| Home | Our Hope | |
| Bible Study |
|
January 15,2017 |
| The Ten Commandments - 4th | ||
13 If because of the sabbath, you turn your foot
From doing your own pleasure on My holy day,
And call the sabbath a delight, the holy day of the Lord honorable,
And honor it, desisting from your own ways,
From seeking your own pleasure
And speaking your own word,
14 Then you will take delight in the Lord,
And I will make you ride on the heights of the earth;
And I will feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father,
For the mouth of the Lord has spoken. (Isaiah 58:13-14)
These are wonderful words full of instruction and promise but are they for Christians. That is a hotly debated question in Christianity, so hot in some cases that very un-Christian things have been said.
The Sabbath question is easy - should Christians observe the 4th commandment. Answering that question in a satisfactory way, though, is not possible without an extensive study of the Bible references to the Sabbath, history of the Sabbath, and theology of the Sabbath. Many, many books have been written on the topic, with many viewpoints.
Therefore this study can only be an overview. It will look at:
That leaves a lot of territory uncovered. Even so this is a large study. I suggest reading the first two parts listed above, then the first two of the theories. Then you can decide if you want to read more. The last part is very challenging.
My father was a pastor until I went into high school. As a child I remember when our whole family sometimes went to play at parks. My dad loves ice cream and sometimes when we were out he would see a convenience store and go for ice cream. But sometimes he would come back empty handed because he had forgotten it was Sunday. In those days almost all the stores were closed on Sunday. But sometimes he would come back with ice cream but suddenly his expression would change. He had forgotten it was Sunday and had found a store that was open.
At that time most people observed Sunday according to what the 4th commandment says - no work. That included no commerce because that would require others to work, which is also part of the 4th commandment. That is what most theological seminaries and Bible schools were teaching the pastors and that is what they taught in the churches and observed themselves. Most people went to church and therefore most businesses were closed on Sunday. In our time, the few businesses that close on Sunday are considered freaks and hated by some for doing so.
At that time pastors moved frequently and we moved to a new city. Times were changing and this new city had largely given up Sunday Sabbath observance. In fact it was now common for them to go out for lunch or dinner on Sunday. This change was sweeping the country. It was a slow change in each congregation because many people disagreed with it, but it happened in some churches and cities before others. Because we moved from a place where the change hadn't even started, to a place where it was complete, we saw it as a fast change. What took 10 or 20 years for others, took 400 miles for us.
My father wasn't sure how to handle it. He wanted to be with the other church people but all his life he had avoided commerce on Sunday. In the end he decided we would do what the rest of that congregation was doing. I don't know why I remember him telling us about that decision. I was a kid; what did I care. Sabbath observance in our family ended that day.
We know God doesn't change, so what happened? Had the church been wasting their time doing something that didn't need to be done? Had there been a revelation so they now understood?
It was the 60s and the 70s. Many changes were occurring in society. The sexual revolution was going on. Divorce suddenly shot up. Many people were turning away from the church and opening their businesses on Sunday, and the church wanted to patronize those businesses.
The Sabbath is now a very divisive topic within the church. Even though most of the churches abandoned their Sabbath observance only 40 or 50 years ago, it is now like it never happened. It has become such a foreign idea that most people are not prepared to think that the 4th commandment might apply to Christians. Some of them reject the idea very forcefully.
The vast majority of the Protestant church now believes the 4th commandment doesn't apply to Christians and never did. Most Christians, if they were asked if they obey the Ten Commandments, would say yes. If they were asked how they observe the 4th commandment, they would have trouble answering.
When I returned to the faith I found I had a burning desire to understand the Sabbath. Was it for Christians, and what had happened to it over time? I studied it extensively and have a deep understanding of it.
In the Protestant churches of our time, there are many different ideas about why the Sabbath isn't for Christians. The general understanding is that something Jesus said or did, or something about his death caused the Sabbath to be canceled. Therefore, we'll start this history immediately after Jesus' death.
And they returned, and prepared sweet spices and ointment, and on the Sabbath they rested according to that which had been commanded. (Luke 23:56)
In this verse we see something the Bible does quite frequently - it provides seemingly unnecessary elaboration. It does this catch our attention, to get us to think. In this case it would have been enough to say only "on the Sabbath they rested" and not say "according to that which had been commanded." Everyone in that time knew the Sabbath was a commanded day of rest. Even now Christians know that. So there is no need to say those words.
There is a need though. God knew that there would be a time when people would claim that Jesus canceled the Sabbath or his death did that. This verse makes two points:
Despite this verse, some Christian authors still insist the Sabbath was canceled by Jesus' death. They say Jesus just hadn't told his disciples and it would take Christians 300 years to figure it out.
The churches created by the apostles all observed the 4th commandment, on the Sabbath (Saturday)1, just as the Jews did. There are enough historical references that support this.
