Last year my wife wrote an outstanding article on the Sabbath for Proclamation! magazine. As you might expect we received responses from readers, including some that were articulate in their reasons for disagreeing with the article. I wanted to review some of the common, articulate objections along with our responses for the benefit or all readers. This post continues with responses to the common objections we received (part 2 of 4). You may read part 1 in this article.
Objection:
“The law that was changed (in Heb 7:12) is the law of the priesthood which stated that priests should descend from Aaron. But Christ was not a Levite, but was from Judah. His service is eternal, not temporary, due to the fact that he (sic) lives forever. This change has nothing to do with the 10 Commandments or the Sabbath!”
Scripture:
Heb 7:12 For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.
Response:
Heb 7:12 indicates that the change in Priesthood requires a change in the Law. This does not indicate that the change was limited to making an amendment about the Priesthood. Paul tells us in Galatians that once a Law is given by God, and a covenant is made, that it cannot be changed. Gal 3:15 “To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified.” Any change couldn’t happen as long as the Law or Covenant Maker was alive. The death of the One who made the Law allowed the Old Law to be replaced by a New one. Among other things, this new Law allows Christ to serve as our High Priest.
Despite the specific claims about the Sabbath and the Ten Commandments, there are no passages in Scripture which tell us specifically which Laws changed and which did not. We know that circumcision was no longer required. According to Acts 15, very little was “required” of Gentile believers in the way of Law. We can search the NT and find which Laws are specifically given and we find that the command to observe the Sabbath was never repeated in the NT.
Objection:
“Jesus showed us (how the Sabbath should be kept) – by worship (Luke 4:16) & by good works (Mark 3:1-4).”
Scripture:
Luke 4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read.
Mark 3:1-4 Again he entered the synagogue, and a man was there with a withered hand. And they watched Jesus, to see whether he would heal him on the Sabbath, so that they might accuse him. And he said to the man with the withered hand, “Come here.” And he said to them, “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?” But they were silent.
John 5:8-18Jesus said to him, “Get up, take up your bed, and walk.” And at once the man was healed, and he took up his bed and walked. Now that day was the Sabbath. So the Jews said to the man who had been healed, “It is the Sabbath, and it is not lawful for you to take up your bed.” But he answered them, “The man who healed me, that man said to me, ‘Take up your bed, and walk.’” They asked him, “Who is the man who said to you, ‘Take up your bed and walk’?” Now the man who had been healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had withdrawn, as there was a crowd in the place. Afterward Jesus found him in the temple and said to him, “See, you are well! Sin no more, that nothing worse may happen to you.” The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had healed him. And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath. But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.”This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
Matt 12:1-8 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless? I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”
Response:
Jesus showed us the example of working on the Sabbath, even as His Father in heaven worked on the Sabbath (John 5:8-18). His disciples not only left their dwellings (breaking the specific command of God from Ex 16:29) but went gathering food (something else that was prohibited as evidenced by no manna being provided on the Sabbath Day). This has nothing to do with doing good works on the Sabbath. Yet Jesus defended this Sabbath breaking by comparing it to an Old Testament “ceremonial” law. Jesus taught that the Sabbath command was like the commands about who could eat the showbread (Matt 12:1-8). SDAs believe that the commands regarding the showbread have all passed away; since Jesus says Sabbath is like this command, surely one can see that the Sabbath has also passed away.
Objection:
“(The article states) that ‘neither Jesus nor the apostles taught observance of a Sabbath day.’ What about their teaching by example?? (Acts 17:2, etc.) So many texts show that Sabbath worship was the norm rather than Sunday. When it appears that there are two opposing possibilities, with one true and the other not, we decide truth from the weight of the evidence. Sabbath worship was much more common than first day worship.”
Scripture:
Acts 17: 1-3 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.”
Response:
SDAs routinely bring up Acts 17:2 as “proof” that the apostles observed the Sabbath. All that Acts 17:2 teaches is that it was Paul’s custom to go the synagogue in each new town and proclaim Jesus. There is nothing in these passages that says that Paul “observed” the Sabbath or “rested” on the Sabbath. The last recorded instance we have of disciples resting on the Sabbath is when Christ was in the tomb. And at this point the disciples were a confused mess, denying their Lord, not showing up for His body, unwilling to believe even later that he had risen. After the resurrection there are no passages about Sabbath observance or rest.
