Being Deceived About the Sabbath

The following are different translations for Hebrews 4:9:
(KJV)
There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
(ASV)
There remaineth therefore a sabbath rest for the people of God.
(AMP)
So then, there is still awaiting a full and complete Sabbath-rest reserved for the [true] people of God;
(ESV)
So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God,
(GW)
Therefore, a time of rest and worship exists for God's people.
(HCSB)
A Sabbath rest remains, therefore, for God’s people.
(MOFF)
There is a sabbath-Rest, then, reserved still for the People of God
(NASB)
So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God.
(NKJV)
There remains therefore a rest for the people of God.
(NLT)
So there is a special rest still waiting for the people of God.

Matthew Poole's Commentary provides a typical explanation: " Here the Spirit concludes from his former proofs, that there is a more excellent rest revealed to faith in the gospel, which is remaining, future, and to come, and will surely and most certainly do so; though it be behind, yet it will be enjoyed. A sabbatism, which is a state and season of a most glorious rest, (see Heb 4:10), shall be enjoyed by sincere believers, the true Israel of God, of whom he is the Proprietor, and who are for their eternal state so excellently holy, and of so Divine a nature, that he is not ashamed to be called their God."

I submit that the translators are deceiving the readers. This is another example of the purposeful attempt to disconnect followers of Yeshua with his Hebraic roots. The Greek word for "rest" is sabbatismós and it means to keep the Sabbath. The use of the word "rest" was added by replacement theologians in an effort to change the commandment to keep the Sabbath into a futuristic ideal. However, the word for "remains" is in the present tense indicative mood. The present indicative asserts something which is occurring while the speaker is making the statement. This is not about the future; it is about now.

The correct translation should be:
"There remains a keeping of the Sabbath by God's people."

A true interpretation of Hebrews 4:9 reveals the failure of the modern church to obey God's command to keep the Sabbath. It is not a futuristic fulfillment; it is a current duty.

Four Levels of Meaning to the Scriptures

There are four levels to interpreting Scriptures from a Hebraic perspective. They are:
Peshat = Literal meaning; the plain, simple meaning of the text;
Remez = An implied deeper meaning below a surfave reading of the text; this includes an allegorical meaning; or, a cross-reference to other texts; or at a philosophical level
Derash = Moral or homiletic meaning; for example, a Biblical writer can take two or more seemingly unrelated verses and combine them to create a verse(s) with a third meaning; Scripture is to interpret Scripture; one caution, this level cannot be used to strip the verse of its peshat meaning; and
Sod = Mystical or secret meaning of the text.

I am of the opinion that everything begins at the peshat level. None of the other levels should be allowed to contradict the plain simple meaning of a text. I once had a man tell me that the Scriptures allowed for a release of the slaves every seven years. He then argued to me that he should be allowed to divorce his wife so he could be released from the bondage of slavery that resulted from the marriage. Obviously, the peshat meaning had nothing to do with the marriage covenant. Therefore, it was simple to point out the gross error of his interpretation of Scripture.

I have always been somewhat troubled by some interpretations at the derash level. Scriptures that use the same word or consonants are combined to create a meaning that while may not directly contradict the peshat level, it seems very far from the simple plain meaning. What is the point? The point is that I have found it best to focus on obtaining the plain and simple meaning of texts. By concentrating on that level, I believe you will stay grounded and not be as likely to fly off on some spiritual tangent as so many do.

Credit is given to www.nazarene.net for some of the definitions of the four levels of interpretations.

True Humility

The story is told of the rabbi that went to have dinner with a very demanding man. The owner of the home was known for a quick temper and would discharge employees without notice or a second chance to correct a mistake. The cook placed the pot of soup before the rabbi to serve the others. This was the custom. The rabbi would taste the food and then allow the others to be served. On this occasion, the rabbi tasted the food and continued to eat. He literally made a "pig" of himself. He finished the entire pot and asked was there any more. The cook responded that there was a little left in the kitchen. The rabbi asked for the remainder. He ate all the soup. No one else had anything to eat but the rabbi. The owner of the home and the students of the rabbi that had accompanied him to dinner were all stunned. They had never seen the rabbi behave in such a manner. The rabbi excused himself from the table and he and his students left. When they were outside, his students asked him about his bizarre behavior. The rabbi responded, "When I tasted the soup, I realized that the cook had put too much oil in the soup. If the owner had tasted the soup, he would have fired the cook on the spot. Therefore, I made a pig of myself to protect the cook's job."

