The New Testament Sabbath (Hebrews 4:1-13)

The writer of Hebrews states that the promise of rest still remains.

The logic the author uses focuses on "God's rest", I.e., the rest of God.  I think this means the restful spirit of God.  If we take on God's rest, then we will by our nature enter a Sabbath rest where we refrain from work.



This opens other questions.  Before we address them, let's remind ourselves of Colossians 2:16-17 which states (1) that the Sabbath was a shadow of Christ, and (2) people should not judge each other about the Sabbath, I.e., it is flexible.


What does it mean to work or to abstain from working?
The focus on the text is on "rest", not a particular type of rest or work.  The nature of "rest" is actually subjective and individualized.  It depends on what you do for "work."

For example, when I worked as a lawyer, I sat in a chair reading for long hours of the day.  If that was my day job, "rest" to me actually was manual labor and exercise.  It revitalized me and became a joy I really looked forward to.

During the fall, watching Sunday afternoon football and taking a nap is extremely restful for me.

For others, perhaps shopping is restful, reading a novel, or playing board games.


Which day(s)?  How frequent?  Once a week?  Once a month?
The text is actually silent on a particular day, but does use the example of God resting once a week, it seems to endorse that pattern.

The text is silent as to whether we should follow the Jewish custom of Saturday or pick another day.  From my reading of Colossians 2:16, I do not think God cares.

Likewise, from Acts 2:46, we know the early church met "every day", which means that any and every day could be a day devoted for God or church activities.



Is this a command?
The way I read it, it sounds like a strong suggestion and a goal, rather than a command.  There are jobs where people must work all week long, or at least be on call and potentially work all week long.  Examples of this could include the military and civil services (police, medical, and fire responders).  Likewise, in times of emergency, people work all week long.

But these are the exception, not the rule.  It is not a sin to work during an emergency, for even the Pharisees would help their ox on a Sabbath if it fell into a ditch.

The important part is to take a break.


Modern application - the weekend
Putting all this together, I think we actually have two Sabbath days in the modern context.  We have a weekend, which are two consecutive days of "rest" from our normal routine.

There are people who "work" on weekends.  For example, professional football games are usually on Sundays.  Likewise, preachers work on weekends.  For them, the work weekend actually would be after the normal weekend, such as Monday.

Allusions with Moses (Hebrews 3)

In Hebrews 3, the writer alludes to the experience with Moses.

Jesus is superior to Moses
First, the writer states that Jesus is/was superior to Moses.  The writer uses the analogy of the builder of the home is superior to the home itself.

This does not denigrate the importance of Moses in the tradition, but just states that Jesus is superior.  This follows the pattern of supremacy of Jesus to others, in particular angels in chapters 1-2.

The writer could have picked any Old Testament prophet to compare Jesus to.  However, the selection of Moses sends a strong message about the "Law of Moses".  In a nutshell, Jesus is superior to the Law of Moses as well.  At this time, and to some degree today, there was a debate about the relationship and applicability of the Law of Moses and its traditions to the New Testament church.  This writer implicitly aligns with the other writings that Jesus is superior.


Analogy of faith to Moses leading the people
The writer then uses the analogy of Moses leading the people in the desert.  The writer states that many people could not enter the promised land because of their lack of faith.  The writer urges us to have the faithful obedience to go where God is leading us.

The analogy of this point of Israel's history affirms the importance of Moses.  In other words, the writer does not discount the contribution of Moses, or implicitly the law of Moses, but nevertheless these are not as important as Jesus.

The King of Angels, part 2 (Hebrews 2)

What's all this angel talk? (vv. 1-4)
The second chapter of Hebrews begins with a warning against drifting away.  The example that Paul gives might provide some clarification about the reason for why Paul is writing and why Paul  discusses angels at length in chapter 1.

Paul discusses how the words of angels are not binding.  In particular, it seems that the angels said that "every violation and disobedience received its just punishment (v. 2).  Paul follows by discussing salvation through Jesus, which was announced by Jesus, and testified by the witnesses, miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit.

We can reasonably infer that people were receiving messages from "angels" that were contrary to the Gospel that Jesus preached.  Paul's response, at least here, does not distinguish between good and bad angels, but rather to state that Jesus was superior to all angels, so stick with Jesus said.

This might be somewhat reminiscent of Colossians 2:18, where he warns against worshipping angels.  But here, I think the focus is on countering the message that angels preached, or people believed that angels preached to them.

We actually do not know the details of the exact situation in either case, but given Paul's response, I think these are reasonable inferences.