Second, this criticism introduced the false dichotomy of 7th day Sabbath versus Sunday Sabbath. Clearly this critic didn’t really pay attention to the article. SDAs have been stuck on this either/or view of Sabbath. But that either/or view is not an accurate description of the teachings of the various Christian churches, which was one of the main points outlined within the original article. Trying to introduce this false Sabbath/Sunday dichotomy is a case of blatantly ignoring the positions presented against required Sabbath observance. SDAs struggle to step out of their own mindset to even address points of view that differ from their own. I think this illustrates how SDAs approach Bible study, relying on a pre-conceived chain of conclusions that they have been taught. How many of you still have your Academy Bibles with chains of linked verses on each subject?
In the next installment, more common objections will be discussed.
- Our Journey Out of Adventism - July 27, 2023
- 30. Adventism’s New Earth - July 27, 2023
- 29. The Adventist Millennium - July 20, 2023
If the Apostles were going around preaching that Christians were free to worship on either day then the Jews would have strongly opposed them on that ground as they did on circumcision. That there is not a whisper of such controversy is tacit evidence that the Apostolic church kept the Sabbath.
George, thanks for the reply. First off, arguments from silence not generally considered a very strong argument for a doctrinal position. So even if your claim that there was not a whisper of such a controversy is true, your conclusion would still be questionable. But as it turns out, your claim may not be as accurate as you think. Consider these verses:
Rom 14:5-6 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.
SDAs try to get around this verse by claiming that it isn’t talking about the Sabbath, but fasting. But this is not the only verse on the subject.
Col 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.
So here is a clear indication of some controversy in the early church regarding the Sabbath day. Now it wouldn’t be surprising that the same people promoting that Gentile believers should be circumcised would also be suggesting that they should keep the Jewish religious festivals, the New Moon celebrations and the weekly Sabbath day. And Paul clearly tells Christians to not let others judge them regarding these shadows.
Gal 4:10-17 You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! 11I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you. I plead with you, brothers, become like me, for I became like you. You have done me no wrong. As you know, it was because of an illness that I first preached the gospel to you. Even though my illness was a trial to you, you did not treat me with contempt or scorn. Instead, you welcomed me as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Christ Jesus himself. What has happened to all your joy? I can testify that, if you could have done so, you would have torn out your eyes and given them to me. Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? Those people are zealous to win you over, but for no good. What they want is to alienate you (from us), so that you may be zealous for them.
The controversy being dealt with throughout the book of Galatians is that of a few zealots for the law trying to convince these Christians that they are under the Jewish Law and should observe all aspects of the Jewish Law. Circumcision is dealt with specifically in the next Chapter (5:2-3). In this chapter the demands to observe certain festivals and Sabbath days is addressed.
Suggesting that the controversy was only about circumcision is misleading. Acts 15:5 clearly describes that there was more to this controversy than just being circumcised: “Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, ‘The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses.'”
There is evidence of a Sabbath controversy in the early church, and this controversy is resolved saying that the Sabbath is shadow, that Christian shouldn’t all others to judge them regarding this day, that there is no need of observing one day over another. Acts 15 resolved which OT laws applied to Gentile believers, and Sabbath was not one of those laws. New laws/instructions are given to Christian believers.
Talk about an argument from silence. You have nothing that comes close to rivaling the circumcision debate in Acts 15. Paul was just suggesting to Jews in Gentile countries that they didn’t have to mutilate their babies any more and look what an uproar it cause in Jerusalem. If he had been soft on the Sabbath there would have been a whole other books written, we would have 1 and 2 Acts. Did the doctor miss it all?
Where is the evidence in THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES? I read in Acts 15:1 that the issue was circumcision. When Paul got to the Antioch in Turkey an interesting series of events took place. It starts in Acts 13:14, “But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day and sat down.” The Jews invited them to speak and Paul’s sermon, clearly meant for a Jewish audience when through verse 41. All the Jews left and the gentiles came up to them and asked them to speak again…when?…next Sabbath! What do you make of that? Gentiles asking apostles to speak on Sabbath!
But I better be quiet, I wouldn’t want to break the silence.
George, you have raised some good questions. Let’s start with Acts 15. You are correct when you point out that verse 1 starts the discussion with circumcision. You are incorrect in stating that this debate was about whether Jewish believers needed to circumcise their children. This claim shows a cursory reading of the chapter. As we read in verses3, 7 and following that this discussion is about the Gentiles.
It also appear that you didn’t look closely at Acts 15:5 5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses.”
It is clear that this discussion is about more than just circumcision.
You have played very loose with the facts of Acts 13.