The rabbi put the needs of another ahead of his reputation. Would you have done so? Do you value your reputation above the needs of another? The rabbi displayed true humility.

True Faith

True faith can be described as the interrelationship between what is known and what is unknown. Picture a needle and thread sewing together two pieces of material. One piece represents all those things that are known to you. These are the things that you may struggle against, but your reasoning ability and personal attributes contend with these issues. These are the issues in life that you can figure out. You may not like something, but you understand what is happening. The other piece of material represents things that are unknown. These are the matters entirely in the hand of G-d. You don't understand what He is doing. You don't understand what the purpose is of the trial you are experiencing. Now, when you sew these two pieces of material together, the result is faith.

Faith is when you do the very best you can with the abilities and talents you have, and trust the things you don't see or understand to G-d who is all loving and compassionate. He does not act loving; he is loving. He doesn't show compassion, He is compassion. When you can get to a place that you have sewed together these two pieces of material, you are walking in faith.

What Is The Fellowship of Jewish Christian Assemblies International?

The FJCAI is a ministry of Mountain Moving Ministries International, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit ministry with outreaches in the United States, India, Pakistan, and Israel. The FJCAI was recently formed to accommodate those that understand and desire to connect with the Hebraic roots of the Christian faith. There are several organizations that offer the same service. The question is asked, "Why another group?" The answer is that in the FJCAI, there is room to disagree. Whereas some associations require you to agree with them on all areas of doctrine such as the applicability of the Talmud, One Law, or Scripture only, the FJCAI allows membership to all those that desire to increase their knowledge of Jewish Christianity. You can reject the Talmud or embrace the Talmud. You can believe that all Gentiles are under all the law or you may endorse the Acts 15 approach. The point is that with the FJCAI, you have an organization that can charter your ministry, provide ministerial credentials, offer accountability, and recognition as being a part of a fellowship. For further information, please E-Mail bljenkins7@yahoo.com.

The Three Voices

From some Hebraic viewpoints, you have three voices that attempt to influence your actions. It is incumbent on us, if we are going to have a successful spiritual life, to balance those voices. The first voice I refer to is the external voice. This is the voice of those around you. Perhaps it is that of your parents, employer, spouse, siblings, pastor, or teacher. These voices may be positive, negative, or neutral. They are external to you and may be considered as a type of advice. They can be very harmful if they are negative. They may inform you that you are worthless and doomed to failure. Or, they may be beneficial and encourage you to be a success. They may be just neutral providing guidance.

The second voice is your reasoning ability. This is your ability to figure out the best way to handle the situations of life that confront you. This voice may be improved because you can access God's Word which is full of wisdom. As you internalize God's wisdom it becomes your wisdom. As you understand and apply God's Word to your life, you begin to live a life based on wisdom. Proverbs 4:7 says: "Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding." (KJV) As you allow this inner voice of wisdom to dominate your actions, you will find the truth of this verse.

The third voice is your intuition. It is your sixth sense, the still small voice, or the subtle voice of God directing your ways. This is where God speaks directly to you. Have you ever just known something and you have no idea how you knew it? It was God's leading. Yes, God still speaks to us today. He will give you an intuition when something is wrong. He may give you an idea or thought about a business venture. Be open to God's leading and allow Him to direct your paths.

Now that you understand the three voices, you must learn how to balance them. Allow God to lead you and use your reasoning voice to figure out what to do when you get there. The external voices will always be there. If they are negative, struggle and defeat them. Never give in to a negative voice in your life. If the external voice is positive, thank God for it and allow its encouragement to assist you in the fight. If it the voice is neutral, test it against wisdom to determine its validity. Keep your balance and it will keep you headed in God's direction for your life.