After the apostles had all died, the Church of Rome, which became the Roman Catholic Church (RCC), began moving events to Sunday. They moved Passover and Pentecost first. Much later they moved the Sabbath observance to Sunday. At some point, what we now know as Palm Sunday was moved.
The RCC says they did it. We Protestants find it odd that they would admit to changing God's law. They see it differently. They say the Pope, as the acting Messiah (Vicar of Christ), has the authority to do that and the fact the he succeeded in doing it, shows that he had the authority. If God hadn't approved, they would not have succeeded.
The Catholic Church, . . . by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday. (The Catholic Mirror, official publication of James Cardinal Gibbons, Sept. 23, 1893)
For example, nowhere in the Bible do we find that Christ or the Apostles ordered that the Sabbath be changed from Saturday to Sunday. We have the commandment of God given to Moses to keep holy the Sabbath day, that is the 7th day of the week, Saturday. Today most Christians keep Sunday because it has been revealed to us by the [Roman Catholic] church outside the Bible. (Catholic Virginian Oct. 3, 1947, p. 9, art. "To Tell You the Truth.")
Question: Which is the Sabbath day?
Answer: Saturday is the Sabbath day.
Question: Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
Answer. We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday. (Peter Geiermann, C.S.S.R., The Converts Catechism of Catholic Doctrine (1957), p. 50)
We have made the change from the seventh day to the first day, from Saturday to Sunday, on the authority of the one holy Catholic Church. (Bishop Seymour, Why We Keep Sunday)
The change to Sunday observance of the Sabbath began first in Rome and quickly spread to Egypt and especially the city of Alexandria, which had become very popular with Romans after Rome conquered Egypt. There was a lot of travel and trade between the two cities. Some Egyptian obelisks can be found in Rome today. Many Romans left Rome entirely and lived, died and were buried in Egypt.
Although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the Sabbath every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this. (Socrates Scholasticus, quoted in Ecclesiastical History, Book 5, chap. 22, quoting Sozomen Church History book 7 - written shortly after A.D. 439).
Though the change to Sunday Sabbath had been going on for some time, it wasn't made official until 364 A.D. at the Council of Laodicea (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3806.htm). There they determined a rule (canon) which says:
Canon 29 - Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday, the Sabbath, but shall work on that day; but the Lord's day (Sunday) they shall especially honor, and, as being Christians, shall, if possible, do no work on that day. If, however, they are found Judaizing, they shall be shut out from Christ.
By this the RCC says that the Sabbath is still Saturday but they have moved the observance of the Sabbath to Sunday.
When analyzed, four important truths are evident in this canon.
Two other canons from that council give us an idea of what was going on.
Canon 37 - It is not lawful to receive portions [food] sent from the feasts of Jews or heretics, nor to feast together with them.
Canon 38 - It is not lawful to receive unleavened bread from the Jews, nor to be partakers of their impiety.
Romans did not like Jews and Christian Romans didn't want to act like Jews, be seen with Jews, or to be associated with Jews. Jews specifically, and semites generally, were considered crude people. In fact they were all ordered to leave Rome during New Testament times.
And there he found one man, who was a Jew, whose name was Aqilaus, who was from Pontus, who at that time had come from the country of Italia, he and Priscilla his wife, because Claudius Caesar had ordered all the Jews to leave Rome, and he came to them. (Acts 18:2)
This Roman bias against Jews and semitic peoples carried into the Roman church. Christianity would have a strong anti-Semitic current until after World War II.
51 years before these canons, in 313 A.D. Roman Emperor Constantine had signed the Edict of Milan, which decreed tolerance for Christianity throughout the empire. By the time of this Council of Laodicea, the RCC was becoming very powerful. It began persecuting Christians who observed the Sabbath on Saturday or did anything else the church was against. In time the persecution turned to killing. This continued until the Reformation in the 1500s.
Some of the people who reject the Sabbath also reject the idea that the RCC were the ones who changed it. It's awkward for Protestants to accept that they are doing what a Pope commanded. Whatever, the RCC claim they did it and they have the historical documentation to prove it.
During the Reformation there were some reformers who wanted to move the Sabbath back to Saturday but too many of them didn't agree or were afraid they would lose too many followers and thus the reformation would fail.
Therefore Sabbath observance on Sunday continued into the Protestant church and remained, at least in North America, until roughly the 1970s.
Not all the reformers left the RCC; some tried to reform from within. A council, called the Council of Trent, was called to deal with the desire for reformation by the Bishops and Cardinals of the church. The educated within the church knew there were problems with many of the traditions and the Protestant theme of Sola Scriptura (only the scriptures) called to them.
