Sabbath "Remains" for the People of God Heb 4

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by BobRyan, Jul 10, 2005.

  1. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Though Hebrews 4 quotes the Sabbath commandment of Christ the Creator and though it gives the positive affirmation that the Sabbath rest REMAINS for the people of God -- some have so "edited" their the text in their minds that they can ignore this entirely.

    But it can not be denied that in Heb 3 and 4 there are TWO positive examples of REST given. The entrance into Canaan and also Christ the Creator's Holy Day.

    These positive examples are used as a motivation to "persevere FIRM until the end" (as is pointed out repeatedly in chapter 3 and 4.

    In addition the text of Psalms 95 - given to the Sabbath keeping saints of David's generation is offerred as a basis of "contrast" between the message to David vs the negative example of failure by the generation in Moses' day that died in the wilderness "due to unbelief" and "disobedience".


    The argument in chapter 4:1 is that we should "fear" that such a failure to enter God's rest should also happen to us.

    Paul argues that the Psalms 95 promise to the Sabbath-keeping saints of David's day - (given after so long a time following the failure of the generation in Moses' day enter Canaan) "remains". He argues that some still have failed to enter - and it "remains for some to enter".

    So these two positive examples of rest are used as "Motivators" in the Heb 3 and 4 text EVEN after the cross!

    This means that the intent is to UPHOLD them as good things that we would WANT - good exmaples of "rest" motivating us to ENTER and not to fail to enter - as did the generation in Moses' day.

    How then could this be twisted as a means to abolish those VERY examples of rest!!??

    IN Christ,

    Bob
     
  2. Eric B

    Eric B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,806
    Likes Received:
    2
    The "Rest" was not just something people "did" or "did not do"; it was something granted or denied them based on prior actions. People were not "denied" access to Canaan simply because they just did not get up and walk there. Because of their unbelief, they were prevented from ever making it to (finding) there.
    So likewise, what Heb. defines this "rest" as is "For he that is entered into his rest, he also has ceased from his own workS, as God did from his". This is not talking about "literal rest from physical work only on one day of the week", though God is used as an example. (God neded no "rest", recall. "rest" here simply means "CEASing"). It is a total resting from "workS", in favor of "Faith", which many of the people in the OT, who did the physical works lacked (v.2). According to v.3, "entering this rest" is defined as "believing". Not something physical we do. The whole contect of these epistles was faith versus works.
     
  3. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    The example given in Heb 3 is a "positive example of rest" -- the Land of Canaan. The point Paul makes is that that one generation died in the wilderness - denied of that rest because they failed to persevere. The story "of a valid and good form of rest) is used to motivate God's people to "persevere".

    (Actually that is the point in Psalms 95 quoted in Heb 3 that God is making to David - Paul is merely noting that the "argument still applies").

    Of course David and HIS generation were ALREADY IN the land of Canaan when God spoke this word of warning/encouragement to David (Psalms 95) about the need to "persevere". (He did not abolish the land - as soon as the He noticed himself "persevering" according to the instruction given)

    Paul simply "ADDS" to that SAME form of motivation (example of positive rest -- used to motivate perseverance) and says that not only does the Psalms 95 argument "remain" so also does there remain the same form of argument in the case of another example of positive rest -- Christ the Creator's Holy Day.

    Never does Heb 3 or 4 claim that the positive examples of rest (the Land of Canaan, or Christ the Creator's Holy day) -- cease to exist IF the people choose to Persevere!

    The wrenching of these two chapters in attempts to abolish either of these two examples of positive rest - is a perfect form of eisegesis.

    The chapters argue FOR perseverance and not AGAINST the two exmaples of positive rest they use to argue the case. (Primarily argued from Psalms 95 -- an argument that REMAINS asis).

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  4. Eric B

    Eric B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,806
    Likes Received:
    2
    Canaan was not a "positive" example of rest, that they would just "do". It was basically a reward for "do"ing something else: persevering; which as you showed could be denied.
    So Psalms 95 is reiterating the 40 years, to support the point "harden not your heart" but it is not saying that David is still trying to enter "another rest" though he was already there and it is not "abolished".
    The motivation being given to us in Hebrews is to persevere in faith, and stop trying to enter by our "workS". As we persevere in faith, we enter the true "rest". If not, then we lose out, and remain wandering in a spiritual desert like the Israelites.
     
