Are the Ten Commandments Taught in the New Testament?

[Mungo]

I will respond but right now I would like some clarity. What are we disagreeing about?

Fundamentally we are disagreeing about whether there is anything in the New Testament that tells us we should be observing the Jewish Sabbath. You introduced Heb 4:9 as a proof that we should be.

I not only disagreed but introduced many reasons why we are not obliged to keep the Jewish Sabbath.

At least that’s where I think we are but these threads seem to digress all over the place.

The meaning of the word Sabbatismos or how the word should be translated?

Isn't that the same thing?

 

[neophyte]

The Sunday obligation applies to the modern Sunday, reckoned from midnight to midnight. This was established by canon 1246 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law.
The ancient Jews reckoned days from sundown to sundown, meaning that for them the first part of the day was evening. This is why Genesis 1 says things like, "And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day" (Gn 1:5). The same custom was observed by the ancient Phoenicians, Athenians, Arabs, Germans, and Gauls. Today Jews and other groups who keep the sabbath, such as the Seventh-Day Adventists, continue to celebrate it from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. This way of reckoning time was not the only one in the ancient world. For example, the Romans reckoned days from midnight to midnight--the system we use today.
The option of attending an anticipatory Mass on Saturday evening has nothing to do with the fact the sabbath began at sundown. This provision was originally introduced for Catholics who had to miss Sunday Mass for a good reason (for example, because they had to work). The 1983 Code of Canon Law simply states: "The precept of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the holy day or on the evening of the preceding day" (can. 1248, 1).
Sunday is often spoken of as "the Christian sabbath," but this is not a technical description. Sunday is not a strict replacement for the sabbath (which has been abolished), but a day the Church instituted to fulfill a parallel function. Thus Ignatius of Antioch, the earliest Church Father to address this question, states that Christian converts "have given up keeping the sabbath and now order their lives by the Lord's Day instead, the day when life first dawned for us, thanks to him [Christ] and his death" (Letter to the Magnesians 9 [A.D. 107]).
Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

 

[Sr.Brandon]

Fundamentally we are disagreeing about whether there is anything in the New Testament that tells us we should be observing the Jewish Sabbath. You introduced Heb 4:9 as a proof that we should be.

I not only disagreed but introduced many reasons why we are not obliged to keep the Jewish Sabbath.

At least that’s where I think we are but these threads seem to digress all over the place.

Oh, yes, this part I know. I will continue in showing plausible alternatives as to why I believe Sabbath keeping is not a sin and may even be defensible as an outright command still in effect today.
In other words, Sabbath keeping is a standing command that was never revoked by Messiah or the Apostles explicitly, therefore, we should continue in it and encourage the family of believers to do the same.
This is my stance.
I'm in no way trying to convince you, persuade you, or otherwise. All I intend is to show that there is a tenable reason for Sabbath keeping. I'm just trying to show that scriptural argument for Sabbath keeping.

Isn't that the same thing?

The meaning of a word and how that word should be translated are two different things.
I'm going to give an example, but as a preface, this word has nothing to do with our discussion. It was this first word I found.

G5426

Original: φρονέω Transliteration: phroneō Phonetic: fron-eh'-o Thayer Definition:

1. to have understanding, be wise
2. to feel, to think a. to have an opinion of one's self, think of one's self, to be modest, not let one's opinion (though just) of himself exceed the bounds of modesty b. to think or judge what one's opinion is c. to be of the same mind, i.e. agreed together, cherish the same views, be harmonious
3. to direct one's mind to a thing, to seek, to strive for a. to seek one's interest or advantage b. to be of one's party, side with him (in public affairs)

Origin: from G5424 TDNT entry: 12:40,1 Part(s) of speech: Verb

This word 'phroneō' has more than one meaning and does mean all these things.
After you discover the entire meaning of a word then you have to figure out how to translate that word.
So, my question is are we disagreeing over the meaning or do we agree on the meaning of the word and disagree on how it should be translated?
By the meaning of the word, I mean:

Thayer Definition:
1. a keeping sabbath
2. the blessed rest from toils and troubles looked for in the age to come by the true worshippers of God and true Christians

This is what the word means. However, just because we know what it means doesn't mean we know how to translate it. Context, audience...etc. are what we use to try and determine the right translation.
So my question, do we agree on the meaning and disagree on translation? Or, do we disagree on meaning and translation?

 

[Mungo]

Oh, yes, this part I know. I will continue in showing plausible alternatives as to why I believe Sabbath keeping is not a sin and may even be defensible as an outright command still in effect today.
In other words, Sabbath keeping is a standing command that was never revoked by Messiah or the Apostles explicitly, therefore, we should continue in it and encourage the family of believers to do the same.
This is my stance.
I'm in no way trying to convince you, persuade you, or otherwise. All I intend is to show that there is a tenable reason for Sabbath keeping. I'm just trying to show that scriptural argument for Sabbath keeping.

Fair enough. My stance is that the whole of the Law of the Old Covenant is obsolete along with the Old Covenant.

We are under a New Covenant with new laws, many of which are identical to those in the Old Covenant. However the Sabbath command was not included in the New Covenant.

I think we will just have to disagree on that.

The meaning of a word and how that word should be translated are two different things.
I'm going to give an example, but as a preface, this word has nothing to do with our discussion. It was this first word I found.

This word 'phroneō' has more than one meaning and does mean all these things.
After you discover the entire meaning of a word then you have to figure out how to translate that word.
So, my question is are we disagreeing over the meaning or do we agree on the meaning of the word and disagree on how it should be translated?
By the meaning of the word, I mean:

This is what the word means. However, just because we know what it means doesn't mean we know how to translate it. Context, audience...etc. are what we use to try and determine the right translation.
So my question, do we agree on the meaning and disagree on translation? Or, do we disagree on meaning and translation?

I don’t have the Greek knowledge to disagree on the meaning so we seem to be disagreeing on the particular way to translate Sabbatismos in this context. I go with the majority of translators and Thayer’s second meaning (which is also a meaning given by Strong) that it is about rest rather than Sabbath keeping since rest is the context it is used in.

 

[Sr.Brandon]

Sr.Brandon, on 14 July 2012 - 03:53 PM, said: ... 4 billion people believe that the Messiah was not the savior of the world, expert and otherwise. ...

