What About the Gentiles? - Part II

Some say the Covenants and the Savior were for Israel only. This series explores one of the Bible's biggest themes: how God called Israel to reclaim all people through Jesus Christ. Along the way, we'll ask what that means for the covenants, the law, the Gentiles, and Israel itself.

---

I've seen it thrown at Christians many times in the past, by a very small but vocal minority, that the Biblical covenants were made with Israel only. The conclusion we are supposed to reach form this is: therefore Gentiles are rejected unless they become Jews first in order to become Christians. (Or, to be more precise, unless they become like the people who are making these kinds of accusations.) And so we end up hearing questions like, "Is Jesus the Messiah of the Gentiles?" and "Are the Gentiles even called?"

In the last post, we went over the backstory to see why the world needed reclamation in the first place. We found the Bible story is all one big loop. And it turns out, we owe quite a bit of thanks to God for what He accomplished through Israel to bring Jesus Christ to us, and through Jesus to draw us back to Him. He wanted it so badly that He was willing to die for it.
In this post, we are going to look at the Bible verses throughout the Old Testament and the New which predict the reclamation of the Gentiles.

The challenge we set for ourselves is, we have to do this post without relying on Paul. And so we shall.

The next section is going to be verse-heavy. I am going to try to make this as easy for everyone as possible. I will put a few lists of verses for you to check out later on. Don't feel obligated to read these now (unless you really want to). This is a handy place to keep these for when you're ready. After that, I have chosen a few select verses which really emphasize the points we are trying to get at.

FOUNDATIONS

Let's get started with the Old Testament first.

OLD TESTAMENT

Here are two lists of verses about the inclusion of the Gentiles:

Universal worship for the nations:
GEN. 12:3; 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14.
PSA. 22:27-28; 67:2-7; 72:17; 86:9; 96:3, 7-10; 98:2-3; 102:15; 117:1.
ISA. 2:2-4; 11:10; 25:6-8; 40:5, 22; 42:1-4; 45:22-23; 49:6; 52:10; 60:1-3; 62:2; 66:18-19.
JER. 4:2; 16:19; 3:17.
DAN. 7:14.
MIC. 4:1-3.
HAB. 2:14.
ZEP. 2:11; 3:9-10.
ZEC. 8:20-23; 9:9-10; 14:16.
HOS. 2:23
MAL. 1:11.

Inclusion of Gentiles into redemption:
GEN. 12:3; 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14.
DEU. 32:43.
ISA. 11:10-12; 19:23-25; 42:6; 49:6; 56:3-8; 66:19-21.
JER. 12:14-17.
AMO. 9:11-12.
ZEC. 2:11.
ZEP. 3:9-10.

And now, I have chosen some interesting selections for you.

(GEN. 12:3b) [speaking of Abraham] And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.

(GEN. 22:18) [speaking of Abraham] In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.

(PSA. 67:1-7) 1 God be merciful to us and bless us, and cause His face to shine upon us, Selah. 2 That Your way may be known on earth, Your salvation among all nations. 3  Let the peoples praise You, O God; let all the peoples praise You. 4 Oh, let the nations be glad and sing for joy! For You shall judge the people righteously, and govern the nations on earth. Selah. 5 Let the peoples praise You, O God; let all the peoples praise You. 6 Then the earth shall yield her increase; God, our own God, shall bless us. 7 God shall bless us, and all the ends of the earth shall fear Him.

(ISA. 19:23-25) 23 In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian will come into Egypt and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians will serve with the Assyrians. 24 In that day Israel will be one of three with Egypt and Assyria—a blessing in the midst of the land, 25 whom the Lord of hosts shall bless, saying, “Blessed is Egypt My people, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel My inheritance.”

(ISA. 42:1,6) [speaking of Jesus (MAT. 12:17; LUK. 2:32)] 1 “Behold! My Servant whom I uphold, My Elect One in whom My soul delights! I have put My Spirit upon Him; ... 6 He will bring forth justice to the Gentiles. I, the Lord, have called You in righteousness, and will hold Your hand; I will keep You and give You as a covenant to the people, as a light to the Gentiles.

(AMO. 9:11-12) 11 “On that day I will raise up the  tabernacle of David, which has fallen down, and repair its damages; I will raise up its ruins, and rebuild it as in the days of old; 12 that they may possess the remnant of Edom, and all the Gentiles who are called by My name,” says the Lord who does this thing.

(ZEC. 2:10-11) 10 “Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion! For behold, I am coming and I will dwell in your midst,” says the Lord. 11 “Many nations shall be joined to the Lord in that day, and they shall become My people. And I will dwell in your midst. Then you will know that the Lord of hosts has sent Me to you.

(ZEP. 3:9) “For then I will restore to the peoples a pure language, that they all may call on the name of the Lord, to serve Him with one accord.

This is perhaps my favorite selection of all:

(ISA. 49:6) [speaking of the Jesus and the Apostles (ACT. 13:47)] Indeed He says, ‘It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles, that You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth.’