A Hebraic Approach to Worry

There are two situations that should never cause us to worry. First, there are those situations that can be fixed. If something can be fixed, then fix it so there is no need to worry. Second, there are those situations that can't be fixed. If something can't be fixed, what is there to worry about? If it can't be fixed, then worry won't help the matter and is self destructive. It can lead to physical sickness and depression. Remember, a definition of worry is, "When you think you have remembered something that G-d has forgotten." This is a Hebraic approach to worry based on the teaching of the rabbis.

Ethical Speech

Hebrews place great emphasis on words and the power of speech. Jews understand the prohibition against lashon ha-ra, i.e. evil tongue. Under Jewish law, you are forbidden to speak evil of another even if what you say is true. While there are limited exceptions, the general principle that forbids negative speech is universally applied. The Hebraic approach is that you are to guard your neighbor's reputation as if it was your own. The early Jewish Christian believers had great unity. Perhaps this is a reason why.

If you would like to improve your speech, I suggest the following verse: "O Lord, open my lips, and let my mouth declare Your praise." Psalm 51:17 (JPS) Before you speak to someone or about someone, ask yourself will your speech declare the praise of G-d? If it will, continue on; if not, perhaps you would do well to cease the speech to avoid the possibility of lashon ha-ra. This challenge can change your life. It will also help you understand the unity of the early Jewish Christians. They had unity and power.

Our speech tends to drift toward the negative. It will take work to reverse the trend. However, G-d has given His words to instruct us. Our speech should declare His praise. Think of the impact you would have for G-d on the lives of others if your speech brought praise to G-d continually. How might this impact your life at home, or at work, or with your community of believers? Spread the word of praise.

Early Jewish Christianity vs. Paul

Early Jewish Christian communities had three defining characteristics:
1. They faithfully adhered to the Law of Moses;
2. They exalted James, the brother of Jesus, and denigrated Paul the Apostle; and
3. They all believed that Jesus was the natural son of Joseph and Mary and he was adopted by G-d as His Son at His baptism by John.

How do the beliefs of the first Jewish Christians compare with the teachings of Paul? Paul taught original sin; Yeshua and the early Jewish Christianity did not. Paul taught that the law has been nailed to the cross and is no longer binding; Yeshua did not. He said He did not come to destroy the law. Paul taught imputed righteousness. This is a form of "make believe." Yeshua taught that we should obey the commandments of G-d. Paul said, if you do, you have fallen from grace. Yeshua taught an ethical method of living that pleased the Father by adhering to the Torah. Today, the religion of Paul has become Orthodoxy. Any movement that insists that the Law of Moses is still obligatory is declared heretical. It is time for honesty to abound in our churches. It is time to quit twisting the plain and unambiguous words of Paul to be consistent with Yeshua. They are not consistent. It is time to admit it. Paul is the founder of Christianity, not Yeshua. The article below entitled, "Was Jesus A Christian," makes the obvious point.

I have noticed in church, that most all songs glorify Jesus as G-d with little reference to YHWH. I wonder what Yeshua thinks about what is being done in His name. The Holocaust, the Inquisition, and the Crusades are all rooted in Antisemitism. That Antisemitism developed in part with the victory by Paul's theology that emphasized teachings about Jesus as opposed to the teachings of Jesus which were practiced by early Jewish Christians. The victor writes history and gets to decide who is the heretic. Do you realize that if you lived in Jerusalem in 35AD and believed what Paul taught, then you would be declared the heretic? Perhaps it is time to discover who the historical Jesus really was. Perhaps it is time to decide who you are going to follow.

Two Types of Faith

The rabbis taught two types of faith. The first one was called emunah and meant faith in something. The second type was bittachon and it meant simply trust. The first type required there to be a "something" that occurred first, such as G-d providing deliverance first before the act of faith. This is seen in Exodus 14:30-31: Thus the LORD saved Israel that day from the hand of the Egyptians; and Israel saw the Egyptians dead upon the seashore. And Israel saw the great work which the LORD did against the Egyptians, and the people feared the LORD; and they believed in the LORD and in his servant Moses. (RSV) The Israelites believed in the LORD after the move of G-d. They believed after the "something" of deliverance.

The second type of faith trusts G-d even before He brings deliverance. It is far more difficult to achieve. While asking G-d for help demonstrates faith, it does not manifest the deeper faith seen in bittachon. Which type of faith rules in your life? Or, does it depend on the situation? Which do you want? Are you ready to simply trust without seeing a "something"?