Your example is not relevant. The experts we are talking about here are those that are Christians and committed to understanding the word of God, and who are also experts in the Greek language.

I disagree. There are more experts committed to understanding our ancient text called the bible who are also experts in the Greek or Hebrew or both and aren't Christian. There are experts in history who know more than just Hebrew or Greek or both that are not Christian either. I included these authorities in my previous statement. These men and women are authorities in these matters as well. If you only listen to experts who claim to be Christian then you are committing a logical fallacy. Our belief in Yahweh can stand even the most critical inspection. We don't need to fear those outside of "Christianity".

How do you come to the truth of what a particular Greek word mean?

If your implying that I know nothing without an expert telling me then your wrong. An expert backs there opinions up with facts and valid argumentation both of which we can examine. This is how we can ground our worldview objectively and rationally.

Do you take the view of the vast majority of experts or one or two who disagree?

Neither, I look to facts that either side proposes. When disagreement happens within then we can view which theory best describes the facts ourselves. You can do this when there is no disagreement as well. Does the proposed explanation actually describe all the facts, even the ones you know? If not then your justified in modifying or rejecting. If the proposal does then one must examine his or her own worldview to adjust and modify, if not removing entirely.

On what basis do you decide the one is right? On the basis that they fit in with your own views?

The best proposal that covers the most facts, whether or not an argument is illogical, contradiction of scripture, goes against what Yahweh said...etc.

Let me make some points about Covenants and the Sabbath as a sign and then go on to some of your other responses.

God made a series of Covenant with mankind. Each Covenant has a sign as a reminder of the covenant. That sign was physical but it pointed to a future spiritual reality.

With the covenant with Noah the sign was a rainbow in the clouds. It pointed to the glory of God (see Ez 1:28) that one day we will see in heaven.

With the covenant with Abraham the sign was physical circumcision. It pointed to the future circumcision of the heart (Rom 2:28-29; Col 2:11)

That future happened in the Mosaic covenant first. See Lev 26:41; Deu 10:16, 30:6.

With the Covenant with Moses the sign was the Sabbath rest. It pointed to a future spiritual rest in Christ (Mt 11:28 – I’ll come back to this)

With New Covenant the sign is the communion meal. It points to the wedding feast of the Lamb (Rev 19:9)

Hebrews tells us the things in the OT are only shadows of what was to come (see Heb 8:5; 10:1). As Paul said, “Let no one, then, pass judgment on you in matters of food and drink or with regard to a festival or new moon or sabbath. These are shadows of things to come; the reality belongs to Christ.” (Col 2:16-17).

The Sabbath rest was a physical prefiguring or shadow of the spiritual rest we find in Jesus. Once we have the reality we do not need the shadow.

There is a problem here that you've not mentioned. None of the signs discontinued when a new covenant was made, up until the New Testament some would argue. I still see rainbows. Circumcision continued into the Mosiac covenant as well as rainbows. The trend seems to be that signs don't stop even with a new covenant made and the old one starts to degrade.

Let me take some of your replies:

Sabbatismos You say “The two words used for rest in that context are, 'katapausis' and 'katapauō'” and ask why the writer did not use those words instead of sabbatismos if he meant rest? To which I ask, if he mean Sabbath day why did he not uses sabbaton?

I won't pretend to know the mind of the author. I will have to guess. I will assume your definition of 'Sabbaton' which you say is 'Sabbath day'. If the writer used 'Sabbaton' then I assume he would then infer that there remains a Sabbath day for God's people. Just one Sabbath day for the people. I guess that one Sabbath would be some time in the future? If the writer used 'Sabbatismos' then the writer would be inferring that a Sabbath keeping remains for God's people.

You mention Strong’s number 4520. But what does Strong say under 4520? “from a derivative of 4521; a "sabbatism", i.e. (figuratively) the repose of Christianity (as a type of heaven):--rest.” Strong does not say it is Sabbath keeping.

I gave the numbers for ease of reference. I didn't exclude other lexicons by giving those numbers. I did it out of courteousness. Strong is useful in quick references and restricts his definitions, I believe, to the uses he sees in scripture. If you want a more thorough definition, you will have to look in another credible lexicon. Thayer is good for Greek words to me. I included his definition as well as Strong's in my earlier post.

The argument in Heb 4 is that the Sabbath did not provide God’s rest. They did not enter God’s rest under Moses or Joshua. A rest still remains – “Therefore, a sabbath rest still remains for the people of God..” (vs 9).

We've not entered that rest yet either. We still sin, either by accident or on purpose. We still have work to do, for without works our faith is dead. Last I checked, dead faith saves none. We, however, claim the blessed promises that we hope for and have not seen as past tense, e.g., I'm saved.

Mt 11:28-29 I agree with you that context is important. However if we try to draw the context too tightly then very little of what Jesus said or Paul wrote becomes applicable to us as it was normally addressed to someone else. In his teaching Jesus starts with something particular and moves on the make a general point. He moves from berating the Jews to praising the Father (vs 25-27) and says in vs 27 “No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son wishes to reveal him.” (cf Jn 14:6).

He then invites us all to come to him for rest “Come to me, all you who labour and are burdened, and I will give you rest.”. We are all burdened by sin and anxiety. But it is in Jesus that we will find our true rest. Not just on one day but every day.

I don't think your argument here defeats what I previously posted. I will, however, point out that scripture says Sabbath keeping was not a sin and produces no anxiety to first century Jews. (Rom 3:20) Not keeping the Sabbath was the sin and anxiety. It was not a burden to do the good works of the law, commands which lead to eternal life. (1 Jn 5:3; Jn 12:50)

Col 2:16 You say “who is Paul talking about judging us? Look in the prior verse, "Having stripped rulers and authorities, He made a show of them publicly, triumphing [over] them in it." Therefore, because Messiah made a public spectacle of the rulers, authorities and experts, don't let anyone judge you on substances of Messiah which are shadows or foretastes of what is to come”.

Paul is not referring to earthly rulers (and I note you slip in experts which is not in the text) but to spiritual powers and principalities, as in chap1:16. It was the rulers of this earth that made a public spectacle of Jesus not the other way round.

