BNW Brave New World
Samenzwering, verborgen agenda's en geheime geschiedenis. De zoektocht naar de wereld die achter de façade van alledag ligt.
Vervolg op BNW / Lucifer en de misleiding van het zevende dags adventisme
en
BNW / Lucifer en de misleiding van het zevende dags adventisme dl2
[ Bericht 35% gewijzigd door Lavenderr op 26-02-2013 18:26:20 ]
en
BNW / Lucifer en de misleiding van het zevende dags adventisme dl2
[ Bericht 35% gewijzigd door Lavenderr op 26-02-2013 18:26:20 ]
Maar wat ik nu al een aantal posts aan je verstand wil peuteren maar je schijnbaar negeert is dat de sabbat in deze niet het centrale punt van de boodschap is, maar een openbare manifestatie van de rechtvaardiging door geloof als resultaat van het ontvangen van het ware evangelie.quote:Op dinsdag 26 februari 2013 18:14 schreef wiseguy-23 het volgende:
Ali bedankt voor je brede uiteenzetting
Ik ben het met je oneens dat het in de eindtijd op zondag/sabbat aankomt, maar ik denk wel dat er sprake is van een rust-controverse. Namelijk diegenen die in Christus alleen rusten en daarmee automatisch een bedreiging vormen voor de NWO zullen wellicht vervolgd worden. Het prediken van redding door geloof in Jezus alleen zorgt namelijk voor ontzettend veel weerstand. Zelfs in deze tijd, als je het met katholieken zou bespreken kunnen ze giftig worden van woede. Wat zou er dan gebeuren als de NWO er eenmaal is en de religies van deze wereld hun handen inelkaar slaan in lijn van de traditie van Johannes Paulus de tweede die leerde dat alle religies dezelfde God aanbidden? Wat denk je dat er gebeurt als het tweede beest (de RK sinds 1929 toen het een kerk-staat werd) allerlei wonderen doet ten aanzien van de mensen en de wereld enthousiast maakt voor een NWO? Het lijkt me logisch dat diegenen die zich uitspreken tegen de NWO dan ook zwaar vervolgd zullen worden. Maar het gaat hier dan niet om zoiets stoms als een sabbat/zondag, maar om het feit of je gelooft in Jezus alleen voor je redding.
Ieder willekeurig persoon kan vandaag besluiten om de sabbat te houden. Zal hem dat redden? Nee natuurlijk niet.
Ieder willekeurig persoon die zich christen noemt kan vandaag besluiten om de sabbat te houden. Zal dat hem redden? Nee natuurlijk niet.
Het is niet het sabbat houden wat redt, of het sabbat houden dat je rechtvaardig maakt, of het sabbat houden dat de kern van het evangelie is. De kern van het evangelie is rechtvaardiging door geloof in Jezus Christus en de spirituele regeneratie door het ontvangen van de Heilige Geest waardoor je godvruchtig wordt.
God in Zijn liefde heeft ons 6 dagen werk en 1 dag rust gegeven. Die rustdag heeft allelei diepere betekenis, maar het simpele feit dat we stoppen met onze dagelijkse bezigheden is al een zegening op zich in plaats van dat we non stop moeten werken en God vergeten door onze drukke bezigheden. God heeft een specifieke dag gekozen die te maken heeft met de schepping.
De antichrist doet hetzelfde, maar heeft een andere dag gekozen. Uitendelijk is het een kwestie van autoriteit: wie gehoorzaam je?
Het punt is dat aan het einde der tijden geen mens die niet compleet in God is in staat zal zijn de sabbat te houden. Vervolging, economische uitsluiting zal ieder persoon die zwak is door het vlees doen vallen en opgeven.
Het is alleen dankzij de kracht van Gods geest dat iemand vol zal kunnen houden. Daarmee wordt het houden van die sabbat ondanks de oppositie een teken dat iemand gerechtvaardigd is door geloof, Gods geest ontvangen heeft, geheiligd is, en verzegeld.
Het is dan dus een signaal, een teken, een verschijnsel, een gevolg, van rechtvaardiging door geloof in Jezus. Het is niet de manier om gerechtvaardigd te worden, want je eigen werken kunnen je niet rechtvaardigen.
Jakobus zegt dat een geloof zonder werken dood is. Maar hij heeft het hier over de werken die volgen uit geloof. Alleen iemand met geloof zal de werken produceren die God van ons verlangt, omdat het Gods geest is die de werken produceert. Daarom kun je aan de hand van iemands werken afleiden of iemands geloof levend of dood is, aldus Jakobus.
Aan het einde zal men aan de sabbat af kunnen leiden of iemands geloof levend of dood is, omdat het laat zien waar iemand werkelijk staat: onder de volledige autoriteit van God, of onder de autoriteit van antichrist.
Dit is dan opnieuw geen manier om punten te verdienen, maar om de wereld op te roepen tot bekering! God wil een onderscheid maken tussen Zijn volk en de wereld. De mensheid zal iets nodig hebben om te kunnen zien waar zich naar toe te keren. De sabbat wordt als het ware de vlag waaronder Gods leger zich schaart, de banier waaraan herkenbaar zal zijn dat die groep Gods volk is die niet zal gestraft worden met de plagen maar de erfenis van het eeuwige leven zal ontvangen. Het is de sabbat die een zichtbaar onderscheid zal maken tussen Gods volk en de rest van de wereld.
11 Want het zal geschieden te dien dage, dat de Heere ten anderen male Zijn hand aanleggen zal om weder te verwerven het overblijfsel Zijns volks, hetwelk overgebleven zal zijn van Assyrië, en van Egypte, en van Pathros, en van Morenland, en van Elam, en van Sinear, en van Hamath, en van de eilanden der zee.
12 En Hij zal een banier oprichten onder de heidenen, en Hij zal de verdrevenen van Israël verzamelen, en de verstrooiden uit Juda vergaderen, van de vier einden des aardrijks. jesaja 11
15 En wat samenstemming heeft Christus met Belial, of wat deel heeft de gelovige met den ongelovige?
16 Of wat samenvoeging heeft de tempel Gods met de afgoden? Want gij zijt de tempel des levenden Gods; gelijkerwijs God gezegd heeft: Ik zal in hen wonen, en Ik zal onder hen wandelen; en Ik zal hun God zijn, en zij zullen Mij een Volk zijn.
17 Daarom gaat uit het midden van hen, en scheidt u af, zegt de Heere, en raakt niet aan hetgeen onrein is, en Ik zal ulieden aannemen.
18 En Ik zal u tot een Vader zijn, en gij zult Mij tot zonen en dochteren zijn, zegt de Heere, de Almachtige. 2 Korinthers 6
5 Zo wordt gij ook zelven, als levende stenen, gebouwd tot een geestelijk huis, tot een heilig priesterdom, om geestelijke offeranden op te offeren, die Gode aangenaam zijn door Jezus Christus.
6 Daarom is ook vervat in de Schrift: Ziet, Ik leg in Sion een uitersten Hoeksteen, Die uitverkoren en dierbaar is; en: Die in Hem gelooft, zal niet beschaamd worden.
7 U dan, die gelooft, is Hij dierbaar; maar den ongehoorzamen wordt gezegd: De Steen, Dien de bouwlieden verworpen hebben, Deze is geworden tot een hoofd des hoeks, en een steen des aanstoots, en een rots der ergernis;
8 Dengenen namelijk, die zich aan het Woord stoten, ongehoorzaam zijnde, waartoe zij ook gezet zijn.
9 Maar gij zijt een uitverkoren geslacht, een koninklijk priesterdom, een heilig volk, een verkregen volk; opdat gij zoudt verkondigen de deugden Desgenen, Die u uit de duisternis geroepen heeft tot Zijn wonderbaar licht;
10 Gij, die eertijds geen volk waart, maar nu Gods volk zijt; die eertijds niet ontfermd waart, maar nu ontfermd zijt geworden. 1 Petrus 2
Voor de zevende dags adventist sluit de tijd van genade bij de zondagswet, we worden dan ofwel verzegeld of niet.
De rest van de wereld zal dan nog de mogelijkheid hebben zich te bekeren, en de sabbat zal het zichtbare teken zijn waar zich toe te keren.
De sabbat is dan dus niet zozeer voor de adventist zelf die verzegeld is, maar voor degenen die God oproept uit Babylon te komen.
[ Bericht 2% gewijzigd door Ali_Kannibali op 26-02-2013 18:41:11 ]
Maar de hele opzet van de bijbel, het vertrouwen in die ene bron en de onduidelijkheid over de echte betekenis heeft toch helemaal niets met rationaliteit te maken. Het is je geloof erin dat het voor jouw acceptabel maakt.quote:
[..]
Als mijn geloof en ratio met elkaar in tegenspraak zouden zijn zou ik niet geloven denk ik. De oorsprong van mijn geloof zit juist wel in de teksten, al geeft het wel een bevredigend gevoel als ratio en geloof elkaar wederzijds interdependent versterken.
Question authorities, fuck religion, educate yourself, Viva el individualismo!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
Ik begrijp je insteek maar de sabbat als uiterlijk kenmerk van iemands redding is niet bijbels. Het is gebasseerd op non-bijbelse aannames. De bijbel leert daarentegen dat mensen die verzegeld zijn door de Heilige Geest gekenmerkt worden door deze eigenschappen:quote:
[..]
Maar wat ik nu al een aantal posts aan je verstand wil peuteren maar je schijnbaar negeert is dat de sabbat in deze niet het centrale punt van de boodschap is, maar een openbare manifestatie van de rechtvaardiging door geloof als resultaat van het ontvangen van het ware evangelie.
Ieder willekeurig persoon kan vandaag besluiten om de sabbat te houden. Zal hem dat redden? Nee natuurlijk niet.
Ieder willekeurig persoon die zich christen noemt kan vandaag besluiten om de sabbat te houden. Zal dat hem redden? Nee natuurlijk niet.
Het is niet het sabbat houden wat redt, of het sabbat houden dat je rechtvaardig maakt, of het sabbat houden dat de kern van het evangelie is. De kern van het evangelie is rechtvaardiging door geloof in Jezus Christus en de spirituele regeneratie door het ontvangen van de Heilige Geest waardoor je godvruchtig wordt.
God in Zijn liefde heeft ons 6 dagen werk en 1 dag rust gegeven. Die rustdag heeft allelei diepere betekenis, maar het simpele feit dat we stoppen met onze dagelijkse bezigheden is al een zegening op zich in plaats van dat we non stop moeten werken en God vergeten door onze drukke bezigheden. God heeft een specifieke dag gekozen die te maken heeft met de schepping.
De antichrist doet hetzelfde, maar heeft een andere dag gekozen. Uitendelijk is het een kwestie van autoriteit: wie gehoorzaam je?
Het punt is dat aan het einde der tijden geen mens die niet compleet in God is in staat zal zijn de sabbat te houden. Vervolging, economische uitsluiting zal ieder persoon die zwak is door het vlees doen vallen en opgeven.
Het is alleen dankzij de kracht van Gods geest dat iemand vol zal kunnen houden. Daarmee wordt het houden van die sabbat ondanks de oppositie een teken dat iemand gerechtvaardigd is door geloof, Gods geest ontvangen heeft, geheiligd is, en verzegeld.
Het is dan dus een signaal, een teken, een verschijnsel, een gevolg, van rechtvaardiging door geloof in Jezus. Het is niet de manier om gerechtvaardigd te worden, want je eigen werken kunnen je niet rechtvaardigen.
Jakobus zegt dat een geloof zonder werken dood is. Maar hij heeft het hier over de werken die volgen uit geloof. Alleen iemand met geloof zal de werken produceren die God van ons verlangt, omdat het Gods geest is die de werken produceert. Daarom kun je aan de hand van iemands werken afleiden of iemands geloof levend of dood is, aldus Jakobus.
Aan het einde zal men aan de sabbat af kunnen leiden of iemands geloof levend of dood is, omdat het laat zien waar iemand werkelijk staat: onder de volledige autoriteit van God, of onder de autoriteit van antichrist.
Dit is dan opnieuw geen manier om punten te verdienen, maar om de wereld op te roepen tot bekering! God wil een onderscheid maken tussen Zijn volk en de wereld. De mensheid zal iets nodig hebben om te kunnen zien waar zich naar toe te keren. De sabbat wordt als het ware de vlag waaronder Gods leger zich schaart, de banier waaraan herkenbaar zal zijn dat die groep Gods volk is die niet zal gestraft worden met de plagen maar de erfenis van het eeuwige leven zal ontvangen. Het is de sabbat die een zichtbaar onderscheid zal maken tussen Gods volk en de rest van de wereld.
11 Want het zal geschieden te dien dage, dat de Heere ten anderen male Zijn hand aanleggen zal om weder te verwerven het overblijfsel Zijns volks, hetwelk overgebleven zal zijn van Assyrië, en van Egypte, en van Pathros, en van Morenland, en van Elam, en van Sinear, en van Hamath, en van de eilanden der zee.
12 En Hij zal een banier oprichten onder de heidenen, en Hij zal de verdrevenen van Israël verzamelen, en de verstrooiden uit Juda vergaderen, van de vier einden des aardrijks. jesaja 11
15 En wat samenstemming heeft Christus met Belial, of wat deel heeft de gelovige met den ongelovige?
16 Of wat samenvoeging heeft de tempel Gods met de afgoden? Want gij zijt de tempel des levenden Gods; gelijkerwijs God gezegd heeft: Ik zal in hen wonen, en Ik zal onder hen wandelen; en Ik zal hun God zijn, en zij zullen Mij een Volk zijn.
17 Daarom gaat uit het midden van hen, en scheidt u af, zegt de Heere, en raakt niet aan hetgeen onrein is, en Ik zal ulieden aannemen.
18 En Ik zal u tot een Vader zijn, en gij zult Mij tot zonen en dochteren zijn, zegt de Heere, de Almachtige. 2 Korinthers 6
5 Zo wordt gij ook zelven, als levende stenen, gebouwd tot een geestelijk huis, tot een heilig priesterdom, om geestelijke offeranden op te offeren, die Gode aangenaam zijn door Jezus Christus.
6 Daarom is ook vervat in de Schrift: Ziet, Ik leg in Sion een uitersten Hoeksteen, Die uitverkoren en dierbaar is; en: Die in Hem gelooft, zal niet beschaamd worden.
7 U dan, die gelooft, is Hij dierbaar; maar den ongehoorzamen wordt gezegd: De Steen, Dien de bouwlieden verworpen hebben, Deze is geworden tot een hoofd des hoeks, en een steen des aanstoots, en een rots der ergernis;
8 Dengenen namelijk, die zich aan het Woord stoten, ongehoorzaam zijnde, waartoe zij ook gezet zijn.
9 Maar gij zijt een uitverkoren geslacht, een koninklijk priesterdom, een heilig volk, een verkregen volk; opdat gij zoudt verkondigen de deugden Desgenen, Die u uit de duisternis geroepen heeft tot Zijn wonderbaar licht;
10 Gij, die eertijds geen volk waart, maar nu Gods volk zijt; die eertijds niet ontfermd waart, maar nu ontfermd zijt geworden. 1 Petrus 2
Voor de zevende dags adventist sluit de tijd van genade bij de zondagswet, we worden dan ofwel verzegeld of niet.
De rest van de wereld zal dan nog de mogelijkheid hebben zich te bekeren, en de sabbat zal het zichtbare teken zijn waar zich toe te keren.
De sabbat is dan dus niet zozeer voor de adventist zelf die verzegeld is, maar voor degenen die God oproept uit Babylon te komen.
Love
Joy
Peace
Longsuffering
Gentleness
Goodness
Faith
Meekness
Temperence
De bijbel noemt de sabbat een schaduw in die zin dat het voor christenen irrelevant is om de sabbat wel of niet te houden.
Ik weet dat je het goed bedoelt, maar de sabbat de kern van het evangelie noemen is hetzelfde als besnijdenis de kern van het evangelie noemen. En wat zegt de bijbel daarover?
11U ziet het aan de grote letters: ik schrijf u nu eigenhandig. 12Degenen die er zo op aandringen dat u zich laat besnijden, willen alleen een goede indruk maken en voorkomen dat ze worden vervolgd omwille van het kruis van Christus. 13Ze zijn voor de besnijdenis maar leven zelf niet volgens de wet; ze willen dat u zich laat besnijden om zich daarop te kunnen laten voorstaan. 14Maar ik – ik wil me op niets anders laten voorstaan dan het kruis van Jezus Christus, onze Heer, waardoor de wereld voor mij is gekruisigd en ik voor de wereld. 15Het is volkomen onbelangrijk of men wel of niet besneden is, belangrijk is dat men een nieuwe schepping is. 16Laat er vrede en barmhartigheid zijn voor allen die bij deze maatstaf blijven, en voor het Israël van God. 17En laat voortaan niemand mij meer tegenwerken, want ik draag de littekens van Jezus in mijn lichaam.
1Galaten, u hebt uw verstand verloren! Wie heeft u in zijn ban gekregen? Ik heb u Jezus Christus toch openlijk en duidelijk als de gekruisigde bekendgemaakt? 2Ik wil maar één ding van u weten: hebt u de Geest ontvangen door de wet na te leven of door te luisteren en te geloven? 3Bent u werkelijk zo dwaas weer op uw eigen kracht te vertrouwen, en niet langer op de Geest? 4Is alles wat u hebt meegemaakt dan voor niets geweest? Dat kan toch niet! 5Geeft God u de Geest en goddelijke krachten omdat u de wet naleeft? Of geeft hij ze omdat u naar hem luistert en op hem vertrouwt?
Babylon representeert de wereld die probeert via eigen werken de hemel te berijken. Het gaat hier niet om zoiets stoms als zondag/sabbat, dat is vanuit bijbels oogpunt ondenkbaar. Genade staat open voor iedereen tot Jezus' wederkomst.
Het is niet 1 bron, in feite zijn het 66 boeken die over een periode van duizenden jaren zijn geschreven. Persoonlijk hecht ik er dan veel waarde aan aan het feit dat deze boeken een geintegreerde consistente eenheid vormen. Het is dan ook niet voor niets het meest verkochte boek van de wereld en nooit heeft iemand zoveel invloed gehad op de wereld als Jezus van Nazareth. Ik heb dan ook niet het gevoel alsof ik mij bevind in het veld van pseudowetenschap als ik daadwerkelijk geloof dat de bijbel Gods woord is voor de mensen.quote:
Maar de hele opzet van de bijbel, het vertrouwen in die ene bron en de onduidelijkheid over de echte betekenis heeft toch helemaal niets met rationaliteit te maken. Het is je geloof erin dat het voor jouw acceptabel maakt.
Je hebt gelijk dat indien je echt wilt geloven dat Gods woord waar is, je veel onderzoek moet doen naar de oorsprong van de bijbel, de manusscripten, de vertalingen, de canonisering van de boeken, archeologie etc. etc. Ik ga ervanuit dat als ik iets niet snap in de bijbel dat er dan een logische bijbelse verklaring voor is. In dat opzicht is het ook heel erg dom van de ZDA kerk dat de kerk weigert gebruik te maken van de kennis die theologen voorhanden hebben om de ware betekenis van de bijbel te doorgronden.
Er is werkelijk geen andere reden om aan te nemen dat god bestaat anders dan die verzameling werken. En die verzameling werken noemen we de bijbel, 1 bron. Het was niet Jesus die zoveel invloed heeft, maar die verzameling werken, die ene bron. Het heeft niets met wetenschap te maken, dat de oorsprong van een tekst bekend is, maakt de inhoud van die tekst niet de waarheid. Een logische bijbelse verklaring is een verklaring van zichzelf, die ene bron. Er is niets rationeels aan om die inhoud te geloven.quote:
[..]
Het is niet 1 bron, in feite zijn het 66 boeken die over een periode van duizenden jaren zijn geschreven. Persoonlijk hecht ik er dan veel waarde aan aan het feit dat deze boeken een geintegreerde consistente eenheid vormen. Het is dan ook niet voor niets het meest verkochte boek van de wereld en nooit heeft iemand zoveel invloed gehad op de wereld als Jezus van Nazareth. Ik heb dan ook niet het gevoel alsof ik mij bevind in het veld van pseudowetenschap als ik daadwerkelijk geloof dat de bijbel Gods woord is voor de mensen.
Je hebt gelijk dat indien je echt wilt geloven dat Gods woord waar is, je veel onderzoek moet doen naar de oorsprong van de bijbel, de manusscripten, de vertalingen, de canonisering van de boeken, archeologie etc. etc. Ik ga ervanuit dat als ik iets niet snap in de bijbel dat er dan een logische bijbelse verklaring voor is. In dat opzicht is het ook heel erg dom van de ZDA kerk dat de kerk weigert gebruik te maken van de kennis die theologen voorhanden hebben om de ware betekenis van de bijbel te doorgronden.
Question authorities, fuck religion, educate yourself, Viva el individualismo!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
Het is rationeel in zoverre dat als er een God bestaat hij ook in staat is om ons een handleiding achter te laten die ons antwoord geeft op de vragen die wij als mensen onszelf stellen.quote:
[..]
Er is werkelijk geen andere reden om aan te nemen dat god bestaat anders dan die verzameling werken. En die verzameling werken noemen we de bijbel, 1 bron. Het was niet Jesus die zoveel invloed heeft, maar die verzameling werken, die ene bron. Het heeft niets met wetenschap te maken, dat de oorsprong van een tekst bekend is, maakt de inhoud van die tekst niet de waarheid. Een logische bijbelse verklaring is een verklaring van zichzelf, die ene bron. Er is niets rationeels aan om die inhoud te geloven.
In het verleden is de sabbat al eerder het teken geweest van het feit dat het de God van de Hemel is, en niet een ander, die de persoon heeft geheiligd.quote:
[..]
Ik begrijp je insteek maar de sabbat als uiterlijk kenmerk van iemands redding is niet bijbels. Het is gebasseerd op non-bijbelse aannames. De bijbel leert daarentegen dat mensen die verzegeld zijn door de Heilige Geest gekenmerkt worden door deze eigenschappen:
Love
Joy
Peace
Longsuffering
Gentleness
Goodness
Faith
Meekness
Temperence
De bijbel noemt de sabbat een schaduw in die zin dat het voor christenen irrelevant is om de sabbat wel of niet te houden.
Ik weet dat je het goed bedoelt, maar de sabbat de kern van het evangelie noemen is hetzelfde als besnijdenis de kern van het evangelie noemen. En wat zegt de bijbel daarover?
11U ziet het aan de grote letters: ik schrijf u nu eigenhandig. 12Degenen die er zo op aandringen dat u zich laat besnijden, willen alleen een goede indruk maken en voorkomen dat ze worden vervolgd omwille van het kruis van Christus. 13Ze zijn voor de besnijdenis maar leven zelf niet volgens de wet; ze willen dat u zich laat besnijden om zich daarop te kunnen laten voorstaan. 14Maar ik – ik wil me op niets anders laten voorstaan dan het kruis van Jezus Christus, onze Heer, waardoor de wereld voor mij is gekruisigd en ik voor de wereld. 15Het is volkomen onbelangrijk of men wel of niet besneden is, belangrijk is dat men een nieuwe schepping is. 16Laat er vrede en barmhartigheid zijn voor allen die bij deze maatstaf blijven, en voor het Israël van God. 17En laat voortaan niemand mij meer tegenwerken, want ik draag de littekens van Jezus in mijn lichaam.
1Galaten, u hebt uw verstand verloren! Wie heeft u in zijn ban gekregen? Ik heb u Jezus Christus toch openlijk en duidelijk als de gekruisigde bekendgemaakt? 2Ik wil maar één ding van u weten: hebt u de Geest ontvangen door de wet na te leven of door te luisteren en te geloven? 3Bent u werkelijk zo dwaas weer op uw eigen kracht te vertrouwen, en niet langer op de Geest? 4Is alles wat u hebt meegemaakt dan voor niets geweest? Dat kan toch niet! 5Geeft God u de Geest en goddelijke krachten omdat u de wet naleeft? Of geeft hij ze omdat u naar hem luistert en op hem vertrouwt?
Babylon representeert de wereld die probeert via eigen werken de hemel te berijken. Het gaat hier niet om zoiets stoms als zondag/sabbat, dat is vanuit bijbels oogpunt ondenkbaar. Genade staat open voor iedereen tot Jezus' wederkomst.
13 Gij nu, spreek tot de kinderen Israëls, zeggende: Gij zult evenwel mijn sabbatten onderhouden; want dit is een teken tussen Mij en tussen ulieden, bij uw geslachten; opdat men wete, dat Ik de HEERE ben, Die u heilige. Exodus 31
19 Ik ben de HEERE, uw God, wandelt in Mijn inzettingen, en onderhoudt Mijn rechten, en doet dezelve.
20 En heiligt Mijn sabbatten, en zij zullen tot een teken zijn tussen Mij en tussen ulieden, opdat gij weet, dat Ik, de HEERE, uw God ben.
Alle andere vruchten van de geest zijn eveneens kenmerken, resultaten van Gods heiliging, maar de sabbat is hierin een geval apart. Zij zijn geen teken, de sabbat is dat wel.
De geschiedenis zal zich herhalen, zoals Salomo zegt:
9 Hetgeen er geweest is, hetzelve zal er zijn, en hetgeen er gedaan is, hetzelve zal er gedaan worden; zodat er niets nieuws is onder de zon.
10 Is er enig ding, waarvan men zou kunnen zeggen: Ziet dat, het is nieuw? Het is alreeds geweest in de eeuwen, die voor ons geweest zijn. prediker 1
Het was een teken tussen God en het Joodse volk, dit was HET teken van het oude verbond. In het nieuwe verbond is de sabbat geen teken meer.
150AD JUSTIN: Moreover, all those righteous men already mentioned [after mentioning Adam. Abel, Enoch, Lot, Noah, Melchizedek, and Abraham], though they kept no Sabbaths, were pleasing to God; and after them Abraham with all his descendants until Moses... And you [fleshly Jews] were commanded to keep Sabbaths, that you might retain the memorial of God. For His word makes this announcement, saying, "That you may know that I am God who redeemed you." (Dialogue With Trypho the Jew, 150-165 AD, Ante-Nicene Fathers , vol. 1, page 204)
200AD TERTULLIAN: Let him who contends that the Sabbath is still to be observed a balm of salvation, and circumcision on the eighth day because of threat of death, teach us that in earliest times righteous men kept Sabbath or practiced circumcision, and so were made friends of God. .. ...Therefore, since God originated Adam uncircumcised, and inobservant of the Sabbath, consequently his offspring also, Abel, offering Him sacrifices, uncircumcised and inobservant of the Sabbath, was by Him commended... Noah also, uncircumcised - yes, and inobservant of the Sabbath - God freed from the deluge. For Enoch, too, most righteous man, uncircumcised and inobservant of the Sabbath, He translated from this world... Melchizedek also, "the priest of most high God," uncircumcised and inobservant of the Sabbath, was chosen to the priesthood of God. (An Answer to the Jews 2:10; 4:1, Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 3, page 153)
150AD JUSTIN: Moreover, all those righteous men already mentioned [after mentioning Adam. Abel, Enoch, Lot, Noah, Melchizedek, and Abraham], though they kept no Sabbaths, were pleasing to God; and after them Abraham with all his descendants until Moses... And you [fleshly Jews] were commanded to keep Sabbaths, that you might retain the memorial of God. For His word makes this announcement, saying, "That you may know that I am God who redeemed you." (Dialogue With Trypho the Jew, 150-165 AD, Ante-Nicene Fathers , vol. 1, page 204)
200AD TERTULLIAN: Let him who contends that the Sabbath is still to be observed a balm of salvation, and circumcision on the eighth day because of threat of death, teach us that in earliest times righteous men kept Sabbath or practiced circumcision, and so were made friends of God. .. ...Therefore, since God originated Adam uncircumcised, and inobservant of the Sabbath, consequently his offspring also, Abel, offering Him sacrifices, uncircumcised and inobservant of the Sabbath, was by Him commended... Noah also, uncircumcised - yes, and inobservant of the Sabbath - God freed from the deluge. For Enoch, too, most righteous man, uncircumcised and inobservant of the Sabbath, He translated from this world... Melchizedek also, "the priest of most high God," uncircumcised and inobservant of the Sabbath, was chosen to the priesthood of God. (An Answer to the Jews 2:10; 4:1, Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 3, page 153)
Nou nee, als die zou bestaan had die wel heel veel dingen compleet anders kunnen doen. Bijvoorbeeld een wat duidelijker handleiding, een openbaring aan alle volken op dit bolletje en dan houd ik mijzelf nog in over wat die rationeel gezien anders had kunnen doen. En daarbij ik heb ik het niet over de rationaliteit van die god, maar over diegene die de bijbel als waarheid zien.quote:
[..]
Het is rationeel in zoverre dat als er een God bestaat hij ook in staat is om ons een handleiding achter te laten die ons antwoord geeft op de vragen die wij als mensen onszelf stellen.
Question authorities, fuck religion, educate yourself, Viva el individualismo!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
Ik begrijp je frustratie, de werkelijkheid ligt nou eenmaal gewikkelder inelkaar dan we vaak zouden wensen. De handleiding is echter duidelijk voor iedereen die zich er in wil verdiepen. Alhoewel ik het er natuurlijk mee eens ben dat er veel dingen instaan die we nog niet helemaal kunnen doorgronden.quote:Op dinsdag 26 februari 2013 20:20 schreef truthortruth het volgende:
[..]
Nou nee, als die zou bestaan had die wel heel veel dingen compleet anders kunnen doen. Bijvoorbeeld een wat duidelijker handleiding, een openbaring aan alle volken op dit bolletje en dan houd ik mijzelf nog in over wat die rationeel gezien anders had kunnen doen. En daarbij ik heb ik het niet over de rationaliteit van die god, maar over diegene die de bijbel als waarheid zien.
In het nieuwe verbond is het teken alsvolgt:
35Aan jullie liefde voor elkaar zal iedereen zien dat jullie mijn leerlingen zijn.’
35Aan jullie liefde voor elkaar zal iedereen zien dat jullie mijn leerlingen zijn.’
Ik ben niet zo gefrustreerd en ik vind de werkelijkheid vaak een stuk logischer dan dat wat die bijbel beschrijft. En die handleiding is zeker niet duidelijk voor wie zich daarin wil verdiepen, ik dacht dat we daar wel over uit waren. Dus nee, dit verklaart helemaal niets van waarom een rationeel mens die bijbel zou accepteren als antwoord op die essentiële vragen. Dus even terug naar je bewering;quote:
[..]
Ik begrijp je frustratie, de werkelijkheid ligt nou eenmaal gewikkelder inelkaar dan we vaak zouden wensen. De handleiding is echter duidelijk voor iedereen die zich er in wil verdiepen. Alhoewel ik het er natuurlijk mee eens ben dat er veel dingen instaan die we nog niet helemaal kunnen doorgronden.
Ik heb je nog geen verklaring zien geven voor dat die bijbel rationeel is als antwoord op die vragen, dat kan ook helemaal niet.quote:Als mijn geloof en ratio met elkaar in tegenspraak zouden zijn zou ik niet geloven denk ik.
Question authorities, fuck religion, educate yourself, Viva el individualismo!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
Laat ik het zo stellen, vanuit mijn optiek geeft de bijbel de meest logische antwoorden op alle levensvragen. Iedereen moet dat natuurlijk voor zichzelf uitzoeken of hij of zij ook zo denkt.quote:
[..]
Ik ben niet zo gefrustreerd en ik vind de werkelijkheid vaak een stuk logischer dan dat wat die bijbel beschrijft. En die handleiding is zeker niet duidelijk voor wie zich daarin wil verdiepen, ik dacht dat we daar wel over uit waren. Dus nee, dit verklaart helemaal niets van waarom een rationeel mens die bijbel zou accepteren als antwoord op die essentiële vragen. Dus even terug naar je bewering;
[..]
Ik heb je nog geen verklaring zien geven voor dat die bijbel rationeel is als antwoord op die vragen, dat kan ook helemaal niet.
Als ik zou moeten uitleggen op welke wijze de bijbel de meest logische antwoorden geeft op levensvragen dan heb ik 1000 van deze fora nodig, dat kan ik hier helaas niet doen.
Ali ik heb een verhelderend artikel gevonden over de sabbat in Genesis 2 en de sabbatismos van Hebreeers 4:
Genesis 2:2-3 -- God's "Rest" and the Sabbath
One of the proof texts used in an attempt to prove that Christians must keep the seventh-day Sabbath is Genesis 2:2-3. For this reason, it is important that we understand what this verse does and doesn’t say about the physical Sabbath rest before we arrive at our conclusions. Further, we must ask what this verse tells us about the Sabbath when viewed against the essential message of Scripture about our salvation in Christ.
After the creation account in Genesis 1, we read the following in chapter 2, verses 2-3: "By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done."
In chapter 1, the writer of Genesis had used the seven-day weekly cycle as an organizing outline to make an important theological point: The one God of Israel is the true God—the Creator of all that exists in the heavens and on earth, including the human race. This was his answer to the myths of the nations that had spun fantastic stories of how their national god or gods and goddesses were responsible for the creation. Genesis 1:1-2:3 sets the record straight about creation. The God of Israel, Yahweh, is Creator.
Yet, the writer of Genesis ends his creation outline by adding the statement that the God of Israel "rested" after creation was complete. What further theological point was he trying to make about God and his purpose in the creation? We shall see the answer unfold in this paper. The concept of the "rest" will prove to be a monumental part of God’s purpose, one the New Testament explains for us in a final sense.
Sabbath rest in Genesis
Before we undertake to solve this mystery, we should consider the idea that Genesis 2:2-3 tells us God made the weekly Sabbath "holy time" at creation, and that this day has been and continues to be a sacred day for all peoples. We notice immediately that the verse in question does not say a physical Sabbath-day rest was to be observed by human beings. This is a most striking fact of Genesis 2:2-3. This verse contains no command for human beings to rest from their labor or to otherwise keep the seventh day as "holy time." God is the one said to be "resting," and by his act he creates something holy about the seventh day. But at this point in the story we haven’t been told what that is.
If the writer of Genesis wanted to make the point that God commanded the Sabbath to be a day of rest for humans since the creation, then he failed to follow up his thesis in further chapters. He provided no evidence that any of the great patriarchs, Abraham included, kept the seventh day as "holy time." Neither did he make any comments to the effect that humanity was breaking the Sabbath-day rest and thereby sinning against God between Adam and Sinai. Not until the old covenant is instituted with only a single nation—Israel—does the Sabbath rest become a command (and only for Israel).
If the Sabbath was commanded since the creation, then it is quite surprising that none of God’s faithful people kept it until Sinai. Conversely, we would also have to ask why evil people are not chastised for Sabbath-breaking during the ages before the giving of the Law of Moses.
However, Genesis 2:2-3 does tell us that God made the seventh day of creation week "holy." What does this mean? For God to make something "holy" is for him to set it apart in some way for his special use, or to use that which is set apart to explain something important in terms of his purpose. For example, the temple had a Most Holy Place whose environs only the High Priest could enter, and that only once a year. The book of Hebrews explains that the "holiness" that God ascribed to this location was to show that a true entry into his presence was not yet available.
But Genesis 2:2-3 does not tell us what lesson we are to learn from the seventh day of creation being made "holy" or set apart through God "resting" from his work. We understand that God does not become tired. Nor is he affected by an earthbound reality in which the motions of planetary bodies create time. This would lead us to believe the writer of Genesis again used a literary device when speaking about the "rest" of God. That is, the "rest" of God had a symbolic meaning for him. But what was that meaning?
Author’s point
The writer had already used the seven-day week as an outline on which he hung various creation events and by which he made his theological point. It’s not surprising, then, that he would use the metaphor of God’s "rest" to make another theological assertion about who this God of Israel was, and his purpose. We should remember that the writer lived under the old covenant. This would lead us to believe that his experience of God taught him something about his purpose with Israel, something that was explained by the "rest" concept.
"Rest" is certainly a key idea here in Genesis 2:2-3. Why did the writer use the concept? What did it mean to the writer, and what should it mean to us as Christians? We have already seen that the seventh day rest follows all the creative acts of God that are summarized in Genesis 1. More than this, the rest of God follows the creation of humanity—male and female—in God’s own image (1:27-31).
The fact that this is mentioned in the context of the creation account implies that the writer understood that humanity has a special purpose beyond the other parts of the creation. First, all of creation is pronounced as being "very good" (1:31). Humanity is to "fill the earth and subdue it"—to be God’s representatives on this planet and caretakers of the creation (1:28). But, in a sense, all is not completely revealed to this point in Genesis about God’s aim in creating humanity. Is there no further purpose for the human race (and, from the writer’s point of view, of his choosing Israel to be his people) than to fill and subdue the earth? And, so the writer refers to God’s "rest," and tells us that it is holy—set apart for some purpose. But for what purpose? And, how does this relate to humanity and Israel?
That the creation of man and woman was announced just before the making of the holy rest could imply that this "rest" has something to do with the creation in general and humanity in particular. God, as it were, "sits back" after setting his creative purpose in motion and pronounces everything as being good. Since God doesn’t literally get tired, we can understand his "rest" as figurative, and as part of his creative purpose. We could see the "rest" in question as extending to humans (and Israel) in some way since they seem to be the end object of God’s creative process.
Humanity’s loss
But whatever this rest is to signify, the ensuing Genesis story tells us it is not something that humans enjoy in a physical sense except, perhaps, for a brief interlude in the Garden of Eden. Almost immediately after creation, we read about the tragic circumstances that befall Adam and Eve in the Garden. They sin and are punished for it by increased labor rather than rest. The notion of labor, of the opposite of rest, becomes a major motif of the Genesis account.
Eve must labor in childbearing. The Lord tells her, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children." (3:16). For mother Eve, childbearing becomes a painful work. Adam will be forced to labor to fill his mouth. The Lord tells him, "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life" (3:17, emphasis ours throughout).
Their son, Cain, murders Abel. The latter’s blood, figuratively finds no rest, as it "cries out" from the ground (4:10). For his sin, Cain will be forced to engage in backbreaking labor. The Lord tells him, "When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you" (4:12). More than that, Cain was to be a "restless wanderer on the earth" (4:12). He would have neither rest in his labor nor rest from enemies seeking to kill him because of his murder of Abel.
The "anti-rest" motif continues in Genesis. When Noah was born, a great hope was attached to his future. It was said of him, "He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the Lord has cursed" (5:29). But humanity found no rest because "the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence" (6:11). The only "rest" humanity could achieve was to rest in peace in death. And God caused the flood to destroy human civilization and end humanity’s suffering.
In Noah, God restated and broadened the covenant made with Adam and Eve in Genesis 1:28-30. He reissued his promise to neither curse the ground nor to destroy humanity despite the fact that he knew "every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood" (8:21; 9:8-17). Despite this covenant of promise, many generations passed during which humans became increasingly alienated from God. The story of Nimrod and the Tower of Babel indicate the condition of the human race. Then God made a covenant with Abraham. This is first found in Genesis 12:2-3:
I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.
Israel in toil and slavery
We know the rest of the story from Genesis. Abraham had a son named Isaac, and he had a son named Jacob. (Jacob himself had to be saved by the Lord from 20 years of servitude at Laban’s hand—Genesis 31:38-42.) As Jacob said to Laban: "If the God of my father, the God of Abraham and the Fear of Isaac, had not been with me, you would surely have sent me away empty-handed. But God has seen my hardship and the toil of my hand"(verse 42).
Jacob had 12 sons. The oldest ten sold their young brother, Joseph, into Egyptian slavery. During a famine, they all moved to Egypt, where the family of Jacob grew into a great nation. But the Egyptians placed the Israelites into slavery and hard bondage. They, too, failed to find the "rest" of God. The first chapter of Exodus, verses 11-14, shows how Israel subsequently suffered as a slave people:
So they [the Egyptians] put slave masters over them [the Israelites] to oppress them with forced labor, and they built Pithom and Rameses as store cities for Pharaoh. . . .The Egyptians came to dread the Israelites and worked them ruthlessly. They made their lives bitter with hard labor in brick and mortar and with all kinds of work in the fields; in all their hard labor the Egyptians used them ruthlessly.