They were at an impasse until someone noted that the Protestants didn't really believe in Sola Scriptura. If they did, they would have stopped keeping the Sabbath on Sunday. Therefore the Protestants were just a revolution against the authority of the church. With that, the council hardened and it formalized all of its beliefs, completely without any reformation.
At the time of the Reformation every Christian observed the Sabbath. They either observed it on Sunday or on Saturday. No one believed the 4th commandment didn't apply to Christians. There are now many theories about why Sabbath observance doesn't apply to Christians or only applies in novel ways. These are all inventions that have come out of the Protestant church. To this day the RCC believes it has moved Sabbath observance to Sunday and I know a devout Catholic woman who will not work on Sunday or engage in commerce on that day.
The result of dropping Sabbath observance is that people now are trying to find ways to justify it. There are 3 or 4 widely held theories about why the Sabbath is not for Christians and an additional 8 or so lesser theories. The fact that there are so many theories shows that there is a problem. Such a universally held view should have better support in the Bible and greater unity in reasoning.
There are many theories because none of them are really satisfying. For those who look into it, each person seems to feel the need to find a theory that works for him, resulting in many theories.
The theories can be grouped into cancelation theories and re-interpretation theories. The cancelation theories try to show why the Sabbath was canceled. The re-interpretation theories try to give the 4th commandment a new meaning so it can be dismissed.
This theory is based on the following verse:
having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. (Colossians 2:14 - NASB)
The idea is that the verse says that Jesus' death resulted in some decrees being canceled and one of those decrees was the 4th commandment.
There are a number of problems with this:
A few Bible translations have now changed to reflect that theological truth.
having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. (New International Version)
He canceled the record of the charges against us and took it away by nailing it to the cross. (New Living Translation)
by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. (English Standard Version)
having canceled the debt ascribed to us in the decrees that stood against us. He took it away, nailing it to the cross! (Berean Study Bible)
It should be clear that Jesus' death didn't cancel any law.
This theory is based on the following verse:
by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, (Ephesians 2:15 - NASB)
There are also problems with this:
The theological point that Paul is making becomes clear if more of the context is included
For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might [n]make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, 16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. (Ephesians 2:14-16 - NASB)
Paul's point is that some of the Old Testament laws created a barrier / wall between Jews and Gentiles. Jesus' death canceled those laws. Those laws dictated that Jews could not associate with Gentiles in many ways. The Gentiles were excluded from God's salvation. The only way they could receive salvation was to become a Jew. This exclusion resulted in hatred / enmity between the two groups.
Beginning in Acts 10 the apostles begin to discover that Jesus death has opened the offer of Salvation to all people. No longer are God's people limited to the biological children of Israel. Now God's people are the spiritual children of the seed of Abraham, who is Jesus.
None of the Ten Commandments set up a wall between Jew and Gentile, therefore none of them were canceled as Paul describes.
This theory is based on the following verse:
Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day (Colossians 2:16 - NASB)
The idea is that Paul is saying that all the feasts of the Jews, which they called Sabbaths, and the new moon feasts, and the weekly Sabbath (4th commandment) are effectively canceled because no one is to judge them by those.
The problem with this, as we saw above, is that their isn't sufficient context to understand the point Paul is making. In Colossians as a whole that context is difficult to extract. We can see that Paull is talking about some group that is affecting the Colossian church with bad teachings but it's difficult to figure out who this group is and what they are teaching.
We see a few specific teachings from this group such as "worship of Angels (v.18)" which is not part of Judaism. We also see them teaching "Do not touch, Do not taste, Do not hold (v.21)" but Paul calls those "principles of the world (v.20)." Judaism does have regulations about eating and touching unclean foods but these were given by God, not the world. Paul also calls these rules "the commandments and the teachings of the sons of men" (v.22).
It still isn't very clear who this group is or what they are teaching generally. Most likely they are an ascetic splinter group from Judaism. They love to have lots of rules and to have people obey their rules.
We can be sure of one thing. The rules that Paul mentions in verse 16 are among the rules he says are "principles of the world." and "the commandments and the teachings of the sons of men." Therefore Paul is not talking about the weekly Sabbath, or the feasts. He is talking about some food and drink rules these people have attached to them. He is saying don't let yourselves be judged by the rules these people have made up.
This theory is based on various things that Jesus said that are claimed to have canceled the Sabbath. The following verse is one of them:
Jesus said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27 - NASB)
For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath. (Matthew 12:8 - NASB)
The idea is that Jesus was saying that every person can decide about the Sabbath, whether to observe it or not.
The problem with this is that Jesus could not cancel or change any part of the law during his lifetime.
But when the end of time arrived, God sent his Son and he was from a woman and was under the Law (Torah) (Galatians 4:4)
Being "under the law" means being "subject to the law." It was necessary for Jesus to observe all the law. One reason for this is so that, on judgement day, no one can say the law was too hard for any man to obey. Because Jesus observed it all, he can say, "I did." If Jesus could change the law then he would be over the law, not under it.
