WRITE THIS IN A BOOK

Since the written word was essential in communicating God’s truth, we might wonder when was the first time God commanded someone to write something. What did he command to be written and why? I was surprised to find that the first use of the verb “to write” in the Bible is in Exodus 17:14:

Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write this in a book as a memorial and recite it to Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven."

(Exodus 17:14)

The first command to write was a pronouncement of judgment! It was against a people known as Amalek or the Amalekites. This vicious tribe was the very first enemy of Israel when God’s people left Egypt, and they remained the implacable enemies of God’s people through David’s reign and even into Israel’s captivity in Babylon. The Amalekites are an illustration of the enemy of God’s people today – sin!

When we understand how devastatingly destructive sin is to our lives, we can understand why God’s first command to “write” a book of remembrance has to do with judgment on this enemy of God’s people

There is a profound spiritual lesson in God's dealings with Amalek.  Theodore Epp, long-time director of Back-to-the-Bible ministries, saw Amalek as a type of the sin nature and by extension the Amalekites as specific sins.  Here God says He will "utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven."  In verse 16 He states that He will "have war against Amalek from generation to generation."  The typology finds greater clarity in the life of David, especially in 1 Samuel 30.  King Saul had compromised with Amalek, sparing the "King of the Amalekites" (1 Samuel 15:9), but David (as a type of Christ) showed them no quarter (1 Samuel 30:17-19).

Note the following analogies between the Amalekites and sin in our lives:

I.            Amalek is determined to destroy God’s people before they can enter the Promised Land.

A.    The Amalekites were the first to fight against Israel after they had been delivered from Egypt through the blood of the Lamb.  (cf. Dt. 25:17)

B.     The Amalekites were determined to exterminate the people of God. (See Esther  8:3– Haman, the Agagite. “Enemy of Israel.”

II.         Amalekites attack at the weakest points and at the most vulnerable moments. (Deut. 25:18)

            “Sin that closely clings closely to us” (Compare Hebrews. 12:1)

To defeat sin we need help from our brethren – “Aaron and Hur” to come alongside (Exodus 17:12).

           

III.      Amalek must be utterly put to death – show no quarter!

For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. (Romans 8:13)

Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.  (6)  Because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience,  (7)  in which you yourselves once walked when you lived in them. (Colossians 3:5-7) 

A.    We do this by the power of the Holy Spirit.

B.     We do this through prayer (Ex. 17:9-12): personal and joint prayer.

IV.      Sin will ultimately be eradicated by the Lord.

“the LORD will have war against Amalek from generation to generation." (Ex. 17:16)

But ultimately, He declares victory:

Then the LORD said to Moses, “Write this in a book as a memorial and recite it to Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven." (Ex. 17:14)

 And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him. (Revelation 22:3) 

In this world we will have warfare with sin from generation to generation. But one day, God will "blot out the memory" of sin forever and establish His kingdom!

Christian, we need to ask ourselves: What are we doing with the Amalekites in our lives?

FALSE PROPHETS, THEN AND NOW: THOUGHTS ON EZEKIEL 13

Ezekiel 13 strikes me as very relevant to the condition of American Christianity. The prophet Ezekiel, like his contemporary Jeremiah, had a tough mission. He was commissioned by God to deliver a message of judgment to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, particularly to the leaders, the priests, and the prophets. The latter were false prophets who preached from their own deluded heart (Ezek. 13:2).

"They see falsehood and lying divination who are saying, 'The LORD declares,' when the LORD has not sent them; yet they hope for the fulfillment of their word. (Ezekiel 13:6 NASB) (Literally, “they hope their word will stand up.”)

The false prophets today are just like the false prophets in Ezekiel’s day. First, they preach what people want to hear – peace and prosperity – even though the Lord has warned of judgment for disobedience to His word and worship of “the work of your hands” (Jeremiah 25:6, 7). They build a false wall of promises that give false security to their followers, and they whitewash it to conceal its inherent weakness.

