Hello Howie, let’s begin by looking at the word that the KJV translates as study:
G4704
σπουδάζω
spoudazō
spoo-dad'-zo
From G4710; to use speed, that is, to make effort, be prompt or earnest: - do (give) diligence, be diligent (forward), endeavour, labour, study.
2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.—KJV
Or in a modern translation:
2Ti 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. --ESV
What I’m saying is that in order to be approved by God we must make a concerted, diligent effort, earnestly endeavor to 'study' THE WHOLE BIBLE so that we can properly understand doctrinal passages in their complete context. The Word of God or doctrinal truth is not contained just in the Pauline epistles or the New Testament. If a Christian consistently ignores or refuses to acknowledge the teachings of the Old Testament, then they are missing out on more than 2/3 of the sacred text and you will consequently not be able to “rightly divide the word of God”.
That is what YOU say. We are approved by God through faith in Jesus. This is what the word of God says, so am I not rightly dividing it by understanding just how approval comes? In fact, when the passage was written, there were no copy machines. There were only limited manuscripts available, which is the main reason that people met in assemblies to learn from those who had access to these scriptures. As well, to remind you of your own observation, this passage was part of a letter written by Paul to Timothy. So now you are willing to break away from your own perspective on Paul's writings and insist that he was instructing the entire body of Christ to read and learn the old testament in order to rightly divide the word and be approved by God. hmmmm
Personally speaking, I thoroughly enjoy the poetic beauty of the KJV translation but there are many modern translations that are worthy of scholarly examination. I believe it is a wise course to compare questionable passages against several different translations in order to grasp the fullest meaning of the original Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic text. It’s not a matter of understanding colloquial expressions of 400 year old translations in this case, as any of the translations point to “rightly handling the word of truth”. And that is precisely what we are endeavoring to do in this discussion regarding the validity of continuing to ‘keep the Sabbath holy’ as defined in the (whole) Holy Bible.
I agree that we would be wise to look at and compare multiple translations. However, on the subject of the Sabbath rest, the whole bible demonstrates that it is fulfilled differently in the new covenant than in the old. It is my intention to submit this understanding and thus defend my own practices as one who's heart does not condemn him.
OK, then consider that the problem may be attributed to misinterpreting some of Paul’s writings? The Apostle Peter also states that Paul’s writings were a significant bone of contention even in the First Century (2Pet. 3:15-16) One must also take into account to whom Paul’s writings were addressed (his audience). Paul wrote primarily to pagan Churches who had little or no understanding of the Word of God. They were newly converted heathens who just a few short months before were, for example, ignorantly worshipping goddesses like Diana of the Ephesians (Acts 19:35). Paul understood this and deliberately simplified many aspects of God’s Law in his epistles to the Gentile Churches.
Peter also called Paul's writings scripture in that passage. The fact that Paul wrote to previuosly pagan people, does not annull what he told them about grace, faith, the differences between the old covenant and new, the contrast between grace and law, faith and works, and many other concepts. These concepts are true. He was not giving them another gospel. There is one gospel. He was not giving them another truth. Truth is truth.
Both testaments are the indisputable Word of God and therefore, both should validate each other. The key is studiously searching out the instances where there seems to be a discrepancy and searching out the correct doctrinal solution that satisfies BOTH TESTAMENTS.
My interpretation takes the whole bible into consideration and puts all things in their proper context (as much as I have been successful in doing so). I see no discrepancy in the way I have interpreted it. The discrepency is in the different interpretations that have arisen, as you have stated.
Sometimes, such as in the case of sacrificial laws, they are clearly superseded by the supreme sacrifice of Christ. Other times, it is understanding to whom certain letters were addressed. And most importantly IMO, it is understanding our true identity as Christian believers. Do we relate or identify with the Israelite Christian church customs and practices or consider ourselves as Gentile Christian believers? Neither camp is “right or wrong” on all issues but it is incumbent that we understand where each stands doctrinally. I identify with the Israelite Church in Jerusalem, you apparently with the Pauline Gentile Christian believers.
That is not how I perceive it. There is one body, not two. One faith, one Lord.
Yes, I totally agree with that astute assessment, Howie. And, likewise, believe it or not! . . .there are yet further hidden truths and profound revelations which are being revealed to the latter day Christians, if they would but endeavor to make a concerted, diligent effort, earnestly endeavor and 'study' THE WHOLE BIBLE so that they might possess and cultivate proper “ears to hear and eyes to see.”
No argument there.
From # 328 "OK, then consider that the problem may be attributed to misinterpreting some of Paul’s writings? The Apostle Peter also states that Paul’s writings were a significant bone of contention even in the First Century (2Pet. 3:15-16) "
This is a profound observation. This is the root of this kind of debate. In the first century, it took a little time for the converted Jew to understand the workings of the covenant of grace. There was much opposition to it. Even Peter and James were at odds with Paul for a time. This is all recorded. Paul withstood Peter to his face in one case. But now we see Peter endorsing Paul's letters as scripture.
As well, there were those who crept in and attempted to bring some back under the law for justification. Paul's letter to the Galatians was in response to this very thing. So Paul went into great detail with them concerning the contrast between law and grace, and the history and contrast between the two covenants. So in the case of this debate, I don't buy the idea that this is necessarily about the misinterpretation of Paul's writings. I suspect that this is rather an excuse used by those who don't like how Paul's writings interfere with their practices and beliefs.
This debate is about new covenant principles and how they are not the same as old covenant principles and practices.
On this note, in regards to the original subject, the Sabbath is about resting from one's work. According to the author of Hebrews, who may not be Paul, it is about entering in to God's rest. How? By ceasing from one's work. Keep in mind who this was written to. These were not pagans. They were those who were previously under the works of the law. They were those who were already keeping the 4th commandment. As well, those who were described by the author as not entering His rest, also kept the 4th commandment. But their fault was unbelief. That is why they did not enter. The sabbath rest was a picture of the promised land. It was about coming into the promise of rest.
The rest we are to enter into is more permanent than merely not working on saturday. When one comes out from under the works of the law (dead works), into faith, one enters His rest. This is the fulfillment of the Sabbath command. There are two types of rest. One we do for ourselves, the other is given to us freely. These are the two covenants. Believe it or not.