Acts 13:38-43 Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, 39 and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses. 40 Therefore take heed, so that the thing spoken of in the Prophets may not come upon you: 41 ‘Behold, you scoffers, and marvel, and perish; For I am accomplishing a work in your days, A work which you will never believe, though someone should describe it to you.’”42 As Paul and Barnabas were going out, the people kept begging that these things might be spoken to them the next Sabbath. 43 Now when the meeting of the synagogue had broken up, many of the Jews and of the God-fearing proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, were urging them to continue in the grace of God.
It was the Jews who were inviting Paul back! The Gentiles merely came back to hear more.
Ignoring the context of Romans 14 certainly helps the contention that the Law of God can be ignored – for if you break one commandment you break them all – but Romans 14:1 clears up your misunderstanding, “Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things.” The seventh-day Sabbath set apart by God at creation (Gen 2:1-3)and constituting the fourth commandment is not a doubtful matter. Verses 5 and 6 also say nothing about worship or the Sabbath.
Col. 2:16,17 specifically states “Let no one judge you regarding sabbath days which are a shadow of things to come.” The seventh-day Sabbath is a memorial of creation and the fourth commandment of the Law of God not a shadow of something to come. Lev. 23:37,38 distinguishes the ceremonial sabbaths of the law of Moses fufilled by Christ from the seventh-day Sabbaths of the Ten Commandment Law of God by stating “Beside the sabbaths of the Lord.” “The seventh-day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” (Exodus 20:10)
Furthermore; we are not judged regarding salvation by any man, but by God using the standard of the Ten Commandment Law of God, which clearly remains in effect, including the fourth commandment.
This ministry must continue to teach others to ignore the Law of God or they would have no reason to exist.
“Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and TEACHES men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt. 5:19)
Jesus says, “If you love Me, keep My commandments.”
The Law for a 7th day Sabbath rest was not established by God at creation. That is an assumption on your part that cannot be shown from Scripture alone. You are correct that verses 5 and 6 of Romans 14 do not use the word “Sabbath”. However, since you have already assumed that Rom 14 cannot be about the Sabbath, your bias is affecting your ability to accept a plain reading of the passage.
Do you esteem one day each week above all other? Am I claiming that all days are alike?
This passage certainly seems to be addressing the difference in our opinions.
The 7th day Sabbath is a shadow of Christ. Hebrews 4 makes this clear when an new day, “TODAY” has been set up for the Sabbath rest that the OT sabbath keepers could never enter.
The entire chapter of Lev 23 deals with the different types of “ceremonial” shadows.
Lev 23:2 “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, These are the appointed feasts of the Lord that you shall proclaim as holy convocations; they are my appointed feasts.”
So what follows are the holy convocations:
The 7th day Sabbath (v 3)
The passover (v5-8)
Firstfruits (9-14)
Weeks (15-22)
Trumpets (23-25
Atonement (26-32)
Booths (33-44)
The weekly Sabbath is listed along with all of the shadow convocations. Rather than supporting your claim, the actually Scripture content bolsters the teaching that the Sabbath day is one of the shadows. Yes it is true that Israel was commanded to observe the weekly Sabbaths and the annual feasts (as you point out from vs 37-38). And weekly Sabbaths are, by their nature of being “weekly” not annual. But the rest of this chapter groups all of these, weekly and annual, together as God’s holy convocations.
Several of us have already pointed out to you that the question is not whether Christian’s are to obey the commandments given by Christ, but instead what those commandments actually are. You know this is the question, but you have refused to address that question in multiple replies.
I have pointed out in previous replies the many reasons that this ministry exists beyond the Sabbath. It is another post that you never responded to.
Wrong again as usual – You should not argue against the bible – you will lose the point every time.
Leviticus 23 lists the feasts AFTER stating the “seventh day” as a “Sabbath of solemn rest”, “the Sabbath of the Lord”. (Lev 23:3)
Then in verse 4 says, “These are the feasts of the Lord”.
That is why the bible does not contradict itself
in verses 37 and 38 when it says, “These are the feast of the Lord … BESIDES the Sabbaths of the Lord.”
Nice try though, but a softball nonetheless.
Jesus says, “If you love Me, keep My commandments.”
“For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments.”
Breaking which of the Ten Commandments of the Lord listed in Exodus 20 is not sin?
What does Lev 23:2 say? How am I wrong when I quote Scripture?
You are correct that the Bible doesn’t contradict itself. Since the Bible lists the feasts and convocations of the Lord starting in Lev 23:2 what follows later in that chapter will not contradict this. I provided an explanation whereby they do not contradict. How do you propose reconciling Lev 23:2-3 with verses 37-38 so that there is no contradiction and so that Scripture is never false?
