In Heb. 4, the Sabbath points to rest,

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

In Heb. 4, the Sabbath points to rest, specifically faith in Christ as our rest, and not a day.

"~In Heb. 4, the Sabbath points to rest,~" True, the Sabbath DAY, points to The "Rest JESUS gave the People of God"---to, "~Christ as our rest~". There is no point in the Sabbath Day pointing to itself!

Therefore saying, "~In Heb. 4, the Sabbath points to rest, specifically faith in Christ as our rest, and not a day~", simply is a contradiction in terms denying the Sabbath is a day, the “sabbatism for the People of God to observe validly because Jesus gave them Rest (Himself)”.

 

[The Biblicist]

In Heb. 4, the Sabbath points to rest, specifically faith in Christ as our rest, and not a day.

"~In Heb. 4, the Sabbath points to rest,~" True, the Sabbath DAY, points to The "Rest JESUS gave the People of God"---to, "~Christ as our rest~". There is no point in the Sabbath Day pointing to itself!

Therefore saying, "~In Heb. 4, the Sabbath points to rest, specifically faith in Christ as our rest, and not a day~", simply is a contradiction in terms denying the Sabbath is a day, the “sabbatism for the People of God to observe validly because Jesus gave them Rest (Himself)”.

I agree with your assessment. Where I disagree is the particular day under the "new" covenant that celebrate our rest in Christ. The difference between DHK and myself is that he says the sabbath has been done away in Christ, and I say the "seventh" day sabbath has been done away in Christ. So in essence we both agree that your Saturdayism is wrong and has been abolished.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I agree with your assessment. Where I disagree is the particular day under the "new" covenant that celebrate our rest in Christ. The difference between DHK and myself is that he says the sabbath has been done away in Christ, and I say the "seventh" day sabbath has been done away in Christ. So in essence we both agree that your Saturdayism is wrong and has been abolished.

I have no "Saturdayism".

I go farther than you or DHK. He says the sabbath has been done away in Christ, and you say the "seventh" day sabbath has been done away in Christ. I say the Scriptures say the whole Old Testament Law including the Old Testament Sabbath with its Day with its Old Testament Commandment and other OT laws, was done away with in ONE package, on the cross! But on the cross IN CHRIST. That is what God says, not me.


How?

As you put it, "~in Christ~"; in fact in "Christ Crucified" ---in Christ who died and was buried ---in Christ who was "RAISED by the Glory of the Father" in which "Glory of the Father" Christ was and is and forever will be "CHRIST RESTED UP AGAIN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD HIS HEAVENLY MAJESTY AND GLORY"— so that "God ... by the exceeding greatness of his Power and Glory ... on the day The Seventh Day, from all, his, works, revived and rested."

Thus the New Testament "Sabbath was made for man ... was made for the People of God ... was made a Sabbatismos-to-keep---was made The Lord’ Day … was made the Lord Jesus’ Day, “a Sabbath Day's-rest for the People of God”— was made Institution and Law of The New Testament Covenant of Grace “a Sabbath DAY’S, rest”.


“THEN THEREFORE, if JESUS gave them … the People of God, Rest … then therefore the Body of Christ's Own … holding to the HEAD, Christ … shall not be judged, but eating and drinking of Christ the Nourishment ministered … shall grow with the growth of God.”


Now it’s your turn again to give us an ~assessment~ of like substance concerning Sunday for being the Lord’s Day …

 

[The Biblicist]

I have no "Saturdayism".

I go farther than you or DHK. He says the sabbath has been done away in Christ, and you say the "seventh" day sabbath has been done away in Christ. I say the Scriptures say the whole Old Testament Law including the Old Testament Sabbath with its Day with its Old Testament Commandment and other OT laws, was done away with in ONE package, on the cross! But on the cross IN CHRIST. That is what God says, not me.


How?