Does that sound to you like the Gentiles are not saved? Doesn't sound like that to me.
The prooftexts from the first post were not by any means the only material we have on this subject. Reading the Bible did get us a bigger picture after all. The reclamation and salvation of the Gentiles was prophesied in the Old Testament. They were to become His people and be called by His name. It was to happen through the Messiah. The prophets and writers expected it. They waited and hoped for it.
What are people going to do now, rip out Isaiah, Zechariah, the Psalms, and Abraham from their Bibles?

Now, let's look at this from the New Testament.

NEW TESTAMENT

Here is a list of verses about the inclusion of the Gentiles:

MAT. 5:14-16; 8:11–12; 12:18–21; 21:43; 26:28; 28:19.
MAR. 11:17; 14:24.
LUK. 2:32; 3:6; 24:47.
JON. 1:29; 3:16-17; 4:42; 8:12; 95; 10:16; 12:32.
ACT. 1:8; 10–11 (all); 15 (all); 21:25; 28:28.
I PET. 2:9–10.
REV. 5:9; 7:9; 14:16; 15:4; 22:2.

And now, I have chosen some interesting selections for you.

(MAT. 2:28)  For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

(MAT. 28:19) [Jesus giving commission to the Apostles] Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to follow all that I commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.

(LUK. 2:29-32) [Simeon speaking about Jesus] 29 “Now, Lord, You are letting Your bond-servant depart in peace, according to Your word; 30 for my eyes have seen Your salvation, 31 which You have prepared in the presence of all the peoples: 32 A light for revelation for the Gentiles, and the glory of Your people Israel.”

(LUK. 24:45-47) [Jesus, after His resurrection, to the Apostles] 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, “So it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

(ACT. 10:34-35, 42-45) [Peter to Cornelius] 34 Opening his mouth, Peter said: “I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, 35 but in every nation the one who fears Him and does what is right is acceptable to Him. ... 42 And He ordered us to preach to the people, and to testify solemnly that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead. 43 All the prophets testify of Him, that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.” 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45 All the Jewish believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had also been poured out on the Gentiles.

(I JON. 4: 14) And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world.

(REV. 5:9) And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are You to take the scroll and to break its seals; for You were slaughtered, and You purchased people for God with Your blood from every tribe, language, people, and nation.

(REV. 21:24-26) 24 The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it. 25 In the daytime (for there will be no night there) its gates will never be closed; 26 and they will bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it;

The New Testament did not invent this. What was predicted in the Old is fulfilled in the New. At the exact same time as God set His mind to reject the Gentiles and build Israel, God planned and promised salvation, forgiveness, justice, and regathering for all the peoples of the earth, both Jew and Gentile. That promise has been fulfilled. By Sabbaths and meats? No. In the person of Jesus Christ by faith. Before He died, while it was yet in the Old Covenant period, He told His Apostles to go to the Jews only. After His death and the coming of the New Covenant, the orders He gave them were very different. He sent the Apostles to spread the good news to the ends of the earth - starting at Jerusalem. Because it was time. "To the Jew first, and then to the Gentile." And even to us. As Jesus said, "for many."

CIRCLING BACK

Everything in these two posts tell the same story. What was predicted in Eden has come to pass. What was broken at Babel is now healed. The Gentiles who were disinherited are now reclaimed. He who was not our God is again our God. We who were not His people are again His people. Jesus is the Savior of all mankind, everyone who believes in Him, to the glory of God the Father, so the entire earth can be filled with the knowledge of God (HAB. 2:14).

How can anyone look at this and still wonder if the Gentiles are included in the New Covenant? Because the Jesus never says the exact phrase "The New Covenant hereby includes the Gentiles"?? Did Jesus not say His blood is the New Covenant, shed for many for the remission of sins? Did Jesus Himself not say that He has cleansed the Gentiles? And did Peter not say the Gentiles who believe in Him have remission of sins? How can that happen without His blood, which is the blood of the New Covenant? It is a miserable, desperate argument to dismiss a thing only because it isn't worded a certain way.

But this is where the Gentile needs an extra helping of humility and thankfulness. God was not required do any of this. We certainly did not get here on our own. Thank God we were reclaimed from that hopeless condition ...by the Messiah who came through Israel from Abraham. Glad you are saved by faith in the Messiah? Consider thanking a Jew for Israel's part in the coming of the Messiah.

PAUL

Notice something. We have now gone from Abraham, through Moses, the Psalms, Isaiah, Amos, Zechariah, the Gospels, Acts, Hebrews, and Revelation... without needing Paul. 

Only after establishing all of this would we need to mention Paul. Paul didn't invent the inclusion of the Gentiles. He plainly says as much (GAL. 3:8). Notice that the narrative about Cornelius, the first Gentile to receive the Holy Spirit, technically begins in the same chapter of Acts where Saul is converted (ACT. 9). You can't blame that on Paul! By now, we've long since demonstrated the point: Paul did not invent Gentile inclusion. All he did was read his scriptures. He is one witness among many to a plan that runs from Eden to the New Jerusalem.

I ask, do some people reject Paul because he preached something contrary to the Bible, or does the Bible itself teach something contrary to these people's own narrative and agenda? Hopefully you can plainly see the answer for yourself. So, which should we reject?

