Tuesday, April 22, 2014


I was going to start on another subject, but last weekend I was involved in a debate where I was called drastic names from an old co-worker.  It was all about should we still honor the seventh day (Shabbot) or has it changed.  It has been a hot topic recently with a friend.
In the Old Testament, the first command was to Moses with in the wilderness on their way to the Promised Land (Exodus 16).  It was given as the Fourth Commandment out of the Ten, written in stone.  Even after the death of Jesus, much of the old way was practiced by the Jews, and some who are still waiting for the First Coming of the King practice the rest. 
The debate rages on.  Should we continue to take the seventh day off, or was it changed or abolished at the Cross?  As I have seen both sides of the argument, I will do my best not to pick sides.  There are some who believe you are doomed to hell for not keeping the sabbath, and there are others are "keeping" it but not in the ways the Jews did in the time.  So the issue with the latter is, if God commanded the seventh day to be rest, what changed the method to what some claim today?  Which actually leaves me two questions to ponder...
Now we come to certain Scriptures and what interpretation do you use in substantiating your view?  I will bring both to the best of my ability.  Lets start with Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 31:31-33
    Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: [32] Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: [33] But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

First, God said He would make a new covenant, NOT according to the one He made in the wilderness, but this one will be written in their hearts.  Before we go on, there are people are say that the Ten Commandments and the Mosaic laws are different, since the TC were written in stone and placed inside the ark, while the Mosaic law was written on parchment and remained OUTSIDE the ark.  (I am not taking any stance, here.  I need to absorb as complete an argument as I can.)  Understand, the feasts, the laws and commandments, the sacrifices, even the Ten Commandments were given in the wilderness.  So, does above Scriptures dictate that JUST the Mosaic law vanished upon the endorsing of the new covenant, or was it all that was written and given in the wilderness? 
Paul wrote to the church in Rome about the law and its effect.  One argument needs to be made here, is if the law was nailed to the Cross, than it should have no place today.  Yet, Paul still needed to write about it.  Note who the audience was in the letter.  It wasn't non-believers, it was believers.  Why did Paul see the need to write a portion of the letter about the law, if it became null and void at the Cross?  (I am giving no answers, just queries.)

Let's look at another Scripture that has a hangup:

2 Cor. 3:3
    Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
(emphasis mine)

This tends to be an issue of different interpretation between debaters of Shabbot.  It does look like that the Mosaic law (written in ink) has no ministry in our lives, but not the second part, we no longer have tables of stones but now written on our heart. It DOES APPEAR TO SAY that the Ten Commandments were transferred from the tablets to our hearts.
Let's look at another Scripture that is quite an argument for both sides:

Col. 2:14-17
    Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; [15] And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. [16] Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: [17] Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

First, the handwriting of ordinances was the Mosaic law.  The main reason is that all the sacrifices and laws were temporary and destructive, as no man was able to fulfill them, outside of Christ.  As we skip to verse 16, this is where the sticky goo comes into play. 
With two different interpretations being used, most Sabbath keepers with always use sabbath days as ceremonial Sabbaths that always related to feast days the Israelites were commanded to keep in the Mosaic law.  But somehow, this does not coincide with the other verses where the Greek word was used.  The author makes no separation in this word.
Here is the Strong's definition in this word translated into sabbath:
sabbaton, Greek 4521, Strong’s
 sab'-bat-on; of Hebrew origin [Hebrew 7676 (shabbath)]; the Sabbath (i.e. Shabbath), or day of weekly repose from secular avocations (also the observance or institution itself); by extension a se'nnight, i.e. the interval between two Sabbaths; likewise the plural in all the above applications :- sabbath (day), week.

Note this does not give strong indication that this plural.  When read in the KJV, the word days is italicized, which means it was added for clarity.  This word gives no clarity if it means plural or not. 
In the New Testament, sabbaton was used fifty-eight times to translate into sabbath, seven times as in the first of the week, and one time as week (Luke 18:12).  As I studied each of these Scriptures, it gives no clarity that any of them meant the ceremonial sabbaths,  Even in Matthew 12:8, there is no direction translation for the word, but translated as such. 
One must remember that the Ten Commandments, the Mosaic laws, the feasts and other commandments were given to the Hebrews only.  With the exception of Moses' wife, Zipperah, all who were present at the foot of Mount Sinai were Israelites, God's chosen people.

Doug Batchelor of the Seventh Day Adventists mentions in Matthew 28:1, that once Jesus rose from the dead, "after" takes a deeper spiritual meaning, as this creates a new dispensation of the Jewish custom of Sabbath.  I would like to know where he got this information, because from his perspective of Scripture, the day didn't change (which I will not dispute here).  In his words, Jesus rising from the dead inaugurated a NEW way to honor the Sabbath.

After the death of Jesus, many Jews still kept the custom of Sabbath, in only the way that has done for generations.  No NEW way was taught to the disciples, or any of people that Jesus met after the resurrection.  If there is, I haven't found it in the Bible.

As the video continued, he proposed that the Fourth Commandment was given again in the New Testament, and he quoted Hebrews 4:4,9 (I am including the verses in between as well for clarity):

Hebrews 4:4-9
    For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. [5] And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest. [6] Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief: [7] Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. [8] For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. [9] There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
I am sorry, but I cannot see where the Fourth Commandment is worded in there by the author, and same goes with verse nine.  His surmise comes from the word rest, which is the Greek word sabbatismos, which he interpreted as "sabbath [day of] rest."  The literal interpretation
 given by Strong's Concordance is below:

Greek 4520, Strong’s
sabbatismos, sab-bat-is-mos'; from a derivative of Greek 4521 (sabbaton); a “sabbatism”, i.e. (figurative) the repose of Christianity (as a type of heaven) :- rest.

Note the difference between sabbaton and sabbatismos, one was referred as a day a rest, the other derives of heaven, or eternal rest.  rest is the root word, but the suffix gives it another meaning.  Hebrews 9 is the ONLY place in the Bible where this Greek word is used.  If this meant to be as a sabbath day of rest, wouldn't the author chose the other word "sabbaton?" 
What I find interesting is in Hebrews 4:3, we read this:

    For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

Enter is an intriguing word to use, then the words "works are finished" right after the previous part of the verse.  When will the works be finished?  After the final battle, the devil and his followers are banished to the Lake of Fire, and we enter in the New Jerusalem.  The author is referring to the eternal rest at the end of the last days, not a seventh day rest.  How does this sound, when the Word says that IF Jesus HAD given them rest, they would not have spoken of another day.  (Heb 4:8).  What is that "another day?"  Another day, another time...

Later, Mr, Batchelor chose another Scripture to use for sabbath debate, and this is in Romans 14 2-6:

    For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. [3] Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. [4] Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. [5] One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. [6] He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

Mr. Batchelor does well in dissecting this in reference to the Bible.  One man regards one day, another likes all the days.  I see no implying to where the sabbath is in this verse, nor does it have a connection to the week.  I may hold my wedding day in esteem, as well as the birth of my children, while others will not hold the days.  Interestingly, many Christian hold Easter in high regard, but this is found now where in Scripture to do so. 
It even goes into the eating category, as some still held certain foods out of bounds, while others see where God told Peter in a dream that all foods were made clean.  In simplicity, the author wanted to make sure no one felt left out or offended of the rules they kept concerning eating, drinking, and the days that some honored.  I am not saying sabbath was not a possibility, but if it was of importance, I believe the Holy Spirit would have made it clear.  Mr. Batchelor says these were the Jewish feast days.  But, weren't these nailed to the Cross?
Last claim by Mr. Batchelor made is that Jesus honored the Sabbath in the tomb.  First, Jesus is DEAD.  In fulfillment of prophecy, He said He would rise after THREE days.  The hidden purpose was the first day of the week after Passover was firstfruits.  He became the first fruit of the Resurrection AND the new covenant. 
Second, is 1 Peter 3:18-19:

1 Peter 3:18-19
    For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: [19] By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

How can Jesus, born of God AND flesh, go preach to the spirits in prison?  After his death and before His resurrection.  He went to Paradise, preached, and set those free.  Then He went to Hell, and preached as well so they would see the Savior that was prophesied.  He may have honored the Sabbath by preaching nor does it say which day He went on the Sabbath.  Let's see both ways:  Paradise, He went to free them to Heaven.  Hell, He took the keys away from satan.  Sounds to me it was more than preaching.  But since He is the LORD of the Sabbath, He made the rules.

The two questions come to mind:
If the sabbath does apply today, why aren't we honoring it the way God told the Israelites in the wilderness?  Reading through Scripture, I see where nothing was changed in HOW we should honor it.  One of the Scriptures I noted said the the Laws on stones were now written on our hearts.  Thus, all should still apply to us.  If I asked HOW people honored the Sabbath, good chance it is nothing compared to the tradition held by the Jews.  Considering it was told by them by God via Moses, I think they would have better knowledge than some of us Gentiles.
Second question is for Mr. Batchelor and those who follow the SDAs, If there is a NEW inauguration of the sabbath, how SHOULD it be honored?  Many from those beliefs believe that the ceremonial sabbaths was nailed to the Cross.  Since those ways no longer apply, what Scriptures will show me the way to honor the seventh day?  I have yet to find Scripture that tells us the correct New Testament was to honor the Sabbath.
The New Testament Sabbath points to Jesus.  Jesus said He needed to go, not just so the Comforter would come, but He would prepare a place for us.  In O.T. times, a man went looking for His bride.  When all was agreed by the bride's father, the future groom would head back to "prepare a place."  This was not to be where they would live in the father's house, but the GROOM'S mansion.  He is preparing a place for His future place at HIS place.  Once he comes back for His bride, we will find REST at the mansion.  We will have ETERNAL REST.  It appears Hebrews 4 mentions more of complete rest than a day of rest.
More proof?  Peter quoted that a thousand years is as a day, and a day is as a thousand years to the LORD (2 Peter 3:8).  This is spoken in clear parallel to a week.  When the 6000th year arrives, this begins the seventh day.  REST.  Now we can have arguments about following the 1000 year reign of Christ (remember about "another day" he spoke about), but this has merit.  Because these are the last days, we will have no rest, for the enemy is like a roaring lion. 
As one last note, Mr. Batchelor said that God told Adam and Eve about keeping the Sabbath holy.  The first mention of anything of this was in Exodus 16.  All God gave was ONE COMMANDMENT, thou shall not eat from the Tree of Life, and they blew that.  Not until AFTER the fall, was there more, and this was because of deception and sin.

I have not found answers to my questions above, so I have not found a concrete answer.  The expert, Mr. Batchelor, did nice work on picking his Scriptures, and making his own interpretation to suit his case.  But it did answer the question I ask. 

Copy and paste the video below and discern for yourself.

Jeremiah 6:16

Monday, April 7, 2014

Where are the fathers?

What happened to being a father?  I have been thinking of someone who is into "spreading his seed" and hopes he will avoid paying any child support.  Worse, is seeing this child being raised without a father.  This will be the third woman he has gotten pregnant.  He already has a six year old son, while his third child will be born later this year.  What gives?
I am not sure what is going through his mind.  Is he loving unprotected sex, and expecting these women not to get pregnant?  How come he doesn't take this serious?  Please note that his father was not much in his life either, and it looks like this will passed down to the next generation. 
What he brags about is that he already owes on child support, and he has made very little attempt to pay it, yet he and his father demand visitation to see his oldest.  It isn't money that his son needs, it is a father figure who he can grow up, admire and emulate.  He has no idea how much of an affect he will have by NOT BEING THERE.
My father was not in my life, either, but for an entirely different reason.  My mother refused any child support and avoided any contact with him.  Why?  He already got two women pregnant in high school and my mother did not know this before she married him.  During my mother's pregnancy with my sister, my mother found out he got two more women pregnant in the Philippines AND he managed to get one of his ex-girlfriends pregnant again from high school.  That was enough for my mother, to be married to a man who would pay child support for other kids.  Knowing that a man who would cheat in his marriage and be a father to seven children by the age of twenty-two was more than enough for a divorce.  He even had the nerve to tell his fellow sailors that me and my sister were not his, that my mother cheated on him.  So my sister and I had no father for virtually all our lives.
Remembering my life and growing up with no father figure hurt me in the long run.  I was scared to date, in fact, I did not have a long time relationship until I was 31.  If it wasn't for my time with God did I realize how much of a father is needed in any relationship.  I remember having to learn sports myself, and how much I felt alone as the only male in the household.  When my wife was pregnant with our first child, my promise to her and my son is they would have a father that will be there for them.
I hug my children every night I can.  Except for a six week time I spent in Erie, Pennsylvania, I have spent mostly every day around my children.  They know they are loved, and I remind them every chance I get.  I want my children to know their father is there for them.  I want my daughter to understand how a godly man should treat her when she gets older.  I want my son to know how to be a man and seek a godly woman when his time has come.  I want NEITHER of them to go through their growing years as I did, and that I promised God, and He has reminded me on this promise.
40% of all pregnancies today in America are now from unmarried women.  In the black community, this number is 75%, where there is no father in this children's lives.  We wonder why there is so much dysfunction in society today.  Chicago has such a truancy rate, it is scary what the next generation has in store for them.  Some are so illiterate, that the only job worthy in their eyes is dealing drugs.  Liberals believe there is nothing wrong, it is okay for "strong" single mothers to raise their children.  Encompass the feminist movement, even this group demand men not to be in their lives except to get pregnant, than they will show that men aren't needed. 
Fathers are authority figures.  Fathers are the spiritual heads.  God has called MEN to lead for the family.  When you take that part of the equation out, what is left for the children?  Anything goes.
There is a place for men, husbands and fathers.  God created procreation between and man and woman, and both are needed to raise a child.  Anything less will not be enough, and what damage is done can be devastating.