Do we have to worship on Saturday not Sunday?

Colossians 2:16-17 "Therefore, do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however is found IN CHRIST."

 

Heb 3 and 4 Summary points.

IN Heb 3 Paul makes the case for “enduring firm until the end” (Perseverance) based on God’s argument to the Sabbath-keeping saints of David’s time in Psalms 95.

So Paul’s use of that same Psalms 95 argument for obedience that God gave to David involves both the historic time of David’s generation (to whom the message was given) and the historic time of Moses’ generation (those who died in the wilderness providing the “negative example” of failing to persevere in belief and obedience.)

1. (Vs 2) - WE have had the same "good news" (gospel) preached to US "JUST as they also" as did the OT people of God at Sinai.
2. (Vs 7) We also have the same salvation promises given to God's Sabbath-keeping people in the days of King David
3. There "REMAINS" a Sabbath rest (as in the Creation week Sabbath --- God Rested on the Seventh-day) for today's Saints just as in the case of the OT saints of the Psalms 95 day.



Some would argue that there must surely be a way to “so spin” Hebrews 3 and 4 so as to abolish Christ the Creator’s actual Holy Day. After all if we could insert a few words here and there in the text could we not get it to say “Christ is now our Sabbath so we don’t need to keep it anymore”?

They propose that somewhere in Psalms 95 God gives – is the statement “No longer Honor Christ’s Holy day since from the time of the Psalms 95 message onward – Christ IS our Sabbath”.

1. Since Paul’s text is primarily the instruction God gave to the Sabbath-keeping saints of David’s time in Psalms 95 one must ask – was David “still” to honor Christ the Creator’s Holy Day of rest even after accepting the motivating message of God in Psalms 95?

2. Since Hebrews 3 and 4 both point to the positive example of “rest” being inheritance in the literal land of Canaan - was David to leave the literal land of Canaan after accepting that Psalms 95 message?

Obviously the answer to both questions is “no”.

Paul’s use of these two “positive” examples of rest is in harmony with God’s use of Canaan as a “positive example of rest” a “desired blessing” that is denied through rebellion. (See Chapter 3 for the detailed argument from Paul about God’s claims in Psalms 95). God is showing how intended blessing is forfeited through failure to obey, failure to persevere “Firm until the end”. So those who seek to abolish those positive examples of rest as “The lesson” of Hebrews 3 and 4 are engaging in a kind of eisegesis that corrupts the entire chapter – in an anything-to-negate-Christ-the-Creator’s-Holy-Day kind of “solution” to the current Sabbath/Sunday debate. This is a wrongheaded approach to the problem and does injustice to the text of Hebrews.
============================================================================
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 of Moses and Christ - that is called for in Psalms 95 – given to David and his generation. And so again in vs 3 of chapter 4– he is quoting Psalms 95 – to make the argument that “there remains” the Psalms 95 promise that “remains” even for us today.

In vs 3 we HAVE ENTERED[/b] his salvation 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. And having entered – Paul argues that we should be “diligent” and persevere “firm until the end”.

As did the giants of faith in (Heb 11) “believe”, Sabbath-keeping saints that having entered that rest did persevere and were diligent “firm until the end”.. 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. .[/b]


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.

Rom 11 we saw Paul 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”.[/b]

But aside from these examples of failure - we have Heb 11 examples of great faith.

 

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.

 

The bottom line is - that we can not use Ps 95 to Abolish Christ the Creator's Holy Memorial of Creation since it was ALREADY true and fact and valid at the time of David -- having no impact at all to the effect of weakening Christ the Creator's Blessed Memorial given as a benefit and blessing to mankind in Ps 95 or to this very day.

 

Bob, you copy and paste others stuff very well. Get back to me when you can talk about what you believe and find in the text.

 

:jesus: :jesus:

 

Well first of all that is not Heb 4 and is not a text of the form "Christ is our Sabbath" in terms of his Memorial Sabbath it only speaks of the "Shadow Sabbaths" that point forward via animal sacrifice..

Secondly - this is talking about the Shadow Sabbaths of Lev 23 - the annual feasts based on sacrifices pointing forward to the death of Christ.

Nothing about the memorial Sabbath of Gen 2:3 given before the fall of mankind points to the death of God the Son.

It is HIS memorial of HIS creative work.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Matt Henry on Col 2:16
Verse 16. Let no man-judge you in meat, or in drink
The apostle speaks here in reference to some particulars of the hand-writing of ordinances, which had been taken away, viz., the distinction of meats and drinks, what was clean and what unclean, according to the law; and the necessity of observing certain holydays or festivals, such as the new moons and particular sabbaths, or those which should be observed with more than ordinary solemnity; all these had been taken out of the way and nailed to the cross, and were no longer of moral obligation. There is no intimation here that the Sabbath was done away, or that its moral use was superseded, by the introduction of Christianity. I have shown elsewhere that, Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, is a command of perpetual obligation, and can never be superseded but by the final termination of time. As it is a type of that rest which remains for the people of God, of an eternity of bliss, it must continue in full force till that eternity arrives; for no type ever ceases till the antitype be come. Besides, it is not clear that the apostle refers at all to the Sabbath in this place, whether Jewish or Christian; his σαββατων, of sabbaths or weeks, most probably refers to their feasts of weeks, of which much has been said in the notes on the Pentateuch.

http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=col&chapter=002

 

Please show me where the connection is to the Shadow Sabbathes and Lev 23?

The text is clear, Sabbath "day".

Colossians 2:16-17 "Therefore, do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however is found IN CHRIST."