As you put it, "~in Christ~"; in fact in "Christ Crucified" ---in Christ who died and was buried ---in Christ who was "RAISED by the Glory of the Father" in which "Glory of the Father" Christ was and is and forever will be "CHRIST RESTED UP AGAIN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD HIS HEAVENLY MAJESTY AND GLORY"— so that "God ... by the exceeding greatness of his Power and Glory ... on the day The Seventh Day, from all, his, works, revived and rested."

No, your position is teaching the Old Covenant was confirmed "in Christ" whereas Paul says it was "abolished" in Christ (Col. 2:16-18). He abolished the PRACTICE of the Old Covenant as an administration. We no longer are commanded to be circumcised in the flesh. We no longer observe the Passover. We no longer practice the dietary and ceremonial laws and we no longer PRACTICE the "sabbaths" in Leviticus 23-25. However, your interpretation of "in Christ" confirms the PRACTICE rather than abolishes the PRACTICE.

Christ "rested" on the Seventh day of the week IN THE GRAVE but was raised to NEWNESS of life on the first day of the week precisely within the fourth watch of the night between 3 to 6 am Sunday morning. That is the NEW sabbatismos which is without ALL THE LEGAL Old Covenant demands. Instead it is a day of the week set apart to "rejoice and be glad IN IT" (Psa. 118:24). It is the day set apart for public worship (1 Cor. 16:1-2; Acts 20:7)without denying any other day of the week could be used for public worship or worship could continue seven days a week if so desired.

 

[DHK]

I

Thus the New Testament "Sabbath was made for man ... was made for the People of God ... was made a Sabbatismos-to-keep---was made The Lord’ Day … was made the Lord Jesus’ Day, “a Sabbath Day's-rest for the People of God”— was made Institution and Law of The New Testament Covenant of Grace “a Sabbath DAY’S, rest”.

It seems as if you don't understand this verse just like many others.
"The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."
My car was made for me.
My chair was made for me.
My computer was made for me--all these things were made for me--for my enjoyment.

Jesus was rebuking the Pharisees telling them that the Sabbath was made FOR man, for his enjoyment, for his rest. It was not that man was to be a slave to the Sabbath as the Pharisees were making it, adding so many additional rules and regulations that the law required. There is no command here to keep the sabbath. It is a statement saying that the sabbath is for our enjoyment, our rest. There isn't even a command to worship on the Sabbath like most Baptists do, or think they do. There is no indication that the Sabbath was ever changed from Saturday to Sunday.
The Sabbath was made for man, that is for his rest; for his enjoyment. It says nothing about worship, going to church, etc.

All of that is just tradition.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

No, your position is teaching the Old Covenant was confirmed "in Christ" whereas Paul says it was "abolished" in Christ (Col. 2:16-18).

I said nothing of the kind. I meant nothing than what I wrote. And what I wrote is not what you are telling that I wrote.

I have consistently written what I have written for many years and hundreds of times.

Now one of us is giving FALSE testimony against the other. And it is not I.

Dirtier playing of the game there exists not in another discipline of whichever kind. What a shame is Christianity become for itself.
No wonder people become atheist or Islam or RC. It is OBVIOUS why they do.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

He abolished the PRACTICE of the Old Covenant as an administration.

Yes, God abolished the old covenant which MAN <administrated> and God, NEVER <administrated> because the old covenant is MAN’S covenanting fidelity and is as trustworthy as man’s oath of allegiance. And we all know how trustworthy man’s word has been throughout his existence. This discussion is a good example.

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes, God abolished the old covenant which MAN <administrated> and God, NEVER <administrated> because the old covenant is MAN’S covenanting fidelity and is as trustworthy as man’s oath of allegiance. And we all know how trustworthy man’s word has been throughout his existence. This discussion is a good example.

You know the bible better than this. God is the one who instituted that covenant and every sunday school child who has read the context of Exodus 17-20 knows this. Just because Israel broke this covenant does not mean it is a "man's" covenant. Do I really have to provide the abundance of Biblical evidence to prove God instituted this covenant with Israel????????