(II PET. 3:16) as also in all [Paul's] epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

Now, let's include Paul into the mix --

In Jesus, the blessings promised to and through Abraham have come. Abraham is the father of us all (ROM. 4:13-16), spiritually speaking, through our joining to Jesus (GAL.3:14), the rightful heir of the promises and the one through whom all the promises come. Gentiles are no longer required to join the physical nation of Israel in order to join the covenant. Instead, we all - Jew and Gentile - join Jesus, the true Israel of God. Jesus is the vine, and we are the branches (JON. 15:5; ROM. 11:17-24). Gentiles are grafted into this "olive tree", as Paul metaphorically puts it. The two peoples are made one (EPH. 2:14-18). In Him, we are no longer what we were, but a new creation (GAL. 6:15; II COR. 5:17; REV. 21:5). We are born again (JON. 3: 3-8; I PET. 1:22-23; II COR. 5:16-17; TIT. 3:5).

Remember this from the last post? All mankind → Abraham → Isaac.  Abraham → Messiah → All mankind.
Now, read Galatians 3:7-9.

It all fits together.

CONCLUSION

What have we seen about Jesus saving the Gentiles?

1. The Old Testament promises it (the list of prophetic passages).
2. Jesus announces it and commands it (the Gospels).
3. Luke records it happening (Acts, especially Cornelius and the Jerusalem Council).
4. Peter and John affirm it (1 Peter 2; I John 4).
5. Revelation shows its consummation (especially the vision of every nation worshiping God).
6. Paul preaches it (reframing everything in the light of Christ).

Were the Covenants (plural) made with Israel? Yes.
Is Jesus the Savior of the Gentiles? Yes.
Is the New Covenant extended to the Gentiles? Yes.
Do we need Paul to demonstrate this? No.

I put six verses in the first post to build the case against Gentile inclusion. There is so much more to this than just, "Here is a verse about the Covenants being made with Israel, so how can the Gentiles be saved?" For the people who say the Gentiles are not reclaimed, or that Jesus is not the Savior of the Gentiles, I say try reading the whole Bible. It explains everything.

Does any of this mean Israel is now rejected the way the Gentiles once were? No!! Israel is not at all rejected. The two have been made one. Of course we still need Israel. Israel is not abandoned now that the Gentiles are reclaimed. Israel was the first one invited into the New Covenant. Gentile inclusion does not lessen what was done through Israel, it fills it up. And, by the way, believing Jews don't need to stop being who they are in order to join.

But that is for another article.

I leave you with a prayer, dear reader and beloved by God. I pray the Father of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ looks on you with mercy and love and opens your heart to the wonderful story of salvation, which is for all peoples, and was thousands of years in the making. And that in this salvation, achieved and secured by Jesus Christ for all of us who believe, you find true rest.

(PSA. 40:9-10) 9 I have proclaimed the good news of righteousness in the great assembly; indeed, I do not restrain my lips, O Lord, You Yourself know. 10 I have not hidden Your righteousness within my heart; I have declared Your faithfulness and Your salvation; I have not concealed Your lovingkindness and Your truth from the great assembly.

To help you move forward, I suggest these articles:
Once And Future Kingdom - Part I
Once And Future Kingdom - Part II
Just What Do You Mean 'Gospel'?
What Is The Gospel?
'Born Again' and the Kingdom of God
Gennao: Just What Does It Mean?
Two Trees - Two Covenants
My Opinion Is God's Truth

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

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

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

What About the Gentiles? - Part I

Some say the Covenants and the Savior were for Israel only. This series explores one of the Bible's biggest themes: how God called Israel to reclaim all people through Jesus Christ. Along the way, we'll ask what that means for the Covenants, the law, the Gentiles, and Israel itself.

---

BIG ideas to discuss. Guessing this will have to be a two-parter. I wonder if I can even do this topic justice, and if not then why bother? But I think I have to at least try to write about this. I've touched on this topic in the past but never really went into any depth on it. Time to weigh in, it seems. I go where the Spirit leads. Now, on to the set up!

I've seen it thrown at Christians many times in the past, by a very small but vocal minority, that the Biblical covenants were made with Israel only. The conclusion we are supposed to reach form this is: therefore Gentiles are rejected unless they become Jews first in order to become Christians.
(Or, to be more precise, unless they become like the people who are making these kinds of accusations.) And so we end up hearing questions like, "Is Jesus the Messiah of the Gentiles?" and "Are the Gentiles even called?"

I strongly disagree with these people.
...mostly.

It should be obvious that this entire "Jesus isn't the Messiah of the Gentiles" line is patently ridiculous on its face from a reading of the Bible, or church history with its 2,000 years of miracles and faith. But apparently a person can believe anything if they want it badly enough.

Looks like our work is cut out for us. In this series, we go through the Bible.
Let's start where they get it right. The two great covenants were made with Israel. It's true!

PLURAL

Here are some fundamental verses which we cannot simply ignore. This calls for humility on the part of the Gentiles. Swallow your pride with me, and read on.

(JER. 31: 31) Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah...

Notice with whom God intended to make the Covenant. The author of Hebrews does not modify it.

(HEB. 8: 7-8) 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah...

Paul confirms the covenants were made with Israel. Gentiles aren't mentioned.