  5. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    FYI;
    The "Sabbath Rest" in Hebrews is talking about the coming Millenial Rest of 1000 years.

    To try and use it to justify Sabbatarianism is to do violence to Scripture.

    In HIS service;
    Jim
     
  6. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    I see a lot of scripture "twisting" going on here without actually paying any attention to what Heb 3 and 4 actually say.

    Why not return to the chapters and SHOW THEM talking about the "Millennium" or about "Canaan being bad" or about "Christ is our Sabbath" or whatever other eisegetical themes you would have "preferred" to insert into the chapters.

    SHOW it in the text!

    Do some exegesis on this one - for a change instead of merely eisegeting for post after post.

    What a concept!

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  7. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Since I suggested it - I will lead by example --

    Part I --

    Paul argues for perseverance – and conditional salvation based on examples of “obedience” vs “disobedience”.

    In Hebrews 3 perseverance is argued “for” on the basis of two positive examples – Moses and Christ and one positive example of rest “Canaan” from Psalms 95.

    But first in vs 5 and 6 we are told that we are “Christ’s house IF we hold fast” our confidence and hope “FIRM UNTIL the end”. Paul does not argue that “IF” we have EVER held confidence and hope in Christ then we are the house of Christ no matter what we may choose in the future.

    Next Paul contrasts the message calling for obedience given to David (Psalms 95) – and to David’s generation vs the history of disobedience of Moses’ generation. He shows this to be an example of an appeal to perseverance and obedience based on the motivating negative “example” of the history of failure of that generation in the wilderness who died in the wilderness.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  8. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    This is a purely historical argument. God’s compelling motivating case made to David and his generation based on the failing example of that generation in Moses’ day who chose unbelief and disobedience – and then died in the wilderness. Two generations in contrast. Moses’ vs David’s and the compelling argument for obedience made by God to David.

    Paul then calls for the reader (HIS generation) to join WITH David in hearing that Psalms 95:11 message of warning given to David’s generation and choose perseverance, obedience “Firm until the end”. Paul argues that the SAME message “Today if you hear His voice” is STILL being issued and he argues that WHILE it is still being issued – while it is still in effect we should like those in David’s day – respond to it, be motivated by it, choose perseverance!

    This chapter closes with a magnified focus on the failing example of Moses’ generation – those who died in the wilderness (ignoring that group that went INTO the land of Canaan for the sake of the motivating argument based on the failing example).
     
  9. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Nothing in there so far about "Millennium being Canaan" or "Christ is our Canaan" or "God abolished the land of Canaan when giving the Psalms 95 message TO David".

    No need to eisegete those ideas INTO chapter 3.
     
  10. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Part I of Chapter 4

    Paul begins with “Therefore” – and thereby continues the discussion from chapter 3. Paul refers to his current illustration of the failing example of that part of Israel that died in the wilderness – vs the message given to David and his generation about choosing obedience and perseverance as the “lesson to be learned” from that failing example of those who died in the wilderness. (The contrast of two Generations – David’s vs Moses’)

    A. Paul argues that “fear” be a motivator when looking at the “Failing example” of Heb 3. Paul is recommending “fear” based on taking the argument of God in Psalms 95 “seriously” as IT points to the FAILING case of Moses’ generation.
    B. Paul says “while a promise remains” -- What “promise remains”?? It is shown in chapter 3 to be the Psalms 95 promise regarding “Today”. That promise given to David and “his generation” still remains.
    C. We observe here that we have the same gospel the "good news" preached to us JUST AS they (OT Hebrews at Sinai) ALSO. The ONE Gospel (Gal 1:6) which was even
    "preached to Abraham" (Gal 3:7-8) - showing ONE solution (salvation through Christ) for the ONE problem (fallen humanity lost in sin),

    1Cor 10:2-4 "ALL were Baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea and all drank from the same SPIRITUAL ROCK which followed them and that was CHRIST"
    Next Paul returns again to the Psalms 95 message of David’s generation and the “promise that remains” for us even today – in that OT message.