Was Jesus a Christian?

The answer to the question presented may at first seem obvious. However, upon closer scrutiny, a problem becomes apparent. There is a difference between how Jesus worshipped God and how the modern Christian church worships God. These differences in practice should cause the contemporary church to examine its methods and beliefs. If Christianity centers it faith and practice upon the teachings of Jesus Christ, should it not resemble its leader? Moreover, a consideration of the religion of the Jewish carpenter from Nazareth confronts us with a most unsettling question: Is Jesus Christ the founder of Christianity? If He isn’t, then who is? In an effort to direct the inquirer, this paper addresses five differences between the religious practices of Jesus of Nazareth and the modern church. The reader should be prepared to examine his “Christianity” in light of the principles and practices of the Jewish rabbi called Jesus.

The first difference is that while the contemporary church worships God on Sunday, Jesus went to the synagogue on the Sabbath. Luke 4:16 says: And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and he went to the synagogue, as his custom was, on the Sabbath day. And he stood up to read…. (Emphasis supplied) (RSV) In fact, many if not most of the miracles performed by Jesus were done on the Sabbath. In comparison, the modern day church believes that the day of worship was changed from the Sabbath to Sunday. One online Christian resource explains:
Still others Christians would say that we no longer observe the Jewish sabbath, but worship instead on Sunday, a distinctively Christian holy day. They argue that the early church very soon began meeting on Sunday in honor of the resurrection of Jesus, which took place on the first day of the week.
It is not the purpose of this work to explore the reason for the change or the timing of the change as there are many resources available for those who seek to know the historical truth. It is sufficient to state that according to Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, the day of worship began to change around A.D. 115. The point is that Jesus did not worship on the first day of the week; He worshipped God on the Sabbath.

The second difference is that Jesus honored and celebrated the Biblical feasts, while the Christian church celebrates Christmas and Easter. Leviticus 23 sets forth the following as the Lord’s Sabbath and appointed feasts which are to be proclaimed :
1. The Sabbath;
2. The Passover and Unleavened Bread;
3. First fruits;
4. Feast of Weeks;
5. Feast of Trumpets;
6. Day of Atonement;
7. Feast of Tabernacles;
Since Jesus did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it, it would seem difficult to contend that Jesus disobeyed a direct commandment from His Father. Indeed, it would seem odd that Jesus who proclaimed that He did what He saw the Father doing, would suddenly cease being obedient regarding the feasts. John instructs us that to transgress the law is sin. Therefore, if Jesus remained sinless, He must have obeyed the law of God regarding the feasts.

Generally, the names of the feasts listed above are rarely mentioned in the Christian church much less proclaimed. In their place, the modern church has embraced Christmas and Easter, both with acknowledged pagan connections. Jesus had ample opportunity to instruct His disciples to celebrate His birth, but He did not. Further, in the forty days before His ascension, He had the opportunity to teach that His resurrection was to be celebrated in place of Passover but there is no record of such instruction. The point is that Jesus and the church do not celebrate the same holidays or feasts.

A third difference is found in the diet of Jesus when He walked the earth. The law prescribed a kosher diet that forbade the eating of certain types of animals, fish, and fowl. The argument referenced above concerning the obedience to the feasts is applicable to Jesus’ obeying the food laws. Certainly, Jesus would not have disobeyed a command from His Father. It is of interest that in approximately A.D.41, Peter told the Lord in the vision concerning clean and unclean animals: But Peter said, "No, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean." (RSV) Christ had been crucified approximately ten years earlier and Peter was still following the dietary laws from Leviticus. Since Peter had never eaten unclean food, this would be a compelling argument that while he was with Jesus, no unclean foods were consumed.

In the modern church, to mention the dietary laws would invoke allegations of legalism. Many churches have specific gatherings around food that Jesus would never touch. How many “pig roasts” or “clam bakes” take place in the church today? Jesus might attend, but would He eat the pork or the shell fish? From the Bible, we can ascertain some portions of Jesus diet: He had broiled fish and honeycomb after the resurrection, bread and wine at the Last Supper, wine at the wedding at Cana, and bread and fish at the feeding of the multitudes. The point is not to debate the continuance of the dietary laws, but to acknowledge that the practices of Jesus and the modern church are dissimilar.