When you look closely at the verse from Mark, the message is the opposite of being canceled. Jesus is saying the Sabbath is for man. He doesn't say it is for Jews only, but for all men. That makes sense because the 4th commandment is tied to the 7th day of creation, which includes all mankind.
This theory is based on the following verse:
One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. (Romans 14:5 - NASB)
The idea is that Paul is saying that all days are the same, therefore the weekly Sabbath (4th commandment) is effectively canceled because it is optional.
The problem with the verse is that it doesn't say why some people would hold "one day above another". For what purpose would one day be better than another. The context doesn't give us much help here.
Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. 2 One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. 3 The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. (Romans 14:1-6 - NASB)
The Sabbath isn't mentioned here and nowhere in Romans at all. Therefore it's very hard to claim that the days mentioned here would include the Sabbath.
Treating the Sabbath and feast days as optional is also opposed to everything that is known about the earliest churches. They observed the Sabbath, Passover, and Pentecost.
If "regard[ing] one day above another" shows that a person is weak in faith, then we are also weak in faith for regarding Passover / Easter / Resurrection Day as a special day.
Paul's point about food is clear enough to shed some light on his similar use of days. That point is, some Christians were still living according to Jewish food law and were concerned about defiling themselves by eating the foods that Christians were eating that were not Kosher. Paul's guidance is that neither should tell the other he is wrong. This is obviously a small matter. Elsewhere Paul talks about how to deal with major issues within the community and the guidance isn't "leave it alone"
So the question is: are there days on a Jew's calendar that would be important to a Jew but wouldn't be important to Paul. There are many such days, Fast of Tammuz, Tisha B'Av, Tu B'Av, Chanukah, and others. These would have to be the days mentioned here.
This theory is not based on any verse. Instead it relies on the listener not knowing his Bible.
The idea is that the 4th commandment was a "temple" commandment because it only existed while there was a temple. Therefore when the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans the commandment was also destroyed.
The problem with this is that God started Sabbath observance as soon as the Israelites left Egypt. That was long before there was a temple, tabernacle, Tent of Meeting, Ark of the Covenant, or Ten Commandments.
This theory is based on the following verse:
In the first day the week, when we assembled to break the Eucharist, Paulus was speaking with them, because the next day he was going to go out by himself and he prolonged speaking until midnight. (Acts 20:7)
The idea is that the verse shows the church had already moved Sabbath observance to Sunday.
This verse just does not say that. Bread was a major constitute of their diet. Every meal included bread; therefore every meal included breaking bread. The phrase "to break bread" is not indicative of the Sabbath.
While breaking bread occurred at every meal, breaking bread was also a special part of the Communion observance. From the context we can see that was the case here. Unlike in our time where Communion is generally observed in a church building and only on Sundays with a tiny glass of wine (juice) and a wafer of bread, at that time it was observed in people's homes on any day as a full meal with real glasses and bread.
This is what the verse says. The church had gathered for a Communion meal. It was after sunset, which was the beginning of the day we call Sunday. Paul was going to be leaving the next day (at daylight), traveling by himself, so this was his last chance to speak with them for a while. Paul was trying to pack as much teaching into them as possible before he left, so he ran late, until midnight.
An unstated notion behind the idea that this verse is related to the Sabbath is probably the idea that the Sabbath is a day of worship. Therefore since they were worshipping on Sunday then the Sabbath had been moved to Sunday. This theory is discussed in the section "Reinterpretation Theories."
The biggest flaw in this theory is that it doesn't line up with the historical accounts. To believe this requires believing the apostles started the churches observing the Sabbath on Sunday, but somehow they all reverted to observing on the Sabbath, until the Roman Catholic Church got them straightened out again.
This theory is based on the following verse:
On every Sunday, let each person of you lay aside in his house and keep that which he can, so that when I come there will be no collections. (1 Corinthians 16:2)
The idea is that somehow this shows the church was observing the Sabbath on Sunday.
Like the theory above, this verse says nothing about the Sabbath and not even anything about worship. Paul is saying they should start the work week by setting aside whatever they can for "missionary" work. Paul suggests this so there won't be a big fuss when he arrives as people try to dig up something to give with the result that they give out of a sense of duty and possibly guilt, rather than from a cheerful heart.
This theory is based on the idea that Jesus fulfilled the rest requirement of the Sabbath by resting in his tomb. Therefore there is no need for us to rest on the Sabbath.
Death is not the kind of rest the Sabbath refers to. The 4th commandment prescribes a periodic rest. Jesus never refers to death as a rest. He refers to death as sleep. Jesus' death cannot be a type fulfillment because it is not in type. We'll see other examples below.