Verse 15. That is the climax of his explanation that we have been buried with him and raised with him in baptism. “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath” Having died with Christ and raised with Christ Paul says no-one can pass judgement on us. He does not say let none of those above pass judgement on us.

Paul goes on to make the point “These are shadows of things to come; the reality belongs to Christ.”

And in verse 20 he makes the point “ If you died with Christ to the elemental powers of the world, why do you submit to regulations as if you were still living in the world?”

I don't mind your interpretation about the authorities. They have to have instruments themselves which are usually humans. However, I disagree with your assessment of who can't and can judge. 1Cor 5 & 6 deal with judgment or discernment about brothers and sisters within. If no-one is to judge us then how can Paul exhort judgment without condition in Corinthians but then turns and says not in matters of food, festival, new moons and Sabbaths? How can he say don't put a stumbling block before your brother in Rom 14 if we should not judge on matters of food, drink and days? Why would a brother stumble if he was told not judge others in matters of food? No, your interpretation is untenable and doesn't take other scriptures into account. Also, why would this come up if they didn't keep the Sabbath, kosher diet and drink, festivals...etc.?

Rom 14:4-6 Paul took a disagreement about something minor and broadened it out to make a general point. If one day were indeed more important than the rest – the Sabbath – then Paul would hardly give the impression that it wasn’t important.

This doesn't defeat my previous post nor undermine it.

Sr.Brandon, on 14 July 2012 - 03:53 PM, said: Quote And where in the sermon on the mount does Jesus teach us to keep the Sabbath ?

By implication here in Mat 5:17-19 because after saying this he goes on to mention several things from the decalogue.

That is a false argument. You cannot argue that because he mention some things he was implicitly mentioning them all.

In the sermon on the mount Jesus also quotes several things that are not in the Decalogue! For example: retaliation (5:38 from Ex 21:24; Lv 24:20 divorce (5:31 from Dt 24;1) love of neighbour (5:43 from Lv 19:18) Does that mean he was teaching us the keep the whole of the Mosaic Law? Obviously not

Obviously, he was and is. See below...

Sr.Brandon, on 14 July 2012 - 03:53 PM, said:

Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Fulfill and destroy can't mean the same thing in practice. By that I mean you can say they are fulfilled so I don't have to do them, which would be the same results of them being destroyed, they're destroyed so I don't have to do them. His words would be meaningless if this was the case. This is why he later said great in heaven beef those who do those commands and teach those commands to others.

It is quite clear that we are not bound by the Law of Moses. That is the premises of the OP - why seekandfind tried to show that all the Decalogue is found in the New Testament.

James said “For whoever keeps the whole law, but falls short in one particular, has become guilty in respect to all of it.” (Jas 2:10)

Paul in many places clearly says that we are not under the (Mosaic) Law. If you want to start arguing we are under the Law I suggest that is better done in another thread.

I do not argue we are under the law. My stance is clear, we are obligated to obey that which still stands and not explicitly resented. I argue for certain other things from the law are still compulsory for us today as well, but am confined to the decalogue for now. And, yes, I am implying that by implication everything from the law which is a standing command, still in effect today, which was not explicity resented is implied by our King here in Mat 5. This includes the command to keep Sabbath.

“one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

“I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil”

Jesus fulfilled the Law. It has passed away.

Here is where I think you make a grievous error. If, as you have just shown, you interpret the meaning here in Mathew to be that Jesus fulfilled the law so it has passed away then your not obeying the law. Tell me then, what is difference between destroying something and fulfilling something? If Jesus destroyed the law then it has passed away. If Jesus fulfilled the law then it has passed away. Both cases result on the law being abrogated, in other words, both have the exact same results. How can that be when He drew a contrast between destroying and fulfilling by saying, 'but'? By using the word 'but', He was saying, in effect, that something else will happen to the law besides it passing away, being abrogated, nullified or, in His words, being destroyed. Here is what Strong's says about the Greek word here for 'destroy'.

Strong's Definition: From G2596 and G3089; to loosen down (disintegrate), that is, (by implication) to demolish (literally or figuratively); specifically (compare G2646) to halt for the night: - destroy, dissolve, be guest, lodge, come to nought, overthrow, throw down.

"come to nought" is the exact same thing as saying, "passed away."

Now, besides those points, the context of these words doesn't allow your interpretation, for, right after He states these words He says, "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Now, as you quoted above, Messiah was talking about the law of Moses when He says, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets..." and mentions "the law" again in the very next verse, therefore, right after these two verses when He says, "commandments" He is referring to the law yet again. I will then substitute 'of the Mosaic law' after 'commandments' for emphasis.

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments [of the Mosaic law], and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

“When there is a change of priesthood, there is necessarily a change of law as well.” (Heb 7:12)

I agree. The Temple hasas changed as well. We are being fitted together to be Yahweh's temple. Paul even goes as far as to say that we already are the temple. Yahweh Himself told David that He would build him a temple through his son, a throne which will never cease. I would argue, out of necessity, that a lot would change.

“When he speaks of a “new” covenant, he declares the first one obsolete.””(Heb 8:13)

You may not like this but a contract may be annulled and a new one made that contains some of the same content as the previous one, or older one. An argument of this kind can be made, for, Jeremiah 31:31-34, but most specifically verse 33, says, " For this is the covenant I shall make with the house of Yisra’ĕl after those days, declares יהוה: I shall put My Torah in their inward parts, and write it on their hearts. And I shall be their Elohim, and they shall be My people." Yahweh's Torah will be placed in our hearts is the prophecy when He makes the New covenant. Well, Messiah said, "For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Messiah formed the new covenant with the house of Israel just as Jeremiah foretold he would. It is now then that Yahweh puts His Torah in us, in our hearts or inward parts.
And.
When Jeremiah was foretelling this, his audience would have understood that Yahweh meant the Torah which was written down by Moses.

 

[neophyte]

Christians are bound to the law of Christ which, of course, includes the natural law.
Old Testament law contains elements of natural law—e.g., the condemnation of homosexual activity—to which Christians are bound for that reason, not because of their inclusion in the Old Testament. Christians do not have liberty on these issues.
Also, Christians are not and have never been bound by Old Testament law for its own sake, and those elements of Old Testament law which are not part of the natural law—e.g., the obligation to worship on Saturday —were only ever binding on the Jews. Christians do have liberty on those issues.