    In chapter 3 Paul clearly established that the generation of Moses’ day did NOT enter “because of unbelief”. By contrast he notes the Faith, belief, endurance, perseverance in obedience that is called for in Psalms 95 – given to David and his generation. And so again in vs 3 – he is quoting Psalms 95 – the argument that “remains” the promise that “remains” even for us today.
    In vs 3 we HAVE ENTERED his rest - because when we BELIEVE (Rom 10:9) we are born again - transformed, accepted into fellowship with God (1John 1:1-5). Having been returned in some degree to that perfect fellowship which Adam had before the fall – not yet fully RESTORED fellowship with God as in literally seeing and walking with God the way Adam did - but still worshipping in love and submitting to God's Word.

    So also did the giants of faith in (Heb 11) “believe”. These are like David and the saints of his day who chose to “Believe” and to “persevere faithful firm until the end”- born again saints of the OT who "believe and it was accounted unto them for righteousness". By faith - by "belief" these saints ENTERED just as we HAVE ENTERED His rest.

    But of course Hebrews is contrasting this Psalms 95 message given in David’s time – in the OT – to the OT saints that uses the “Failing example” of those in Moses’ generation who died in the wilderness. Who failed “because of unbelief” see chapter 3

    Heb 3:19 So we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief. .


    This point of failure due to unbelief also applies to those Jews who reject the Messiah – and the Psalms 95 “promise that remains” is given to the Sabbath keeping saints of David and his generation Saints already IN the land of Canaan.

    Here again in Rom 11 we saw Paul arguing “in favor of fear” and pointing to the “negative examples” of those who fail to persevere, to believe to “continue in His kindness”. Paul argues that we are in the SAME system of success vs failure. “IF He did not SPARE THEM – neither will He spare you EITHER”. This is the basis/justification of his argument that we should “not be conceited but FEAR”.

    But aside from these examples of failure - we do have the great examples of success of those that were "pleasing to God" and who found "Acceptance with God" mentioned in Heb 11.
     
  11. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nope. It is NOT about the sabbath at all. It simply is NOT there in Ps 95.

    Paul in each place you have listed is talking about unbelief, not sabbath-keeping.

    It is NOT there in Rom 11.

    It is NOT there in Heb 3-4.

    The "rest" for the people of God is pictured by Canaan land. What was Canaan? It was a kingdom with God as their King. Some 400 years AFTER they were in the land did they ask for a man to be king "like the nations around us".

    WHY did some not eneter that kingdom? Unbelief. Were they God's people BEFORE they approached Canaan? Yes. Were they God's people AS they apporached Canaan? Yes. Were they God's people AFTER they entered Canaan? Yes. Then WHAT is the difference? SOME could not enter because of unbelief.

    Were they ALL under the blood. Yes. this happened in Egypt. Were they ALL "baptised"? Yes. This happened at the Red Sea crossing. Did they ALL enter Canaan? No. Why? Unbelief. Did this prevent them from remaining God's people? No. God protected them and provided for them for 40 years in the wilderness. Yet SOME could not enter Canaan due to their unbelief in God's promise to give them Canaan.

    Quite simple when you don't apporach Scripture with an agenda. Bob, I have seen many, many threads of yours which you have started (along with Claudia) solely to promote your sabbatarian agenda. This is just another in that long line of ineffectual attempts to bring us under Judaism.

    Sorry.

    In HIS service;
    Jim
     
  12. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    You are 100% correct that Psalms 95 is not a text on Christ the Creator's Sabbath. It is a message to David about the FAILURE of the generation in Moses' day to ENTER the rest of God which was the LITERAL land of Canaan.

    But God uses this argument in his message to DAVID to argue that the saints of David's day choose obedience.

    Paul uses that SAME message in Heb 3 and says that it was a message to David AND TO US about persevering "FIRM until the end". He does not "Transform" Canaan into anything other than the SAME argument ALREADY valid, applicable and MADE in Psalsm 95 to DAVID! (if you were not approaching the text with such an obvious agenda you would not be making that error in Heb 3)

    Period.

    That is "all you get" from chapter 3.

    Then we turn to chapter 4 which CONTINUES that argument that Paul is making for perseverance of the saints.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  13. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Now Paul adds to his argument for Perseverance made from Psalms 95 – by going back to the first great promise of rest – given to Adam. Gen 2:3

    Here we see it is explicitly the Seventh-day Sabbath that is referenced – the Creator's work in resting on the 7th day just as God Himself insists that mankind “obey” and honor Christ the Creator’s Holy day in the Sabbath commandment. (The day “made for mankind” Mark 2:27 by Christ the Creator).