The Sabbath rest is an observance of the rest that God took after creation was done. God did not die after creation.
Jesus said that he would be in the grave 3 days and 3 nights. At most, only one of those days could be a Sabbath day. The 4th commandment includes only the Sabbath day as a rest day.
The 4th commandment is prophetic but it's fulfillment comes at the Second Coming. Hebrews 4 discusses this.
There is no Biblical reason to accept that Jesus' time in the tomb as a dead body is somehow a fulfillment of the Sabbath. There are no parallels between the two that make any sense.
This theory is based on the following verse:
And sin has no authority over you, for you are not under the Law (Torah), but under grace. (Romans 6:14)
The idea is that Jesus death brought an end to the law because "under the law" means "required to obey the law". Therefore the law no longer applies.
There are many problems here, most of which have been addressed above. The people who claim this theory are likely to claim the other nine commandments do apply. So somehow we are only "not under the law" of the 4th commandment.
The specific problem here is the meaning of "under the law". It can't mean the Ten Commandments don't apply to Christians. Paul and the other apostles repeatedly apply them to Christians. In the verse immediately after this one Paul says "Shall we sin because we are not under the Law" having already say that the law was given to show sin. He also says:
Are we eliminating the Law (Torah) by faith? God forbid, but we are establishing the Law (Romans 3:31)
The verse contrasts "under the law" with "under grace" and that will help us understand. The grace of God was expressed by giving his son to die as an atonement for our sins. The result was that the law, which had been both teacher of righteousness and condemning judge of the unrighteous, was no longer judge. This is because repentance brings immediate forgiveness, as it did before, but since the debt is paid (atonement) it brings immediate restoration to God.
Also notice the point of Romans 6:14, "sin has no authority over you." Sin does not rule our lives because we can be immediately restored.
This theory is based on the idea that there is nothing in the Bible that gave even a hint that Jesus' death would bring the Sabbath to an end, but it did anyway. As a result Christians were not aware that it was canceled and did not figure it out for a very long time.
This idea comes from the book "From Sabbath to Lord's Day" by a group of theologians led by D. A. Carson. It starts by rejecting all other ideas about Jesus canceling the Sabbath. Therefore all the theories described in this study are wrong.
This idea requires us to accept that none of the apostles ever understood this but somehow people over-time discovered it. There is a similar situation with Jesus' death tearing down the wall between Jew and Gentile. The differences are important though. The Old Testament prophecies talk about:
There is nothing like that for the Sabbath.
Another problem with this idea is that history does not support it. History says that the Church of Rome / Roman Catholic Church "discovered" this truth and forced it on the rest of Christianity, killing those who disagreed.
Also, the Catholic Church did not cancel the Sabbath; they only moved its observance to Sunday. If any group canceled the Sabbath it was the Protestants. Therefore it took 1500 years or more for the church to realize that the Sabbath had been canceled.
To say that the Sabbath was canceled and there is no bible verse or theological reason is a very poor foundation. It also doesn't seem like the work of God.
Most cancelation theories share the problem that Jesus' disciples, the apostles, were unaware after his death that the Sabbath was canceled. This is seen plainly here:
And they returned, and prepared sweet spices and ointment, and on the Sabbath they rested according to that which had been commanded. (Luke 23:56)
Jesus is dead and yet they observe the Sabbath. If the Sabbath was canceled by his death then that was news to the disciples. This includes Luke who would have written this account at a later time.
There is more to see here though. Nowhere else in the New Testament are there words that say in such detail that anyone observed the Sabbath. Why does it say that here? Just 2 verses earlier we are told that the Sabbath was beginning. Why not just say "they rested" and end the verse there?
We know the text was given to Luke by the Holy Spirit. I think we have to consider the possibility that this was done because God knew there would be a time when people would say that Jesus' death canceled the 4th commandment. If so the message is "No, it didn't."
This theory is based on the idea that the Sabbath was a day of worship and that as Christians we can now worship on any day and at any time and thereby fulfill the Sabbath.
While it's true that the Israelites did worship on the Sabbath that is not what the 4th commandment was about. Neither the Exodus nor Deuteronomy accounts of the 4th commandment make any mention of worship. The commandment deals with the truthfulness of God's days of creation and specifies a day of rest in observance of the day God rested after creation.
The Israelites could worship at the temple on any day and at any time. This was also true of the tabernacle and before it the tent of meeting. They were open every day from sunrise to sunset. The Sabbath was a day of community worship because no one was working that day and therefore everyone was available to worship as a community
The Sabbath was never a day or time that each person could choose. In Jesus' time we see how the Pharisees reprimanded him for breaking man-made rules about the Sabbath. Imagine the fate of a person who decided that Thursday would be his Sabbath and therefore he would be working on the Sabbath.
The Sabbath was always one complete day, and only on the Sabbath. Any other ideas have no support in the Bible.