Israel rescued
The writer of Exodus was trying to make a point, again about the notion of "rest." The Israelites were oppressed with hard and forced labor—and they had no rest for their souls. But help was on the way after many generations. We read in Exodus 2:23-24:
The Israelites groaned in their slavery and cried out and their cry for help because of their slavery went up to God. God heard their groaning and he remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac and with Jacob.
The savior of Israel would be Moses, who as a young man had seen his own people in slavery and "watched them at their hard labor" (2:11). Now, after his own exile of 40 years in the desert, the Lord appeared to him and said in Exodus 3:7-8:
I have indeed seen the misery of my people in Egypt. I have heard them crying out because of their slave drivers, and I am concerned about their suffering. So I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land into a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey.
And, again, Moses was to tell the Israelites about their impending freedom and physical rest:
Say to the Israelites: "I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians. I will free you from being slaves to them, and I will redeem you with outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment. I will take you as my own people, and I will be your God" [Exodus 6:6-7].
A covenant of "rest"
Here is the first intimation of a covenant between God and Israel. It is a covenant based on God providing freedom from slavery, and hence rest from interminable labor. Thus, the "rest" of God mentioned in Genesis 2:2, which was not attained by humans because of sin, was now promised in a kind of second Garden of Eden—the Promised Land. The old covenant, then, was a covenantal promise of peace, prosperity and security for Israel in the Promised Land (Leviticus 26:3-13; Deuteronomy 28:1-14). It contained all the elements that give human beings a feeling of well-being and "rest."
In short, the old covenant was a promise of physical rest to God’s people, which (as shown in Genesis 2) was part of God’s creative purpose at the beginning. We will see how this purpose of "rest" unfolds, but we are getting somewhat ahead of our story. Let’s backtrack a moment to God’s promise through Moses that he would provide freedom and rest to the people of Israel.
We know from the Exodus story that the Egyptian Pharaoh did not want to let the Israelites go free. He ordered that they should work even harder for their captors (Exodus 5). But God did rescue the Israelites and brought them into the Wilderness in preparation for their entering the Promised Land of freedom and rest. However, that generation failed to trust the Lord, and they were not allowed to enter. They died without coming into their rest.
The next generation of Israelites did enter the Promised Land under Joshua. They were told to obey the covenant that had been made between the people and the Lord. All the tribes were told to help each other take possession of the land "until the Lord gives them rest, as he has done for you" (Joshua 1:15). We read that this promise was fulfilled. In a summary statement before Joshua’s farewell to the nation, it was said that "the Lord had given Israel rest from all their enemies around them" (Joshua 23:1).
Despite Israel’s lapses from faith and obedience, the Lord fulfilled his promise to give the nation prosperity and rest. The high point of this physical rest and well-being occurred during the days of king Solomon. The writer said of this time: "During Solomon’s lifetime Judah and Israel, from Dan to Beersheba, lived in safety, each man under his own vine and fig tree" (1 Kings 4:25). The nation of Israel had experienced the physical "rest" of God in great fullness.
One of the hallmarks of the Law of Moses was an emphasis on the "rest" that God provided Israel. This included a bounty of unimagined physical blessings (Deuteronomy 7:10-12). God’s merciful grace in saving the nation from extreme toil and servitude in Egypt—and his giving the people bountiful physical blessings in the Promised Land—was to be memorialized in the religious practices of the nation. A weekly Sabbath of rest from work was a main feature of this rest memorial.
A good comparison for Christians is the Lord’s Supper. The bread and wine remind Christians that God has saved them through the redemptive work of Christ. On the other hand, the Israelites rested each week to remind them that God had saved them from Egyptian bondage and had blessed them abundantly.
Exodus 20:11 explains why God gave Israel the Sabbath day. Here, we read: "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." (These are the same words the writer of Genesis wrote for the creation account.) In a restatement of the Sabbath command in Deuteronomy 5:12-15 a related reason was given for the Sabbath "rest" command. "Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the Lord your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day" (5:15).
What had the writer seen here? Possibly, he saw that what God had done with Israel was the beginning of a restoration of God’s purpose through Israel. His purpose, dimly seen in the Garden of Eden story, was that human beings should live in a relationship with him, through which they would be blessed. If they were one with God, then they would enter his rest because he would bless them physically. That was certainly God’s intent, as the Garden of Eden story tells us. But human beings sinned and were cursed. Humans were cut off from the presence of God and the relationship with him was broken.
Reminder of blessings
With Israel, as the Exodus and old covenant show us, God had again moved to begin to bring the human race back into a relationship with himself. Israel would be the starting place. The nations would look at Israel, living in blessedness and loving obedience to Yahweh, and perhaps other nations might also someday come to love the Lord and find blessing as well (Deuteronomy 4:5-8). That was the ideal—just as the Garden of Eden had been an ideal. But as we know from the rest of the story of the Old Testament, the ideal was not achieved.
The reason Israel was to keep the seventh day as a rest period was because of a physical "rest" that was available to the nation. As slaves in Egypt, they had no rest for themselves, but toiled in harsh labor daily, at the whim of their taskmasters. God had freed them from this slavish labor and had given them freedom and prosperity in the Promised Land. Israel was supposed to remember the gracious freedom and rest they had been given—and they were to do this each week
The weekly rest was but one memorial of how God had saved the nation from Egyptian slavery and mindless toil. There were seven yearly "rest" days within three yearly festival seasons that also were celebrated by cessation from labor (Leviticus 23:7-8, 21, 25, 32, 35-36). These were harvest festivals when Israel could give thanks for the bountiful crops they had reaped—and when they could rest from their labor. By contrast, in Egypt the Israelites had toiled ceaselessly for uncaring taskmasters.
Beyond that, the land was to lie idle and not be tilled every seventh year (Leviticus 25:1-7). This means that while the land rested, the people could also rest because they did not need to seed or till. Whatever the land produced on its own could be eaten.
Also, each 50th year was a land rest (Leviticus 25:8-12). More than that, the year was a year of release, as we read in verse 10: "Consecrate the fiftieth year and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you; each one of you is to return to his family property and each to his own clan." In Egypt, the Israelites had neither land nor inheritance. Now, God had given the nation the Promised Land, and each family was to enjoy its own parcel of ground.
While the Promised Land was not a place of idleness and ease, there was rest from backbreaking and meaningless toil on someone else’s land. On the other hand, the Promised Land would yield abundant produce because of the blessing of the Lord. The nation would rest from war and the fear of famine and disease. The inhabitants could breathe a sigh of relief—and they could "rest" both physically and psychologically in the sure knowledge that God was watching over them.
The meaning
Now we can understand why the writer of Genesis may have been so keen to divide the physical creation into a six day format and then make the seventh day a day of God’s "rest." It must have been driven home to him through his experience with the saving acts of the God of Israel, that his purpose was to rescue humanity from the curse that they had brought upon themselves. This curse had required backbreaking toil in unyielding soil to grow enough to eat. The curse had also brought famine and disease, fighting and war. Life was anything but restful.
The writer of Genesis must have seen the problem of the "curse" and the restless sorrow it had brought as having been solved specifically in the promises to the nation of Israel. Israel had once been in captivity and the people had been forced to toil incessantly under taskmasters. Life was neither prosperous nor restful. But God had purposed to fulfill his covenant with Abraham whereby he would rescue his descendants from terrible toil in slavery. The nation would find true prosperity, peace and rest under the protection and blessing of the Creator, the one true God. The nation’s religious practices including various "rest" days and times reminded the people that they had been saved from toil and slavery in Egypt and now rested in peace and prosperity under the loving hand of their God.
Genesis was written for Israelites who lived in the Promised Land, who were to commemorate each week the rest they had been given by the Creator. Their weekly experience of rest was then associated with the creation by the words of Genesis 2:2-3. The writer of Genesis was informed by and influenced by the weekly Sabbath as he wrote about the "rest" of God. He was writing from the point of view of an Israelite who had been saved from slavery and who enjoyed the "rest" God provided the nation. The writer understood that the various rest days commanded for Israel—the weekly Sabbath, annual festivals, and years of agricultural rest and release—reflected what God had done for the nation. Thus, God’s actions of providing "rest" signaled to the writer that in God’s creative purpose his creatures should find rest in him. In the world there was cursing and trouble, but in God’s kingdom—the Promised Land—there was prosperity, peace and rest.
Genesis 2:2-3, then, is not an early command for all people to keep the seventh day as holy time. It is a reflection of the writer’s understanding that humans should find their rest in God. For the nation of Israel, the old covenant specified that this was to be commemorated by a weekly physical rest on the seventh day. There is no command for other peoples to do the same. Other peoples did not have the physical "rest" of the Promised Land nor the command for physical rest on the seventh day. What the Israelites had was a physical image of a spiritual reality; other nations did not have this.
Future promise
The Old Testament shows that the restful state of affairs did not last very long for Israel. The nation sinned and the people suffered invasion, curses on their land and captivity. The old covenant between God and Israel failed because the nation did not live up to its promises to be faithful to God (Hebrews 4:2).
Later in Israel’s history, the prophets spoke of the need for a new covenant, based on better promises. Isaiah prophesied of a time when God would renew his covenant with Israel and give them a final rest. In chapter 11, Isaiah spoke of a Branch to come, upon whom the Spirit of the Lord would rest. The Spirit of the Lord would be upon him and he would bring justice, mercy and peace. The Branch would usher in God’s kingdom of righteousness and peace.
In soaring metaphorical language, Isaiah said of this new era: "The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat. . .the cow will feed with the bear. . .The lion will eat straw like the ox. The infant will play near the hole of the cobra" (verses 6-8). He summarized this future hope by painting the arrival of an idyllic worldwide kingdom of God: "They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be full for the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea" (verse 9). "In that day," when this future kingdom would be established, the Lord would bring his people Israel out from all the nations (verse 11). And what would he give his people? He would give them "rest." Isaiah explains: "In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his place of rest will be glorious" (verse 10).
Jeremiah also spoke of the rest that the Lord would bring. "‘At that time,’ declares the Lord, ‘I will be the God of all the clans of Israel, and they will be my people.’ This is what the Lord says: ‘The people who survive the sword will find favor in the desert; I will come to give rest to Israel ’" (Jeremiah 31:1-2).
It’s no wonder the Jews looked for a Messiah that would save them from their enemies and gather the Jews to Israel. It was a beautiful vision of peace and prosperity. The Messiah would make the regathered clans of Israel in the Promised Land the people of the kingdom of God in which righteousness, justice and prosperity would know no bounds. The enemies of the Jews, whoever they might be, would be defeated and destroyed.
Jesus is our "rest"
The Branch, the Root of Jesse, the Redeemer Messiah, came as promised, in the person of Jesus. He offered the greatest "rest" the world would ever know, but it was not a physical rest of power and prosperity given to a single nation within certain geographic borders. Jesus brought the offer of "rest" of freedom from sin and death to peoples of all nations—and a future life in the eternal kingdom of God.
The notion of "God’s rest" found in Genesis 2:2-3 and the Old Testament was still alive and well. Yes, God would send the Deliverer, and his rest would be glorious. That rest, though, would be the result of the redemptive work of Jesus, and it would be commemorated not through the seventh day, but through Jesus. In Matthew 11:28, Jesus told his hearers: "Come to me, all of you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls." What a glorious promise to a hurting humanity. But we understand that Jesus was not necessarily promising physical rest and peace, but an eternal and spiritual rest.
Jesus said to his disciples: "Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives" (John 14:27). Jesus did not promise his disciples a Promised Land of peace, plenty and security. In fact, in his last talk with the disciples before his arrest, Jesus told them they would have anything but physical rest. "I have told you these things," Jesus warned, "so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world" (John 16:33).
The promise to Israel had been peace, prosperity and rest in the Promised Land in exchange for obedience to the old covenant and Law of Moses. The New Testament "rest" is a rest in Christ. It is the promise of the indwelling Holy Spirit and a spiritual rebirth that leads to eternal life in the kingdom of God. This is the ultimate "rest" of God. God’s purpose in Genesis 2:2-3, not completely understood under the old covenant, is now revealed and fulfilled in its final sense through Christ.
Part 2: The book of Hebrews
This is explained in Hebrews 3:1-4:11, which speaks of something vital Christians share—the "heavenly calling" we have in Christ (3:1). It is in these verses that we learn what the "rest" of Genesis 2:2-3 pictures to Christians. The subject at hand in these verses begins to be addressed under the word "today" in Hebrews 3:7, when the writer quotes Psalm 95:7-11:
Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion, during the time of testing in the desert, where your fathers tested and tried me and for forty years saw what I did. That is why I was angry with that generation, and I said, "Their hearts are always going astray, and they have not known my ways." So I declared an oath in my anger, "They shall never enter my rest."
Psalm 95 refers to the wilderness story as told in Exodus 17:1-7 and Numbers 20:1-13. There are several things we should notice about this passage in Hebrews. The author focuses on the introductory word of the quotation, "today," and the phrase in which it is found. He repeats the word "today" five times (3:7, 13, 15; twice in 4:7) and the phrase, "Today, if you hear his voice do not harden your hearts" three times (3:7, 15; 4:7). The phrase with its opening word "today" is significant for the writer in that it allows him to apply the promise of "rest" found in the Scripture to his readers. William Lane discusses this point in the Word Biblical Commentary on Hebrews:
"Today" provided the writer with a catchword for bringing the biblical statement before his hearers sharply. "Today" is no longer the today of the past, surveyed by the psalmist in his situation, but the today of the present, which continues to be conditioned by the voice of God that speaks day after day through the Scriptures and in the gospel tradition [page 87].
Lane makes the point that Psalm 95 "was a prophetic announcement that God was determining a future date for making his rest available" (page 100). The writer of Hebrews insists that the prophecy is being fulfilled in his day, in the church—and his readers need to heed its call. He wants his readers to make a connection between themselves and the experience of the Israelites in the wilderness. The author emphasizes a key concept: The Old Testament promise that God’s people would enter into "rest" is being fulfilled in the church and through Christ.
He begins by discussing God’s "rest" in terms of the promise of God to bring the rescued Israelites into the Promised Land. But as we know, and as the Scripture points out, the first generation of freed Israelites did not enter God’s "rest," but they died in the wilderness (Numbers 14:26-35). The Israelites Moses led out of Egypt did not enter into God’s "rest." The author wants his Christian readers to focus on the meaning of this tragedy. They are not to turn away from the living God (3:12) or be "hardened by sin’s deceitfulness" (3:13). Rather, they are to "hold firmly till the end" their first confidence (3:14) so that they may enter into God’s "rest."
The writer summarizes his admonition by saying, "Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it" (4:1). The readers of Hebrews are encouraged to keep up their faith and hope in Christ. Otherwise, as the unbelieving Israelites in Moses’ day lost their opportunity to enter the rest in Canaan, the believers may forfeit the greater blessings of the new age "rest."
From the beginning
The author of Hebrews then turns to a discussion of God’s "rest" from another point of view. He says that this "rest"—whatever it is—has been available to humanity since the beginning: "His [God’s] work has been finished since the creation of the world. For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: ‘And on the seventh day God rested from all his work’" (4:3-4).
The "somewhere" is Genesis 2:2. In the days when Hebrews was written, the Scriptures were written on scrolls. It was much more difficult to look up specific passages, so writers often quoted passages from memory. But here is our familiar Scripture, and the one we sought to understand in terms of its meaning for Christians. We can understand the "rest" described in Genesis 2:2-3 as the archetype of all later experiences of rest—including the various rest commands given at Sinai, the actual physical rest Israel received from its enemies under Joshua (a type of Christ), and the promised future rest of the kingdom of God.
From a Christian perspective, the Genesis "rest" of God, applied to God’s creative purpose in Genesis 2:2, can be seen to typify the spiritual salvation of the people of God. That means the weekly Sabbath rest (along with the other rest commands in the Law of Moses) is a lesser expression—a shadow, as it were—of the true "rest" symbolically inaugurated at the seventh day of creation. This makes the weekly Sabbath a metaphor of the Genesis "rest" of God, as was the Canaan rest.
The idea of the Genesis rest is that, beginning with the seventh day of creation, God ceased creating. He continues in a state of nonwork so far as further creating things physical is concerned. However, this doesn’t mean God has been idle. Leon Morris points this out in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary on Hebrews:
It is worth noticing that in the creation story each of the first six days is marked by the refrain "And there was evening, and there was morning." However, this is lacking in the account of the seventh day. There we simply read that God rested from all his work. This does not mean that God entered a state of idleness, for there is a sense in which he is continually at work (John 5:17). But the completion of creation marks the end of a magnificent whole.... So we should think of the rest as something like the satisfaction that comes from accomplishment, from the completion of a task, from the exercise of creativity [page 41].
F.F. Bruce also explained what this means in the volume on Hebrews in The New International Commentary on the New Testament:
When we read that God "rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done" (Gen. 2:2), we are to understand that hebegan to rest then; the fact that he is never said to have completed his rest and resumed his work of creation implies that his rest continues still, and may be shared by those who respond to his overtures with faith and obedience [page 106].
Thus, God’s "rest" has been available from the time the creation was finished—from the foundation of the world. Even though it has been available, very few people entered into it before Jesus’ death and resurrection. The offer of entering this "rest" still stands. The writer of Hebrews makes this point by saying: "It still remains that some will enter that rest" (4:6). Whatever this "rest" is, the writer is emphasizing that it is—at the time of writing—a promise his readers can take advantage of. In fact, they must take advantage of it, and not fail to achieve the "rest" because of disobedience (4:11).
Joshua’s "rest"
The author of Hebrews must have realized as he wrote that, on the surface, there had been an apparent large-scale exception to his claim that no people had ever entered a "rest" of God. After all, the second generation of Israelites who were saved from Egypt did enter the Promised Land under Joshua. We read that under Joshua "the Lord had given Israel rest from all their enemies around them" (Joshua 23:1). But the writer of Hebrews quickly points out that this is not the kind of "rest" he has in mind, or one that constituted God’s ultimate objective—the "rest" promised to Christians. Hundreds of years after Joshua led the Israelites into the rest of the Promised Land, the Psalmist urged people to enter a divine rest, and later still, the author of Hebrews was insisting that there is a "rest" its readers must yet enter into. Clearly, there is more to the "rest" in question than mere entry into Canaan. Hebrews tells us: "For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day. There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God" (4:8-9).
As it turns out, Israel had not secured the true "rest" after all. Thus, the writer can exhort his readers to seek, obtain and hold on to this superior "rest" in Christ. This is the true "rest" to which Genesis 2:2-3, the literal Sabbath, the other festival rests, the Wilderness experience, the Joshua rest, and the prophecy of Psalm 95 all looked forward to. He is interested in the redemptive and eternal rest in the kingdom of God, of which the weekly Sabbath and Canaan rests were but symbols.
William Lane, in the Hebrews commentary in the Word Biblical Commentary, explains why the Joshua rest was but a type of the true "rest":
The settlement of Canaan did not mark the fulfillment of the divine promise but pointed to another, more fundamental reality. If in fact Joshua had achieved the promised rest, there would have been no need for the renewal of the promise in Ps 95. Accordingly, the experience of rest in Canaan was only a type or symbol of the complete rest that God intended for his people, which was prefigured in the Sabbath rest of God [page 101].
We have now come from Genesis 2:2-3 to Hebrews 4:9-11, and we see something interesting. The author is not telling his readers to keep a weekly seventh-day Sabbath holy by resting on it. He is not talking about the weekly Sabbath at all. Rather, he is making the point that there is a spiritual "rest" that God’s people should be entering into. It is the heavenly counterpart of the earthly Canaan, and this is the goal of the people of God today—to achieve this present and eternal rest. The epistle of Hebrews has made this point by creating an analogy between the Israelites entering the Promised Land and Christians entering the better promise of a new-covenant spiritual "rest."
A present "rest"?
The Promised Land was a physical type or foreshadowing of a spiritual "rest" that the Israelites had not yet entered. And the weekly Sabbath was a temporal foreshadowing of the spiritual "rest" that God wants his people to enjoy. Christians have entered God’s "rest" by their faith in Jesus Christ. "Now we who have believed enter [or, "are entering"] that rest," the writer insists (4:3). Christians have the real rest, the spiritual rest, and do not need to observe shadows of it, neither geographically nor temporally. Jesus himself during his ministry had promised a rest for the spirit:
Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls (Matthew 11:28-29).
Leon Morris points out in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary that the word for "enter" in Hebrews 4:3 is in the present tense. This would mean the author of Hebrews was suggesting that his readers were already in the process of entering the "rest" of salvation that Jesus had promised. Some commentators agree that the Hebrews 4:3 "rest" into which Christians have entered begins now, in this life. Leon Morris quotes Hugh Montefiore on this point:
Contrary to some commentators, the Greek means neither that they are certain to enter, nor that they will enter, but that they are already in process of entering [page 40].
In fairness, Morris points out that some other commentators feel that the "rest" is something that occurs in the future. The present tense used here, they insist, is meant to be applied only in a generalizing sense. Morris concludes by saying:
Either view is defensible and probably much depends on our idea of the "rest." If it lies beyond death, then obviously "rest" must be understood in terms of the future. But if it is a present reality, then believers are entering it now [page 40].
We enter now
The view of this paper is that Christians have begun to enter their spiritual "rest" now. We are receiving some of the blessings of salvation, even though we do not yet enjoy them in their fullness. Peter says that Christ "has given us a new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" (1 Peter 1:3). Paul says God "has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves" (Colossians 1:13). The author of Hebrews says that we are "the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven" (12:23).
It is in part a question of how we understand when the kingdom of God comes—now or in the future? The answer is both. The kingdom is already, but not yet. There is a sense that the kingdom is both present and yet obviously only future in its full reality. Christians can be said to live in the tension between promise and fulfillment, between the already and the not yet, between the glimmer and the reality. But they have nevertheless entered the "rest," even if only in an imperfect and qualified way. The spiritual realities we already enjoy, although incomplete, are enough that we do not need to observe the physical symbols and rituals of the old covenant.
We have already been invited to enter God’s end-of-creation, the Genesis 2:2-3 "rest," by believing in the Son of God. By faith, we have joined with him in his "rest." By faith, we have become new creations—created anew. Our re-creation is not yet complete, but we already have been given entrance, through Christ, into God’s kingdom "rest."
The writer of Hebrews does not state how he views the time in which the "rest" takes place. His concern is with the spiritual reality, not the physical shadow. But as we’ve seen, his concern seems to be with the present time—with today. He no doubt understands that the fullness of rest comes only with a future resurrection (10:37-38; 12:26). But his point of view in Hebrews 3 and 4 is the present time, the time for which he is writing. The writer is thinking of the salvation "rest" as beginning in the present. Otherwise, one can be misled about which "rest" he is interested in—the spiritual one or a physical one such as the weekly Sabbath day.
One traditional commentary, the Critical, Experimental and Practical Commentary by Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, became confused on this issue and came (this paper concludes) to a wrong conclusion:
It is Jesus, the antitype of Joshua, who leads us into the heavenly rest. This verse [4:9] indirectly establishes the obligation of the Sabbath; for the type continues until the antitype supersedes it: so legal sacrifices continued till the great antitypical sacrifice superseded it. As then the antitypical Sabbath rest will not be till Christ comes to usher us into it, the typical earthly Sabbath must continue till then [page 537].
The authors, we believe, have erred. Influenced by the Puritans, they were thinking of a Sunday Sabbath, and reading their own opinions into the text. The principle they enunciate is erroneous. The type does not continue until the antitype supersedes it. Various Old Testament rituals pictured purity and holiness, and even though we do not yet see complete purity and holiness in the church, the rituals are obsolete. More correctly, types continue only as long as God says they do, and God has declared the old covenant obsolete. It has served its purpose, even though God’s plan is not yet complete. Moreover, true spiritual rest is found through faith in Christ, and Christ has already come. The antitype has arrived. Christ has already led us into the heavenly rest just as he is already our sacrifice for sin. We have come to Christ and he has given us rest—seated us in the heavenly realms (Ephesians 2:6). This argues against the commentary’s claim that the literal Sabbath is in force. The antitypical salvation rest has already been ushered in, albeit incompletely. Thus, the shadow (the literal Sabbath) is no longer required.
No matter how the writer of Hebrews conceives of the future "rest" in the post-resurrection kingdom of God, he is not concerned to discuss it in chapters 3 and 4. He is interested in his readers who are alive when he writes—and who need to take hold of the promise of spiritual "rest" in this age. F.F. Bruce agreed that the future rest is not in view here. He stated the following in his commentary on Hebrews in The New International Commentary on the New Testament:
The identification of the rest of God in the Epistle to the Hebrews with a coming millennium on earth has, indeed, been ably defended; but it involves the importation into the epistle of a concept which in fact is alien to it [pages 106-107].
The writer of Hebrews is not so much concerned with the future as with the present spiritual state of his readers. "Tomorrow," so to speak, is not in his view in the passage we are studying. That’s why he stresses the word "today." It was the privilege of the readers to enter God’s "rest" then—and it is our privilege to do so now. For us, today is "today," not some future time. The promise of entering God’s "rest" remains valid for each generation—and is repeated to each successive generation—in the church age.
Rest and work
Hebrews 4:9-11 is telling us we have entered into God’s promised "rest," the one he prophetically inaugurated on the seventh day of creation. This is the writer’s main theme. The epistle has already noted that God’s "work has been finished since the creation of the world" (4:3). That is, the "rest" of salvation has been offered and promised to humanity since the foundation of the world. It was, in a manner of speaking, a work of creation, inaugurated with humanity and for humanity. Donald Guthrie writes the following on this point:
What believers can now enter is none other than the same kind of rest which the Creator enjoyed when he had completed his works, which means that the rest idea is of completion and not of inactivity. . . .It is important to note that the "rest" is not something new that has not been known in experience until Christ came. It has been available throughout the whole of man’s history. This reference back to the creation places the idea on the broadest possible basis and would seem to suggest that it was part of God’s intention for man. "Rest" is a quality that has eluded man’s quest, and in fact cannot be attained except through Christ [Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, "Hebrews," page 113].
As long as we have faith in Christ—the main point of Hebrews—no matter what day of the week it is, we have entered God’s "rest" and we are resting from our own works. "We who have believed enter that rest. . . .Anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his" (4:3, 10). What does the author mean by "work"? He is not discussing the question of employment on the weekly Sabbath day. That is not his interest. (He has been encouraging his readers to enter the spiritual "rest" of salvation throughout Hebrews 3 and 4.) The writer of Hebrews wants his readers to stop putting their faith in the things that humans do, such as the works of the old covenant—and to place their faith in Christ as Savior. He wants them to look to the work of Christ, which gives forgiveness and empowerment through the Holy Spirit, allowing us to enter the true spiritual "rest."
In comparison to Christ, the writer has a low view of the "works" of the Law of Moses. He says of the Law in general and the Levitical priesthood as a whole:
The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced by which we draw near to God (7:18-19).
The author of Hebrews seems to be suggesting that the people to whom he wrote should rest from the ceremonial "work" they needed to do under the Mosaic Law. Their "work" in such things as offering sacrifices could not save nor endear them to God. They were saved by grace through faith in Christ, and were endeared to God by that same grace.
The weekly Sabbath?
The Jewish Christians or Gentile believers to whom Hebrews was written were already attracted to Judaistic practices. This is clear from reading the book. It was written to show the church why Judaistic practices were not necessary for Christians to perform. The individuals to whom the book was written would have already been observing the Sabbath day and would not need any admonishment to rest on this day. Even the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary understands this point. We find this explanation given for Hebrews 4:9 on page 423:
Certainly, in writing to Jews, the author of Hebrews would not consider it necessary to prove to them that Sabbathkeeping "remaineth." If the conclusion of the extended argument beginning with ch. 3:7 is that Sabbathkeeping remains for the people of God, it would seem that the writer of Hebrews is guilty of a non sequitur, for the conclusion does not follow logically from the argument. There would have been no point in so labored an effort to persuade the Jews to do what they were already doing—observing the seventh-day Sabbath. . . .What relationship a protracted argument designed to prove that Sabbath observance remains an obligation to the Christian church might have to the declared theme of chs. 3 and 4—the ministry of Christ as our great High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary—is obscure indeed.
The writer of Hebrews is interested in the spiritual or heavenly meaning of such things as the Sabbath and animal sacrifices, not their literal observances, which are shadows of the true "rest" and sacrifice for sin. In fact, the very Israelites who had been given the Sabbath (the generation that left Egypt) failed to enter God’s "rest." So did the Jews who strictly kept the Sabbath day when Hebrews was written. Keeping the Sabbath does not automatically bring someone to God. Why, then, would the writer of Hebrews insist on it? The fact is, the literal seventh-day Sabbath is not in his view at all.
The book of Hebrews, considered as a whole, tells us that the practices of the Mosaic Law are obsolete (7:11-12, 18-19). This would refer to the works or observances of the Law (of which the Sabbath is one example), as opposed to its great moral principles. These are eternal principles that define our relationship with God and fellow human beings. They precede the old covenant, were imbedded into that covenant, and remain as fundamental principles of the new covenant, which made the old passé.
The new covenant theme of Hebrews suggests—though it doesn’t directly make an issue of this—that the weekly Sabbath day as described in the old covenant has been superseded by a better promise. In particular, Hebrews 4:9-11 tells us that the various allusions of "rest" in the Old Testament, including Genesis 2:2-3 and the weekly Sabbath, picture a spiritual reality to Christians—the eternal rest of God. But that is all Hebrews tells us. It does not seem to address the issue of whether the weekly Sabbath should be kept or not. This is not the author’s interest.
In conclusion
Let us now close the circle between Genesis 2:2-3 and Hebrews 3:1-4:11. We have seen that God had given Israel physical rest in the Promised Land under the leadership of Joshua, just as Adam and Eve would have had physical "rest" in the Garden of Eden. But the first humans, like all others after them, sinned. Adam and Eve and their descendents were cursed and lost their "rest" until God saved Israel from slavery and the nation entered the Promised Land.
As part of its covenantal law, God gave Israel various rest days and years to commemorate their having achieved physical blessings (the "rest") in the Lord (Deuteronomy 5:15). The writer of Genesis saw this reality—which the rest days (especially the weekly Sabbath) commemorated—as a fulfillment of God’s original purpose at the creation. The writer included the statement about the symbolic meaning of the Sabbath (that is, about God’s "rest"—Exodus 20:11) in his description of the creation in Genesis 2:2-3. This was then a prophetical statement of God’s purpose of providing physical bounty to his human creatures, now fulfilled in Israel.
What the writer of Genesis did not clearly see, since he was an individual who lived under the old covenant, is that God’s real purpose was to provide humanity with another "rest"—a true eternal rest. This more fundamental purpose was fulfilled in Christ, and could be understood only after he had completed his redemptive work. Thus, Christ is the true Sabbath rest of Genesis 2:2-3—promised to us from the beginning (Matthew 25:34; Ephesians 1:4-6; Hebrews 4:3; Revelation 13:8). This is how the author of Hebrews (in 3:1-4:11) understands that "rest."
Thanks be to God that through his love he gave us his Son, allowing us in his mercy to begin to enter into his eternal rest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two Greek Words for "Rest"
We should briefly take up the issue of the Greek words for "rest" used in Hebrews 4:9-10. We quote here the verses in question and show the two Greek words being used: "There remains…a Sabbath-rest [sabbatismos] for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest [katapausin] also rests from his own work" (4:9-10).
A Greek-English interlinear of the New Testament shows that the Greek word katapausin is used to denote "rest" throughout Hebrews 3:7-4:11. There is one exception, in 4:9, as shown above. Here, sabbatismos is used, and it is translated "Sabbath-rest" in the New International Version. The word is formed from the verb sabbatizo, which means to "keep/observe/celebrate the Sabbath."
The only time in the Bible that sabbatismos is used is here in Hebrews 4:9. The word is not found in ancient Greek literature until well after the time when Hebrews was written. Some decades later, sabbatismos is found in Plutarch as part of a list of superstitious practices. In his work, the word signifies weekly Sabbath observance. In later Christian documents, sabbatismos sometimes indicates the celebration or festivity associated with the Sabbath day.
With this in mind, William Lane translates Hebrews 4:9 as: "There remains a Sabbath celebration for the people of God." He points out that the use ofsabbatismos is meant to "define more precisely the character of the future rest promised to the people of God" (Word Biblical Commentary, volume 47A, "Hebrews," page 101). The word conveyed something about the promised spiritual rest that katapausin would not have done—"the special aspect of festivity and joy, expressed in the adoration and praise of God" for his wonderful grace (page 102).
On one level, the writer of Hebrews seems to have used the two Greek words interchangeably. In 4:9, he says that a promised Sabbath-rest (sabbatismos) remains for the people of God to enter into, and this same rest is called God’s katapausin "rest." Some scholars suggest that the writer of Hebrews coined the word. He wanted to differentiate between the ultimate spiritual "rest" and the Promised Land rest into which Israel went. If so, the author may also have been making the same difference between the true spiritual "rest" and the weekly Sabbath rest. That is to say, the Sabbath day is a metaphor of the true rest in the same way that the Israelites entering the Promised Land under Joshua was also a metaphor for spiritual rest.
Since the seventh-day Sabbath is but a symbol of the true spiritual rest, the writer would have no logical reason to stress the keeping of the weekly Sabbath. Like the Promised Land, the Sabbath day itself was a shadow that prefigured the coming reality—the spiritual "rest" of the Christian in Christ.
To summarize: The spiritual rest of salvation into which God’s people are entering is a sabbatismos—a "sabbath keeping"—in the sense that it is a participation in God’s own "rest," which we enter by faith (4:3). "Anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his" (4:10). That is to say, the sabbatismos rest of God described in Hebrews 4:9 refers to the salvation "rest" into which all Christians have entered. Of course, as mentioned earlier, the culmination of this rest does not occur until the resurrection. But, upon conversion, we have begun the journey.
The weekly Old Testament Sabbath points to the blessing and joy of the spiritual "rest" Christians have in Christ. This may be why the author of Hebrews coined the word sabbatismos—making a play off the word for the Sabbath day (sabbaton). That is, sabbatismos stressed the joy, the celebration, the peace, the jubilation of the spiritual "rest" Christians enjoy. (We’ve put "rest" in quotes here because it does not really mean inactivity.)
Hebrews is not clear as to the writer’s attitude toward the weekly Sabbath day. Perhaps he wanted his readers, who were attracted to old covenant customs, to understand the Sabbath’s true meaning in the light of the Christ event , but without having to make an issue of whether it needs to be kept or not. This would certainly be in the spirit of Romans 14, in which the apostle Paul avoided making one’s view of "sacred days" a test or issue of faith or fellowship.
The Sabbath is meaningful on its own terms, just as the Festival of Tabernacles or the Passover-Exodus is. After all, the Sabbath stands as a metaphor of the whole purpose and meaning of redemption, as do the sacrifices and other old covenant, Mosaic institutions. They foreshadowed the true spiritual "rest" we have in Christ, which includes a "resting" in forgiveness of sin and "resting" from sin itself through the indwelling Holy Spirit.
But Hebrews 4:9 issues no command about keeping or not keeping the Sabbath. In fact, the book as a whole makes the point that all the old covenant institutions are obsolete now that the reality has come in Christ. The verse in question cannot be used as a proof-text to insist that Christians keep a weekly seventh-day Sabbath rest. The verses in question do not exhort us to keep an old covenant Sabbath, but they do admonish us to enter the spiritual "rest" of God by having faith in Christ.
1The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, volume 3, page 219, edited by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, gives the following explanation ofsabbatismos:
1. The NT offers in Hebrews 4:9 the oldest documentation of the noun sabbatismos, which occurs several times in post-NT early Christian writings independently of Hebrews 4:9 (e.g., Justin Dial. 23:3; Origen Orat. 27:16; Epiphanius Haer. xxx.2.2; lxvi 85:9;Acts (Martyrdom) of Peter and Paul 1; Apostolic Constitutions ii.36.2; pseudo-Macarius (Symeon) Homily 12.2.4.... At present,sabbatismos has been documented in non-Christian writings only in Plutarch Superst. 3 (Moralia 166a).
The noun is derived from the verb sabbatizo, which in the LXX [Septuagint] appears as the translation of Hebrew sabbat. The vb. means: a) "celebrate/observe the sabbath" (Exod 16:30; Lev 23:32; 2 Macc 6:6; so also Ign. Magn. 9:1; Pap. Oxy. 1,1.2; Justin Dial.10:1 and passim), b) "observe (sabbath) rest" (Lev 26:34f.; 2 Chr 36:21; 1 Esdr 1:55).
Accordingly, the substantive means sabbath observance (thus in the non-NT passages mentioned) and sabbath rest (thus the understanding of sabbatismos in Heb 4:9 by Origen Cels. v.59; Selecta in Exod on 16:23 [PG XII, 289b]).
2. In Heb 4:9 sabbatismos encompasses both sabbath rest and (cultic) sabbath observance. The word is neither identical in meaning nor interchangeable with katapausis (3:11, 19; 4:1, 3, 5, 10f); it designates more closely what the people of God should expect when they enter the katapausis of God (cf. 4:9 with v.6a). Just as God rested on the seventh day of creation from all his works, so also will believers find the eternal sabbath rest on the day of the completion of salvation in God’s "place of rest" (see 4:10). Quietistic or mystic elements have nothing to do with this expectation. The statement in Heb 4:9f. remains dependent on a Jewish sabbath theology that associates the idea of sabbath rest with ideas of worship and praise of God (Jub. 2:21; 50:9; Bib. Ant. 11:8; 2 Macc 8:27; cf. also 1 Enoch 41:7). Accordingly, the author of Hebrews understands by sabbatismos the eternal sabbath celebration of salvation, i.e., the perfected community’s worship before God's throne.
Genesis 2:2-3 -- God's "Rest" and the Sabbath
One of the proof texts used in an attempt to prove that Christians must keep the seventh-day Sabbath is Genesis 2:2-3. For this reason, it is important that we understand what this verse does and doesn’t say about the physical Sabbath rest before we arrive at our conclusions. Further, we must ask what this verse tells us about the Sabbath when viewed against the essential message of Scripture about our salvation in Christ.
After the creation account in Genesis 1, we read the following in chapter 2, verses 2-3: "By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done."
In chapter 1, the writer of Genesis had used the seven-day weekly cycle as an organizing outline to make an important theological point: The one God of Israel is the true God—the Creator of all that exists in the heavens and on earth, including the human race. This was his answer to the myths of the nations that had spun fantastic stories of how their national god or gods and goddesses were responsible for the creation. Genesis 1:1-2:3 sets the record straight about creation. The God of Israel, Yahweh, is Creator.
Yet, the writer of Genesis ends his creation outline by adding the statement that the God of Israel "rested" after creation was complete. What further theological point was he trying to make about God and his purpose in the creation? We shall see the answer unfold in this paper. The concept of the "rest" will prove to be a monumental part of God’s purpose, one the New Testament explains for us in a final sense.
Sabbath rest in Genesis
Before we undertake to solve this mystery, we should consider the idea that Genesis 2:2-3 tells us God made the weekly Sabbath "holy time" at creation, and that this day has been and continues to be a sacred day for all peoples. We notice immediately that the verse in question does not say a physical Sabbath-day rest was to be observed by human beings. This is a most striking fact of Genesis 2:2-3. This verse contains no command for human beings to rest from their labor or to otherwise keep the seventh day as "holy time." God is the one said to be "resting," and by his act he creates something holy about the seventh day. But at this point in the story we haven’t been told what that is.
If the writer of Genesis wanted to make the point that God commanded the Sabbath to be a day of rest for humans since the creation, then he failed to follow up his thesis in further chapters. He provided no evidence that any of the great patriarchs, Abraham included, kept the seventh day as "holy time." Neither did he make any comments to the effect that humanity was breaking the Sabbath-day rest and thereby sinning against God between Adam and Sinai. Not until the old covenant is instituted with only a single nation—Israel—does the Sabbath rest become a command (and only for Israel).
If the Sabbath was commanded since the creation, then it is quite surprising that none of God’s faithful people kept it until Sinai. Conversely, we would also have to ask why evil people are not chastised for Sabbath-breaking during the ages before the giving of the Law of Moses.
However, Genesis 2:2-3 does tell us that God made the seventh day of creation week "holy." What does this mean? For God to make something "holy" is for him to set it apart in some way for his special use, or to use that which is set apart to explain something important in terms of his purpose. For example, the temple had a Most Holy Place whose environs only the High Priest could enter, and that only once a year. The book of Hebrews explains that the "holiness" that God ascribed to this location was to show that a true entry into his presence was not yet available.
