It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
You didn't include this one from Heb. 4:-
Heb 4:4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. ( Sabbath means seventh )
3. Hebrews 4:9-10 and the Sabbath A passage of Scripture that is important in the debate regarding the perpetuity of the weekly sabbath is Hebrews 4:9-10: “There remains therefore a rest for the people of God.
For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His.” This passage has been interpreted three different ways. Some interpreters use this passage as a proof text against the perpetuity of the Sabbath. They argue that when a person believes in Christ, he then ceases from his evil works, and his whole life as a Christian is one long sabbath rest.
Thus they argue that the weekly sabbath was but a type of the Christian’s rest in Christ and is no longer binding on the church. Gary North writes, “Calvin followed the tradition laid by Irenaeus and Augustine, interpreting the sabbath as an allegory of the believer’s rest in Christ from the bondage of sin, a rest to be made perfect in eternity.
This, of course, was simply the teaching of Hebrews 4, and Calvin was unwilling to break from its perspective. He went lawn bowling after church on Sunday, a fact which later sabbatarians have chosen to ignore.” [55] This interpretation, as shall be shown, is not correct.
An examination of the context (3:7-4:11; cf. 9:11) proves that the sabbath rest spoken of throughout chapters 3 and 4 is the unending rest in the consummate new heavens and new earth. Therefore, this passage cannot be used as a proof text against the weekly sabbath, because the looking toward the great eschatological sabbath when believers enter their perfect rest with God applied to Adam, Moses, David, and believers of every age. If the Sabbath as the perfect future rest did not abrogate the keeping of one day under the old covenant, there is no reason for it to abrogate the new covenant Lord’s day, for the eschatological meaning is the same in both dispensations. [56]
A second interpretation common among strict sabbatarians is that Hebrews 4:9 is actually a statement regarding the weekly sabbath and not the future eternal sabbath. The author of Hebrews discusses the eternal future rest in chapters three and four, but in 4:9 he argues for a remaining weekly sabbath. Since new covenant believers have the same hope of eternal rest as old covenant believers, the weekly sabbath remains to foreshadow that future rest. In his examination of chapter 4, R.L. Dabney argues: “That God has an eternal spiritual rest; that he invited Old Testament believers to share it; that it is something higher than Israel’s home in Canaan, because after Joshua had fully installed Israel in that rest, God’s rest is still held up as something future. The seventh day (verse 4) was the memorial of God’s rest, and was thus connected with it.
It was under the old dispensation, as under the new, a spiritual faith which introduced into God’s rest, and it was unbelief which excluded from it. But as God’s rest was something higher than a home in Canaan, and was still offered in the ninety-fifth Psalm long after Joshua settled Israel in that rest, it follows (verse 9) that there still remains a sabbatism, or Sabbath-keeping, for God’s people under the new dispensation; and hence (verse 11) we ought to seek to enter into that spiritual rest of God, which is by faith.” [57] A strong support for this interpretation is the fact that the word used to describe God’s rest throughout both chapters (3-4) is a different word then the one used in verse 9. In 3:11, 18, and 4:1, 3, 5, 10, and 11, the Greek word katapausis is used.
But in 4:9 sabbatismos is used. [58] Although it is true that both words can be translated as rest, why use a different word only once, a word usually translated as sabbath? Lee writes, “‘Katapausis’ and ‘katapauo’ in the LXX are used in respect of the (uninterrupted and therefore unrepeatable) rest of God in Gen. 2:2-3 and Ps. 95:11, but ‘sabbatizo’ and ‘sabbatismos’ are used in Ex. 16:30 and II Chr. 36:21 to indicate the (intermittent and therefore repeatable) keeping of a sabbath at regular intervals. Conclusion: the ‘sabbatismos’ of Heb. 4:9, which the (saved) people of God must keep, is the intermittent and repeatable Sabbath at regular (weekly) intervals.” [59] According to this interpretation the passage should be translated: “There remains therefore a sabbath for the people of God” (v. 9).
This interpretation is supported by other aspects of the book of Hebrews. The book was written to Jews who no doubt needed reassurance, given the fact that they had (from an unconverted Jewish standpoint) turned their backs on their nation when they followed Christ.
They also needed to be warned that the only way really to remain the people of God and enter God’s eternal rest was by faith. Since Christ’s work of redemption and first-day resurrection gave the new covenant people a new day of rest and worship (a day obviously not recognized by their unbelieving brethren), they also needed reassurance regarding sabbath-keeping on the new day. The reasons for keeping a sabbath were no less relevant for Christians as for old covenant saints.
