was made specifically for those who are part of the Old Covenant. There was never any other peoples called to obey the Mosaic law. While the Covenant and the Law are distinct, there is no Law without the Covenant.

Secondly, what is your basis for determining what laws are no longer applicable? You say sacrifices, but what about all the other laws? Are we to keep them all, and if not, how do we determine which ones?

 

[oldsage]

I am just gonna make a short comment on each of this points.

What is the NT teaching on the observance of the Sabbath?


Colossians 2:16Let 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: 17Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

The observance of the Sabbath is merely a shadow of things to come. The reality is Christ. No longer do laws about foods or days of worship need to be observed.

notice in verse 17 it speaks about it being a shadow of things to come. it is talking about something in the future, not something in the past. So, you view on this passage is incorrect from the usage you applied to it. Remember that this letter was written long after Jesus ascended to heaven.

Romans 14:5One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. 6He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

There is no need to esteem any day in particular above another. So, it would be just as wrong to say that Sunday has replaced the Sabbath as to say that it is necessary to worship on the Sabbath. In short, no day need be special - the key is to be convinced in your own mind about the matter and observe whatever day you decide (Sabbath, Sunday or all of them, doesn't matter) in faith.

This has nothing to do with Sabbath it isn't addressing any commandments whatsoever but about fasting.
But how about this question, why did it matter in the OT times about the Sabbath? What was the big deal?

What does Scripture say about contined observance of the the Mosaic law?

Heb 7:12For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.



The law has been changed with the advent of Christ.

Heb 8:7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 8For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah

The old covenant was imperfect.

Hebrews8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

The Mosaic law is no longer applicable.

Your assumption here is it is speaking of the Mosaic law, but that has yet to be proven from the context. The law isn't the same as the covenant. The law is contained in the covenant.

Chris

ps. happy bday

 

[stone]

Do not complicate the word of an apostle with the word of Jesus.

 

[stone]

Jesus says that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.


Now i've seen some try and use the definition of the word fulfill as it can be defined as abolishing, but then that would leave jesus contradicting himself as saying, "i did not come to abolish to law. but to abolish it" now that is not correct.

Jesus also says that if you love me, you will follow my commandments. He also speaks of those who attempt to mislead his children from following the commandments and says that it is better for that one to not be born.

Use caution before you attempt to judge your brothers.

Jesus also speaks of those who follow the least of the commandments and the most of the commandments, indicateing that there is an hierarchy of importance in his kingdom. You may be saved by his grace, but your place within his kingdom is also written.

 

[BigDave]

This is another simple minded question that sounds smart, but isn't.

The anwere is obvious: The Ten Commandments were written in stone (permanent), by Jesus' own finger. The law of Moses was written by the hand of Moses on paper (not permanent).

How is this obvious? IOW, where is this sort of distinction made in Scripture?

And more specifically, if this distinction exist, why does Paul use the concept of 'tables of stone' to refer to the whole of the Mosaic law (2 Cor 3:7)?

 

[stone]

How is this obvious? IOW, where is this sort of distinction made in Scripture?

And more specifically, if this distinction exist, why does Paul use the concept of 'tables of stone' to refer to the whole of the Mosaic law (2 Cor 3:7)?

I have to agree with you here. How can the truth of the messiah be obvious after hundreds of years of tweaking here and there, till you see what you get.

 

[stone]

but saturday is still the sabbath, always has been, always will be. I think you'll find this answer in genesis, when g-d rested on the 7th day. This would have been a tradition that started with Adam, although i can't imagine what Adam would need to rest from while in the garden of eden. lol

 

[BigDave]

I am just gonna make a short comment on each of this points.


notice in verse 17 it speaks about it being a shadow of things to come. it is talking about something in the future, not something in the past. So, you view on this passage is incorrect from the usage you applied to it. Remember that this letter was written long after Jesus ascended to heaven.