This theory is based on the idea that there are two Sabbaths, one for the Jews and one for the Christians.
God clearly states that the Sabbaths are his, not ours. He has only ever declared one weekly Sabbath day.
This theory is based on a platitude more than anything.
On the Sabbath, we cease our work so God can do God's work in us (John Calvin)
This idea completely misrepresents the 4th commandment, which shows the Sabbath is an observance of the truth of God's creation including the day he rested.
This is also not a Biblical concept. Is God somehow prevented from working on you while you are on the job? It seems obvious that those days we spend in the world are the days we need God working in us the most.
This theory is based on the idea that the Sabbath is about giving God some time and therefore the Sabbath is observed by doing that. Time such as going to church, Wednesday meetings, prayer, etc. counts and there is no need to acheive a certain amount of time in a week. There are variations on this idea among its adherents.
I doe willingly and freely professe thus farre with our Adversaries of the morality of the Sabbath; that it is a morall duty to give God some time and day of holy Rest and worship, as 'tis morall to give Caesar his due, and to pray to God: but because we may give God too many dayes, or too few, hence the determination of the most meet and fittest proportion of time, and particularly of this time, makes this and that to be also morall. (The Doctrine of the Sabbath, Thomas Shepard)
This idea misrepresents the nature of the 4th commandment, which is rest, a ceasing from work, and not giving God time. Rest and ceasing from work are the meanings of the word Sabbath. The Sabbath is an observance of the works of God, especially the creation, and it also observes that future rest in him that is available to us. It is tied to a particular day of the week, that being the same day of the week on which God rested from his creation. It is also clearly a complete day.
At its core this idea appears to be a confusion of acts of worship with the Sabbath, as though the Sabbath was about worship.
This theory is based on the idea that Jesus, in dying on the cross, kept the Sabbath for us. Now there is nothing more for us to keep. We can still keep the Sabbath as the Old Testament says but we must be careful. Keeping the Sabbath can be so much work that it violates the Sabbath. This was found in a Church of God (Seventh Day) lesson booklet. Given their name you would think they would know something about the Sabbath - alas
The logic behind this cannot be followed. I can only pull out this bit. "[The Sabbath] is not something we keep as a mandate in order to be right with God, thinking there is something more to do." The point this snake is making is that we don't have to do anything to please God. The author is trying to tie the Sabbath to Salvation and the idea that there is nothing we can do to earn salvation, therefore there is nothing we need to do to please God.
He has apparently forgotten that we should have in us the desire to be obedient and that the 4th commandment requires us to do something. Also that commandment isn't alone in requiring us to do something. We are required to be baptized, keep the last supper / communion, pray at all times, etc..
His reasoning would lead a person to believe that you can do anything on the Sabbath, just like any other day. That would abolish the Sabbath, making it just a day-off. He hints at that but can't say that though because this Sabbath-keeping church isn't ready to hear that. His idea then is that we can keep the Sabbath a little by not working. For him the most important thing is making sure not to work too hard to rest (the only Sabbath sin that remains).
He says other things like "the Sabbath [;hellip;] is something we are to celebrate as a gift from God." We can "end up trying to 'keep' something God wants us to celebrate [and] end up working on the Sabbath instead of celebrating it."
The idea here is that all of Judaism came from a pattern that God gave to Moses. After Jesus we have the reality, not the pattern, therefore we worship on Sunday instead of Saturday.
I heard this from a foolish loudmouth on YouTube who thought he was onto some wonderful revelation with which he could bless people. It has multiple flaws.
According to all that I am going to show you, as the pattern of the tabernacle and the pattern of all its furniture, just so you shall make it. (Exodus 25:9)
Many re-interpretation theories share the problem of conflation of the Sabbath with worship and / or the observance of Communion. It needs to be clearly understood that the Sabbath is not related to either of these.
They also suffer from being based on the thinking of man rather than the word of God. I think we need to keep this verse in mind:
Surely the Lord God does nothing unless He reveals His secret counsel to His servants the prophets. 8 A lion has roared! Who will not fear? The Lord God has spoken! Who can but prophesy? (Amos 3:7-8)
The Sabbath is not just an observance, done once a week. Nor is it only done for the blessings attached to it2. It is an act of faith. Hebrews 3:1 through 4:11 discusses this but first we need to unmask Hebrews 4:9-11.
These three verses say something important about the Sabbath but Satan has managed to cover them up. The result is that there are at least three completely different interpretations of what these verses are saying - all of them wrong. Here are those verses from the NIV translation.
There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; 10 for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his. 11 Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will perish by following their example of disobedience.