"It is definitely because they have misled My people by saying, 'Peace!' when there is no peace. And when anyone builds a wall, behold, they plaster it over with whitewash; so tell those who plaster it over with whitewash, that it will fall. A flooding rain will come, and you, O hailstones, will fall; and a violent wind will break out. "Behold, when the wall has fallen, will you not be asked, 'Where is the plaster with which you plastered it?'" Therefore, thus says the Lord GOD, "I will make a violent wind break out in My wrath. There will also be in My anger a flooding rain and hailstones to consume it in wrath. "So I will tear down the wall which you plastered over with whitewash and bring it down to the ground, so that its foundation is laid bare; and when it falls, you will be consumed in its midst. And you will know that I am the LORD. "Thus I will spend My wrath on the wall and on those who have plastered it over with whitewash; and I will say to you, 'The wall is gone and its plasterers are gone, along with the prophets of Israel who prophesy to Jerusalem, and who see visions of peace for her when there is no peace,' declares the Lord GOD. (Ezekiel 13:10-16)

                   The Apostle Paul, when falsely accused of desecrating the temple, may have been alluding to Ezekiel’s imagery of the whitewashed wall when the high priest ordered that Paul be struck:

Paul, looking intently at the Council, said, "Brethren, I have lived my life with a perfectly good conscience before God up to this day." The high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said to him, "God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! Do you sit to try me according to the Law, and in violation of the Law order me to be struck?" (Acts 23:1-3)

Though Paul offered somewhat of an apology, pleading ignorance of the high priest’s status, the truth of Paul’s accusation stood: the high priest was acting hypocritically. Jesus accused the Scribes and Pharisees of being “whitewashed tombs” (Matthew 23:27). They looked clean and pure on the outside, but were full of corruption inside.

The message of the false prophets then and now invariably conflicts with the revealed Word of God – the Bible. Their bold assertions that the Lord spoke to them is nothing short of blasphemy!

Peter warned New Testament believers of this threat:

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep. (2 Peter 2:1-3)

John urged believers in Christ to “test the spirits” of those who claim to be speaking for the Lord.

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1)

So how can be “test the spirits”?  There is no simple formula, no quick, easy test. The deceptions of the false prophets are subtle and often seem plausible. The only way to discern the spirit of a false prophet is by immersing oneself in the Word of God. We need to study through the whole Bible, year after year, praying for the guidance of the Holy Spirit as we read. This is God’s way of building a true wall of defense against false prophets.

DO CHURCHES REALLY TRUST THE BIBLE?

Last June, I celebrated 42 years as an ordained minister. “I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has strengthened me, because He considered me faithful, putting me into service . . .,” and I know that his considering was by grace, not merit. I have stumbled many times during those years, yet the Spirit of Christ always lifted me up and set me back on track. And I have learned a lot!

As a missionary I ministered in many churches across the country, raising support, reporting on our ministry, and participating in conferences. After missionary service, I pastored two churches and supplied the pulpit of churches of various denominations. What I have learned – and it’s a painful lesson – is that while churches staunchly profess their faith in the Bible as the Word of God and pastors preach from that Bible, when problems or difficult challenges come their way, they instinctively turn to other sources for solutions.

For instance, I have ministered in several churches that were seeking a pastor, and I have shared the Bible’s standards for pastoral ministry, even sharing a checklist and system for evaluating a candidate based on those standards. I have yet to see a church call a pastor based on Bible standards. Oh, they listen to a candidate’s testimony of faith and question him about his beliefs, but a systematic consideration of biblical qualifications has not been applied in the churches I have observed. Often the result turned out to be unsatisfactory, to say the least. Sometimes, however, God was gracious in spite of the congregation’s negligence, and the pastor turned out to be what the Bible says he should be.

Why would a church that claims to believe the Bible neglect to meditate every day on First Timothy 3, Titus 1, First Peter 5, Acts 20, and other pertinent passages before considering any candidate for the pastorate?