(ROM. 9: 3-5) For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants [plural], the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.

Notice, "the covenants" is plural. The covenants are Israel's. Contrast that with the Gentiles.

(EPH. 2: 11-12) 11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— 12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants [plural] of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

Again, covenants is plural. Strangers to the covenants.

Now, of course the New Covenant was going to be made with Israel because it replaces the Old Covenant. But there's more.

JESUS' MISSION

Let us not overlook what Jesus said about His own mission:

(MAT. 15:14) But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

That whole interaction there is quite telling. Easy to misunderstand, but telling.
The same thing happens when Jesus sent out the twelve on their first missionary journey:

(MAT. 10:5-6) 5 These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Not sent to Gentiles. Ouch.

By now I bet you're wondering what are the implications for the Gentiles? The verses above build a terrible case for us Gentiles. Let's not fool ourselves.

CONVENIENCE

Do we Gentiles have no place in the New Covenant? Are we without a Savior? Are we hopelessly and eternally lost?

No!

We are included. We are saved. We are reclaimed.

Didn't I just built up a case that the Gentiles are not included? Yes. But those verses are not the whole Bible. All I've given you so far are one-sided proof-texts. In the Protestant Bible, which is smaller than others, there are 66 books by 40 authors. I bet we can find more on this subject if we actually look.

I bet there are some who are already guessing I am about to rely entirely on Paul. There are some who reject Paul and call him a false Apostle because he says things they don't like ...until he starts saying things they do like. No, I am not at all basing this only on Paul. Not even close. And this very thing, dear reader, is what this post is really about:

Gentiles are reclaimed and we don't need Paul to demonstrate it.

That doesn't mean I will avoid citing Paul, though. I am not ashamed of Paul at all. I accept Paul. The other Apostles accepted Paul. The early church accepted Paul. I see no reason at all to avoid Paul. I think calling Paul a false Apostle is merely an act of convenience rather than a solid position. It's an attempt to eliminate the biggest rival. I won't go along with it.
That said, I am not going to rely on Paul in this post.

Even worse are the "Red Letter Christians"; the ones who only accept the parts of the New Testament that are direct quotes of Jesus (except for the Sheet Vision, the calling of Saul, quotes in Revelation, etc etc). So, we can agree enough with the Apostles to believe they followed and accurately quoted Jesus, but we think they are unreliable about everything else? <sarcasm>Makes perfect sense.</sarcasm>

I couldn't disagree more with a theology that rests on 'if I can't get my way, then I will rip content from the New Testament until it no longer says what I don't like.'

To start building a case, I think we must see how the Gentiles got into this mess in the first place. Understanding the start of the story is necessary if you want to understand the finish.

THREE STRIKES

How did the Gentiles come to this low state to begin with? Cut off from the Living God. Disinherited. Hopeless. Cursed.

I went over this already in "Once and Future King - Part I" and "Once and Future King - Part II". So, I will summarize. This is critical to the whole idea. Please, don't take this lightly.

All mankind rejected God three times: 1) the Garden of Eden, 2) the Great Flood, and 3) the Tower of Babel. Bear in mind there were no "Jews" or "Gentiles" yet. All peoples bear some responsibility for what happened then. At that point, God let us have it our way. We did not want God as our God? So be it. We can have our lesser spirit beings and our wood and stone idols, and our knowledge of good and evil, and everything that comes with it, including disinheritance from God. So, God chose to do what He did several times in the Old Testament: He started again through one person. Immediately after Babel begins the story of Abraham.

Abraham was called for several reasons: 1) to be the progenitor of God's chosen people, Israel, 2) to provide a way for the coming of the Messiah, 3) to initiate the eventual reclamation of the nations, and 4) because of 1-3, to bring blessings to all people.
Yes, reclamation and blessing. Read the commission God gave to Abram:

(GEN. 12:3) I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.

All the families. In order for all families to be blessed, all families have to participate. That means the nations would be reclaimed. That means Gentiles.

Think about that. So here God is, separating Abraham so He can create Israel as His called and chosen inheritance in the whole world, because the world rejected Him, but before He even gets through the initial conversation, He is talking about the reclamation of the nations. Undoing that rejection was part of the rejection.
I mean, seriously ... that's amazing!

The Old Covenant had certain terms (laws) that were intended to keep Israel distinct from the Gentiles, and to keep Israel from following the Gentiles down the path toward idolatry and disinheritance. It's not that Gentiles weren't allowed near Israel, but the repeated warning was about the Gentiles' idolatry. Don't do what the Gentiles do and you won't get what the Gentiles got.
...but they did.

Once Messiah comes - more specifically, once Messiah dies - the goal is reached, the reason for Abraham being called out and Israel separated is fulfilled, the wound that happened at Babel is healed, the rejection is undone, and the distinctions made within the law between Israel and Gentile are no longer necessary (GAL. 3:19-24).

Remember those verses above where Jesus' mission was to Israel only? Well, yeah. None of those goals were reached yet. What time was it? The Old Covenant didn't end when He was born, it ended when He died. Of course His ministry before He died was to Israel only. It was the Old Covenant period!
A large part of what He came to do was to personally represent all Israel, as the True Israel, and fulfill Israel's end of the covenant because the Israelites wouldn't do it on their own. They wouldn't keep their end of the bargain, so God kept it for them. He is the law-keeper. He is the Covenant-keeper. Once it was fulfilled, then the Old Covenant could end. Was He supposed to confirm a New Covenant that wasn't even inaugurated yet?