 

[Sr.Brandon]

Christians are bound to the law of Christ which, of course, includes the natural law.
Old Testament law contains elements of natural law—e.g., the condemnation of homosexual activity—to which Christians are bound for that reason, not because of their inclusion in the Old Testament. Christians do not have liberty on these issues.
Also, Christians are not and have never been bound by Old Testament law for its own sake, and those elements of Old Testament law which are not part of the natural law—e.g., the obligation to worship on Saturday —were only ever binding on the Jews. Christians do have liberty on those issues.

Worship is not the issue here. We worship everyday of the week through our actions and words, our thoughts and deeds.
There is no command in scripture as to what day of the week we should meet regularly. That, as far as protestants are concern, is whenever you have time.
The question here is, are we obligated to rest on Saturday?

 

[Mungo]

I disagree. There are more experts committed to understanding our ancient text called the bible who are also experts in the Greek or Hebrew or both and aren't Christian. There are experts in history who know more than just Hebrew or Greek or both that are not Christian either. I included these authorities in my previous statement. These men and women are authorities in these matters as well. If you only listen to experts who claim to be Christian then you are committing a logical fallacy. Our belief in Yahweh can stand even the most critical inspection. We don't need to fear those outside of "Christianity".

If your implying that I know nothing without an expert telling me then your wrong. An expert backs there opinions up with facts and valid argumentation both of which we can examine. This is how we can ground our worldview objectively and rationally. Neither, I look to facts that either side proposes. When disagreement happens within then we can view which theory best describes the facts ourselves. You can do this when there is no disagreement as well. Does the proposed explanation actually describe all the facts, even the ones you know? If not then your justified in modifying or rejecting. If the proposal does then one must examine his or her own worldview to adjust and modify, if not removing entirely. The best proposal that covers the most facts, whether or not an argument is illogical, contradiction of scripture, goes against what Yahweh said...etc. That future happened in the Mosaic covenant first. See Lev 26:41; Deu 10:16, 30:6. There is a problem here that you've not mentioned. None of the signs discontinued when a new covenant was made, up until the New Testament some would argue. I still see rainbows. Circumcision continued into the Mosiac covenant as well as rainbows. The trend seems to be that signs don't stop even with a new covenant made and the old one starts to degrade. I won't pretend to know the mind of the author. I will have to guess. I will assume your definition of 'Sabbaton' which you say is 'Sabbath day'. If the writer used 'Sabbaton' then I assume he would then infer that there remains a Sabbath day for God's people. Just one Sabbath day for the people. I guess that one Sabbath would be some time in the future? If the writer used 'Sabbatismos' then the writer would be inferring that a Sabbath keeping remains for God's people.

I gave the numbers for ease of reference. I didn't exclude other lexicons by giving those numbers. I did it out of courteousness. Strong is useful in quick references and restricts his definitions, I believe, to the uses he sees in scripture. If you want a more thorough definition, you will have to look in another credible lexicon. Thayer is good for Greek words to me. I included his definition as well as Strong's in my earlier post. We've not entered that rest yet either. We still sin, either by accident or on purpose. We still have work to do, for without works our faith is dead. Last I checked, dead faith saves none. We, however, claim the blessed promises that we hope for and have not seen as past tense, e.g., I'm saved. I don't think your argument here defeats what I previously posted. I will, however, point out that scripture says Sabbath keeping was not a sin and produces no anxiety to first century Jews. (Rom 3:20) Not keeping the Sabbath was the sin and anxiety. It was not a burden to do the good works of the law, commands which lead to eternal life. (1 Jn 5:3; Jn 12:50) I don't mind your interpretation about the authorities. They have to have instruments themselves which are usually humans. However, I disagree with your assessment of who can't and can judge. 1Cor 5 & 6 deal with judgment or discernment about brothers and sisters within. If no-one is to judge us then how can Paul exhort judgment without condition in Corinthians but then turns and says not in matters of food, festival, new moons and Sabbaths? How can he say don't put a stumbling block before your brother in Rom 14 if we should not judge on matters of food, drink and days? Why would a brother stumble if he was told not judge others in matters of food? No, your interpretation is untenable and doesn't take other scriptures into account. Also, why would this come up if they didn't keep the Sabbath, kosher diet and drink, festivals...etc.? This doesn't defeat my previous post nor undermine it. Obviously, he was and is. See below... I do not argue we are under the law. My stance is clear, we are obligated to obey that which still stands and not explicitly resented. I argue for certain other things from the law are still compulsory for us today as well, but am confined to the decalogue for now. And, yes, I am implying that by implication everything from the law which is a standing command, still in effect today, which was not explicity resented is implied by our King here in Mat 5. This includes the command to keep Sabbath. Here is where I think you make a grievous error. If, as you have just shown, you interpret the meaning here in Mathew to be that Jesus fulfilled the law so it has passed away then your not obeying the law. Tell me then, what is difference between destroying something and fulfilling something? If Jesus destroyed the law then it has passed away. If Jesus fulfilled the law then it has passed away. Both cases result on the law being abrogated, in other words, both have the exact same results. How can that be when He drew a contrast between destroying and fulfilling by saying, 'but'? By using the word 'but', He was saying, in effect, that something else will happen to the law besides it passing away, being abrogated, nullified or, in His words, being destroyed. Here is what Strong's says about the Greek word here for 'destroy'. "come to nought" is the exact same thing as saying, "passed away."

Now, besides those points, the context of these words doesn't allow your interpretation, for, right after He states these words He says, "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Now, as you quoted above, Messiah was talking about the law of Moses when He says, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets..." and mentions "the law" again in the very next verse, therefore, right after these two verses when He says, "commandments" He is referring to the law yet again. I will then substitute 'of the Mosaic law' after 'commandments' for emphasis. I agree. The Temple hasas changed as well. We are being fitted together to be Yahweh's temple. Paul even goes as far as to say that we already are the temple. Yahweh Himself told David that He would build him a temple through his son, a throne which will never cease. I would argue, out of necessity, that a lot would change. You may not like this but a contract may be annulled and a new one made that contains some of the same content as the previous one, or older one. An argument of this kind can be made, for, Jeremiah 31:31-34, but most specifically verse 33, says, " For this is the covenant I shall make with the house of Yisra’ĕl after those days, declares יהוה: I shall put My Torah in their inward parts, and write it on their hearts. And I shall be their Elohim, and they shall be My people." Yahweh's Torah will be placed in our hearts is the prophecy when He makes the New covenant. Well, Messiah said, "For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Messiah formed the new covenant with the house of Israel just as Jeremiah foretold he would. It is now then that Yahweh puts His Torah in us, in our hearts or inward parts.
And.
When Jeremiah was foretelling this, his audience would have understood that Yahweh meant the Torah which was written down by Moses.