Lev 23:2-3 “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, These are the appointed feasts of the Lord that you shall proclaim as holy convocations; they are my appointed feasts. Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation. You shall do no work. It is a Sabbath to the Lord in all your dwelling places.
Scripture plain calls the 7th day Sabbath one of the appointed feasts and holy convocations of God. “You should not argue against the bible – you will lose the point every time.”
You are wrong, as usual, because you ignored verses 37 and 38 –
“These are the feasts of the Lord … BESIDES the Sabbaths of the Lord.”
“The seventh day is the SABBATH OF THE LORD your God.”(Exodus 20:10)
Nice try, but over the wall again. Going, going, gone.
Jesus says, “If you love Me, keep My commandments.”
“And He wrote on the tablets of stone according to the first writing, the Ten Commandments.”(Deut.10:1-4)
“For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments.”
“By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep His commandments.”
“He who says, ‘I know Him’, but does not keep the commandments, is a liar and the truth is not in Him.”
I don’t mind when people do not agree with me, but I do take offense when people lie about me. Particularly when the do it repeatedly. Your most recent lie about me:
“You are wrong, as usual, because you ignored verses 37 and 38 - “These are the feasts of the Lord … BESIDES the Sabbaths of the Lord.””
Not it may be true that I am wrong, I have been mistaken a few times in my life. But it certainly isn’t true that I “ignored verses 37 and 38”
I previously wrote:
“Yes it is true that Israel was commanded to observe the weekly Sabbaths and the annual feasts (as you point out from vs 37-38). And weekly Sabbaths are, by their nature of being “weekly” not annual. But the rest of this chapter groups all of these, weekly and annual, together as God’s holy convocations.”
So it is clear that I directly addressed these verses rather than ignoring them as you claim. Perhaps you wanted me explanation? In that case, all you would need to do is ask.
Verses 2 and 3 make clear that Sabbath is one of the feasts.
Lev 23:2-3 “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, These are the appointed feasts of the Lord that you shall proclaim as holy convocations; they are my appointed feasts. Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation. You shall do no work. It is a Sabbath to the Lord in all your dwelling places.
Yet, as you have rightly pointed out, verses 37 and 38 indicate some other relationship between them. So the most basic explanation would be that, in making both verses 100% true and accurate, that Israel was not to bypass that weekly holy convocation just because there was a “bigger” annual one happening.
But there is actually a more detailed answer that depends on reading the entire verses and not just snippets with large sections deleted (i.e. - “These are the feasts of the Lord … BESIDES the Sabbaths of the Lord.”). It is always dangerous when we alter God’s Word.
“These are the appointed feasts of the LORD, which you shall proclaim as times of holy convocation, for presenting to the LORD food offerings, burnt offerings and grain offerings, sacrifices and drink offerings, each on its proper day, besides the LORD’s Sabbaths and besides your gifts and besides all your vow offerings and besides all your freewill offerings, which you give to the LORD.”
There are different offerings that are required on their proper days. But these offerings do not replace the offerings required on the Sabbath day (Num 28:9). There were also gift offerings, vow offerings and free will offerings. This passage is about the offerings that are given, not a passage written to make a distinction between annual feasts and weekly Sabbaths. The offerings that were part of the feast did not mean that the Israelite was to skip the “normal” offerings. Do you contend that the Sabbath offering is still required? Or has this commandment of God been changed?
You cannot alter Scripture by deleting whole sections, and expect that it will make sense. When you look at the entire passage, within the entire Chapter, and accept that it is 100% true, it is easy to see how these apparently different statements are easily reconciled.
Now I previously asked for how you reconcile vs 2-3 with 37-38 and received no substantive answer. Would you care to provide that now?
There is no reconciliation needed – the bible makes the dinstinction between the ceremonial sabbaths and the “Sabbaths of the Lord.”
“The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God.”
Pretending it does not, does not make it so. “Because the carnal mind is emnity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.” (Rom. 8:7) And once again the bible is confirmed.
“He who says, ‘I know Him’, but does not keep His commandments, is a liar and the truth is not in Him.”
“So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.”(Deut. 4:13-14)
“Behold the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant … This is the covenant … I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts.”(Heb.8:8,10)
“Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters.”(1 Cor. 7:19)
Jesus says, “If you love Me, keep my commandments.”
Breaking which of the Ten Commandment Law of God is not sin?