He fulfilled it all. He died. The Old Covenant dissolved. In comes the New Covenant.

...but it wasn't revealed that the Gentiles were part of the plan for several more years. That means the New Covenant was ratified with Israel, precisely as scripture says. And that means Israel continues to have a special place in the New Covenant. The question becomes ... what do you mean by "Israel"? 

ABRAHAM AND ISAAC

Before we finish off, consider the puzzle that is Abraham.

Abraham was not an Israelite. Israel was Abraham's grandson. How can Abraham be a descendant of his own grandson? Yet he was not exactly a Gentile, either. Abraham was a special case. Called out of the nations, but never called a Gentile. He is a special hybrid. Like Noah, Abraham had one foot on either side. No other person can quite be said to have these qualities, not even Isaac.
Have you ever wondered why it is Abraham and then Isaac and then Israel? Why is Isaac in the middle like that?
Isaac has the very special role to play in that he mirrors where the Messiah comes in. He was the beloved son, the son of promise, born miraculously, symbolically sacrificed, through whom the promises and inheritance flowed.   Abraham → Isaac.     Abraham → Messiah.

To put that another way: All mankind → Abraham → Isaac.     Abraham → Messiah → All mankind.

It all fits together. It's all a circle. The end is pictured in the beginning.

Do you see how this is all a loop? The rejection at Babel and the healing at Calvary are connected. All people had a hand in rejecting God at the start, and all people had a hand in rejecting the Messiah at the finish. The finish loses context without the beginning. The finish corrects and heals the beginning. And now you understand why the Messiah is not for Israel only. The healing was not all about Israel alone. All peoples had a hand in causing the problem in the first place, so the solution is also about all peoples.

CONCLUSION

To recap -
It wasn't just the Gentiles who rejected God, it was all peoples. As a result, God called out one man, Abraham, in order to build Israel, His special covenant people. Israel was built specifically in order to bring about the Messiah. The Messiah is the means to heal the rejection that led to the calling of Abraham. It all comes around. If you know the overarching story in the Bible, then you know the Gentiles are going to be reclaimed.

(JON. 12:32) And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.

To think the Messiah came for Israel alone is to completely misunderstand the entire Bible.

People tend to think Jesus Christ came to save them from their personal sins. Sure. He did. But there's a whole lot more to it than just that. He came to save you from a much larger issue. Great and awesome is our God!

All of that was buildup, backstory if you will, a setting of the stage to what I really wanted to get into. In the next post, we are going to see how the reclamation of the Gentiles was predicted in multiple verses throughout the Old Testament and the New. No Paul necessary.

To help you move forward, I suggest these articles:
Common Legalist Arguments - Part VII
E Pluribus Unum
'Born Again' and the Kingdom of God
Gennao: Just What Does It Mean?
Two Trees - Two Covenants

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

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 Mark 2

Does the phrase "the Sabbath was made for man" in Mark 2:27 indicate the Sabbath was made on day 7 of Creation Week and is binding on all mankind? This article looks at that interaction from several angles and discovers there is so much more to consider.

---

In "The Sabbath Rest of John 14", we saw how the word "commandments" in English Bible translations rarely refers to the Ten Commandments, and never on its own, and that such help is missing in John 14. So, we naturally conclude the Sabbath is missing from John 14.

Today, we will go over another very popular selection: Mark 2:27-28.

Clearly, there is a Sabbath here. That's not the issue. Instead, we need to look at three related issues.

The first is the phrase "made for man". Sabbatarians claim it means "made for all mankind." Does it, or does it mean something else?
The second is the claim that verse 27 supports a weekly Sabbath at creation. Did we neglect to review this verse in our article "The Sabbath Rest of Genesis 2", or does it mean something else?
The third is the claim that since Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath, then the Sabbath is binding in the New Covenant. Can this phrase support this, and only this?

Or, to put it another way, the Sabbath is there, but are we reading about its nature or its scope?

Let's start with one of the things we hammer away at here: context, context, context.

THE CONTEXT

To get an idea on what these two verses mean, we should take them as part of the conversation they were in. So, let's see that conversation.

(MAR. 2: 23-26) 23 Now it happened that He went through the grainfields on the Sabbath; and as they went His disciples began to pluck the heads of grain. 24 And the Pharisees said to Him, “Look, why do they do what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” 25 But He said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and hungry, he and those with him: 26 how he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the showbread, which is not lawful to eat except for the priests, and also gave some to those who were with him?”

The disciples were accused of violating the law for gathering food on the Sabbath. There are a couple of things to notice here.
First, gathering food on the Sabbath really was understood to be a violation of Torah. This wasn't just some Pharisaical tradition, like hand washing.
Second, Jesus never denies the accusation that they had violated the Sabbath. Rather than argue that the accusation was false, He argued that they were guiltless. He defends His disciples by appealing to examples where human need and mercy outweighed a rigid application of the law.
He used David violating of the law and being guiltless as His defense. They were guiltless because they did not act in contempt but out of need. A key comes from the parallel account in Matthew 12:7 “But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.”

