The Sabbath Rest of John 14

Does the English word "commandments" refer to the Ten Commandments only? Does loving Jesus equal going to church on Saturday? The Greek and Hebrew reveal much.

---

If you love Me, mistranslate the Greek.

In my last post, "The Sabbath Rest of Isaiah 66", I wrote, "Of the several challenges for Sabbatarianism, one of the biggest is the fact that the weekly Sabbath is never commanded in the New Covenant". The usual response to this is: "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (JON. 14:15).
The claim here is the word "commandments" refers to the Ten Commandments, and thus the Sabbath commandment is there but hidden. Hence the title for today's post.

Today, we purposefully ask, which commandments? Do the original languages tell us all Christians must keep the Ten Commandments, or are we seeing the English word "commandments" and then jumping to conclusions?

And here are the stakes for the claim. We have but three choices:
1) The underlying Greek refers to the Ten Commandments exclusively, and we can jump to this conclusion,
But if it does not, then either:
2) It refers to all commands, and we must keep all 613 Old Covenant laws,
or
3) It refers to something completely other than the Old Covenant law-keeping.

Let's find out which one of these we end up with.

ENGLISH IS A HARD LANGUAGE

The Bible was not originally written in English. To get from "commandments" (lower case c) to "Commandments" (upper case C), first we have to translate one Greek word and one Hebrew phrase into English. Then, once they are in English, the two are connected. But do they connect without English? Let's test that.

First, the Greek word.

entolē (ἐντολή), a command

The Greek word translated into "commandments" is entolē (ἐντολή), which means authoritative instructions, commands, or precepts. It appears 71 times in the New Testament in various forms and declensions.
Entolē is a root word. I am going to refer to all the forms simply as entolē. Makes it easier on me.

Notice how Ten Commandments is not listed in that definition. That's because it's a broad word. Let's see some examples of how entolē can be any command at all.

In John 10:18, Jesus says He received an entolē from the Father to lay down His life and take it back up again. In John 12: 49-50, Jesus says He received an entolē from the Father regarding what to say and do. The Ten aren't even the greatest entolē (MAT. 22: 35-40). In Matthew 5: 19, a very popular verse, Jesus spoke of even the least entolē. In Hebrews 9: 19, entolē refers to the whole law. And in Hebrews 7: 18, the author said the entolē was annulled.
If we cannot jump to Ten Commandments in these examples, then we shouldn't anywhere.

It can mean the Ten Commandments, no doubt. I am not claiming entolē cannot mean the Ten. It can. But it is a broad word and can mean much more than that. The vast majority of the time, it does not refer to the Ten.
In only 6 out of 71 instances does it clearly refer to the Ten (MAT. 19:17-19; MAR. 10:19; LUK. 18:20; ROM. 7:8; 13:9; & EPH. 6:2). Three of those are synoptic duplicates (three verses speak of the same thing). That means entolē clearly refers to the Ten Commandments in a grand total of four unique times out of 71. If entolē only refers to the Ten Commandments 5% of the time, we cannot see "commands" and jump to the conclusion it refers to the Ten Commandments. 95% of the time, that will be the wrong conclusion.

In each of those cases, we can only know it refers to the Ten because there are contextual clues nearby. This fact complicates the effort to use verses like John 14:15 as a proof text for Sabbath-keeping.

In order for "keep My entolē" to refer to the Ten Commandments, we either need entolē to always refer to the Ten, which it does not, or we need some other clue close by in the text to prove entolē is narrowed down to the Ten specifically, but there is nothing like this in John 14.
There are context clues close by to John 14, but they aren't for the Ten. We will see that later.

This eliminates option #1.The word entolē does not refer exclusively to the Ten Commandments. Therefore, turning 'If you love Me, keep My commandments' into a command to keep the seventh-day Sabbath is reading ideas into the text rather than pulling them out of it. In short, it's eisegesis.

Now, the Hebrew phrase.

Aseret ha-D'varim (עֲשֶׂרֶת הַדְּבָרִים), Ten Sayings

The Hebrew phrase Aseret ha-D'varim (עֲשֶׂרֶת הַדְּבָרִים) is the phrase translated as Ten Commandments. But here is a bit of trivia for you - "Ten Commandments" is somewhat of a mistranslation. The Ten were not named "commandments" in Hebrew. They are divine commands, but that's not their name. I will quote Judaism 101:

"In the Torah, these words are never referred to as the Ten Commandments. In the Torah, they are called Aseret ha-D'varim (Ex. 34:28, Deut. 4:13 and Deut. 10:4). In rabbinical texts, they are referred to as Aseret ha-Dibrot. The words d'varim and dibrot come from the Hebrew root Dalet-Beit-Reish, meaning word, speak or thing; thus, the phrase is accurately translated as the Ten Sayings, the Ten Statements, the Ten Declarations, the Ten Words or even the Ten Things, but not as the Ten Commandments, which would be Aseret ha-Mitzvot."
-"Aseret ha-Dibrot: The Ten Commandments", Tracery R Rich, Judaism 101. Accessed 6-2024.

In the ancient Jewish mind, these were the Ten Words (δέκα λόγοι), hence the name Decalogue. They aren't the Ten entolē.

The word entolē was not used in the translation of Aseret ha-D'varim from Hebrew into Greek in the Septuagint. The same was true in the first century. If the native speakers and translators would not render Aseret ha-D'varim as entolē, then we should not jump to reading entolē as Aseret ha-D'varim.

To put this more plainly, the connection being made in John 14 is artificial. The idea, "if you love Me, keep My Ten Commandments," is based on a problematic understanding of the Hebrew and the Greek and the English. The word "commandments" does not get us to "Commandments" (upper case C) on its own.

Here's where we stand so far:

• Aseret ha-D'varim is not literally "Ten Commandments"
• entolē is not used when translating Ten Commandments
• The English word "commandments" collapses ideas together
• entolē is much more than the Ten
• We need additional evidence to connect entolē to the Ten
• In no New Testament verse is the Sabbath specifically commanded for the church
• There is more support here for keeping all 613 laws than just the Ten
• None of those 613 laws are about when to go to church

Option 1 is eliminated. Now we have to ask which of the other two options is the best fit? 

OPTION 2: ALL THE LAWS

As a reminder, the choices were:

2) We must keep all 613 Old Covenant laws, or
3) This isn't about the Old Covenant law.