But Genesis 2:2-3 does not tell us what lesson we are to learn from the seventh day of creation being made "holy" or set apart through God "resting" from his work. We understand that God does not become tired. Nor is he affected by an earthbound reality in which the motions of planetary bodies create time. This would lead us to believe the writer of Genesis again used a literary device when speaking about the "rest" of God. That is, the "rest" of God had a symbolic meaning for him. But what was that meaning?
Author’s point
The writer had already used the seven-day week as an outline on which he hung various creation events and by which he made his theological point. It’s not surprising, then, that he would use the metaphor of God’s "rest" to make another theological assertion about who this God of Israel was, and his purpose. We should remember that the writer lived under the old covenant. This would lead us to believe that his experience of God taught him something about his purpose with Israel, something that was explained by the "rest" concept.
"Rest" is certainly a key idea here in Genesis 2:2-3. Why did the writer use the concept? What did it mean to the writer, and what should it mean to us as Christians? We have already seen that the seventh day rest follows all the creative acts of God that are summarized in Genesis 1. More than this, the rest of God follows the creation of humanity—male and female—in God’s own image (1:27-31).
The fact that this is mentioned in the context of the creation account implies that the writer understood that humanity has a special purpose beyond the other parts of the creation. First, all of creation is pronounced as being "very good" (1:31). Humanity is to "fill the earth and subdue it"—to be God’s representatives on this planet and caretakers of the creation (1:28). But, in a sense, all is not completely revealed to this point in Genesis about God’s aim in creating humanity. Is there no further purpose for the human race (and, from the writer’s point of view, of his choosing Israel to be his people) than to fill and subdue the earth? And, so the writer refers to God’s "rest," and tells us that it is holy—set apart for some purpose. But for what purpose? And, how does this relate to humanity and Israel?
That the creation of man and woman was announced just before the making of the holy rest could imply that this "rest" has something to do with the creation in general and humanity in particular. God, as it were, "sits back" after setting his creative purpose in motion and pronounces everything as being good. Since God doesn’t literally get tired, we can understand his "rest" as figurative, and as part of his creative purpose. We could see the "rest" in question as extending to humans (and Israel) in some way since they seem to be the end object of God’s creative process.
Humanity’s loss
But whatever this rest is to signify, the ensuing Genesis story tells us it is not something that humans enjoy in a physical sense except, perhaps, for a brief interlude in the Garden of Eden. Almost immediately after creation, we read about the tragic circumstances that befall Adam and Eve in the Garden. They sin and are punished for it by increased labor rather than rest. The notion of labor, of the opposite of rest, becomes a major motif of the Genesis account.
Eve must labor in childbearing. The Lord tells her, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children." (3:16). For mother Eve, childbearing becomes a painful work. Adam will be forced to labor to fill his mouth. The Lord tells him, "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life" (3:17, emphasis ours throughout).
Their son, Cain, murders Abel. The latter’s blood, figuratively finds no rest, as it "cries out" from the ground (4:10). For his sin, Cain will be forced to engage in backbreaking labor. The Lord tells him, "When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you" (4:12). More than that, Cain was to be a "restless wanderer on the earth" (4:12). He would have neither rest in his labor nor rest from enemies seeking to kill him because of his murder of Abel.
The "anti-rest" motif continues in Genesis. When Noah was born, a great hope was attached to his future. It was said of him, "He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the Lord has cursed" (5:29). But humanity found no rest because "the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence" (6:11). The only "rest" humanity could achieve was to rest in peace in death. And God caused the flood to destroy human civilization and end humanity’s suffering.
In Noah, God restated and broadened the covenant made with Adam and Eve in Genesis 1:28-30. He reissued his promise to neither curse the ground nor to destroy humanity despite the fact that he knew "every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood" (8:21; 9:8-17). Despite this covenant of promise, many generations passed during which humans became increasingly alienated from God. The story of Nimrod and the Tower of Babel indicate the condition of the human race. Then God made a covenant with Abraham. This is first found in Genesis 12:2-3:
I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.
Israel in toil and slavery
We know the rest of the story from Genesis. Abraham had a son named Isaac, and he had a son named Jacob. (Jacob himself had to be saved by the Lord from 20 years of servitude at Laban’s hand—Genesis 31:38-42.) As Jacob said to Laban: "If the God of my father, the God of Abraham and the Fear of Isaac, had not been with me, you would surely have sent me away empty-handed. But God has seen my hardship and the toil of my hand"(verse 42).
Jacob had 12 sons. The oldest ten sold their young brother, Joseph, into Egyptian slavery. During a famine, they all moved to Egypt, where the family of Jacob grew into a great nation. But the Egyptians placed the Israelites into slavery and hard bondage. They, too, failed to find the "rest" of God. The first chapter of Exodus, verses 11-14, shows how Israel subsequently suffered as a slave people:
So they [the Egyptians] put slave masters over them [the Israelites] to oppress them with forced labor, and they built Pithom and Rameses as store cities for Pharaoh. . . .The Egyptians came to dread the Israelites and worked them ruthlessly. They made their lives bitter with hard labor in brick and mortar and with all kinds of work in the fields; in all their hard labor the Egyptians used them ruthlessly.
Israel rescued
The writer of Exodus was trying to make a point, again about the notion of "rest." The Israelites were oppressed with hard and forced labor—and they had no rest for their souls. But help was on the way after many generations. We read in Exodus 2:23-24:
The Israelites groaned in their slavery and cried out and their cry for help because of their slavery went up to God. God heard their groaning and he remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac and with Jacob.
The savior of Israel would be Moses, who as a young man had seen his own people in slavery and "watched them at their hard labor" (2:11). Now, after his own exile of 40 years in the desert, the Lord appeared to him and said in Exodus 3:7-8:
I have indeed seen the misery of my people in Egypt. I have heard them crying out because of their slave drivers, and I am concerned about their suffering. So I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land into a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey.
And, again, Moses was to tell the Israelites about their impending freedom and physical rest:
Say to the Israelites: "I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians. I will free you from being slaves to them, and I will redeem you with outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment. I will take you as my own people, and I will be your God" [Exodus 6:6-7].
A covenant of "rest"
Here is the first intimation of a covenant between God and Israel. It is a covenant based on God providing freedom from slavery, and hence rest from interminable labor. Thus, the "rest" of God mentioned in Genesis 2:2, which was not attained by humans because of sin, was now promised in a kind of second Garden of Eden—the Promised Land. The old covenant, then, was a covenantal promise of peace, prosperity and security for Israel in the Promised Land (Leviticus 26:3-13; Deuteronomy 28:1-14). It contained all the elements that give human beings a feeling of well-being and "rest."
In short, the old covenant was a promise of physical rest to God’s people, which (as shown in Genesis 2) was part of God’s creative purpose at the beginning. We will see how this purpose of "rest" unfolds, but we are getting somewhat ahead of our story. Let’s backtrack a moment to God’s promise through Moses that he would provide freedom and rest to the people of Israel.
We know from the Exodus story that the Egyptian Pharaoh did not want to let the Israelites go free. He ordered that they should work even harder for their captors (Exodus 5). But God did rescue the Israelites and brought them into the Wilderness in preparation for their entering the Promised Land of freedom and rest. However, that generation failed to trust the Lord, and they were not allowed to enter. They died without coming into their rest.
The next generation of Israelites did enter the Promised Land under Joshua. They were told to obey the covenant that had been made between the people and the Lord. All the tribes were told to help each other take possession of the land "until the Lord gives them rest, as he has done for you" (Joshua 1:15). We read that this promise was fulfilled. In a summary statement before Joshua’s farewell to the nation, it was said that "the Lord had given Israel rest from all their enemies around them" (Joshua 23:1).
Despite Israel’s lapses from faith and obedience, the Lord fulfilled his promise to give the nation prosperity and rest. The high point of this physical rest and well-being occurred during the days of king Solomon. The writer said of this time: "During Solomon’s lifetime Judah and Israel, from Dan to Beersheba, lived in safety, each man under his own vine and fig tree" (1 Kings 4:25). The nation of Israel had experienced the physical "rest" of God in great fullness.
One of the hallmarks of the Law of Moses was an emphasis on the "rest" that God provided Israel. This included a bounty of unimagined physical blessings (Deuteronomy 7:10-12). God’s merciful grace in saving the nation from extreme toil and servitude in Egypt—and his giving the people bountiful physical blessings in the Promised Land—was to be memorialized in the religious practices of the nation. A weekly Sabbath of rest from work was a main feature of this rest memorial.
A good comparison for Christians is the Lord’s Supper. The bread and wine remind Christians that God has saved them through the redemptive work of Christ. On the other hand, the Israelites rested each week to remind them that God had saved them from Egyptian bondage and had blessed them abundantly.
Exodus 20:11 explains why God gave Israel the Sabbath day. Here, we read: "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." (These are the same words the writer of Genesis wrote for the creation account.) In a restatement of the Sabbath command in Deuteronomy 5:12-15 a related reason was given for the Sabbath "rest" command. "Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the Lord your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day" (5:15).
What had the writer seen here? Possibly, he saw that what God had done with Israel was the beginning of a restoration of God’s purpose through Israel. His purpose, dimly seen in the Garden of Eden story, was that human beings should live in a relationship with him, through which they would be blessed. If they were one with God, then they would enter his rest because he would bless them physically. That was certainly God’s intent, as the Garden of Eden story tells us. But human beings sinned and were cursed. Humans were cut off from the presence of God and the relationship with him was broken.
Reminder of blessings
With Israel, as the Exodus and old covenant show us, God had again moved to begin to bring the human race back into a relationship with himself. Israel would be the starting place. The nations would look at Israel, living in blessedness and loving obedience to Yahweh, and perhaps other nations might also someday come to love the Lord and find blessing as well (Deuteronomy 4:5-8). That was the ideal—just as the Garden of Eden had been an ideal. But as we know from the rest of the story of the Old Testament, the ideal was not achieved.
The reason Israel was to keep the seventh day as a rest period was because of a physical "rest" that was available to the nation. As slaves in Egypt, they had no rest for themselves, but toiled in harsh labor daily, at the whim of their taskmasters. God had freed them from this slavish labor and had given them freedom and prosperity in the Promised Land. Israel was supposed to remember the gracious freedom and rest they had been given—and they were to do this each week
The weekly rest was but one memorial of how God had saved the nation from Egyptian slavery and mindless toil. There were seven yearly "rest" days within three yearly festival seasons that also were celebrated by cessation from labor (Leviticus 23:7-8, 21, 25, 32, 35-36). These were harvest festivals when Israel could give thanks for the bountiful crops they had reaped—and when they could rest from their labor. By contrast, in Egypt the Israelites had toiled ceaselessly for uncaring taskmasters.
Beyond that, the land was to lie idle and not be tilled every seventh year (Leviticus 25:1-7). This means that while the land rested, the people could also rest because they did not need to seed or till. Whatever the land produced on its own could be eaten.
Also, each 50th year was a land rest (Leviticus 25:8-12). More than that, the year was a year of release, as we read in verse 10: "Consecrate the fiftieth year and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you; each one of you is to return to his family property and each to his own clan." In Egypt, the Israelites had neither land nor inheritance. Now, God had given the nation the Promised Land, and each family was to enjoy its own parcel of ground.
While the Promised Land was not a place of idleness and ease, there was rest from backbreaking and meaningless toil on someone else’s land. On the other hand, the Promised Land would yield abundant produce because of the blessing of the Lord. The nation would rest from war and the fear of famine and disease. The inhabitants could breathe a sigh of relief—and they could "rest" both physically and psychologically in the sure knowledge that God was watching over them.
The meaning
Now we can understand why the writer of Genesis may have been so keen to divide the physical creation into a six day format and then make the seventh day a day of God’s "rest." It must have been driven home to him through his experience with the saving acts of the God of Israel, that his purpose was to rescue humanity from the curse that they had brought upon themselves. This curse had required backbreaking toil in unyielding soil to grow enough to eat. The curse had also brought famine and disease, fighting and war. Life was anything but restful.
The writer of Genesis must have seen the problem of the "curse" and the restless sorrow it had brought as having been solved specifically in the promises to the nation of Israel. Israel had once been in captivity and the people had been forced to toil incessantly under taskmasters. Life was neither prosperous nor restful. But God had purposed to fulfill his covenant with Abraham whereby he would rescue his descendants from terrible toil in slavery. The nation would find true prosperity, peace and rest under the protection and blessing of the Creator, the one true God. The nation’s religious practices including various "rest" days and times reminded the people that they had been saved from toil and slavery in Egypt and now rested in peace and prosperity under the loving hand of their God.
Genesis was written for Israelites who lived in the Promised Land, who were to commemorate each week the rest they had been given by the Creator. Their weekly experience of rest was then associated with the creation by the words of Genesis 2:2-3. The writer of Genesis was informed by and influenced by the weekly Sabbath as he wrote about the "rest" of God. He was writing from the point of view of an Israelite who had been saved from slavery and who enjoyed the "rest" God provided the nation. The writer understood that the various rest days commanded for Israel—the weekly Sabbath, annual festivals, and years of agricultural rest and release—reflected what God had done for the nation. Thus, God’s actions of providing "rest" signaled to the writer that in God’s creative purpose his creatures should find rest in him. In the world there was cursing and trouble, but in God’s kingdom—the Promised Land—there was prosperity, peace and rest.
Genesis 2:2-3, then, is not an early command for all people to keep the seventh day as holy time. It is a reflection of the writer’s understanding that humans should find their rest in God. For the nation of Israel, the old covenant specified that this was to be commemorated by a weekly physical rest on the seventh day. There is no command for other peoples to do the same. Other peoples did not have the physical "rest" of the Promised Land nor the command for physical rest on the seventh day. What the Israelites had was a physical image of a spiritual reality; other nations did not have this.
Future promise
The Old Testament shows that the restful state of affairs did not last very long for Israel. The nation sinned and the people suffered invasion, curses on their land and captivity. The old covenant between God and Israel failed because the nation did not live up to its promises to be faithful to God (Hebrews 4:2).
Later in Israel’s history, the prophets spoke of the need for a new covenant, based on better promises. Isaiah prophesied of a time when God would renew his covenant with Israel and give them a final rest. In chapter 11, Isaiah spoke of a Branch to come, upon whom the Spirit of the Lord would rest. The Spirit of the Lord would be upon him and he would bring justice, mercy and peace. The Branch would usher in God’s kingdom of righteousness and peace.
In soaring metaphorical language, Isaiah said of this new era: "The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat. . .the cow will feed with the bear. . .The lion will eat straw like the ox. The infant will play near the hole of the cobra" (verses 6-8). He summarized this future hope by painting the arrival of an idyllic worldwide kingdom of God: "They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be full for the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea" (verse 9). "In that day," when this future kingdom would be established, the Lord would bring his people Israel out from all the nations (verse 11). And what would he give his people? He would give them "rest." Isaiah explains: "In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his place of rest will be glorious" (verse 10).
Jeremiah also spoke of the rest that the Lord would bring. "‘At that time,’ declares the Lord, ‘I will be the God of all the clans of Israel, and they will be my people.’ This is what the Lord says: ‘The people who survive the sword will find favor in the desert; I will come to give rest to Israel ’" (Jeremiah 31:1-2).
It’s no wonder the Jews looked for a Messiah that would save them from their enemies and gather the Jews to Israel. It was a beautiful vision of peace and prosperity. The Messiah would make the regathered clans of Israel in the Promised Land the people of the kingdom of God in which righteousness, justice and prosperity would know no bounds. The enemies of the Jews, whoever they might be, would be defeated and destroyed.
Jesus is our "rest"
The Branch, the Root of Jesse, the Redeemer Messiah, came as promised, in the person of Jesus. He offered the greatest "rest" the world would ever know, but it was not a physical rest of power and prosperity given to a single nation within certain geographic borders. Jesus brought the offer of "rest" of freedom from sin and death to peoples of all nations—and a future life in the eternal kingdom of God.
The notion of "God’s rest" found in Genesis 2:2-3 and the Old Testament was still alive and well. Yes, God would send the Deliverer, and his rest would be glorious. That rest, though, would be the result of the redemptive work of Jesus, and it would be commemorated not through the seventh day, but through Jesus. In Matthew 11:28, Jesus told his hearers: "Come to me, all of you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls." What a glorious promise to a hurting humanity. But we understand that Jesus was not necessarily promising physical rest and peace, but an eternal and spiritual rest.
Jesus said to his disciples: "Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives" (John 14:27). Jesus did not promise his disciples a Promised Land of peace, plenty and security. In fact, in his last talk with the disciples before his arrest, Jesus told them they would have anything but physical rest. "I have told you these things," Jesus warned, "so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world" (John 16:33).
The promise to Israel had been peace, prosperity and rest in the Promised Land in exchange for obedience to the old covenant and Law of Moses. The New Testament "rest" is a rest in Christ. It is the promise of the indwelling Holy Spirit and a spiritual rebirth that leads to eternal life in the kingdom of God. This is the ultimate "rest" of God. God’s purpose in Genesis 2:2-3, not completely understood under the old covenant, is now revealed and fulfilled in its final sense through Christ.
Part 2: The book of Hebrews
This is explained in Hebrews 3:1-4:11, which speaks of something vital Christians share—the "heavenly calling" we have in Christ (3:1). It is in these verses that we learn what the "rest" of Genesis 2:2-3 pictures to Christians. The subject at hand in these verses begins to be addressed under the word "today" in Hebrews 3:7, when the writer quotes Psalm 95:7-11:
Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion, during the time of testing in the desert, where your fathers tested and tried me and for forty years saw what I did. That is why I was angry with that generation, and I said, "Their hearts are always going astray, and they have not known my ways." So I declared an oath in my anger, "They shall never enter my rest."
Psalm 95 refers to the wilderness story as told in Exodus 17:1-7 and Numbers 20:1-13. There are several things we should notice about this passage in Hebrews. The author focuses on the introductory word of the quotation, "today," and the phrase in which it is found. He repeats the word "today" five times (3:7, 13, 15; twice in 4:7) and the phrase, "Today, if you hear his voice do not harden your hearts" three times (3:7, 15; 4:7). The phrase with its opening word "today" is significant for the writer in that it allows him to apply the promise of "rest" found in the Scripture to his readers. William Lane discusses this point in the Word Biblical Commentary on Hebrews:
"Today" provided the writer with a catchword for bringing the biblical statement before his hearers sharply. "Today" is no longer the today of the past, surveyed by the psalmist in his situation, but the today of the present, which continues to be conditioned by the voice of God that speaks day after day through the Scriptures and in the gospel tradition [page 87].
Lane makes the point that Psalm 95 "was a prophetic announcement that God was determining a future date for making his rest available" (page 100). The writer of Hebrews insists that the prophecy is being fulfilled in his day, in the church—and his readers need to heed its call. He wants his readers to make a connection between themselves and the experience of the Israelites in the wilderness. The author emphasizes a key concept: The Old Testament promise that God’s people would enter into "rest" is being fulfilled in the church and through Christ.
He begins by discussing God’s "rest" in terms of the promise of God to bring the rescued Israelites into the Promised Land. But as we know, and as the Scripture points out, the first generation of freed Israelites did not enter God’s "rest," but they died in the wilderness (Numbers 14:26-35). The Israelites Moses led out of Egypt did not enter into God’s "rest." The author wants his Christian readers to focus on the meaning of this tragedy. They are not to turn away from the living God (3:12) or be "hardened by sin’s deceitfulness" (3:13). Rather, they are to "hold firmly till the end" their first confidence (3:14) so that they may enter into God’s "rest."
The writer summarizes his admonition by saying, "Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it" (4:1). The readers of Hebrews are encouraged to keep up their faith and hope in Christ. Otherwise, as the unbelieving Israelites in Moses’ day lost their opportunity to enter the rest in Canaan, the believers may forfeit the greater blessings of the new age "rest."
From the beginning
The author of Hebrews then turns to a discussion of God’s "rest" from another point of view. He says that this "rest"—whatever it is—has been available to humanity since the beginning: "His [God’s] work has been finished since the creation of the world. For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: ‘And on the seventh day God rested from all his work’" (4:3-4).
The "somewhere" is Genesis 2:2. In the days when Hebrews was written, the Scriptures were written on scrolls. It was much more difficult to look up specific passages, so writers often quoted passages from memory. But here is our familiar Scripture, and the one we sought to understand in terms of its meaning for Christians. We can understand the "rest" described in Genesis 2:2-3 as the archetype of all later experiences of rest—including the various rest commands given at Sinai, the actual physical rest Israel received from its enemies under Joshua (a type of Christ), and the promised future rest of the kingdom of God.
From a Christian perspective, the Genesis "rest" of God, applied to God’s creative purpose in Genesis 2:2, can be seen to typify the spiritual salvation of the people of God. That means the weekly Sabbath rest (along with the other rest commands in the Law of Moses) is a lesser expression—a shadow, as it were—of the true "rest" symbolically inaugurated at the seventh day of creation. This makes the weekly Sabbath a metaphor of the Genesis "rest" of God, as was the Canaan rest.
The idea of the Genesis rest is that, beginning with the seventh day of creation, God ceased creating. He continues in a state of nonwork so far as further creating things physical is concerned. However, this doesn’t mean God has been idle. Leon Morris points this out in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary on Hebrews:
It is worth noticing that in the creation story each of the first six days is marked by the refrain "And there was evening, and there was morning." However, this is lacking in the account of the seventh day. There we simply read that God rested from all his work. This does not mean that God entered a state of idleness, for there is a sense in which he is continually at work (John 5:17). But the completion of creation marks the end of a magnificent whole.... So we should think of the rest as something like the satisfaction that comes from accomplishment, from the completion of a task, from the exercise of creativity [page 41].
F.F. Bruce also explained what this means in the volume on Hebrews in The New International Commentary on the New Testament:
When we read that God "rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done" (Gen. 2:2), we are to understand that hebegan to rest then; the fact that he is never said to have completed his rest and resumed his work of creation implies that his rest continues still, and may be shared by those who respond to his overtures with faith and obedience [page 106].
Thus, God’s "rest" has been available from the time the creation was finished—from the foundation of the world. Even though it has been available, very few people entered into it before Jesus’ death and resurrection. The offer of entering this "rest" still stands. The writer of Hebrews makes this point by saying: "It still remains that some will enter that rest" (4:6). Whatever this "rest" is, the writer is emphasizing that it is—at the time of writing—a promise his readers can take advantage of. In fact, they must take advantage of it, and not fail to achieve the "rest" because of disobedience (4:11).
Joshua’s "rest"
The author of Hebrews must have realized as he wrote that, on the surface, there had been an apparent large-scale exception to his claim that no people had ever entered a "rest" of God. After all, the second generation of Israelites who were saved from Egypt did enter the Promised Land under Joshua. We read that under Joshua "the Lord had given Israel rest from all their enemies around them" (Joshua 23:1). But the writer of Hebrews quickly points out that this is not the kind of "rest" he has in mind, or one that constituted God’s ultimate objective—the "rest" promised to Christians. Hundreds of years after Joshua led the Israelites into the rest of the Promised Land, the Psalmist urged people to enter a divine rest, and later still, the author of Hebrews was insisting that there is a "rest" its readers must yet enter into. Clearly, there is more to the "rest" in question than mere entry into Canaan. Hebrews tells us: "For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day. There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God" (4:8-9).
As it turns out, Israel had not secured the true "rest" after all. Thus, the writer can exhort his readers to seek, obtain and hold on to this superior "rest" in Christ. This is the true "rest" to which Genesis 2:2-3, the literal Sabbath, the other festival rests, the Wilderness experience, the Joshua rest, and the prophecy of Psalm 95 all looked forward to. He is interested in the redemptive and eternal rest in the kingdom of God, of which the weekly Sabbath and Canaan rests were but symbols.
William Lane, in the Hebrews commentary in the Word Biblical Commentary, explains why the Joshua rest was but a type of the true "rest":
The settlement of Canaan did not mark the fulfillment of the divine promise but pointed to another, more fundamental reality. If in fact Joshua had achieved the promised rest, there would have been no need for the renewal of the promise in Ps 95. Accordingly, the experience of rest in Canaan was only a type or symbol of the complete rest that God intended for his people, which was prefigured in the Sabbath rest of God [page 101].
We have now come from Genesis 2:2-3 to Hebrews 4:9-11, and we see something interesting. The author is not telling his readers to keep a weekly seventh-day Sabbath holy by resting on it. He is not talking about the weekly Sabbath at all. Rather, he is making the point that there is a spiritual "rest" that God’s people should be entering into. It is the heavenly counterpart of the earthly Canaan, and this is the goal of the people of God today—to achieve this present and eternal rest. The epistle of Hebrews has made this point by creating an analogy between the Israelites entering the Promised Land and Christians entering the better promise of a new-covenant spiritual "rest."
A present "rest"?
The Promised Land was a physical type or foreshadowing of a spiritual "rest" that the Israelites had not yet entered. And the weekly Sabbath was a temporal foreshadowing of the spiritual "rest" that God wants his people to enjoy. Christians have entered God’s "rest" by their faith in Jesus Christ. "Now we who have believed enter [or, "are entering"] that rest," the writer insists (4:3). Christians have the real rest, the spiritual rest, and do not need to observe shadows of it, neither geographically nor temporally. Jesus himself during his ministry had promised a rest for the spirit:
Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls (Matthew 11:28-29).
Leon Morris points out in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary that the word for "enter" in Hebrews 4:3 is in the present tense. This would mean the author of Hebrews was suggesting that his readers were already in the process of entering the "rest" of salvation that Jesus had promised. Some commentators agree that the Hebrews 4:3 "rest" into which Christians have entered begins now, in this life. Leon Morris quotes Hugh Montefiore on this point:
Contrary to some commentators, the Greek means neither that they are certain to enter, nor that they will enter, but that they are already in process of entering [page 40].
In fairness, Morris points out that some other commentators feel that the "rest" is something that occurs in the future. The present tense used here, they insist, is meant to be applied only in a generalizing sense. Morris concludes by saying:
Either view is defensible and probably much depends on our idea of the "rest." If it lies beyond death, then obviously "rest" must be understood in terms of the future. But if it is a present reality, then believers are entering it now [page 40].
We enter now
The view of this paper is that Christians have begun to enter their spiritual "rest" now. We are receiving some of the blessings of salvation, even though we do not yet enjoy them in their fullness. Peter says that Christ "has given us a new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" (1 Peter 1:3). Paul says God "has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves" (Colossians 1:13). The author of Hebrews says that we are "the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven" (12:23).
It is in part a question of how we understand when the kingdom of God comes—now or in the future? The answer is both. The kingdom is already, but not yet. There is a sense that the kingdom is both present and yet obviously only future in its full reality. Christians can be said to live in the tension between promise and fulfillment, between the already and the not yet, between the glimmer and the reality. But they have nevertheless entered the "rest," even if only in an imperfect and qualified way. The spiritual realities we already enjoy, although incomplete, are enough that we do not need to observe the physical symbols and rituals of the old covenant.
We have already been invited to enter God’s end-of-creation, the Genesis 2:2-3 "rest," by believing in the Son of God. By faith, we have joined with him in his "rest." By faith, we have become new creations—created anew. Our re-creation is not yet complete, but we already have been given entrance, through Christ, into God’s kingdom "rest."
The writer of Hebrews does not state how he views the time in which the "rest" takes place. His concern is with the spiritual reality, not the physical shadow. But as we’ve seen, his concern seems to be with the present time—with today. He no doubt understands that the fullness of rest comes only with a future resurrection (10:37-38; 12:26). But his point of view in Hebrews 3 and 4 is the present time, the time for which he is writing. The writer is thinking of the salvation "rest" as beginning in the present. Otherwise, one can be misled about which "rest" he is interested in—the spiritual one or a physical one such as the weekly Sabbath day.
One traditional commentary, the Critical, Experimental and Practical Commentary by Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, became confused on this issue and came (this paper concludes) to a wrong conclusion:
It is Jesus, the antitype of Joshua, who leads us into the heavenly rest. This verse [4:9] indirectly establishes the obligation of the Sabbath; for the type continues until the antitype supersedes it: so legal sacrifices continued till the great antitypical sacrifice superseded it. As then the antitypical Sabbath rest will not be till Christ comes to usher us into it, the typical earthly Sabbath must continue till then [page 537].
The authors, we believe, have erred. Influenced by the Puritans, they were thinking of a Sunday Sabbath, and reading their own opinions into the text. The principle they enunciate is erroneous. The type does not continue until the antitype supersedes it. Various Old Testament rituals pictured purity and holiness, and even though we do not yet see complete purity and holiness in the church, the rituals are obsolete. More correctly, types continue only as long as God says they do, and God has declared the old covenant obsolete. It has served its purpose, even though God’s plan is not yet complete. Moreover, true spiritual rest is found through faith in Christ, and Christ has already come. The antitype has arrived. Christ has already led us into the heavenly rest just as he is already our sacrifice for sin. We have come to Christ and he has given us rest—seated us in the heavenly realms (Ephesians 2:6). This argues against the commentary’s claim that the literal Sabbath is in force. The antitypical salvation rest has already been ushered in, albeit incompletely. Thus, the shadow (the literal Sabbath) is no longer required.
No matter how the writer of Hebrews conceives of the future "rest" in the post-resurrection kingdom of God, he is not concerned to discuss it in chapters 3 and 4. He is interested in his readers who are alive when he writes—and who need to take hold of the promise of spiritual "rest" in this age. F.F. Bruce agreed that the future rest is not in view here. He stated the following in his commentary on Hebrews in The New International Commentary on the New Testament:
The identification of the rest of God in the Epistle to the Hebrews with a coming millennium on earth has, indeed, been ably defended; but it involves the importation into the epistle of a concept which in fact is alien to it [pages 106-107].
The writer of Hebrews is not so much concerned with the future as with the present spiritual state of his readers. "Tomorrow," so to speak, is not in his view in the passage we are studying. That’s why he stresses the word "today." It was the privilege of the readers to enter God’s "rest" then—and it is our privilege to do so now. For us, today is "today," not some future time. The promise of entering God’s "rest" remains valid for each generation—and is repeated to each successive generation—in the church age.
Rest and work
Hebrews 4:9-11 is telling us we have entered into God’s promised "rest," the one he prophetically inaugurated on the seventh day of creation. This is the writer’s main theme. The epistle has already noted that God’s "work has been finished since the creation of the world" (4:3). That is, the "rest" of salvation has been offered and promised to humanity since the foundation of the world. It was, in a manner of speaking, a work of creation, inaugurated with humanity and for humanity. Donald Guthrie writes the following on this point:
What believers can now enter is none other than the same kind of rest which the Creator enjoyed when he had completed his works, which means that the rest idea is of completion and not of inactivity. . . .It is important to note that the "rest" is not something new that has not been known in experience until Christ came. It has been available throughout the whole of man’s history. This reference back to the creation places the idea on the broadest possible basis and would seem to suggest that it was part of God’s intention for man. "Rest" is a quality that has eluded man’s quest, and in fact cannot be attained except through Christ [Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, "Hebrews," page 113].
As long as we have faith in Christ—the main point of Hebrews—no matter what day of the week it is, we have entered God’s "rest" and we are resting from our own works. "We who have believed enter that rest. . . .Anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his" (4:3, 10). What does the author mean by "work"? He is not discussing the question of employment on the weekly Sabbath day. That is not his interest. (He has been encouraging his readers to enter the spiritual "rest" of salvation throughout Hebrews 3 and 4.) The writer of Hebrews wants his readers to stop putting their faith in the things that humans do, such as the works of the old covenant—and to place their faith in Christ as Savior. He wants them to look to the work of Christ, which gives forgiveness and empowerment through the Holy Spirit, allowing us to enter the true spiritual "rest."
In comparison to Christ, the writer has a low view of the "works" of the Law of Moses. He says of the Law in general and the Levitical priesthood as a whole:
The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced by which we draw near to God (7:18-19).
The author of Hebrews seems to be suggesting that the people to whom he wrote should rest from the ceremonial "work" they needed to do under the Mosaic Law. Their "work" in such things as offering sacrifices could not save nor endear them to God. They were saved by grace through faith in Christ, and were endeared to God by that same grace.
The weekly Sabbath?
The Jewish Christians or Gentile believers to whom Hebrews was written were already attracted to Judaistic practices. This is clear from reading the book. It was written to show the church why Judaistic practices were not necessary for Christians to perform. The individuals to whom the book was written would have already been observing the Sabbath day and would not need any admonishment to rest on this day. Even the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary understands this point. We find this explanation given for Hebrews 4:9 on page 423:
Certainly, in writing to Jews, the author of Hebrews would not consider it necessary to prove to them that Sabbathkeeping "remaineth." If the conclusion of the extended argument beginning with ch. 3:7 is that Sabbathkeeping remains for the people of God, it would seem that the writer of Hebrews is guilty of a non sequitur, for the conclusion does not follow logically from the argument. There would have been no point in so labored an effort to persuade the Jews to do what they were already doing—observing the seventh-day Sabbath. . . .What relationship a protracted argument designed to prove that Sabbath observance remains an obligation to the Christian church might have to the declared theme of chs. 3 and 4—the ministry of Christ as our great High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary—is obscure indeed.
The writer of Hebrews is interested in the spiritual or heavenly meaning of such things as the Sabbath and animal sacrifices, not their literal observances, which are shadows of the true "rest" and sacrifice for sin. In fact, the very Israelites who had been given the Sabbath (the generation that left Egypt) failed to enter God’s "rest." So did the Jews who strictly kept the Sabbath day when Hebrews was written. Keeping the Sabbath does not automatically bring someone to God. Why, then, would the writer of Hebrews insist on it? The fact is, the literal seventh-day Sabbath is not in his view at all.
The book of Hebrews, considered as a whole, tells us that the practices of the Mosaic Law are obsolete (7:11-12, 18-19). This would refer to the works or observances of the Law (of which the Sabbath is one example), as opposed to its great moral principles. These are eternal principles that define our relationship with God and fellow human beings. They precede the old covenant, were imbedded into that covenant, and remain as fundamental principles of the new covenant, which made the old passé.
The new covenant theme of Hebrews suggests—though it doesn’t directly make an issue of this—that the weekly Sabbath day as described in the old covenant has been superseded by a better promise. In particular, Hebrews 4:9-11 tells us that the various allusions of "rest" in the Old Testament, including Genesis 2:2-3 and the weekly Sabbath, picture a spiritual reality to Christians—the eternal rest of God. But that is all Hebrews tells us. It does not seem to address the issue of whether the weekly Sabbath should be kept or not. This is not the author’s interest.
In conclusion
Let us now close the circle between Genesis 2:2-3 and Hebrews 3:1-4:11. We have seen that God had given Israel physical rest in the Promised Land under the leadership of Joshua, just as Adam and Eve would have had physical "rest" in the Garden of Eden. But the first humans, like all others after them, sinned. Adam and Eve and their descendents were cursed and lost their "rest" until God saved Israel from slavery and the nation entered the Promised Land.
As part of its covenantal law, God gave Israel various rest days and years to commemorate their having achieved physical blessings (the "rest") in the Lord (Deuteronomy 5:15). The writer of Genesis saw this reality—which the rest days (especially the weekly Sabbath) commemorated—as a fulfillment of God’s original purpose at the creation. The writer included the statement about the symbolic meaning of the Sabbath (that is, about God’s "rest"—Exodus 20:11) in his description of the creation in Genesis 2:2-3. This was then a prophetical statement of God’s purpose of providing physical bounty to his human creatures, now fulfilled in Israel.
What the writer of Genesis did not clearly see, since he was an individual who lived under the old covenant, is that God’s real purpose was to provide humanity with another "rest"—a true eternal rest. This more fundamental purpose was fulfilled in Christ, and could be understood only after he had completed his redemptive work. Thus, Christ is the true Sabbath rest of Genesis 2:2-3—promised to us from the beginning (Matthew 25:34; Ephesians 1:4-6; Hebrews 4:3; Revelation 13:8). This is how the author of Hebrews (in 3:1-4:11) understands that "rest."
Thanks be to God that through his love he gave us his Son, allowing us in his mercy to begin to enter into his eternal rest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two Greek Words for "Rest"
We should briefly take up the issue of the Greek words for "rest" used in Hebrews 4:9-10. We quote here the verses in question and show the two Greek words being used: "There remains…a Sabbath-rest [sabbatismos] for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest [katapausin] also rests from his own work" (4:9-10).
A Greek-English interlinear of the New Testament shows that the Greek word katapausin is used to denote "rest" throughout Hebrews 3:7-4:11. There is one exception, in 4:9, as shown above. Here, sabbatismos is used, and it is translated "Sabbath-rest" in the New International Version. The word is formed from the verb sabbatizo, which means to "keep/observe/celebrate the Sabbath."
The only time in the Bible that sabbatismos is used is here in Hebrews 4:9. The word is not found in ancient Greek literature until well after the time when Hebrews was written. Some decades later, sabbatismos is found in Plutarch as part of a list of superstitious practices. In his work, the word signifies weekly Sabbath observance. In later Christian documents, sabbatismos sometimes indicates the celebration or festivity associated with the Sabbath day.
With this in mind, William Lane translates Hebrews 4:9 as: "There remains a Sabbath celebration for the people of God." He points out that the use ofsabbatismos is meant to "define more precisely the character of the future rest promised to the people of God" (Word Biblical Commentary, volume 47A, "Hebrews," page 101). The word conveyed something about the promised spiritual rest that katapausin would not have done—"the special aspect of festivity and joy, expressed in the adoration and praise of God" for his wonderful grace (page 102).
On one level, the writer of Hebrews seems to have used the two Greek words interchangeably. In 4:9, he says that a promised Sabbath-rest (sabbatismos) remains for the people of God to enter into, and this same rest is called God’s katapausin "rest." Some scholars suggest that the writer of Hebrews coined the word. He wanted to differentiate between the ultimate spiritual "rest" and the Promised Land rest into which Israel went. If so, the author may also have been making the same difference between the true spiritual "rest" and the weekly Sabbath rest. That is to say, the Sabbath day is a metaphor of the true rest in the same way that the Israelites entering the Promised Land under Joshua was also a metaphor for spiritual rest.
Since the seventh-day Sabbath is but a symbol of the true spiritual rest, the writer would have no logical reason to stress the keeping of the weekly Sabbath. Like the Promised Land, the Sabbath day itself was a shadow that prefigured the coming reality—the spiritual "rest" of the Christian in Christ.
To summarize: The spiritual rest of salvation into which God’s people are entering is a sabbatismos—a "sabbath keeping"—in the sense that it is a participation in God’s own "rest," which we enter by faith (4:3). "Anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his" (4:10). That is to say, the sabbatismos rest of God described in Hebrews 4:9 refers to the salvation "rest" into which all Christians have entered. Of course, as mentioned earlier, the culmination of this rest does not occur until the resurrection. But, upon conversion, we have begun the journey.
The weekly Old Testament Sabbath points to the blessing and joy of the spiritual "rest" Christians have in Christ. This may be why the author of Hebrews coined the word sabbatismos—making a play off the word for the Sabbath day (sabbaton). That is, sabbatismos stressed the joy, the celebration, the peace, the jubilation of the spiritual "rest" Christians enjoy. (We’ve put "rest" in quotes here because it does not really mean inactivity.)
Hebrews is not clear as to the writer’s attitude toward the weekly Sabbath day. Perhaps he wanted his readers, who were attracted to old covenant customs, to understand the Sabbath’s true meaning in the light of the Christ event , but without having to make an issue of whether it needs to be kept or not. This would certainly be in the spirit of Romans 14, in which the apostle Paul avoided making one’s view of "sacred days" a test or issue of faith or fellowship.
The Sabbath is meaningful on its own terms, just as the Festival of Tabernacles or the Passover-Exodus is. After all, the Sabbath stands as a metaphor of the whole purpose and meaning of redemption, as do the sacrifices and other old covenant, Mosaic institutions. They foreshadowed the true spiritual "rest" we have in Christ, which includes a "resting" in forgiveness of sin and "resting" from sin itself through the indwelling Holy Spirit.