On a side note, Paul states that signs, wonders, miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit testify to the reality of Christ (v. 4).  We can, and should, pursue supernatural encounters with God to increase our faith.  This contrasts verse 3 where the testimonies came from those who saw Christ in person.

Jesus became a man (vv. 5-18)
In the remaining verses of the chapter, Paul discusses how Jesus became "lower than angels", at least temporarily, so that he might be crowned with glory.  This refers to him becoming a man to share in our humanity to release us from the fear of death.  (v. 15).

The only thing I would add here is that these chapters show, for lack of a better term, God's hierarchy.  That is:

1.  Jesus (much superior to the angels, 1:4)

2.  Angels (ministering servants sent to serve those who will inherit salvation, 1:14)

3.  Humanity (a little lower than angels, 2:9; note, it does NOT say that angels rule humanity if anything 1:14 states that angels serve humanity)

4.  Rest of nature (ruled by humans, Genesis 1:28-30)

The king of angels (Hebrews 1)

The beginning of Hebrews focuses on the superiority of Jesus.  Hebrews 1 emphasizes the superiority of Jesus to the other angels, but also makes an inference that Jesus is superior to the prophets of the Old Testament.

About Jesus, this is what Paul says:

1.  He has spoken to us in these last days (1:2)
At this point, it has been several decades since the Resurrection of Christ, but Paul states that Jesus is still talking to "us".

Does "us" mean Paul is referring to the Apostles?  Possibly.  But Paul is usually alone among the Apostles.

The immediate "us", I.e., the letter writers.  Timothy is the only other person mention in the concluding remarks, but it is does not indicate he is a writer (13:23).

Does "us" mean the recipient to whom Paul is writing the epistle of the Hebrews?  I take this approach and this would mean that Jesus was talking to the church in general, but I also believe that Jesus talks to the church today.

2.  He is the heir of all things (1:2)
I do not have much to add about this, but it is interesting.

3.  Through whom, God made the universe (1:2)
This is reminiscent of John 1:1 where it states that Jesus was integral of the Creation week from Genesis 1.

4.  He is the radiance of God's glory (1:3)
There is a lot here in terms of God demonstrating his glory through Jesus.

5.  Exact representation of his being (1:3)
In other words, Jesus was God on earth.  The same God of the Old Testament walked among us and the reaction of many of the people of the day was to reject Jesus.

6.  He provided purification of sins (1:3)

7.  He sat down at the right hand of God and became superior to the angels (1:3-4)
Finally, here it is.  Jesus is superior to angels.  It is interesting that this comes immediately after the purification of the sins.  This seems to indicate that the purification of sins made Jesus superior to angels.  This reminds me Revelations 5:3-10, where the only one in heaven worthy enough to open the scrolls is the slain lamb.  The reason the slain lamb is found worthy is because the lamb was slain to purchase men for God.


Praises concerning Jesus and angels (1:5-13)

The rest of Hebrews 1 focuses on applying psalms to Jesus and angels.  They seem to indicate the relationship between them.  Paul provides a contextual narrative to lead us.

A couple things stand out to me.

Paul cites several Psalms to say that God calls Jesus "God" and "Lord" (vv. 8, 10).

In verse 7, Jesus makes the angels winds and his servants flames of fire.  I do not think this means that angels are turned into wind or the servants are turned into fire.  Rather, it seems to indicate that these are a supportive role.  In other words, Jesus helps the angels and servants by providing wind and fire.

At the end of the chapter, Paul asks if all angels are ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation.  The question seems rhetorical and we can probably believe it is a statement to mean that yes, angels serve the church.  For after all, Jesus is the king of angels and Jesus purchased the salvation of humanity.  Although asked as a question, we can infer the angels serve the church since they serve Jesus.

Colossians 4

The end of Colossians has a lot of great tidbits.

Paul refers to "chains" twice (vv. 3, 18) and that Aristarchus is a "fellow-prisoner (v. 10).  I think we can reasonably infer from this language that he wrote the letter while imprisoned in Rome.

A doctor named "Luke" is with Paul (in Rome?).  This man sends his greetings (v. 14) and I think the traditional view is that he is the Gospel writer Luke.

Paul refers to a letter from Laodicea (v. 16).  This would indicate a second letter, which appears to be lost to history.  There is an outside chance it could be the Book of Revelations by Apostle John, but I personally think Paul is referring to a letter he wrote to Laodicea that did not make it into the Scriptural canon.