A fourth difference can be observed in the Jewish dress as worn by Jesus. Jesus was a Torah observant Jewish rabbi and dressed as one. One of the most important aspects of His dress was His tallit with its tzitzit. How do we know that Jesus dressed as a Jew? He was recognized by the woman at the well of Samaria by His outward appearance. The outer garment was called himation in Greek, pallium in Latin, and in Hebrew it was first termed adderet or me’il. At some later time, it came to be called tallit. While the tallit was not unique to Israel, the fringes on the borders, known as tzitzit, were. These were worn in obedience to Numbers 15:38: "Speak to the people of Israel, and bid them to make tassels on the corners of their garments throughout their generations, and to put upon the tassel of each corner a cord of blue….” (RSV) In addition, in order to fulfill the law, Jesus would have worn tefillin. Tefillin were two leather pouches which contained the Word of God and were bound to the arm and forehead in obedience to Exodus 13:9, 16 and Deuteronomy 6:6-8 and 11:18. Another indication of Jesus’ Hebraic dress is that it was a requirement of the Torah. Jews were commanded to wear tzitzit and tefillin. Torah observance required a certain dress to set Israel apart from the nations so that God might use them to reach the world.

It is of interest to note that some Bible translations arguably seek to conceal the Jewish dress of Jesus. In Matthew 9, the story is told of the woman with the issue of blood that sought to touch the hem of his garment. The Greek word for “hem” is kraspedon and the Greek word for “garment” is himation. When referring to Jesus, the translators of the NIV used the phrase, “touch his cloak.” However, in Matthew 23:5 when Jesus is pronouncing seven woes on the Pharisees, the same Greek words are translated: “the tassels on their garments.” Is there a valid reason for the translators to interpret the phrases differently? It would seem that the translators did not have any difficulty identifying the Jewish dress when it applied to the Pharisees but sought to conceal the true dress of Jesus.
The point to be remembered is that the modern Christian church does not adhere to the dress commandments contained in the Torah as referenced above. What would be the reaction in the church today, if it was suggested that members honor the Exodus and Deuteronomy passages? The response would most likely be that we are not required to do so because those commands were for the Jews and we are not Jewish. Essentially that would be my point; Jesus was Jewish and the church has departed from its Jewish roots and represents an institution that does not follow its purported leader.

The fifth and final difference reviewed would be that Jesus kept the Torah and the modern Christian church does not. Jesus said: "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (RSV) As explained by David Bivin and Roy Blizzard, Jr. in the work, Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus:
“Destroy” and “fulfil” are technical terms used in rabbinic argumentation. When a sage felt that a colleague had misinterpreted a passage of Scripture, he would say, ‘You are destroying the Law!’ Needless to say, in most cases his colleagues strongly disagreed. What was ‘destroying the Law’ for one sage, was ‘fulfilling the Law’ (correctly interpreting Scripture) for another.”
When one understands the Hebrew idioms, Jesus’ words are seen in a light contrary to the doctrinal position of many in the Christian church. Today, law and grace are seen as two separate and distinct dispensations. It is argued that the Jews have law and the Christians have grace. While a debate on the merits of this perspective is outside the scope of this work, it is sufficient to acknowledge that the religion of Jesus upheld the Law of God. The religion of Jesus was based on the Torah. He came not to misinterpret the commands of God, but to correctly tell His people how they should live. The question must be asked, if the church rejects the Torah, are they “His people”?

This paper has demonstrated that the religion of Jesus Christ is far removed from the practices of modern day Christianity. If a person presented themselves for membership in your church and he worshipped on the Sabbath, celebrated the Biblical feasts, was wearing a tallit with tzitzit on it with tefillin on his arm and forehead, ate a kosher diet, and believed that the Torah was still a requirement, what would be the result? I submit that the church committee would probably decline the application for membership. Does that concern you? I believe it should. Perhaps it is time for us to follow the words of the Apostle Paul: Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you? --unless indeed you are disqualified. Whose faith are you in if you are a member of a modern “Christian” church??
On further reflection, maybe the answer to the question is obvious.