The most important thing to bear in mind is that Jesus' words were defending the disciples. That is critical to the context. Context is key.

QUALITY OR QUANTITY

With that context filled in, now we come to verses 27 and 28.

(MAR. 2: 27-28) 27 And He said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. 28 Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath.”

The Sabbatarian explanation takes verses 27 & 28 in complete isolation, apart from any context, and goes like this:

[Pharisees] Your disciples are breaking the Sabbath.
[Jesus] Yes, but they are guiltless because the Sabbath was created on day 7 and was made for every single human. And therefore, the Son of Man is Lord of it. And since the Son of Man is Lord of it, it also applies in the New Covenant which doesn't exist yet.

I was a little tongue-in-cheek there, but not inaccurate. But we must ask, does that interpretation fit? In my view, no. It does not.

It does not make sense in the cultural and legal context of Israel, as everyone there was Jewish, during the Old Covenant period, and they believed the Sabbath was for the Jews only. Jesus expanding the scope of the Sabbath would certainly have caused new and even greater issues.
It does not make sense in the context of the conversation. It reads as if Jesus suddenly leapt into a completely different conversation.
It does not make sense that because the scope of the Sabbath was far greater than anyone realized therefore Jesus gets to be Lord of it. Make that make sense.
It does not make sense as a legal defense. The disciples were guiltless because the Sabbath is far more binding than anyone realized? How does that make them guiltless? It doesn't. Jesus' defense was not, "Well, everyone else on earth is guilty, too!"
It does not make sense in that Matthew says nothing of it. In the synoptic parallel in Matthew 12, Jesus doesn't come anywhere close to saying the Sabbath is binding on all mankind. But He does defend the disciples. How can the scope of the Sabbath be His primary point if Matthew says nothing of it?
But worst of all, it does not make sense in that it indicts Jesus Himself. As their teacher, He was responsible for what He let them do. If His comments were about the scope of the Sabbath, then He conceded that everyone is guilty, including Himself.

I offer a different way to understand these verses:

[Pharisees] Your disciples are breaking the Sabbath.
[Jesus] Yes, but they are guiltless ... because they ate out of need. The Sabbath was meant to lift burdens not cause them. And since it was meant to be a blessing, the Son of Man is Lord of it and has authority to declare these men guiltless.

David broke the law and was guiltless. The priests regularly broke the Sabbath law and were guiltless. His disciples broke the Sabbath law and were guiltless. In short, the law allowed for violations done in need (for example, certain police actions were necessary, as in NUM. 15:32-34) and in ignorance (NUM. 15:22-26). The disciples were not ignorant, nor were they acting wantonly. Their motivation was need. The Pharisees were not allowing for any of that. Their main concern seemed to be that the Sabbath was paramount and it had been violated. Jesus was explaining to the Pharisees how the Sabbath was never intended to be what they had made it into (MAT. 23:4,23). Their priorities were backward.

That said, it wasn't meant to crash into the other ditch, either. Jesus was not teaching that the Sabbath could be ignored whenever it became inconvenient (see "The Law Was Written On Our Hearts - Part I"). His disciples were not callously violating it. Wanton disregard for the Sabbath carried the death penalty (EXO. 35:2). But that was not the case here.

Jesus repeatedly showed that the Sabbath was never intended to prevent acts of mercy, necessity, and doing good. Even where the law had been legitimately violated, God desires mercy more than rules and regulations. Life, even an animal's life, was not to be sacrificed on the altar of rigid legalism. As He told the Pharisees, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice.” (MAT. 12: 7). This is the exact same point He made in Luke 13: 10-7 &15-17, 14:1-6, and John 5:1-18.

And perhaps most telling of all, both Matthew and Mark flow straight into yet another example of Jesus showing how it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath (MAT. 12:9-14; Mark 3: 1-6). That is no accident. Again, mercy is emphasized. Again, no mention of the Sabbath being binding on all mankind from creation.

(MAT. 12:12b) Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.

Here is the heart of what I'm getting at: Jesus's words in verses 27 & 28 were about the real nature of the Sabbath, not its scope. The quality, not the quantity.

Jesus was teaching the weightier matters of the law (MAT. 23:23). Sometimes rest is a blessing. But sometimes doing nothing when there is an obvious need is evil (MAT. 25:45). As James said:

(JAS. 2:13b) Mercy triumphs over judgment.

Neither Mark nor Matthew say, “Therefore all mankind was bound to the Sabbath from creation.” That conclusion is being read into the verse. That conclusion is not being reached because that is what these verses say, or even what they logically support, but because of other Sabbatarian commitments.

Now, let's do a deeper dive into the Greek.

ANTHROPOS

The Greek words translated "man" are anthrōpon (ἄνθρωπον) and anthrōpos (ἄνθρωπος). They are the same word. The difference is grammatical. With anthrōpon man is the object, and with anthrōpos man is the subject. The difference doesn't really matter for what we are after. I am going to refer to them both as anthrōpos because that is the root word. It makes life easier for me.

