| Author | Message | ||
| Seekinglight Registered user Username: Seekinglight Post Number: 281 Registered: 3-2009 |
Ok, someone who has a knowledge of Hebrew, please help me out. At their request, we studied with some SDA friends last evening about the IJ and some other doctrines. They claimed that the Hebrew word for "Sabbath" in Hebrews 4:9 is really translated "Sabbath keeping". This is apparently a unique word not used frequently in the Bible. Someone with a knowledge of Hebrew, please let me know what this word really means. I don't think it could possibly mean "Sabbath keeping". Also, they made an interesting argument defending Sabbath. I argued that the OT Sabbath was a shadow of Christ and now we have the Substance. They pointed to Ephesians where it talks about the marriage relationship as a picture of the relationship between Christ and His church. Just because the marriage institution has a higher meaning than just the earthly marriage doesn't mean that the earthly marriage notion is nullified. In the same way, just because the institution of the Sabbath has a higher meaning (resting in Christ for salvation) doesn't mean the law for keeping the weekly Sabbath is automatically nullified. Never had heard this argument before, and it caught me by surprise. Anyone else heard this logic? SDAs love to link marriage and the Sabbath as the two holy insitituions that were instated before sin. | ||
| Indy4now Registered user Username: Indy4now Post Number: 665 Registered: 2-2008  |
I've heard those "two holy institutions" used as arguments also. The one thing that jumps out at me about marriage is that within the OT, patriarchal marriages were common. How many wives did Solomon have? How could that be a picture or a shadow? ~vivian | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 916 Registered: 7-2007 |
Actually the New Testament was translated from Greek. I have an interlinear Greek/English New Testament with the Greek text and the English translation under the words. The word translated "rest" in Hebrews 4:9 has the English "a sabbath rest" written underneath it. When the passage is read in context, you can see that it's not referring to the Sabbath day. Verse 7 "again He designates a certain day... 'Today,'" and a little later n the verse "Today, if you hear His voice..." lets you know that. Also if you back up the earlier part of the chapter and to chapter 3, it talks about Israel not entering God's rest because of unbelief. I doubt that any Adventists would doubt that Israel kept the Sabbath day! The context is talking about people not entering God's rest, not about keeping the Sabbath day. The keeping of the Sabbath day was fulfilled in Jesus just like the sacrifices were. As it says in Colossians 2:16,17; it was a shadow of Christ. (In fact all the different kinds of Sabbaths are addressed here - the festivals which were the yearly/seasonal feasts, the New Moons, and the weekly Sabbaths.) Curious that the Adventists would bring up marriage. So does Romans 7. It compares the laws dominion over a person to a woman who's bound by the law to her husband as long as he is alive. It goes on to say though that when he dies, she can marry someone else. Romans 7:4 says that Christians "have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another - to Him Who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God." So now our Sabbath rest is Jesus - not the old Sabbath day and not Sunday or any other day. Jesus says in Matthew 11:28: "Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." If someone reads the new covenant (New Testament), without the veil of Ellen White, they'll see that the Sabbath command isn't repeated there. Instead they'll find out that it was a shadow that was fulfilled. Looking back, I marvel at my own blindness - I would have been desperate to defend the SDA religion too - and would have been casting about for anything I could find to defend it with. I'm SO GLAD that the Lord rescued me!!! | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 451 Registered: 8-2008 |
Sabbatismos in Heb. 4:9 means literally a "Sabbath-ism," or something akin to Sabbath. Had he mean that the actual Sabbath remains, he would have used the wording that "the Sabbath day [Sabbaton] remains." Let's see what it says: The meaning of Hebrews 3 and 4, when you take off the SDA glasses, is quite clear. Unlike when he designated the seventh day, God designated a different day, "today." Hebrews 4 uses that twice. ("again, He specifies a certain day--today..." and "For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken later about another day.") So he cannot be talking about the seventh day of each week. In context, "another day" cannot mean "the seventh day" mentioned in verse 4. As for Genesis, Hebrews 4 says God's rest on the literal seventh day of creation continued on form thenceforth unabated ("'So I swore in My anger, they will not enter My rest.' And yet His works have been finished since the foundation of the world.") If His works were finished, He didn't start working again. The rest of God on the seventh day after creating the earth continued from thenceforth to the present. That rest was always available to those who had faith, every day of the week ("the promise remains of entering His rest" and "it remains for some to enter it") Hebrews 4 actually makes it impossible to argue the weekly Sabbath was instituted at creation, because God's rest on the seventh day after creation is said in Hebrews 4 to be continuous every day thereafter. Thus, there could be no real seven-day Sabbatarian rest cycle. IIRC, even ancient Rabbis at or before the time of the first century knew that the fact that there was no "evening and morning was seventh day" in Genesis