{Edited} Heb 4 shows that the Sabbath rest HAS been fulfilled in Christ. Thus, the best way to view 'to come' is as future to the time when the command was given, not future to the time when Paul wrote this.

Regardless, this doesn't address the fact that Paul says noone is to be judged for not observing the Sabbath, any more than they are to be judged for eating pork. You quibble over a detail (which Heb 4 addressed directly) and miss the import of the passage with regards to Sabbath observation.

But how about this question, why did it matter in the OT times about the Sabbath? What was the big deal?

Like all of the Old Covenant, it was a shadow of things to come. The concept of 'Sabbath rest' is one which is a shadow of the rest which comes through peace with God through belief. See Heb 4:1-13. There we see that the rest of the Sabbath IS fulfilled in believers.

Your assumption here is it is speaking of the Mosaic law, but that has yet to be proven from the context. The law isn't the same as the covenant. The law is contained in the covenant.

Exodus 34:28 Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.

Deut 9:9 When I went up on the mountain to receive the tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant that the LORD had made with you, I stayed on the mountain forty days and forty nights; I ate no bread and drank no water.

Heb 9:4 which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron's staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant.

Notice how the Ten Commandments are referred to - as being the words of the Covenant and the stone tablets as the tablets of the covenant.

No, I am not assuming that the Law and the Covenant are identical. But I am assuming that they are so intricately tied that Law cannot be seperated from the Covenant. Seems like a decent assumption...especially considering the writers of Hebrews seems to make the same sort of assumption.

 

[BigDave]

[In reference to Rom 14] This has nothing to do with Sabbath it isn't addressing any commandments whatsoever but about fasting.

This one has me mystified. Where in the world did you get that this is about fasting? The passage certainly says nothing about fasting and I am not seeing how you got that from the context. In fact, the latter part of the chapter shows that the reference to eating in the earlier part of the chapter had to do with what is 'clean or unclean', not about 'eating or not eating'.

And then you say it has nothing to do with Sabbath yet the passage specifically talks about the Sabbath. Can you clarify?

 

[BigDave]

but saturday is still the sabbath, always has been, always will be. I think you'll find this answer in genesis, when g-d rested on the 7th day. This would have been a tradition that started with Adam, although i can't imagine what Adam would need to rest from while in the garden of eden. lol

Well yeah, the Sabbath is still the 7th day which is Saturday. I don't see how that could be called into question. Those who would argue that keeping the Sabbath is still a requirement for holy living but say Sunday is now the Sabbath are being foolish. The real question is not what day the Sabbath is on (Scripture is *very* clear on that) but instead what Scripture says about the necessity of keeping the Sabbath.

 

[tall73]

How is this obvious? IOW, where is this sort of distinction made in Scripture?

And more specifically, if this distinction exist, why does Paul use the concept of 'tables of stone' to refer to the whole of the Mosaic law (2 Cor 3:7)?

First of all I like your name. I suppose because my name is Dave and I am big

I guess I can't resist a good covenant discussion. So I will hop back in for a bit. I agree that there is more going on than just a separation between two types of laws. You are coming into a discussion that is over 100 pages now between this thread that was split off, and the old one. So some of these things they might be summarizing, but you wouldn't get the full import. Sorry about that, sometimes we assume people have read all the other posts.

First of all the new covenant cannot be doing away with the law (at least not in its entirety) because part of the covenant itself is to write the law on the heart and mind. So the issue is whether some of the commandments were in fact left out. The law is going from the external commandments, to walking in the Spirit, the law written on the heart. Paul speaks about those who keep the law fully by the Spirit, not by the written code. It is clear he includes the 10 commandments in this because in his example about the law revealing sin he mentions the coveting commandment.

The law as given to the Israelites was the baseline that Christ expanded (hate is murder, lust is adultery, etc. He also restored the Sabbath command from traditions of the Pharisees). True obedience comes from the heart. This is the very issue in the discussion of the covenants in Hebrews.
(for a fuller expansion of this you can read the posts up to this point in the thread if you already haven't. Nazaroo and I each went over this in some depth from our two perspectives).

First of all note that the first covenant was a set of promises on both sides. God said He would bless them and make them His people if they would do all that was asked of them. These promises for the covenant. It is a particular type of covenant. It is in many ways similar to suzerainty covenants in which a stronger power subjects a weaker power. As noted by Nazaroo the Israelites cannot escape the covenant. Because it is really a recognition of God's authority. They are either blessed by obedience, or cursed by disobedience. They are required to keep the stipulations, as outlined in the tablets. But the covenant itself is the agreement. When we look at Hebrews this becomes important.

HEB 8:3 Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. 4 If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. 5 They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: "See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain." 6 But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.

HEB 8:7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8 But God found fault with the people and said:

"The time is coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.

HEB 8:9 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them,
declares the Lord.

HEB 8:10 This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.

HEB 8:11 No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, `Know the Lord,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.

HEB 8:12 For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."

First of all it is clear that the sacrificial system was always a copy of the true, pointing to the true High Priest and sacrifice, Jesus. So in that we totally agree. The covenant though was faulty due to the bad promises, for which God found fault with the people. They never did keep their promise to do all that God commanded, and so received the covenant curses. Since they were the weaker power they could not break the covenant. But God out of mercy reworked the covenant. So the issue is not the law which was the contract to keep. The problem was with the promises the people made.

So now God instead puts the promises on Himself. He promises to write the law in their minds and on their heart. In fact it doesn't mention any promises on the part of the people.

This new covenant law keeping is obvious in Romans 8 where Paul says:

RO 8:1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, 4 in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.

The problem was never with the law, it was with the sinful nature. But God overcame the sinful nature through Christ and enables us to keep the law willingly by walking in the Spirit. When we do this we keep it more fully than we did by the letter, and we do it willingly. It is the law written on the heart. This is the new covenant.

And yes, we see an overwhelming change of focus in Paul from the law to Christ. Why? Because the law in itself is powerless. That is why the law is just the schoolmaster to take us to Christ. Because the external stone tablets cannot overcome the sinful nature, offer no forgiveness, and only condemn, because we are sinful.

However, walking in the Spirit enables us to keep the law in a new way. So it is not gone. The focus simply shifts from the external law to the indwelling Christ.

 

[tall73]

Now, as to the question of the change of the law it specifically says what is to change:

HEB 7:11 If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come--one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? 12 For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law. 13 He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. 14 For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. 15 And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, 16 one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is declared:

"You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek."

HEB 7:18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

HEB 7:20 And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, 21 but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him:

"The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind:
`You are a priest forever.' "


22 Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.

So we see that the specific change in the law was in regards to the Levite requirement, and in regards to the covenant it self. But the covenant itself is spelled out, and it says that law is written on the heart.


Now the issue of whether the Sabbath is included is then at the forefront. We have already cited evidence that in fact it was kept by Jesus and by Paul, and by most of the early church through the 5th century. From at least around 100 AD it was kept along with Sunday in honor of the resurrection. So there is some evidence that they saw it as still valid. But there is a bigger issue than this. The Sabbath originated in the garden of Eden in Genesis 2.

GE 2:2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

And it was referred back to in the commandment at Exodus. So the meaning of the Sabbaht existed before there was ever sin, or a sacrificial system, or a need for the temple etc. So the new priesthood of Jesus, the true one, not the copy, does not effect the Sabbath which had a different purpose than the sacrifices.

Now this is where the passage in Col. Comes in.

COL 2:16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. 18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. 19 He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

First of all it mentions a Sabbath day in connection with new moons, religious festivals (feasts), etc. This is because the feasts which pointed forward to Jesus had Sabbaths associated with them. These Sabbaths, which were distinct from the weekly one, did indeed pass away with the sacrificial system because they were shadows of the things to come (ie. Christ's sacrifice, etc.)

The passover was fulfilled in Jesus sacrifice. The wave sheaf was fulfilled when He rose from the dead on the first day, after the passover, after the Sabbath, in accordance with the description. Pentecost was fulfilled with the outpouring of the Spirit and the initial influx of the early harvest.

Now there is an argument perhaps that the fall feasts are not yet fulfilled, but that they point forward to future events (the day of atonement which was a day of judgment could point to the last day judgement. The feast of tabernacles could refer to either the celebration after the harvest of all the saints into heaven, or some see some other significance). But Paul doesn't seem to indicate that they need to be kept any longer because they point to Jesus and the events in His salvation plan, which are now manifest in more clear ways.

This one has me mystified. Where in the world did you get that this is about fasting? The passage certainly says nothing about fasting and I am not seeing how you got that from the context. In fact, the latter part of the chapter shows that the reference to eating in the earlier part of the chapter had to do with what is 'clean or unclean', not about 'eating or not eating'.

And then you say it has nothing to do with Sabbath yet the passage specifically talks about the Sabbath. Can you clarify?

Actually it doesn't mention fasting or the Sabbath. It simply makes reference to considering one day more sacred. It could be in reference to feasts, it could be in reference to fasting days (which the didache does show was an issue in the early church), or it could be in reference to the weekly Sabbath, or even, if Sunday observance was an early phenomenon as some believe, it could be a reference to honoring Sunday as the resurrection day. It simply doesn't say.

RO 14:5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8 If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

But given in the other passage he already clarified that the things that were shadows were the ones that pointed to the sacrifice of Christ it seems likely that it is referring to the feast days. It would be more clear if he had used the term "day of the week," which would in fact point to the Sabbath being discussed, but he didn't.

Note also that he essentially says the same here as in that passage. Don't let people judge you. So the reference is likely to the same issue.

Moreover we see instances where people were keeping feasts, etc. in the NT. Paul did not condemn them, and as Montalban has pointed out even joined them, though he fails to see that it was a concession to James and the judaizers.

So this was apparently an issue in the church, much the same way that circumcision etc. was.

The real issue is that the weekly Sabbath was not a shadow of things to come, but a reminder of things past. And it would not be fulfilled by the death of Jesus.

 

[tall73]

notice in verse 17 it speaks about it being a shadow of things to come. it is talking about something in the future, not something in the past. So, you view on this passage is incorrect from the usage you applied to it. Remember that this letter was written long after Jesus ascended to heaven.

True, as I mentioned some of the fulfillments of the feasts ARE yet to come. And as he says in Romans 14 about the same type of issue, if someone wants to keep them they can. But they don't have to. Because they are shadows of the reality which is Christ.

 

[tall73]

Well yeah, the Sabbath is still the 7th day which is Saturday. I don't see how that could be called into question. Those who would argue that keeping the Sabbath is still a requirement for holy living but say Sunday is now the Sabbath are being foolish. The real question is not what day the Sabbath is on (Scripture is *very* clear on that) but instead what Scripture says about the necessity of keeping the Sabbath.

I agree here. The issue is clear. Either the Sabbath is not in effect at all, or it is still in effect the way it always was. Jesus' resurrection, even if a day is chosen to celebrate it, does not change what the Sabbaht commemorates. And nowhere in Scripture do we see a change of the day.

So it is truly a question of whether the original (and only) Sabbath need still be kept.

The notion that one replaced the other came from later tradition, which I addressed in post two of this split thread. The evidence suggests that most Christians even 400 years after Jesus were keeping both days, so they knew the one didn't replace the other.

 

[tall73]

A look at Hebrews 4

(note, this was part of a large discussion on Hebrews 4 in the latter part of the first thread that this one was split from. There the topic was discussed at length by Palehorse, myself, Oldsage and Sophia7 and another participant who's name eludes me at the moment, but he more or less took a similar position to your own.)