We all know there aren't just 10 laws, there are 613 laws. But here's the thing - no one keeps all 613. I'm not talking about trying and failing. I mean no one even tries to keep "the law". Because it's not possible at this time. Yet that is exactly the requirement we get when we use John 14 to bind people to Old Covenant law but then fail to prove entolē means the Ten only. "Keep my commandments" becomes "keep ALL that I have commanded."

And so there is a sleight of hand going on here. "The law" is being redefined as just the Ten. Seventh Day Adventists frequently say, "The Law (The Ten Commandments)." This way, some can claim to be law-keepers while not keeping the law, and while accusing their neighbor of breaking the very law they themselves do not keep. But we've already seen why that cannot work, and we've eliminated that option.

By what logic can someone claim ongoing covenant obligation to “the law” while simultaneously treating most of that law as if it doesn't exist? If you're not keeping all the law, then you're not keeping the law at all.

I've written more times than I can count on how covenants work and why there is zero chance all 613 Old Covenant laws are still in effect as written. (For more, I suggest reading "Confusing the Covenants". Or, just read Hebrews 7:12.) I will not go on about that yet again here. Suffice it to say, option 2 is eliminated.

Someone might say to me, "If it cannot be all 613, then it must be narrowed to the Ten on its own." But that does not follow. This relies on the Ten being the only option left. They are not.

OPTION 3: THE CHRIST EVENT

Through the process of elimination, we know what "keep my commandments" does not mean. But we haven't seen what it does mean. We need to ask how did the author intend it to be understood. 

As for Matthew 19: 17, the Ten are clearly in view. Not because we assume what "commandments" means, but because of additional evidence close by. But that was a private conversation between Jesus and the rich man, during the Old Covenant period, there is no command for the New Covenant here (especially  not the Gentiles), and the rich man still went away disappointed. If anything, this demonstrates the Ten are not sufficient. (For more, read "Who Requires What For Salvation?".)

As for I Corinthians, there is nothing to indicate Paul was talking about the Ten, but he could not be talking about the whole law since he said circumcision is nothing. Rather, he seems to be saying something I've said here many times: Jews do not need to become Gentiles to be Christians, and Gentiles do not need to become Jews to be Christians. That is hardly a pro-legalist position.

As for John, if we don't ask John what he means, then why bother reading John at all? John straight out tells us what he means by entolē.

(I JON. 3:11,23) 11 For this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. ... 23 And this is his command (entolē): to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded (entolē) us.

(II JON. 1:6) And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands (entolē). As you have heard from the beginning, his command (entolē) is that you walk in love.

And where did John get this idea?

(JON. 13:34-35) 34 A new commandment (entolē) I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.

(JON. 15:12-14,17) 12 This is My commandment (entolē), that you love one another as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends. 14 You are My friends if you do whatever I command (entolē) you.  ... 17 These things I command (entolē) you, that you love one another.

He got it right from Jesus.

Lo and behold, John 14 is sandwiched right between these last two selections. How should we best understand John 14? In the light of John 13 and 15, of course. They aren't evidence that entolē always means the Ten Commandments, that's for sure. Love and faith. Those are the entolē in John's mind. 

Even more than this, if you walk in love you fulfill the spirit of the whole law (ROM. 13: 8-10; GAL. 5: 6,14; JAS. 2: 8).
(For an even better list, read "The Sabbath Rest of Hebrews 4".)

CONCLUSION

Does this article tell you not to obey God? In no way! This article merely challenges the claim that the Old Covenant laws are what God wants Christians to obey. We started with a simple question: which commandments? We have seen how we cannot just assume Ten Commandments. That doesn't work in Greek or Hebrew and therefore doesn't work in English. And it's not all 613 laws either. It must be something else entirely. Jesus tells us exactly what. So, when John 14:15 says “keep My commandments,” it is not pointing us back to Sinai as a legal system. It is pointing us to Christ as the fulfillment of it. 

In the New Covenant, the commandments are faith and love. That is what "keep my commandments" means. That is what this article tells you to obey.

The Sabbath commandment is not hiding in John 14:15. The passage never mentions the weekly Sabbath, fails to narrow entolē to the Ten Commandments, and does nothing to bind Gentile Christians to the Old Covenant. That entire conclusion must first be imported into the text before it can be read out of it.
What was the definition of eisegesis again? Oh yes, "the process of interpreting a text by imposing one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into it, rather than drawing meaning from the text itself."

That leaves the question as it actually stands: Are we reading John the way John defines himself, or are we importing meanings he never puts there?
Once John is allowed to speak for himself, the answer to “which commandments?” is already on the page. The commandments are faith and love.

To help you move forward, I recommend the following articles:

"Who Requires What For Salvation?"
"The Covenant and The Testimony"
"Are The Ten Commandments Removed?"
"The Sabbath Rest of Genesis 2"
"The Sabbath Rest of Isaiah 66"
"The Sabbath Rest of Hebrews 4"

 

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

An Exegetical Study Of Habakkuk 2:4 As It Relates To Paul's Doctrine Of Justification By Faith

          The Book of Habakkuk is a classic example of what we would call a theodicy. It serves as a defense of the goodness of God in the midst of evil. A theodicy aims to solve the paradox of His general providence in a world of pain and misery. How could an all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful God allow us to go through bad things? Why do evil people seem to prosper while the righteous suffer, being continually trampled on? Why is perfect justice not always inflicted on evildoers in this world? Questions of this nature undoubtedly plagued the mind of Habakkuk. Countless people throughout history have pondered and debated at length about such issues. Habakkuk was troubled deeply by the corrupt society in which he lived. The laws of the prophet's own nation were not being enforced. Justice was nowhere to be found in the land. Rebellion toward God abounded. Habakkuk wondered how a righteous God could be silent and allow these things to come to pass. Why does He stand by and do nothing? The prophet raised such questions not in a state of doubt, but faith. While God did not specifically answer the why behind that man's questions, the response given aroused a greater sense of perplexity than he originally had. How could a righteous God use Babylon, a nation more wicked than Judah itself, as an instrument of divine judgment?

