Today

[Naomi]

pkrause

[Hansen]

SD,

Thank you for pointing out some issues in Hebrews 3 and 4 which deserve closer study. Although I can’t follow all of your reasoning, I appreciate your desire to struggle with the text.

Here’s a passage from the OT which uses the word translated “rest” in Hebrews 4. As you can see, it refers specifically to the weekly Sabbath rest:

Ex 35:2 (LXXE) Six days shalt thou perform works, but on the seventh day shall be rest—a holy sabbath—a rest for the Lord: every one that does work on it, let him die.

It is used that way only once that I could find; therefore, I appreciate your point. I’m going to do some more study on the concept of rest in the OT. Again, thanks for raising an interesting point.

[doug yowell]

The argument in Heb 4 would be impossible IF Paul was really preaching "there does NOT remain therefore the 7th day Sabbath of the Ten Commandments - that is done away with". He can only make addition application of the Sabbath because the Sabbath itself remains.

It still baffles me why so many want to exchange a literal rest of God day for a literal human week of rest in which they are required to work??? One would think that the "rest" in Christ would offer more benefits than a 7 day work week.

[Hansen]

The references to rest in Hebrews 4 are based on a quote from Psalms 95:11:

Ps 95:11: "therefore I swore in my anger, truly they shall not enter into my rest <04496>."

The word translated “rest” is used at least 20 times in the OT. Some verses indicate that the reason God led Israel out of Egypt was to provide for them a resting place:

De 12:9 for you have not as yet come to the resting <04496> place <04496> and the inheritance which the LORD your god is giving you.

Nu 10:33 thus they set out from the mount of the LORD three days’ journey, with the ark of the covenant of the LORD journeying in front of them for the three days, to seek out a resting <04496> place <04496> for them.

De 28:65 "among those nations you shall find <07280> no rest <07280>, and there will be no resting <04496> place for the sole of your foot; but there the LORD will give you a trembling heart, failing of eyes, and despair of soul.

The passage above, Deuteronomy 28:65 employs a parallelism using 04496 and 07280. 07280 is the root of the word used in Jeremiah 6:16

Jer 6:16 thus says the LORD, "stand by the ways and see and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is, and walk in it; and you will find rest <04771> for your souls. but they said, ‘we will not walk in it.’

This passage is the one Jesus quoted when he said “You shall find rest for your souls.” A similar passage in Isaiah indicates that Israel was obstinate in refusing the rest which God offered:

Isa 28:12 he who said to them, "here is rest <04496>, give rest to the weary," and, "here is repose," but they would not listen.

Certain texts indicate that the rest of Scripture pertains not to the Sabbath but to Zion, God’s resting place:

Ps. 132:13 for the LORD has chosen Zion; he has desired it for his habitation.

14 "this is my resting place forever; here I will dwell, for I have desired it.

[Lysimachus]

You seem to have totally lost focus on exegesis.

The historical context for John 14:15 is the pre-cross teaching of Christ. Even Paul post-Cross states "What matters is keeping the Commandments of God" 1Cor 7:19 and in the Gospel pre-cross accounts when Christ says "Keep the commandments" and then Christ is asked "which commandments" He gives us an excerpt from the 10 commandments. Paul also does the same thing in Romans 7 when providing an example of what the "Commandments" are -- (He does it in Romans 13 as well).

In fact Paul goes so far as to tell us in Ephesians 6 that the 5th commandment is the "First commandment with a promise". This is true only in the context of the Ten Commandments.

Thus the context for the entire NT writing - is that the term refers primarily to the TEN Commandments.

The idea that Christ would be denying the Ten Commandments without actually saying it -- merely assuming His readers knew He rejected them - flatly contradicts His OWN introduction to His ministry in Matt 5 and 6.

Christ said "do NOT think that I came to abolish the law".

Paul said "Do we then make void the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! IN fact we establish the Law of God" Rom 3:31 - this goes entirely against the "Wishful thinking" that insists that we imagine Christ to be rejecting the Ten Commandments even BEFORE the cross and any change at all takes place.

in Christ,

Bob

Splendid!!

[Gerr]

Here is a text the import of which has just now really hit me.

NIV84 | &#8206;Eze 22:8 You have despised my holy things and °desecrated my Sabbaths.

NIV84 | &#8206;Eze 22:26 Her priests °do violence to my law and °profane my holy things°; they do not distinguish between the holy and the common°; they °teach that there is no difference between the unclean and the clean°; and they °shut their eyes to the keeping of my Sabbaths, so that I am profaned among them.

[doug yowell]

The ten commandments are a faulty expression of the law of God. No sooner had God given the law to Moses than he sent the Israelites into the promised land to murder its inhabitants and steal their possessions. All these are examples of having agape but breaking the letter of the law.

This is not a faulty expression,cheddar, if God commanded them to go into Caanan to rape, murder,plunder and pillage then they were obeying the letter of the His law,yes?

[Hansen]

Bob's post, quoted above, is a prime example of the misunderstanding which exists among Adventists regarding the law and the commandments. The context of Romans 3:31 indicates that the law refers to the entire OT, not specifically the Decalogue. This has been clearly spelled out on the thread which deals with Romans 3:31. The word "law" in the NT, often refers to the OT in its entirety or more specifically to the torah or teachings of Moses. The Decalogue is a part of the torah or contained within it.

The law and the prophets refer to the OT teachings regarding the coming Messiah. That's how Jesus fulfilled them.

Ephesians refers to a commandment and says it is the first one with a promise. One reference to the Decalogue doesn't define the scope of the entire NT position on the Decalogue.

The term "commandment/s" varies in meaning, depending on the context. For example, in 1 Corinthians 14:37, the "commandments" refer to the teaching of Paul regarding church order.