“And He wrote on the tablets according to the first writing, the Ten Commandments.”(Deut.10:1-4)
Brian,
To reach your conclusion on verses 37 and 38 you deleted approximately 52 of the 64 words in this Bible passage (depending on which version you read). In order to not have your conclusion contradict the earlier passages in the chapter, you appear to completely remove verses 2 and 3-another 65 words. It seems that you must delete a considerable amount of Scripture in order to maintain your conclusions. Scripture does not allow us to just delete or skip over the parts that we don’t like.
I notice that you also skipped over Hebrews 8:9, quoting only from verse 8 and 10. For the people who are curious as to what you skipped, it included these important words “not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.”
Skipping the part that says the New Covenant is not like the old one is rather convenient.
I encourage anyone who reads these posts to read the entire verse, chapter, book, and the whole bible, for that matter.
It will not change the fact that you teach people to break the Law of God – which of course in condemned in scripture.
Anyone who reads our posts in “Common Defenses of the Sabbath Part 1 and 2” may choose whom to obey –
Jesus – who says, “If you love, Me keep My commandments.”
or this “ministry” which says –
We believe in keeping NINE of the TEN COMMANDMENTS, which of course, the bible condemns.
Breaking which of the Ten Commandment Law of God is not sin?
It seems that every time you cannot answer the Biblical questions posed to you, you return to your broken record chant that Scripture says, “If you love, Me keep My commandments.”
And we, at this ministry, have stated our agreement that believers are called to follow Christ’s commandments. What we have further pointed out is that there is no Biblical basis for concluding that every time the word commandments is used that is must be referring to the Ten Commandments.
Adam was commanded not to eat from one tree in the garden, he broke that commandment. By breaking this commandment from God, Adam sinned.
Noah was commanded to build a boat, and he obeyed. If Noah had not obeyed this commandment it would have been a sin.
Abraham was commanded to sacrifice his son and he obeyed. This one is particularly interesting. Abraham was obeying a commandment that would have been breaking one of the Ten Commandments. Had Abraham obeyed the Ten Commandments rather than God, he would have sinned. But he obeyed God’s commandment to him.
We aren’t commanded to avoid eating from one tree, to build a boat, nor to sacrifice our child. If Christians are not commanded to keep the weekly Sabbath, as I believe that I have demonstrated, then we are not breaking any command in not keeping it, nor in teaching others that they are freed from the burden of this shadow.
The sticking point in this discussion has been whether one can trust John and Jesus to provide the definition of what they mean when they say “commandments”. You conclude that the word commandments must mean the Ten Commandments, I conclude that Jesus specifically gives new commandments in the surrounding verses.
John 13:34 “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
John 15:12 “This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you.
1 John 3:23 This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us.
1 John 4:21 And this commandment we have from Him, that the one who loves God should love his brother also.
2 John 1:5 Now I ask you, lady, not as though I were writing to you a new commandment, but the one which we have had from the beginning, that we love one another.
Now we are also given other commands in the NT, but when His commandments are specifically defined in the NT they are not the Ten Commandments, or even a section of the Ten Commandments.
You are correct that teaching others to disobey God’s Law is condemned. Where you have erred is concluding that Law=Ten Commandments. You have falsely accused us of being lawless. That is not true, we believe in obeying the Law of Christ outlined in the New Testament rather than obeying the Law of Moses, outlined in the first 5 books of the Bible.
You are incorrect in stating that this ministry teaches “keeping NINE of the TEN COMMANDMENTS.” It seems that you may have been too busy repeating the same basic post 20 some times to actually read what is being taught.
We affirm with Scripture that “there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God” (Heb 4:9b) and that we should “strive to enter that rest” (Heb 4:11a). What we also affirm is that this day of rest has been re-defined in the New Covenant (no, it is not changed to Sunday!). Instead of the Seventh-day Sabbath given to Israel, “he (God) appoints a certain day, “Today,” “(Heb 4:7a). Note that the day one enters rest in the New Covenant is not the 7th day of the week, but TODAY.
The one day each week of rest where we cease the physical labors of our daily work was a shadow of the spiritual rest that one finds in Christ where we cease working to be righteous and accept the gift of credited righteousness.
“Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” Matt 11:28
Jesus provides the rest that Israel never received from the 7th day Sabbath. It was Israel that God is referencing when He says, “They shall not enter my rest.” (Heb 4:5). Just like the blood of animals could never cleanse a person from sin (Heb 10:4), because it was only a shadow, so also the 7th day Sabbath could never provide true rest, because it was only a shadow. Now that Christ has come, He can give us rest “TODAY” and everyday.
Outstanding summary of the New Covenant position Rick!