 

[The Biblicist]

I said nothing of the kind. I meant nothing than what I wrote. And what I wrote is not what you are telling that I wrote.

I have consistently written what I have written for many years and hundreds of times.

Now one of us is giving FALSE testimony against the other. And it is not I.

Dirtier playing of the game there exists not in another discipline of whichever kind. What a shame is Christianity become for itself.
No wonder people become atheist or Islam or RC. It is OBVIOUS why they do.

There was no intent on my part to misrepresent you. I was referring to the following statement you made especially the statement I have emphasized by bold and underlined.

I say the Scriptures say the whole Old Testament Law including the Old Testament Sabbath with its Day with its Old Testament Commandment and other OT laws, was done away with in ONE package, on the cross! But on the cross IN CHRIST. That is what God says, not me.

I understood your word "But" as a contrast to "done away in ONE package, on the cross!" rather than a further continuing explanation of the same. "But" is usually used to contrast rather than to reaffirm or continue a subject. So I understood you to mean the cross abolished the Old Covenant administration as a practice "but" the Old Covenant was confirmed "in Christ" on that cross.

If I have misunderstood you, you have my sincere apologies. So why don't you clarify then what you do believe.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

We no longer are commanded to be circumcised in the flesh. We no longer observe the Passover. We no longer practice the dietary and ceremonial laws and we no longer PRACTICE the "sabbaths" in Leviticus 23-25. However, your interpretation of "in Christ" confirms the PRACTICE rather than abolishes the PRACTICE.

We are ANEW commanded to be circumcised “with the circumcision of Christ” ---of Christ-in-the-flesh once for all.


We are ANEW observing the Passover in the Suffering of Christ’s Passover in dying our death in our place in the flesh once for all.


We ANEW practice the dietary and ceremonial laws of nature we see in Jesus Christ exemplified in temperance and modesty in the flesh for all times and all peoples.


And we ANEW Feast Sabbaths’ eating and drinking of Christ the Substance—the Nourishment ministered under the NEW and ETERNAL Covenant of His Grace FOREVER “holding to the Head—Christ given to the CHURCH as Head— the Head from whom the NEW Testament Body of Christ’s Own (1:18) by joints and bands [of faith 2:12 Hosea 11:4; peace Ephesians 4:3; and charity Colossians 3:14], and knit together (in love 2:2), grows with the growth of God.

"Don't you let yourselves be judged by anyone in regard to your PRACTICE of Feast of Sabbaths’ (‘sabbatismos’ Hebrews 4:9) which is but the shadow of what good awaits the Body of Christ’s Own in the future still."

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

You know the bible better than this. God is the one who instituted that covenant and every sunday school child who has read the context of Exodus 17-20 knows this. Just because Israel broke this covenant does not mean it is a "man's" covenant. Do I really have to provide the abundance of Biblical evidence to prove God instituted this covenant with Israel????????

You are most welcome to <provide> the ALLEGED <<abundance of Biblical evidence to prove God instituted this...'OLD'...covenant>>, this 'covenant' which MAN / Israel, swore to do.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Christ "rested" on the Seventh day of the week IN THE GRAVE but was raised to NEWNESS of life on the first day of the week precisely within the fourth watch of the night between 3 to 6 am Sunday morning. That is the NEW sabbatismos which is without ALL THE LEGAL Old Covenant demands. Instead it is a day of the week set apart to "rejoice and be glad IN IT" (Psa. 118:24). It is the day set apart for public worship (1 Cor. 16:1-2; Acts 20:7)without denying any other day of the week could be used for public worship or worship could continue seven days a week if so desired.

Christ "rested" on the Sixth as well as Seventh Days of the week IN THE GRAVE. “My flesh also shall REST IN HOPE” ---of the Resurrection!


And Christ was raised to NEWNESS of life, “In the end of the Sabbath in fullness being in the mid-afternoon daylight as it began declining / dawning towards the (sunset beginning of) the First Day of the week.” Matthew 28:1 viz., according to every Sabbath Scripture in the Bible.