The problem with many discussions is that they multiply into many different strands and it becomes complicated trying to keep track of them.

I’m therefore going to try and stick to one of these (for the moment) and that is the translation of Sabbatismos and experts.

What can sabbatismos mean?
Stong only gives one meaning, that of rest:

[quote]Strong's #4520: sabbatismos (pronounced sab-bat-is-mos')
from a derivative of 4521; a "sabbatism", i.e. (figuratively) the repose of Christianity (as a type of heaven):--rest.[/quote]

Thayer gives two meanings:
[quote]Thayer's Greek Lexicon:
́
sabbatismos
1) a keeping sabbath
2) the blessed rest from toils and troubles looked for in the age to come by the true worshippers of God and true Christians

Part of Speech: noun masculine

Relation: from a derivative of G4521
[/quote]

Thus Strong would appear to rule out a meaning of Sabbath keeping. You have one expert who says that sabbatismos can mean sabbath keeping.

Then how should Sabbatismos be translated. Here we must look to those that actually do the translating. They are the ones who study the actual text and it’s context to ascertain what meaning to give it in this particular verse.

I gave you before nine translations that all translate sabbatismos as rest or Sabbath rest, namely: KJV, NAB, RSV, NIV, Amplified, HCSB, YLT, NRSV, ASV

I have done some more research and I can add a further twelve: ESV, ISV, MS, CCB, GWT, JB, Douay-Rheims, KJ2000, Good News, Lexham, CEB, NASB

There does not appear to be a single case where it is translated as sabbath keeping.

As I have said before this is not surprising as the context is God’s rest.

You have provided not a single case of Heb 4:9 being translated as a sabbath keeping. THe conclusion therefore is that sabbath rest is the correct translation of sabbatismos in Heb 4:9

 

[Sr.Brandon]

Yes, it was getting far to long. If you hadn't changed the focus back to this specific topic I would have.

You argument is a logical fallacy. It is invalid sir. I could say that the majority of authoritative scientists say it is impossible to break the sound barrier. They were wrong.

You can and, therefore, must examine the reasons why these translators select 'rest' to be the appropriate translation.

If you really want translations: -The Scriptures by the ISR -Aramaic Bible in plain English -Some KJV bibles put in their foot notes "Sabbath keeping". -Darby Translation put in Sabbatism -A lot of of translations put in 'Sabbath rest' which could go either way.

But, just because I have plenty of translations I could use to argue my side or you have plenty of translations you could use to argue your side means nothing.

Now a question, if we are awaiting a Sabbath rest as I think your saying then how was Messiah the fulfillment of the Sabbath in his first coming?

 

[Episkopos]

Worship is not the issue here. We worship everyday of the week through our actions and words, our thoughts and deeds.
There is no command in scripture as to what day of the week we should meet regularly. That, as far as protestants are concern, is whenever you have time.
The question here is, are we obligated to rest on Saturday?

Agreed! The true sabbath is to cease from our own works..permanently...in order to do the works prepared in advance that we should walk in them.

 

[Mungo]

Yes, it was getting far to long. If you hadn't changed the focus back to this specific topic I would have.

You argument is a logical fallacy. It is invalid sir. I could say that the majority of authoritative scientists say it is impossible to break the sound barrier. They were wrong.

You can and, therefore, must examine the reasons why these translators select 'rest' to be the appropriate translation.

If you really want translations: -The Scriptures by the ISR -Aramaic Bible in plain English -Some KJV bibles put in their foot notes "Sabbath keeping". -Darby Translation put in Sabbatism -A lot of of translations put in 'Sabbath rest' which could go either way.

But, just because I have plenty of translations I could use to argue my side or you have plenty of translations you could use to argue your side means nothing.

My argument is not a logical fallacy, neither Argumentum ad verecundiam nor Argumentum ad numerum. It is perfectly logical to appeal to authorities in the particular field under discussion; in this case the translation. I have given you 21 translations where the translators translate Heb 4:9 as rest or Sabbath rest and there may be more. You have at best one. Whether the KJV puts sabbath keeping in their footnotes is not particularly relevant. They chose rest.

You say “just because I have plenty of translations I could use to argue my side…”. The point is you don’t. All the major translations and numerous minor ones use rest or sabbath rest. You have obviously scraped and empty barrel to quote The Scriptures by the ISR -Aramaic Bible in plain English.
What may I ask has Aramaic in plain English to do with translating the Greek sabbatismos?

Now a question, if we are awaiting a Sabbath rest as I think your saying then how was Messiah the fulfillment of the Sabbath in his first coming?

I’m not up for digressions until we have settled this.

 

[Selene]

Yes, it was getting far to long. If you hadn't changed the focus back to this specific topic I would have.

You argument is a logical fallacy. It is invalid sir. I could say that the majority of authoritative scientists say it is impossible to break the sound barrier. They were wrong.

You can and, therefore, must examine the reasons why these translators select 'rest' to be the appropriate translation.

If you really want translations: -The Scriptures by the ISR -Aramaic Bible in plain English -Some KJV bibles put in their foot notes "Sabbath keeping". -Darby Translation put in Sabbatism -A lot of of translations put in 'Sabbath rest' which could go either way.

But, just because I have plenty of translations I could use to argue my side or you have plenty of translations you could use to argue your side means nothing.

Now a question, if we are awaiting a Sabbath rest as I think your saying then how was Messiah the fulfillment of the Sabbath in his first coming?