The first problem with this is the translation. Any translation that allows the translator(s) to interpret the meaning runs the risk of the translator distorting the verses. The NIV is more a thought-for-thought translation, not a word-for-word translation. This requires the translator to understand the thought before translating it, which can open the door for bias. Because the translator must understand it in order to translate it, the translator's previous understandings can affect that understanding. To escape that, we have to use a word-for-word translation. One of these is the NASB which renders the verses this way
So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. 10 For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His. 11 Therefore let us be diligent to enter that rest, so that no one will fall, through following the same example of disobedience.
Notice how the NIV has changed the verb tense to "rests from their works", which is present tense, from "has […] rested from his works", which is past tense. The NIV is twisting the verb tense to fit the verses into a commonly seen interpretation. That is, that the resting from works described here comes in the after-life, not in the physical life. A word-for-word translation does not allow such a verb change and therefore the true meaning is more accessible.
We'll begin with verse 10. This verse sets up a simile, a literary device, a figure of speech that makes a comparison between two unlike things. That verse is shown below to show the parts of the simile
| 10 For the one who has entered His rest | |
| has himself also rested from his works, | ← 1st side of the simile |
| as | ← connector |
| God did from His. | ← 2nd side of the simile |
The simile can be made more obvious by expanding the text and removing the superfluous word "himself".
| 10 For the one who has entered His rest | |
| has rested from his works, | ← 1st side of the simile |
| as | ← connector |
| God rested from His works. | ← 2nd side of the simile |
The meaning of the simile is obvious. Christians are to rest from our works just as God rested from his works. This is a reference to the 4th Commandment which provides the reason why the Sabbath is to be observed, "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day" (Exodus 20:11)
One of the common interpretations of these three verses is that they are a call for man to stop sinning. When this simile is understood, though, it becomes possible to see the error in that interpretation. We do that by inserting the interpretation into the literary simile. Because it is a simile the interpretation must be inserted into both sides of the simile
| 10 For the one who has entered His rest | |
| has rested from his evil works, | ← 1st side of the simile |
| as | ← connector |
| God rested from His evil works. | ← 2nd side of the simile |
This shows the interpretation to be silly. God did not rest from his evil works.
Now we'll go back to verse 9. This is the verse that Satan had to cover up.
There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God
The word that is translated as "Sabbath-rest" comes from the Greek word Sabbatismos. It is actually not a Greek word, but a Greek-ified version of a word borrowed from Hebrew. Unfortunately the Greek word disappeared from the Greek language very quickly and hasn't been used in almost 2000 years. In a case like this translators have to look at how the word is used in the text to figure out the meaning of the word. This makes it very subject to translator bias.
The word Sabbatismos appears only once in all of the New Testament. Obviously it doesn't appear in the Hebrew Old Testament but it also doesn't appear in the Greek LXX translation of the Old Testament either.
This is what Strong's Concordance says about word 4520, Sabbatismos.
sabbatismos: a sabbath rest
Original Word: σαββατισμός, οῦ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: sabbatismos
Phonetic Spelling: (sab-bat-is-mos')
Short Definition: a Sabbath rest
Definition: a keeping of the Sabbath, a Sabbath rest.3
You can see the definition "a Sabbath rest" there which is what is used in the English translations we've seen so far. But notice that there is another definition "a keeping of the Sabbath". Where could a second definition come from if the word only appears once? It turns out the word is used in other writings a total of five times4 and these are where the other definition is coming from.
In all those other cases, however, it is clear from how the word is used that the definition is "a keeping of the Sabbath" not "a Sabbath rest". And yet, the one case in the Bible is the only place where the word was translated as "a Sabbath rest".
In fact, it isn't necessary to see the other uses of Sabbatismos to understand the definition. Sabbatismos is a noun made from a verb; that's what the "ismos" part of it does. The verb form of the word is used many times in the Greek LXX translation of the Old Testament. In every case it means "to keep the Sabbath".
We make nouns from verbs in English as well but we do it a little differently. We can say "We tithe our incomes", where tithe is used as a verb. We can also say "It remains for us to tithe our incomes", where it is used as a noun. Using it as a verb or a noun has not changed the meaning of the word tithe. It is the same with Sabbaton, the verb root of Sabbatismos. It means "to keep the Sabbath" both as a verb and a noun.
When we take a close look at the translation of Sabbatismos into "a Sabbath rest" we are confused at what it would mean. The word Sabbath means "a rest, or ceasing from work". Looked at that way "a Sabbath rest" would mean either "a rest rest" which is nonsense, or "a ceasing from work rest" which is just the definition of the Sabbath. So "a Sabbath rest", as a translation, makes no sense.
So far we've seen that Sabbatismos does not have that meaning anywhere else, its verb root does not have that meaning, and that "Sabbath rest" is meaningless. Because the common translation is so far from its obvious meaning, we see that "a Sabbath rest" is a coined term, not a translation. It expresses a concept the translator wants to convey that a direct translation of the text would not convey. It is a paraphrasing and like all paraphrasing subject to bias. The translator is trying to express the idea that Sabbatismos is a reference to the afterlife rest.