Then there are those problems that inevitably arise because churches, after all, are made up of people, and where there are people, there are problems. The problems may be interpersonal conflicts, differing views of ministry, or differing priorities. Personal tastes and preferences become sources of conflict.  Time to call for a “church consultant,” right? Why not first see if the Bible and the guidance of the Holy Spirit will reveal the root of the problem and God’s solution?

The disturbing fact is that few churches turn to the Scriptures and diligent prayer when faced with a crisis that threatens the unity and future of the congregation. Why is that? Could it be that their view of the Bible is defective, and they harbor the notion that it is an archaic book that doesn’t have a solution to their particular problem? (Of course they would never voice such a view!) Or are they just lazy, unwilling to put in the study to search for principles that apply to the problem? Impatience also drives them to seek quick solutions.

Worst of all, pastors, elders, and members may be unwilling to take the hard steps of obedience that God demands in His Word. I can’t dismiss this reason because I have seen it played out in more than one church over the decades. “If we do that,” I’ve heard, “we’ll lose even more members.” That kind of pragmatism is surely odious to the Lord! His Word is set aside because it might cost us members!

In these last days, Jesus’ words come to mind: “However, when the Son of man comes, will he find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8) In the context, Jesus is teaching about persistence in prayer (Luke 18:1), especially prayer for justice. Jesus’ conclusion is that God is not reluctant to answer our prayers; it is our lack of faith in Him and His Word that's the problem.

SIMON . . . DO YOU LOVE ME?

 So when they had eaten breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me more than these?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Feed My lambs." He said to him again a second time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Tend My sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You." Jesus said to him, "Feed My sheep.  (John 21:15-17)

The above discourse between Jesus and Simon Peter has stirred a great deal of discussion among Bible commentators for more than a century.  The issue involves two Greek words both translated “love” in nearly all English translations:  agapao and phileo.  The interpretive question is whether Peter, in responding to Jesus’ evocative queries concerning Peter’s love, intentionally used a different word (phileo) than the one Jesus used the first two times (agapao).  Or are the two words used synonymously in this context.[1] Bible expositors have expressed their different interpretations of this text in serious, respectful comments, giving their rationale while respecting opposing views.  In recent decades, however, the discourse has taken a less congenial turn.  A new linguistic approach to Scripture, championed by Dr. James Barr,[2] a liberal scholar who wrote against J. I. Packer’s stance on biblical inerrancy, has changed the paradigm.  The new approach depreciates the importance of individual words in Scripture, minimizing etymology (the study of the origins and development of words) and biblical word studies. This movement led to a new approach to Bible translation that seeks to give readers “the meaning” of Scripture – as the translator sees it – without any obligation to translate the actual words of Scripture.  

This movement has serious implications for the doctrine of the verbal inspiration of the Bible. That doctrine teaches that the very words of Scripture in their original languages are inspired by God.

In Chapter one of his book Exegetical Fallacies, D. A. Carson states, “How often do preachers refer to the verb agapao (to love), contrast it with phileo (to love), and deduce that the text is saying something about a special kind of loving, for no other reason than that agapao is used.”  Then in the next paragraph he calls this reasoning, along with other alleged fallacies, “linguistic nonsense.”[3]

Carson tries to demonstrate that agape and the verb agapao can even mean sexual lust by citing the Septuagint translation (LXX) of 2 Samuel 13:15, where Amnon’s lust for his half-sister Tamara is called agaph.  Here we need to point out that the LXX is not inspired Scripture but a Greek translation of the Old Testament.[4]  

 J. Gresham Machen made a very pertinent point about the vocabulary of the New Testament:

Moreover, the originality of the New Testament writers should not be ignored.  They had come under the influence of new convictions of a transforming kind, and those new convictions had their effect in the sphere of language.  Common words had to be given new and loftier meanings, and common men were lifted to a higher realm by a new and glorious experience.  It is not surprising, then, that despite linguistic similarities in detail the New Testament books, even in form, are vastly different from letters that have been discovered in Egypt. The New Testament writers have used the common, living language of the day.  But they have used it in the expression of uncommon thoughts, and the language itself, in the process, has been to some extent transformed.[5] 