Anthrōpos is singular. It can mean "a man" or "mankind" in general. There isn't a slam dunk here in either direction. The word could technically support either explanation. It's what's missing that makes the bigger difference.

Consider that "humanity" (anthrōpos) is a category, not a quantity. Saying something was made "for man" is not the same thing as saying it was commanded for every human being who has ever lived.
Nature, not scope.

Perhaps an analogy might help.

Imagine going to the store to buy a men’s shirt, and saying, “This shirt was made for men. This must mean every man who has ever lived is required to wear it.” That would be ridiculous. “Men” tells you the nature of the shirt. It does not tell us the scope of who must wear it.

Yet that's the very leap the Sabbatarian interpretation makes. It inserts words like "all," and "every," into a verse that never says those things. Mark 2:27 says the Sabbath was made for humans, but it does not say all humans. It never says every member of mankind is obligated to keep it. If Mark had intended to say, "the Sabbath was made to be binding on all mankind," there were clearer ways to do that. Mark didn't use them. And Matthew says nothing at all.

When we plug anthrōpos back into the larger context, we find that even though it means mankind, Jesus' point had nothing to do with the Sabbath being universally binding from creation on every human being. His point was to defend His disciples and put the law back in its proper perspective versus how the Pharisees had interpreted it.
I appreciate the way the NLT puts verse 27:

[NLT] Then Jesus said to them, “The Sabbath was made to meet the needs of people, and not people to meet the requirements of the Sabbath.

That is what Jesus was getting at.

There is another aspect that we need to see.

WHEN?

It is not just that Sabbatarians interpret this verse as evidence for a universal Sabbath command for all mankind. It is also used to support the weekly Sabbath was made for all mankind at creation. I cannot agree these verses support that claim.

Consider, before we can accept that Mark 2:27 supports a weekly Sabbath from creation, we must already believe the weekly Sabbath was created in Genesis 2.
How so?

Notice how Mark 2:27 says "was made," but it does not say when. Of course the Sabbath was created. But how do we know this refers to Genesis 2 rather than Exodus 16? We don't! Again, this conclusion is imported into Mark from other places.
But what other places? There are no other prooftexts to point to other than Genesis 2. We went over this in detail in "The Sabbath Rest of Genesis 2", but let's skim it again as a reminder.

Genesis 2 says the seventh day of creation was sanctified and blessed. Why? Because on it God ceased from His work of creation, and wished to enjoy what He had made. But it says nothing about every seventh day. The Bible does not say that rest was repeated. Nor does it say the rest applied to anyone at all but God. The Bible does not say Adam rested. Adam had nothing to rest from! He was hours old and had no sin. The Bible does not say the weekly Sabbath started in Genesis 2. We can clearly see the weekly Sabbath pulls imagery from creation, but not that it was literally instituted at creation.

Without Genesis 2 saying there was a weekly Sabbath at creation, where else can we go to prove out this claim? Nowhere! Except Mark 2. And we've seen it isn't here in Mark 2 either. I did not forget to mention Mark 2 in my "The Sabbath Rest of Genesis 2" post. I left it out on purpose because it has nothing to do with it.

So, Genesis doesn't say this and Mark doesn't say this, yet Mark is being used as evidence for Genesis and Genesis for Mark. We must first assume things into both places in order to get them to point at one another. This flirts with circular reasoning - using something as evidence for itself.
How do we know Genesis 2 says the Sabbath was made at creation? Because of Mark 2.
How do we know Mark 2 says the Sabbath was made at creation? Because of Genesis 2.

But if neither of them say that, then how can they both say that together?

Given all that, which makes more sense?

A) The Sabbath was made at creation and the whole world is guilty, including Me. And because of this, therefore I am Lord of the Sabbath, and now everyone must keep the Sabbath in the New Covenant which doesn't exist yet.
or
B) The reason the Sabbath was created was to bless you; you were not created to bless the Sabbath. And because it was meant to be a blessing, I am Lord of the Sabbath, and I have authority to declare the disciples guiltless.

As for me, I'm going with B.

NEW COVENANT

Lastly, we must consider one more Sabbatarian claim. That being, since Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath, that makes the Sabbath binding in the New Covenant.
Does that follow? No.

This is a third scope change. First, the scope of the Sabbath was expanded to include all mankind. Second, the scope of the Sabbath was changed so that it began at Creation Week. Now it is being expanded to include all time going forward. I do not agree these few words can support that much doctrinal weight. Notice, nothing in Jesus' statement directly says anything about Covenants or the future. So, where are these conclusions coming from? Not the text.

Consider that this encounter did not happen in the New Covenant. New Testament, yes, but not New Covenant. They aren't the same thing. There was no New Covenant at that time. Chances are good that no one there besides Jesus had any idea that a New Covenant was imminent. Claiming that Jesus' lordship binds a law to the New Covenant makes absolutely no sense at all without quite a lot more explanation.