was indicative of the conditions of that day continuing every day thereafter. Thus, there could not be a weekly required toil and rest cycle for Adam and Eve. The Sabbath only makes sense in so much as it relates to God's "My Rest." Otherwise, it is empty religious foolishness. It only meant something to the Israelites because it reminded them of God's "My Rest" that had been lost, and pointed forward to the promise of entering that rest again someday when the Messiah came. God says we enter His great "My Rest" on "another day," namely "today." Also, Hebrews 4 makes clear than Genesis 2 is saying the day God honored was only the specific seventh day of the creation cycle, not the 14th, 21st, 28th, etc. The reason it makes this clear is that the "another day" which is "today" is the author's contrast to the literal seventh day of creation (which no one disputes is referenced in verse 4). If "today" is the "another day" that is designated instead of the literal seventh day after creation, then we can't surmise that every seventh day in Eden was a special rest day. Why? Because the author is quite literally saying the rest in grace that Adam and Eve knew in Eden was restored at the Cross. The availability of that rest is designated, not by the seventh day of creation, but by "another day," which is "today." Thus, Adam and Eve must have known it "today," or every day. If the Sabbatismos of the Christian is available on "another day" which is "today", then the Christian's Sabbatismos simply cannot be a once a week Jewish Sabbath-keeping. The attempt to say Hebrews 4:9 points to literal Sabbath keeping of the New Covenant Christian does so much violence to the context of that verse that no serious Bible student could ever draw that conclusion. Note also, in closing, how the author uses the word "remains." What remains? The first "remains" tells us: A promise remains of entering God's "My Rest." The fourth commandment was not a promise of entering God's "My Rest." It was a command that said, "do this or die," and immediately thereafter someone broke it and did in fact die. That ain't God's "My Rest" that Adam and Eve knew at creation. This "My Rest" is what Joshua could not give them because of their disobedience. Now, is that the Sabbath rest? No, because God gave Israel the Sabbath commandment before Joshua, and He enforced it even after, but this "My Rest" Joshua couldn't give them. God says of those in Joshua's day, "I swore in my anger, they will not enter My Rest." Simply put, there is no exegetical way to say entering God's "My Rest" is keeping the Sabbath. Then the author says it remains for us to enter it because they didn't. Did the Jews keep the Sabbath? Yes. They did. By Jesus's time they were hard-core in making sure they didn't violate it. But they still didn't enter God's "My Rest." So who does it remain for? It remains for the people of God, whom the author previously describes as "we who have believed." He specifically says "we who have believed do enter that rest." Yo do not keep Sabbath by belief. You keep it by not working. The author says God's "My Rest" is a promise offered to us. A promise is entered into by belief. A command is kept by action. Like I said, there is absolutely zero, nada, zip, zilch exegetical means to say Hebrews 4:9 is speaking of literal Sabbath keeping. In fact, even Adventist scholars stopped using it as a defense of Sabbath keeping because they couldn't do so and avoid obvious professional embarrassment. | ||
| Seekinglight Registered user Username: Seekinglight Post Number: 284 Registered: 3-2009 |
Oops, I did mean Greek not Hebrew. Brent, actually our friends said that this Sabbath keeping argument was presented in a recent SDA church sermon. Sounds like this notion is still alive and well. | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 452 Registered: 8-2008 |
Yes, Pastors may still use it, but academic scholars will not use it. Even Adventism's Biblical Research Institute said Hebrews 4:9 is not speaking of the literal seventh-day Sabbath. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 10149 Registered: 12-2003  |
Bskillet, excellent explanation. Seekinglight, the argument about Sabbath and marriage is a straw-man device. Marriage was part of God creating mankind. It was part of His work of the sixth day. God's rest was not a creation ordinance. The seventh day was not part of creation. Adventists say there were seven days of creation, that God created or gave the Sabbath on the seventh day, but the Bible is clear that God's work ended and was complete after the sixth day. There was nothing left for God to create. Sabbath was NOT part of creation. Genesis 2:1-3 explain that by the seventh day God "had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 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." Adventists say God gave Sabbath on the seventh day of creation. But the Bible says creation was completed in six days—and marriage was part of God's creation of man. The seventh day was all about God's rest—which Brent has shown is the model for the ssabbatismos, or Sabbath-ing, of Hebrews 4. For Adventists to say creation and Sabbath were the two creation ordinances is yet another example of their misuse of Scripture and their faulty hermeneutics. Sabbath was NOT a creation ordinance. Creation was ONLY six days. The seventh day—which had no morning or evening, by the way, was all about God totally resting. He didn't "make" Sabbath. He rested, and Adam and Eve were resting in Him. And by the way, the seventh day was Adam and Eve's second day. Colleen | ||
| Brian3 Registered user Username: Brian3 Post Number: 222 Registered: 8-2005  |