          The underlying theme of the Book of Habakkuk is that we can place our trust in God because of His sovereignty. This sovereignty is not merely a distant, impersonal force, but an active, personal involvement in the lives of those who love Him. God is working things out for the good of those who love Him, directing events in ways that we may not immediately understand but are always under His divine control. Whether things seem impossible to us is irrelevant to God. His omnipotence transcends human limitations and comprehension. He will right the wrongs of evildoers in His own perfect timing. That means justice, although delayed in our eyes, is inevitable under His watchful gaze. His plan, while it may seem convoluted and slow from our finite perspective, will prove satisfactory to us in the grand scheme or complete picture of all events when they are brought to a close. This assurance invites us to adopt a posture of patience and faith. Habakkuk contains a passage that is quoted twice by the Apostle Paul in the context of our justification before God, particularly Romans 1:17 and Galatians 3:11. The text being discussed is cited in its entirety as follows:

          "Behold, as for the impudent one, His soul is not right within him; But the righteous one will live by his faith." (Habakkuk 2:4)

          Habakkuk was told by God to write down a message of the ruination of the Babylonian Empire and the restoration of Judah. The king of Babylon would fall as a result of being conceited, just as in Daniel 5 with Belshazzar. God would preserve a small remnant of Jews who were obedient to His commandments. The Babylonian army was brutal in conquest. Captured leaders were humiliated. A series of woes is pronounced on Nebuchadnezzar for his greed, covetousness, and cruelty. It is a truth that God judges people who are arrogant and presumptuous, unduly esteeming their might and capabilities (Numbers 14:44). However, it is not entirely clear who specifically is referred to as the proud in Habakkuk 2:4, whether it be Chaldean Jews, the Chaldeans themselves, or both. Verse 5 seems to imply that the reference is to the Chaldeans or Babylonians. The Jews certainly were not plundering other peoples at this time. The Babylonian Empire was stooped in moral corruption. It used threats and force to enrich itself monetarily (Habakkuk 2:6). Babylon pillaged and plundered other nations. It slaughtered innocent people and destroyed their homes (Habakkuk 2:8). These actions are denounced by God as being cruel. The Babylonians would pay by their own self-destruction.

          What did the Apostle Paul see in this passage that made it relevant to his teaching of justification by faith in Romans and Galatians? Did he misunderstand the words of Habakkuk? Paul sees in this passage the foundation of the message of the gospel in which man is declared righteous by God apart from the merit of good deeds. He projects the scope of the prophet's words from an ethnic group whose existence is in peril and infuses them with a new meaning that relates to our common humanity. Certainly, Habakkuk's words are broad enough to fit with his application of them. Paul, as a Jewish thinker steeped in the Hebrew Bible, resorted to theological expansion and the interpretive flexibility that was common for his era. The apostle's message could be paraphrased in this manner: "the one justified by faith shall live." He concerns himself with the reception of spiritual life. Habakkuk 2:4 is the only text besides Genesis 15:6 that brings together faith and righteousness in the Old Testament. Thus, we see the reason for Paul appealing to both passages in his argumentation against Law observance for justification before God in Romans and Galatians. A righteousness that comes by faith is antithetical to a Law righteousness.

          The Apostle Paul’s emphasis in Romans 1:17 is that the one who has been justified by faith is also called to live by faith. The righteousness believers receive is not their own but is granted by God on the basis of Christ’s atoning work. The phrase “from faith to faith” can be understood as an intensive expression that highlights faith as the sole means by which righteousness is received and life in God is sustained. Paul was a Hebrew who used expressions in the manner of that found in the Old Testament. Phrases comparable to "from faith to faith" in Romans 1:17 would include "vanity of vanities" (Ecclesiastes 1:2), "holy of holies" (Exodus 26:34), and "heaven of heavens" (Deuteronomy 10:14). Another occurrence of this form occurs when Paul described himself as "Hebrew of Hebrews" (Philippians 3:5). He interpreted the Prophet Habakkuk's words about a faithful Jewish remnant that appeared to be on the brink of utter destruction as being words of hope for lost humanity. Faith initiates the process of salvation and is its goal. God continually saves believers from the grasp of sin. The condition for Jews to receive blessings and protection from God under the Old Covenant is the same for Christians under the New Covenant: faith. A man cannot obtain a just standing before Him without it. Faith, righteousness, and life are intertwined. God's comfort and security are for all believers.

          Paul in Galatians 3:11 gives weight to Habakkuk 2:4 with the intent of making the point that one is justified in the sight of God on the basis of faith. He uses something other than the Law to make us right with Him. It is a life of faith that glorifies God. It is that kind of a life which brings honor to Him. The Apostle Paul's teaching of living by faith is to be contrasted with the Law's requirement of "doing" in order to have life (Deuteronomy 27:26; Leviticus 18:5). The latter way brings about death and is, therefore, of no avail to us in getting a righteous standing before God. Within the context of Leviticus, the decrees, statutes, and issued judicial rulings were the means of every aspect of Jewish life. They covered the physical, moral, and spiritual aspects of society. The Law brought death when violated, and the death of David and Bathsheba's son out of wedlock is an active illustration of this point. The Law points to life because it lays out the path of righteousness. However, it brings death to us because sin controls our nature. In the Greek text of Galatians 3:11, the word "by" means to be under the control or according to the nature of. We obtain a righteous standing before God by faith. We are freed from the guilt of sin by grace through faith. That is the newness of life we have in Christ.

          Hebrews 10:38 is the third and final place of the New Testament that contains a citation of Habakkuk 2:4. While the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews is unknown, the text bears mentioning here because it addresses the enduring nature of faith. The context of Hebrews 10 is not justification before God, but persevering in doing the will of God. Hebrews 10 stresses the continuity that exists between one's profession of faith and faith outwardly being lived out. There is also a contrast in verse 38 between two types of people. The people whom God considers as righteous are those who long for the fulfillment of His eternal promises, which as of yet cannot be seen. They endure persecution and so secure for themselves an inheritance that cannot perish. The anonymous author in the next chapter proceeds to give examples of such people from the Old Testament who rejected worldly comfort and pleasure in favor of eternal blessings. Their focus was on the future, not there and then. All of the faithful will be richly rewarded by God in the life to come. The person who succumbs to persecution is regarded as one in whom He "takes no pleasure." He is not invested in such people or showcasing divine favor to them. That course of action is called apostasy, of which is clearly frowned upon.