On top of that, the claim is inconsistent with other Sabbatarian beliefs. Jesus did not present Himself as Lord of the Sabbath alone, to the exclusion of everything else. He had always been Lord of the Sabbath. He had always been Lord of the entire Old Covenant.
Why is that important? Because if Christ's lordship over the Sabbath proves the Sabbath continues, then by the same reasoning His lordship over the rest of the Covenant would prove that all of it continues. Every law; even the ceremonial laws. (For example, Jesus was Lord of the Levitical Priesthood, therefore the Levitical Priesthood is binding in the New Covenant. Or circumcision. Or exclusion of the Gentiles.) There can be no New Covenant because the Old Covenant cannot end because Jesus is Lord of it. And that simply is not in line with most anyone's beliefs.
We cannot say, "The Sabbath continues, but not those other things. Oh! And the rest of the Ten Commandments. And meats laws. And tithes. And holy days, too. But not those other things."

So why did Jesus say He was Lord of the Sabbath? It was part of His defense. In the context of the conversation, I believe He was asserting His authority to put the Sabbath in its proper perspective and to declare the disciples guiltless. His statement was not particularly about the Sabbath but about Himself. Therefore, He was not saying anything about the scope of the Sabbath.

CONCLUSION

We’ve looked at the context, the Greek, the synoptic parallel in Matthew, as well as similar passages. Taken together, does the evidence show Jesus declaring His disciples innocent, or the world guilty? 

The disciples were in need, not acting in careless disregard. Jesus responded with mercy, putting the Sabbath into proper context. This falls directly in line with other places where Jesus repeatedly taught it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath. He did not weaken the covenant law by showing mercy, but neither did He turn this moment into a declaration that the whole world was under indictment. And most certainly, He was not indicting Himself in the process.

Taken together, does the evidence show Jesus declaring the Sabbath binding from creation? No. That must be assumed in from other places.
Mark 2 and Genesis 2 do not show the weekly Sabbath was created on day 7 of Creation Week nor that all men were bound to it. So, if they do not say this separately, they cannot be evidence for one another. All that Mark 2 says is that it was created. And Matthew says nothing about it at all.

Taken together, does the evidence show Jesus declaring the Sabbath binding into the New Covenant? No. That large of a claim is not supported in the text.
Nothing about this conversation was particularly about the New Covenant. The same reasoning intended to bring the Sabbath into the New Covenant accidentally brings every law, and ultimately prevents the New Covenant in the first place. We know that is not what happened.

The Sabbatarian position does not come from a straight reading or a study of the underlying Greek. It comes from predetermined conclusions and is being read into Mark. This position requires critical details to be assumed into the narrative in a rather circular fashion.

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."

I find it ironic that the Sabbatarian position ends up siding closer with the Pharisees than with Jesus.

Further reading:

Your Life Is Worth More Than The Sabbath
Law of Moses - Law of God - part I
Jesus Was Not Against The Law
Jesus and The Sabbath
What Did Jesus Say In Relation To The Sabbath?

Other articles in this series:

The Sabbath Rest of Hebrews 4
The Sabbath Rest of Isaiah 66
The Sabbath Rest of Genesis 2
The Sabbath Rest of John 14

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

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 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 that 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. In other words, entolē doesn't mean "Ten Commandments" all by itself. To find out if it's referring to the Ten, we have to look around for context. 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.

What have we learned? 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. In other words, they shouldn't be Commandments in the first place.

The word entolē was not used in the translation of Aseret ha-D'varim into Greek in the Septuagint. The same remained true in the first century. If the native speakers and translators would not render Aseret ha-D'varim as ten entolē, then we should not jump to reading entolē as Aseret ha-D'varim. In other words, commandments does not mean Ten Commandments.

What have we learned? Neither entolē nor Aseret ha-D'varim should be "Commandments" in English.

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
• Entolē is much more than the Ten
• The English word "commandments" collapses ideas together
• 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. Hey! Isn't that what the Pharisees were doing - using interpretations to remove the law?
But we've already seen why Ten Commandments cannot work here, 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 7: 17-24, 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?"

Other articles in this series:
The Sabbath Rest of Hebrews 4
The Sabbath Rest of Isaiah 66
The Sabbath Rest of Genesis 2
The Sabbath Rest of Mark 2

 

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

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 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.
I mean, seriously, have you done a word search for the verses where Sabbath and new moons appear together? There are several. 13 times in the NKJV Old Testament alone.
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.

But Psalm 81:3 and Hosea 2:11 do call the new moon a feast day. Amos 8:5 practically treats it like a sabbath. And I Samuel 20 shows it being observed. Do a word search. New moon and Sabbath and "appointed feast" appear together far more often than not.
Yet they said no. 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.

Other articles in this series:
The Sabbath Rest of Hebrews 4
The Sabbath Rest of Genesis 2
The Sabbath Rest of John 14
The Sabbath Rest of Mark 2

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

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", it is "to cease", but rest can be implied depending on context. I will emphasize “to cease” over "to rest" 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" (not "and they 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. That God is acting alone and that God is quite intentional in creating is absolutely critical to understanding the Judeo-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, fully not haphazardly, 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. (Or, to put it another way, Adam isn't keeping a sabbath, he is part of the sabbath God kept.) 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 in the past 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".

Other articles in this series:
The Sabbath Rest of Hebrews 4
The Sabbath Rest of Isaiah 66
The Sabbath Rest of John 14
The Sabbath Rest of Mark 2

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

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

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