Here is my take on Hebrews 4. To get to the meaning I have made a review of the general content of each chapter so as to outline the themes. The overall theme is simply that Jesus is superior to their previous understanding in every way. They should not fall away from the faith entrusted to them. They are warned not to return to Judaism, or fall away due to persecution, but to cling to Jesus. Jesus touches on the key figures in the Jewish mind, Moses, Abraham, angels, Aaron, etc. and Jesus is superior to them all. To fall away from Him would be worse than to fall away from the first covenant.

The meaning of chapter 4 should be in line with this overall theme.

A. The overall book.
Chapter 1:
Jesus is superior to angels. They are ministering spirits, He is the Son.

Chapter 2:
A warning against falling away from the message they had heard

Jesus made like unto his bretehren. He is able to help them when tempted (to fall away)

Chapter 3:
Jesus was better than Moses. Moses was faithful in all of God's house. But Jesus was the Son, to whom all the house belongs. We are the house.

Another warning against falling away. If today you hear his voice do not harden your hearts. Their possible rebellion against God's will is compared with the people in the exodus, who at first left Egypt but were later punished for unbelief.

They are to encourage each other daily to avoid hardening by sin.

Chapter 4: - to be examined further below

Chapter 5:
A priest must be called

Jesus a High priest in the order of Melchizedek, the source of eternal salvation for all who believe

The Hebrew believers are not able to comprehend, because they are still spiritual infants, though they ought by now to be teachers. They have not spiritually matured. They need basics rather than the teaching about righteousness.

Chapter 6:
A call to not fall away. The strongest yet. It will be impossible for those enlightened ones who have drunk of the Spirit, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance. They will have crucified Jesus again by denying Him publicly.

An illustration is given of a worthless plot of land that takes in rain but never produces. This is a picture of the recipients, who have received blessings from God but have not grown, and are in danger of falling away. But better things are hoped for in their case. They should continue to the end.


Abraham was patient and received what was promised God swore by Himself with an oath. They too have assurance from God.

Chapter 7:
Return to the High priest theme. Melchizedek received tithe from Abraham, had no geneology (was without beginning and end), was called the king of righteousness, and the king of peace and remains a priest forever. He did not descend from Levi. Levi figuratively paid the tithe through Abraham. He was greater than Abraham as the lesser is blessed by the greater.

The levitical preisthood did not bring perfection. Jesus was not of the line of Aaron but of the line of Melchizedek. He was both King and Priest. The Lord made Him a priest forever, not on the basis of lineage, but His indestructible life. He does not offer sacrifices over and over for His own sin and others, but one sacrifice for all time, Himself.

Chapter 8:
Jesus is the High Priest of the true tabernacle in heaven, of which the earthly was a copy.

Jesus' ministry is superior to that of the other priesthood, and his covenant is better.

The old covenant was based on bad promises because the people did not keep them. God therefore made a new covenant. The law was written on the heart and mind, and God forgave their sins, and made them His people. It was not dependent on their promises.

Chapter 9:
A review of the worship in the earthly temple, including a brief layout of the grounds. Particularly the Day of Atonement service is treated. Only the high priest went into the most holy place, once a year. Jesus went through the real tabernacle as high priest. He cleanses us with better sacrifices than cleansed the earthly temple.

Jesus is in charge of a better covenant. Just as blood was necessary for a will, Jesus' death and blood initiated the new covenant.

Jesus died once to take away sin and will return again not as a sacrifice but to bring salvation.

Chapter 10:
Sacrifices are not the reality, they are an annual reminder of sin. Jesus' once for all sacrifice provided salvation and the new covenant.

A call to persevere in light of our great High Priest and the salvation He brought. They are not to forsake meeting together.

Those who continually sin after receiving the knowledge of the truth have no sacrifice for sin left.