Why is the translation "a Sabbath rest" used? It's because a correct translation results in a verse that Christendom doesn't want to hear - a verse that cuts in a way that they have rejected.
So there remains a keeping of the Sabbath for the people of God. (Heb. 4-9)
The final test is to see how the verses work together with the cover removed.
So then, it remains for the people of God to keep the Sabbath. 10 For whoever enters his rest has rested from his works as God has from his own. 11 Let us take pains, therefore, to enter that rest, lest we fall in the manner of those who were not persuaded. (Aramaic New Testament)
Does this interpretation make it past verse 10 where others have failed?
| 10 For the one who has entered His rest | |
| has rested from his 6 days of work, | ← 1st side of the simile |
| as | ← connector |
| God rested from His 6 days of work. | ← 2nd side of the simile |
The simile comes out perfectly and makes complete sense. Having said that Christians are to keep the Sabbath (by resting), the author of Hebrews is comparing the weekly Sabbath, with its resting and ceasing from work, with the rest that God took after the days of creation. His point then is that those who enter into God's rest have observed the Sabbath, which is a commemoration of God's rest.
Now let's look at verse 11 in detail.
11 Let us take pains, therefore, to enter that rest, lest we fall in the manner of those who were not persuaded.
By saying "let us take pains" the author is saying that we must try very hard to do something - an effort and action is required - we must do something to enter that rest. From verse 4:9, which also says "enter that rest", we understand this to be the observance of the Sabbath.
The author follows with a reference back to what he has been saying beginning in Chapter 3, that the promised provision of God's rest to his people was not delivered when Israel entered the Promised Land. In fact it was the Israelite's lack of faith and thus disobedience that caused them to lose that promise and they wandered in the desert until they died. God's rest has existed since creation (v. 4:3) as he said about the Sabbath (fourth commandment). That promise of God's rest has not been delivered but will be entered into by faith. That takes us to verse 9 which says, therefore (because the promise of God's rest is still future), it remains for the people of God to continue to keep the Sabbath which is the observance of that rest which began at the end of creation.
In saying "lest we fall in the manner of those who were not persuaded" he is saying that faith and obedience are the foundation for entry into that future rest and of Sabbath observance. The same lack of faith and disobedience that Israel showed when they did not enter the Promised Land can cause us to lose that future rest in God.
The next two verses are treated by the church as though the author has changed topics and therefore they are not connected to the previous verses. Now with a full understanding we can see that they are connected.
For the word of God is living and all-efficient, and much sharper than a double edged sword, and it pierces to the separation of soul and spirit and of joints, marrow and of bones, and judges the reasoning and conscience of the heart. 13 And there is no created thing hidden from before him, but everything is naked and open before the eyes of him to whom we give an account. (Hebrews 4:12-13)
The point of these verses is that God sees everything and "judges the reasoning and conscience". That's clear enough but it doesn't apply to having faith. You either have faith or you don't. You may have a little faith or much faith but all you need is a little faith. Reasoning and conscience don't apply. Therefore these verses seems disconnected.
These verses relate to the previous verses because an observance is mentioned. The reason the Sabbath is observed can be wrong. This is the problem Israel ran into that was discussed above. Any observance can be done for the wrong reasons. It can be observed because of a sense of duty, because it's a tradition, because everyone else does it, because it's fun, or for other reasons. God wants it done as an act of obedience coming out of love and faith. Therefore what Paul says serves as a warning to make sure your heart is right, that your reasoning and conscience are good.
Paul says much the same thing about the Communion observance
28 Because of this, let a man search his soul, and then eat of this bread and drink from this cup. 29 For whoever eats and drinks from it being unworthy, eats and drinks a guilty verdict into his soul for not distinguishing the body of the lord Yahweh.
Observances may be symbolic but that does not reduce their significance.
6 "Also the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord,
To minister to Him, and to love the name of the Lord,
To be His servants, every one who keeps from profaning the sabbath
And holds fast My covenant;
7 Even those I will bring to My holy mountain
And make them joyful in My house of prayer.
Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar;
For My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples."
8 The Lord God, who gathers the dispersed of Israel, declares,
"Yet others I will gather to them, to those already gathered." (Isaiah 56:6-8)
1 "Sabbath." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005
2 Genesis 2:3
3 http://biblehub.com/greek/4520.htm
4 "The words `sabbath rest' is from the [Greek] noun sabbatismos, [and is] a unique word in the NT. This term appears also in Plutarch (Superset. 3 [Moralia 166a]) for sabbath observance, and in four post-canonical Christian writings which are not dependent on Heb. 4:9" (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 5, p. 856).