The question, then, regarding any New Testament word is how it is used in the New Testament.  Of the 144 uses of the verb form in the New Testament, only nine clearly refer to loving something sinful or ungodly.[6]  Carson cites Paul’s use of agapao in 2 Timothy 4:10 which states that Demas had departed “having loved this present world.”  (Carson adds “evil” to the citation to make apagao even less noble.)  The predominant use of agapao in the NT is positive, and the verb is never used in the NT with any sexual connotation.  Nevertheless, those nine references to loving ungodly or worldly things do support Carson’s main point, the one that seems to irk him the most, that agape love is not some sort of higher, nobler, or more godly type of love than the word with which it is often contrasted -- phileo.  Granted.  The words express different kinds of love, not higher or lower kinds of love.  Are those different kinds of love in play in John 21?  Shouldn’t we respectfully consider the possibility?

Carson takes to task William Hendriksen for the latter’s observation that there are semantic differences between agapao and phileo, and that such differences apply in John 21:15-17.  Carson boldly states that “Henriksen’s argument will not stand up, precisely because he mishandles the difficult questions surrounding synonymy.  The heart of his argument is that the total semantic range of each word is slightly different from the other, and therefore that there is a semantic difference in this context.”  Carson is putting words in Hendriksen’s word processor!  Hendriksen made his judgment that there is a difference between the two words in this context on the basis of the historical relationship between Peter and Jesus, and between Peter and the other disciples.  Hendriksen also gave careful attention to a vital aspect of linguistics that Carson totally ignores in this part of Exegetical Fallacies:  The sociolinguistic context of the conversation.  Peter’s emotional state entered into his responses, and Hendriksen took that into account, as well as the fact that the conversation was conducted in Aramaic.  Most importantly, Hendriksen noted the Holy Spirit’s work of inspiration in moving John to record the conversation in Greek:

We simply do not have the Aramaic written text, if there ever was one.  And we do not know enough to be able to affirm categorically that in no possible way could such fine distinctions have been conveyed by means of the Aramaic of that day.  We are compelled to proceed on the basis of the Greek text as it lies before us, in the conviction that it is fully inspired; hence, accurate in every way.”[7]

Hendriksen also gave an extensive list of commentators and translators on each side of the issue, showing his vast research into the matter.  Carson brushes off Hendriksen’s exposition as though the latter were an amateur.  But then Carson also does not hesitate to take on A. T. Robertson, the whole Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (on page 44 speaking of its “bankruptcy”), Richard C. Trench, and other notables.

My concern is that Carson’s scientific linguistic analysis of biblical texts and his iconoclastic bent are leading him and his readers away from the doctrine of verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures.  God did inspire (“breathe”) the very words of Scripture, and Jesus placed great importance on the smallest elements of the original text.  (See Matthew 5:18)  Certainly there is room for variety of expression, the use of words that are more or less synonymous, but in light of verbal, plenary inspiration, we owe it to the Word of God to consider whether there is reason in the total context – linguistic, historical, social, political, theological, and interpersonal – to see shades of meaning in the inspired words.

 

---

[1] There is also the question of the meaning of the two words, whether one is a deeper, more noble love than the other, but that is not the issue in this article.  Suffice it to say that they express different kinds of love, though their semantic ranges overlap. 

[2] Barr’s book, The Semantics of Biblical Language, 1961, laid the groundwork for dynamic equivalency translations, such as the CEV, NIV, NLB, etc. 

[3] Carson, D. A. Exegetical Fallacies, Second Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996. 28

[4] Where the New Testament quotes the Septuagint, we must concede that the Holy Spirit has invested those words with His infallible inspiration, but that does not then carry over to the entire text of the LXX.

[5] Machen, J. Gresham. New Testament Greek for Beginners.  Toronto, Ontario: The Macmillan Company.  6

[6] Mat. 6:24; Lk. 11:43; 16:13; John 3:19; 12:43; 2 Tim. 4:10; 2 Pet. 2:15; 1 John 2:15 (2X).