He calls to mind the early days of the faith of the recipients when they were persecuted, lost possessions etc. They should not shrink back and be destroyed, but endure and receive what is promised.

Chapter 11:
Heros of the faith are outlined, all of which endured by faith. They did not receive what was promised, but now it is revealed in their time.

Chapter 12:
We are to follow Jesus who ran the race before us, and endured persecution.

Hardships are discipline from the Lord of His sons.

Instruction on holy living.

They are not come to the mountain of fire, trembling in fear, but to Mount Zion, the new Jerusalem, the city of God, to joyful assembly. They should not refuse God, as those who refused on earth did not escape.

Chapter 13:
Closing reminders and calls to obey leaders, holy living, reminders of Jesus' sacrifice etc.

B.
The context of chapter 4.

Chapter 3 begins the thought that is continued in chapter 4. So a closer look is warranted.

HEB 3:1 Therefore, holy brothers, who share in the heavenly calling, fix your thoughts on Jesus, the apostle and high priest whom we confess. 2 He was faithful to the one who appointed him, just as Moses was faithful in all God's house. 3 Jesus has been found worthy of greater honor than Moses, just as the builder of a house has greater honor than the house itself. 4 For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything.

As Moses was seen as the law giver and friend of God the author wanted to make plain that Jesus is superior to him as well. Moses was a servant of God, Jesus is the Son, over all the house.

5 Moses was faithful as a servant in all God's house, testifying to what would be said in the future. 6 But Christ is faithful as a son over God's house. And we are his house, if we hold on to our courage and the hope of which we boast.

HEB 3:7 So, as the Holy Spirit says:

"Today, if you hear his voice,

HEB 3:8 do not harden your hearts
as you did in the rebellion,
during the time of testing in the desert,

HEB 3:9 where your fathers tested and tried me
and for forty years saw what I did.

HEB 3:10 That is why I was angry with that generation,
and I said, `Their hearts are always going astray,
and they have not known my ways.'

HEB 3:11 So I declared on oath in my anger,
`They shall never enter my rest.' "

HEB 3:12 See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. 13 But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called Today, so that none of you may be hardened by sin's deceitfulness. 14 We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first.

Here a scene is reviewed from the experience of Moses, through the vehicle of Psalm 95. The exodus experience is in view when the tribes failed to go up and take the promised land. The whole generation died in the wilderness, even though they had left originally in faith. In the same way the ones who were now in danger of falling away had taken their stand for Jesus but now were in danger of falling away.

15 As has just been said:

"Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts
as you did in the rebellion."

HEB 3:16 Who were they who heard and rebelled? Were they not all those Moses led out of Egypt? 17 And with whom was he angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the desert? 18 And to whom did God swear that they would never enter his rest if not to those who disobeyed? 19 So we see that they were not able to enter, because of their unbelief.

It is those who disobey who are in view. Again, an encouragement to the recipients not to emulate them.

C. Chapter 4

HEB 4:1 Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it. 2 For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith. 3 Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said,

"So I declared on oath in my anger,
`They shall never enter my rest.' "

The promise still stands today to enter God's rest. In context, this would be belief and the reward it brings. They are to enter by faith, staying firm to the end, which is where the earlier fell short.

And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world. 4 For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: "And on the seventh day God rested from all his work." 5 And again in the passage above he says, "They shall never enter my rest."

God is seen as resting from the beginning of creation. He waits for people to enter that rest. The issue here is simply that God is resting, and waits for others. The view is not that God rests only one day a week, but has been in continuous rest since that time.

HEB 4:6 It still remains that some will enter that rest, and those who formerly had the gospel preached to them did not go in, because of their disobedience. 7 Therefore God again set a certain day, calling it Today, when a long time later he spoke through David, as was said before:

"Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts."

HEB 4:8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day. 9 There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; 10 for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his. 11 Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience.