    Paul then goes back to the failing example of Moses’ generation that is used in the Psalms 95 message to David’s generation. Paul points out that “some” did not enter – “some” failed “not all” as Heb 11 points out. And so it “remains for some” to enter.

    Here again the point is made that “some” failed and their failure was in the form of “disobedience”. This is not a charge that David is not an OT saint or that the list of Heb 11 is false or that Paul as a Jew is not also a saint. It is the claim that “some” failed.

    Paul is also not claiming that the Sabbath keeping saints of David’s day who did NOT fail – stopped honoring Christ the Creator’s Holy Day.

    Failure to enter to the TRUE rest whether symbolized by Canaan or Christ the Creator’s Holy Day is due to "disobedience" and failure to persevere “firm until the end”. Paul takes these two desired positive examples of rest and uses them as motivators. Obviously the Jews of Paul’s day already had access to the land of Canaan and the Sabbath. But Paul is pointing them to ways in which these examples of rest are denied (literally denying the generation of Moses’ day the benefit of going into Canaan) and figuratively denying the people of David’s day of entering into true rest (though they are IN Canaan) if they do not learn the Psalms 95 lesson.

    - FAILURE to OBEY the Word of God (in this case it is a reference to OT people who FAIL to OBEY the commandments of God). This is not Elijah, Enoch, Moses, nor any others mentioned in the "hall of faith" Heb 11. But it is those who fell away and who God longs to restore back to the place from which they fell. (Rom 11:19-23) – the SAME place into which WE ALSO are grafted in.

    Paul goes back to the Psalms 95 message of David’s day saying that THEN God fixed a day for repentance, a day for the promise of rest given and a call to learn from past examples of failure.

    The promise is given to the saints of the OT through David after so long a time – since that failing generation in Moses’ day. Psalms 95 is using the symbol of Canaan as the symbol of ultimate rest in Christ as saints. (Note: David was not expelled from Canaan for being a saint – saved in Christ and born-again. Those who want to use this argument FOR perseverance by abolishing those positive examples of REST it appeals to – are wrenching the text to their own usages.)

    Indeed the OFFER of true rest - being in perfect harmony and communion with God as was Adam on HIS first Sabbath - REMAINED even in the time of the Sabbath keeping saints in David’s generation – WHEN they were all already IN the land of Canaan where Joshua had led them. Yet even there that promise “that remains today” was given calling it "TODAY" in David’s time Ps 95:7. Paul switches from the Psalms 95 argument that being IN Canaan is “rest” (certainly it was the rest denied to the people of Moses’ day). David and his generation are IN the land of Canaan but Paul says that they too were at risk / in danger of not entering into rest. A kind of rest that Joshua could not have given them by leading them into the REST of Canaan. Paul argues that we are in the same condition – the need to diligently enter into that spiritual rest of salvation – just as David’s generation needed to enter.

    We are simply offered this SAME promise given to God's Sabbath-keeping saints - in Ps 95 as it was called then - "TODAY".

    The SAME offer of spiritual REST ACTIVE in Ps 95 - IS STILL the message of Today. The SAME rest as the OT Sabbath-keeping saint (David) spoke of as being VALID in His day – still “remains” today.

    Paul argues that this positive example of rest – God’s Sabbath remains and that JUST as Israel could not enter the OT Canaan example of rest while unfaithful and disobedient SO the saints of David’s day could not enter the true Sabbath rest while unfaithful and disobedient. Paul argues that we – like them – should “fear” and should seek to enter the rest fully as “Believers” that endure “firm until the end”. He argues the same Heb 3 point for perseverance as the necessary means of entering into that positive example of rest. In this case – Christ the Creator’s Holy day.

    Hebrews 4 represents the day in a way that applies equally to OT as well as NT. It forces the observation of the fact that there is "No Change".

    Instead of saying "It USED to be given by God as just an external act but NOW it is an internal spiritual relationship with God" - the text argues that the same Sabbath principle of all OT saints remains (that would be "all" according to list of Heb 11 not just Jews) is still in play.

    The text of Heb 4 does not argue for "a change" it claims that the Sabbath "remains" today as it was in the OT - just as God intended it "There remains therefore a Sabbath rest for the People of God". It does not say "we now have a NEW kind of Sabbath very different from what God gave in the OT - that one does NOT remain - a NEW one is now instituted".

