And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it(Genesis2:2),the seventh day is the day God sanctified as the day of rest from his works of creation.Throughout the bible christians observe this day as a day of worship(luke23:56).the sabbath has been a day of worship,a day of rest,God's holy day(ezekiel20:13,isaiah66:23,Exodus16:21-30).The sabbath was always mentioned throughout the old and new testament as one day,the seventh day.BUT now people do worship,rest and observe sunday(first day of the week)as sabbath.WHAT DO U THINK ABOUT THIS;does it mean anything because it is the 4th commandment(exodus20:8-11),does it have implications,is the sabbath no more relevant,can we now choose any day apart from the seventh day as a day of rest,worship and God's holy day.PLS DROP UR IDEAS,GOD BLESS YOU.

Please I need ur ideas

well the Sabbath is on saturday not sunday. it would be ideal to observe it if you can however scripture do say - THE SABBATH WAS MADE FOR MAN AND NOT MAN FOR THE SABBATH.

Need ur views please

@OP,

Frankly speaking, I had a troubled sleep on this topic in the wee hours of this beautiful day.There are two leading schools of thoughts on the Sabbath day but kindly go through this independent view from the website as given below .Honestly, I see the truth in this article.

http://www.williambranhamhomepage.org/truesabb.htm


I hope it blesses someone.

The website has many flaws.1.the writer said the sabbath is not a day of rest.The fact is that when God created man,he instituted the rest because as human beings we need rest.As he said 'in isaiah'God fainteth not.The sabbath is a day of rest as well as a day of rememberance of the power of his creation through worship.2.He said God's convenant with Abraham was not based on the sabbath but on faith.The purpose of the sabbath was not of convenant.Faith in God includes acknowledging his ordinances and laws of which the sabbath was part.so in faith,Abraham obeyed all commandments.3.He said the sabbath signifies death to old man(sin).Dats funny,being death to sin and alive to christ is what baptism entails not sabbath.4.everyday should be a day that we will appreciate and praise God.Accepted,everyday should be a day of worship but there is a day that has been sanctified and hallowed by God for rest and worship.5.the first day of the week as the day God ressurected.As jesus clearly stated,he didnt come to abolish the law.Jesus didnt instituted another day of worship(hebrews 4:.6.denying the sabbath as the 4th commandment.What this person is saying is that the sabbath as the 4th law is not relevant or what.this is denying the law of God which has been written in our heart;the death of christ didnt abolish the laws at sinai.jesus himself honoured the sabbath by going to the sanctuary on that day,took part in services and gave religious instruction(mark1:21,mark3:1-4,luke4:16-27,luke13:10).he also fellowshipped with others(mark1:29-31).what he did about the sabbath was to teach them that the sabbath as a day of rest should not be a day when good deeds are forbidden.it should be a day of good deeds,a day to show mercy,rejoice with others and live happily against their former practices.MY OWN POINT.the creation work of God and the redemption work of christ explained the sabbath.after creation he rested and after our redemption through his death on the cross when he said its finished christ rested in the tomb symbolising that he had accomplished the redemption of the human race.After the death of christ,the disciples followed suit(acts13:14,acts17:1,2,acts18:4,acts16:13).THE SEVENTH DAY OF THE WEEK IS THE INSTITUTED DAY BY GOD.THROUGHOUT THE BIBLE,THE SEVENTH DAY SABBATH WAS HONOURED ACCORDING TO GOD'S LAW..on this matter remember hebrews 10:26.'for if we sin(transgression of law)willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth,there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.The seventh day is God's day it was changed by the roman catholic church and modern christians have followed suit claiming the change was because of christ's ressurection.The bible does not teach this,BEWARE OF FALSE DOCTRINES.

If u want to know about the change,i can help with that

@OP,

I thought you said you needed insights to the post.So, I had to cull it up from the website. So sorry if the the content does not tally with your beliefs!On the contrary, I benefited from it immensely.Different strokes for different folks I would say(...on a lighter note....)

My understanding of Sabbath is REST and this entails beyond physical rest. More so, God rested on the sixth day but this is not same as physical rest. It is evident from the bible that our God does not faint nor slumber. Spirits do not suffer from physical exhaustion.More so, the Sabbath was made for man and NOT man for the Sabbath. This does not violate the fourth commandment in anyway.