Joshua led the people to the promised land. But the psalm still said there was a rest to enter. So therefore the rest was not fulfilled just by entering the promised land. It is the promise of salvation. Salvation is ultimately entering into God's rest which He has been in since creation. It is ceasing from our own works, and living by faith–the opposite of what those who doubted and died did.

The invitation is open to them today. It is the day of decision. But if they fall back they will suffer the same fate as those who fell in the wilderness.

HEB 4:12 For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. 13 Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

Those who are in danger of falling away should remember the example of those who fell in the desert. They cannot hide from God.

HEB 4:14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet was without sin. 16 Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.

Jesus is able to help, being tempted as we are. They need not fall away.

D. Sabbath implications.

This text is neither a support for weekly Sabbath observance, or a text which changes it. It is a call to not fall away as did the people in Moses' time. Their mistake was to not act in faith. It is the purpose of the letter to encourage the Hebrew Christians not to do the same, but to endure in faith.

The Sabbath rest mentioned is not the weekly Sabbath experience, but the rest that God entered into and has remained in since. He is waiting for us to enter into it. That rest is in fact salvation, and has its complete fulfillment at the end when we enter the true promised land.

The recipients have the opportunity to enter the rest of salvation in Jesus through faith. But if they turn back they will be like those who fell in the desert.

The term Sabbatismos, while at other times referring to the weekly Sabbath is here simply referring to the rest which that Sabbath points to. The Sabbath is a foretaste of that permanent rest that God is calling us to.

 

[Cliff2]

Well yeah, the Sabbath is still the 7th day which is Saturday. I don't see how that could be called into question. Those who would argue that keeping the Sabbath is still a requirement for holy living but say Sunday is now the Sabbath are being foolish. The real question is not what day the Sabbath is on (Scripture is *very* clear on that) but instead what Scripture says about the necessity of keeping the Sabbath.

You are correct in what you have said.

The Sabbath is still the 7th day of the week.

 

[Normann]

In order to establish a turth we first need a standard to go by. A ruler is a tool we use to measure lenght, etc.

If the ruler is faulty then our mesurement is faulty.

Therefore being I have shown the fault in the calendar, we cannot depend on the calendar as to the 7th day.

If, I say if, the Sabbath is so very important we certainly should have an honest measurement to find when it is. I've ask several times for the SDA and others that teach the Saturday Sabbath to show me a passage from the Bible that clearifies which day of the week is the Sabbath!

No one has because the answer is too simple for them. They must resort to detailed discissions and/or explain away scriptures.

Not one has studied the O.T. in depth to find out about the Sabbath.

The fact is the SDA and other 7thday/Saturday people do not have the truthful answers.


IN THE MASTER'S SERVICE,
Normann

 

[BigDave]

First of all I like your name. I suppose because my name is Dave and I am big

I am 6'6" 255 lbs big

First of all the new covenant cannot be doing away with the law (at least not in its entirety) because part of the covenant itself is to write the law on the heart and mind.

Let me clarify. I am not saying the New Covenant (NewC) does away with all law, or does away with all laws in the Mosaic law. Obviously, there are many thing which directly carry over into what might be called "the law of Christ". Instead, what I am saying is that the Mosaic law is now obsolete in its entirety as a system. We are no longer under the law of Moses any more than a USA citizen is under the law of Britian even though there are many similarities and basically the same source. Thus, since the law of Moses is obsolete as a system (Heb 8:13)

So the issue is whether some of the commandments were in fact left out.

Not necessarily. This is only true if the New is merely the Old remade. If however, the New was the 'ultimate and intended covenant' from the beginning, and the Old was merely a shadow of the New, the the question is moot - the New is what is to be looked to and the Old is merely a shadow of this.

The law is going from the external commandments, to walking in the Spirit, the law written on the heart. Paul speaks about those who keep the law fully by the Spirit, not by the written code. It is clear he includes the 10 commandments in this because in his example about the law revealing sin he mentions the coveting commandment.