Re: “… on the first day of the week”. Quote please.


Re: “… precisely within the fourth watch of the night between 3 to 6 am Sunday morning”. Quote please.


Re: “~That is the NEW sabbatismos which is without ALL THE LEGAL Old Covenant demands”. What is “~That~”? because ~that~, perfectly describes “the Seventh Day God, thus, concerning spake, And God, the day, The Seventh Day, from / for all His, Works, Rested.” Hebrews 4:4


Re: “~it is a day of the week set apart to "rejoice and be glad IN IT" (Psa. 118:24).~” “~it~”—“the day the LORD MADE” … “The Sabbath, was MADE… for man”—was made for “the Son of Man, LORD of the Sabbath”.


Re: “~It is the day set apart for public worship (1 Cor. 16:1-2; Acts 20:7)~” Non-sense I’m afraid.


Re: “~any other day of the week could be used for public worship or worship could continue seven days a week if so desired.~” Besides any point.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Jesus was rebuking the Pharisees telling them that the Sabbath was made FOR man, for his enjoyment, for his rest.

[To Sabbaton dia ton anthrohpon egeneto kai ouch ho anthrohpos dia to sabbaton]


'Dia' translated ''for' (man)" is nothing wrong with unless one took "for" as its only meaning.


The context in Mark 2 is very similar to the context in Genesis 3. Man in need! In need because of sin! Therefore God made the Sabbath to meet man in his need--in his need of redemption. Then 'dia' translates much truer with the sorrowfulness of that first of all Sabbaths when God made it "DUE to / BECAUSE of man", the SINNER. Of a Sabbath made for man's enjoyment one sees absolutely nothing in the Old Testament. The joyful Sabbath came through Christ's victory and is the NEW, and not, the Old Testament Sabbath. Sure, the OT Sabbath foretold the New Testament Sabbath. Read Exodus 15 the Song of Moses AND of the Lamb, the Song of God's Victory over the depths of the Red Sea grave, a Song of the LORD'S DAY his Holy Sabbath when He lifted Israel out of the depths and planted his People in the New Land.


But it was only symbolic of the redemption Jesus would bring the People of God wherefore a Sabbath Day's rest remained for them to observe --- the NEW Testament and RESURRECTION-DAY Sabbath of the Lord Jesus Christ; hence, "The Lord's (Jesus') Day".


NOW John was "in the Spirit on the Lord's Day" and although in exile JOYFULLY in the Spirit assembled together with all fellow believers in the New Covenant of Peace with God—God’s Covenant He from eternity had sworn by his Word, Jesus Christ our Lord and God of our salvation.

 

[The Biblicist]

We are ANEW commanded to be circumcised “with the circumcision of Christ” ---of Christ-in-the-flesh once for all.


We are ANEW observing the Passover in the Suffering of Christ’s Passover in dying our death in our place in the flesh once for all.


We ANEW practice the dietary and ceremonial laws of nature we see in Jesus Christ exemplified in temperance and modesty in the flesh for all times and all peoples.


And we ANEW Feast Sabbaths’ eating and drinking of Christ the Substance—the Nourishment ministered under the NEW and ETERNAL Covenant of His Grace FOREVER “holding to the Head—Christ given to the CHURCH as Head— the Head from whom the NEW Testament Body of Christ’s Own (1:18) by joints and bands [of faith 2:12 Hosea 11:4; peace Ephesians 4:3; and charity Colossians 3:14], and knit together (in love 2:2), grows with the growth of God.

"Don't you let yourselves be judged by anyone in regard to your PRACTICE of Feast of Sabbaths’ (‘sabbatismos’ Hebrews 4:9) which is but the shadow of what good awaits the Body of Christ’s Own in the future still."