As Christians,the Sabbath entails more than just a particular day.Perhaps, meditate on Hebrews 4:1-11.

Its a well documented fact that the Roman Catholic Church did change the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday but it is equally evident from the new testament that Apostle Paul commented on it as well.

All the same, even in the new testament, Christians did gather in the first day of worship. More so, Jesus being our Joshua(Saviour) resurrected on the first day of the week-Sunday. Jesus Christ is the Lord of the Sabbath and the Sabbath as well. Mind you, I never said Jesus Christ and the apostles did not observe the Saturday Sabbath.Definitely, he did.

I believe Jesus Christ is the REST(SABBATH) we need as Christians(Matt. 11:26-26, 28-29).

As good as the Seventh Day Adventist, I am sure the idea of the seal of God being the keeping of the Sabbath day does not tally with Ephesians1:9, 12-14. The seal of God is the HOLY SPIRIT. Mind you, I do not mean speaking in tongue as widely believed but the conscientiousness of the works of Lord Jesus Christ mixed with faith.

Please kindly note that I am not adherent of Saturday or Sunday worship.Of utmost import in this matter is be a believer in the finished works of our Lord and Joshua(Saviour) Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the REST we need to enter into.

I am open to learning from anyone and to equally change my worship to SATURDAY if I have understood this subject matter wrongly.

If I have erred with my understanding of this delicate matter, may the Lord grant me mercy.

Definitely, I am limited as much as I understood have I given out.

I do not stand to judge any man based on a holy day worship. God is our judge!

God bless!

@nedostic,i appreciate ur posts.Actually am not criticizing the website but analyzing it and trying to correct what I THINK were wrong using bible verses.Back to the issue,am stressing this point again,ressurection of jesus does not change the sabbath,after this ressurection and throughout the rest of the new testament,the seventh day sabbath was still observed.Hebrews4:6-9 explains dat,please read these verses.The second thing is dat if the command of this rest is in God's commandment/law,dont u think its a sin(need ur idea on this)to disobey that law.remember our grace do not nullify the laws(romans6)and jesus said it himself.

Another thing,u said it urself the sabbath was made for us because God does nt need rest.But God has nt given us the permission to sanctify a day ourselves.God already did that.I PRAY God helps us on this matter.AGAIN,I APPRECIATE UR POSTS.about speaking in tongue and the holyspirit,i will also need ur idea.PEACE

@Paulcr7,

I have just read Hebrews 4:6-9.

I do not have a private interpretation of this scripture neither am I permitted to add or take away from it or other scriptures.God forbid I do this!

Please kindly exercise patience and read below. I posted this for both clarification and learning purpose for you and I,including others as well to know that in this context,Jesus meant Joshua,the Son of Nun. Albeit, both names mean Saviour.

New International Version (©1984)
For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day.

New Living Translation (©2007)
Now if Joshua had succeeded in giving them this rest, God would not have spoken about another day of rest still to come.

English Standard Version (©2001)
For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day after that.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.

International Standard Version (©2008)
For if Joshua had given them rest, he would not have spoken later about another day.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
For if Yeshua, son of Nun, had given them rest, he would not afterward have spoken of another day.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
If Joshua had given the people rest, God would not have spoken about another day.

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
For if Joshua had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.

American King James Version
For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.

American Standard Version
For if Joshua had given them rest, he would not have spoken afterward of another day.

Douay-Rheims Bible
For if Jesus had given them rest, he would never have afterwards spoken of another day.

Darby Bible Translation
For if Jesus had brought them into rest, he would not have spoken afterwards about another day.

English Revised Version
For if Joshua had given them rest, he would not have spoken afterward of another day.

Webster's Bible Translation
For if Jesus had given them rest, then he would not afterward have spoken of another day.

Weymouth New Testament
For if Joshua had given them the true rest, we should not afterwards hear God speaking of another still future day.

World English Bible
For if Joshua had given them rest, he would not have spoken afterward of another day.