          Some translations of the Bible use the word "faith" in Habakkuk 2:4 (New King James Version, English Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, etc.), while others have "faithfulness" (Young's Literal Translation, New English Translation, etc.). Either choice of wording is acceptable in this context. The Hebrew word "emunah," used in this verse, can be translated as "faith," "faithfulness," "steadfastness," or "trustworthiness," capturing both an inward belief and outward demonstration. The LXX Septuagint translation says, "the just shall live by my faith," as if God's faithfulness is in view. However, that reading of the text is not taken into consideration here. A man who has faith is one who trusts in God. Such a man's character is honorable and reliable. His ways are morally upright. Those who have faith in God will also believe His promises. They are loyal to His covenant. The Apostle Paul would have derived his understanding of faith from the Hebrew Scriptures. By rooting our understanding in that same source, we can gain a fuller appreciation of this profound interplay between belief, action, and divine reliability. David W. Kerr, in the Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 876, writes concerning the nature of faith and faithfulness:

          "...In most places in the OT where it [faith] is used it has the second meaning [faithfulness rather than faith], for example, in II Kgs 12:15; Jer 5:1. It is, however, worth noticing that the root of this word [Hebrew emunah] has already been used in Hab 1:5 in the sense of giving credence to God's word or promise. Moreover, faithfulness, even as an aspect of a man's character, does not occur in the void. Faithfulness must be exercised in relation to someone or something. In this case the individual is to be faithful to God, to God's word and covenant. He must rely firmly upon, or have a deep-rooted trust in God himself. The NT use is in complete agreement with this."

          What makes Habakkuk 2:4 remarkable is that emunah is not a common word in prophetic literature, and when it does appear elsewhere in the Old Testament it often describes reliability in very practical, even mundane contexts, such as trustworthy dealings or steadfast conduct in society. By using it here, Habakkuk elevates the term into a theological principle: covenant loyalty expressed through unwavering trust in God’s promises despite overwhelming evidence of chaos. This shift from everyday “dependability” to a profound spiritual posture explains why Paul could see in the verse a foundation for righteousness by faith. The prophet’s choice of wording thus bridges ordinary human reliability with ultimate reliance on divine sovereignty, making the text uniquely suited to bear the weight of Paul’s doctrine of justification. The same author cited before reflects on Paul's usage of Habakkuk 2:4 and his spiritualization of the concept of life:

          "...Paul, in comparison with Habakkuk, enlarges infinitely the scope of the word "live," for he applies it to life to come, to the sphere of salvation or eternal well-being in distinction from merely temporal well-being. That the apostle is justified in doing so will readily be granted by Christians, since the NT writers employ many forms and figures of the OT with a fullness of meaning far transcending that which they had for believers under the older dispensation. Finally, the antithesis between the principle of active faith and that of meritorious law-works as a means of salvation is, of course, a part of the apostle's own argument. It is a logical development from the nature of faith itself."

          The beauty of Habakkuk’s use of emunah lies in its invitation to see faith not as a fleeting emotion, but as a steady posture of the soul. It is the quiet strength that holds fast when circumstances appear to contradict God’s promises. Faithfulness here is not simply about outward obedience, but about an inner resolve to trust that God’s purposes are unfolding even when they remain hidden from view. This is why Paul could so naturally draw upon Habakkuk’s words: the prophet’s call to live by faith in the midst of uncertainty mirrors the believer’s call to cling to Christ in the face of suffering and the seeming silence of God. In both settings, faith becomes the bridge between human frailty and divine reliability, a way of living that rests not on clarity but on confidence in God’s character.

           The Babylonian Talmud has a passage which says that God gave to the Israelites through Moses six hundred and thirteen commandments (tractate Makkot 23b-24a). It is said David reduced that number to fifteen (Psalm 15). Isaiah is said to have further reduced the number of commandments to six (Isaiah 33:15), Micah to three (Micah 6:8), Isaiah again to two (Isaiah 56:1), and Amos to one (Amos 5:4). In contrast to the idea of justification by works of the Law, Habakkuk places emphasis chiefly on faith in God. Walter Roehrs, in the Concordia Self-Study Commentary, Old Testament, p. 639, wrote regarding the nature of faith as conceptualized by both the Prophet Habakkuk and the Apostle Paul:

          "The word faith occurs only once in Habakkuk (2:4); but his whole prophecy is a word of faith, faith agonized, questioning, seeking, finding repose in God, and jubilant, finally, in the assurance of God’s love, and all this in the face of the obstacle to faith posed by God’s scandalously mysterious governance of history. When Paul quotes 2:4 in his thematic statement of justification by faith in Ro 1:17, it is only fair to assume that he is quoting with a consciousness of this original context of faith in Habakkuk. For Paul, as for Habakkuk, faith is confronted by an action of God which is offensively enigmatic, namely, the weakness and foolishness of the Cross; for both Paul and Habakkuk faith is faith without works, for both it is “quietly waiting” for God to do His saving work. For both, faith is not one aspect of man’s existence before God but the whole of his relationship to Him."

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

The Sabbath Rest of Isaiah 66

Is Isaiah 66 proof that the weekly Sabbath will be observed after Jesus returns, and does this establish Christian doctrine for today? Or is building doctrine from prophecy a bad idea?

---

In my last post, "The Sabbath Rest of Genesis 2", we looked at a very popular Sabbatarian claim that God created the weekly Sabbath on day seven of creation week and bound all mankind to it forever. That claim almost always comes paired with another. If they don't appear together, then you can be assured someone will be by shortly to deliver the other:

"There is a Sabbath in Isaiah 66. If we see it in prophecy, then it is perpetual and so we are bound to it today."

Of the several challenges for Sabbatarianism, one of the biggest is the fact that the weekly Sabbath is never commanded in the New Covenant (if it were, we wouldn't need claims like these). And so the thinking is, a weekly Sabbath that exists in prophecy is like having a Sabbath command.

There are two major issues we will run into here.
The first is one of shifting standards. Sabbatarian doctrine is frequently built on establishing a standard but only long enough to get what it wants. After that, the standard is quickly abandoned. (As Bereans Did has several articles which demonstrate this.) Watch for that today.
Also, watch how prophecy is front-loaded with assumptions. The entire case today depends on one particular interpretation of prophecy. No other interpretations are allowed. But if the interpretation of prophecy is wrong, this entire claim is wrong.

A HIDDEN COMMAND

(ISA. 66: 23) ...from Sabbath to Sabbath, all flesh shall come to worship before me, declares the Lord.