    But those who choose to ignore Christ the Creator’s Gen 2:3 Holy day sometimes ignore this disconfirming aspect of Heb 4 as it does not fit the tradition they have chosen.

    Again - the appeal to the EXPLICIT wording of the 4th commandment AND the SAME appeal to the REASON for rest - following God's example at Creation - STILL valid. The context, the appeal the language REMAINS the same. JUST as God rested at creation on the 7th day ( The SAME appeal as we find in the langauge of Christ's 4th
    commandment as He gave spoke it at Sinai).

    Just as the Sabbath-keeping saints of King David's day did NOT need to abandon God's Creation Sabbath (MADE for mankind - a Holy Day in Gen 2 - in order to RETURN in BELIEF and FAITH to the Savior - SO today we find God's Sabbath in complete harmony with the restored faith and restored fellowship of Salvation.

    The same appeal to turn AWAY from rebellion against God's Word - and NOT follow in disobedience AS did many OT people.
    The SAME good news and the SAME warning to turn away from disobedience to the Word of the SAME God.
     
  14. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nope. It is NOT about the sabbath at all.

    You are diligent, I must say, in INSERTING your sabbatarian agenda, yet still wrong.

    I don't have time to post a three page rebuttal.

    Nor do I care to. You are wrong my friend.

    The sabbath rest spoken of in Heb 3-4 refers to THE KINGDOM OF CHRIST. The Millenial reign.

    Some will not enter it due to their unbelief. Unbelief INCLUDEDS changing Scripture to say what it doesn't mean, which you are quite adept at doing.

    Later.

    In HIS service;
    Jim
     
  15. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Well - so far I am the one "Actually quoting" the text and commenting on what "it says" while you keep re-asserting your "predilections".

    If you see a "future kingdom of Christ" statement mentioned in Heb 4 in connection with "God Himself resting" at creation week then feel free to exegete "from the text".

    No need for "three pages" -- just a carefully constructed response to even one point - will do.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  16. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    I focus alot here on the "Detail" of Heb 3 and 4 where Paul REPEATEDLY makes the argument FROM the text of Psalms 95 saying that WE just like the Sabbath-keeping saints of David's day STILL need to "persevere" and need to take HEED to the SAME lesson of failure that God referenced in making the case to David -- Paul shows a CONTINUATION of the argument from David's day to ours.

    And his argument "TODAY" made to David - many centuries PRE-CROSS is STILL applicable to us today -- according to Paul in Heb 3-4.

    How "instructive".

    The people of God - are called to persevere "FIRM UNTIL THE END" both OT and NT - pre-cross and post-cross.

    And the "problem" of NOT entering into salvation rest is the SAME for BOTH the OT and NT saints should they FAIL to persevere - according to Chapter 3 and 4 of Hebrews.

    But it NEVER makes the argument that "David should leave the land of Canaan" as if Canaan was NO LONGER a place for God's People!

    NEITHER is there a case in Psalms 95 for David to STOP honoring Christ the Creator's Holy Day - rather there "REMAINS THEREFORE a Sabbath rest for the People of GOD" based on the case made to David that is STILL applicable today!

    How easy this is to "get" - yet how often these two chapters are wrenched out of their sockets in an effort to "get at" Christ the Creator's own Holy Day. A day that HE says HE made Holy in Gen 2:3 -- made FOR "mankind" Mark 2:27

    Why not just accept it? Why continually find ways to bend the scriptures "Away" from honoring Christ's day and listening to the message about "persevering" FIRM until the END that is being given in Heb 3 and 4??

    IN Christ,

    Bob
     
  17. Eric B

    Eric B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,806
    Likes Received:
    2
    So what you're saying now; is that on one hand, the the literal Sabbath in this passage corresponds not to the "rest" were are warned about not entering, but rather to the "obedience" of the two earlier examples, by which one enters the antitypical "rest", which I take, is supposed to be entrance ot the Kingdom. But then when that final "rest" is pointed to in the text as "remaining" for us, you say it is the literal sabbath after all! That would suggest that we must keep the sabbath to enter the sabbath, and to save ourselves.
    "Perseverance" in scriptures means holding on to Christ's name in the face of persecution, not keeping works of the Law (which in that case might spare one from persecution, since it was the Jews who were behind a lot of the persecuting). After all, it was the name of Christ that is given importance in the NT, not a sabbath. I just find it funny that such a performance-based "salvation" is what is being called "rest", when the text says that this rest is "ceasing" from such works!
     