But Hebrews 4:9 issues no command about keeping or not keeping the Sabbath. In fact, the book as a whole makes the point that all the old covenant institutions are obsolete now that the reality has come in Christ. The verse in question cannot be used as a proof-text to insist that Christians keep a weekly seventh-day Sabbath rest. The verses in question do not exhort us to keep an old covenant Sabbath, but they do admonish us to enter the spiritual "rest" of God by having faith in Christ.
1The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, volume 3, page 219, edited by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, gives the following explanation ofsabbatismos:
1. The NT offers in Hebrews 4:9 the oldest documentation of the noun sabbatismos, which occurs several times in post-NT early Christian writings independently of Hebrews 4:9 (e.g., Justin Dial. 23:3; Origen Orat. 27:16; Epiphanius Haer. xxx.2.2; lxvi 85:9;Acts (Martyrdom) of Peter and Paul 1; Apostolic Constitutions ii.36.2; pseudo-Macarius (Symeon) Homily 12.2.4.... At present,sabbatismos has been documented in non-Christian writings only in Plutarch Superst. 3 (Moralia 166a).
The noun is derived from the verb sabbatizo, which in the LXX [Septuagint] appears as the translation of Hebrew sabbat. The vb. means: a) "celebrate/observe the sabbath" (Exod 16:30; Lev 23:32; 2 Macc 6:6; so also Ign. Magn. 9:1; Pap. Oxy. 1,1.2; Justin Dial.10:1 and passim), b) "observe (sabbath) rest" (Lev 26:34f.; 2 Chr 36:21; 1 Esdr 1:55).
Accordingly, the substantive means sabbath observance (thus in the non-NT passages mentioned) and sabbath rest (thus the understanding of sabbatismos in Heb 4:9 by Origen Cels. v.59; Selecta in Exod on 16:23 [PG XII, 289b]).
2. In Heb 4:9 sabbatismos encompasses both sabbath rest and (cultic) sabbath observance. The word is neither identical in meaning nor interchangeable with katapausis (3:11, 19; 4:1, 3, 5, 10f); it designates more closely what the people of God should expect when they enter the katapausis of God (cf. 4:9 with v.6a). Just as God rested on the seventh day of creation from all his works, so also will believers find the eternal sabbath rest on the day of the completion of salvation in God’s "place of rest" (see 4:10). Quietistic or mystic elements have nothing to do with this expectation. The statement in Heb 4:9f. remains dependent on a Jewish sabbath theology that associates the idea of sabbath rest with ideas of worship and praise of God (Jub. 2:21; 50:9; Bib. Ant. 11:8; 2 Macc 8:27; cf. also 1 Enoch 41:7). Accordingly, the author of Hebrews understands by sabbatismos the eternal sabbath celebration of salvation, i.e., the perfected community’s worship before God's throne.
Dit spreekt voor zich maar gaat verder niet over onze relatie met God.quote:
In het nieuwe verbond is het teken alsvolgt:
35Aan jullie liefde voor elkaar zal iedereen zien dat jullie mijn leerlingen zijn.’
Jezus zal ook niet over de sabbat gesproken hebben in deze omdat het houden daarvan een vanzelfsprekendheid was.
Hij noemt het echter na het volgende:
34 Een nieuw gebod geef Ik u, dat gij elkander liefhebt; gelijk Ik u liefgehad heb, dat ook gij elkander liefhebt.
Tot de dood aan toe. De ultieme standaard.
Dit artikel is te lang. Vat het samen ajb.quote:
Ali ik heb een verhelderend artikel gevonden over de sabbat in Genesis 2 en de sabbatismos van Hebreeers 4:
Genesis 2:2-3 -- God's "Rest" and the Sabbath
One of the proof texts used in an attempt to prove that Christians must keep the seventh-day Sabbath is Genesis 2:2-3. For this reason, it is important that we understand what this verse does and doesn’t say about the physical Sabbath rest before we arrive at our conclusions. Further, we must ask what this verse tells us about the Sabbath when viewed against the essential message of Scripture about our salvation in Christ.
After the creation account in Genesis 1, we read the following in chapter 2, verses 2-3: "By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done."
In chapter 1, the writer of Genesis had used the seven-day weekly cycle as an organizing outline to make an important theological point: The one God of Israel is the true God—the Creator of all that exists in the heavens and on earth, including the human race. This was his answer to the myths of the nations that had spun fantastic stories of how their national god or gods and goddesses were responsible for the creation. Genesis 1:1-2:3 sets the record straight about creation. The God of Israel, Yahweh, is Creator.
Yet, the writer of Genesis ends his creation outline by adding the statement that the God of Israel "rested" after creation was complete. What further theological point was he trying to make about God and his purpose in the creation? We shall see the answer unfold in this paper. The concept of the "rest" will prove to be a monumental part of God’s purpose, one the New Testament explains for us in a final sense.
Sabbath rest in Genesis
Before we undertake to solve this mystery, we should consider the idea that Genesis 2:2-3 tells us God made the weekly Sabbath "holy time" at creation, and that this day has been and continues to be a sacred day for all peoples. We notice immediately that the verse in question does not say a physical Sabbath-day rest was to be observed by human beings. This is a most striking fact of Genesis 2:2-3. This verse contains no command for human beings to rest from their labor or to otherwise keep the seventh day as "holy time." God is the one said to be "resting," and by his act he creates something holy about the seventh day. But at this point in the story we haven’t been told what that is.
If the writer of Genesis wanted to make the point that God commanded the Sabbath to be a day of rest for humans since the creation, then he failed to follow up his thesis in further chapters. He provided no evidence that any of the great patriarchs, Abraham included, kept the seventh day as "holy time." Neither did he make any comments to the effect that humanity was breaking the Sabbath-day rest and thereby sinning against God between Adam and Sinai. Not until the old covenant is instituted with only a single nation—Israel—does the Sabbath rest become a command (and only for Israel).
If the Sabbath was commanded since the creation, then it is quite surprising that none of God’s faithful people kept it until Sinai. Conversely, we would also have to ask why evil people are not chastised for Sabbath-breaking during the ages before the giving of the Law of Moses.
However, Genesis 2:2-3 does tell us that God made the seventh day of creation week "holy." What does this mean? For God to make something "holy" is for him to set it apart in some way for his special use, or to use that which is set apart to explain something important in terms of his purpose. For example, the temple had a Most Holy Place whose environs only the High Priest could enter, and that only once a year. The book of Hebrews explains that the "holiness" that God ascribed to this location was to show that a true entry into his presence was not yet available.
But Genesis 2:2-3 does not tell us what lesson we are to learn from the seventh day of creation being made "holy" or set apart through God "resting" from his work. We understand that God does not become tired. Nor is he affected by an earthbound reality in which the motions of planetary bodies create time. This would lead us to believe the writer of Genesis again used a literary device when speaking about the "rest" of God. That is, the "rest" of God had a symbolic meaning for him. But what was that meaning?
Author’s point
The writer had already used the seven-day week as an outline on which he hung various creation events and by which he made his theological point. It’s not surprising, then, that he would use the metaphor of God’s "rest" to make another theological assertion about who this God of Israel was, and his purpose. We should remember that the writer lived under the old covenant. This would lead us to believe that his experience of God taught him something about his purpose with Israel, something that was explained by the "rest" concept.
"Rest" is certainly a key idea here in Genesis 2:2-3. Why did the writer use the concept? What did it mean to the writer, and what should it mean to us as Christians? We have already seen that the seventh day rest follows all the creative acts of God that are summarized in Genesis 1. More than this, the rest of God follows the creation of humanity—male and female—in God’s own image (1:27-31).
The fact that this is mentioned in the context of the creation account implies that the writer understood that humanity has a special purpose beyond the other parts of the creation. First, all of creation is pronounced as being "very good" (1:31). Humanity is to "fill the earth and subdue it"—to be God’s representatives on this planet and caretakers of the creation (1:28). But, in a sense, all is not completely revealed to this point in Genesis about God’s aim in creating humanity. Is there no further purpose for the human race (and, from the writer’s point of view, of his choosing Israel to be his people) than to fill and subdue the earth? And, so the writer refers to God’s "rest," and tells us that it is holy—set apart for some purpose. But for what purpose? And, how does this relate to humanity and Israel?
That the creation of man and woman was announced just before the making of the holy rest could imply that this "rest" has something to do with the creation in general and humanity in particular. God, as it were, "sits back" after setting his creative purpose in motion and pronounces everything as being good. Since God doesn’t literally get tired, we can understand his "rest" as figurative, and as part of his creative purpose. We could see the "rest" in question as extending to humans (and Israel) in some way since they seem to be the end object of God’s creative process.
Humanity’s loss
But whatever this rest is to signify, the ensuing Genesis story tells us it is not something that humans enjoy in a physical sense except, perhaps, for a brief interlude in the Garden of Eden. Almost immediately after creation, we read about the tragic circumstances that befall Adam and Eve in the Garden. They sin and are punished for it by increased labor rather than rest. The notion of labor, of the opposite of rest, becomes a major motif of the Genesis account.
Eve must labor in childbearing. The Lord tells her, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children." (3:16). For mother Eve, childbearing becomes a painful work. Adam will be forced to labor to fill his mouth. The Lord tells him, "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life" (3:17, emphasis ours throughout).
Their son, Cain, murders Abel. The latter’s blood, figuratively finds no rest, as it "cries out" from the ground (4:10). For his sin, Cain will be forced to engage in backbreaking labor. The Lord tells him, "When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you" (4:12). More than that, Cain was to be a "restless wanderer on the earth" (4:12). He would have neither rest in his labor nor rest from enemies seeking to kill him because of his murder of Abel.
The "anti-rest" motif continues in Genesis. When Noah was born, a great hope was attached to his future. It was said of him, "He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the Lord has cursed" (5:29). But humanity found no rest because "the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence" (6:11). The only "rest" humanity could achieve was to rest in peace in death. And God caused the flood to destroy human civilization and end humanity’s suffering.
In Noah, God restated and broadened the covenant made with Adam and Eve in Genesis 1:28-30. He reissued his promise to neither curse the ground nor to destroy humanity despite the fact that he knew "every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood" (8:21; 9:8-17). Despite this covenant of promise, many generations passed during which humans became increasingly alienated from God. The story of Nimrod and the Tower of Babel indicate the condition of the human race. Then God made a covenant with Abraham. This is first found in Genesis 12:2-3:
I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.
Israel in toil and slavery
We know the rest of the story from Genesis. Abraham had a son named Isaac, and he had a son named Jacob. (Jacob himself had to be saved by the Lord from 20 years of servitude at Laban’s hand—Genesis 31:38-42.) As Jacob said to Laban: "If the God of my father, the God of Abraham and the Fear of Isaac, had not been with me, you would surely have sent me away empty-handed. But God has seen my hardship and the toil of my hand"(verse 42).
Jacob had 12 sons. The oldest ten sold their young brother, Joseph, into Egyptian slavery. During a famine, they all moved to Egypt, where the family of Jacob grew into a great nation. But the Egyptians placed the Israelites into slavery and hard bondage. They, too, failed to find the "rest" of God. The first chapter of Exodus, verses 11-14, shows how Israel subsequently suffered as a slave people:
So they [the Egyptians] put slave masters over them [the Israelites] to oppress them with forced labor, and they built Pithom and Rameses as store cities for Pharaoh. . . .The Egyptians came to dread the Israelites and worked them ruthlessly. They made their lives bitter with hard labor in brick and mortar and with all kinds of work in the fields; in all their hard labor the Egyptians used them ruthlessly.
Israel rescued
The writer of Exodus was trying to make a point, again about the notion of "rest." The Israelites were oppressed with hard and forced labor—and they had no rest for their souls. But help was on the way after many generations. We read in Exodus 2:23-24:
The Israelites groaned in their slavery and cried out and their cry for help because of their slavery went up to God. God heard their groaning and he remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac and with Jacob.
The savior of Israel would be Moses, who as a young man had seen his own people in slavery and "watched them at their hard labor" (2:11). Now, after his own exile of 40 years in the desert, the Lord appeared to him and said in Exodus 3:7-8:
I have indeed seen the misery of my people in Egypt. I have heard them crying out because of their slave drivers, and I am concerned about their suffering. So I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land into a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey.
And, again, Moses was to tell the Israelites about their impending freedom and physical rest:
Say to the Israelites: "I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians. I will free you from being slaves to them, and I will redeem you with outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment. I will take you as my own people, and I will be your God" [Exodus 6:6-7].
A covenant of "rest"
Here is the first intimation of a covenant between God and Israel. It is a covenant based on God providing freedom from slavery, and hence rest from interminable labor. Thus, the "rest" of God mentioned in Genesis 2:2, which was not attained by humans because of sin, was now promised in a kind of second Garden of Eden—the Promised Land. The old covenant, then, was a covenantal promise of peace, prosperity and security for Israel in the Promised Land (Leviticus 26:3-13; Deuteronomy 28:1-14). It contained all the elements that give human beings a feeling of well-being and "rest."
In short, the old covenant was a promise of physical rest to God’s people, which (as shown in Genesis 2) was part of God’s creative purpose at the beginning. We will see how this purpose of "rest" unfolds, but we are getting somewhat ahead of our story. Let’s backtrack a moment to God’s promise through Moses that he would provide freedom and rest to the people of Israel.
We know from the Exodus story that the Egyptian Pharaoh did not want to let the Israelites go free. He ordered that they should work even harder for their captors (Exodus 5). But God did rescue the Israelites and brought them into the Wilderness in preparation for their entering the Promised Land of freedom and rest. However, that generation failed to trust the Lord, and they were not allowed to enter. They died without coming into their rest.
The next generation of Israelites did enter the Promised Land under Joshua. They were told to obey the covenant that had been made between the people and the Lord. All the tribes were told to help each other take possession of the land "until the Lord gives them rest, as he has done for you" (Joshua 1:15). We read that this promise was fulfilled. In a summary statement before Joshua’s farewell to the nation, it was said that "the Lord had given Israel rest from all their enemies around them" (Joshua 23:1).
Despite Israel’s lapses from faith and obedience, the Lord fulfilled his promise to give the nation prosperity and rest. The high point of this physical rest and well-being occurred during the days of king Solomon. The writer said of this time: "During Solomon’s lifetime Judah and Israel, from Dan to Beersheba, lived in safety, each man under his own vine and fig tree" (1 Kings 4:25). The nation of Israel had experienced the physical "rest" of God in great fullness.
One of the hallmarks of the Law of Moses was an emphasis on the "rest" that God provided Israel. This included a bounty of unimagined physical blessings (Deuteronomy 7:10-12). God’s merciful grace in saving the nation from extreme toil and servitude in Egypt—and his giving the people bountiful physical blessings in the Promised Land—was to be memorialized in the religious practices of the nation. A weekly Sabbath of rest from work was a main feature of this rest memorial.
A good comparison for Christians is the Lord’s Supper. The bread and wine remind Christians that God has saved them through the redemptive work of Christ. On the other hand, the Israelites rested each week to remind them that God had saved them from Egyptian bondage and had blessed them abundantly.
Exodus 20:11 explains why God gave Israel the Sabbath day. Here, we read: "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." (These are the same words the writer of Genesis wrote for the creation account.) In a restatement of the Sabbath command in Deuteronomy 5:12-15 a related reason was given for the Sabbath "rest" command. "Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the Lord your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day" (5:15).
What had the writer seen here? Possibly, he saw that what God had done with Israel was the beginning of a restoration of God’s purpose through Israel. His purpose, dimly seen in the Garden of Eden story, was that human beings should live in a relationship with him, through which they would be blessed. If they were one with God, then they would enter his rest because he would bless them physically. That was certainly God’s intent, as the Garden of Eden story tells us. But human beings sinned and were cursed. Humans were cut off from the presence of God and the relationship with him was broken.
Reminder of blessings
With Israel, as the Exodus and old covenant show us, God had again moved to begin to bring the human race back into a relationship with himself. Israel would be the starting place. The nations would look at Israel, living in blessedness and loving obedience to Yahweh, and perhaps other nations might also someday come to love the Lord and find blessing as well (Deuteronomy 4:5-8). That was the ideal—just as the Garden of Eden had been an ideal. But as we know from the rest of the story of the Old Testament, the ideal was not achieved.
The reason Israel was to keep the seventh day as a rest period was because of a physical "rest" that was available to the nation. As slaves in Egypt, they had no rest for themselves, but toiled in harsh labor daily, at the whim of their taskmasters. God had freed them from this slavish labor and had given them freedom and prosperity in the Promised Land. Israel was supposed to remember the gracious freedom and rest they had been given—and they were to do this each week
The weekly rest was but one memorial of how God had saved the nation from Egyptian slavery and mindless toil. There were seven yearly "rest" days within three yearly festival seasons that also were celebrated by cessation from labor (Leviticus 23:7-8, 21, 25, 32, 35-36). These were harvest festivals when Israel could give thanks for the bountiful crops they had reaped—and when they could rest from their labor. By contrast, in Egypt the Israelites had toiled ceaselessly for uncaring taskmasters.
Beyond that, the land was to lie idle and not be tilled every seventh year (Leviticus 25:1-7). This means that while the land rested, the people could also rest because they did not need to seed or till. Whatever the land produced on its own could be eaten.
Also, each 50th year was a land rest (Leviticus 25:8-12). More than that, the year was a year of release, as we read in verse 10: "Consecrate the fiftieth year and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you; each one of you is to return to his family property and each to his own clan." In Egypt, the Israelites had neither land nor inheritance. Now, God had given the nation the Promised Land, and each family was to enjoy its own parcel of ground.
While the Promised Land was not a place of idleness and ease, there was rest from backbreaking and meaningless toil on someone else’s land. On the other hand, the Promised Land would yield abundant produce because of the blessing of the Lord. The nation would rest from war and the fear of famine and disease. The inhabitants could breathe a sigh of relief—and they could "rest" both physically and psychologically in the sure knowledge that God was watching over them.
The meaning
Now we can understand why the writer of Genesis may have been so keen to divide the physical creation into a six day format and then make the seventh day a day of God’s "rest." It must have been driven home to him through his experience with the saving acts of the God of Israel, that his purpose was to rescue humanity from the curse that they had brought upon themselves. This curse had required backbreaking toil in unyielding soil to grow enough to eat. The curse had also brought famine and disease, fighting and war. Life was anything but restful.
The writer of Genesis must have seen the problem of the "curse" and the restless sorrow it had brought as having been solved specifically in the promises to the nation of Israel. Israel had once been in captivity and the people had been forced to toil incessantly under taskmasters. Life was neither prosperous nor restful. But God had purposed to fulfill his covenant with Abraham whereby he would rescue his descendants from terrible toil in slavery. The nation would find true prosperity, peace and rest under the protection and blessing of the Creator, the one true God. The nation’s religious practices including various "rest" days and times reminded the people that they had been saved from toil and slavery in Egypt and now rested in peace and prosperity under the loving hand of their God.
Genesis was written for Israelites who lived in the Promised Land, who were to commemorate each week the rest they had been given by the Creator. Their weekly experience of rest was then associated with the creation by the words of Genesis 2:2-3. The writer of Genesis was informed by and influenced by the weekly Sabbath as he wrote about the "rest" of God. He was writing from the point of view of an Israelite who had been saved from slavery and who enjoyed the "rest" God provided the nation. The writer understood that the various rest days commanded for Israel—the weekly Sabbath, annual festivals, and years of agricultural rest and release—reflected what God had done for the nation. Thus, God’s actions of providing "rest" signaled to the writer that in God’s creative purpose his creatures should find rest in him. In the world there was cursing and trouble, but in God’s kingdom—the Promised Land—there was prosperity, peace and rest.
Genesis 2:2-3, then, is not an early command for all people to keep the seventh day as holy time. It is a reflection of the writer’s understanding that humans should find their rest in God. For the nation of Israel, the old covenant specified that this was to be commemorated by a weekly physical rest on the seventh day. There is no command for other peoples to do the same. Other peoples did not have the physical "rest" of the Promised Land nor the command for physical rest on the seventh day. What the Israelites had was a physical image of a spiritual reality; other nations did not have this.
Future promise
The Old Testament shows that the restful state of affairs did not last very long for Israel. The nation sinned and the people suffered invasion, curses on their land and captivity. The old covenant between God and Israel failed because the nation did not live up to its promises to be faithful to God (Hebrews 4:2).
Later in Israel’s history, the prophets spoke of the need for a new covenant, based on better promises. Isaiah prophesied of a time when God would renew his covenant with Israel and give them a final rest. In chapter 11, Isaiah spoke of a Branch to come, upon whom the Spirit of the Lord would rest. The Spirit of the Lord would be upon him and he would bring justice, mercy and peace. The Branch would usher in God’s kingdom of righteousness and peace.
In soaring metaphorical language, Isaiah said of this new era: "The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat. . .the cow will feed with the bear. . .The lion will eat straw like the ox. The infant will play near the hole of the cobra" (verses 6-8). He summarized this future hope by painting the arrival of an idyllic worldwide kingdom of God: "They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be full for the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea" (verse 9). "In that day," when this future kingdom would be established, the Lord would bring his people Israel out from all the nations (verse 11). And what would he give his people? He would give them "rest." Isaiah explains: "In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his place of rest will be glorious" (verse 10).
Jeremiah also spoke of the rest that the Lord would bring. "‘At that time,’ declares the Lord, ‘I will be the God of all the clans of Israel, and they will be my people.’ This is what the Lord says: ‘The people who survive the sword will find favor in the desert; I will come to give rest to Israel ’" (Jeremiah 31:1-2).
It’s no wonder the Jews looked for a Messiah that would save them from their enemies and gather the Jews to Israel. It was a beautiful vision of peace and prosperity. The Messiah would make the regathered clans of Israel in the Promised Land the people of the kingdom of God in which righteousness, justice and prosperity would know no bounds. The enemies of the Jews, whoever they might be, would be defeated and destroyed.
Jesus is our "rest"
The Branch, the Root of Jesse, the Redeemer Messiah, came as promised, in the person of Jesus. He offered the greatest "rest" the world would ever know, but it was not a physical rest of power and prosperity given to a single nation within certain geographic borders. Jesus brought the offer of "rest" of freedom from sin and death to peoples of all nations—and a future life in the eternal kingdom of God.
The notion of "God’s rest" found in Genesis 2:2-3 and the Old Testament was still alive and well. Yes, God would send the Deliverer, and his rest would be glorious. That rest, though, would be the result of the redemptive work of Jesus, and it would be commemorated not through the seventh day, but through Jesus. In Matthew 11:28, Jesus told his hearers: "Come to me, all of you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls." What a glorious promise to a hurting humanity. But we understand that Jesus was not necessarily promising physical rest and peace, but an eternal and spiritual rest.
Jesus said to his disciples: "Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives" (John 14:27). Jesus did not promise his disciples a Promised Land of peace, plenty and security. In fact, in his last talk with the disciples before his arrest, Jesus told them they would have anything but physical rest. "I have told you these things," Jesus warned, "so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world" (John 16:33).
The promise to Israel had been peace, prosperity and rest in the Promised Land in exchange for obedience to the old covenant and Law of Moses. The New Testament "rest" is a rest in Christ. It is the promise of the indwelling Holy Spirit and a spiritual rebirth that leads to eternal life in the kingdom of God. This is the ultimate "rest" of God. God’s purpose in Genesis 2:2-3, not completely understood under the old covenant, is now revealed and fulfilled in its final sense through Christ.
Part 2: The book of Hebrews
This is explained in Hebrews 3:1-4:11, which speaks of something vital Christians share—the "heavenly calling" we have in Christ (3:1). It is in these verses that we learn what the "rest" of Genesis 2:2-3 pictures to Christians. The subject at hand in these verses begins to be addressed under the word "today" in Hebrews 3:7, when the writer quotes Psalm 95:7-11:
Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion, during the time of testing in the desert, where your fathers tested and tried me and for forty years saw what I did. That is why I was angry with that generation, and I said, "Their hearts are always going astray, and they have not known my ways." So I declared an oath in my anger, "They shall never enter my rest."
Psalm 95 refers to the wilderness story as told in Exodus 17:1-7 and Numbers 20:1-13. There are several things we should notice about this passage in Hebrews. The author focuses on the introductory word of the quotation, "today," and the phrase in which it is found. He repeats the word "today" five times (3:7, 13, 15; twice in 4:7) and the phrase, "Today, if you hear his voice do not harden your hearts" three times (3:7, 15; 4:7). The phrase with its opening word "today" is significant for the writer in that it allows him to apply the promise of "rest" found in the Scripture to his readers. William Lane discusses this point in the Word Biblical Commentary on Hebrews:
"Today" provided the writer with a catchword for bringing the biblical statement before his hearers sharply. "Today" is no longer the today of the past, surveyed by the psalmist in his situation, but the today of the present, which continues to be conditioned by the voice of God that speaks day after day through the Scriptures and in the gospel tradition [page 87].
Lane makes the point that Psalm 95 "was a prophetic announcement that God was determining a future date for making his rest available" (page 100). The writer of Hebrews insists that the prophecy is being fulfilled in his day, in the church—and his readers need to heed its call. He wants his readers to make a connection between themselves and the experience of the Israelites in the wilderness. The author emphasizes a key concept: The Old Testament promise that God’s people would enter into "rest" is being fulfilled in the church and through Christ.
He begins by discussing God’s "rest" in terms of the promise of God to bring the rescued Israelites into the Promised Land. But as we know, and as the Scripture points out, the first generation of freed Israelites did not enter God’s "rest," but they died in the wilderness (Numbers 14:26-35). The Israelites Moses led out of Egypt did not enter into God’s "rest." The author wants his Christian readers to focus on the meaning of this tragedy. They are not to turn away from the living God (3:12) or be "hardened by sin’s deceitfulness" (3:13). Rather, they are to "hold firmly till the end" their first confidence (3:14) so that they may enter into God’s "rest."
The writer summarizes his admonition by saying, "Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it" (4:1). The readers of Hebrews are encouraged to keep up their faith and hope in Christ. Otherwise, as the unbelieving Israelites in Moses’ day lost their opportunity to enter the rest in Canaan, the believers may forfeit the greater blessings of the new age "rest."
From the beginning
The author of Hebrews then turns to a discussion of God’s "rest" from another point of view. He says that this "rest"—whatever it is—has been available to humanity since the beginning: "His [God’s] work has been finished since the creation of the world. For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: ‘And on the seventh day God rested from all his work’" (4:3-4).
The "somewhere" is Genesis 2:2. In the days when Hebrews was written, the Scriptures were written on scrolls. It was much more difficult to look up specific passages, so writers often quoted passages from memory. But here is our familiar Scripture, and the one we sought to understand in terms of its meaning for Christians. We can understand the "rest" described in Genesis 2:2-3 as the archetype of all later experiences of rest—including the various rest commands given at Sinai, the actual physical rest Israel received from its enemies under Joshua (a type of Christ), and the promised future rest of the kingdom of God.
From a Christian perspective, the Genesis "rest" of God, applied to God’s creative purpose in Genesis 2:2, can be seen to typify the spiritual salvation of the people of God. That means the weekly Sabbath rest (along with the other rest commands in the Law of Moses) is a lesser expression—a shadow, as it were—of the true "rest" symbolically inaugurated at the seventh day of creation. This makes the weekly Sabbath a metaphor of the Genesis "rest" of God, as was the Canaan rest.
The idea of the Genesis rest is that, beginning with the seventh day of creation, God ceased creating. He continues in a state of nonwork so far as further creating things physical is concerned. However, this doesn’t mean God has been idle. Leon Morris points this out in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary on Hebrews:
It is worth noticing that in the creation story each of the first six days is marked by the refrain "And there was evening, and there was morning." However, this is lacking in the account of the seventh day. There we simply read that God rested from all his work. This does not mean that God entered a state of idleness, for there is a sense in which he is continually at work (John 5:17). But the completion of creation marks the end of a magnificent whole.... So we should think of the rest as something like the satisfaction that comes from accomplishment, from the completion of a task, from the exercise of creativity [page 41].
F.F. Bruce also explained what this means in the volume on Hebrews in The New International Commentary on the New Testament:
When we read that God "rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done" (Gen. 2:2), we are to understand that hebegan to rest then; the fact that he is never said to have completed his rest and resumed his work of creation implies that his rest continues still, and may be shared by those who respond to his overtures with faith and obedience [page 106].
Thus, God’s "rest" has been available from the time the creation was finished—from the foundation of the world. Even though it has been available, very few people entered into it before Jesus’ death and resurrection. The offer of entering this "rest" still stands. The writer of Hebrews makes this point by saying: "It still remains that some will enter that rest" (4:6). Whatever this "rest" is, the writer is emphasizing that it is—at the time of writing—a promise his readers can take advantage of. In fact, they must take advantage of it, and not fail to achieve the "rest" because of disobedience (4:11).
Joshua’s "rest"
The author of Hebrews must have realized as he wrote that, on the surface, there had been an apparent large-scale exception to his claim that no people had ever entered a "rest" of God. After all, the second generation of Israelites who were saved from Egypt did enter the Promised Land under Joshua. We read that under Joshua "the Lord had given Israel rest from all their enemies around them" (Joshua 23:1). But the writer of Hebrews quickly points out that this is not the kind of "rest" he has in mind, or one that constituted God’s ultimate objective—the "rest" promised to Christians. Hundreds of years after Joshua led the Israelites into the rest of the Promised Land, the Psalmist urged people to enter a divine rest, and later still, the author of Hebrews was insisting that there is a "rest" its readers must yet enter into. Clearly, there is more to the "rest" in question than mere entry into Canaan. Hebrews tells us: "For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day. There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God" (4:8-9).
As it turns out, Israel had not secured the true "rest" after all. Thus, the writer can exhort his readers to seek, obtain and hold on to this superior "rest" in Christ. This is the true "rest" to which Genesis 2:2-3, the literal Sabbath, the other festival rests, the Wilderness experience, the Joshua rest, and the prophecy of Psalm 95 all looked forward to. He is interested in the redemptive and eternal rest in the kingdom of God, of which the weekly Sabbath and Canaan rests were but symbols.
William Lane, in the Hebrews commentary in the Word Biblical Commentary, explains why the Joshua rest was but a type of the true "rest":
The settlement of Canaan did not mark the fulfillment of the divine promise but pointed to another, more fundamental reality. If in fact Joshua had achieved the promised rest, there would have been no need for the renewal of the promise in Ps 95. Accordingly, the experience of rest in Canaan was only a type or symbol of the complete rest that God intended for his people, which was prefigured in the Sabbath rest of God [page 101].
We have now come from Genesis 2:2-3 to Hebrews 4:9-11, and we see something interesting. The author is not telling his readers to keep a weekly seventh-day Sabbath holy by resting on it. He is not talking about the weekly Sabbath at all. Rather, he is making the point that there is a spiritual "rest" that God’s people should be entering into. It is the heavenly counterpart of the earthly Canaan, and this is the goal of the people of God today—to achieve this present and eternal rest. The epistle of Hebrews has made this point by creating an analogy between the Israelites entering the Promised Land and Christians entering the better promise of a new-covenant spiritual "rest."
A present "rest"?
The Promised Land was a physical type or foreshadowing of a spiritual "rest" that the Israelites had not yet entered. And the weekly Sabbath was a temporal foreshadowing of the spiritual "rest" that God wants his people to enjoy. Christians have entered God’s "rest" by their faith in Jesus Christ. "Now we who have believed enter [or, "are entering"] that rest," the writer insists (4:3). Christians have the real rest, the spiritual rest, and do not need to observe shadows of it, neither geographically nor temporally. Jesus himself during his ministry had promised a rest for the spirit:
Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls (Matthew 11:28-29).
Leon Morris points out in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary that the word for "enter" in Hebrews 4:3 is in the present tense. This would mean the author of Hebrews was suggesting that his readers were already in the process of entering the "rest" of salvation that Jesus had promised. Some commentators agree that the Hebrews 4:3 "rest" into which Christians have entered begins now, in this life. Leon Morris quotes Hugh Montefiore on this point:
Contrary to some commentators, the Greek means neither that they are certain to enter, nor that they will enter, but that they are already in process of entering [page 40].
In fairness, Morris points out that some other commentators feel that the "rest" is something that occurs in the future. The present tense used here, they insist, is meant to be applied only in a generalizing sense. Morris concludes by saying:
Either view is defensible and probably much depends on our idea of the "rest." If it lies beyond death, then obviously "rest" must be understood in terms of the future. But if it is a present reality, then believers are entering it now [page 40].
We enter now
The view of this paper is that Christians have begun to enter their spiritual "rest" now. We are receiving some of the blessings of salvation, even though we do not yet enjoy them in their fullness. Peter says that Christ "has given us a new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" (1 Peter 1:3). Paul says God "has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves" (Colossians 1:13). The author of Hebrews says that we are "the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven" (12:23).
It is in part a question of how we understand when the kingdom of God comes—now or in the future? The answer is both. The kingdom is already, but not yet. There is a sense that the kingdom is both present and yet obviously only future in its full reality. Christians can be said to live in the tension between promise and fulfillment, between the already and the not yet, between the glimmer and the reality. But they have nevertheless entered the "rest," even if only in an imperfect and qualified way. The spiritual realities we already enjoy, although incomplete, are enough that we do not need to observe the physical symbols and rituals of the old covenant.
We have already been invited to enter God’s end-of-creation, the Genesis 2:2-3 "rest," by believing in the Son of God. By faith, we have joined with him in his "rest." By faith, we have become new creations—created anew. Our re-creation is not yet complete, but we already have been given entrance, through Christ, into God’s kingdom "rest."
The writer of Hebrews does not state how he views the time in which the "rest" takes place. His concern is with the spiritual reality, not the physical shadow. But as we’ve seen, his concern seems to be with the present time—with today. He no doubt understands that the fullness of rest comes only with a future resurrection (10:37-38; 12:26). But his point of view in Hebrews 3 and 4 is the present time, the time for which he is writing. The writer is thinking of the salvation "rest" as beginning in the present. Otherwise, one can be misled about which "rest" he is interested in—the spiritual one or a physical one such as the weekly Sabbath day.
One traditional commentary, the Critical, Experimental and Practical Commentary by Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, became confused on this issue and came (this paper concludes) to a wrong conclusion:
It is Jesus, the antitype of Joshua, who leads us into the heavenly rest. This verse [4:9] indirectly establishes the obligation of the Sabbath; for the type continues until the antitype supersedes it: so legal sacrifices continued till the great antitypical sacrifice superseded it. As then the antitypical Sabbath rest will not be till Christ comes to usher us into it, the typical earthly Sabbath must continue till then [page 537].
The authors, we believe, have erred. Influenced by the Puritans, they were thinking of a Sunday Sabbath, and reading their own opinions into the text. The principle they enunciate is erroneous. The type does not continue until the antitype supersedes it. Various Old Testament rituals pictured purity and holiness, and even though we do not yet see complete purity and holiness in the church, the rituals are obsolete. More correctly, types continue only as long as God says they do, and God has declared the old covenant obsolete. It has served its purpose, even though God’s plan is not yet complete. Moreover, true spiritual rest is found through faith in Christ, and Christ has already come. The antitype has arrived. Christ has already led us into the heavenly rest just as he is already our sacrifice for sin. We have come to Christ and he has given us rest—seated us in the heavenly realms (Ephesians 2:6). This argues against the commentary’s claim that the literal Sabbath is in force. The antitypical salvation rest has already been ushered in, albeit incompletely. Thus, the shadow (the literal Sabbath) is no longer required.
No matter how the writer of Hebrews conceives of the future "rest" in the post-resurrection kingdom of God, he is not concerned to discuss it in chapters 3 and 4. He is interested in his readers who are alive when he writes—and who need to take hold of the promise of spiritual "rest" in this age. F.F. Bruce agreed that the future rest is not in view here. He stated the following in his commentary on Hebrews in The New International Commentary on the New Testament:
The identification of the rest of God in the Epistle to the Hebrews with a coming millennium on earth has, indeed, been ably defended; but it involves the importation into the epistle of a concept which in fact is alien to it [pages 106-107].
The writer of Hebrews is not so much concerned with the future as with the present spiritual state of his readers. "Tomorrow," so to speak, is not in his view in the passage we are studying. That’s why he stresses the word "today." It was the privilege of the readers to enter God’s "rest" then—and it is our privilege to do so now. For us, today is "today," not some future time. The promise of entering God’s "rest" remains valid for each generation—and is repeated to each successive generation—in the church age.
Rest and work
Hebrews 4:9-11 is telling us we have entered into God’s promised "rest," the one he prophetically inaugurated on the seventh day of creation. This is the writer’s main theme. The epistle has already noted that God’s "work has been finished since the creation of the world" (4:3). That is, the "rest" of salvation has been offered and promised to humanity since the foundation of the world. It was, in a manner of speaking, a work of creation, inaugurated with humanity and for humanity. Donald Guthrie writes the following on this point:
What believers can now enter is none other than the same kind of rest which the Creator enjoyed when he had completed his works, which means that the rest idea is of completion and not of inactivity. . . .It is important to note that the "rest" is not something new that has not been known in experience until Christ came. It has been available throughout the whole of man’s history. This reference back to the creation places the idea on the broadest possible basis and would seem to suggest that it was part of God’s intention for man. "Rest" is a quality that has eluded man’s quest, and in fact cannot be attained except through Christ [Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, "Hebrews," page 113].
As long as we have faith in Christ—the main point of Hebrews—no matter what day of the week it is, we have entered God’s "rest" and we are resting from our own works. "We who have believed enter that rest. . . .Anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his" (4:3, 10). What does the author mean by "work"? He is not discussing the question of employment on the weekly Sabbath day. That is not his interest. (He has been encouraging his readers to enter the spiritual "rest" of salvation throughout Hebrews 3 and 4.) The writer of Hebrews wants his readers to stop putting their faith in the things that humans do, such as the works of the old covenant—and to place their faith in Christ as Savior. He wants them to look to the work of Christ, which gives forgiveness and empowerment through the Holy Spirit, allowing us to enter the true spiritual "rest."
In comparison to Christ, the writer has a low view of the "works" of the Law of Moses. He says of the Law in general and the Levitical priesthood as a whole:
The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced by which we draw near to God (7:18-19).
The author of Hebrews seems to be suggesting that the people to whom he wrote should rest from the ceremonial "work" they needed to do under the Mosaic Law. Their "work" in such things as offering sacrifices could not save nor endear them to God. They were saved by grace through faith in Christ, and were endeared to God by that same grace.
The weekly Sabbath?
The Jewish Christians or Gentile believers to whom Hebrews was written were already attracted to Judaistic practices. This is clear from reading the book. It was written to show the church why Judaistic practices were not necessary for Christians to perform. The individuals to whom the book was written would have already been observing the Sabbath day and would not need any admonishment to rest on this day. Even the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary understands this point. We find this explanation given for Hebrews 4:9 on page 423:
Certainly, in writing to Jews, the author of Hebrews would not consider it necessary to prove to them that Sabbathkeeping "remaineth." If the conclusion of the extended argument beginning with ch. 3:7 is that Sabbathkeeping remains for the people of God, it would seem that the writer of Hebrews is guilty of a non sequitur, for the conclusion does not follow logically from the argument. There would have been no point in so labored an effort to persuade the Jews to do what they were already doing—observing the seventh-day Sabbath. . . .What relationship a protracted argument designed to prove that Sabbath observance remains an obligation to the Christian church might have to the declared theme of chs. 3 and 4—the ministry of Christ as our great High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary—is obscure indeed.
The writer of Hebrews is interested in the spiritual or heavenly meaning of such things as the Sabbath and animal sacrifices, not their literal observances, which are shadows of the true "rest" and sacrifice for sin. In fact, the very Israelites who had been given the Sabbath (the generation that left Egypt) failed to enter God’s "rest." So did the Jews who strictly kept the Sabbath day when Hebrews was written. Keeping the Sabbath does not automatically bring someone to God. Why, then, would the writer of Hebrews insist on it? The fact is, the literal seventh-day Sabbath is not in his view at all.
The book of Hebrews, considered as a whole, tells us that the practices of the Mosaic Law are obsolete (7:11-12, 18-19). This would refer to the works or observances of the Law (of which the Sabbath is one example), as opposed to its great moral principles. These are eternal principles that define our relationship with God and fellow human beings. They precede the old covenant, were imbedded into that covenant, and remain as fundamental principles of the new covenant, which made the old passé.