So you did mean exactly as I suspected and took it to mean. Absolute 100% false in every statement. There is no continuation of the Old "anew" under the New but complete REPLACEMENT as circumcision in Christ is regeneration which always existed. The Lord's Supper is completely different in all aspects. There is no dietary law under the New as all ceremonial and dietary laws have been COMPLETELY abolished.

 

[The Biblicist]

You are most welcome to <provide> the ALLEGED <<abundance of Biblical evidence to prove God instituted this...'OLD'...covenant>>, this 'covenant' which MAN / Israel, swore to do.

At the precise time the covenant was established with Israel at Mount Sinai God said,

Ex 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

De 31:16 And the LORD said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers; and this people will rise up, and go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land, whither they go to be among them, and will forsake me, and break my covenant which I have made with them.

Hebrews 8-9 assumes the "old" covenant was established by God and describes his establishment of it in Hebrews 12:17-20. Galatians 3 defends it as God's covenant and His purpose for that covenant.

 

[DHK]

[To Sabbaton dia ton anthrohpon egeneto kai ouch ho anthrohpos dia to sabbaton]

'Dia' translated ''for' (man)" is nothing wrong with unless one took "for" as its only meaning.

"dia" has many meanings depending on whether the word that it precedes is genitive or accusative. In Mark 2:27 both "for man" and "for man" and "for the sabbath" are in the accusative, and that gives the word "dia" many different meanings.

Here are a couple of examples:
Mark 4:17 And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word's sake, immediately they are offended.

Mark 6:17 For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife: for he had married her.

Thus in Mark 2:27, the meaning could obviously be:
Mark 2:27 And he said unto them,
The sabbath was made for man's (sake,) and not man for the sabbath:
--That is, for the sake of man, or for his enjoyment. Man was not made to be a slave to the sabbath as the Pharisees had made the sabbath. They were slaves to it.

The context in Mark 2 is very similar to the context in Genesis 3. Man in need! In need because of sin! Therefore God made the Sabbath to meet man in his need--in his need of redemption. Then 'dia' translates much truer with the sorrowfulness of that first of all Sabbaths when God made it "DUE to / BECAUSE of man", the SINNER. Of a Sabbath made for man's enjoyment one sees absolutely nothing in the Old Testament. The joyful Sabbath came through Christ's victory and is the NEW, and not, the Old Testament Sabbath. Sure, the OT Sabbath foretold the New Testament Sabbath. Read Exodus 15 the Song of Moses AND of the Lamb, the Song of God's Victory over the depths of the Red Sea grave, a Song of the LORD'S DAY his Holy Sabbath when He lifted Israel out of the depths and planted his People in the New Land.

This is just opinion and your own conjecture. Keeping the sabbath is a part of the law and the law cannot save. The law condemns. No man could keep the law except for Jesus. Salvation comes through Christ, not through the law. The law is a curse, for which Christ died.

Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
Galatians 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

But it was only symbolic of the redemption Jesus would bring the People of God wherefore a Sabbath Day's rest remained for them to observe --- the NEW Testament and RESURRECTION-DAY Sabbath of the Lord Jesus Christ; hence, "The Lord's (Jesus') Day".

The sabbath is Saturday, the day which is the sign of the covenant which God made between Himself and Israel and their generations forever. It does not typify redemption. It is part of that law which we cannot keep. It condemns.

NOW John was "in the Spirit on the Lord's Day" and although in exile JOYFULLY in the Spirit assembled together with all fellow believers in the New Covenant of Peace with God—God’s Covenant He from eternity had sworn by his Word, Jesus Christ our Lord and God of our salvation.

--It cannot be shown that Saturday is "the Lords Day," You have no evidence.

You really haven't considered all the context of the passage, have you?

Mark 2:24 And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?
25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?
26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

--Christ is Lord of the Sabbath as He is Lord of all things. David did as he needed to do on the Sabbath day whether it was considered work or not. The Sabbath is not made "for man," that is that man should be a slave to it, but rather for man's enjoyment or man's rest.