There's the word we were looking for - Sabbath. Now we load it up with our interpretations and assumptions, then we are ready to insert our claim: "If we see something in prophecy, then it is perpetual and valid for today." Everybody Sabbath! And so we see articles and sermons and memes without end using Isaiah 66:23 to support Sabbath-keeping, alongside others like Ezekiel 46:3.

In Genesis, we had to prove if the weekly Sabbath is there at all. It is not. Things are different here. Here, Sabbath is right in your face. It's even translated correctly. No need to dive into Hebrew or Greek today.

Isaiah talks about more than just the Sabbath. These words were said to me quite recently, "Isa 66 is a prophecy of the second coming. He saw in vision God destroying those eating foods that God has called an abomination, including swine and mouse [v17]. Unless Isaiah prophesied falsely, these foods are still an abomination."

So, it's not just the Sabbath. 

Apparently, through prophecy, clear New Testament statements about foods, like Mark 7: 19, can be overridden. And prior commitments to "ceremonial law" being removed can be partially overridden (meats were ceremonially unclean).
Prophecy fills in when you don't have something you want in the New Covenant, and it takes over when you have something you don't want in the New Covenant.
Impressive.

We should expect to see something this powerful discussed throughout church history.

A NEW COMMAND

Where does this "prophecy is a command for today" idea come from? Not from the Bible. God never made this claim. Even the Prophets who gave the prophecies in the first place never made this claim. So, where does the idea come from?

Try as I might, I cannot find anything in history to show this is an older claim. Plenty of people through the centuries have discussed Isaiah 66 and what it means (we will see one later), but they did not come to a conclusion like the one we are looking for. It genuinely appears to have been first articulated in the 1800s, and most likely from ... Sabbatarians.

Earlier Sabbatarians were aware of prophecies, but they were mainly concerned with what they believed was returning to a basic Christianity (as opposed to Catholicism). Seventh Day Baptists used prophecies like Isaiah 66 to claim the Sabbath is perpetual, but these were supporting proof-texts at best. Early SDA pioneers merged their prophecy-focused Adventism with Sabbatarian themes. Ellen G. White refined the use of Sabbath prophecies from a supporting proof text to a clear present obligation, and popularized the idea in her writings.

Now that we know how we got to where we are, we need to ask - if it isn't Biblical and it isn't an older tradition, and if we don't accept Ellen White as a prophet, then why should we accept this claim to begin with? Because it's undeniably true, or because it gets us what we want?

Now let's look at the problems that accepting the claim has caused.

NEW MOONS, LEVITES, AND CEREMONIAL LAW

I purposefully left part of Isaiah 66:23 out. 

(ISA. 66:23) From new moon to new moon, and from Sabbath to Sabbath...

"New moon to new moon"?

It's the same in Ezekiel:

(EZE. 46: 3) The people of the land shall bow down at the entrance of that gate before the Lord on the Sabbaths and on the new moons.

Any Sabbatarians out there observing new moons? Some are! But that's a small fraction of a minority who do. Most Sabbatarians are fully aware of new moons but disregard them as required observances.

Can we get Sabbaths without new moons, though? Not in prophecy. It's a package deal.
How can it be that prophecy is the way to know Sabbaths are a perpetual requirement, but the same prophecy does not do the same thing for new moons? How is prophecy the next best thing to a law where Sabbaths and meats (ie. ceremonial law) are concerned, but nothing of the sort for other less desirable things?

Now let's read a couple verses up.

(ISA. 66: 20-21) 20 And they shall bring all your brothers [diaspora Jews] from all the nations as an offering to the Lord, on horses and in chariots and in litters and on mules and on dromedaries, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, says the Lord, just as the Israelites bring their grain offering in a clean vessel to the house of the Lord. 21 And some of them also I will take for priests and for Levites, says the Lord.

Here is my response to the person I mentioned earlier, the one trying to convince me Isaiah proves meats laws are still in effect: "And unless Isaiah prophesied falsely, it is mandatory to go to Jerusalem every new moon and sabbath to make offerings with a Levite priest. The ceremonial law is still in effect."

The standard is one thing for Sabbaths and meats, but another thing for new moons, Levites, a Temple, and other points.

This talk about Levites and offerings isn't lost on Sabbatarians.

"The reinstitution of the Levitical priesthood and temple in Jerusalem by Christ will revive the sacrificial system."
-"Should Christians Observe the New Moons?", Worldwide Church of God, Feb. 2002, p.10.

Notice the timing there. Sabbath now, Levites not now.

The insistence upon reading prophecies literally leads to all sorts of doctrinal incoherence. Why on earth would Jesus reinstitute the Levitical priesthood and sacrifices (which includes animals) at all when it runs contrary to His own priesthood and His own sacrifice? Answer: He has to because we have committed to a literal interpretation of prophecy and we can't back away now.

A PROPHECY THAT MISREAD COULD HAVE BEEN

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: prophetic interpretation is inherently speculative. I've been preaching that since I was still an Armstrongist. In all this talk about the Sabbath, has anyone considered that we are balancing a near-salvation-level doctrine on a speculative reading of prophecy? We are reviewing one of its most popular proof texts.
This tension between literal and figurative, and the impossible task of proving one over the other prior to the fulfillment, is why I say it is a terrible idea to base doctrine on prophetic interpretation.

Which of these makes more sense:

A) Prophecy must be read literally, so in the immediate future there will be a Levitical priesthood and a Temple and new moons and chariots and ceremonial law, and the entire world will go to Jerusalem every week,
-or-
B) Perhaps we shouldn't read prophecy so literally, because these words could be using ideas the Jews of that time could grasp but really they mean things no human alive at that time could grasp?

I'm going with B.

It's not so far fetched. Do you genuinely expect that in the near future the world will be riding chariots and litters and mules to carry Jews to Jerusalem? Chariots went out of favor 1,500 years ago. Short of robbing a museum, I have no idea where you could even get one. Or!
Could these words picture something else? Is it not said that the locusts of Revelation 9 are really helicopters (or something similar)? Just think of all the images in prophecy which literally are one thing but mean something completely different. The sea is humanity or chaos, stars are angels or saints, beasts are empires, horns are power, oil is the spirit of God, etc etc. When Daniel had his visions, an angel was sent to explain what it meant. When John had his visions, he asked the angel what they meant. Jesus spoke in parables, and the Apostles asked what they meant. When I propose ancient words picture modern realities, it's not outrageous. This is an idea I got from Herbert Armstrong, who in turn got it from Adventists.