The new covenant theme of Hebrews suggests—though it doesn’t directly make an issue of this—that the weekly Sabbath day as described in the old covenant has been superseded by a better promise. In particular, Hebrews 4:9-11 tells us that the various allusions of "rest" in the Old Testament, including Genesis 2:2-3 and the weekly Sabbath, picture a spiritual reality to Christians—the eternal rest of God. But that is all Hebrews tells us. It does not seem to address the issue of whether the weekly Sabbath should be kept or not. This is not the author’s interest.
In conclusion
Let us now close the circle between Genesis 2:2-3 and Hebrews 3:1-4:11. We have seen that God had given Israel physical rest in the Promised Land under the leadership of Joshua, just as Adam and Eve would have had physical "rest" in the Garden of Eden. But the first humans, like all others after them, sinned. Adam and Eve and their descendents were cursed and lost their "rest" until God saved Israel from slavery and the nation entered the Promised Land.
As part of its covenantal law, God gave Israel various rest days and years to commemorate their having achieved physical blessings (the "rest") in the Lord (Deuteronomy 5:15). The writer of Genesis saw this reality—which the rest days (especially the weekly Sabbath) commemorated—as a fulfillment of God’s original purpose at the creation. The writer included the statement about the symbolic meaning of the Sabbath (that is, about God’s "rest"—Exodus 20:11) in his description of the creation in Genesis 2:2-3. This was then a prophetical statement of God’s purpose of providing physical bounty to his human creatures, now fulfilled in Israel.
What the writer of Genesis did not clearly see, since he was an individual who lived under the old covenant, is that God’s real purpose was to provide humanity with another "rest"—a true eternal rest. This more fundamental purpose was fulfilled in Christ, and could be understood only after he had completed his redemptive work. Thus, Christ is the true Sabbath rest of Genesis 2:2-3—promised to us from the beginning (Matthew 25:34; Ephesians 1:4-6; Hebrews 4:3; Revelation 13:8). This is how the author of Hebrews (in 3:1-4:11) understands that "rest."
Thanks be to God that through his love he gave us his Son, allowing us in his mercy to begin to enter into his eternal rest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two Greek Words for "Rest"
We should briefly take up the issue of the Greek words for "rest" used in Hebrews 4:9-10. We quote here the verses in question and show the two Greek words being used: "There remains…a Sabbath-rest [sabbatismos] for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest [katapausin] also rests from his own work" (4:9-10).
A Greek-English interlinear of the New Testament shows that the Greek word katapausin is used to denote "rest" throughout Hebrews 3:7-4:11. There is one exception, in 4:9, as shown above. Here, sabbatismos is used, and it is translated "Sabbath-rest" in the New International Version. The word is formed from the verb sabbatizo, which means to "keep/observe/celebrate the Sabbath."
The only time in the Bible that sabbatismos is used is here in Hebrews 4:9. The word is not found in ancient Greek literature until well after the time when Hebrews was written. Some decades later, sabbatismos is found in Plutarch as part of a list of superstitious practices. In his work, the word signifies weekly Sabbath observance. In later Christian documents, sabbatismos sometimes indicates the celebration or festivity associated with the Sabbath day.
With this in mind, William Lane translates Hebrews 4:9 as: "There remains a Sabbath celebration for the people of God." He points out that the use ofsabbatismos is meant to "define more precisely the character of the future rest promised to the people of God" (Word Biblical Commentary, volume 47A, "Hebrews," page 101). The word conveyed something about the promised spiritual rest that katapausin would not have done—"the special aspect of festivity and joy, expressed in the adoration and praise of God" for his wonderful grace (page 102).
On one level, the writer of Hebrews seems to have used the two Greek words interchangeably. In 4:9, he says that a promised Sabbath-rest (sabbatismos) remains for the people of God to enter into, and this same rest is called God’s katapausin "rest." Some scholars suggest that the writer of Hebrews coined the word. He wanted to differentiate between the ultimate spiritual "rest" and the Promised Land rest into which Israel went. If so, the author may also have been making the same difference between the true spiritual "rest" and the weekly Sabbath rest. That is to say, the Sabbath day is a metaphor of the true rest in the same way that the Israelites entering the Promised Land under Joshua was also a metaphor for spiritual rest.
Since the seventh-day Sabbath is but a symbol of the true spiritual rest, the writer would have no logical reason to stress the keeping of the weekly Sabbath. Like the Promised Land, the Sabbath day itself was a shadow that prefigured the coming reality—the spiritual "rest" of the Christian in Christ.
To summarize: The spiritual rest of salvation into which God’s people are entering is a sabbatismos—a "sabbath keeping"—in the sense that it is a participation in God’s own "rest," which we enter by faith (4:3). "Anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his" (4:10). That is to say, the sabbatismos rest of God described in Hebrews 4:9 refers to the salvation "rest" into which all Christians have entered. Of course, as mentioned earlier, the culmination of this rest does not occur until the resurrection. But, upon conversion, we have begun the journey.
The weekly Old Testament Sabbath points to the blessing and joy of the spiritual "rest" Christians have in Christ. This may be why the author of Hebrews coined the word sabbatismos—making a play off the word for the Sabbath day (sabbaton). That is, sabbatismos stressed the joy, the celebration, the peace, the jubilation of the spiritual "rest" Christians enjoy. (We’ve put "rest" in quotes here because it does not really mean inactivity.)
Hebrews is not clear as to the writer’s attitude toward the weekly Sabbath day. Perhaps he wanted his readers, who were attracted to old covenant customs, to understand the Sabbath’s true meaning in the light of the Christ event , but without having to make an issue of whether it needs to be kept or not. This would certainly be in the spirit of Romans 14, in which the apostle Paul avoided making one’s view of "sacred days" a test or issue of faith or fellowship.
The Sabbath is meaningful on its own terms, just as the Festival of Tabernacles or the Passover-Exodus is. After all, the Sabbath stands as a metaphor of the whole purpose and meaning of redemption, as do the sacrifices and other old covenant, Mosaic institutions. They foreshadowed the true spiritual "rest" we have in Christ, which includes a "resting" in forgiveness of sin and "resting" from sin itself through the indwelling Holy Spirit.
But Hebrews 4:9 issues no command about keeping or not keeping the Sabbath. In fact, the book as a whole makes the point that all the old covenant institutions are obsolete now that the reality has come in Christ. The verse in question cannot be used as a proof-text to insist that Christians keep a weekly seventh-day Sabbath rest. The verses in question do not exhort us to keep an old covenant Sabbath, but they do admonish us to enter the spiritual "rest" of God by having faith in Christ.
1The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, volume 3, page 219, edited by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, gives the following explanation ofsabbatismos:
1. The NT offers in Hebrews 4:9 the oldest documentation of the noun sabbatismos, which occurs several times in post-NT early Christian writings independently of Hebrews 4:9 (e.g., Justin Dial. 23:3; Origen Orat. 27:16; Epiphanius Haer. xxx.2.2; lxvi 85:9;Acts (Martyrdom) of Peter and Paul 1; Apostolic Constitutions ii.36.2; pseudo-Macarius (Symeon) Homily 12.2.4.... At present,sabbatismos has been documented in non-Christian writings only in Plutarch Superst. 3 (Moralia 166a).
The noun is derived from the verb sabbatizo, which in the LXX [Septuagint] appears as the translation of Hebrew sabbat. The vb. means: a) "celebrate/observe the sabbath" (Exod 16:30; Lev 23:32; 2 Macc 6:6; so also Ign. Magn. 9:1; Pap. Oxy. 1,1.2; Justin Dial.10:1 and passim), b) "observe (sabbath) rest" (Lev 26:34f.; 2 Chr 36:21; 1 Esdr 1:55).
Accordingly, the substantive means sabbath observance (thus in the non-NT passages mentioned) and sabbath rest (thus the understanding of sabbatismos in Heb 4:9 by Origen Cels. v.59; Selecta in Exod on 16:23 [PG XII, 289b]).
2. In Heb 4:9 sabbatismos encompasses both sabbath rest and (cultic) sabbath observance. The word is neither identical in meaning nor interchangeable with katapausis (3:11, 19; 4:1, 3, 5, 10f); it designates more closely what the people of God should expect when they enter the katapausis of God (cf. 4:9 with v.6a). Just as God rested on the seventh day of creation from all his works, so also will believers find the eternal sabbath rest on the day of the completion of salvation in God’s "place of rest" (see 4:10). Quietistic or mystic elements have nothing to do with this expectation. The statement in Heb 4:9f. remains dependent on a Jewish sabbath theology that associates the idea of sabbath rest with ideas of worship and praise of God (Jub. 2:21; 50:9; Bib. Ant. 11:8; 2 Macc 8:27; cf. also 1 Enoch 41:7). Accordingly, the author of Hebrews understands by sabbatismos the eternal sabbath celebration of salvation, i.e., the perfected community’s worship before God's throne.
Samenvatting:
Sabbat werd aan Israel gegeven zodat ze Gods rust konden binnengaan ondanks de zondeval. De sabbath voorafschaduwde ook de rust in het beloofde land en de rust in Christus. Eenmaal in het beloofde land was de rust niet voltooid, ze waren immers nog niet volledig in Gods rust binnengegaan omdat Jezus nog niet gekomen was. Dankzij Jezus is de rust die verloren was na de zondeval volledig hersteld. ALs we Jezus aannemen gaan we Gods' rust binnen.
Hebreeers 4 roept niet op om de wekelijkse sabbat te vieren. Je moet het artikel zelf maar eventjes lezen.
Sabbat werd aan Israel gegeven zodat ze Gods rust konden binnengaan ondanks de zondeval. De sabbath voorafschaduwde ook de rust in het beloofde land en de rust in Christus. Eenmaal in het beloofde land was de rust niet voltooid, ze waren immers nog niet volledig in Gods rust binnengegaan omdat Jezus nog niet gekomen was. Dankzij Jezus is de rust die verloren was na de zondeval volledig hersteld. ALs we Jezus aannemen gaan we Gods' rust binnen.
Hebreeers 4 roept niet op om de wekelijkse sabbat te vieren. Je moet het artikel zelf maar eventjes lezen.
Ik ben bezig het te lezen maar het is een beetje teveel van het goede zo laat.quote:
Samenvatting:
Sabbat werd aan Israel gegeven zodat ze Gods rust konden binnengaan ondanks de zondeval. De sabbath voorafschaduwde ook de rust in het beloofde land en de rust in Christus. Eenmaal in het beloofde land was de rust niet voltooid, ze waren immers nog niet volledig in Gods rust binnengegaan omdat Jezus nog niet gekomen was. Dankzij Jezus is de rust die verloren was na de zondeval volledig hersteld. ALs we Jezus aannemen gaan we Gods' rust binnen.
Hebreeers 4 roept niet op om de wekelijkse sabbat te vieren. Je moet het artikel zelf maar eventjes lezen.
Je moet me echter nog steeds uitleggen waarom ik niet wekelijks de rust van de sabbat in zou willen gaan, zowel om te stoppen met werken en verfrist te worden, als om de hemelse rust nu al op aarde te ervaren, en als voorproef op de toekomst, ook om mn broers en zussen in Christus te zien en tijd met hen te besteden (die op dezelfde dag niet werken, zodat we elkaar niet constant mislopen), God aanbidden. Wat je me eigenlijk uit zou moeten leggen is, waarom zou God zo gemeen zijn geweest om de sabbat te schrappen?
Ik vind het lief van Hem dat hij mij gebiedt de sabbat te houden. Stel dat iemand van mij eist dat ik 7 dagen per week moet werken, dan kan ik op grond van de autoriteit van de God van het universum weigeren. En niets dat hij er tegen zal kunnen doen, God zal mij helpen.
[ Bericht 5% gewijzigd door Ali_Kannibali op 27-02-2013 00:27:28 ]
Het is bewonderingswaardig om een dag voor God opzij te zetten, maar niet binnen de sektarische context van het zevende-dags adventisme waarbij het vieren van de sabbat een voorwaarde is om gered te worden, waar niet-sabbatvierders naar de hel gaan, waarbij niet-adventisten worden beschouwd als Babyloniers etc. De sabbat was een rituele schaduw-wet die vervult is in Christus. Jezus is nu onze sabbat en hij is elke dag beschikbaar, 7 dagen per week.quote:
[..]
Ik ben bezig het te lezen maar het is een beetje teveel van het goede zo laat.
Je moet me echter nog steeds uitleggen waarom ik niet wekelijks de rust van de sabbat in zou willen gaan, zowel om te stoppen met werken en verfrist te worden, als om de hemelse rust nu al op aarde te ervaren, en als voorproef op de toekomst, ook om mn broers en zussen in Christus te zien en tijd met hen te besteden (die op dezelfde dag niet werken, zodat we elkaar niet constant mislopen), God aanbidden. Wat je me eigenlijk uit zou moeten leggen is, waarom zou God zo gemeen zijn geweest om de sabbat te schrappen?
Ik vind het lief van Hem dat hij mij gebiedt de sabbat te houden. Stel dat iemand van mij eist dat ik 7 dagen per week moet werken, dan kan ik op grond van de autoriteit van de God van het universum weigeren. En niets dat hij er tegen zal kunnen doen, God zal mij helpen.
Ik raad je van harte aan om je bij een evangelische kerk aan te sluiten, eventueel eentje die ook op sabbat diensten draait als je je daar prettig bij voelt.
Haha nee, want geen enkele andere kerk dan de ZDA is profetisch. Behalve de rooms katholieke kerk, maar we weten beide wie dat is.quote:
[..]
Het is bewonderingswaardig om een dag voor God opzij te zetten, maar niet binnen de sektarische context van het zevende-dags adventisme waarbij het vieren van de sabbat een voorwaarde is om gered te worden, waar niet-sabbatvierders naar de hel gaan, waarbij niet-adventisten worden beschouwd als Babyloniers etc. De sabbat was een rituele schaduw-wet die vervult is in Christus. Jezus is nu onze sabbat en hij is elke dag beschikbaar, 7 dagen per week.
Ik raad je van harte aan om je bij een evangelische kerk aan te sluiten, eventueel eentje die ook op sabbat diensten draait als je je daar prettig bij voelt.
Dus nee, ik blijf bij ZDA.
De schaduw van de sabbat is inderdaad vervuld in Christus.
De nieuwe betekenis van de sabbat is dan de rust door recreatie in Christus en de toekomstige hemelse rust.
Ik vind er niets bewonderenswaardigs aan om een dag opzij te zetten voor God. Ik zou niet weten hoe ik het leven door zou moeten komen zonder.
Ik heb ook een interessant en lang artikel.
The Gospels—Jesus and the Sabbath
Jesus' most memorable teaching about the Sabbath came in the context of controversy. Sampey remarked,
It is worthy of note that, while Jesus pushed the moral precepts of the
Decalogue into the inner realm of thought and desire, thus making the
requirement more difficult and the law more exacting, He fought for a
more liberal and lenient interpretation of the law of the Sabbath.
Rigorous sabbatarians must look elsewhere for a champion of their
views.309
This may be so, particularly in reference to the many regulations which had been added to the Sabbath law in the various rabbinic traditions. And "while none of [Jesus'] actions clearly infringes the written law, the non-emergency healings of Jesus certainly 'stretch' it."310 But Jesus' comparative "leniency" with regard to the Sabbath must be understood within its proper framework.
In Matthew 12:1-8 (cf. Mark 2:23-28; and Luke 6:1-5), Jesus comes under attack for his disciples' actions. On a Sabbath day, while walking along the edge of a grainfield, the disciples plucked some of the heads of grain to eat. Luke adds the detail that the disciples were rubbing the grain in their hands (6:1), doubtless to winnow away the chaff. The Pharisees were aghast, and since it was Jesus' disciples who had done this, the Pharisees rightly assumed that it was with Jesus' approval; implicitly, they accused Jesus of contravening the Mosaic law. Moses specifically allowed one to take of his neighbor's grain by hand (Deut. 23:25), but harvesting on the Sabbath was specifically forbidden (Exod. 34:21). Further, the Pharisees may well have perceived the disciples' "rubbing out of the grain as threshing and their blowing away of the chaff as winnowing."311 It is significant also that the charge was never brought against Jesus or his disciples formally; it evidently would not have stood even in their own religious court.312 The disciples' actions were hardly what was in view in the Mosaic prohibition.
What first strikes us about Jesus' response is that he does not answer on these grounds. He does not argue that they have over-extended Moses, however accurate such an argument would have been. Instead, he argues from 1 Samuel 21:1-6 that he constitutes an exceptional case.313 David and his soldiers, during their flight from King Saul, took and ate the showbread in the house of God. This action constituted a violation of the law; the consecrated bread was to be eaten by the priests only (Lev. 24:5-9). Yet David, when hungry and in need, allowed—demanded—this exception from the priest, and that on the Sabbath day.314 So Jesus' opponents are faced with a dilemma: they must choose between their traditions and interpretations of the law on the one hand, and David their great and revered king on the other. In opting for David, they would thereby exonerate the activities of Jesus' disciples, whom they have already pronounced guilty, and implicitly acknowledge the narrowness of their own teachers. The conclusion was an obvious one, however difficult it would have been for them to admit it.
The justification for the actions of David and his men, and by extension, the actions of Jesus' disciples, is still unexplained. Jesus makes mention of David's hunger, thus demonstrating a parallel situation. David "needed" (chreian eschen) to eat, and so now do Jesus' disciples. But this is not the point at issue, really, for unlike David's men, the disciples of Jesus were not hungry to the point of exhaustion. David's was an extreme case; not so for the disciples of Jesus. By implication Jesus lends some insight into the nature of the Sabbath law itself. If the Sabbath were, as is often assumed, a part of God's "unchangeable moral law," it would be very difficult indeed to admit such an exception as this, especially given that this is an exception grounded in human concerns.315 Jesus does not classify the Sabbath as unchanging moral law, and this brought him into conflict with the Pharisees. The Sabbath was not an end in itself, an absolute that admitted no exceptions. "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27). It was intended for man's benefit, his well-being. To elevate it to a place of tyranny over man is to make more of it than was intended; indeed, it would overthrow it altogether.316
More to the point, it is Jesus who possesses the authority to decide these things—he is "Lord, even [ascensive kai] of the Sabbath" (Matt. 12:8). "As lord of the sabbath he stands above the law and implicitly claims the right to define it . . . . It is the Son of Man who decides what is and what is not acceptable behavior on the sabbath."317 That is, the question is not so much Jesus' relation to the Sabbath but its relation to him. As B. B. Warfield stated, "It [the Sabbath] belongs to him. He is the Lord of it; master of it—for that is what 'Lord' means. He may do with it what he will: abolish it if he chooses."318 Jesus "continually subordinates the Sabbath to the demands of His own mission."319 It is not so much a question of the extent of Sabbath regulations but of Jesus' lordship. In the words of Plummer, "The Son of man controls the sabbath, not is controlled by it."320 This is the point at issue, and this is the high point of Jesus' defense (hoste, Mark 2:28 321). If David had the right to make an exception to Israel's ceremonial laws, Jesus has more. Jesus' defense claims the highest possible ground: he has an authority that surpasses even the Sabbath itself. His greatness gives certain rights to his disciples: they may pluck this grain and eat, even on this day of rest.
As a second illustration of his point, Jesus continues, "'Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?'" (Matt. 12:5). The priests continue their work on the Sabbath; indeed, on the Sabbath they are busier than on any other day! But this does not "profane" the Sabbath, for (it is implied) the temple takes precedence over the Sabbath. Again, Jesus claims higher ground—"in this place there is One greater than the temple'" (v. 6). Jesus' rights surpass not only those of the priests but even the temple itself. He is greater. He is greater than David, greater than Jonah (v. 41), greater than Solomon (v. 42), greater than the temple (v. 6), and greater than even the Sabbath (v. 8). Jesus justifies his disciples' actions on the ground of his unsurpassed lordship.322 "This does not mean that Jesus here actually breaks the Sabbath or overrides it, at least a far as Torah is concerned, but it does mean He claims authority to do so, and in a sense questions the Pharisees' right to question Him."323
Jesus only hints here that the Sabbath is being transformed. Some significant change is taking place. He does not specify exactly what that change is, but it is impossible to think that his lordship over the Sabbath will not be exercised in some way. A claim to authority over the Sabbath demands definition. Accordingly, there are some contextual clues as to what changes the Sabbath would undergo. In the preceding paragraph, Jesus offers "rest" to those who are weary (Matt. 11:28), and it is in connection with this ("at that time," 12:1) that Jesus asserts his lordship over the Sabbath. Matthew seems to imply that the "rest" which Jesus offers is that to which the Sabbath pointed. Here, in Jesus, the Sabbath finds its true meaning. Mark casts this incident more explicitly in redemptive-historical terms. The question of fasting was used to show something of the epochal significance of Jesus' person and presence on earth and the newness of this Messianic age (2:18-22—the question of fasting, the new cloth, the new wineskin). The epochal shift marked by the coming of Jesus Christ had ramifications even in regard to the Sabbath day and how it is to be observed in this age. The Lord Jesus has ushered in an age in which God's promised rest is realized. The fuller details of this await the apostolic writings (see below), but our Lord himself here lays the groundwork for that teaching. The statement, as it is, neither confirms nor disallows the continuation of Sabbath observance, in explicit terms. But it emphatically affirms Jesus' inherent right to do with the law as he pleases, and so the foundation for an epochal change is clearly implied. The arrival of God the Son has forever changed the whole significance of the Sabbath day. He has brought about that which it only anticipated.
It was most often Jesus' works of healing on the Sabbath that gave rise to controversy (e.g., Matt. 12:8-14/Mark3:1-6/Luke 6:6-11; 13:10; 14:1-6; John 9:1-41). Brown asserts that Jesus "went out of his way to heal on the Sabbath," but he offers no explicit support.324 He does note later that Jesus intends by his Sabbath healings to demonstrate his lordship over the day, and this may lend some weight to the point. Jesus remarked that it was "necessary" (dei) for the woman with the spirit of infirmity to be healed on the Sabbath, and Moo concludes from this that "Jesus regarded the day as a particularly appropriate time for his ministry of healing."325 It would seem, then, that Jesus' Sabbath healings are designed to illustrate the rest and relase from Satanic "bondage" (Luke 13:16) that Jesus brought and which is typified in the Sabbath. Jesus' emphasis in these passages, however, generally falls on the harshness of the rabbinic Sabbath regulations and the appropriateness of doing good on any day of the week, Sabbath included.
In John 5:1-18, however, there is a further twist. Jesus' emphasis here is similar to that of Matthew 12:1-8 (and parallels)—it is his inherent right to determine what is good on the Sabbath. "'My Father has been working until now, and I have been working'" (John 5:17). Moreover, his superior authority affects not only his own behavior on the Sabbath, but also that of others (namely, the man whom Jesus commanded to rise and carry his pallet). Beyond that, the illustrative function of his healings is something Jesus himself notes. This particular sickness was evidently due to sin (v. 14), and thus "this Sabbath cure is more directly related to the soteriological work for which the Lamb of God came into the world (1:29)."326 This is both Jesus' and his Father's "work"—a work which they had been at for some time. Presumably, this statement—"'My Father has been working until now, and I have been working'" (John 5:17)—points back to mankind's fall into sin and Genesis 3:15 and the work of redemption/rest which God then took up. It also presupposes a soteriological/eschatological view of Genesis 2:2-3.327 This is the Father's work which Jesus has come to do (John 4:34: 9:4), and it is a work of redemption (John 6:37-40). "Until now" seems to imply that the work is soon coming to completion; this Jesus affirms later—the work will be "finished" when he dies on the cross (John 19:30; cf. 17:4). With these connections in place we have clearer indication of the meaning of the Sabbath—it pointed to a finished work of God in providing redemptive rest for his people through the death of his Son.
Hebrews—Entering into Rest
Hebrews 3:7 - 4:13 confirms that our tracking of this theme has been on the right lines. First, the inspired writer explicitly connects the rest which we enjoy by faith in Christ (4:2, 6), with God's creation rest (vv. 3-4), with the rest of the land under Joshua (v. 5), and with the rest of the Sabbath (sabbatismos, v. 9). For the writer to the Hebrews, this observation arises from a simple chronological reading of the Bible. He notes that in Psalm 95:7b-11, the psalmist invites the people of his day to partake of that rest which that first wilderness generation forfeited because of rebellion and unbelief. He further notes that the psalmist inserts the word "today." From this, he reasons that since in the day of the psalmist (tenth century B.C.) God's rest was still available, then clearly Joshua's rest, although of a piece with it, did not exhaust it (v. 6). He further concludes that this offer of Sabbath-rest (sabbatismos, v. 9) "remains" for us "today." In calling the creation rest a "Sabbath-rest" (v. 9) he links together the ideas of creation rest, the Sabbath day, the rest of Canaan, and the soteric rest that is yet available.
There are indicators that this rest involves still more, a future blessing of which all these have been but a preview.328 This rest "remains" for the people of God (v. 9). This rest is that of Genesis 2:3 (v. 9); that is, it is the final goal for which history was created. Verse 11 also hints of the believer's prospect of rest—"Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience." The concept is an eschatological one, and all these previous "rests" are but pointers and samples of it.329 The point is that this rest is available "today," for those who believe (v. 2) and "cease from their works" (v. 10). So the writer to the Hebrews, like the psalmist, extends the same invitation along with the same warning—"The gospel is preached to you, and this rest is available; be careful that you do not miss it by unbelief as they did." All this is to say that the creation Sabbath portrays a rest which God intended to share with redeemed mankind; all Sabbaths and "rests" since have been in view of this. "Today" the rest of salvation—yes, the rest of the eschaton—is available to those who cease from works and believe.
NP,
Ik vind deze video ook wel interessant. Ik heb tot nog toe niet veel tijd besteed aan het doorgronden van de archeologische vondsten omtrent de bijbel.
[youtube][/youtube]
Ik vind deze video ook wel interessant. Ik heb tot nog toe niet veel tijd besteed aan het doorgronden van de archeologische vondsten omtrent de bijbel.
[youtube][/youtube]
Sommigen leren idd een nieuwe-covenant sabbath, ik ben meer een aanhanger van de nieuwe-covenant theologie waarbij het sabbatsgebod is afgeschaft. Maar een nieuw-covenant sabbat is in ieder geval stukken beter dan de wettistische zda-sabbat.
Wat doe je met deze tekst?
15 Want ziet, de HEERE zal met vuur komen, en Zijn wagenen als een wervelwind; om met grimmigheid Zijn toorn hiertoe te wenden, en Zijn schelding met vuurvlammen.
16 Want met vuur, en met Zijn zwaard zal de HEERE in het recht treden met alle vlees; en de verslagenen des HEEREN zullen vermenigvuldigd zijn.
17 Die zichzelven heiligen, en zichzelven reinigen in de hoven, achter een in het midden derzelve, die zwijnenvlees eten, en verfoeisel, en muizen; te zamen zullen zij verteerd worden, spreekt de HEERE.
18 Hun werken en hun gedachten! Het komt, dat Ik vergaderen zal alle heidenen en tongen, en zij zullen komen, en zij zullen Mijn heerlijkheid zien.
19 En Ik zal een teken aan hen zetten, en uit hen, die het ontkomen zullen zijn, zal Ik zenden tot de heidenen naar Tarsis, Pul, en Lud, de boogschutters, naar Tubal en Javan, tot de ver gelegen eilanden, die Mijn gerucht niet gehoord, noch Mijn heerlijkheid gezien hebben; en zij zullen Mijn heerlijkheid onder de heidenen verkondigen.
20 En zij zullen al uw broeders uit alle heidenen den HEERE ten spijsoffer brengen, op paarden, en op wagenen, en op rosbaren, en op muildieren, en op snelle lopers, naar Mijn heiligen berg toe, naar Jeruzalem, zegt de HEERE, gelijk als de kinderen Israëls het spijsoffer in een rein vat brengen ten huize des HEEREN.
21 En ook zal Ik uit dezelve enigen tot priesters en tot Levieten nemen, zegt de HEERE.
22 Want gelijk als die nieuwe hemel en die nieuwe aarde, die Ik maken zal, voor Mijn aangezicht zullen staan, spreekt de HEERE, alzo zal ook ulieder zaad en ulieder naam staan.
23 En het zal geschieden, dat van de ene nieuwe maan tot de andere, en van den enen sabbat tot den anderen, alle vlees komen zal om aan te bidden voor Mijn aangezicht, zegt de HEERE.
24 En zij zullen henen uitgaan, en zij zullen de dode lichamen der lieden zien, die tegen Mij overtreden hebben; want hun worm zal niet sterven, en hun vuur zal niet uitgeblust worden, en zij zullen allen vlees een afgrijzing wezen. Jesaja 66
Als we in de nieuwe hemel en nieuwe aarde sabbat vieren, waarom zou God vandaag de dag niet willen dat we het doen?
De kwestie is overigens niet of je alleen op de sabbat of 7 dagen per week de rust van Christus kan ervaren. Dat is 7 dagen per week.
Desondanks moeten we nog steeds ploeteren om brood op de plank te krijgen, de effecten van de zondeval zijn nog niet verdwenen. Zou God ons daar geen rust van willen geven om een feestdag te hebben met Hem en onze broers en zussen?
En leg nu voor eenmaal niet de focus op mij die een dag aan God wijdt, maar blijf bij het feit dat God een dag voor ons toegewijd heeft.
[ Bericht 2% gewijzigd door Ali_Kannibali op 27-02-2013 01:08:51 ]
15 Want ziet, de HEERE zal met vuur komen, en Zijn wagenen als een wervelwind; om met grimmigheid Zijn toorn hiertoe te wenden, en Zijn schelding met vuurvlammen.
16 Want met vuur, en met Zijn zwaard zal de HEERE in het recht treden met alle vlees; en de verslagenen des HEEREN zullen vermenigvuldigd zijn.
17 Die zichzelven heiligen, en zichzelven reinigen in de hoven, achter een in het midden derzelve, die zwijnenvlees eten, en verfoeisel, en muizen; te zamen zullen zij verteerd worden, spreekt de HEERE.
18 Hun werken en hun gedachten! Het komt, dat Ik vergaderen zal alle heidenen en tongen, en zij zullen komen, en zij zullen Mijn heerlijkheid zien.
19 En Ik zal een teken aan hen zetten, en uit hen, die het ontkomen zullen zijn, zal Ik zenden tot de heidenen naar Tarsis, Pul, en Lud, de boogschutters, naar Tubal en Javan, tot de ver gelegen eilanden, die Mijn gerucht niet gehoord, noch Mijn heerlijkheid gezien hebben; en zij zullen Mijn heerlijkheid onder de heidenen verkondigen.
20 En zij zullen al uw broeders uit alle heidenen den HEERE ten spijsoffer brengen, op paarden, en op wagenen, en op rosbaren, en op muildieren, en op snelle lopers, naar Mijn heiligen berg toe, naar Jeruzalem, zegt de HEERE, gelijk als de kinderen Israëls het spijsoffer in een rein vat brengen ten huize des HEEREN.
21 En ook zal Ik uit dezelve enigen tot priesters en tot Levieten nemen, zegt de HEERE.
22 Want gelijk als die nieuwe hemel en die nieuwe aarde, die Ik maken zal, voor Mijn aangezicht zullen staan, spreekt de HEERE, alzo zal ook ulieder zaad en ulieder naam staan.
23 En het zal geschieden, dat van de ene nieuwe maan tot de andere, en van den enen sabbat tot den anderen, alle vlees komen zal om aan te bidden voor Mijn aangezicht, zegt de HEERE.
24 En zij zullen henen uitgaan, en zij zullen de dode lichamen der lieden zien, die tegen Mij overtreden hebben; want hun worm zal niet sterven, en hun vuur zal niet uitgeblust worden, en zij zullen allen vlees een afgrijzing wezen. Jesaja 66
Als we in de nieuwe hemel en nieuwe aarde sabbat vieren, waarom zou God vandaag de dag niet willen dat we het doen?
De kwestie is overigens niet of je alleen op de sabbat of 7 dagen per week de rust van Christus kan ervaren. Dat is 7 dagen per week.
Desondanks moeten we nog steeds ploeteren om brood op de plank te krijgen, de effecten van de zondeval zijn nog niet verdwenen. Zou God ons daar geen rust van willen geven om een feestdag te hebben met Hem en onze broers en zussen?
En leg nu voor eenmaal niet de focus op mij die een dag aan God wijdt, maar blijf bij het feit dat God een dag voor ons toegewijd heeft.
[ Bericht 2% gewijzigd door Ali_Kannibali op 27-02-2013 01:08:51 ]
Isaiah, 66:22-23, does not indicate that New Covenant Christians will be keeping the Old Covenant 7th day Sabbath. Isaiah is an Old Covenant prophet describing things in Old Covenant terms that he and his immediate audience would easily understand. Thus he writes that in the New World the bondage of the past in Babylon will be forgotten. They will be full of joy. Babies will not die shortly after birth. Righteous adults will live long lives. They will no longer be slaves so that they will build homes and farm for themselves not harsh Babylonian masters. Their God will never abandon them as it seemed He did during the Babylonian Captivity. A great peace will envelop the people, and even the animals will live in peace with one another. Their God will be worshipped in Jerusalem by all people. This prophecy is not to be taken literally. Note that it is in earthly terms-Old Covenant terms. If we take this prophecy as literal we are presented with several problems concerning it vision of the New World.quote:
Wat doe je met deze tekst?
15 Want ziet, de HEERE zal met vuur komen, en Zijn wagenen als een wervelwind; om met grimmigheid Zijn toorn hiertoe te wenden, en Zijn schelding met vuurvlammen.
16 Want met vuur, en met Zijn zwaard zal de HEERE in het recht treden met alle vlees; en de verslagenen des HEEREN zullen vermenigvuldigd zijn.
17 Die zichzelven heiligen, en zichzelven reinigen in de hoven, achter een in het midden derzelve, die zwijnenvlees eten, en verfoeisel, en muizen; te zamen zullen zij verteerd worden, spreekt de HEERE.
18 Hun werken en hun gedachten! Het komt, dat Ik vergaderen zal alle heidenen en tongen, en zij zullen komen, en zij zullen Mijn heerlijkheid zien.
19 En Ik zal een teken aan hen zetten, en uit hen, die het ontkomen zullen zijn, zal Ik zenden tot de heidenen naar Tarsis, Pul, en Lud, de boogschutters, naar Tubal en Javan, tot de ver gelegen eilanden, die Mijn gerucht niet gehoord, noch Mijn heerlijkheid gezien hebben; en zij zullen Mijn heerlijkheid onder de heidenen verkondigen.
20 En zij zullen al uw broeders uit alle heidenen den HEERE ten spijsoffer brengen, op paarden, en op wagenen, en op rosbaren, en op muildieren, en op snelle lopers, naar Mijn heiligen berg toe, naar Jeruzalem, zegt de HEERE, gelijk als de kinderen Israëls het spijsoffer in een rein vat brengen ten huize des HEEREN.
21 En ook zal Ik uit dezelve enigen tot priesters en tot Levieten nemen, zegt de HEERE.
22 Want gelijk als die nieuwe hemel en die nieuwe aarde, die Ik maken zal, voor Mijn aangezicht zullen staan, spreekt de HEERE, alzo zal ook ulieder zaad en ulieder naam staan.
23 En het zal geschieden, dat van de ene nieuwe maan tot de andere, en van den enen sabbat tot den anderen, alle vlees komen zal om aan te bidden voor Mijn aangezicht, zegt de HEERE.
24 En zij zullen henen uitgaan, en zij zullen de dode lichamen der lieden zien, die tegen Mij overtreden hebben; want hun worm zal niet sterven, en hun vuur zal niet uitgeblust worden, en zij zullen allen vlees een afgrijzing wezen. Jesaja 66
Als we in de nieuwe hemel en nieuwe aarde sabbat vieren, waarom zou God vandaag de dag niet willen dat we het doen?
De kwestie is overigens niet of je alleen op de sabbat of 7 dagen per week de rust van Christus kan ervaren. Dat is 7 dagen per week.
Desondanks moeten we nog steeds ploeteren om brood op de plank te krijgen, de effecten van de zondeval zijn nog niet verdwenen. Zou God ons daar geen rust van willen geven om een feestdag te hebben met Hem en onze broers en zussen?
En leg nu voor eenmaal niet de focus op mij die een dag aan God wijdt, maar blijf bij het feit dat God een dag voor ons toegewijd heeft.
1) Women will continue to have babies (65:20, 23; cf. Matthew 22:30).
2) The righteous will still die (65:20; cf. Revelation 21:4).
3) The Levitical priesthood will be resurrected (66:21; cf. Hebrews 7:11-28; 8:13; 10:9-12).
4) New moons and Sabbaths will be celebrated (66:23; cf. Galatians 4:8-11; Ephesians 2:14-16; Colossians 2:14-17; Hebrews 8:13; 10:9).
5) Corpses will decorate Isaiah’s New World (66:24).
Now let’s look at v. 23. “From one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, all mankind shall come to worship before me, says the Lord.” Firstly, even if we are to celebrate new moons and Sabbaths in the New World, it does not follow that we must celebrate them now. Secondly, is “Sabbath” only the 7th day Sabbath or all the Sabbaths of the Jews? Thirdly, if we are to literally keep the 7th day Sabbath, then to be honest we must also keep new moon feasts. Fourthly, this verse does not say that we will be keeping new moon feasts or Sabbath days. “From one new moon to another…” is a way of saying “continually”. This language points to a continual event not a periodic one. Let me give an example to illustrate this. If I said, “From one Saturday to another I wait for my favorite TV show.” Would that mean that I only waited on Saturday? Or would it mean that I waited continually all week long? Isaiah is saying that we will be worshipping the Lord continually not just on one day a week (see Revelation 4:6-11). Is this not what God wants? Doesn’t He want us to be with Him always?
Another Scripture that uses very similar language is Malachi 1:11. This passage sheds great light on the meaning of “from one Sabbath to another”. We read, “For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations…” (NASB). Does God mean that His name shall be great only when the sun is rising and then again later when it is setting? Of course not, this is a silly understanding of the passage and it is just as silly to interpret Isaiah 66:23 in a like manner. Both passages are obviously speaking of continual worship. The SDA has conveniently overlooked this passage while speaking of letting Scripture interpret Scripture.
Supporting my belief in continual worship is the Book of Revelation. We must recall that under the Old Covenant Isaiah did not have the full revelation. This would only become available with the coming of Christ (see Hebrews 1:1-2). In Revelation we are given a vision of the New Heavens and the New Earth, but in a much fuller form than Isaiah was given. In this revelation we hear nothing about new moon feasts or of Sabbath-keeping in the New World (see ch.21). In this vision we are to be continually with our God. “And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God’”.
(21:3 NIV).
The plain truth is that the SDA church is simply misusing a passage in a vain attempt to support their false belief. As already shown they completely ignore all the things that Isaiah speaks of as being in the New World. Then they grasp at straws when Isaiah uses the word “Sabbath”. Then they, despite a complete lack of evidence, say that we must all keep the Sabbath day. Although Isaiah never explicitly says that all people must keep the Sabbath in the New World, the SDA says that he implies it. We do have a prophet that does explicitly say that all people must keep a Jewish feast day in the New World, but it is not the prophet Isaiah and it is not the Sabbath.
After God brings Jerusalem to victory over the nations the prophet Zechariah says, “Then it will come about that any who are left of all the nations that went against Jerusalem will go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to celebrate the Feast of Booths”
(Zechariah 14:16 NASB). Unlike the passage in Isaiah, Zechariah explicitly states that all peoples will be required to celebrate the feast of Booths also called Tabernacles. He further states that if they do not they will be punished by God with plagues (v. 18). “This will be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all the nations who do not go up to celebrate the feast of Booths” (v. 19 NASB). Of course the SDA ignores this explicit passage because it does not mention the Sabbath day. So we see that it is only an SDA out-of- context reading that can produce a Sabbath-keeping passage out of Isaiah 66:23.
Nee, ik heb het dan ook niet over de inhoud, maar de bron van die inhoud. Het is totaal niet rationeel of logisch om één dergelijke bron als antwoord op die vragen te gebruiken. Er zijn over de eeuwen heen diverse bronnen beschreven met evenveel onderbouwing als de bijbel.quote:
[..]
Laat ik het zo stellen, vanuit mijn optiek geeft de bijbel de meest logische antwoorden op alle levensvragen. Iedereen moet dat natuurlijk voor zichzelf uitzoeken of hij of zij ook zo denkt.