Agreed....however on what basis would one establish that he includes the rest. The thing with Paul is that he consistently views the Law as a whole. While he may use the concept of the 10 Cs, he uses them to refer to the whole. That being the case, if the law is written on our hearts, then this is just as true of laws about clean and unclean food as much as it is about coveting.

The law as given to the Israelites was the baseline that Christ expanded (hate is murder, lust is adultery, etc. He also restored the Sabbath command from traditions of the Pharisees). True obedience comes from the heart. This is the very issue in the discussion of the covenants in Hebrews.
(for a fuller expansion of this you can read the posts up to this point in the thread if you already haven't. Nazaroo and I each went over this in some depth from our two perspectives).

Agreed. However, since obediance comes from the heart the form the laws take no longer matter. So, we still are to observe the Sabbath...but we no longer need observe all the specifics of Sabbath observance (ie. not cooking, traveling, etc.), nor do we need to observe it on a specific day. In the case of the Sabbath, 'true obedience' comes in the form of considering *every* day to be God's day - and insisting on placing one day over another is merely a reversion to obedience by the letter instead of the heart.

First of all note that the first covenant was a set of promises on both sides. God said He would bless them and make them His people if they would do all that was asked of them. These promises for the covenant. It is a particular type of covenant. It is in many ways similar to suzerainty covenants in which a stronger power subjects a weaker power. As noted by Nazaroo the Israelites cannot escape the covenant. Because it is really a recognition of God's authority. They are either blessed by obedience, or cursed by disobedience. They are required to keep the stipulations, as outlined in the tablets. But the covenant itself is the agreement. When we look at Hebrews this becomes important.

Agreed.

First of all it is clear that the sacrificial system was always a copy of the true, pointing to the true High Priest and sacrifice, Jesus. So in that we totally agree. The covenant though was faulty due to the bad promises, for which God found fault with the people. They never did keep their promise to do all that God commanded, and so received the covenant curses. Since they were the weaker power they could not break the covenant. But God out of mercy reworked the covenant. So the issue is not the law which was the contract to keep. The problem was with the promises the people made.

Here we very much disagree. God did not merely rework the basis for the people being able to keep the promises of the covenant:
1) He also made new and better promises Himself. Whereas the Old only promised health and long life in the land, the New promises eternal life.

2) Paul also makes clear that following the law of the Old is no longer necessary. Several are done away with specifically and others are directly contradicted.

Clearly, the whole OldC is done away with and the New is just that - NEW and not the old merely reworked. The Old was *never* meant to be more than temporary and was always intended as a mere shadow of the New.

The problem was never with the law, it was with the sinful nature. But God overcame the sinful nature through Christ and enables us to keep the law willingly by walking in the Spirit. When we do this we keep it more fully than we did by the letter, and we do it willingly. It is the law written on the heart. This is the new covenant.

Agreed. However, the law referred to here is not speaking of the Mosaic law. If it were, then we would also need to observe everything in the law, not just the 10 Cs. Instead, this is speaking of the the law which the Mosaic system is merely a shadow of. IOW, while the Mosaic law *includes* the law of God, it does not and cannot *be* the law of God.

However, walking in the Spirit enables us to keep the law in a new way. So it is not gone. The focus simply shifts from the external law to the indwelling Christ.

Keep which law? Not the Mosaic law, otherwise Paul would not explicitly deny the necessity of keeping of several key laws - ie. circumcision, dietary laws, observance of Sabbaths and holydays.

 

[BigDave]

If, I say if, the Sabbath is so very important we certainly should have an honest measurement to find when it is. I've ask several times for the SDA and others that teach the Saturday Sabbath to show me a passage from the Bible that clearifies which day of the week is the Sabbath!

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Seems pretty explicit to me. The Sabbath is specifically said to be the seventh day. Saturday is the seventh day so the Sabbath would fall in Saturday.

Faults with the calendar are moot as long as Saturday is considered to be the seventh day of the week.