With that in mind, Tertullian has an interesting take which we should not ignore. This is from Tertullian's work "Adversus Judaeos" (Answer to the Jews), which was written in about 198-206:

"Whence we [Christians] understand that we still more ought to observe a sabbath from all “servile work” always, and not only every seventh day, but through all time. And through this arises the question for us, what sabbath God willed us to keep? For the Scriptures point to a sabbath eternal and a sabbath temporal. For Isaiah the prophet says, “Your sabbaths my soul hateth;” and in another place he says, “My sabbaths ye have profaned.” Whence we discern that the temporal sabbath is human, and the eternal sabbath is accounted divine; concerning which He predicts through Isaiah: “And there shall be,” He says, “month after month, and day after day, and sabbath after sabbath; and all flesh shall come to adore in Jerusalem, saith the Lord;” which we understand to have been fulfilled in the times of Christ, when “all flesh”—that is, every nation—“came to adore in Jerusalem” God the Father, through Jesus Christ His Son, as was predicted through the prophet: “Behold, proselytes through me shall go unto Thee.” Thus, therefore, before this temporal sabbath, there was withal an eternal sabbath foreshown and foretold; just as before the carnal circumcision there was withal a spiritual circumcision foreshown."
-Tertullian, "Answer to the Jews", chapter IV, on CCEL.

Tertullian argued Isaiah was fulfilled in Jesus Christ, and reads Isaiah's "new moons and sabbaths" as "month after month, and day after day". It is fair to treat these phrases this way and some translators do. Do you recall in the post "The Two Sabbaths of Matthew 28" how we discussed the plural of Sabbath actually means weeks? The idea of new moons and sabbaths in prophecy might just be another way of saying month after month and week after week and day after day. Or, in other words, always.
Why is this important? Because if Tertullian is right, then Isaiah heads straight in the direction of the New Covenant Sabbath as a perpetual rest in Jesus Christ.

To put it another way, Isaiah could be supporting the Sabbath in Christ.

I am absolutely certain every Sabbatarian will balk at this. But accept it or reject it, either way it's based on preference. Short of having an angel come and tell you exactly what it means, all prophetic interpretation is inherently speculative.
But if we reject figurative interpretations in favor of literal, then we return to a requirement to observe new moons with a Levitical Priesthood ...and trying to back out of that requirement.

ESCAPING ARMSTRONGISM

Armstrongism has always considered new moons for their calendar. For example, see the article by Kenneth Hermann, "Prove God's Calendar Correct" Good News Magazine volume VI, number 10, October 1957. The author goes into great detail about the minutiae of how the moon works for establishing lunisolar calendars. It's not that they aren't familiar with new moons. But when it considered whether or not to observe new moons, the Worldwide Church of God said no.

"It might be noted here that the new moons are often mentioned in association with festival celebrations in the Old Testament. During the lengthy centuries when the calendar was determined by observation of the new crescent, witnesses had to report to the proper authorities and the new month could officially be declared. The day of the new moon was, consequently, very important. Therefore, the new moons were always given a certain special regard. 
On the other hand, new moons are never designated holy days. They are not included in any of the lists of festivals. No special sanctity is ever attached to them. The only extraordinary regard accorded them was that certain special offerings were carried out on their days, But this did not in any way hallow them, since offerings were offered every secular day as well. They also lost something of their former special function when the calendar became determined solely by calculation in the early centuries A.D. "
-"Systematic Theology", Worldwide Church of God, 1978, p.8.

And they kept saying no. Earlier in this post I quoted a WCG Doctrinal Paper titled "Should Christians Observe the New Moons?". In that Doctrinal Paper, the WCG reiterated what we just read in the Systematic Theology.

What happened to treating prophecy like the command we never had? What happened to the prophecy providing what was missing?

But get this, from page 9 of the Doctrinal Paper:

"But there is no indication that these special days [new moons] are commanded of Christians today who worship God without a physical temple or Levitical priesthood."

Do you realize what they just said? Put in other words, they just said, "Just because we see something in prophecy does not make it binding on us today."
Why, I'll be! They made the same argument that I am making!
...but only when it comes to new moons, the Levitical priesthood, and most ceremonial laws.

Perhaps you are a Sabbatarian but not from Armstrongism and you feel this section doesn't apply to you. This blog focuses primarily on Armstrongism, so that is what I quote here. These may not be your church's words, but if you are not celebrating new moons and participating in the other things we've seen in prophecy, then your church is likely making similar claims as we've seen here.

Please read this next part slowly and carefully. This is the heart of everything I've written here.

They dismiss new moons because there is no command for Christians to observe them today. But why are we appealing to Isaiah 66 for the weekly Sabbath in the first place? Because there is no command for Christians to observe it today. Same condition, different result.
Did I not say at the start of this post that if the Sabbath were commanded in the New Covenant then we wouldn't need claims like this one? Yes.
They use a prophecy when it seems to support their existing doctrine, they dismiss the very same prophecy when it doesn't support their existing doctrine. When Isaiah 66 appears to support meats laws, the prophecy is more important than clear New Testament statements. But when the same prophecy points toward new moons, a Levitical priesthood, etc, then New Testament statements suddenly become more important than the prophecy.

One standard here, another there.
A literal view of prophecy here, a metaphorical one there.

CONCLUSION

Which is true: “If we see it in prophecy, we are bound to it today,” or “we are not bound today to what we see in prophecy”? Sabbatarians use both claims, depending on what they are trying to prove.

There are two problems here.
The first is interpretation. How are these prophecies really meant to be understood? Literally? Figuratively? Fulfilled already? Still future? Everyone insists their reading is obvious while disagreeing with each other constantly.
The second problem is standards. The same prophecy used to restore Sabbath-keeping and meats laws is quietly abandoned when it points toward new moons, sacrifices, and Levitical priesthood. One standard here, another there.

If it were truly a binding claim, it would be consistently applied, and it would not inherently rely on a speculative interpretation of prophecy. It stands or falls on one view of prophecy, which no human can prove. So no, this is not the solid claim it is presented to be.
A shifting standard founded on a best guess. And that is one of the prime proof texts for Sabbatarianism.

I leave you with this advice - building doctrine on prophetic interpretation is a bad idea.

We have several other articles on the Sabbath to help you on your way. I particularly recommend "The Sabbath Rest of Hebrews 4" and "The Sabbath Rest of Genesis 2". And don't forget to check out our Categories Page as well.