Some people, quote the passage from 1 Corinthians 7 which mention the commandments and circumcision, as if "commandments" refer to the Decalogue; however, the only other time the word "commandment/s appears in 1 Corinthians, it is referring to Paul's teachings regarding church proceedures.

In the broader context of the NT, the issue was not circumcision or obedience to law, the issue was faith in the blood of Jesus Christ.

[Dr. Rich]

Sorry Hanson, you are in left field on this issue. What Paul wrote in Romans shows that the "Law" he was referring to was ONLY the Ten Commandments as it only has coveting in it. But later Paul co-mingled the ten commandments with other statute laws and the circumcission instruction.

It's hard for anyone to tell if Paul knew the difference, but there IS a real difference.

God and the Common Law (from the Ten Commandments) have always been and will always be, but all legislative laws or statutes (codes, regulations and rules) have a birth, life, apply to only a stated group and then die. This is a Maxim of Law. If you want to learn more on this issue, then go to: www.blogtalkradio.com/sot and listen or download the archived 2/10/12 one hour program on this. I am sure it will be educational.

[John317]

...

Some people, quote the passage from 1 Corinthians 7 which mention the commandments and circumcision, as if "commandments" refer to the Decalogue;...

Are you claiming "the commandments of God" do not include the Ten Commandments?

Those were the only commandments of God that He spoke to all the people and that he wrote with His own finger on tablets of stone. The commandments of God may certainly refer to some other laws of God besides the Decalogue, but they also certainly must include the Decalogue.

Paul is distinguishing between the ceremonial law and the moral law. He does the same thing in 1 Cor. 9: 21 where he speaks of his unconcern about keeping the Jewish laws and contrasts it with his belief that he is obligated to obey God's law as Christ taught it during his earthly ministry.

Both Paul and James make it clear that it's the Decalogue that defines and points out sin. 1 John 3: 4 says the same thing. See Rom 7: 7; James 2:9.

People needed to sacrifice an animal because they violated the Decalogue, or sinned. On the other hand, the sacrificial system, and ceremonial laws, pointed to the solution of the sin problem; i.e., Jesus Christ.

Paul never gave the impression that he believed it was OK for people to transgress God's moral law as summarized in the Decalogue. On the contrary, he enoourage them to obey those commandments of God. See, for instance, Romans 13: 8-10 and 7: 7-12.

[Lysimachus]

You know what I find fascinating?

Many New Testament Christians like to say, "We follow many of the Ten Commandments, not because the Ten Commandments say it, but because Jesus repeated several of the Ten Commandments".

Well what is interesting is that the Apostle Paul in Romans 7 and 13 did not derive the expression "Thou shalt not covet" from the words of Christ. He got it straight from the Ten Commandments! Jesus never once said "Thou shalt not covet".

This proves that when Paul mentions the word "the law" with "thou shalt not covet", he has the Ten Commandments in mind, not necessarily the laws of Christ!

It's SOOO simple!

[John317]

[size:11pt]Unfortunately The Septuagint does not maintain its standard of truthfulness in 35:2 in 31:17, where it translates the Hebrew 'naphash' with a blunt, "paused / stopped", 'epausato'.

Yes, this just goes to prove that a translation does not have to be perfect in order to be the Word of God. There are many differences between the LXX and the Masoretic Text, yet the New Testament leaves no doubt that the LXX is also the Word of God.

In the same way, even though no translation of the Bible is perfect, yet it is the Word of God and is used by God to bring people to Christ.

[Hansen]

"Commandments" do refer to the Decalogue....sometimes. The passage from 1 Corinthians 14:37 is clearly not referring to the Decalogue. Paul describes his teachings regarding church order as the Lord's commandment. He is not talking about the Decalogue. The passage in chapter 1 Corinthians 7 isn't necessarily referring to the Decalogue, either:

1Co 7:19 circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of god.

1Co 14:37 if anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the lord’s commandment.

Paul's ministry was about Christ and him crucified, as he plainly stated numerous times.

The passage in 1 John 3:4 has no contextual link to the Decalogue. There is no place in any of John's writings where commandments refer specifically to the Decalogue. I've yet to see any passage in John which links "commandments" directly to the Decalogue. There is no text which equates "commandments" with "Decalogue" anywhere in John's writings.

The major issue in NT times was faith in Christ, not obedience to the Decalogue. Often, references to the Decalogue are found in arguments Paul is directing against the legalistic Jews. He is referencing the Decalogue in his efforts to thwart legalistic Jews who were troubling the Gentiles about the law, not unlike what many Adventists spend their time doing.

[Hansen]

Something very interesting in the LXX on this topic, the topic of rest.

Mic 2:10 "arise and go, for this is no place <04496> of rest <04496> because of the uncleanness <02932> that brings on destruction, A painful destruction.

The word translated "rest" is the same one used in Ps.95:11. Ps. 95:11 is the passage quoted in Hebrews 3:11: "They shall not enter into my rest."

In Micah's time, there was no rest because of uncleanness.

Jesus spoke of us finding rest for our souls through knowledge of him:

Mt 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

Part of this passage is a quote from Jeremiah. The LXX passage from Jeremiah 6:16 which says "ye shall find rest for your souls" chooses a word which means "purification" instead of "rest". Notice Brenton's LXX English:

Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths of the Lord; and see what is the good way, and walk in it, and ye shall find purification for your souls. But they said, We will not walk in them.

[Hansen]

SD, I really have no idea what you are talking about. While I appreciate your interest in Scripture, your reasoning escapes me. Just where do you find 2 Chronicles 19:17?

For example you said "In the resurrection the saved are finally purified." Where did that come from? Certainly not from my post regarding the interplay between "rest" and "purification."