 

Bob, once again you show your skills in copy and paste. It is too bad you cannot carry on a theological discussion for yourself.

 

Adam Clarke –

Col 2:16-17

Verse 16. Let no man-judge you in meat, or in drink
The apostle speaks here in reference to some particulars of the hand-writing of ordinances, which had been taken away, viz., the distinction of meats and drinks, what was clean and what unclean, according to the law; and the necessity of observing certain holydays or festivals, such as the new moons and particular sabbaths, or those which should be observed with more than ordinary solemnity; all these had been taken out of the way and nailed to the cross, and were no longer of moral obligation.

There is no intimation here that the Sabbath was done away, or that its moral use was superseded, by the introduction of Christianity. I have shown elsewhere that, Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, is a command of perpetual obligation, and can never be superseded but by the final termination of time. As it is a type of that rest which remains for the people of God, of an eternity of bliss, it must continue in full force till that eternity arrives; for no type ever ceases till the antitype be come. Besides, it is not clear that the apostle refers at all to the Sabbath in this place, whether Jewish or Christian; his σαββατων, of sabbaths or weeks, most probably refers to their feasts of weeks, of which much has been said in the notes on the Pentateuch.
http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=col&chapter=002

Verse 17. Which are a shadow
All these things were types, and must continue in force till the Christ, whom they represented, came; the apostle therefore says that the body-the substance or design of them was of Christ-pointed him out, and the excellent blessings which he has procured. The word σκια, shadow, is often used to express any thing imperfect or unsubstantial; while the term σωμα, body, was used in the opposite sense, and expressed any thing substantial, solid, and firm. The law was but the shadow or representation of good things to come; none should rest in it; all that it pointed out is to be sought and obtained in Christ.

 

I gave you Heb 4 "in detail" and you respond with nothing. Going instead to Col 2.

I have given you NON-Sabbath keeping Bible scholars showing that your position is false -- but you still turn away from it.

I now give you NON-Sabbath keeping scholars showing you that your Col 2 position is false - and still you turn from it???!!

Are you asking me to post a long detailed review of Col 2 - my own work, only to see you jump to another text again?

If so - I am happy to do it.

Just say the word.

In Christ,

Bob

 

You did nothing but copy and paste others thoughts. I can read for myself. It is obvious, you do not want to carry on a converation. Have fun copying and pasting.

 

I gave you two - lonnnng detailed posts of MY OWN WORK starting here --

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=864885&postcount=22

You responded with nothing.

I also gave you non-Sabbath keeping sources that show that your views are wrong - and you simply come back with "nothing".

Then when you go to Col 2 I SHOW that non-Sabbath keeping, well known Bible scholar show your point to be in error and my view to be correct in Col 2 --

And you come back with .... "more nothing"??

I gave you long posts when you asked for a detailed review of Heb 4 and I have given you short posts -- what more can I do to get you to respond with substance?

You call this "Me" not dialoging - but what are you doing here?

In Christ,

Bob

 

I can't speak for Pastor but some of us would just like the cliff notes...

 

Think about this for a second please.

I have not only stated my views in triplicate here I have ALSO SHOWN that the key points in my argument against your position are ALSO AFFIRMED by even NON-Sabbath keeping - well known Bible scholars.

OBVIOUSLY I could go to SABBATH keeping Bible Scholars like Samuel Bacchiocci - but I do not do that since it is "obvious" that a Sabbath keeping Bible scholar would of course agree with me.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Sorry about those long posts on Heb 4 but our Pastor did ask for a detailed review of the chapter - so I obliged him.

And in Col 2 I have not posted my own comments on that chapter in detail since I know that is the long slow way.

So the "Cliffs Notes" are in the form of the non-Sabbath keeping Bible Scholar's I have just given on Col 2:16 showing my view on the Shadow Sabbaths of Lev 23.

 

not only I have shown that - I even show it using non-Sabbath keeping Bible scholars that have every incentive to agree with your position were it correct.

 

umm...? heresy...? anyone...? where is that in scripture?
or did you miss the one that says "I did not come to destroy the law"

also the verse that says for us as christians to use the law to bring about the knowledge of sin

etc. etc.

pick and choose all you want. fine with me. im not going to condemn you or anything.

umm. the apostles and many others met on the sabbath many more times then on the first day.

Acts 13: 14,27,42,44
Acts 15: 21
Acts 16: 13
Acts 17: 2
Acts 18: 4

then colossians 2:16 comes into play.

personally... i'll worship the Lord everyday - for worship is not part of a christians life - it is a christians primary purpose

 

I know I am jumping late but no worship on Saturday is not a requirement and any who say otherwise is no better than the false apostles condemned by Paul in Galations. The sabbath was established for the benefit of man and as a foretaste of the true Sabbath found in Christ. So in that frame of reference anytime spent in Christ through devotion, prayer, or carrying of vocation in a Christ like manner is an observance of the Sabbath. Of particular importance is being in Christ for only God can make something Holy and outside of Christ the Sabbath can not be kept Holy. In addition, I have yet to see anybody prove that Saturday is the seventh day of the creation calendar. Viewing it through the window of the present calendar it would appear so, but it should be noted that the modern calendar is not the same as it was ~6000 years ago. The calendar as we know it has undergone numerous changes, in addition in European countries the calendar week begins on Monday not Sunday and therefore by their tradition the Seventh day is Sunday, so all Seventh Dayists if they were honest in their belief should be worshiping on Sunday in Europe. And lastly we observe a day of worship on Sunday in in accordance with some man made canon but because it was as good a day as anyother and in doing so we would cause less confusion.

Only in Christ is there true Sabbath. :jesus: