Is the Sabbath just for Israel and not Gentile Christians?

 

Someone on Facebook asked me, "How do you answer when someone says that the Sabbath is just a sign for Israel and not Gentiles?"

Good question! There are two approaches to this:

First, "we who were once far off have been brought near" and made one with Israel. The Greek word translated as "church" in most Bibles really just refers to "the congregation of the people"....in other words, it refers to the collective of God's people. God only has one people, Israel. If we have become God's people, then we have become part of Israel.

Second, the Sabbath is a sign of the relationship between God and Israel, but being used as a sign in one context doesn't preclude it being used as a moral imperative in another context. If God had said, "Wearing shoes will be a sign between me and Israel," would that mean that other people shouldn't wear shoes? The Sabbath is a good thing. It honors the Creator, promotes community cohesiveness, and shows kindness to one's servants, animals, and employees. 

The commandment is very clear that one of the primary purposes of Sabbath is to show kindness to other people, and it doesn't work if everyone isn't doing it on the same day. If gentile Christians are supposed to love their neighbors, then they should be keeping the Sabbath for that reason. If they are supposed to love God, then they should be keeping the Sabbath for that reason also.

Chiasm on the Morning and Evening Sacrifices in Numbers 28

 

Some chiasms are amazing, revealing relationships between people, assumptions that might have been hidden even from the author, and profound spiritual truths. Others seem a little more mundane.

This chiasm in Numbers 28:2-8 doesn't offer any deep revelations, but it's still interesting for practical reasons...at least if you're a priest at the Temple.

• v1-2 - Preamble
• v3 - Food offering to YHWH
• v4a - Morning lamb offering
• v4b - Twilight lamb offering
• v5 - Grain offering
• v6 - Burnt offering to YHWH ordained at Sinai
• v7 - Drink offering
• v8a - Twilight lamb offering
• v8b-c - Morning grain and drink offering
• v8d-e - Food offering to YHWH

This passage describes the daily morning and evening offerings, but it does so in a peculiar manner. It sandwiches a detailed description of the grain and drink offerings that accompany the evening sacrifice between two very brief mentions of the evening lamb and two very brief mentions of different aspects of the morning offerings. At first glance, it sounds like the evening sacrifices are supposed to be a bigger production than the morning ones, but the second mention of the morning offering indicates that the evening grain and wine are supposed to mirror the morning grain and wine. Just as the sunset mirrors the sunrise, the sunset offerings mirror the sunrise offerings.

The axis of the chiasm says that these offerings were established by God at Sinai. If you take it as straight narrative, it reads as if only the grain offering was instituted at Sinai, but it's position at the center of the chiastic structure indicates that the whole set of offerings--lambs, grain, and wine--both morning and evening--are intended.

Fortunately, we don't have to depend on a chiasm for that conclusion. The same thing is said explicitly in Exodus 29:38-42.

Now this is what you shall offer on the altar: two lambs a year old day by day regularly...
Exodus 29:38

Although I say that there doesn't appear to be anything especially profound in this chiasm, I should clarify that I don't perceive anything especially profound. However, I suspect that every verse, every literary structure in the Bible holds deeper truths than we will ever know in this lifetime. 

Is Revelation 20-22 a Later Addition?

Someone recently told me that he believes that the last three chapters of Revelation are in direct contradiction to the last eleven chapters of Ezekiel because of the timing of the resurrection of the dead (Ezekiel 37 and Revelation 20) and other details about the New Jerusalem. He couldn't see any way to reconcile these two passages, so he concluded that Revelation 20-22 must have been added after the early church had been heavily corrupted by Greek influence.

After reading the relevant chapter of his book twice, here was my response:

After reading chapter 9 of your book, Ezekiel 37-48, and Revelation 20-22 once again, here are my final thoughts on the matter:

Ezekiel 37 isn't a literal resurrection of the dead, but a restoration of the nation of Israel that happens immediately before or after the onset of the Millennial Era. Ezekiel 40-48 are mostly metaphor about an idealized people of Israel, their repentance and restoration, a righteous remnant of the priesthood, and the adoption of righteous Torah-keepers from the nations. The temple and city described in much detail aren't a literal temple and city, but a pattern to which God desires Israel to conform. I believe for at least two reasons that even the later description of the division of the land is almost certainly a metaphor: 1) The apportioned land is only a fraction of what God promised to Israel, 2) the tribal allocations are parallel strips of land with no regard to terrain, natural boundaries, or sizes of the tribes.

In Revelation 20, only vs 1-10 are about the Millennial Era, what you refer to as the Kingdom age. V11 begins the final resurrection and judgment and chapter 21 represents the onset of a recreated universe populated only by the resurrected righteous. It's possible that the new earth is metaphor, but since this follows the 1000 year reign, resurrection of all the dead, and the final judgment, it is clearly a different kind of world than what existed during the Millennial Era. During the Millennium, the nations still exist, sin and death are still present. Yeshua's rule will be absolute within the fully realized land of Israel, but the nations will be mostly autonomous. After the final judgment, all of those things have been abolished.

At first, Isaiah 65 seems to support the idea that the new heaven and earth of Revelation 21 is metaphor, but the new heaven and earth of Isaiah 65 still has death and sin, so I don't think they are talking about the same thing.

As for the validity of Revelation 20-22, the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers quoted from all three chapters.

• Ireneaus (130-202 AD) quoted numerous passages from Revelation 20-21 in Against Heresies.
• Justin Martyr (100-165 AD) made a direct reference to Revelation 20:4-5 in Dialogue with Trypho.
• Clement of Alexandria (150-215 AD) quoted from Rev 21:6 in an address on plagiarisms. 
• Tertullian (155-220 AD) quoted and referenced numerous passages from Revelation 20-22 in Against Marcion. 
• Hypolytus (170-235 AD) quoted from Rev 20:6 and 22:15 in his Treatise on Christ and Antichrist. 
• Cyprian (210-258 AD) quoted Rev 22:10-12 in his Treatise on the Advantage of Patience and Rev 22:4-5 in his Exhortation to Martyrdom. 

There are more. If it were only a couple of quotes from one or two authors, it would at least be possible that Revelation 20-22 were added in a later century and then a few quotes inserted into those extrabiblical writers to add support. However, there are dozens of quotes from numerous authors throughout the second and third centuries. This shows that the final 3 chapters of Revelation were present by 165 AD at the latest and so it seems very unlikely that they were not original with John.

I should add that I do not believe any of those church fathers are reliable theologians and some of them were heretics of the worst kind, but that's beside the point. They all quoted from the last three chapters of Revelation. Whatever one might think of the men and their theologies, the textual witness is very strong evidence that Revelation 20-22 is legitimate.

Whenever anyone asserts that some part of the Bible should be removed because he doesn't agree with the content, you need to be immediately on your guard. Don't take anything at face value. Test everything. Verify every claim. Look for alternative explanations.

What Is Hebrew Roots?

"Hebrew Roots" is a term that some people apply to anyone who uses Hebrew-ish terminology and believes (or entertains) a set of ideas they don't like. They use it as an insult in the same way that some antisemites use the term "Jew" to apply only to those Jews who act or believe a certain way. Personally, I find the term to have only two useful definitions:

1) A pronomian of non-Jewish heritage who accepts Yeshua (Jesus, Yahusha, etc.) as the Messiah and believes he has been grafted (adopted, joined, etc.) into the chosen nation of Israel.
2) All of definition #1 with the addition of the adoption of Jewish-like traditions, such as tallit-wearing and using Hebrew terms for religious concepts, like Shabbat instead of Sabbath, mashiach instead of messiah, etc.

In either of these definitions, the only difference between "Messianic Judaism" and "Hebrew Roots" is ethnic heritage, although a Messianic Jew is not necessarily pronomian.

Ironically, most of the people who use "Hebrew Roots" as an insult *ARE* Hebrew Roots themselves. Of course, nobody else is obligated to accept my definitions of anything.

I have waffled over the years about whether or not I am "Hebrew Roots", but clearly by this definition I am. Labels are of limited value, though. Being "Hebrew Roots" is a little like being "Christian". It covers a lot of territory.

The Hebrew Roots Movement is a spontaneous, worldwide movement of Christians drawn to the Hebrew Bible, to keep God's commandments as he intended, and to live as Yeshua lived.

Because this movement is spontaneous and counter-cultural, it can be a little chaotic and attracts a lot of people who have an affinity for the fringes. There is no organization or central leadership, so there is a lot of opportunity for charismatic and just plain loud people to claim the stage. 

When some people realize they have been taught some lies about the Scriptures, they react very badly, suspecting everything and everyone of trying to deceive them. Ironically, because they are emotionally driven, these people are easy targets for other deceivers. They can become bitter, angry, and even paranoid, making them easily sucked into the absurdities of Sacred Name and Flat Earth. They need true leadership, but they're too afraid to trust anyone. I don't know what to do to help them other than to keep trying to be a calm voice of sanity.

Fortunately, the vast majority of people in the HRM are not bitter and angry. They aren't Sacred Namers or Flat Earthers. They haven't rejected Jesus. They haven't rejected salvation by faith. They haven't rejected Paul. They don't demand that everyone spell God's name exactly like they do. They're good people who are just trying to do the right thing.

Unfortunately, the angry and bitter voices, the prideful and hateful voices are so much louder that they're the only ones that most people remember, and so the entire movement gets painted with that craziness.

Don't be the one holding that brush. Don't be a slanderer of God's people. Don't assume that every disciple of Jesus who has decided to take God's Law (aka Torah) seriously is a lunatic Torah terrorist. Don't violate the two greatest commandments as well as the 3rd, 6th, and 9th of the Ten just because you had a bad experience with a few people who do NOT represent the hundreds of thousands that didn't stick in your memory.

[Apparently, I didn't realize that I had written another article on the same topic with the same title just a month earlier. The question comes up a lot. lol]