Both looked back to the creation and redemption and both looked forward to the eternal sabbath. Pink concurs: “‘There remaineth therefore a sabbath-keeping for the people of God.’ The reference is not to something future, but to what is present. [60] The Greek verb (in its passive form) is never rendered by any other English equivalent than ‘remaineth.’ It occurs again in Heb. 10:26. The word ‘remain’ signifies ‘to be left after others have withdrawn, to continue unchanged.’ Here then is a plain, positive, unequivocal declaration by the Spirit of God: ‘There remaineth therefore a sabbath-keeping.’ Nothing could be simpler, nothing less ambiguous. The striking thing is that this statement occurs in the very epistle whose theme is the superiority of Christianity over Judaism; written to those addressed as ‘holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling.’ Therefore, it cannot be gainsaid [i.e., denied] that Heb. 4:9 refers directly to the Christian Sabbath. Hence we solemnly and emphatically declare that any man who says there is no Christian Sabbath takes direct issue with the N.T. scriptures.” [61] The third view (the majority view) holds that verse 9 refers to the believer’s future everlasting sabbath in heaven. Thus, the verse does not teach an explicit sabbatarianism but an implicit. “This verse indirectly establishes the obligation of the Sabbath still; for the type continues until the antitype supersedes it: so legal sacrifices continued till the great antitypical Sacrifice superseded it. As then the antitypical heavenly Sabbath rest will not be till Christ comes, our Gospel Joshua, to usher us into it, the typical earthly Sabbath must continue till then.” [62]
The Christian Sabbath should focus the believer’s attention on the past, the present, and the future. The worshiper must look at God’s rest from His creative labors and remember that, had Adam obeyed the covenant of works, he would have participated in God’s rest. In the present, Christians celebrate an accomplished redemption and resurrection joy. Believers are to look to the future and the eternal sabbath rest in the presence of Christ. “The purpose of the Sabbath from the first was eschatological; it was a sign of the end, not only of creation but re-creation. The Sabbath in history took its pattern from the creation week of Genesis, but its time and date on the calendar from the day of salvation.
Thus, in the Old Testament, the Sabbath celebrated and commemorated the passover, Israel’s deliverance from Egypt. Since Christ, the Sabbath is dated from the day of resurrection. In both cases, it is future-oriented, looking forward to the great restoration of all things.” [63] The second and third views are acceptable interpretations compatible with the thesis of this book.
Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Seed76
This thing you posted, is that something you subscribe to?
If so, do you think you could explain it how you understand it.
Reading it myself, it seems completely unconvincing.
Maybe there is some essential knowledge that I am deficient
in to where it goes over my head, or something.
It is not an accident that the great decline of Lord’s-day observance has occurred at the same time that unbelief, apostasy and wickedness have permeated western culture. [168] The love of God and of His day go hand in hand.
When the love and fear of God no longer exist, His day is not honored. “If we did indeed love God as we ought, with all our heart, and soul, and mind, and might, we would not say, when we have been attending upon him two or three hours in public worship, ‘Now we have surely done enough for this day,’ when we are invited, encouraged and appointed still to continue our communion with him,—still to feast upon his holy word, and repeat our addresses at the throne of his grace in our closets and families.
Would we be so soon weary of an intimate conversation with a friend we love and take pleasure in? No; with such a friend we contrive how to prolong the time of converse, and when the hours of sitting together are expired, we stand together, and, as those that are loath to part, bid often farewell, are we add to this a walk together for further discourses; is this thy kindness to thy friend, and wilt thou say of communion with thy God, ‘Behold what a weariness is it!’ and contrive excuses to contract it, to break it off, or cut it short?” [169]
May God increase our love toward Him and thus enable us to sanctify His day as we ought. “The stream of all religion runs either deep or shallow, according as the banks of the sabbath are kept up or neglected.” [170]
That much I can agree with.
The love of God and of His day go hand in hand.
Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Seed76
That much I can agree with.
The love of God and of His day go hand in hand.
The problem, as mentioned by Calender, is that someone will come
along with a backwards idea that enforcing a Lord's Day will bring about
godliness, which would create the situation that Calender thinks is
unlikely and an indication of paranoia and bad theology.
The idea is not so far fetched and the current Pope, upon
taking the papacy, issued a mission statement that he will
put as top priority instituting mandatory Sunday worship.
God is continually working, as explained by Jesus, and the Son is also.
Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by jmdewey60
Answer this question then, was Jesus Christ bound to the Mosaic Law?
Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality,
10or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God.