No, Christians are not obligated to rest on the Jewish Sabbath Day (Saturday) just as they are not obligated to practice circumcision. The Jewish Sabbath was linked to the OLD CREATION in which God created everything in six days and then rested on the seventh day (See Exodus 31:16-17). Christians belong to the NEW CREATION because we are made into new creatures in Jesus Christ (See 2 Corinthians 5:17 and Galatians 6:15). According to Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch in the first century:

Ignatius of Antioch - [T]hose who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e., Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death (Letter to the Magnesians 8 [A.D. 110]).

Jesus rose from the dead "on the first day of the week. Because it is the "first day," the day of Christ's Resurrection recalls the first creation. Because it is the "eighth day" following the sabbath, it symbolizes the new creation ushered in by Christ's Resurrection. For Christians it has become the first of all days, the first of all feasts, the Lord's Day - Sunday.

 

[veteran]

In the Babylonian Talmud of Orthodox Judaism, its writers condemn our Lord Jesus for teaching His disciples to hold worship on the day after the Jew's sabbath.

"In the Talmud Christ is called Otho Isch-`That Man,' i .e . the
one who is known to all . In the Tract Abhodah Zarah, 6a, we read :
"He is called a Christian who follows the false teachings
of that man, who taught them to celebrate the feast on
the first day of the Sabbath, that is, to worship on the
first day after the Sabbath ." - The Talmud Unmasked, by I.B. Prenaitis

 

[neophyte]

In the Babylonian Talmud of Orthodox Judaism, its writers condemn our Lord Jesus for teaching His disciples to hold worship on the day after the Jew's sabbath.

"In the Talmud Christ is called Otho Isch-`That Man,' i .e . the
one who is known to all . In the Tract Abhodah Zarah, 6a, we read :
"He is called a Christian who follows the false teachings
of that man, who taught them to celebrate the feast on
the first day of the Sabbath, that is, to worship on the
first day after the Sabbath ." - The Talmud Unmasked, by I.B. Prenaitis

Did Jesus have the Passover meal with the disciples early, this is something we do not know for sure. It is implied though by the Gospel narratives, which recount that Jesus was crucified on the day of preparation for the Passover (John 19:14), which would have been during the day before the Seder meal was celebrated by the Jews. In Judaism, the holy days start at sundown the previous day. So, if Passover began on Saturday that year (John 19:31), the Jews would have prepared for it during the day on Friday and eaten the Seder meal on Friday evening. Since it was important to Jesus to share the Passover meal with his disciples before his crucifixion (Luke 22:15–16), by his authority as God the Son he could have chosen to eat the Passover meal a day early in anticipation of the traditional start of the Passover (Matt. 7:28–29).

 

[Sr.Brandon]

My argument is not a logical fallacy, neither Argumentum ad verecundiam nor Argumentum ad numerum. It is perfectly logical to appeal to authorities in the particular field under discussion; in this case the translation. I have given you 21 translations where the translators translate Heb 4:9 as rest or Sabbath rest and there may be more. You have at best one. Whether the KJV puts sabbath keeping in their footnotes is not particularly relevant. They chose rest.

You missed one of my points.

-A lot of of translations put in 'Sabbath rest' which could go either way.

I don't what happens to your number since I believe this is true.
Secondly, the KJV writers included in their foot note 'or, Sabbath keeping'. This is relevant to our discussion. The writers feel it can be interchange and, therefore, even 'rest' in those other translations could mean 'Sabbath keeping' instead of the way your thinking. That, i believe, puts in the same spot.
Thirdly, I said from the beginning that I argue for the "Sabbath keeping" translation.

I, therefore, contend that it is in better keeping to render this verse as, "So then there remains a Sabbath keeping to the people of God." This does not violate scripture but upholds the harmony between Old and New Testaments.

This implies that translations do not translate this verse in this way. I've already accepted that the majority of translation do not translate 'sabbatismos' as 'Sabbath keeping'.
The fact remains that none of my propositions for the translation to be 'Sabbath keeping' have not been denied, shown invalid or otherwise mentioned.
Besides, if I were to go with the majority of experts in all matters then Protestants would be wrong and Catholics right during the reformation.

I retract, however, my earlier accusation that your argument is a fallacy so that this conversation can move beyond that problem. I will simply say they are wrong, for, an expert can be wrong even in his/her own field study. Whole groups of experts, no matter how many they be, can all be wrong as well. History has shown this to be true.
Let's just use the following reason for moving beyond the reference to the majority of translations. I don't believe them due to man made presumptions not yet challenged in the majority of academia, at least to the public's knowledge.
How is it not true in this case if I'm to see why it should be just translated as 'rest' and not mean 'Sabbath keeping'?

You say “just because I have plenty of translations I could use to argue my side…”. The point is you don’t. All the major translations and numerous minor ones use rest or sabbath rest. You have obviously scraped and empty barrel to quote The Scriptures by the ISR -Aramaic Bible in plain English.
What may I ask has Aramaic in plain English to do with translating the Greek sabbatismos?

The scrapping an empty barrel comment is irrelevant. I've shown more than one translation which uses 'Sabbath keeping' or something else which I believe is synonymous. It is irrelevant if the translations aren't respectable in your eyes.

In answering your Aramaic question, however, the argument goes that since we don't have the original autobiographies of the NT and we are now founding old, if not older, manuscripts in Aramaic then the originals may not have been in Greek. If this is true then the Aramaic manuscripts could be clearer than their Greek manuscripts. That's the argument, its irrelevant to our current discussion, but I'm not opposed to discussing it else where.

No, Christians are not obligated to rest on the Jewish Sabbath Day (Saturday) just as they are not obligated to practice circumcision. The Jewish Sabbath was linked to the OLD CREATION in which God created everything in six days and then rested on the seventh day (See Exodus 31:16-17). Christians belong to the NEW CREATION because we are made into new creatures in Jesus Christ (See 2 Corinthians 5:17 and Galatians 6:15). According to Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch in the first century:

Ignatius of Antioch - [T]hose who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e., Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death (Letter to the Magnesians 8 [A.D. 110]).

Jesus rose from the dead "on the first day of the week. Because it is the "first day," the day of Christ's Resurrection recalls the first creation. Because it is the "eighth day" following the sabbath, it symbolizes the new creation ushered in by Christ's Resurrection. For Christians it has become the first of all days, the first of all feasts, the Lord's Day - Sunday.