[7] Hendriksen, Willam.  New Testament Commentary: John. Grand Rapids: Baker Books.  495.

WHAT ABOUT THE SEVENTH DAY?

Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day-- things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. (Colossians 2:16-17)

Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions . . . . One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. (Romans 14:1, 5)

You observe days and months and seasons and years. I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain. (Galatians 4:10-11)

In view of the above passages of Scripture, it is puzzling that the observance of a Sabbath day is still a matter of controversy – sometimes heated! Are Christians obligated to observe one day in seven in a specific manner as holy to the Lord? If so, what day should that be: Saturday or Sunday? Or does it matter?

Perpetual Principle?

Since the Fourth Commandment is rooted in God’s finished Creation and His “resting” on the seventh day, there is a widespread belief that a seventh-day rest is a universal principle. Commentator A. R. Fausset maintains that the principle of a seventh-day rest was established in Paradise:

The weekly sabbath rests on a more permanent foundation (than the other ceremonial sabbaths in Israel’s calendar), having been instituted in Paradise to commemorate the completion of creation in six days.

But the commandment to observe that seventh day was given to Israel as a sign of God’s covenant with that unique nation (Ex. 31:17). The Genesis account of creation simply records that God “rested on the seventh day”; it does not record a command for Adam and Eve or their descendants to observe that day every week. If a seventh-day rest was observed from Adam to Moses, we have no record of it. We might speculate that an oral account of the creation was passed on and that one day a week was set apart by godly people to rest and honor God. It might also be that the Law of Moses invested that tradition with special meaning – along with specific regulations – for the nation of Israel. Whatever the case, the command to observe the Sabbath as a holy day began with the Law of Moses.

While expressing a basically sabbatarian view, Fausset does acknowledge that Hebrews 4 speaks of a “perpetual sabbath,”  and not a day of the week. He sees that rest as a “heavenly Sabbath” when there will be no need for a weekly day of rest.

“If we could keep a perpetual sabbath,” wrote Fausset, “as we shall hereafter, the positive precept of the sabbath, one in each week, would not be needed (Heb. 4:9).”

As mentioned in my previous post, the “rest” of Hebrews 3 and 4 seems to be the rest of salvation by grace apart from human works. It is indeed a “perpetual rest” from all fear of condemnation (Romans 8:1-2).

A Christian Sabbath?

The elders of a church I belonged to many years ago were considering the adoption of the London Baptist Confession of 1689 as the church’s doctrinal statement. Disagreement arose among the elders over two paragraphs of Chapter 22: Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day.

 7. As it is the law of nature, that in general a proportion of time, by God's appointment, be set apart for the worship of God, so by his Word, in a positive moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men, in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a sabbath to be kept holy unto him, which from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ was the last day of the week, and from the resurrection of Christ was changed into the first day of the week, which is called the Lord's day: and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath, the observation of the last day of the week being abolished. ( Exodus 20:8; 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2; Acts 20:7; Revelation 1:10 )

8.The sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering their common affairs aforehand, do not only observe an holy rest all day, from their own works, words and thoughts, about their worldly employment and recreations, but are also taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.( Isaiah 58:13; Nehemiah 13:15-22; Matthew 12:1-13 )

Some elders who were more aligned with Covenant Theology viewed Sunday as the “Christian Sabbath,” while others believed corporate and private worship to be a matter of individual conscience and not legal obligation. Since the elders of that church only made recommendations to the congregation when there was unanimous support, the London Confession was not presented. Instead they proposed a statement that proved acceptable to the elders and the congregation:

We believe that the first day of the week is the Christian celebration of our Lord’s resurrection. Following the example of the New Testament, the day is best used for the assembly of believers to worship and be instructed. We do not believe that Sunday is the New Covenant equivalent of the Old Covenant Sabbath with its attendant restrictions on activity. The preferring of one day above another is a matter of Christian liberty (Romans 14:5-6).