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

The Sabbath Rest of Genesis 2

Was the weekly Sabbath instituted as a binding ordinance for all mankind in Genesis 2? I believed that myself for years. But the text doesn’t actually say that.

---

One of the most common claims of Sabbatarianism is that by resting on the seventh day of creation week and blessing that day, God instituted and commanded the weekly Sabbath for all mankind. I am currently reading a book published in 1724 that makes this claim. The thinking is, if the Sabbath was created before Sinai then it is outside of the Covenants. It also creates a new version of history where mankind observed a weekly Sabbath for a while, but it was later lost and then reinstituted in Exodus 16.

This may come as a shock, but I disagree.

I've already gone over this topic in a more general way in the post "The Sabbath Rest of Hebrews 4". That post skimmed many ideas beyond Hebrews 4. Today's post will be more specific. This time, I want to focus on Genesis 2:2-3.

Let's start by learning a little Hebrew.

SHABATH vs SHABBAT

In Genesis, the seventh day of creation is not called a Sabbath, but at a glance it might look like it is.

Genesis 2: 2 uses the Hebrew word shabath (שָׁבַת). Some see shabath and conclude it means a Sabbath day, but shabath does not mean Sabbath day. We have two different kinds of words being confused. Closely related, but not the same.

Let's look at these two words and see a few things, starting with shabath.

shabath (שָׁבַת) verb, to cease

Shabath is a verb. It describes stopping, ceasing, desisting an action. Contrary to what you might think, the heart of the word is not "to rest", but rest can be implied depending on context. I will emphasize “to cease” because it helps bring out an important idea that might be easy to miss.

Side note: When you look in Strong's you will see shabath, but when you look in interlinear Bibles you will see wayyišbōṯ (וַיִּשְׁבֹּת֙) instead. What's up with that? The reason is, they are the same basic word. Shabath is the root form. Using roots makes things simpler for Strong's (and me) rather than listing and defining every possible conjugation of every word. And wayyišbōṯ is shabath after it has been conjugated quite a bit. Shabath is "to cease" and wayyišbōṯ is "and He ceased". Same word, different form.
Lesson: use more tools than just Strong's in your word studies.

Moving on.

Here is a critical idea for today:

In Genesis 2:2, the one who ceases is God, and the specific action God ceases from is creating. 

Why is this critical? Because only God was creating, and only God could cease from this work. Only God can shabath here, hence how it was conjugated to "and He ceased", not "they". There is nothing here for Adam to cease from. This cessation was not general, it was quite specific - "He rested [ceased / shabath] from all His work which God had created and made". This pattern repeats in the next verse. This is all about what God did, and no one besides. God's acting alone and God's intentionality in creating is absolutely critical to understanding the Judao-Christian creation narrative versus any other. And nothing in the narrative suggests it was ever repeated, let alone weekly.

Do you see how expanding this shabath to all mankind not only has no foundation in the language used, but it does damage to the creation narrative and God's unique role in it? This is why I am emphasizing "cease" over "rest". It's too easy to see rest and think God and Adam rested. It's not so easy to see cease and think God and Adam ceased from creating.

Notice another important point:
Genesis 2:2 says God finished (kâlâh) His work and that He ceased (shabath) His work. 

Why is that important? If Genesis only said kâlâh (finished), you would know creation was complete, but you would not see that God purposefully ceased from it (as if to say He kept tweaking it, or did more to it later on). If it only said shabath (cease), you would know God purposefully ceased from work, but not necessarily that the creation was complete (as if to say He stopped early or was interrupted). The two are complementary, not redundant. Put everything together and you get a purposeful end to creation when it was fully ready to be ended. He ceased when it was time to cease.

Every word here is purposeful and careful. Nothing is assumed. Nothing is implied. There is a completeness here. There is a perfection here.

I ask myself, would the author of Genesis take such care to be this specific only to leave out huge ideas like a command for all mankind to cease from their own work repeatedly every week for the rest of time? Remember, Sabbatarians aren't just saying it's a good idea, they are claiming it's a requirement. Most claim we are not saved by it, but we cannot be saved without it. This is salvation-level importance, and we are reviewing one of its most popular proof texts. An idea this big, this foundational, should be in-your-face blatant. But where is it? Nowhere in Genesis 2.

And if it is a Sabbath, then why isn't the word Sabbath (shabbat) used here?

shabbat (שַׁבָּת) noun, Sabbath

The word shabbat is a noun, not an action word. It is a designated day where the main characteristic was ceasing from normal work. Shabbat (שַׁבָּת) is a day for Israel to shabath (שָׁבַת) from normal duties. Creation was certainly not normal duties.

The word shabbat is not in Genesis 2. The word shabbat is not in Genesis at all. If a Sabbath day were intended here, it is not unreasonable to expect it to be written. It is not.

Perhaps I can understand why recorded history outside the Bible would have been lost, but for the Bible itself to be so silent about it that the very word is not used until sixteen chapters into Exodus is telling. I will not hang my hat on an argument from silence, but I think in this case we cannot ignore the silence either. If the weekly Sabbath idea is not there, then silence is expected.

Now that we've talked about the language used, let's talk about the central idea.

BLESSED AND HALLOWED

In Genesis 2: 3, God blesses and hallows the seventh day of creation. Sabbatarians claim this is the part that implies the creation of a weekly Sabbath. I admit, for most of my life I believed this. The Sabbatarian position was the only one that made sense to me. Why would God bless and hallow a single day only to move on and leave that behind. It seemed like a waste. I was thinking in the wrong direction - towards the future.

Let's consider this from another direction - in the context of creation, where it appears. Not with verses from other chapters, but from this chapter. Not with words and ideas that aren't there, but with words and ideas that are there. Not forward to thousands of years in the future, but back to all that had happened that week. Not where Adam rests from work he didn't have in paradise, or from sin he hadn't fallen to yet, or where he keeps an appointment with a God who was ever-present, but for God's final act in ceasing and blessing His own work of creation.

This is the last verse of the creation narrative, before it strongly shifts focus onto Adam and Eve and the buildup to their fall (some scholars even say verse 4 starts a second, separate creation narrative). Verse 3 is still about God and what He did.

Creation was finished, God ceased from creating, and He blessed that time as a time to be refreshed by and to delight in what He had made. He was present in it. He saw that it was good. This blessing is the very last piece that completes and seals the creation act.
He didn't just create it then run off, He stayed and enjoyed all that He had made.