The men carrying the letter to Colosse are Onesimus and Tychichus (vv. 7-9).  We know Onesimus as the escaped slave at the heart of the book of Philemon.  Putting these details together, Onesimus might be bringing two letters to the city of Colosse.  One letter is addressed to the church while the other is personally directed to Philemon.  These letters we know today as the Book of Colossians and the Book of Philemon.  

Further, the personal greetings in Colossians match those of the Book of Philemon.

Essentially, it seems the church of Colosse received both letters at once.  This escaped slave context of the Book of Philemon provides an interesting framework to view the very passages in Colossians where Paul discusses slavery.  There, he spoke at length of the requirement for slaves to obey, but only a single sentence about the reciprocal duty of a master to be fair.

Questions to ponder - is Paul implicitly saying that Philemon abused Onesimus?  If Paul focuses Colossians on obedience, why is the focus of the Book of Philemon about Philemon's forgiveness of Onesimus?  Likewise, it is silent about reinstituting Philemon's ownership of Onesimus.

Christian duties in Colossians (chapter 3-4:1)

Colossians 2 focused on grace and freedom within church.  He even said that the written law (i.e., Mosaic code) was nailed to the cross.  Paul does not leave it there, but in chapter 3, he lays down the lifestyle responsibilities of the Christian.  They include the main list of things we see elsewhere in other epistles (do not lie, cheat, steal; avoid lust, greed, anger, sexual immorality, etc...)

Interestingly, he puts a greater emphasis on the rules of the household, which parlays into slavery/employment.

What is the duty of parents?

This is an interesting question and I don't think it is addressed a lot specifically in the Bible.  Paul touches on it here.

The household should have mutual respect and love.  Children must obey their parents (3:20), which made it into the original 10 commandments.  But likewise, fathers must not embitter their children (3:21).  

On one hand, this juxtaposition of the mutual responsibilities between children and parents feels new.  For instance, children are told to honor their parents in Commandment 5, but the 10 Commandments are silent about what parents must do for their children in addition to obeying the rest of the Commandments. 

 If parents set an example of lying and cheating in the household, then they would be breaking some of the Commandments, but they would not necessarily violate a duty to raise their children well.  

That said, there are places throughout the Bible where parents are given child-rearing advice.  They just do not tend to appear alongside a requirement for children to obey their parents.  For instance, Proverbs 22:6 advises a parent to train a child in the way he should go.

Likewise, there are instances where the sins of parents impact their children.  The Old Testament speaks of generational blessings and curses, but we could also consider all the times in the kings of Israel where God invited a king for a dynasty, but the king's failure to follow God destroyed or limited the dynasty.  This happened with Saul (I Samuel 13:13) and Jeroboam (I Kings 11:38).

Slaves and Masters

Paul tells slaves to obey their masters (3:22).  Paul says that they must work as if they are working for the lord (3:23).  I have heard people cite this latter verse in the modern employment context, which I think is fair.

Paul balances this directive with a requirement that masters must treat their slaves fairly because they have a Master in heaven (4:1).

On one hand, here is a new testament verse implying that slavery is a proper social relationship among Christians.  If we honestly look at the text, it does seem to suggest that.  But it is also must be balanced with fairness, otherwise it loses its legitimacy.

We can also point to the Jewish slavery custom as an analogy.  There, it is more like what we would call indentured servanthood where the "slave" is released after a certain amount of time.  Likewise, there is no generational slavery in that being born to a slave parent does not make the child a slave.

A slight problem with using the Jewish slave analogy is that Paul already said that the Mosaic law is cancelled.  This would include the requirement to release one's slaves after a certain time.

The Colossus of Epistles (Colossians 1-2)

A giant statute, the Colossus of Rhodes, once stood at the port of Rhodes.  This giant statute became the inspiration for the Statue of Liberty in New York harbor.

This is not the same thing as Colosse or Paul's epistle to the church of Colosse.  However, there is an analogy.  

Colossians is, in my humble opinion, an overlooked book that explains the Christian faith in very simple and concrete terms.  It does not go into the detail that we find in Romans or 1 Corinthians, but stands as a precise summary of many essentials expounded on elsewhere.  It is a tiny book that casts a very large shadow, like a Colossus.

Paul did not establish the church at Colosse.  Rather, they heard the gospel from Epaphras (1:7) who reported to Paul (1:8).  For this, Paul prays continuously for the church of Colosse (1:9).  

A question to ponder - how often do we pray for other churches or Christians that we have never met?  Paul does not say we should, but he did "continuously".