The New Testament Record

In the Gospels, Jesus had much to say about the Jews’ erroneous views of the Sabbath, but it ought to strike us that the New Testament from Acts on gives no instruction concerning the observance of one day a week as a religious observance. There are a couple of New Testament examples of worship on a particular day, and that day was the first day of the week.

On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to leave the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight. (Acts 20:7)

Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also. On the first day of every week each one of you is to put aside and save, as he may prosper, so that no collections be made when I come. (1 Corinthians 16:1-2)

This latter passage certainly implies that the “churches of Galatia” as well as the church in Corinth regularly met on the first day of the week.

While there is a conspicuous absence of rules or even guidelines as to what believers should do on that day of worship, Paul found it necessary to correct disorderly conduct in the church at Corinth and he gave Timothy advice on the conduct of church services. (See 1 Cor. 11-14; 1 Tim. 2 & 3)

Law vs. Grace

At the heart of any discussion of the Ten Commandments is the matter of the New Covenant vs. the Old Covenant. It is beyond the scope of this article to deal with such a vast subject, but some contrasts were made by the Apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians 3. Paul contrasts the law on “tablets of stone” (clearly the Ten Commandments) with God’s law “written on human hears (v. 3). Paul says “the letter” of the law “kills,” while “the Spirit gives life” (v. 6). The law written in stone, Paul says, is a “ministry of death” (v. 7), because it can only condemn those who cannot perfectly fulfill it – and none of us can!

The Old Covenant was rigid, and the penalty for deliberately disregarding it was severe. That included the law of the Sabbath day. (See Numbers 15:30-35)

As I developed in my last post, God’s Word shows a progressive revelation of the Sabbath principle investing it with ever more spiritual meaning. We might contrast the essence of the Sabbath concept in the Old Covenant and New Covenant in this way:

Old Covenant: Obey the Sabbath Day on the penalty of death.

New Covenant: Enjoy the Sabbath Rest in gratitude for the death and resurrection of Christ.

For those who would like to understand better the New Covenant in contrast to the Old Covenant, I recommend these books: Law and Grace by Alva J. McClain and The Law of Christ  by Charles Leiter.

THE PROGRESSIVE REVELATION OF THE SABBATH

Throughout the history of God’s covenant people, the importance of the Sabbath is central to and emblematic of their relationship with God. The Sabbath is a rest, not just a physical rest, but a spiritual rest. And that spiritual nature of the Sabbath is unfolded in the progressive revelation of Scripture.

Sabbath as Sign for Israel

            In the first giving of the Law at Mt. Sinai, the Sabbath commandment was based on the Creation days:

"You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain. "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. "Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

(Ex. 20:7-11)

            The Sabbath observance was also a “sign” of the covenant between God and Israel.

The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "But as for you, speak to the sons of Israel, saying, 'You shall surely observe My sabbaths; for this is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the LORD who sanctifies you.

(Exo 31:12-13)

"It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He ceased from labor, and was refreshed."

(Exo 31:17)

            It is vitally important to recognize that the physical observance of the Sabbath day – and observance of other special Sabbaths associated with Hebrew holy days – was part of and central to the Sinaitic Covenant with Israel, what the New Testament calls the Old Covenant (2 Cor. 3:14; Heb. 8:13). God would progressively reveal the spiritual nature of “rest” to His people throughout Scripture, and the outward physical observance would be eclipsed by the deeper, fuller meaning of the Sabbath.

Sabbath as Deliverance from Bondage

            When God gave the Law to the new generation on the banks of the Jordan River, the focus of Sabbath observance changed from the days of Creation to Israel’s deliverance from bondage in Egypt. This is significant. The Ten Commandments were not simply repeated verbatim from the Commandments at Sinai. They were invested with new, fuller meaning.

'Observe the sabbath day to keep it holy, as the LORD your God commanded you. 'Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant or your ox or your donkey or any of your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you, so that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you. 'You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out of there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to observe the sabbath day.