Question authorities, fuck religion, educate yourself, Viva el individualismo!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
Goed, toegegeven deze passage kan je ook anders interpreteren.quote:
[..]
Isaiah, 66:22-23, does not indicate that New Covenant Christians will be keeping the Old Covenant 7th day Sabbath. Isaiah is an Old Covenant prophet describing things in Old Covenant terms that he and his immediate audience would easily understand. Thus he writes that in the New World the bondage of the past in Babylon will be forgotten. They will be full of joy. Babies will not die shortly after birth. Righteous adults will live long lives. They will no longer be slaves so that they will build homes and farm for themselves not harsh Babylonian masters. Their God will never abandon them as it seemed He did during the Babylonian Captivity. A great peace will envelop the people, and even the animals will live in peace with one another. Their God will be worshipped in Jerusalem by all people. This prophecy is not to be taken literally. Note that it is in earthly terms-Old Covenant terms. If we take this prophecy as literal we are presented with several problems concerning it vision of the New World.
1) Women will continue to have babies (65:20, 23; cf. Matthew 22:30).
2) The righteous will still die (65:20; cf. Revelation 21:4).
3) The Levitical priesthood will be resurrected (66:21; cf. Hebrews 7:11-28; 8:13; 10:9-12).
4) New moons and Sabbaths will be celebrated (66:23; cf. Galatians 4:8-11; Ephesians 2:14-16; Colossians 2:14-17; Hebrews 8:13; 10:9).
5) Corpses will decorate Isaiah’s New World (66:24).
Now let’s look at v. 23. “From one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, all mankind shall come to worship before me, says the Lord.” Firstly, even if we are to celebrate new moons and Sabbaths in the New World, it does not follow that we must celebrate them now. Secondly, is “Sabbath” only the 7th day Sabbath or all the Sabbaths of the Jews? Thirdly, if we are to literally keep the 7th day Sabbath, then to be honest we must also keep new moon feasts. Fourthly, this verse does not say that we will be keeping new moon feasts or Sabbath days. “From one new moon to another…” is a way of saying “continually”. This language points to a continual event not a periodic one. Let me give an example to illustrate this. If I said, “From one Saturday to another I wait for my favorite TV show.” Would that mean that I only waited on Saturday? Or would it mean that I waited continually all week long? Isaiah is saying that we will be worshipping the Lord continually not just on one day a week (see Revelation 4:6-11). Is this not what God wants? Doesn’t He want us to be with Him always?
Another Scripture that uses very similar language is Malachi 1:11. This passage sheds great light on the meaning of “from one Sabbath to another”. We read, “For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations…” (NASB). Does God mean that His name shall be great only when the sun is rising and then again later when it is setting? Of course not, this is a silly understanding of the passage and it is just as silly to interpret Isaiah 66:23 in a like manner. Both passages are obviously speaking of continual worship. The SDA has conveniently overlooked this passage while speaking of letting Scripture interpret Scripture.
Supporting my belief in continual worship is the Book of Revelation. We must recall that under the Old Covenant Isaiah did not have the full revelation. This would only become available with the coming of Christ (see Hebrews 1:1-2). In Revelation we are given a vision of the New Heavens and the New Earth, but in a much fuller form than Isaiah was given. In this revelation we hear nothing about new moon feasts or of Sabbath-keeping in the New World (see ch.21). In this vision we are to be continually with our God. “And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God’”.
(21:3 NIV).
The plain truth is that the SDA church is simply misusing a passage in a vain attempt to support their false belief. As already shown they completely ignore all the things that Isaiah speaks of as being in the New World. Then they grasp at straws when Isaiah uses the word “Sabbath”. Then they, despite a complete lack of evidence, say that we must all keep the Sabbath day. Although Isaiah never explicitly says that all people must keep the Sabbath in the New World, the SDA says that he implies it. We do have a prophet that does explicitly say that all people must keep a Jewish feast day in the New World, but it is not the prophet Isaiah and it is not the Sabbath.
After God brings Jerusalem to victory over the nations the prophet Zechariah says, “Then it will come about that any who are left of all the nations that went against Jerusalem will go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to celebrate the Feast of Booths”
(Zechariah 14:16 NASB). Unlike the passage in Isaiah, Zechariah explicitly states that all peoples will be required to celebrate the feast of Booths also called Tabernacles. He further states that if they do not they will be punished by God with plagues (v. 18). “This will be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all the nations who do not go up to celebrate the feast of Booths” (v. 19 NASB). Of course the SDA ignores this explicit passage because it does not mention the Sabbath day. So we see that it is only an SDA out-of- context reading that can produce a Sabbath-keeping passage out of Isaiah 66:23.
Wat me steeds geneert in je literatuur is dat het vandaag nog steeds houden van de sabbat (tezamen met de rest van die tien geboden) steeds beschouwd wordt als een middel om rechtvaardig te worden terwijl dat geheel niet het geval is.
Of men zegt je MOET bewaren want je bent onder de wet. Dat is een mengelmoes van termen en concepten die een verkeerde indruk geven van hoe de zaken daadwerkelijk gezien worden.
En nee, ook ZDA zegt niet dat je door het houden van de wet gerechtvaardigd wordt.
It is the righteousness of Christ that makes the penitent sinner acceptable to God and works his justification. However sinful has been his life, if he believes in Jesus as his personal Saviour, he stands before God in the spotless robes of Christ's imputed righteousness.
The sinner so recently dead in trespasses and sins is quickened by faith in Christ. He sees by faith that Jesus is his Saviour, and alive forevermore, able to save unto the uttermost all that come unto God by him.
In the atonement made for him the believer sees such breadth, and length, and height, and depth of efficiency,--sees such completeness of salvation, purchased at such infinite cost, that his soul is filled with praise and thanksgiving. He sees as in a glass the glory of the Lord, and is changed into the same image as by the Spirit of the Lord. He sees the robe of Christ's righteousness, woven in the loom of heaven, wrought by his obedience, and imputed to the repenting soul through faith in his name. When the sinner has a view of the matchless charms of Jesus, sin no longer looks attractive to him; for he beholds the Chiefest among ten thousand, the One altogether lovely. He realizes by a personal experience the power of the gospel, whose vastness of design is equaled only by its preciousness of purpose.
We have a living Saviour. He is not in Joseph's new tomb; he is risen from the dead, and has ascended on high as a substitute and surety for every believing soul. "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." The sinner is justified through the merits of Jesus, and this is God's acknowledgment of the perfection of the ransom paid for man. That Christ was obedient even unto the death of the cross is a pledge of the repenting sinner's acceptance with the Father. Then shall we permit ourselves to have a vacillating experience of doubting and believing, believing and doubting? Jesus is the pledge of our acceptance with God. We stand in favor before God, not because of any merit in ourselves, but because of our faith in "the Lord our righteousness." Ellen White, 1889 Signs of the Times
Wat men zegt is dat de wet, in plaats van in stenen tafelen buiten ons, nu via Gods Heilige Geest in het hart in ons binnenste wordt gegeven.
En dat is gebaseerd op meerdere teksten.
Zelfs indien je die wet 'de grote geboden' wilt noemen, bevat dat de tien geboden, aangezien de grote geboden samenvattingen zijn van de eerste 4 en laatste 6 geboden.
Wat mij betreft is de conclusie dus dat de mens in Christus niet onder de wet is, maar onder genade, en omdat hij onder genade is, leeft de wet in hem en wordt deel van zijn natuur, in plaats van een getuigenis tegen hem buiten hem die hem veroordeelt.
De wet was niet in staat te doen wat Jezus heeft gedaan, omdat de wet geen leven gaf. Maar dankzij Jezus ontvangen we de Heilige Geest, die ons leven geeft, en in staat is te doen wat de wet niet kon doen => ons conform Gods wil te maken in plaats van ons te veroordelen wegens onze ongehoorzaamheid.
God ging een verbond aan met Adam en Eva toen Hij zei: 15 En Ik zal vijandschap zetten tussen u en tussen deze vrouw, en tussen uw zaad en tussen haar zaad; datzelve zal u den kop vermorzelen, en gij zult het de verzenen vermorzelen.
En dit ging door via allen die trouw waren aan God door de tijd heen, van Enoch tot Noach to Abraham, Isaak, Jacob, hun nageslacht in de woestijn, totdat het zaad daadwerkelijk gekomen was. Toen werd Gods originele plan, om de mens te redden van de dood geiniteerd door de zonde van Adam, volbracht door Jezus' verzoenoffer.
De recreatie die daarop volgde, door de spirituele dood en wederopstanding van de gelovige, waarbij wederom Gods wil in het hart van de mens is zoals dat bij Adam en Eva het geval was, is het resultaat van Gods werk om de mens met zichzelf te verzoenen, ondanks de zonden van de mens.
Het eeuwige leven is zodoende vandaag voor iedereen beschikbaar die gelooft in Jezus Christus en zich bekeert van zijn zonden. God zal de gelovige door middel van de Heilige Geest een nieuw hart geven waarin Zijn wet geschreven staat, de vruchten van de geest producerend en de wet niet overtredend, wanneer hij sterft aan zijn zondige natuur, en leeft door de Geest.
De sabbat in het nieuwe verbond is naast een wekelijkse rustdag van aards dagelijks werk om ons geestelijk, lichamelijk en spiritueel welzijn te beschermen een viering van het feit dat we stoppen met onze eigen werken in spirituele zin omdat Christus het werk volbracht heeft en we door geloof gerechtvaardigd zijn in plaats van door onze eigen werken, een dag ter herinnering dat God onze schepper is en onze herschepper in Christus, ter herinnering dat God onze verlosser is van deze wereld en van de zonde en dood en we het leven aan Hem te danken hebben, en ter schaduw en voorproef op de eeuwige rust die we in de hemel zullen ervaren, en het houden ervan is om al deze redenen de stempel of het zichtbare teken van de autoriteit en suprematie van God in het leven van de gerechtvaardigde.
The beneficent Creator, after the six days of Creation, rested on the seventh day and instituted the Sabbath for all people as a memorial of Creation. The fourth commandment of God's unchangeable law requires the observance of this seventh-day Sabbath as the day of rest, worship, and ministry in harmony with the teaching and practice of Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath. The Sabbath is a day of delightful communion with God and one another. It is a symbol of our redemption in Christ, a sign of our sanctification, a token of our allegiance, and a foretaste of our eternal future in God's kingdom. The Sabbath is God's perpetual sign of His eternal covenant between Him and His people. Joyful observance of this holy time from evening to evening, sunset to sunset, is a celebration of God's creative and redemptive acts. (Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20:8-11; Luke 4:16; Isa. 56:5, 6; 58:13, 14; Matt. 12:1-12; Ex. 31:13-17; Eze. 20:12, 20; Deut. 5:12-15; Heb. 4:1-11; Lev. 23:32; Mark 1:32.)
[ Bericht 15% gewijzigd door Ali_Kannibali op 27-02-2013 13:31:14 ]
Of men zegt je MOET bewaren want je bent onder de wet. Dat is een mengelmoes van termen en concepten die een verkeerde indruk geven van hoe de zaken daadwerkelijk gezien worden.
En nee, ook ZDA zegt niet dat je door het houden van de wet gerechtvaardigd wordt.
It is the righteousness of Christ that makes the penitent sinner acceptable to God and works his justification. However sinful has been his life, if he believes in Jesus as his personal Saviour, he stands before God in the spotless robes of Christ's imputed righteousness.
The sinner so recently dead in trespasses and sins is quickened by faith in Christ. He sees by faith that Jesus is his Saviour, and alive forevermore, able to save unto the uttermost all that come unto God by him.
In the atonement made for him the believer sees such breadth, and length, and height, and depth of efficiency,--sees such completeness of salvation, purchased at such infinite cost, that his soul is filled with praise and thanksgiving. He sees as in a glass the glory of the Lord, and is changed into the same image as by the Spirit of the Lord. He sees the robe of Christ's righteousness, woven in the loom of heaven, wrought by his obedience, and imputed to the repenting soul through faith in his name. When the sinner has a view of the matchless charms of Jesus, sin no longer looks attractive to him; for he beholds the Chiefest among ten thousand, the One altogether lovely. He realizes by a personal experience the power of the gospel, whose vastness of design is equaled only by its preciousness of purpose.
We have a living Saviour. He is not in Joseph's new tomb; he is risen from the dead, and has ascended on high as a substitute and surety for every believing soul. "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." The sinner is justified through the merits of Jesus, and this is God's acknowledgment of the perfection of the ransom paid for man. That Christ was obedient even unto the death of the cross is a pledge of the repenting sinner's acceptance with the Father. Then shall we permit ourselves to have a vacillating experience of doubting and believing, believing and doubting? Jesus is the pledge of our acceptance with God. We stand in favor before God, not because of any merit in ourselves, but because of our faith in "the Lord our righteousness." Ellen White, 1889 Signs of the Times
Wat men zegt is dat de wet, in plaats van in stenen tafelen buiten ons, nu via Gods Heilige Geest in het hart in ons binnenste wordt gegeven.
En dat is gebaseerd op meerdere teksten.
Zelfs indien je die wet 'de grote geboden' wilt noemen, bevat dat de tien geboden, aangezien de grote geboden samenvattingen zijn van de eerste 4 en laatste 6 geboden.
Wat mij betreft is de conclusie dus dat de mens in Christus niet onder de wet is, maar onder genade, en omdat hij onder genade is, leeft de wet in hem en wordt deel van zijn natuur, in plaats van een getuigenis tegen hem buiten hem die hem veroordeelt.
De wet was niet in staat te doen wat Jezus heeft gedaan, omdat de wet geen leven gaf. Maar dankzij Jezus ontvangen we de Heilige Geest, die ons leven geeft, en in staat is te doen wat de wet niet kon doen => ons conform Gods wil te maken in plaats van ons te veroordelen wegens onze ongehoorzaamheid.
God ging een verbond aan met Adam en Eva toen Hij zei: 15 En Ik zal vijandschap zetten tussen u en tussen deze vrouw, en tussen uw zaad en tussen haar zaad; datzelve zal u den kop vermorzelen, en gij zult het de verzenen vermorzelen.
En dit ging door via allen die trouw waren aan God door de tijd heen, van Enoch tot Noach to Abraham, Isaak, Jacob, hun nageslacht in de woestijn, totdat het zaad daadwerkelijk gekomen was. Toen werd Gods originele plan, om de mens te redden van de dood geiniteerd door de zonde van Adam, volbracht door Jezus' verzoenoffer.
De recreatie die daarop volgde, door de spirituele dood en wederopstanding van de gelovige, waarbij wederom Gods wil in het hart van de mens is zoals dat bij Adam en Eva het geval was, is het resultaat van Gods werk om de mens met zichzelf te verzoenen, ondanks de zonden van de mens.
Het eeuwige leven is zodoende vandaag voor iedereen beschikbaar die gelooft in Jezus Christus en zich bekeert van zijn zonden. God zal de gelovige door middel van de Heilige Geest een nieuw hart geven waarin Zijn wet geschreven staat, de vruchten van de geest producerend en de wet niet overtredend, wanneer hij sterft aan zijn zondige natuur, en leeft door de Geest.
De sabbat in het nieuwe verbond is naast een wekelijkse rustdag van aards dagelijks werk om ons geestelijk, lichamelijk en spiritueel welzijn te beschermen een viering van het feit dat we stoppen met onze eigen werken in spirituele zin omdat Christus het werk volbracht heeft en we door geloof gerechtvaardigd zijn in plaats van door onze eigen werken, een dag ter herinnering dat God onze schepper is en onze herschepper in Christus, ter herinnering dat God onze verlosser is van deze wereld en van de zonde en dood en we het leven aan Hem te danken hebben, en ter schaduw en voorproef op de eeuwige rust die we in de hemel zullen ervaren, en het houden ervan is om al deze redenen de stempel of het zichtbare teken van de autoriteit en suprematie van God in het leven van de gerechtvaardigde.
The beneficent Creator, after the six days of Creation, rested on the seventh day and instituted the Sabbath for all people as a memorial of Creation. The fourth commandment of God's unchangeable law requires the observance of this seventh-day Sabbath as the day of rest, worship, and ministry in harmony with the teaching and practice of Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath. The Sabbath is a day of delightful communion with God and one another. It is a symbol of our redemption in Christ, a sign of our sanctification, a token of our allegiance, and a foretaste of our eternal future in God's kingdom. The Sabbath is God's perpetual sign of His eternal covenant between Him and His people. Joyful observance of this holy time from evening to evening, sunset to sunset, is a celebration of God's creative and redemptive acts. (Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20:8-11; Luke 4:16; Isa. 56:5, 6; 58:13, 14; Matt. 12:1-12; Ex. 31:13-17; Eze. 20:12, 20; Deut. 5:12-15; Heb. 4:1-11; Lev. 23:32; Mark 1:32.)
[ Bericht 15% gewijzigd door Ali_Kannibali op 27-02-2013 13:31:14 ]
Ali de kerk leert dat je door werken gerechtvaardigd wordt in het onderzoekend oordeel. Dit is een feit. Ellen White had een dubbele schizofrene tong. Het ene moment zegt ze dat redding door geloof alleen plaatsvindt, het andere moment zegt ze dat je alleen naar de hemel gaat als je perfect zondeloos bent geworden als Jezus.
De sabbat was een rituele schaduw-wet. Als er in Genesis staat dat de zevende dag gezegend werd staat er niet dat het DIE zevende dag betreft.
Btw, Ali wat vind je van deze interpretatie van Daniel 7?
Daniel makes it abundantly clear the ten kings will "arise from this kingdom". This could not possibly refer to outside entities that come in and conquer Rome. The only reasonable Biblical interpretation is that the ten horns represent ten kings or rulers over Rome. History records that there were, in fact, ten Roman Caesars who ruled Rome prior to the destruction of Jerusalem:
Julius Caeser 49-44BC
Augustus 31BC-14AD
Tiberius (Luke 3:1) 14-37AD
Gaius (aka. Caligula) 37-41AD
Claudius (Acts 17) 41-54AD
Nero 54-68AD
Galba 68-69AD
Otho 69AD
Vitellius 69AD
Vespasian 69-79AD
Do Daniel's Prophecies Point to the Christian Era?
One reason Adventists have gotten confused over the meaning of Daniel's prophecies is that they have tried to stretch Daniel's prophecies out into the Christian era, interpretting the literal time periods in the book (1,260 days and 2,300 evenings-mornings) as long periods of years, stretching many centuries into the Christian era. The truth is that Daniel is a Jewish book, written by a Jew, written for the Jews, containing God's prophecies relating to His Covenantal people (Dan. 9:24). It is all about events that would directly impact the Jewish people and the Jewish nation. The last prophecy of Daniel, the 70-week prophecy, ends with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Except for a few brief comments about future events (Christ's kingdom filling the earth (Dan. 2:34-35), the resurrection (Dan. 12:1-3)), the entire book of Daniel is focused on the Hebrew nation and its interaction with world powers from the time of Babylon up until the final destruction of Israel and the termination of the Old Covenant in 70 AD.
Who is the Little Horn?
It is an established historical fact that the Little Horn of Daniel 7 is Nero. Consider the incredible correlations between Nero and the little horn of Daniel 7:
He will uproot "three of the first horns" (7:24) - Three Emperors, Tiberius, Caligula and Claudius were assassinated to make way for Nero, who was not in the line of succession.18
"He shall speak words against the Most High" (7:25) - Nero encouraged emperor worship and had a huge statue of himself erected in Rome. Inscriptions found in Ephesus called him "Almighty God" and "Saviour...." 19
He "shall wear out the saints of the Most High" (7:25) - Nero was the first Roman Emporer to launch a persecution against Jews and Christians. Some of the saints slain during his persecution include the Missionary Paul and the Apostle Peter. Historians have described the persecution as "the most cruel that ever occurred."20
The saints "shall be given into his hand for time, times, and half a time (7:25) - Nero's persecution began in November of 64 AD, and ended with his death in June of AD 68, a period of exactly 42 months (1260 days).21
"His dominion shall be taken away" (7:26) - The Roman Senate eventually voted to put Nero to death, thus effectively taking away his dominion.
The kingdom "shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High (7:27) - It is a mistake to think this passage is a reference to God's eternal kingdom. It is a reference to God's spiritual kingdom, which was established in approximately 30 AD when John the Baptist announced, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. 3:2). Christ talked about the "kingdom" as being comtemporary (Matt. 12:28; 16:19; 23:13), not in the far distant future. Daniel talks about a kingdom that gradually fills the earth, and Jesus speaks of a Mustard seed which grew into a great tree. (Dan. 2:34-35; Matt. 13:31-33).22 Therefore, the giving of the kingdom (Rome) to the saints of the Most High began when Christ established his kingdom on this earth, and the kingdom continued to grow until one day Christianity would became the dominant religion in the Roman Empire.
Who is being Judged?
As noted earlier in this study, the Bible clearly indicates that the judgment of Daniel 7 is a judgment against the little horn and the beast power, not an investigative judgment of the saints. Did such an event occur in the first century? Notice carefully the words of Jesus:
Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. (John 12:31)
And when he [Comforter] is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment ...because the prince of this world is judged. (John 16:8,11)
Jesus said that the judgment of Satan was happening "now", during the final hours of His life on earth. He said that the Holy Spirit would come to convict the world that the prince of this world is judged. It was during the reign of the Roman Empire that judgment sat in heaven and passed sentence on the prince of this world and the Roman Empire. It was the Roman Empire, under the guidance of Satan, acting through a Roman governor and Roman soldiers, that crucified the Son of God. The judgment, although decided in heaven, was not instantly executed upon Rome when Jesus died, just as Jerusalem was not instantly punished. A generation of time was given to allow for Rome to manifest what it was going to do with Christ and Christianity. Jesus' death was as a mustard seed being planted in the earth. After His death the gospel sprouted and spread throughout the empire. Nero and later Caesars manifested a Satanic hatred towards Christianity. They thought to persecute it into non-existence, and Nero almost succeeded. However, he was killed, his perseuction halted and his dominion was taken away. The very persecution he started in an attempt to stamp out Christianity would later become the seed that fueled an even more explosive growth of Christianity. Eventually the dominion of Satan was broken in the Roman Empire and it became the dominion of the saints. Christianity was recognized as the official religion of the Roman Empire.
Every specification of Daniel 7 came to pass just as predicted. In fact, the fulfillment in the events of the Roman Empire were so dramatic that atheists and agnostics insisted the book of Daniel was written after Nero's death. These enemies of God were silenced in shame when parts of the book of Daniel were discovered amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls, and were carbon-dated to 165 BC. Only God could have known about Nero and the Roman empire hundreds of years beforehand. Praise God!
De sabbat was een rituele schaduw-wet. Als er in Genesis staat dat de zevende dag gezegend werd staat er niet dat het DIE zevende dag betreft.
Btw, Ali wat vind je van deze interpretatie van Daniel 7?
Daniel makes it abundantly clear the ten kings will "arise from this kingdom". This could not possibly refer to outside entities that come in and conquer Rome. The only reasonable Biblical interpretation is that the ten horns represent ten kings or rulers over Rome. History records that there were, in fact, ten Roman Caesars who ruled Rome prior to the destruction of Jerusalem:
Julius Caeser 49-44BC
Augustus 31BC-14AD
Tiberius (Luke 3:1) 14-37AD
Gaius (aka. Caligula) 37-41AD
Claudius (Acts 17) 41-54AD
Nero 54-68AD
Galba 68-69AD
Otho 69AD
Vitellius 69AD
Vespasian 69-79AD
Do Daniel's Prophecies Point to the Christian Era?
One reason Adventists have gotten confused over the meaning of Daniel's prophecies is that they have tried to stretch Daniel's prophecies out into the Christian era, interpretting the literal time periods in the book (1,260 days and 2,300 evenings-mornings) as long periods of years, stretching many centuries into the Christian era. The truth is that Daniel is a Jewish book, written by a Jew, written for the Jews, containing God's prophecies relating to His Covenantal people (Dan. 9:24). It is all about events that would directly impact the Jewish people and the Jewish nation. The last prophecy of Daniel, the 70-week prophecy, ends with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Except for a few brief comments about future events (Christ's kingdom filling the earth (Dan. 2:34-35), the resurrection (Dan. 12:1-3)), the entire book of Daniel is focused on the Hebrew nation and its interaction with world powers from the time of Babylon up until the final destruction of Israel and the termination of the Old Covenant in 70 AD.
Who is the Little Horn?
It is an established historical fact that the Little Horn of Daniel 7 is Nero. Consider the incredible correlations between Nero and the little horn of Daniel 7:
He will uproot "three of the first horns" (7:24) - Three Emperors, Tiberius, Caligula and Claudius were assassinated to make way for Nero, who was not in the line of succession.18
"He shall speak words against the Most High" (7:25) - Nero encouraged emperor worship and had a huge statue of himself erected in Rome. Inscriptions found in Ephesus called him "Almighty God" and "Saviour...." 19
He "shall wear out the saints of the Most High" (7:25) - Nero was the first Roman Emporer to launch a persecution against Jews and Christians. Some of the saints slain during his persecution include the Missionary Paul and the Apostle Peter. Historians have described the persecution as "the most cruel that ever occurred."20
The saints "shall be given into his hand for time, times, and half a time (7:25) - Nero's persecution began in November of 64 AD, and ended with his death in June of AD 68, a period of exactly 42 months (1260 days).21
"His dominion shall be taken away" (7:26) - The Roman Senate eventually voted to put Nero to death, thus effectively taking away his dominion.
The kingdom "shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High (7:27) - It is a mistake to think this passage is a reference to God's eternal kingdom. It is a reference to God's spiritual kingdom, which was established in approximately 30 AD when John the Baptist announced, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. 3:2). Christ talked about the "kingdom" as being comtemporary (Matt. 12:28; 16:19; 23:13), not in the far distant future. Daniel talks about a kingdom that gradually fills the earth, and Jesus speaks of a Mustard seed which grew into a great tree. (Dan. 2:34-35; Matt. 13:31-33).22 Therefore, the giving of the kingdom (Rome) to the saints of the Most High began when Christ established his kingdom on this earth, and the kingdom continued to grow until one day Christianity would became the dominant religion in the Roman Empire.
Who is being Judged?
As noted earlier in this study, the Bible clearly indicates that the judgment of Daniel 7 is a judgment against the little horn and the beast power, not an investigative judgment of the saints. Did such an event occur in the first century? Notice carefully the words of Jesus:
Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. (John 12:31)
And when he [Comforter] is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment ...because the prince of this world is judged. (John 16:8,11)
Jesus said that the judgment of Satan was happening "now", during the final hours of His life on earth. He said that the Holy Spirit would come to convict the world that the prince of this world is judged. It was during the reign of the Roman Empire that judgment sat in heaven and passed sentence on the prince of this world and the Roman Empire. It was the Roman Empire, under the guidance of Satan, acting through a Roman governor and Roman soldiers, that crucified the Son of God. The judgment, although decided in heaven, was not instantly executed upon Rome when Jesus died, just as Jerusalem was not instantly punished. A generation of time was given to allow for Rome to manifest what it was going to do with Christ and Christianity. Jesus' death was as a mustard seed being planted in the earth. After His death the gospel sprouted and spread throughout the empire. Nero and later Caesars manifested a Satanic hatred towards Christianity. They thought to persecute it into non-existence, and Nero almost succeeded. However, he was killed, his perseuction halted and his dominion was taken away. The very persecution he started in an attempt to stamp out Christianity would later become the seed that fueled an even more explosive growth of Christianity. Eventually the dominion of Satan was broken in the Roman Empire and it became the dominion of the saints. Christianity was recognized as the official religion of the Roman Empire.
Every specification of Daniel 7 came to pass just as predicted. In fact, the fulfillment in the events of the Roman Empire were so dramatic that atheists and agnostics insisted the book of Daniel was written after Nero's death. These enemies of God were silenced in shame when parts of the book of Daniel were discovered amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls, and were carbon-dated to 165 BC. Only God could have known about Nero and the Roman empire hundreds of years beforehand. Praise God!
En hoe word je perfect zondenloos als Jezus?quote:
Ali de kerk leert dat je door werken gerechtvaardigd wordt in het onderzoekend oordeel. Dit is een feit. Ellen White had een dubbele schizofrene tong. Het ene moment zegt ze dat redding door geloof alleen plaatsvindt, het andere moment zegt ze dat je alleen naar de hemel gaat als je perfect zondeloos bent geworden als Jezus.
Voor mij is de sabbat duidelijk geworden. Ik heb geen zin meer om daar nog tijd aan te besteden. De conclusie die ik in mn vorige post heb getrokken is gebaseerd op alle argumenten die we langs hebben laten komen. Uiteindelijk bleek mijn conclusie dezelfde de te zijn als het fundamentele punt van de ZDA kerk. Het is ook het enige logische, consistente standpunt, wat zowel het schaduw-aspect als het genesis verhaal als Jezus' opmerkingen over de sabbat (en de gehele wet) integreert. Ik ga dus niet meer in op kwesties over de sabbat. Je constante negeren van belangrijke vragen die ik daarover gesteld heb getuigen wat mij betreft ook van de zwakheid van je argument en het weigeren om de zaken vanuit het perspectief te zien waarop ZDA het werkelijk ziet. In plaats daarvan houd je vast aan de verdraaide woorden van obscure websites en youtube filmpjes die vol fouten staan. Dat is jouw keuze en die respecteer ik, maar weet dat je huidige overtuiging over wat ZDA leert niet overeenkomt met het werkelijke standpunt van ZDA.quote:De sabbat was een rituele schaduw-wet. Als er in Genesis staat dat de zevende dag gezegend werd staat er niet dat het DIE zevende dag betreft.
[/quote]quote:Btw, Ali wat vind je van deze interpretatie van Daniel 7?
Daniel makes it abundantly clear the ten kings will "arise from this kingdom". This could not possibly refer to outside entities that come in and conquer Rome. The only reasonable Biblical interpretation is that the ten horns represent ten kings or rulers over Rome. History records that there were, in fact, ten Roman Caesars who ruled Rome prior to the destruction of Jerusalem:
Julius Caeser 49-44BC
Augustus 31BC-14AD
Tiberius (Luke 3:1) 14-37AD
Gaius (aka. Caligula) 37-41AD
Claudius (Acts 17) 41-54AD
Nero 54-68AD
Galba 68-69AD
Otho 69AD
Vitellius 69AD
Vespasian 69-79AD
Interessant. Een paar vragen:
Het 4e beest eet de hele aarde op en zal blijven tot het laatste oordeel (want de kleine hoorn blijft tot het laatste oordeel). In de bovenstaande interpretatie, wordt er niet een eindpunt aan rome gegeven?
Wie waren de 3 ontwortelde hoornen en hoezo?
Het is wat mij betreft een non-argument om te stellen dat Daniel voor de 'mensen onder het oude verbond was'. Dan kun je stellen dat het hele oude testament voor de mensen onder het oude verbond was. Maar wat zegt Jezus? Bestudeer de geschriften, want zij getuigen van mij. Het hele oude testament is gevuld met waarheid voor alle tijden, bijbelverhalen hebben doorgaans 3 lagen van betekenis, voor de tijd dan, voor de tijd van de messias, en voor de eindtijd. Alleen iemand met gelimiteerde kennis van de bijbel en geschiedenis kan zo'n openlijk misleidend argument wat mij betreft aannemen.quote:Do Daniel's Prophecies Point to the Christian Era?
One reason Adventists have gotten confused over the meaning of Daniel's prophecies is that they have tried to stretch Daniel's prophecies out into the Christian era, interpretting the literal time periods in the book (1,260 days and 2,300 evenings-mornings) as long periods of years, stretching many centuries into the Christian era. The truth is that Daniel is a Jewish book, written by a Jew, written for the Jews, containing God's prophecies relating to His Covenantal people (Dan. 9:24). It is all about events that would directly impact the Jewish people and the Jewish nation. The last prophecy of Daniel, the 70-week prophecy, ends with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Except for a few brief comments about future events (Christ's kingdom filling the earth (Dan. 2:34-35), the resurrection (Dan. 12:1-3)), the entire book of Daniel is focused on the Hebrew nation and its interaction with world powers from the time of Babylon up until the final destruction of Israel and the termination of the Old Covenant in 70 AD.
Enkele belangrijke punten worden hier weggelaten:quote:Who is the Little Horn?
It is an established historical fact that the Little Horn of Daniel 7 is Nero. Consider the incredible correlations between Nero and the little horn of Daniel 7:
He will uproot "three of the first horns" (7:24) - Three Emperors, Tiberius, Caligula and Claudius were assassinated to make way for Nero, who was not in the line of succession.18
"He shall speak words against the Most High" (7:25) - Nero encouraged emperor worship and had a huge statue of himself erected in Rome. Inscriptions found in Ephesus called him "Almighty God" and "Saviour...." 19
He "shall wear out the saints of the Most High" (7:25) - Nero was the first Roman Emporer to launch a persecution against Jews and Christians. Some of the saints slain during his persecution include the Missionary Paul and the Apostle Peter. Historians have described the persecution as "the most cruel that ever occurred."20
The saints "shall be given into his hand for time, times, and half a time (7:25) - Nero's persecution began in November of 64 AD, and ended with his death in June of AD 68, a period of exactly 42 months (1260 days).21
"His dominion shall be taken away" (7:26) - The Roman Senate eventually voted to put Nero to death, thus effectively taking away his dominion.
The kingdom "shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High (7:27) - It is a mistake to think this passage is a reference to God's eternal kingdom. It is a reference to God's spiritual kingdom, which was established in approximately 30 AD when John the Baptist announced, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. 3:2). Christ talked about the "kingdom" as being comtemporary (Matt. 12:28; 16:19; 23:13), not in the far distant future. Daniel talks about a kingdom that gradually fills the earth, and Jesus speaks of a Mustard seed which grew into a great tree. (Dan. 2:34-35; Matt. 13:31-33).22 Therefore, the giving of the kingdom (Rome) to the saints of the Most High began when Christ established his kingdom on this earth, and the kingdom continued to grow until one day Christianity would became the dominant religion in the Roman Empire.
de kleine hoorn zou godslasteringen spreken. Godslastering is 1) zeggen dat je God bent 2) claimen dat je zonden kunt vergeven. Nero deed volgens heirboven 1 maar 2 niet. De RKK doet beide.
de kleine hoorn zou denken de wet en de tijden te kunnen veranderen. Welke wet? Gods wet uiteraard. Bij Nero is hier geen sprake van. De katholieke tien geboden zijn niet hetzelfde als de tien geboden in de bijbel.
de kleine hoorn zal definitief weggenomen worden bij het laatste oordeel, en niet daarvoor.
Als we parallelteksten over de antichrist nemen zien we dat dit wel degelijk om een christelijk-achtig iemand gaat:
3 Dat u niemand verleide op enigerlei wijze; want die komt niet, tenzij dat eerst de afval gekomen zij, en dat geopenbaard zij de mens der zonde, de zoon des verderfs;
4 Die zich tegenstelt, en verheft boven al wat God genaamd, of als God geëerd wordt, alzo dat hij in den tempel Gods als een God zal zitten, zichzelven vertonende, dat hij God is. 2 Thessalonicenzen 2
Voor Paulus is de tempel van God niet een gebouw noch de tempel in Jeruzalem maar het geheel van de gelovigen. Er zal dus iemand in het lichaam van Christus zijn die die rol van antichrist aanneemt. Dat kan geen Romeinse keizer zijn geweest. Behalve de Romeinse Keizer die zichzelf tevens hoofd van de kerk noemt.
Een ander punt dat aantoont dat dit argument niet consistent is is het feit dat de 42 maanden/1260 dagen/3,5 jaar terugkomen in Openbaringen 12 en openbaringen 13. Het gaat hier om het tweede beest dat zal sterven en weer opstaan en zal blijven tot het einde, het geven van het teken.
Dit beest is onderdeel van het beest in openbaringen 17, het is het 8e hoofd, de allerlaatste macht voor het laatste oordeel. Het zijn de koningen der aarde die deze macht gecontroleerd door de hoer zullen vernietigen. Was dat het geval met nero?
Maw je moet de rest van de bijbel negeren wil je dit kloppend maken.
Dit is ook compleet stupide nonsens.quote:Who is being Judged?
As noted earlier in this study, the Bible clearly indicates that the judgment of Daniel 7 is a judgment against the little horn and the beast power, not an investigative judgment of the saints. Did such an event occur in the first century? Notice carefully the words of Jesus:
Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. (John 12:31)
And when he [Comforter] is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment ...because the prince of this world is judged. (John 16:8,11)
Jesus said that the judgment of Satan was happening "now", during the final hours of His life on earth. He said that the Holy Spirit would come to convict the world that the prince of this world is judged. It was during the reign of the Roman Empire that judgment sat in heaven and passed sentence on the prince of this world and the Roman Empire. It was the Roman Empire, under the guidance of Satan, acting through a Roman governor and Roman soldiers, that crucified the Son of God. The judgment, although decided in heaven, was not instantly executed upon Rome when Jesus died, just as Jerusalem was not instantly punished. A generation of time was given to allow for Rome to manifest what it was going to do with Christ and Christianity. Jesus' death was as a mustard seed being planted in the earth. After His death the gospel sprouted and spread throughout the empire. Nero and later Caesars manifested a Satanic hatred towards Christianity. They thought to persecute it into non-existence, and Nero almost succeeded. However, he was killed, his perseuction halted and his dominion was taken away. The very persecution he started in an attempt to stamp out Christianity would later become the seed that fueled an even more explosive growth of Christianity. Eventually the dominion of Satan was broken in the Roman Empire and it became the dominion of the saints. Christianity was recognized as the official religion of the Roman Empire.
Every specification of Daniel 7 came to pass just as predicted. In fact, the fulfillment in the events of the Roman Empire were so dramatic that atheists and agnostics insisted the book of Daniel was written after Nero's death. These enemies of God were silenced in shame when parts of the book of Daniel were discovered amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls, and were carbon-dated to 165 BC. Only God could have known about Nero and the Roman empire hundreds of years beforehand. Praise God!
Hoe kun je in hemelsnaam de woorden 'de prins van deze wereld is geoordeeld' gelijktrekken naar 'het Romeinse Rijk wordt ten onder gebracht en de staatsreligie van Rome wordt het Christelijke (in werkelijkheid Rooms Katholieke) geloof. Wat vervolgens de wereld gedurende 1000 jaar in een spirituele afgrond zou helpen.
Satan werd geoordeeld omdat hij niet in staat was geweest Jezus te laten zondigen en al zijn claims met betrekking tot God onwaar waren gebleken op het moment van de kruisiging (waaruit bleek dat God liefde en genadevol is, evenals rechtvaardig).
(West)Rome zou pas zo'n 500 jaar later werkelijk tot zijn einde komen. Toen Constantinus zogenaamd christen werd en de christelijke religie de staatsreligie was dat een strategische politieke zet en had niets met een hartsbekering van Constantinus te maken. De man was een oorlogsvoerder uit op politiek en economisch gewin, niet op een spirituele bekering van de wereld tot het koninkrijk van God en de leer van Jezus Christus.
De Rooms katholieke kerk die daar uiteindelijk uit voortkwam zou naast een religieuze een voornamelijk politieke en economische invloed uitoefenen en iedereen met eeuwig hellevuur intimideren om vooral veel geld te betalen aan het instituut kerk.
1 En er zijn ook valse profeten onder het volk geweest, gelijk ook onder u valse leraars zijn zullen, die verderfelijke ketterijen bedektelijk invoeren zullen, ook den Heere, Die hen gekocht heeft, verloochenende, en een haastig verderf over zichzelven brengende;
2 En velen zullen hun verderfenissen navolgen, door welke de weg der waarheid zal gelasterd worden.
3 En zij zullen door gierigheid, met gemaakte woorden, van u een koopmanschap maken; over welke het oordeel van over lang niet ledig is, en hun verderf sluimert niet. 2 Petrus 3
Hieruit zou ook de inquisitie voortkomen, ook zo'n fijn christelijk instituut.
Verder is het boek van Daniel door tekstkritiek gedateerd op de 6e eeuw voor christus en niet de 2e.
De duivel is dus wel geoordeeld maar nog lang niet op inactief gezet! Ik weet niet wat voor battles je zelf dagelijks voert maar ik weet dat de duivel hard aan het werk is om mensen op alle fronten tegen te werken. Van welke site heb je dit gehaald als ik vragen mag?