 

[The Biblicist]

Christ "rested" on the Sixth as well as Seventh Days of the week IN THE GRAVE. “My flesh also shall REST IN HOPE” ---of the Resurrection!

of course he remained in the grave more than the seventh day.

And Christ was raised to NEWNESS of life, “In the end of the Sabbath in fullness being in the mid-afternoon daylight as it began declining / dawning towards the (sunset beginning of) the First Day of the week.” Matthew 28:1 viz., according to every Sabbath Scripture in the Bible.

No, it can be easily translated "After the Sabbath passed and it began to be light on the first day of the week"

Re: “… on the first day of the week”. Quote please.

Mark 16:9

Re: “… precisely within the fourth watch of the night between 3 to 6 am Sunday morning”. Quote please.

Mark 16:9 the Greek proii defined by Christ in Mark 13:35 as the fourth watch - 3 am to 6 am

Re: “~it is a day of the week set apart to "rejoice and be glad IN IT" (Psa. 118:24).~” “~it~”—“the day the LORD MADE” … “The Sabbath, was MADE… for man”—was made for “the Son of Man, LORD of the Sabbath”.

The Seventh day Sabbath was ALREADY made prior to this prophecy. This is a prophecy of another day yet in the future that will be "made" and and that day is the resurrection day (Acts 4:10-11).

Re: “~It is the day set apart for public worship (1 Cor. 16:1-2; Acts 20:7)~” Non-sense I’m afraid.

No, it is so obvious you have no other options but to either ridicule or explain it away.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Thus in Mark 2:27, the meaning could obviously be:
Mark 2:27 And he said unto them,
The sabbath was made for man's (sake,) and not man for the sabbath:
--That is, for the sake of man, or for his enjoyment. Man was not made to be a slave to the sabbath as the Pharisees had made the sabbath. They were slaves to it.

One hundred percent agreed with, DHK. As I said, only it doesn't mean 'for' is the exclusive meaning.


However, where did this discussion begin? It began with reference not to Mark, but to Hebrews 4:9, “a Sabbath Day's-rest still is valid for the People of God." [apoleipetai sabbatismos TOHI LAOHI Theou] Dative of Belonging, of Place, as well as Instrumental Dative. It can even be described as the Dative of Advantage.


And surely, there you have it just as you have explained, The Sabbath was made for and remained for the benefit of God's People and not the People of God for the benefit or sake of a Sabbath Day's observance or keeping like the Pharisees used to claim as if they, were lord of the Sabbath and not God or Jesus. God is Himself the Lord Protector of the Sabbath through the Son of Man who claimed the Sabbath his, as Isaiah said in chapter 57. “The Son of Man” is standing for the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The law is a curse, for which Christ died.

No! The law is not a curse, but "transgression of the Law is sin", which transgression brings the curse of the Law and “the wages of SIN” ~curse~ upon the transgressor---death. But thank God, Christ died for OUR sin and died for our sin BEING HIMSELF the Law nailed to and obliterated on the tree.

But ---and this is what you leave out of consideration, DHK--- "God RAISED again THIS Jesus whom ye crucified---to forever and ever after be the Eternal Sword of the Law the Word of the Living God ---of the same God for whom "Holy" means "Holy" as always before or after; and for whom "My Holy Day" means "My Holy Day" as always before or after, namely, "the Seventh Day GOD, THUS, CONCERNING, SPAKE: And God the DAY The SEVENTH Day, from all, his, works, RESTED" ---"rested the Sabbath and revived".

And don't forget, "God thus concerning the Seventh Day spake ... (as) in times past through the prophets ... (so) in these last days BY THE SON!"

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

This is just opinion and your own conjecture. Keeping the sabbath is a part of the law and the law cannot save. The law condemns. No man could keep the law except for Jesus. Salvation comes through Christ, not through the law. The law is a curse, for which Christ died.

...confirming exactly what happened and what God through Christ did about it in Genesis 3:8-24. And nothing else or even different from what I have said, thanks.