(Deut. 5:12-15)

            So at the Jordan we get greater insight into the spiritual meaning of “sabbath”: it is a deliverance from bondage. In Egypt the people were well-fed physically (Num. 11:5), but they were not free. Cruel taskmasters controlled their lives. The LORD delivered them from that bondage, but in that deliverance, He called upon them to have faith in His provision. The observance of the various “sabbaths” in Israel – the weekly, the seventh-year, and the special holy day sabbaths – required that the Israelites trust God to provide when they ceased their work. Deliverance out of bondage was a deliverance into a trusting relationship with the LORD. “He brought us out from there in order to bring us in, to give us the land which He had sworn to our fathers.” (Deut. 6:23)

Sabbath as a Life of Worship and Blessing

            Psalm 95 interprets the entrance into Canaan as the beginning of a continual Sabbath, a life of worship and blessing in the Promised Land. This concept is also seen in Exodus 33:14, Deuteronomy 12:9-10; 25:19 and Joshua 1:13-15; 21:44. Though the Hebrew word for 'rest' in these passages is nuach (repose), rather than shabbathon (sabbath-rest), Deuteronomy 5:14 links the word to the Sabbath observance.

. . . but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant or your ox or your donkey or any of your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you, so that your male servant and your female servant may rest (nuach) as well as you. (Deut. 5:14)

  

            This revelation of the spiritual nature of sabbath foreshadows the fulfillment of the Sabbath in Christ and His salvation. Note the connection in the following passages.

Do not harden your hearts, as at Meribah, As in the day of Massah in the wilderness, When your fathers tested Me, They tried Me, though they had seen My work. For forty years I loathed that generation, and said they are a people who err in their heart, and they do not know My ways. Therefore I swore in My anger, Truly they shall not enter into My rest. (Psalm 95:8-11)

            The Hebrew word for “rest” here is m^enuchah and is related to nuach. It means “place of repose.” The New Testament book of Hebrews makes the connection of that repose in the Promised Land with the “sabbath rest” (sabbatismos) of salvation.

Therefore, let us fear if, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any one of you may seem to have come short of it. For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard. For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said, "AS I SWORE IN MY WRATH, THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST," although His works were finished from the foundation of the world. For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day: "AND GOD RESTED ON THE SEVENTH DAY FROM ALL HIS WORKS"; and again in this passage, "THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST." Therefore, since it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience, He again fixes a certain day, "Today," saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before, "TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE, DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS." For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day after that. So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His. (Hebrews 4:1-10)

            Here the author of Hebrews establishes the “sabbath rest” (sabbatismos) as salvation by faith apart from works. The believer has trusted the Person and work of Christ, and “ceased from his own works.”

           

            So the progressive revelation of the sabbath principle of “rest” has taken us from the Creation to Canaan to Christ. The sabbath rest of salvation far excels any ritual observances, which were but shadows, “but the substance belongs to Christ” (Col. 2:17).

THE NET BIBLE: SUBTLE DIVERSION FROM ORTHODOXY

As the Preacher declared, “of making many books there is no end” (Ecclesiastes 12:12 ). That’s certainly true of the making of Bibles. One suspects that since the Bible is a perennial best seller, a new crop of them is certain to come out in time for Christmas.

But the NET Bible[1] is not just another modern translation like all the others. The NET’s translation of four verses in Paul’s epistles radically alters a cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith: the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8).

Here are the verses, first in the NET Bible and then the NASB. The troublesome phrase is in bold print in the NET and underlined in the NASB.

Romans 3:21-22

But now apart from the law the righteousness of God (which is attested by the law and the prophets) has been disclosed – namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction . . .

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;

Galatians 2:16

yet we know that no one is justified by the works of the law but by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by the faithfulness of Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified. 

nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.

Galatians 2:20

I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. So the life I now live in the body, I live because of the faithfulness of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

"I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.