Sabbatarians will want to continue on, "Yes, but then Adam..."

No. There is no "but then" or Adam in this verse. It isn't written. It isn't the point. I am not saying Adam is utterly absent here. But this is about who God is, not Adam.
God is the One who creates ex nihilo, purposefully not by accident, as a blessing not a curse, and He received a personal blessing from what He made. We cannot completely remove mankind from the creation act because we are part of it, ultimately it was for us, and God was refreshed by all that He had made which includes Adam - Adam is part of what God ceased from and was refreshed by - but the star of this section is God. He is the only one who creates or ceases from creating. We are still talking about the creation act here.

The reason Sabbatarians turn the spotlight onto mankind is because of an attempt to force a predetermined conclusion into the narrative. The assumption comes first, then the reading, and then the reading is used to justify the assumption. It's circular. And it detracts.

ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE

Something else never sat right with me. Why would God create Adam then immediately tell him to take a day off?

God: "Adam! Welcome to Earth. I just finished a lot of work and the sun is going down, so why don't you take tomorrow off." Adam: "Great! Uhhh... What's a 'tomorrow'?"

Adam was created mere hours before the seventh day began. He had no sin, no toil, no exhaustion -nothing to cease from. He had a big day planned of reaching out to grab food, and wondering what things are called. He lived in the Garden of Eden, God’s own earthly dwelling place, walking with Him in unbroken fellowship every single day. Nothing separated Adam from God (not even clothes). In that perfect setting, every moment was like a Sabbath.

A mandatory weekly Sabbath in Eden feels like a solution in search of a problem that didn’t exist yet. The entire experience of Eden was already sabbath-like. Why insert a special day to “do what you’re doing now, only a little less”? It would have been rather pointless.

HAVES AND HAVE NOTS

Let's go over once again what we do and do not have in front of us.

What we have:

• God finishing His work (kālāh)
• God ceasing from His finished work (shābat/wayyišbōṯ)
• God as the only one acting or ceasing from acting
• A very specific action being ceased from - creating
• God blessing a day and personally being refreshed in it by what He had made
• A completed creation account
• A clear focus on what God did
• An illustration of who God is (the Creator and source of existence)

What we do NOT have:

• Any mention of an action by Adam
• Any mention of Adam ceasing an action
• Any command for anyone
• Any indication of a weekly cycle being established
• Any mention that all seventh days were blessed
• Any mention of the word shabbat (Sabbath) itself
• Any connection to ordinary human work, or sin, or an appointment with God
• Any indication that the blessing is meant as a pattern for all mankind
• Any clear focus on man
• Any hint of going to church
• Any hint of annual sabbaths

Notice, no weekly Sabbath language or command exists here in Genesis 2:2-3.
Now, let's look at the imagery.

THE SINCEREST FORM OF FLATTERY

I am certain someone will have a hard time with this because the weekly Sabbath and the creation narrative are obviously related. I fully agree they are!

Exodus does look back at Genesis for imagery. But that does not mean Exodus forces Genesis to secretly create a repeating event that later gets lost and then reinstituted in Exodus. It simply does not follow.

Some even say Genesis anticipates Exodus. That is reasonable. God is fully capable of knowing how mankind could fall and planning how He would respond. But that does not force His hand. Jesus was “crucified from the foundation of the world,” yet He does not die in Genesis 3.

Even if we accept these forward- and backward-looking connections (I personally do), the claim that “God created the Sabbath day in Genesis and commanded it for all mankind” still goes beyond what the text can support. Borrowing themes does not make them the same thing.

Many have noticed these bi-directional thematic connections over time, but not a binding ordinance for all mankind.

Search the Jewish and Samaritan commentaries and extra-biblical writings. You will find connections between creation and the Sabbath, and even angels keeping it in heaven. But the clear, repeated emphasis is that the commanded weekly Sabbath was a special sign for Israel alone, not a universal requirement given to all mankind. And we can't blame this on the Jews not understanding the Sabbath because they didn't observe it.

Search the early Christian writings. You will find all sorts of discussion on the seventh day of creation - its symbolism, patterns, its future fulfillment, and even references to an “eighth day.” But in all their analysis - literal, mystical, polemical, or otherwise - there is no mention of a binding weekly Sabbath for all mankind hidden in creation week.

I am not appealing to authority or silence. It's a simple observation. If a weekly Sabbath were really in Genesis 2, it is reasonable to expect to see this claim repeated plainly and often throughout history. We should see at least a couple people saying it. But we do not. It's so important that it didn't make it into the text or the commentary. That tells us something about where this idea comes from and why.

This strong claim does not appear until after the Reformation, more than a thousand years after Christ and several thousand years after Genesis. Even then, it doesn't appear fully formed. It takes several years to develop. Which group seems to have developed it? Sabbatarians. And that raises a fair question - did they fit their ideas to what they read in Genesis 2, or do they read Genesis 2 to fit their ideas?

CONCLUSION

Is the weekly seventh-day Sabbath in Genesis 2? Only if you bring it in with you. The text does not give it. It is not stated, not implied, and not hinted at in any straightforward reading of the passage. It has to be imported.

What do we actually see? God.
God the Creator and source of existence purposefully ceasing from His creative activity when all was ready, and then blessing the seventh day as the final act to seal what He had done, and then He was refreshed in what He had made. I emphasized shabath as "to cease" to illustrate that this was all about God.
What we do not see? Man.
Any work for man, any ceasing of work for man, any command for mankind, or any statement about repetition.

When that absence of evidence is compared with how important this claim is said to be, the silence is hard to ignore. And when we consider this claim appears to have been developed by Sabbatarians after the Reformation, the silence becomes deafening. It isn't that the passage is unclear. It's exactingly clear. It is that the conclusion being drawn goes well beyond what the passage actually says. It is the attempt to cram the Sabbath in there which makes it seem unclear.

I no longer believe God ceasing from His own work in Genesis 2 also establishes a weekly Sabbath command for all mankind. I genuinely do not see any compelling reason to agree. I accepted it because I needed it as a Sabbatarian, not because I couldn't avoid it in the text. That is the very definition of eisegesis: "the process of interpreting a text by imposing one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into it, rather than drawing meaning from the text itself."

If you are wondering how Deuteronomy 5: 15 or Exodus 20: 11 fit in, I address those in my post "The Sabbath Rest of Hebrews 4".

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************