Hebrews 4 calls the seventh day of creation God's "My rest" that remained to be attained by a people who were already observing the sabbath. Ask them to check thier own (SDA) commentary: "Certainly, in writing to Jews, the author of Hebrews would not consider it necessary to prove to them that Sabbathkeeping "remaineth." If the conclusion of the extended argument beginning with Heb 3:7 is that Sabbathkeeping remains for the people of God, it would seem that the writer of Hebrews is guilty of a non-sequitur, for the conclusion does not follow logically from the argument. There would have been no point in so labored an effort to persuade the Jews to do what they were already doing -- observing the seventh- day Sabbath.... What relationship a protracted argument designed to prove that Sabbath observance remains an obligation to the Christian church might have to the declared theme of Heb. 3 and 4 -- the ministry of Christ as our great High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary -- is obscure indeed." Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary Page 423 In Christ, Brian | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 1051 Registered: 7-2004  |
That's always fun to prove an SDA wrong using their own published writings! Here's an article explaining further why Sabbath was not a Creation ordinance: http://www.truthorfables.com/BACCHIOCCHI%20MACCARTY.pdf This article was written by Kerry Wynne, who came to our Miamisburg meetings. He says the Hebrew word used in Genesis for rest is a unique Hebrew word difficult to translate, but the word used makes it impossible for the Genesis rest to be anything but a one time rest God did, and not a command. See the last paragraph on page 2. | ||
| 8thday Registered user Username: 8thday Post Number: 1086 Registered: 11-2007  |
As far as marriage/sabbath - and things that have been fulfilled in Christ.. There are many OT shadows fulfilled in Christ. I want so badly to ask them how they know which ones are still obligatory and which ones are fulfilled and "abolished"? How do they arrive that we no longer keep all the other Sabbaths, sacrifice, ritually circumcise, practice niddah for menstruating women, banish those with skin diseases outside of the "camp"... I could go on and on.. what is in and what is out?? How are all the other clean/unclean injunctions ignored yet the clean and unclean meat one is still binding? The NT is clear and they recognize the truth about circumcision and sacrifices, but use a double standard when it comes to Acts 15, Romans 14, Col. 2, Eph. 2 and the entire book of Galatians... because they must maintain an obligation (note, not a want to, but a HAVE to) to one day of the week. No one told the Jewish believer they could not have their Sabbath day. But no Jewish believer was allowed by the apostles to lay this Jewish law onto those who were in Christ of other nations. As soon as you teach it's a prerequisite to true obedience and God's final approval.... OR that IF you really love God, you will WANT to, regardless of all the Biblical evidence to the contrary.. you have preached a "different gospel" and Paul has declared that you be accursed... twice... which still makes me shudder to think of that. | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 7263 Registered: 3-2004  |
These things are asked of SDAs on CARM and their answers go all over the board. It is sad. Diana L | ||
| Scarred4life Registered user Username: Scarred4life Post Number: 41 Registered: 1-2009 |
I am certainly no expert in Biblical doctrine but through my own studies I have no doubts whatsoever that if we are still under the law, then it's the Whole Law of the OC. The only thing that can be easily explained away is the sacrafice of animals for our sins since Jesus death on the cross has finished that custom. Like 8thday said, how can you possibly differentiate between all the other laws in the OC and which ones remain or are deleted. Even more perplexing is how can you possibly believe that every law went out the window with Jesus death on the cross except the 10 commandments. If you don't believe that you are saved by GRACE then I think you need to be a Jew who does believe that Jesus is the son of God. SDA proof texts like - Psalm 89:34,105:8 - Proverbs 28:9 all point towards the Torah as the law, so SDA will be turning Jewish in the near future. Not Likely, just easier to overlook what the text is saying and use the stone age argument of everytime you see the word law/commandments then just pin the 10 commandments to it. Proverbs 28:9 is a text my staunch adventist parents use, there theory is that I go to church on Sunday so I am following the Antichrist which in turn is disobeying the law so my prayers do not even go to God in heaven because they are an abomination to God. The hebrew for law here is TORAH, so I am guessing that there prayers do not go to heaven either - last time I checked they were definitely not keeping the Torah. | ||
| Seekinglight Registered user Username: Seekinglight Post Number: 286 Registered: 3-2009 |
The same way that SDAs think they can decipher which of EGW's words are from God and the ones that are her own opinion. The answer is, they cannot. Thanks everyone for your thoughts on these matters. I always welcome feedback with suggestions I can use for when I get into theological chats with SDAs. | ||
| Seekr777 Registered user Username: Seekr777 Post Number: 781 Registered: 1-2003  |
Raven, thanks for the PDF above, it is a very powerful explanation of many questions I've had. I haven't read all 40+ pages yet but I will in the near future. Just reading the first few pages was enough to let me know it was important to read in greater detail. The questions I've had have been mostly answered before, but not in that much detail.  Again thanks |