  18. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    No - my point is that the argument Paul makes is simple and direct and is simply a restatement of the SAME argument God makes to David in Psalms 95 (which is why Paul keeps quoting that argument in chapter 3 and 4).

    Paul is arguing for PERSEVERANCE in STAYING IN a saving relationship rather than arguing that the reader GET SAVED.

    He points this out in chapter 3 - that it is perseverance "FIRM UNTIL THE END" that is being argued.

    He uses the same example of failure that God used with David as a "motivator". He does not argue that "Canaan ceased to exist for David" once Israel had entered Canaan or once members of David's generation accepts salvation.

    The whole point was to pick a POSITIVE example of "rest" and show that the rest promised is not received if one chooses to harden their heart and rebell against God.

    Real Canaan was really lost to that real generation that died in the wilderness. But David was already IN Canaan when the Psalms 95 warning message came to him. Yet God was arguing that failure in David's day would be just as fatal as failure in Moses' day. Paul argues that this failure includes failure to "persevere firm until the end".

    So Canaan was REAL and the example of rest it provides is REAL.

    Paul simply ADDS to that another REAL example of REST - Christ the Creator's own Holy Day. In no case is Paul arguing AGAINST Canaan or AGAINST that Holy Day. He is simply pointing out that these examples of rest are denied to those who choose rebellion instead of remaining in the faith "Firm until the end"

    He does not make any reference to a future rest in heaven that we will all have some day - but one could "imagine" such a thing since it is certainly true that to fail to persevere would deny us that future heavenly rest. But Paul makes no mention of it in Heb 3 or 4. He simply keeps going back to the SAME argument God was making to the Sabbath-keeping saints of David's day regarding the singular example of failure in Moses' day.

    Paul argues that we are in fellowship with that generation in David's day to whom the Psalms 95 message is given. You argue that we are NOT - that they could not have rest since they did not have Christ and that THEIR failure is our lesson. But nothing is said at all about David's generation failing OR about there being any change AT ALL for us since David's time regarding this Psalms 95 message being given "again" in Heb 3 and 4!

    The SAME fact of "resting from our own works" is true for David's generation and for ours. WE are to listen to that SAME Psalms 95 warning message and submit to it.

    The only generation that is mentioned as failing are those in Moses' day - NOT David's day.

    That means that the Sabbath-keeping Saints of David's day AND the saints of Paul's day are being joined as one in the way Paul is using the Psalms 95 text in Heb 3 and 4.

    No escaping this problem for your POV.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  19. Eric B

    Eric B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,806
    Likes Received:
    2
    To repeat my second response to this thread,
    Psalms 95 is reiterating the 40 years, to support the point "harden not your heart" but it is not saying that David is still trying to enter "another rest" though he was already there and it is not "abolished".
    The motivation being given to us in Hebrews is to persevere in faith, and stop trying to enter by our "workS". As we persevere in faith, we enter the true "rest". If not, then we lose out, and remain wandering in a spiritual desert like the Israelites.

    So how is the weekly sabbath "denied" anyone? You either rest on it, or you don't. You say someone not resting on it is "rebelling", but then it is not that he is "DENIED" entry of it because of his rebellion, but that his not entering it IS the rebellion in the first place. But then what about if he rebels against another command, yet still rests on the day. Then how is he "denied" the rest? If you say it's a peace from being obedient from God, then that would prove the "rest" is not a literal sabbath. If you say it is Haven; same thing; but if you are saying people will be denied rest for not keeping the sabbath, then you are condemning all of us to Hell, which you claim not to do.
     
  20. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    To repeat my previous point - Paul claims that WE TOO are in the same boat as David and that we - like the Sabbath keeping saints of David's generation must pay attention to that SAME Psalms 95 warning and example.

    In other words He claims we are THE SAME in that regard.

    Instead of making an argument that "Canaan did not apply to David" or that "Sabbath did not apply in David's generation so we too should not concern ourselves with these things" it simply shows how these positive examples of rest are used to emphasize the same point to BOTH sets of generations - David's and Paul's.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     

Share This Page

Loading...