We're not in that new creation. Why would John in Revelation see a new earth and new heaven if we are already in that new creation now? No, the new creation is something hoped for but not seen, yet. We proclaim what hasn't happened as already happened out of hope and trust placed in Yahweh.
Give me the command, verse, chapter, prophecy... in scripture that resends the command to rest on Saturday. Do so and I will agree.
Quoting a source out side of what is considered infallible will not settle this dispute. A divine command should only be stopped when the originator of the command says so.
This is why were discussing Heb 4:9. It deals heavily with the topic of Sabbath.

 

[Mungo]

You missed one of my points.

I don't what happens to your number since I believe this is true.

You have only shown one translation that says Sabbath keeping and that is your Aramaic translation

Secondly, the KJV writers included in their foot note 'or, Sabbath keeping'. This is relevant to our discussion. The writers feel it can be interchange and, therefore, even 'rest' in those other translations could mean 'Sabbath keeping' instead of the way your thinking. That, i believe, puts in the same spot.

No it doesn’t mean the writers feel it is interchangeable. It implies that they think it is a possible alternative but the fact is they chose rest for their translation.

Your suggestion that just because the KJV put “or Sabbath keeping” in their footnotes then in all other translations you can substitute “Sabbath keeping” for “rest” is totally illogical.

You cannot transfer an opinion by the KJV translators to all other translators. Such a suggestion is just desperation.

Thirdly, I said from the beginning that I argue for the "Sabbath keeping" translation.

I know you argue for that but you have virtually nothing to back up that argument.

This implies that translations do not translate this verse in this way. I've already accepted that the majority of translation do not translate 'sabbatismos' as 'Sabbath keeping'.
The fact remains that none of my propositions for the translation to be 'Sabbath keeping' have not been denied, shown invalid or otherwise mentioned.
Besides, if I were to go with the majority of experts in all matters then Protestants would be wrong and Catholics right during the reformation.

The fact is that your proposition to translate sabbatismos as Sabbath keeping does not agree with the overwhelming majority of translators.

The fact is that you have only produced one translation that says “Sabbath keeping”, and that is one not from the original Greek.

I retract, however, my earlier accusation that your argument is a fallacy so that this conversation can move beyond that problem. I will simply say they are wrong, for, an expert can be wrong even in his/her own field study. Whole groups of experts, no matter how many they be, can all be wrong as well. History has shown this to be true.
Let's just use the following reason for moving beyond the reference to the majority of translations. I don't believe them due to man made presumptions not yet challenged in the majority of academia, at least to the public's knowledge.
How is it not true in this case if I'm to see why it should be just translated as 'rest' and not mean 'Sabbath keeping'?

Because that is the way the overwhelming majority of translators translate it. It is not a matter of disagreement among experts. They all agree it is Sabbath rest except for your Aramaic to English translators.

The scrapping an empty barrel comment is irrelevant. I've shown more than one translation which uses 'Sabbath keeping' or something else which I believe is synonymous. It is irrelevant if the translations aren't respectable in your eyes.

You have only shown one translation that gives Sabbath keeping and one translation that says Sabbath keeping is a possible alternative.

I have given 21 translations that say "rest" or "sabbath rest" and I could probably find more.

In answering your Aramaic question, however, the argument goes that since we don't have the original autobiographies of the NT and we are now founding old, if not older, manuscripts in Aramaic then the originals may not have been in Greek. If this is true then the Aramaic manuscripts could be clearer than their Greek manuscripts. That's the argument, its irrelevant to our current discussion, but I'm not opposed to discussing it else where.

Now you have entered fantasy land full of ifs and maybes.


Just face it. The translation that all but one translation uses (and that is not from the original Greek) is "sabbath rest" not "sabbath keeping". Just accept the facts that stare you in the face however uncomfortable you might find them.

 

[Sr.Brandon]

You have only shown one translation that says Sabbath keeping and that is your Aramaic translation

No it doesn’t mean the writers feel it is interchangeable. It implies that they think it is a possible alternative but the fact is they chose rest for their translation.

That's the way you see it. We disagree.
[quote name=Mungo]
Your suggestion that just because the KJV put “or Sabbath keeping” in their footnotes then in all other translations you can substitute “Sabbath keeping” for “rest” is totally illogical.
[/quote]
No, it is not. If several experts in their field feel that it is a "possible alternative" then it is a "possible alternative" in all cases due to the same original text.
[quote name=Mungo]
You cannot transfer an opinion by the KJV translators to all other translators. Such a suggestion is just desperation.
[/quote]
Desperation? Irrelevant and emotional.
Experts in their field of translating Greek into English have an opinion on the translation of a particular verse. All the other translations are based on the same text.
Therefore, based on these expert's opinion I can suggest it applies to all translation because they all use the same original text to translate their translations.
As an aside, do you know of any of the other experts which disagree with this "possible alternative"?
[quote name=Mungo]
I know you argue for that but you have virtually nothing to back up that argument.

The fact is that your proposition to translate sabbatismos as Sabbath keeping does not agree with the overwhelming majority of translators.
[/quote]
Some of these experts suggest "Sabbath keeping" as a "possible alternative". The number of these experts, the KJV ones among others, matters not. What matters is if they can defend their opinion.
What are the reasons that the other experts disagree that "Sabbath keeping" is not an "alternative"?
[quote name=Mungo]
The fact is that you have only produced one translation that says “Sabbath keeping”, and that is one not from the original Greek.

Because that is the way the overwhelming majority of translators translate it. It is not a matter of disagreement among experts. They all agree it is Sabbath rest except for your Aramaic to English translators.

You have only shown one translation that gives Sabbath keeping and one translation that says Sabbath keeping is a possible alternative.

I have given 21 translations that say "rest" or "sabbath rest" and I could probably find more.

Now you have entered fantasy land full of ifs and maybes.

Just face it. The translation that all but one translation uses (and that is not from the original Greek) is "sabbath rest" not "sabbath keeping". Just accept the facts that stare you in the face however uncomfortable you might find them.
[/quote]
Two translations, the Aramaic one, which you've kindly pointed out multiple times, and the Scriptures, which is from Greek.
Other experts in field of the New Testament or the Greek language would agree with me, or really, I agree with them.
Experts in their respective fields have suggested the non-Greek autobiographies. Fantasy or not, your comment is illogical, emotional.