Philippians 3:9

and be found in him, not because I have my own righteousness derived from the law, but because I have the righteousness that comes by way of Christ's faithfulness--a righteousness from God that is in fact based on Christ's faithfulness. 

and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith ...

Now the word translated faith in the NASB (and nearly every other version) and faithfulness in the NET is the word pistos. It can mean either faith or faithfulness, but the context in the above verses clearly demands the former.[2] Paul’s whole argument is a contrast between works of the law and faith in Christ for salvation. The actor in each verse is the believer. But the NET translators shift the subject from the individual believer to Christ, saying we are justified by Christ’s faithfulness, rather than our faith in Christ. Paul illustrated the principle of faith in Romans 4 when he referred to Abraham’s faith in God’s promise:

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." (Romans 4:1-3 NASB)

Paul’s argument in Galatians is equally clear. How could anyone miss Paul’s emphasis on individual faith – as opposed to works – in the following verses?

Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith—just as Abraham "believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"? Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed." So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. (Galatians 3:2-9 ESV bold print added)

  

In light of Paul’s consistent emphasis on simple faith as the means of receiving salvation, it is difficult to understand the mindset of the translators who changed it. Their translation takes the believer out of the equation. Paul is dealing with the very question the Philippian jailer cried out to Paul and Silas: “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And Paul’s answer, of course, was, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” (Acts 16:30-31) Paul proclaimed that it was and is through faith in Jesus Christ that one receives salvation.

The same Greek phrase used in the verses in question – dia pisteos – is used nine times in the New Testament, all in Paul’s writings, and the NET translators render it “by faith” or “through faith” in six of the nine! There is no justifiable reason to change it in the verses in question.[3]

Galatians 2:20 has rather complex syntax, but there is absolutely no justification for adding “because of” in that verse. William Hendriksen explained that Paul was posing a riddle of personal salvation. I have modified his presentation only slightly:

The Riddle Propounded: In Christ I am crucified.

The Riddle Intensified: But I live.

The Riddle Clarified: Yet not I, but Christ lives in me.

The Riddle Explained: And that (life) which I now live in flesh, I live in faith – the faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave himself up for me.

It’s not hard to see Paul’s logic in this verse. So why didn’t the NET translators see it? Their translation obliterates the central point of this verse and the whole of Galatians! Their “because of” is totally unjustified in the grammatical context. J. B. Lightfoot pointed out that in faith is “the atmosphere, as it were, which he (Paul) breathes in this new spiritual life.”

The NET translators boldly dismiss previous translations as simply carrying on the tradition of previous translators and theologians. In that company of translators who, over the centuries got it wrong (according to the NET translators) were Jerome, Martin Luther, William Tyndale, Giovanni Diodati, Giovanni Luzzi, the Hampton Court scholars of the KJV, and countless modern translators throughout the world!

The four verses examined in this article may seem insignificant, but they represent a startling departure from accepted principles of translation and they introduce a bizarre new idea of salvation, one not hinted at in the context.

More problems with the NET Bible are brought to light by Michael Marlow in his excellent review at: http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html   It should also be mentioned that the International Standard Version, completed in 2011, takes similar liberties with the text, translating the four verses in the same manner as the NET, but substituting “Messiah” for Christ.

---

[1] The name is a play on New English Translation and “NET” as online Bible.

[2] The difference is the same as when we urge someone to “keep the faith,” as opposed to when a lawyer accuses a party of failing to “keep faith” in a contract. The first refers to the object of one’s belief, and the latter to faithfulness in carrying out the terms of an agreement. Context is everything!

[3] The genitive case of the noun used in the three verses under discussion is the objective genitive, properly understood in context as referring to Jesus Christ as the object of faith. A. T. Robertson gives numerous examples of the objective genitive in similar phrases in the NT, e.g. Mark 11:22 (“faith in God” which Robertson compares with Romans 3:22); John 17:2 (“over all flesh”); 1 Corinthians 8:7 (“consciousness about the idol”). These and many others illustrate the vast flexibility of the objective genitive.