[ Bericht 0% gewijzigd door Ali_Kannibali op 28-02-2013 10:09:09 ]
...Amen !quote:
[..]
Voor mij is de sabbat duidelijk geworden. Ik heb geen zin meer om daar nog tijd aan te besteden. De conclusie die ik in mn vorige post heb getrokken is gebaseerd op alle argumenten die we langs hebben laten komen. Uiteindelijk bleek mijn conclusie dezelfde de te zijn als het fundamentele punt van de ZDA kerk. Het is ook het enige logische, consistente standpunt, wat zowel het schaduw-aspect als het genesis verhaal als Jezus' opmerkingen over de sabbat (en de gehele wet) integreert. Ik ga dus niet meer in op kwesties over de sabbat. Je constante negeren van belangrijke vragen die ik daarover gesteld heb getuigen wat mij betreft ook van de zwakheid van je argument en het weigeren om de zaken vanuit het perspectief te zien waarop ZDA het werkelijk ziet. In plaats daarvan houdt je vast aan de verdraaide woorden van obscure websites en youtube filmpjes die vol fouten staan. Dat is jouw keuze en die respecteer ik, maar weet dat je huidige overtuiging over wat ZDA leert niet overeenkomt met het werkelijke standpunt van ZDA.
[..]
Precies...quote:
[..]
Voor Paulus is de tempel van God niet een gebouw noch de tempel in Jeruzalem maar het geheel van de gelovigen. Er zal dus iemand in het lichaam van Christus zijn die die rol van antichrist aanneemt. Dat kan geen Romeinse keizer zijn geweest. Behalve de Romeinse Keizer die zichzelf tevens hoofd van de kerk noemt.
Een ander punt dat aantoont dat dit argument niet consistent is is het feit dat de 42 maanden/1260 dagen/3,5 jaar terugkomen in Openbaringen 12 en openbaringen 13. Het gaat hier om het tweede beest dat zal sterven en weer opstaan en zal blijven tot het einde, het geven van het teken.
Dit beest is onderdeel van het beest in openbaringen 17, het is het 8e hoofd, de allerlaatste macht voor het laatste oordeel. Het zijn de koningen der aarde die deze macht gecontroleerd door de hoer zullen vernietigen. Was dat het geval met nero?
Maw je moet de rest van de bijbel negeren wil je dit kloppend maken.
De valse interpretaties en uitleg van de profetieen van Daniel en openbaringen zijn rond de 16e eeuw mede in de wereld geholpen door de Jezuiten Francisco Ribera & Louis del Alcazar, om de aandacht af te leiden van de Rooms Katholieke Kerk en om een tegengeluid te bieden aan het opkomend protestantisme die inzagen en ervan overtuigd waren dat de profetieen direct verwezen naar het katholieke systeem als zijnde Babylon, het Beest, de AntiChrist, etc.
Maar vandaag de dag overheerst binnen Protestantse kringen vreemd genoeg de theorie dat de Antichrist nog moet arriveren (futurisme) en dat een fysiek Israel en de bouw van een fysieke 3e tempel een belangrijke rol zullen gaan spelen in de vervulling van de laatste week van Daniel's 70 weken profetie.
Die in werkelijkheid dus al in vervulling is gegaan (...vanaf de doping van Jezus t/m de steniging van Stephanus, precies 7 jaar later en er precies halverwege deze 7-jaarsperiode dus de kruisiging plaats vond).
Bron:quote:The truly amazing part of all this is that the Futurist theory dominates Protestant teaching today. Almost all you hear or read about today is the yet to appear antichrist, who will be unveiled in the last 3.5 years of Daniel's 70th week, when he declares himself to be God in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. That scenario is directly traceable back to the pen of the Jesuit Francisco Ribera who manufactured this theory for the sole purpose of diverting attention from the papacy. Note what one Protestant writer had to say:
“It is a matter for deep regret that those who hold and advocate the Futurist system at the present day, Protestants as they are for the most part, are thus really playing into the hands of Rome, and helping to screen the Papacy from detection as the Antichrist. It has been well said that 'Futurism tends to obliterate the brand put by the Holy Spirit upon Popery.' More especially is this to be deplored at a time when the Papal Antichrist seems to be making an expiring effort to regain his former hold on men's minds.” Daniel and the Revelation: The Chart of Prophecy and Our Place In It, A Study of the Historical and Futurist Interpretation, by Joseph Tanner, published in London by Hodder and Stoughton, 1898, pages 16, 17.
page 1 >> http://www.daniels70weeks.com
page 2 >> http://www.daniels70weeks.com/daniels70weeks.html
[ Bericht 0% gewijzigd door pappao op 28-02-2013 11:00:39 ]
Maar wie gaat nu wel naar de hemel, Wiseguy of Ali ? 
Question authorities, fuck religion, educate yourself, Viva el individualismo!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
There's only one way of life, and that's your own!
Uiteindelijk zal satan zelf gestalte gaan geven aan de valse eindtijdtheorie (futurism) en zal hij deze misconceptie gebruiken om de mensen wereldwijd massaal te misleiden.
Een groot deel van de Protestanten, maar zelfs ook een groot deel van de Adventisten zullen hiervoor vallen.
Het lijkt er zelfs op dat (...na het zien van deze video van Walter Veith) heel Israel is gesticht tot dit doel.
Walther Veith's video over o.a. de oprichting van Israel:
Waarin hij spreekt over: "The greatest counterfit in the history of mankind !"
Walter Veith is na het geven van deze lezing in december 2012, aangeklaagd en er loopt nu een gerechtelijke procedure tegen hem.
Tevens is hij nu naar aanleiding hiervan, zelfs ook binnen zijn eigen Adventistische gemeente niet meer welkom !
Wat naar mijn gevoel aangeeft dat er iemand erg zenuwachtig begint te geworden en liever niet wil dat deze informatie naar buiten wordt gebracht.
[ Bericht 4% gewijzigd door pappao op 28-02-2013 15:45:13 ]
Een groot deel van de Protestanten, maar zelfs ook een groot deel van de Adventisten zullen hiervoor vallen.
Het lijkt er zelfs op dat (...na het zien van deze video van Walter Veith) heel Israel is gesticht tot dit doel.
Walther Veith's video over o.a. de oprichting van Israel:
Waarin hij spreekt over: "The greatest counterfit in the history of mankind !"
Walter Veith is na het geven van deze lezing in december 2012, aangeklaagd en er loopt nu een gerechtelijke procedure tegen hem.
Tevens is hij nu naar aanleiding hiervan, zelfs ook binnen zijn eigen Adventistische gemeente niet meer welkom !
Wat naar mijn gevoel aangeeft dat er iemand erg zenuwachtig begint te geworden en liever niet wil dat deze informatie naar buiten wordt gebracht.
[ Bericht 4% gewijzigd door pappao op 28-02-2013 15:45:13 ]
Hij is aangeklaagd wegens antisemitisme ja...quote:
Uiteindelijk zal satan zelf gestalte gaan geven aan de valse eindtijdtheorie (futurism) en zal hij deze misconceptie gebruiken om de mensen wereldwijd massaal te misleiden.
Een groot deel van de Protestanten, maar zelfs ook een groot deel van de Adventisten zullen hiervoor vallen.
Het lijkt er zelfs op dat (...na het zien van deze video van Walter Veith) heel Israel is gesticht tot dit doel.
Walther Veith's video over o.a. de oprichting van Israel:
Waarin hij spreek over: "The greastest counterfit in the history of mankind !"
Walter Veith is na het geven van deze lezing aangeklaagd en er loopt nu een gerechtelijke procedure tegen hem.
Tevens is hij nu naar aanleiding hiervan, zelfs ook binnen zijn eigen Adventistische gemeente niet meer welkom !
Wat naar mijn gevoel aangeeft dat er iemand erg zenuwachtig begint te geworden en niet wil dat deze informatie naar buiten wordt gebracht.
Terwijl belangrijke Duitse joden die de video hebben gezien er geen spoor van antisemitisme in hebben terug kunnen vinden en graag een praatje zouden willen maken met mr. Veith.
De strijd warmt op naarmate we dichter bij WO3 komen.
Volgens de bijbel word je zondeloos gerekend vanaf het moment dat je in Jezus gelooft. Volgens jouw sekte moet de Heilige Geest eerst met jouw zondige aard aan de slag om dan op wonderlijke wijze jou net zo zondeloos te maken als Jezus. De bijbel is heel duidelijk dat wij niet, zelfs niet met hulp van de Heilige Geest, zondeloos kunnen worden. De hele protestantse christelijke wereld is het erover eens dat Jezus rechtvaardigheid aan een persoon wordt toegerekend en dat deze rechtvaardigheid redt, alleen de ZDA-sekte in hun verwaande blindheid klampt zich vast aan een vals evangelie vanwege de satanische visioenen van Ellen White.
Voor jou is de sabbath duidelijk geworden?
Elk potentieel argument voor de sabbat is 1000x onder de tafel geveegd. De bijbel is duidelijk dat er geen enkele twijfel over bestaat, de sabbat was een rituele wet voor Joden die zijn vervulling vindt in Christus. Jij luistert niet naar de argumenten omdat je hart niet open staat voor bijbelse consistentie. JIj klampt je vast aan je verwrongen wereldbeeld en doet naar de buitenwereld toe alsof de ZDA kerk een normale christelijke kerk is maar dat is het niet!
Mbt tot Daniel 7 ik ben het eens dat er veel onduidelijkheden over bestaan. Echter wat jij doet is ook onzin, zomaar allerlei teksten bij elkaar knippen en plakken. Wanneer je Daniel 7 leest moet je eerst kijken of er vanuit dit hoofdstuk zelf een logische verklaring is te vinden.
Voor jou is de sabbath duidelijk geworden?
Elk potentieel argument voor de sabbat is 1000x onder de tafel geveegd. De bijbel is duidelijk dat er geen enkele twijfel over bestaat, de sabbat was een rituele wet voor Joden die zijn vervulling vindt in Christus. Jij luistert niet naar de argumenten omdat je hart niet open staat voor bijbelse consistentie. JIj klampt je vast aan je verwrongen wereldbeeld en doet naar de buitenwereld toe alsof de ZDA kerk een normale christelijke kerk is maar dat is het niet!Mbt tot Daniel 7 ik ben het eens dat er veel onduidelijkheden over bestaan. Echter wat jij doet is ook onzin, zomaar allerlei teksten bij elkaar knippen en plakken. Wanneer je Daniel 7 leest moet je eerst kijken of er vanuit dit hoofdstuk zelf een logische verklaring is te vinden.
Profetie is niet altijd puur historicistisch, puur preteristisch of puur futuristisch te interpreteren. Ik geloof ook in de historicistische methode, echter wat de ZDA doen is alles toespitsen op Rome, terwijl dit BS is. Daniel 8 gaat bijvoorbeeld over Antiochus, dit is zo ontzettend duidelijk, mja niet voor de ZDA natuurlijk.quote:
Maar vandaag de dag overheerst binnen Protestantse kringen vreemd genoeg de theorie dat de Antichrist nog moet arriveren (futurisme) en dat een fysiek Israel en de bouw van een fysieke 3e tempel een belangrijke rol zullen gaan spelen in de vervulling van de laatste week van Daniel's 70 weken profetie.Die in werkelijkheid dus al in vervulling is gegaan (...vanaf de doping van Jezus t/m de steniging van Stephanus
Walter Veith ziet ze vliegenquote:
Uiteindelijk zal satan zelf gestalte gaan geven aan de valse eindtijdtheorie (futurism) en zal hij deze misconceptie gebruiken om de mensen wereldwijd massaal te misleiden.
Een groot deel van de Protestanten, maar zelfs ook een groot deel van de Adventisten zullen hiervoor vallen.
Het lijkt er zelfs op dat (...na het zien van deze video van Walter Veith) heel Israel is gesticht tot dit doel.
Walther Veith's video over o.a. de oprichting van Israel:
Waarin hij spreek over: "The greastest counterfit in the history of mankind !"
Walter Veith is na het geven van deze lezing in december 2012, aangeklaagd en er loopt nu een gerechtelijke procedure tegen hem.
Tevens is hij nu naar aanleiding hiervan, zelfs ook binnen zijn eigen Adventistische gemeente niet meer welkom !
Wat naar mijn gevoel aangeeft dat er iemand erg zenuwachtig begint te geworden en liever niet wil dat deze informatie naar buiten wordt gebracht.
Dit is in feite het probleem met de ZDA interpretatie van Daniel 7:
Are the Ten Horns really Ten Tribes that defeat the Roman Empire? Daniel 7:24 makes it abundantly clear that the ten horns are not other nations:
And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise... (KJV)
The ten horns are ten kings who shall arise from this kingdom... (NKJV)
Its ten horns are ten kings that will rule that empire. (NLT)
The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. (NIV)
As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings shall arise... (ESV)
As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings will arise... (NASB)
As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings shall arise... (RSV)
Notice some important truths from this passage that directly contradict SDA teachings:
The Bible clearly says the ten kings will arise from within the Roman Empire. None of the ten tribes arose from within or ruled over the Roman Empire. The ten tribes were outside powers who conquered parts of the Roman Empire and established new nations. They neither came from the Roman Empire nor ruled over it.
The Bible clearly says the ten horns are "kings". The Aramaic word used is melek which literally means "king" and is only translated "king" in the Old Testatment, never "nation" or "kingdom". The ten tribes were nations, not kings. In the very same passage, the word malkuw is used, meaning "kingdom". Notice:
And the ten horns out of this kingdom (malkuw) are ten kings (melek) that shall arise...
If this passage was referring to ten kingdoms that defeated the Roman Empire, then we would have expected Daniel to use the word malkuw (kingdom) instead of melek (king).
SDA's teach the horn on the head of the goat of Daniel 8 was a king (Alexander the Great) who ruled over the kingdom of Greece. If a horn on a head indicates a ruler over that empire in Daniel 8, then why not apply the same principle to Daniel 7?
The fourth beast had ten horns growing out of its head. In Daniel chapter 8, Adventists teach that horns growing out of the head of a beast represent specific kings or rulers over that particular empire. In the vision of the Goat and the Ram, the Goat has a large horn growing on its head and Daniel 8:21 says:
And the male goat is the kingdom of Greece. The large horn that is between its eyes is the first king. (NKJV)
Adventists agree that the horn growing on the head of the Goat represents Alexandar the Great. When that one large horn is later replaced by four smaller horns, Adventists likewise teach the Macedonian empire was ruled by Alexander's four generals. It is entirely inconsistent for Adventists to interpret the horns of Daniel 7 as nations that conquered that beast while at the same time teaching that the horns of Daniel 8 are kings of that nation! The Bible imagery throughout the book of Daniel, and also in the book of Revelation, consistently signifies that horns growing on the head of a beast represent the kings or leaders of that power. To teach that those horns are actually outside powers that invade and conquer the beast is totally inconsistent with the imagery and Biblical usage of the symbol.
Another symbol ignored by Seventh-day Adventists is the two iron legs of the image of Daniel 2. The Roman Empire clearly split into two parts: Western, head-quartered in Rome, and Eastern, ruled from Constantinople. The ten tribes only attacked and conquered the western part of the empire. The eastern part continued on for more than 1,000 years. This destroys the SDA image of the ten toes being synomomous with ten tribes, because that would mean five toes on each foot, and the Eastern Empire was not defeated by any of the ten tribes.
Another problem is that at least 20 tribes invaded the Roman Empire. Therefore, we can conclude:
The SDA teaching contradicts the Bible which says the ten horns arise from within that kingdom
The SDA teaching contradicts the Bible which says the ten horns are kings, not nations
The SDA teaching contradicts their own interpretation of horns, which is that horns are rulers of a particular Kindom (aka Alexander)
The SDA teaching contradicts history which says twenty tribes invaded the western Roman Empire, not ten
2. Did the Papacy uproot three tribes? As noted above, Uriah Smith and other Adventists teach that the Vandals, Ostrogoths, and Heuli were destroyed by the Pope of Rome. Such a revision of history is nothing less than pure fiction. None of these tribes were destroyed by the Pope. Any history textbook will explain that the Heruli were defeated by the Lombards, the Vandals and Ostrogoths by the Byzantines. Now the Pope benefited to some degree by the defeat of the Vandals and Ostrogoths, but it is uncertain, what, if any, role the Pope played in their demise. More importantly, the Heruli were defeated by the Lombards, who were Arians and avowed enemies of the Catholic Church. The Lombards were already identified as one of the other ten horns, and the defeat of the Heruli did not aid the Papacy in any meaningful way, so it makes no sense to claim the Papacy uprooted the Heruli.
In addition, two other tribes were uprooted during the same time period by the Byzantines: the Huns (455 AD) and the Alemanni (495 AD). Why do Adventists ignore these uprooted tribes? There is no reason to ignore them except for the fact that Adventists are trying to make the square pegs of history fit into the round holes of their prophetic jigsaw puzzle. They needed three tribes in order to make their theory fit into Daniel's writings, so they picked three out of the five and ignored the others.
3. Did the Papacy persecute the saints for 1,260 years? There is no doubt at all that Catholics persecuted others, but the 538 - 1798 timeframe of the persecutions does not fit very well with actual historical facts. Persecution actually started more than a century before 538 and finally ended nearly half a century after 1798 :
"Persecution of non-Catholics by Catholic authority began in the 4th Century, and culminated in the Codex Theodosianus (438), which punished all who did not embrace “that religion. . . now professed by the Pontiff.” At the opposite extreme, the Portuguese inquisition operated until 1821; the Spanish inquisition only concluded in 1834; the Roman inquisition in the Papal States also continued into the mid 19th century. Thus, the persecutory activities of Catholics exceed the limits of 538-1798 CE. The papacy does not fit the limits set by the prophecy."6
4. Did the Papacy change the Sabbath and the Ten Commandments? The Catholic Cathecism traces its roots back to Augustine, which was long before Adventists say the "little horn" power arose, and long before the papal power became established. Therefore, it is difficult, if not impossible, to pin the Cathecism's changing of the law on the Papacy.
Adventists claim that the papacy transfered Sabbath observance to Sunday during the dark ages. Prophet Ellen White saw in vision that the Pope changed the day of worship to Sunday:
"I saw that God had not changed the Sabbath, for He never changes. But the pope had changed it from the seventh to the first day of the week; for he was to change times and laws."7
The "official" teaching of the Catholic Church is that the abolition of the Sabbath was confirmed by the early Church Fathers:
The early Church Fathers compared the observance of the Sabbath to the observance of the rite of circumcision, and from that they demonstrated that if the apostles abolished circumcision (Gal. 5:1-6), so also the observance of the Sabbath must have been abolished.8
The above quote has the NIHIL OBSTAT and the IMPRIMATUR which essentially means the quote is considered authentic, accurate, and official by the Catholic Church. So, the "official" Catholic Church teaching is that Sunday-keeping can be traced back to the generation following the Apostles. Adventists point to a series of articles that appeared in September of 1893 in the Catholic Mirror as proof that the Catholic Church changed the day of worship. Those articles do indeed brag that the Catholic Church made the change, but they do not carry either the NIHIL OBSTAT or the IMPRIMATUR. This means the articles are not an official church teaching and represent merely the opinion of the author.9
Seventh-day Adventist theologian Samuele Bacchiocchi had access to the Vatican vaults and researched the oldest material on Sabbath-keeping. His research led him to conclude Sunday-keeping was largely practiced long before the first pope came on the scene:
"I differ from Ellen White, for example, on the origin of Sunday. She teaches that in the first centuries all Christians observed the Sabbath and it was largely through the efforts of Constantine that Sundaykeeping was adopted by many Christians in the fourth century. My research shows otherwise. If you read my essay HOW DID SUNDAYKEEPING BEGIN? which summarizes my dissertation, you will notice that I place the origin of Sundaykeeping by the time of the Emperor Hadrian, in A. D. 135."10
In the first centuries of Christianity there were varied opinions on the day of worship. Many Jewish Christians continued to observe the seventh day Sabbath. Some Christians observed both days, while others gathered for worship only on Sunday. There is evidence that Sunday-keeping was widely practiced by Christians by the generation following the Apostles, and perhaps even while some of the Apostles were still alive. The Didache is an ancient "church manual" dating from the first century. In it, the "Lord's Day", understood by comparison to other literature of that time period to mean "Sunday", is mentioned as the day that the Lord's Supper is celebrated:11
90 A.D. Didache - "Christian Assembly on the Lord's Day: 1. But every Lord's day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure."12
Here are a couple of other early quotes indicating an early introduction of Sunday worship in the Christian Church:
100 A.D. Barnabas - "Moreover God says to the Jews, 'Your new moons and Sabbaths I cannot endure.' You see how he says, 'The present Sabbaths are not acceptable to me, but the Sabbath which I have made in which, when I have rested [heaven: Heb 4] from all things, I will make the beginning of the eighth day which is the beginning of another world.' Wherefore we Christians keep the eighth day for joy, on which also Jesus arose from the dead and when he appeared ascended into heaven."13
110 A.D. Ignatius - "[T]hose who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death".14
Therefore, Sunday observance started hundreds of years before the Roman bishop's rise to pre-eminence.
5. Did the Papacy have Supremecy for 1260 years? The SDA Prophet Ellen White wrote:
"The 1260 years of papal supremacy began with the establishment of the papacy in A. D. 538, and would therefore terminate on 1798."15
538 AD is the year when the Ostrogoths were driven out of Rome, but nothing of great importance happened to the papacy during this year. In fact, the Ostrogoths later recovered from their defeat, went on the offensive, and re-occupied Rome from 541 to 548 AD. The Ostrogoths were not finally eradicated until 561 AD. The papacy did not achieve temporal sovereignty until 756 when the pope acquired the territories of Central Italy. (The papacy controlled these territories until 1870 when the king of Sardinia took over the papal territories.) So why the 538 date? As noted above, the Catholic persecutions do not adhere to these dates. There is no reason for starting at 538 AD other than the fact that it provides a convenient starting point if counting backwards from 1798--the supposed date of the demise of the papal power.
So, what about the ending date of the 1260-day prophecy? Was the papacy abolished in 1798? Ellen White writes:
"The infliction of the deadly wound points to the abolition of the papacy in 1798."16
While 1798 is a significant year for the papacy, it certainly does not indicate the "abolition" or even the downfall of the papacy. When Pope Pius VI was taken prisoner by the French General Berthier, the papacy suffered humiliation, but it would be a gross exaggeration to describe this event as the "downfall" of the papacy.
SDA Theologian Dr. Bacchiocchi explains what happened after the pope was captured in 1798:
"The imprisonment of Pope Paul VI was condemned by Russia and Austria. Both nations decided to join forces to restore the Pope to his Pontifical throne in Rome. When the French government was confronted with this new coalition and with popular uprisings, it decided to transfer the Pope to Valence, in France, where he died 40 days later, on August 29, 1799.
"The death of Pius VI can hardly be seen as the 'abolishment' or 'the downfall of the Papacy.' It was simply a temporary humiliation of the prestige of the Papacy. In fact, Pius VI was able to give directives for the election of his successor. Few months after his death, the Cardinals met in Venice on December 8, 1799, and elected Barnaba Chiaramonti, who took the name of Pious VII, in deference to his predecessor.
"The new Pope was able to negotiate with Napoleon the Concordat in 1801 and the Organic Articles in 1802. These treatises restored to the Pope some of the territories of the States of the Church and regulated the extent of the Papal authority in France.
"The following years marked, not the downfall, but the resurgence of papal authority, especially under the Pontificate of Pius IX (1846-1878). In 1854, Pius IX promulgated the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. ...
"The crowning event of Pius IX's pontificate was the convening of the First Vatican Council on December 8, 1869. It had a remarkable large attendance from all over the Roman world and on July 18, 1870, the Council promulgated the dogma of Papal Infallibility. This dogma has greatly enhanced the authority of the Pope, and discredits any attempt to attribute to 1798 the downfall of the papacy."17
Thus, the dates of 538 and 1798 do not accurately mark the beginning and ending dates of the period of papal supremacy. The Bishop of Rome was gradually consolidating power for many centuries, and the papacy continued to grow and thrive even after the temporary setback of 1798. These dates were concocted by Adventists because they were convenient. These dates fit nicely into the prophetic jigsaw puzzle they were building. The dates were picked because they fit in the puzzle, not because they actually delineated the years of papal supremacy.
6. Does Daniel 7 Describe a Judgment of the Righteous? Notice the order of events presented in Daniel 7:
Little horn came up (v. 8)
Little horn spoke great things (v. 8)
The judgment was set (v. 10)
The beast was slain and burned (v. 11)
There is nothing said in this sequence of events about investigating the deeds of the righteous. The context is that the little horn spoke blasphemous words, and then judgment occurred, and the very next event after the judgment was the destruction of the beast. The only conclusion that can be arrived at from reading this passage is that the ones being judged are the little horn and the beast power. Now notice the sequence in the latter part of the chapter:
Little horn arises (v. 24)
Little horn speaks against Most High (v. 25)
Little horn persecutes saints for 1260 days (v. 25)
The judgment shall sit (v. 26)
The little horn's dominion is taken away (v. 26)
The little horn's kingdom is given to the saints (v. 27)
Once again, there is nothing said about a judgment of the saints. It is clearly the little horn who is judged unworthy of having dominion, and his kingdom is taken away and given to the saints.
Are the Ten Horns really Ten Tribes that defeat the Roman Empire? Daniel 7:24 makes it abundantly clear that the ten horns are not other nations:
And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise... (KJV)
The ten horns are ten kings who shall arise from this kingdom... (NKJV)
Its ten horns are ten kings that will rule that empire. (NLT)
The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. (NIV)
As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings shall arise... (ESV)
As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings will arise... (NASB)
As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings shall arise... (RSV)
Notice some important truths from this passage that directly contradict SDA teachings:
The Bible clearly says the ten kings will arise from within the Roman Empire. None of the ten tribes arose from within or ruled over the Roman Empire. The ten tribes were outside powers who conquered parts of the Roman Empire and established new nations. They neither came from the Roman Empire nor ruled over it.
The Bible clearly says the ten horns are "kings". The Aramaic word used is melek which literally means "king" and is only translated "king" in the Old Testatment, never "nation" or "kingdom". The ten tribes were nations, not kings. In the very same passage, the word malkuw is used, meaning "kingdom". Notice:
And the ten horns out of this kingdom (malkuw) are ten kings (melek) that shall arise...
If this passage was referring to ten kingdoms that defeated the Roman Empire, then we would have expected Daniel to use the word malkuw (kingdom) instead of melek (king).
SDA's teach the horn on the head of the goat of Daniel 8 was a king (Alexander the Great) who ruled over the kingdom of Greece. If a horn on a head indicates a ruler over that empire in Daniel 8, then why not apply the same principle to Daniel 7?
The fourth beast had ten horns growing out of its head. In Daniel chapter 8, Adventists teach that horns growing out of the head of a beast represent specific kings or rulers over that particular empire. In the vision of the Goat and the Ram, the Goat has a large horn growing on its head and Daniel 8:21 says:
And the male goat is the kingdom of Greece. The large horn that is between its eyes is the first king. (NKJV)
Adventists agree that the horn growing on the head of the Goat represents Alexandar the Great. When that one large horn is later replaced by four smaller horns, Adventists likewise teach the Macedonian empire was ruled by Alexander's four generals. It is entirely inconsistent for Adventists to interpret the horns of Daniel 7 as nations that conquered that beast while at the same time teaching that the horns of Daniel 8 are kings of that nation! The Bible imagery throughout the book of Daniel, and also in the book of Revelation, consistently signifies that horns growing on the head of a beast represent the kings or leaders of that power. To teach that those horns are actually outside powers that invade and conquer the beast is totally inconsistent with the imagery and Biblical usage of the symbol.
Another symbol ignored by Seventh-day Adventists is the two iron legs of the image of Daniel 2. The Roman Empire clearly split into two parts: Western, head-quartered in Rome, and Eastern, ruled from Constantinople. The ten tribes only attacked and conquered the western part of the empire. The eastern part continued on for more than 1,000 years. This destroys the SDA image of the ten toes being synomomous with ten tribes, because that would mean five toes on each foot, and the Eastern Empire was not defeated by any of the ten tribes.
Another problem is that at least 20 tribes invaded the Roman Empire. Therefore, we can conclude:
The SDA teaching contradicts the Bible which says the ten horns arise from within that kingdom
The SDA teaching contradicts the Bible which says the ten horns are kings, not nations
The SDA teaching contradicts their own interpretation of horns, which is that horns are rulers of a particular Kindom (aka Alexander)
The SDA teaching contradicts history which says twenty tribes invaded the western Roman Empire, not ten
2. Did the Papacy uproot three tribes? As noted above, Uriah Smith and other Adventists teach that the Vandals, Ostrogoths, and Heuli were destroyed by the Pope of Rome. Such a revision of history is nothing less than pure fiction. None of these tribes were destroyed by the Pope. Any history textbook will explain that the Heruli were defeated by the Lombards, the Vandals and Ostrogoths by the Byzantines. Now the Pope benefited to some degree by the defeat of the Vandals and Ostrogoths, but it is uncertain, what, if any, role the Pope played in their demise. More importantly, the Heruli were defeated by the Lombards, who were Arians and avowed enemies of the Catholic Church. The Lombards were already identified as one of the other ten horns, and the defeat of the Heruli did not aid the Papacy in any meaningful way, so it makes no sense to claim the Papacy uprooted the Heruli.
In addition, two other tribes were uprooted during the same time period by the Byzantines: the Huns (455 AD) and the Alemanni (495 AD). Why do Adventists ignore these uprooted tribes? There is no reason to ignore them except for the fact that Adventists are trying to make the square pegs of history fit into the round holes of their prophetic jigsaw puzzle. They needed three tribes in order to make their theory fit into Daniel's writings, so they picked three out of the five and ignored the others.
3. Did the Papacy persecute the saints for 1,260 years? There is no doubt at all that Catholics persecuted others, but the 538 - 1798 timeframe of the persecutions does not fit very well with actual historical facts. Persecution actually started more than a century before 538 and finally ended nearly half a century after 1798 :
"Persecution of non-Catholics by Catholic authority began in the 4th Century, and culminated in the Codex Theodosianus (438), which punished all who did not embrace “that religion. . . now professed by the Pontiff.” At the opposite extreme, the Portuguese inquisition operated until 1821; the Spanish inquisition only concluded in 1834; the Roman inquisition in the Papal States also continued into the mid 19th century. Thus, the persecutory activities of Catholics exceed the limits of 538-1798 CE. The papacy does not fit the limits set by the prophecy."6
4. Did the Papacy change the Sabbath and the Ten Commandments? The Catholic Cathecism traces its roots back to Augustine, which was long before Adventists say the "little horn" power arose, and long before the papal power became established. Therefore, it is difficult, if not impossible, to pin the Cathecism's changing of the law on the Papacy.
Adventists claim that the papacy transfered Sabbath observance to Sunday during the dark ages. Prophet Ellen White saw in vision that the Pope changed the day of worship to Sunday:
"I saw that God had not changed the Sabbath, for He never changes. But the pope had changed it from the seventh to the first day of the week; for he was to change times and laws."7
The "official" teaching of the Catholic Church is that the abolition of the Sabbath was confirmed by the early Church Fathers:
The early Church Fathers compared the observance of the Sabbath to the observance of the rite of circumcision, and from that they demonstrated that if the apostles abolished circumcision (Gal. 5:1-6), so also the observance of the Sabbath must have been abolished.8
The above quote has the NIHIL OBSTAT and the IMPRIMATUR which essentially means the quote is considered authentic, accurate, and official by the Catholic Church. So, the "official" Catholic Church teaching is that Sunday-keeping can be traced back to the generation following the Apostles. Adventists point to a series of articles that appeared in September of 1893 in the Catholic Mirror as proof that the Catholic Church changed the day of worship. Those articles do indeed brag that the Catholic Church made the change, but they do not carry either the NIHIL OBSTAT or the IMPRIMATUR. This means the articles are not an official church teaching and represent merely the opinion of the author.9
Seventh-day Adventist theologian Samuele Bacchiocchi had access to the Vatican vaults and researched the oldest material on Sabbath-keeping. His research led him to conclude Sunday-keeping was largely practiced long before the first pope came on the scene:
"I differ from Ellen White, for example, on the origin of Sunday. She teaches that in the first centuries all Christians observed the Sabbath and it was largely through the efforts of Constantine that Sundaykeeping was adopted by many Christians in the fourth century. My research shows otherwise. If you read my essay HOW DID SUNDAYKEEPING BEGIN? which summarizes my dissertation, you will notice that I place the origin of Sundaykeeping by the time of the Emperor Hadrian, in A. D. 135."10
In the first centuries of Christianity there were varied opinions on the day of worship. Many Jewish Christians continued to observe the seventh day Sabbath. Some Christians observed both days, while others gathered for worship only on Sunday. There is evidence that Sunday-keeping was widely practiced by Christians by the generation following the Apostles, and perhaps even while some of the Apostles were still alive. The Didache is an ancient "church manual" dating from the first century. In it, the "Lord's Day", understood by comparison to other literature of that time period to mean "Sunday", is mentioned as the day that the Lord's Supper is celebrated:11
90 A.D. Didache - "Christian Assembly on the Lord's Day: 1. But every Lord's day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure."12
Here are a couple of other early quotes indicating an early introduction of Sunday worship in the Christian Church:
100 A.D. Barnabas - "Moreover God says to the Jews, 'Your new moons and Sabbaths I cannot endure.' You see how he says, 'The present Sabbaths are not acceptable to me, but the Sabbath which I have made in which, when I have rested [heaven: Heb 4] from all things, I will make the beginning of the eighth day which is the beginning of another world.' Wherefore we Christians keep the eighth day for joy, on which also Jesus arose from the dead and when he appeared ascended into heaven."13
110 A.D. Ignatius - "[T]hose who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death".14
Therefore, Sunday observance started hundreds of years before the Roman bishop's rise to pre-eminence.
5. Did the Papacy have Supremecy for 1260 years? The SDA Prophet Ellen White wrote:
"The 1260 years of papal supremacy began with the establishment of the papacy in A. D. 538, and would therefore terminate on 1798."15
538 AD is the year when the Ostrogoths were driven out of Rome, but nothing of great importance happened to the papacy during this year. In fact, the Ostrogoths later recovered from their defeat, went on the offensive, and re-occupied Rome from 541 to 548 AD. The Ostrogoths were not finally eradicated until 561 AD. The papacy did not achieve temporal sovereignty until 756 when the pope acquired the territories of Central Italy. (The papacy controlled these territories until 1870 when the king of Sardinia took over the papal territories.) So why the 538 date? As noted above, the Catholic persecutions do not adhere to these dates. There is no reason for starting at 538 AD other than the fact that it provides a convenient starting point if counting backwards from 1798--the supposed date of the demise of the papal power.
So, what about the ending date of the 1260-day prophecy? Was the papacy abolished in 1798? Ellen White writes:
"The infliction of the deadly wound points to the abolition of the papacy in 1798."16
While 1798 is a significant year for the papacy, it certainly does not indicate the "abolition" or even the downfall of the papacy. When Pope Pius VI was taken prisoner by the French General Berthier, the papacy suffered humiliation, but it would be a gross exaggeration to describe this event as the "downfall" of the papacy.
SDA Theologian Dr. Bacchiocchi explains what happened after the pope was captured in 1798:
"The imprisonment of Pope Paul VI was condemned by Russia and Austria. Both nations decided to join forces to restore the Pope to his Pontifical throne in Rome. When the French government was confronted with this new coalition and with popular uprisings, it decided to transfer the Pope to Valence, in France, where he died 40 days later, on August 29, 1799.
"The death of Pius VI can hardly be seen as the 'abolishment' or 'the downfall of the Papacy.' It was simply a temporary humiliation of the prestige of the Papacy. In fact, Pius VI was able to give directives for the election of his successor. Few months after his death, the Cardinals met in Venice on December 8, 1799, and elected Barnaba Chiaramonti, who took the name of Pious VII, in deference to his predecessor.
"The new Pope was able to negotiate with Napoleon the Concordat in 1801 and the Organic Articles in 1802. These treatises restored to the Pope some of the territories of the States of the Church and regulated the extent of the Papal authority in France.
"The following years marked, not the downfall, but the resurgence of papal authority, especially under the Pontificate of Pius IX (1846-1878). In 1854, Pius IX promulgated the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. ...
"The crowning event of Pius IX's pontificate was the convening of the First Vatican Council on December 8, 1869. It had a remarkable large attendance from all over the Roman world and on July 18, 1870, the Council promulgated the dogma of Papal Infallibility. This dogma has greatly enhanced the authority of the Pope, and discredits any attempt to attribute to 1798 the downfall of the papacy."17
Thus, the dates of 538 and 1798 do not accurately mark the beginning and ending dates of the period of papal supremacy. The Bishop of Rome was gradually consolidating power for many centuries, and the papacy continued to grow and thrive even after the temporary setback of 1798. These dates were concocted by Adventists because they were convenient. These dates fit nicely into the prophetic jigsaw puzzle they were building. The dates were picked because they fit in the puzzle, not because they actually delineated the years of papal supremacy.
6. Does Daniel 7 Describe a Judgment of the Righteous? Notice the order of events presented in Daniel 7:
Little horn came up (v. 8)
Little horn spoke great things (v. 8)
The judgment was set (v. 10)
The beast was slain and burned (v. 11)
There is nothing said in this sequence of events about investigating the deeds of the righteous. The context is that the little horn spoke blasphemous words, and then judgment occurred, and the very next event after the judgment was the destruction of the beast. The only conclusion that can be arrived at from reading this passage is that the ones being judged are the little horn and the beast power. Now notice the sequence in the latter part of the chapter:
Little horn arises (v. 24)
Little horn speaks against Most High (v. 25)
Little horn persecutes saints for 1260 days (v. 25)
The judgment shall sit (v. 26)
The little horn's dominion is taken away (v. 26)
The little horn's kingdom is given to the saints (v. 27)
Once again, there is nothing said about a judgment of the saints. It is clearly the little horn who is judged unworthy of having dominion, and his kingdom is taken away and given to the saints.
Ik denk dat Daniel 7 gaat over Vespanianus:
Daniel 7:3-6
And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another. The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to it. And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh. After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it.
Few commentators, even Daniel "late daters," disagree as to the identification of Beast #1: This is clearly Babylon. Beast #2 is identified by liberals as Media, and Beast #3 as Persia. We argue in this piece that such an interpretation is off the mark, and that #2 is Medo-Persian, while #3 is Greece.
Daniel 7:7-8
It is with Beast #4 that things become relevant for our topic here:
After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.
Liberal commentators try to make this sound like the Seleucid Empire of Antiochus, but that won't work at all -- Rome is clearly in view here. The Seleucids were neither strong nor crushing; Rome was. But in terms of eschatology, this is where a division of opinion occurs. Dispensationalists (those who adhere to the standard "Left Behind" view) see in this beast a dual fulfillment part ancient Rome, but part fulfillment by an Antichrist figure in our future. But can this really be justified? If the whole of Daniel's words finds fulfillment in 70 AD, secondary fulfillments become possible, of course, but essentially superfluous in context.
My own findings on this subject may not be new. Indeed, my identification of the "little horn" in Daniel 7 has been proposed before; for example, though he identified the little horn differently, the Jewish commentator Rashi (1040-1105) thought of the ten horns in the same way I have. The reader will have to decide whether the connections made are plausible. Our questions for this passage are:
What's the empire? As noted, all on the conservative side agree that Rome is in view in some way. But is it just ancient Rome, or another as well? Or could it be said that Rome never really ended, since the modern nations of Europe essentially carry on the same dominion? The answer turns upon what follows.
Who are the ten horns, the three horns, and the little horn? The standard dispensational answer: These ten horns are ten kings to come, or else ten nations in a federation headed by the Antichrist figure. But does it bear out?
A sub-question here is whether we should expect ten literal entities, whether kings or nations. Miller [Daniel commentary, 203] notes that ten may merely symbolize completeness. The actual number of entities may be different; one might justly argue that the ten horns are programmatic, after the ten toes of Daniel's statue.
That may indeed be the case. But it is worth notice that the first century era provides us with an intriguing basis for total fulfillment of this passage.