All of this is irrelevant. Most of these translations are done in committee form and does not represent all the experts present at times. Does every expert in the committee of the translations you've mentioned agree unanimously that it should be something other than 'Sabbath keeping'? What are the expert's reasons for saying 'rest', 'Sabbath rest' or 'Sabbath keeping'.
(Your not responsible for the 'Sabbath keeping' part, I am.)

 

[Mungo]

That's the way you see it. We disagree.

We disagree because you are ignoring the facts.

No, it is not. If several experts in their field feel that it is a "possible alternative" then it is a "possible alternative" in all cases due to the same original text.

Desperation? Irrelevant and emotional.
Experts in their field of translating Greek into English have an opinion on the translation of a particular verse. All the other translations are based on the same text.
Therefore, based on these expert's opinion I can suggest it applies to all translation because they all use the same original text to translate their translations.

That is not logical. You have produced one set of experts (the KJV translators) who are of the opinion that sabbath keeping is a possible alternative. That is their opinion. It cannot mean that others have to accept their opinion.

As an aside, do you know of any of the other experts which disagree with this "possible alternative"?

It’s up to you to provide experts that agree with you

Some of these experts suggest "Sabbath keeping" as a "possible alternative". The number of these experts, the KJV ones among others, matters not. What matters is if they can defend their opinion.

So far you have only produced one set of experts that suggest that Sabbath keeping is an alternative.

What are the reasons that the other experts disagree that "Sabbath keeping" is not an "alternative"?

Why do I have to provide their reasons that they do not suggest sabbath keeping is an alternative?

That is not a rational thing to ask.

Two translations, the Aramaic one, which you've kindly pointed out multiple times, and the Scriptures, which is from Greek.

What scripture translations from the Greek? You have not provided any.

Other experts in field of the New Testament or the Greek language would agree with me, or really, I agree with them.
Experts in their respective fields have suggested the non-Greek autobiographies. Fantasy or not, your comment is illogical, emotional.

No it’s not illogical. You claim other experts agree with you but you provide non.

All of this is irrelevant. Most of these translations are done in committee form and does not represent all the experts present at times. Does every expert in the committee of the translations you've mentioned agree unanimously that it should be something other than 'Sabbath keeping'? What are the expert's reasons for saying 'rest', 'Sabbath rest' or 'Sabbath keeping'.
(Your not responsible for the 'Sabbath keeping' part, I am.)

You are into ifs and maybes again. Maybe some of the translation committee agree with you. But you have no evidence.

Why do I have to provide the reasons that the translators used sabbath rest? The fact is that they chose to do that.

The facts that we have are that I have given you 21 translations that use sabbath rest or rest and you have given me one – from Aramaic, not from the original Greek. You keep making claims that other experts agree with you but provide none.

Cannot you see the falsity of your position? If you cannot provide more evidence for you claims, rather than ifs and maybes than I see no point in continuing. You are just making claims that you cannot substantiate.

 

[mjrhealth]

Christ gave us the gift of grace for free, paid for it with His life, you can if you are so inclined, throw His free gift back into His face and put yourself under the law, in which there is no way of salvation as only Christ could ever full fill it as He did, And considering us gentiles where never under the law in the first place is is plain outright stupidity, and it is only the pride and arrogance of the flesh would try such a foolish thing.

In All His Love

 

[Sr.Brandon]

You have only shown one translation that says Sabbath keeping and that is your Aramaic translation

No it doesn’t mean the writers feel it is interchangeable. It implies that they think it is a possible alternative but the fact is they chose rest for their translation.

Your suggestion that just because the KJV put “or Sabbath keeping” in their footnotes then in all other translations you can substitute “Sabbath keeping” for “rest” is totally illogical.

You cannot transfer an opinion by the KJV translators to all other translators. Such a suggestion is just desperation.

I know you argue for that but you have virtually nothing to back up that argument.

The fact is that your proposition to translate sabbatismos as Sabbath keeping does not agree with the overwhelming majority of translators.

The fact is that you have only produced one translation that says “Sabbath keeping”, and that is one not from the original Greek.

Because that is the way the overwhelming majority of translators translate it. It is not a matter of disagreement among experts. They all agree it is Sabbath rest except for your Aramaic to English translators.

You have only shown one translation that gives Sabbath keeping and one translation that says Sabbath keeping is a possible alternative.

I have given 21 translations that say "rest" or "sabbath rest" and I could probably find more.

Now you have entered fantasy land full of ifs and maybes.

Just face it. The translation that all but one translation uses (and that is not from the original Greek) is "sabbath rest" not "sabbath keeping". Just accept the facts that stare you in the face however uncomfortable you might find them.

"The Scriptures" www.isr-messianic.org/
You may have missed the references done two times now, so I have posted their web address above.
The BBE (BIble in Basic English) uses this phrase as well.
I've seen others reference the Anchor BIble Dicitionary in defining the word 'Sabbatismos' but you may not like the Anchor Bible Dictionary nor the way they say it. (Because, it seems I have to use something that specifically says, "Sabbath keeping" verbatim, it would seem.)
I can't think of some of the papers, published in recognized journals, which would lend themselves to the arguement for "Sabbath keeping" being the better translation of "Sabbatismos". I can't enter them into this discussion so... I haven't mentioned them.
I usually don't bother in remembering the names of persons, authoritative or not. I do my best to remember their arguments which are valid and sound, for or against my position or otherwise. Most the time, a person who talks to me about this stuff doesn't need the name of some unknown professor they neither trust or believe anyway.

I will therefore make a conditional statement. Your argument for not translating the word 'sabbatismos' as 'Sabbath keeping' is illogical and unpersuasive. (Illogical because your using translations to back up your argument without knowing a single reason from these translators as to why. Disagree or not, its irrelevant to me.) However, I will not contend this for the duration of this discussion. From here on, "Sabbatismos" should be translated as either 'rest' or 'Sabbath rest'.

Now, why should we not interpret this Heb 4:9 passage to mean that since the millenial rest has not come there remains a Sabbath rest, meaning 7th day rest, for the people of God?