Much of the first two chapters are about the supremacy of Christ.  I find the language beautiful.  Here is what stands out to me:

The Kingdom of the Son (1:13)

God rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us to the Kingdom of the Son. The Bible discusses a lot about the Kingdom of Heaven.  Christ's statements in the Gospels about it in Gospels tended to be strange.  In fact, they obfuscated the crowd of original hearers to the point they thought Jesus referred to a political kingdom.  

This verse does not address all the implications and characteristics of a Kingdom of Heaven.  But it does address a few.

First, we are in it.  The statement is a present-state description.  This fits the analogy I have heard that the world is "pregnant" with the Kingdom of Heaven.  It is here, but not yet fully come.

Second, it stands opposed to the "dominion of darkness".  There are two kingdoms, darkness and "of the Son".  To me, I think of heaven and hell clashing on the earth.

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all Creation (1:15)

The language of this is amazing.  How can something that is invisible cast an image?  God found a way.  That way is Christ.

That said, the text sparks to mind the creation of man in which man was made in the image of God.  (Genesis 1:26).  However, the author of Genesis did not specify that God is actually "invisible", whereas Paul does.  Paul further elaborates that Christ was the beginning of Creation and that Christ implemented Creation.

I don't want to read more into the text than is there.  But at the very least, Paul explains Christ role at the beginning of time in a similar way that John 1 expounds on "in the beginning".  

Paul struggles for the church of Laodicea (2:1)

In the context, Laodicea seems to be another church that Paul has not visited, but has a great interest in.  Paul does not explain what he means by his struggles for it.  It seems to me that he might want to write a letter to them.  If so, that letter is likely lost to history.  

However, the book of Revelations is a letter to Laodicea and six other churches.  From Revelation 3:14-22, we know the problem with the church at Laodicea is that it is "lukewarm".  This may be what Paul is referring to.  Granted, the situation in Laodicea may have changed because Revelations may have been written several decades after Paul died.  In short, we will never know precisely what Paul is referring, but yet again, Paul is concerned about churches and Christians he never met.

Problems with the church of Colosse

We can reasonably infer the problems with the church of Colosse relate to the advice that Paul gives them.  From this, we can gather the church had the following problems.

1.  Circumcision

Many other epistles deal with this, indicating it was a widespread problem that Christians thought they needed to be circumcised. Colossians is no different.  Paul goes further than other epistles and states we were "circumcised in Christ", implicitly by our faith in Christ.  

What is interesting about the statement is that it could apply equally to women, since it is a spiritual circumcision and irrelevant to anatomical differences.

A question to ponder - why is circumcision still so popular today among Christians?  In fact, I remember meeting a Christian who said he was circumcised as an adult.

Paul then goes very, very far.  He says the "written code" was cancelled and taken away by Christ and nailed on the cross.  (2:13-14) 

I grew up in a church that overlooked that statement, so this rings deep personally.  

It also clarifies the nebulous statement Jesus made in the Sermon on the Mount, that not one jot or tittle of the Law will be taken away.  (Matthew 5:17-18). Here, Paul explains what it means that Christ fulfilled the law, but yet it still exists.  

2.  Dietary laws, Festivals, Sabbath Days (2:16-17)

Paul gives the advice that no one should judge them with regard to what they eat, the festivals they keep, or of Sabbath days.  The reason is that these were a shadow of Christ.

I have kept track and this is the strongest statement in the New Testament about the freedom of keeping the Sabbath or festivals.  It is also a bold statement about the dietary laws, but I think it is on par with regard to Peter's vision when he visited Cornelius in Acts 10-11.

What it does now say?  It does not say we should never take a Sabbath or celebrate a festival for God.  Rather, it gives freedom to personalize them among cultural traditions or even individuals.  Likewise, it gives freedom to determine what exactly is a "Sabbath" rest to people.  

For instance, why drop the Jewish holy festivals that God gave to Moses in favor of Christmas?  This gives us the freedom to do so.  

The inverse is also true, that people are free to drop Christmas in favor of the holy festivals that God gave to Moses.  

3.  Worship of Angels (2:18-19)

It seems to come out of nowhere, but people are worshipping angels based on angelic encounters they had.  The people go into long detail about their encounters.  The same people have no actual connection to Christ, which would explain why they are worshipping angels and not God.

Personally, I think a lot of other religions and folk beliefs of the world can be attributed to someone interacting with some sort of "angel", quite possibly a fallen angel.  That kind of stuff has happened all throughout history and will continue to do so.

Angels exist, they interact with us, and they interacted with tons of people in the Bible.  Many of the people in the Bible explained in detail what the angel did, so that is not the problem that Paul wants to address.

I think Paul's point is that regardless of angel and angelic encounters, worship belongs to Christ, and Christ alone.