The Roman historian Suetonius authored a biographical account entitled The Twelve Caesars [Penguin Books, 1989], which provided historical data about twelve Roman Caesars from Julius Caesar to Domitian at the end of the first century:
Julius Caesar, 49-44 BC
Triumverate: Marc Anthony/Octavian (Augustus)/Lepidus 44-31 BC
Augustus, 31 BC-14 AD
Tiberius, 14-37
Caligula, 37-41
Claudius, 41-54
Nero, 54-68
Galba, 68-69
Otho, 69
Vitellius, 69
Vespasian, 69-79
Titus, 79-81
Domitian, 81-96
In the year 49 BC, Julius Caesar assumed the title of dictator of Rome. In 44 BC, he assumed the title of dictator perpetuus, or dictator for life. He was assassinated before he could enjoy it for long, but he laid the foundation for what would become a dynasty.
The Triumverate is not included in Suetonius' work. However, it consisted of two men who were relatives of Julius Caesar: Marc Anthony, who was a grandson of one of Julius' uncles, and Octavian, who later became Augustus and the first of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Lepidus was part of the triumverate but was not part of Julius' family.
Of particular interest to us, however, is the place of Vespasian in the list. He is 11th, just as the little horn is 11th in Daniel's order. Vespasian, and his son Titus, were of course responsible for the destruction of Jerusalem in 70. Vespasian was Emperor, and originally the military leader, and Titus was the military commander who actually downed Jerusalem. Now the question: Does Vespasian fit the remaining descriptors of Daniel 7's little horn?
The little horn is given these primary characteristics in Daniel 7:
"Eyes like a man" -- Miller comments [202] that eyes in Scripture are "instruments of observation and learning and are therefore appropriately symbolic of intelligence, insight, and wisdom...This individual will be extremely intelligent and clever." Goldingay [Daniel commentary, 164] states that the eyes signify arrogance (see below). Tatford [Daniel commentary, 111] sees a reference to "intellectual shrewdness and perspicacity," or keen observation and insight.
Is Vespasian the Horn?
Does any of this fit Vespasian? Suetonius' description of Vespasian is of a man who was a survivor, a shrewd politician (he "behaved most generously to all classes", giving out plenty of money), and a patron of the arts. He lived an orderly and structured life, "was nearly always just as good-natured, cracking frequent jokes," had "a knack of apt quotation from the Greek classics..." Daniel's description is quite general; it would fit Vespasian's son Titus just as well (Titus had, according to Suetonius, a phenomenal memory, great artistic talent, and excellent skills as a forger!). But of course, for our thesis, it would have to at least fit Vespasian, and it arguably does.
"A mouth speaking great things" ("very great things", 7:20) -- the word for "great" (rabrab) is used only in Daniel in the OT and is used to refer to "great gifts" given by Nebuchadnezzar, and "great signs" given by God. Commentators take this as a description of arrogance [Miller, 202].
Was Vespasian arrogant? Suetonius has little bad to say about Vespasian, and does not indict him for this sin. As it happens, though, Dan. 7:25 tells us a bit more about the horn's sort of arrogance: "And he shall speak great words against the most High..." This would also not be surprising from any Roman, of course, since the Romans regarded Judaism as a foolish superstition. Yahweh was likely blasphemed by Romans on a daily basis across the Empire. Suetonius offers us some interesting tidbits that may be of relevance:
In Judaea, Vespasian consulted the oracle of the God of Carmel and was given a promise that he would never be disappointed in what he planned or desired, however lofty his ambitions. Also, a distinguished Jewish prisoner of Vespasian's, Josephus by name, insisted that he would soon be released by the very man who had now put him in fetters, and who would then be Emperor.
Josephus himself has some interesting tidbits. Since Vespasian was his sponsor and actually reviewed his work, we would not expect him to recount cases where Vespasian spoke against God, if he did, but he does tell us (War 4.10.7):
...Vespasian's good fortune succeeded to his wishes everywhere, and the public affairs were, for the greatest part, already in his hands; upon which he considered that he had not arrived at the government without divine providence, but that a righteous kind of fate had brought the empire under his power...
A righteous kind of fate? Not God? Credit where it is due -- who does Daniel know who has a problem doing that?
Daniel 4:25 That they shall drive thee [Nebuchadnezzar] from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field, and they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and they shall wet thee with the dew of heaven, and seven times shall pass over thee, till thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.
They took different tacks, but both Nebuchadnezzar and Vespasian clearly had problems knowing who ruled in the kingdom of men and gave out the power cards. Arrogant? Yes -- since it is a "righteous" fate that he thought brought him to power. It wasn't as bad as Nebuchadnezzar crediting himself, but in either case it is an arrogant insult to the Most High.
"Looked more imposing that the others" (7:20) -- the word for imposing is rab, a form of the word noted above. The word "look" (chezev) is also unique to Daniel and refers to appearances; it is the word used to refer to Daniel's "visions". The descriptor is actually of the horn of the vision itself, not the person it represents [Miller, 212], so there is no need to go into whether Vespasian himself looked more imposing than, say, Nero; from a Jewish perspective his role in destroying Judaea may have been enough to earn such a reckoning.
Vespasian certainly seems a plausible candidate for the little horn. (I referred to Rashi earlier; he also identified the horns with Rome's emperors, but made Titus the little horn.) This granted, we are left with two questions. First, what of the three horns that are uprooted? I believe the answer remains in our list of Emperors -- the three horns are to be identified with Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, military men who died in one year, 69 AD. The first and third were murdered by their troops; Otho was compelled to suicide.
Does this fit Daniel's words? Let's consider what actions are effected on these three horns throughout Daniel:
"Before who three were plucked up by the roots" -- the verb here is the same used to describe the hamstringing of horses (Josh. 11:6, 9). Miller [202] says that the word "denotes a violent overthrow and does not imply that an individual will merely succeed a previous king (or kings) to the throne..." or merely displace the previous kings.
"Before whom three fell" (7:20) -- the preposition here can mean, among other things, before, after, or because of. The verb behind "fell" is used only 11 times in the Bible, once in Ezra and 10 times in Daniel. It is used of Nebuchadnezzar falling on his face in worship (2:46), several times of people falling for worship before Nebuchadnezzar's gold idol, and once for a voice coming down from heaven (4:31).
"He shall subdue three kings" (7:24) -- the word subdue is taken within a dispensational paradigm to mean that the little horn king will himself demote three of the kings. But does the word require direct intervention? It is used in the OT only in Daniel, and is found in Dan. 5:19 referring to Nebuchadnezzar ("And for the majesty that he gave him, all people, nations, and languages, trembled and feared before him: whom he would he slew; and whom he would he kept alive; and whom he would he set up; and whom he would he put down.") The word (shephal) means to abase or humble.
Does this work out with Vespasian and the three deposed emperors? Technically items 1 and 2 don't have to -- these are descriptions of the horn in the dream rather than of the king in question. Only the third entry actually describes an action of this king in relation to the other three. But as it happens this does fit well what happened anyway.
Did Vespasian in any sense "put down" or "debase" the three kings? He was not involved directly in any way with their overthrow or deaths that our sources record. Yet the year 68-9, the time of our three rapid Emperors, is known as the time of the Roman civil wars precisely because of this infighting that produced four different emperors in one year. Each of these fellows was a military man with troops that were (at least at some point) loyal to him.
By the rules of war, Vespasian was the winner -- and therefore can be said to have indeed humbled, or put down, the other three. He was the winner, in essence, of the Roman civil wars among four candidates for the highest post, and also the winner of the contest of honor that was ingrained with the conflict.
Daniel 7:9-12
I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened. I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame. As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time.
Daniel, by our view, is predicting the abrupt end of the Roman Empire. The other three kingdoms -- which we see as Babylon, Media-Persia, and Greece -- are said to be given extra time to live, though stripped of their authority. This is seen as fulfilled, under any paradigm, in that these kingdoms continued to exist, albeit absorbed, by the power that conquered them. Rome, however, when it fell, didn't have that option.
(I do not see that it is necessary to suppose that the fall of Rome, to match this vision, would have had to occur at the time that Vespasian died; verse 11 gives no indication that the fate of the little horn was delivered at the same time that Beast #4 was slain. If dispensationalists wish to argue this, I may point out that it is certainly no less reasonable than their idea that there is a spread of at least 2000 years now in the life of the fourth beast!)
Daniel 7:13-14
I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
With this passage we return to the main subject of our eschatology project. We know that the Son of Man envisioned here is Christ. What should be especially noted for our purposes is the Son of Man's mode of transportation, and the direction he is going in. The Son of Man is riding with "the clouds of heaven" (the LXX has the Son of Man actually "on" the clouds) and heading towards the Ancient of Days to be enthroned.
Miller [207] believes that the Son of Man rides from heaven to earth in this picture, but this is quite unlikely in view of the setting of God's heavenly court (7:10). Goldingay [164] acknowledges that the scene of God on a throne of fire, surrounded by attendants, "locate the scene in heaven"; but counters that where "it is specifically a matter of God judging...the scene is normally on earth." The verses he uses in support of this, however, could be said to fall to circular reasoning; for example, Jer. 49:38: "And I will set my throne in Elam, and will destroy from thence the king and the princes, saith the LORD." Did God literally set his throne in Elam? (Other passages, like Ps. 96:10-13, say God will come to judge the earth, but how does this equate with God being physically present on earth?)
The scene fits the placement in heaven better than it fits a placement on earth. Nor does it do to object that the scene must be on earth because of the earth and the sea seen by Daniel (7:3-4). Again, if we are thinking literal geography and envisioning here, then the Mormons must be right about God having a human body!
Casey [Case.SOM, 22, 24-9], for his own purposes, insists that the scene of the AoD is on the earth. He admits that "If the judgment is on earth, God will have to come to earth in order to carry it out" -- then adds that this is not stated explicitly, "because it is not an important aspect of what the author wanted to say!" This does not answer the problem, it merely tries to explain it away with silence!
We will return to this issue in our dealing with the Olivet discourse. For now, we need to round out our treatment of Daniel. Verses 7:15-20 only record Daniel's inquiry and repeat previous information. We may move to this:
Daniel 7:21-2
I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.
Did Vespasian "make war" with the saints and prevail against them? If by "saints" Daniel means Jews then the obvious answer is yes; but it is clear here that "Jews" cannot be intended, if we are to take this prophecy as correct, since the Jews did not in any sense come to possess a kingdom. On the other hand, as we shall argue, this does make sense if the saints are interpreted as the Christians.
But then the question is, "Was war made on the Christians? This was a war against the Jews!" It was indeed in the main -- but there is evidence that Christians were targeted here also. A fragment of Tacitus' Histories, now preserved for us only by Severus tells of deliberations by Titus as to whether to destroy the Jewish temple. In the end he decides to do so, because although the two religions were in conflict, "they nevertheless developed from the same origins. The Christiani arose from the Jews: With the root removed, the branch is easily killed."
If this is right, then Christians were a real, albeit by far secondary, target of the Romans in the successful attack on Jerusalem. (Josephus reports this conversation as well, but does not mention the Christians -- War 6.4.3.)
We will talk more about the "kingdom" language in another essay. For now, more on Daniel. Verses 23 and 24 repeat earlier material; on to:
Daniel 7:25-6
And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.
The first part of verse 25 repeats what is said earlier, and adds this:
"Change times and laws" -- Miller [214] interprets this as referring to a desire to eliminate religious holidays and laws. As noted before, the Romans under Vespasian's ultimate command thought to destroy the Temple as a way of destroying Judaism. Their thinking was misplaced, but this was certainly in mind if we are to believe Tacitus.
The saints will be given over "for a time, times and half a time" -- most see this as referring to a period of three and a half years, and this is the case under any paradigm. The question is, when was this three and a half year period? Can it fit into events of 70 AD?
Yes, it can. The Jewish war lasted 7 years, from 66-73 AD. Jerusalem was destroyed in the middle of this period, in 70. The 3 1/2 years would correspond well with the period from 66-70, or perhaps from 70-73, though the latter is less likely since by this time Christians would have followed Jesus' instructions to flee, and the former fits in line with the statement from Tacitus that there was enmity against the Christians as a branch of Judaism.
His power "will be taken away and completely destroyed forever." Vespasian of course did not remain Emperor forever; he died in 79 AD. This statement could be made of any human leader and does not indicate any special sort of judgment. It is made in contrast to verse 27 and the everlasting kingdom therein.
Daniel 7:27
And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.
We believe that this refers to the established rule of Christ in 70 AD and will address this matter, again, in our Olivet study.
Daniel 7:3-6
And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another. The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to it. And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh. After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it.
Few commentators, even Daniel "late daters," disagree as to the identification of Beast #1: This is clearly Babylon. Beast #2 is identified by liberals as Media, and Beast #3 as Persia. We argue in this piece that such an interpretation is off the mark, and that #2 is Medo-Persian, while #3 is Greece.
Daniel 7:7-8
It is with Beast #4 that things become relevant for our topic here:
After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.
Liberal commentators try to make this sound like the Seleucid Empire of Antiochus, but that won't work at all -- Rome is clearly in view here. The Seleucids were neither strong nor crushing; Rome was. But in terms of eschatology, this is where a division of opinion occurs. Dispensationalists (those who adhere to the standard "Left Behind" view) see in this beast a dual fulfillment part ancient Rome, but part fulfillment by an Antichrist figure in our future. But can this really be justified? If the whole of Daniel's words finds fulfillment in 70 AD, secondary fulfillments become possible, of course, but essentially superfluous in context.
My own findings on this subject may not be new. Indeed, my identification of the "little horn" in Daniel 7 has been proposed before; for example, though he identified the little horn differently, the Jewish commentator Rashi (1040-1105) thought of the ten horns in the same way I have. The reader will have to decide whether the connections made are plausible. Our questions for this passage are:
What's the empire? As noted, all on the conservative side agree that Rome is in view in some way. But is it just ancient Rome, or another as well? Or could it be said that Rome never really ended, since the modern nations of Europe essentially carry on the same dominion? The answer turns upon what follows.
Who are the ten horns, the three horns, and the little horn? The standard dispensational answer: These ten horns are ten kings to come, or else ten nations in a federation headed by the Antichrist figure. But does it bear out?
A sub-question here is whether we should expect ten literal entities, whether kings or nations. Miller [Daniel commentary, 203] notes that ten may merely symbolize completeness. The actual number of entities may be different; one might justly argue that the ten horns are programmatic, after the ten toes of Daniel's statue.
That may indeed be the case. But it is worth notice that the first century era provides us with an intriguing basis for total fulfillment of this passage.
The Roman historian Suetonius authored a biographical account entitled The Twelve Caesars [Penguin Books, 1989], which provided historical data about twelve Roman Caesars from Julius Caesar to Domitian at the end of the first century:
Julius Caesar, 49-44 BC
Triumverate: Marc Anthony/Octavian (Augustus)/Lepidus 44-31 BC
Augustus, 31 BC-14 AD
Tiberius, 14-37
Caligula, 37-41
Claudius, 41-54
Nero, 54-68
Galba, 68-69
Otho, 69
Vitellius, 69
Vespasian, 69-79
Titus, 79-81
Domitian, 81-96
In the year 49 BC, Julius Caesar assumed the title of dictator of Rome. In 44 BC, he assumed the title of dictator perpetuus, or dictator for life. He was assassinated before he could enjoy it for long, but he laid the foundation for what would become a dynasty.
The Triumverate is not included in Suetonius' work. However, it consisted of two men who were relatives of Julius Caesar: Marc Anthony, who was a grandson of one of Julius' uncles, and Octavian, who later became Augustus and the first of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Lepidus was part of the triumverate but was not part of Julius' family.
Of particular interest to us, however, is the place of Vespasian in the list. He is 11th, just as the little horn is 11th in Daniel's order. Vespasian, and his son Titus, were of course responsible for the destruction of Jerusalem in 70. Vespasian was Emperor, and originally the military leader, and Titus was the military commander who actually downed Jerusalem. Now the question: Does Vespasian fit the remaining descriptors of Daniel 7's little horn?
The little horn is given these primary characteristics in Daniel 7:
"Eyes like a man" -- Miller comments [202] that eyes in Scripture are "instruments of observation and learning and are therefore appropriately symbolic of intelligence, insight, and wisdom...This individual will be extremely intelligent and clever." Goldingay [Daniel commentary, 164] states that the eyes signify arrogance (see below). Tatford [Daniel commentary, 111] sees a reference to "intellectual shrewdness and perspicacity," or keen observation and insight.
Is Vespasian the Horn?
Does any of this fit Vespasian? Suetonius' description of Vespasian is of a man who was a survivor, a shrewd politician (he "behaved most generously to all classes", giving out plenty of money), and a patron of the arts. He lived an orderly and structured life, "was nearly always just as good-natured, cracking frequent jokes," had "a knack of apt quotation from the Greek classics..." Daniel's description is quite general; it would fit Vespasian's son Titus just as well (Titus had, according to Suetonius, a phenomenal memory, great artistic talent, and excellent skills as a forger!). But of course, for our thesis, it would have to at least fit Vespasian, and it arguably does.
"A mouth speaking great things" ("very great things", 7:20) -- the word for "great" (rabrab) is used only in Daniel in the OT and is used to refer to "great gifts" given by Nebuchadnezzar, and "great signs" given by God. Commentators take this as a description of arrogance [Miller, 202].
Was Vespasian arrogant? Suetonius has little bad to say about Vespasian, and does not indict him for this sin. As it happens, though, Dan. 7:25 tells us a bit more about the horn's sort of arrogance: "And he shall speak great words against the most High..." This would also not be surprising from any Roman, of course, since the Romans regarded Judaism as a foolish superstition. Yahweh was likely blasphemed by Romans on a daily basis across the Empire. Suetonius offers us some interesting tidbits that may be of relevance:
In Judaea, Vespasian consulted the oracle of the God of Carmel and was given a promise that he would never be disappointed in what he planned or desired, however lofty his ambitions. Also, a distinguished Jewish prisoner of Vespasian's, Josephus by name, insisted that he would soon be released by the very man who had now put him in fetters, and who would then be Emperor.
Josephus himself has some interesting tidbits. Since Vespasian was his sponsor and actually reviewed his work, we would not expect him to recount cases where Vespasian spoke against God, if he did, but he does tell us (War 4.10.7):
...Vespasian's good fortune succeeded to his wishes everywhere, and the public affairs were, for the greatest part, already in his hands; upon which he considered that he had not arrived at the government without divine providence, but that a righteous kind of fate had brought the empire under his power...
A righteous kind of fate? Not God? Credit where it is due -- who does Daniel know who has a problem doing that?
Daniel 4:25 That they shall drive thee [Nebuchadnezzar] from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field, and they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and they shall wet thee with the dew of heaven, and seven times shall pass over thee, till thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.
They took different tacks, but both Nebuchadnezzar and Vespasian clearly had problems knowing who ruled in the kingdom of men and gave out the power cards. Arrogant? Yes -- since it is a "righteous" fate that he thought brought him to power. It wasn't as bad as Nebuchadnezzar crediting himself, but in either case it is an arrogant insult to the Most High.
"Looked more imposing that the others" (7:20) -- the word for imposing is rab, a form of the word noted above. The word "look" (chezev) is also unique to Daniel and refers to appearances; it is the word used to refer to Daniel's "visions". The descriptor is actually of the horn of the vision itself, not the person it represents [Miller, 212], so there is no need to go into whether Vespasian himself looked more imposing than, say, Nero; from a Jewish perspective his role in destroying Judaea may have been enough to earn such a reckoning.
Vespasian certainly seems a plausible candidate for the little horn. (I referred to Rashi earlier; he also identified the horns with Rome's emperors, but made Titus the little horn.) This granted, we are left with two questions. First, what of the three horns that are uprooted? I believe the answer remains in our list of Emperors -- the three horns are to be identified with Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, military men who died in one year, 69 AD. The first and third were murdered by their troops; Otho was compelled to suicide.
Does this fit Daniel's words? Let's consider what actions are effected on these three horns throughout Daniel:
"Before who three were plucked up by the roots" -- the verb here is the same used to describe the hamstringing of horses (Josh. 11:6, 9). Miller [202] says that the word "denotes a violent overthrow and does not imply that an individual will merely succeed a previous king (or kings) to the throne..." or merely displace the previous kings.
"Before whom three fell" (7:20) -- the preposition here can mean, among other things, before, after, or because of. The verb behind "fell" is used only 11 times in the Bible, once in Ezra and 10 times in Daniel. It is used of Nebuchadnezzar falling on his face in worship (2:46), several times of people falling for worship before Nebuchadnezzar's gold idol, and once for a voice coming down from heaven (4:31).
"He shall subdue three kings" (7:24) -- the word subdue is taken within a dispensational paradigm to mean that the little horn king will himself demote three of the kings. But does the word require direct intervention? It is used in the OT only in Daniel, and is found in Dan. 5:19 referring to Nebuchadnezzar ("And for the majesty that he gave him, all people, nations, and languages, trembled and feared before him: whom he would he slew; and whom he would he kept alive; and whom he would he set up; and whom he would he put down.") The word (shephal) means to abase or humble.
Does this work out with Vespasian and the three deposed emperors? Technically items 1 and 2 don't have to -- these are descriptions of the horn in the dream rather than of the king in question. Only the third entry actually describes an action of this king in relation to the other three. But as it happens this does fit well what happened anyway.
Did Vespasian in any sense "put down" or "debase" the three kings? He was not involved directly in any way with their overthrow or deaths that our sources record. Yet the year 68-9, the time of our three rapid Emperors, is known as the time of the Roman civil wars precisely because of this infighting that produced four different emperors in one year. Each of these fellows was a military man with troops that were (at least at some point) loyal to him.
By the rules of war, Vespasian was the winner -- and therefore can be said to have indeed humbled, or put down, the other three. He was the winner, in essence, of the Roman civil wars among four candidates for the highest post, and also the winner of the contest of honor that was ingrained with the conflict.
Daniel 7:9-12
I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened. I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame. As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time.
Daniel, by our view, is predicting the abrupt end of the Roman Empire. The other three kingdoms -- which we see as Babylon, Media-Persia, and Greece -- are said to be given extra time to live, though stripped of their authority. This is seen as fulfilled, under any paradigm, in that these kingdoms continued to exist, albeit absorbed, by the power that conquered them. Rome, however, when it fell, didn't have that option.
(I do not see that it is necessary to suppose that the fall of Rome, to match this vision, would have had to occur at the time that Vespasian died; verse 11 gives no indication that the fate of the little horn was delivered at the same time that Beast #4 was slain. If dispensationalists wish to argue this, I may point out that it is certainly no less reasonable than their idea that there is a spread of at least 2000 years now in the life of the fourth beast!)
Daniel 7:13-14
I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
With this passage we return to the main subject of our eschatology project. We know that the Son of Man envisioned here is Christ. What should be especially noted for our purposes is the Son of Man's mode of transportation, and the direction he is going in. The Son of Man is riding with "the clouds of heaven" (the LXX has the Son of Man actually "on" the clouds) and heading towards the Ancient of Days to be enthroned.
Miller [207] believes that the Son of Man rides from heaven to earth in this picture, but this is quite unlikely in view of the setting of God's heavenly court (7:10). Goldingay [164] acknowledges that the scene of God on a throne of fire, surrounded by attendants, "locate the scene in heaven"; but counters that where "it is specifically a matter of God judging...the scene is normally on earth." The verses he uses in support of this, however, could be said to fall to circular reasoning; for example, Jer. 49:38: "And I will set my throne in Elam, and will destroy from thence the king and the princes, saith the LORD." Did God literally set his throne in Elam? (Other passages, like Ps. 96:10-13, say God will come to judge the earth, but how does this equate with God being physically present on earth?)
The scene fits the placement in heaven better than it fits a placement on earth. Nor does it do to object that the scene must be on earth because of the earth and the sea seen by Daniel (7:3-4). Again, if we are thinking literal geography and envisioning here, then the Mormons must be right about God having a human body!
Casey [Case.SOM, 22, 24-9], for his own purposes, insists that the scene of the AoD is on the earth. He admits that "If the judgment is on earth, God will have to come to earth in order to carry it out" -- then adds that this is not stated explicitly, "because it is not an important aspect of what the author wanted to say!" This does not answer the problem, it merely tries to explain it away with silence!
We will return to this issue in our dealing with the Olivet discourse. For now, we need to round out our treatment of Daniel. Verses 7:15-20 only record Daniel's inquiry and repeat previous information. We may move to this:
Daniel 7:21-2
I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.
Did Vespasian "make war" with the saints and prevail against them? If by "saints" Daniel means Jews then the obvious answer is yes; but it is clear here that "Jews" cannot be intended, if we are to take this prophecy as correct, since the Jews did not in any sense come to possess a kingdom. On the other hand, as we shall argue, this does make sense if the saints are interpreted as the Christians.
But then the question is, "Was war made on the Christians? This was a war against the Jews!" It was indeed in the main -- but there is evidence that Christians were targeted here also. A fragment of Tacitus' Histories, now preserved for us only by Severus tells of deliberations by Titus as to whether to destroy the Jewish temple. In the end he decides to do so, because although the two religions were in conflict, "they nevertheless developed from the same origins. The Christiani arose from the Jews: With the root removed, the branch is easily killed."
If this is right, then Christians were a real, albeit by far secondary, target of the Romans in the successful attack on Jerusalem. (Josephus reports this conversation as well, but does not mention the Christians -- War 6.4.3.)
We will talk more about the "kingdom" language in another essay. For now, more on Daniel. Verses 23 and 24 repeat earlier material; on to:
Daniel 7:25-6
And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.
The first part of verse 25 repeats what is said earlier, and adds this:
"Change times and laws" -- Miller [214] interprets this as referring to a desire to eliminate religious holidays and laws. As noted before, the Romans under Vespasian's ultimate command thought to destroy the Temple as a way of destroying Judaism. Their thinking was misplaced, but this was certainly in mind if we are to believe Tacitus.
The saints will be given over "for a time, times and half a time" -- most see this as referring to a period of three and a half years, and this is the case under any paradigm. The question is, when was this three and a half year period? Can it fit into events of 70 AD?
Yes, it can. The Jewish war lasted 7 years, from 66-73 AD. Jerusalem was destroyed in the middle of this period, in 70. The 3 1/2 years would correspond well with the period from 66-70, or perhaps from 70-73, though the latter is less likely since by this time Christians would have followed Jesus' instructions to flee, and the former fits in line with the statement from Tacitus that there was enmity against the Christians as a branch of Judaism.
His power "will be taken away and completely destroyed forever." Vespasian of course did not remain Emperor forever; he died in 79 AD. This statement could be made of any human leader and does not indicate any special sort of judgment. It is made in contrast to verse 27 and the everlasting kingdom therein.
Daniel 7:27
And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.
We believe that this refers to the established rule of Christ in 70 AD and will address this matter, again, in our Olivet study.
63BC-70AD: The 11 horns of Daniel's 4th Beast (The 11 "Kings" of Daniel's 4th idol-worshipping kingdom to possess Jerusalem)
"horn" = king, (national leader, primary personal representative)
"beast" = idol-worshipping Gentile nation that rules over (subjugates) God's Chosen People
Bible scholars living in the last days of old Jerusalem may have seen some very interesting things in this dream of Daniel 7.
Since this is a prophecy of the Jews, everything must be seen from the outlook of the Jews. Their zeal was for their mother city, Jerusalem, the home of their Temple, their whole reason for being, The biblical Jews would see as a "beast" any Gentile (idol-worshipping) kingdom (empire) that trampled upon Jerusalem, bringing her into subjection. They could count each "king" of such kingdoms as a "horn" on the "beast" since the time of Jerusalem's subjugation. Therefore, everything should be seen from the vantage point of Jerusalem, the mother city of the Jews, ("Israel" being their "fatherland").
"beast" = "idol-worshipping kingdom (empire) trampling upon (possessing) Jerusalem."
"kingdom" = "dominion, empire, extent of rule, totality of territory & peoples governed, reign, administration, etc."
"horn" = "king" = "supreme leader, chief ruler, monarch, emperor, caesar, kaiser, czar, pharoah, president, prime minister, etc."
In this sense the Roman Caesars and their precursor, Pompey the Great, may justly be regarded as "kings" over the Roman "kingdom."
The vision of Daniel 7 describes a destroying beast with ten horns and an eleventh horn that uproots three of those first ten horns. The eleventh horn to appear becomes the eighth horn that remains, (since three horns are removed in the process of its appearing). The "horns" are then explained to be "kings" (supreme leaders) of the fourth kingdom (empire) since the Babylonians to possess Jerusalem: 1-Babylonians, 2-Medo-Persians, 3-Greeks, 4-Romans. These eleven "horns," then, would be the eleven "kings" (supreme leaders) of the Romans from the time Rome subjugated Jerusalem to the time Rome destroyed Jerusalem: 1-Pompey the Great, 2-Julius Ceaser, 3-Augustus, 4-Tiberius, 5-Caligula, 6-Claudius, 7-Nero, 8-Galba, 9-Otho, 10-Vitellius and "the little horn," 11-Vespasian.
The eight horns that remain after the three horns are removed would be: 1-Pompey the Great, 2-Julius Ceaser, 3-Augustus, 4-Tiberius, 5-Caligula, 6-Claudius, 7-Nero, 8-Galba, 9-Otho, 10-Vitellius and "the little horn," Vespasian, (now the 8th of the horns that actually remain). These are the "kings" (supreme leaders) of Rome that actually possessed Jerusalem during their reigns. The three "kings" who were removed were the ones who never possessed Jerusalem since Jerusalem was enjoying freedom through revolt during their reigns.
"Little horn that plucks up three of the ten horns" = 11-Vespasian who was "little" in the sense of his common birth but went on to become the consummate Roman general, a man of war, a soldier in service to Rome and its emperors his whole life, thus "diverse from the first ["ten kings"]. Vespasian made himself emperor by the campaigning of his zealous soldier-followers, usurping the last of the succession of 3 abrupted reigns since 7-Nero's death: 8-Galba, 9-Otho and 10-Vitellius in "69AD: The Year of the Four Emperors". As Emperor, Vespasian possessed the power to cease the war against the Jews but, instead, chose to pursue it to Jerusalem's 70AD destruction and beyond, not satisfied until the fall of Masada in 73AD and the wholesale slaughters of surviving Jews throughout the Roman Empire in massacres-for-display and celebrations. Old Jerusalem's subjugation to the Romans ended when it ceased to exist, hence the terminus of 70AD. Vespasian made light of the Roman religious custom of deifying their emperors at death but took war-making deathly serious, as though serving "a god of fortresses," he conquered for himself both Rome and Jerusalem, prevailing over the most valiant of each, almost simultaneously. "Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?"
Jerusalem's subjugation to beastly Rome ended when it ceased to exist, hence the terminus of 70AD.
"horn" = king, (national leader, primary personal representative)
"beast" = idol-worshipping Gentile nation that rules over (subjugates) God's Chosen People
Bible scholars living in the last days of old Jerusalem may have seen some very interesting things in this dream of Daniel 7.
Since this is a prophecy of the Jews, everything must be seen from the outlook of the Jews. Their zeal was for their mother city, Jerusalem, the home of their Temple, their whole reason for being, The biblical Jews would see as a "beast" any Gentile (idol-worshipping) kingdom (empire) that trampled upon Jerusalem, bringing her into subjection. They could count each "king" of such kingdoms as a "horn" on the "beast" since the time of Jerusalem's subjugation. Therefore, everything should be seen from the vantage point of Jerusalem, the mother city of the Jews, ("Israel" being their "fatherland").
"beast" = "idol-worshipping kingdom (empire) trampling upon (possessing) Jerusalem."
"kingdom" = "dominion, empire, extent of rule, totality of territory & peoples governed, reign, administration, etc."
"horn" = "king" = "supreme leader, chief ruler, monarch, emperor, caesar, kaiser, czar, pharoah, president, prime minister, etc."
In this sense the Roman Caesars and their precursor, Pompey the Great, may justly be regarded as "kings" over the Roman "kingdom."
The vision of Daniel 7 describes a destroying beast with ten horns and an eleventh horn that uproots three of those first ten horns. The eleventh horn to appear becomes the eighth horn that remains, (since three horns are removed in the process of its appearing). The "horns" are then explained to be "kings" (supreme leaders) of the fourth kingdom (empire) since the Babylonians to possess Jerusalem: 1-Babylonians, 2-Medo-Persians, 3-Greeks, 4-Romans. These eleven "horns," then, would be the eleven "kings" (supreme leaders) of the Romans from the time Rome subjugated Jerusalem to the time Rome destroyed Jerusalem: 1-Pompey the Great, 2-Julius Ceaser, 3-Augustus, 4-Tiberius, 5-Caligula, 6-Claudius, 7-Nero, 8-Galba, 9-Otho, 10-Vitellius and "the little horn," 11-Vespasian.
The eight horns that remain after the three horns are removed would be: 1-Pompey the Great, 2-Julius Ceaser, 3-Augustus, 4-Tiberius, 5-Caligula, 6-Claudius, 7-Nero, 8-Galba, 9-Otho, 10-Vitellius and "the little horn," Vespasian, (now the 8th of the horns that actually remain). These are the "kings" (supreme leaders) of Rome that actually possessed Jerusalem during their reigns. The three "kings" who were removed were the ones who never possessed Jerusalem since Jerusalem was enjoying freedom through revolt during their reigns.
"Little horn that plucks up three of the ten horns" = 11-Vespasian who was "little" in the sense of his common birth but went on to become the consummate Roman general, a man of war, a soldier in service to Rome and its emperors his whole life, thus "diverse from the first ["ten kings"]. Vespasian made himself emperor by the campaigning of his zealous soldier-followers, usurping the last of the succession of 3 abrupted reigns since 7-Nero's death: 8-Galba, 9-Otho and 10-Vitellius in "69AD: The Year of the Four Emperors". As Emperor, Vespasian possessed the power to cease the war against the Jews but, instead, chose to pursue it to Jerusalem's 70AD destruction and beyond, not satisfied until the fall of Masada in 73AD and the wholesale slaughters of surviving Jews throughout the Roman Empire in massacres-for-display and celebrations. Old Jerusalem's subjugation to the Romans ended when it ceased to exist, hence the terminus of 70AD. Vespasian made light of the Roman religious custom of deifying their emperors at death but took war-making deathly serious, as though serving "a god of fortresses," he conquered for himself both Rome and Jerusalem, prevailing over the most valiant of each, almost simultaneously. "Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?"
Jerusalem's subjugation to beastly Rome ended when it ceased to exist, hence the terminus of 70AD.
ik hoop allebeiquote:
Maar wie gaat nu wel naar de hemel, Wiseguy of Ali ?
en jij ook
Ik snap je punt wel in dit opzicht. Echter er is nog een optie. Stel dat er idd een oordeel plaatsvond in de eerste eeuw waarin Satan veroordeeld werd en schuldig werd bevonden (maar nog geen straf had ontvangen). Tot dan toe was Satan in staat redelijk ongelimiteerd de aarde te controleren. Tegen Jezus zei hij immers dat hij autoriteit over de aarde had gekregen en dat hij het kon weggeven aan Jezus als Jezus hem zou aanbidden. Nou vanuit dit oogpunt bezien is het einde van het Romeinse Rijk dan geen fysiek einde maar een geestelijk einde. De duivel kon niet meer ongelimiteerd de aarde besturen, christendom kon niet uitgeroeid worden maar christenen kregen de sleutels van het hemelse koninkrijk. Dit koninkrijk werd al op aarde gevestigd. Jezus zei : het koninkrijk van God zit binnenin je. Merk ook op dat de eerste drie voorgaande rijken nog een tijdje te leven kregen maar het Romeinse Rijk niet. Daar kwam ineens een abrupt einde aan. Dit kan alleen verklaard worden als je er idd vanuit gaat dat na Vespinianus Jezus een koninkrijk op aarde oprichtte. Dit is echter een koninkrijk zonder grenzen en een spiritueel koninkrijk. Hoewel de duivel veroordeeld is heeft hij nog geen straf ontvangen, dit verklaard waarom hij nog steeds invloed uitoefent op de wereld maar Jezus' interventie verklaart waarom deze invloed beperkt is.quote:Hoe kun je in hemelsnaam de woorden 'de prins van deze wereld is geoordeeld' gelijktrekken naar 'het Romeinse Rijk wordt ten onder gebracht en de staatsreligie van Rome wordt het Christelijke (in werkelijkheid Rooms Katholieke) geloof. Wat vervolgens de wereld gedurende 1000 jaar in een spirituele afgrond zou helpen.
Satan werd geoordeeld omdat hij niet in staat was geweest Jezus te laten zondigen en al zijn claims met betrekking tot God onwaar waren gebleken op het moment van de kruisiging (waaruit bleek dat God liefde en genadevol is, evenals rechtvaardig).
(West)Rome zou pas zo'n 500 jaar later werkelijk tot zijn einde komen. Toen Constantinus zogenaamd christen werd en de christelijke religie de staatsreligie was dat een strategische politieke zet en had niets met een hartsbekering van Constantinus te maken. De man was een oorlogsvoerder uit op politiek en economisch gewin, niet op een spirituele bekering van de wereld tot het koninkrijk van God en de leer van Jezus Christus.
De Rooms katholieke kerk die daar uiteindelijk uit voortkwam zou naast een religieuze een voornamelijk politieke en economische invloed uitoefenen en iedereen met eeuwig hellevuur intimideren om vooral veel geld te betalen aan het instituut kerk.
1 En er zijn ook valse profeten onder het volk geweest, gelijk ook onder u valse leraars zijn zullen, die verderfelijke ketterijen bedektelijk invoeren zullen, ook den Heere, Die hen gekocht heeft, verloochenende, en een haastig verderf over zichzelven brengende;
2 En velen zullen hun verderfenissen navolgen, door welke de weg der waarheid zal gelasterd worden.
3 En zij zullen door gierigheid, met gemaakte woorden, van u een koopmanschap maken; over welke het oordeel van over lang niet ledig is, en hun verderf sluimert niet. 2 Petrus 3
Hieruit zou ook de inquisitie voortkomen, ook zo'n fijn christelijk instituut.
Verder is het boek van Daniel door tekstkritiek gedateerd op de 6e eeuw voor christus en niet de 2e.
De duivel is dus wel geoordeeld maar nog lang niet op inactief gezet! Ik weet niet wat voor battles je zelf dagelijks voert maar ik weet dat de duivel hard aan het werk is om mensen op alle fronten tegen te werken. Van welke site heb je dit gehaald als ik vragen mag?
Desalniettemin zijn we het beiden wel eens dat de RKK een anti-christelijk instituut is geworden (al hebben ze wel progressie gemaakt tav het evangelie). Maar je kan niet overal obsessief bij elke profetie stellen dat het om de RKK gaat.
Ik ben het ermee eens dat in kader van de contra-reformatie de Jezuieten preterisme op de voorgrond hebben geschoven mbt het boek openbaringen. Echter is het wel logisch te veronderstellen dat het boek van Daniel gaat over de toekomst van het Joodse volk tot en met de vernietiging van Jeruzalem.quote:
[..]
Precies...
De valse interpretaties en uitleg van de profetieen van Daniel en openbaringen zijn rond de 16e eeuw mede in de wereld geholpen door de Jezuiten Francisco Ribera & Louis del Alcazar, om de aandacht af te leiden van de Rooms Katholieke Kerk en om een tegengeluid te bieden aan het opkomend protestantisme die inzagen en ervan overtuigd waren dat de profetieen direct verwezen naar het katholieke systeem als zijnde Babylon, het Beest, de AntiChrist, etc.
Maar vandaag de dag overheerst binnen Protestantse kringen vreemd genoeg de theorie dat de Antichrist nog moet arriveren (futurisme) en dat een fysiek Israel en de bouw van een fysieke 3e tempel een belangrijke rol zullen gaan spelen in de vervulling van de laatste week van Daniel's 70 weken profetie.
Die in werkelijkheid dus al in vervulling is gegaan (...vanaf de doping van Jezus t/m de steniging van Stephanus, precies 7 jaar later en er precies halverwege deze 7-jaarsperiode dus de kruisiging plaats vond).
[..]
Bron:
page 1 >> http://www.daniels70weeks.com
page 2 >> http://www.daniels70weeks.com/daniels70weeks.html
|
|