Young's Literal Translation
for if Joshua had given them rest, He would not concerning another day have spoken after these things;

[b]Barnes' Notes on the Bible

For if Jesus - Margin, "That is, Joshua." The Syriac renders it, "Joshua the son of Nun." "Jesus" is the Greek mode of writing "Joshua," and there can be no doubt that Joshua is here intended. The object is to prove that Joshua did" not" give the people of God such a rest as to make it improper to speak of a "rest" after that time. "If Joshua had given them a complete and final rest; if by his conducting them to the promised land all had been done which had been contemplated by the promise, then it would not have been alluded to again, as it was in the time of David." Joshua "did" give them a rest in the promised land; but it was not all which was intended, and it did not exclude the promise of another and more important rest.

Then would he not - Then "God" would not have spoken of another time when that rest could be obtained. The "other day" here referred to is that which is mentioned before by the phrase "today," and refers to the time in which it is spoken of long after Joshua, to wit, in the time of David.
Clarke's Commentary on the Bible

For if Jesus had given them rest - It is truly surprising that our translators should have rendered the Ιησους of the text Jesus, and not Joshua, who is most clearly intended. They must have known that the יהושע Yehoshua of the Hebrew, which we write Joshua, is everywhere rendered Ιησους, Jesus, by the Septuagint; and it is their reading which the apostle follows. It is true the Septuagint generally write Ιησους Ναυη, or Υἱος Ναυη, Jesus Nave, or Jesus, son of Nave, for it is thus they translate יהושע בן נון Yehoshua ben Nun, Joshua the son of Nun; and this is sufficient to distinguish it from Jesus, son of David. But as Joshua, the captain general of Israel, is above intended, the word should have been written Joshua, and not Jesus. One MS., merely to prevent the wrong application of the name, has Ιησους ὁ του Ναυη, Jesus the son of Nave. Theodoret has the same in his comment, and one Syriac version has it in the text. It is Joshua in Coverdale's Testament, 1535; in Tindal's 1548; in that edited by Edmund Becke, 1549; in Richard Cardmarden's, Rouen, 1565; several modern translators, Wesley, Macknight, Wakefield, etc., read Joshua, as does our own in the margin. What a pity it had not been in the text, as all the smaller Bibles have no marginal readings, and many simple people are bewildered with the expression.

The apostle shows that, although Joshua did bring the children of Israel into the promised land, yet this could not be the intended rest, because long after this time the Holy Spirit, by David, speaks of this rest; the apostle, therefore, concludes,
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

For if Jesus had given them rest,.... That is, Joshua; for Hosheah, Joshua, and Jesus, are one and the same name; or Jesus himself, as two of Stephens's copies read; and so Joshua is called Jesus by the Septuagint interpreters on Exodus 17:10 and other places where he is mentioned; and also, by Josephus (h), and Philo (i) the Jew. The Syriac version, lest any should mistake this for Jesus Christ, adds, "the son of Nun": who is certainly the person designed, as the apostle's reasoning shows; who was an eminent type of Jesus Christ: there is an agreement in their names, both signify a saviour, Joshua was a temporal saviour, Christ a spiritual one; and in their office they were both servants; and in their qualifications for their office, such as wisdom, courage, faithfulness, and integrity. Joshua was a type of Christ in many actions of his life; in the miracles he wrought, or were wrought for him; in the battles he fought, and the victories he obtained; in saving Rahab and her family; in receiving the Gibeonites, who came submissively to him; and in leading the children of Israel into Canaan's land, which he divided to them by lot: but though he brought them into a land of rest, into the typical rest, where they had rest for a while from their temporal enemies, yet he did not give them the true spiritual rest: had he,

then would he not afterward have spoken of another day; that is, God, in David's time, and by him, would not have so long after appointed another day of rest; meaning, not any particular day of the week, but the whole Gospel dispensation, in the times of the Messiah; wherefore the apostle concludes as follows.

(h) Antiqu. Jud. l. 4. c. 7. sect. 2. c. 8. sect. 46, 47, 48. & l. 5. c. 1. sect. 1. & passim. (i) De Charitate, p. 698, 699, 700.
Vincent's Word Studies

But it might be said that under Joshua the people did enter into the promised rest. He therefore shows that Israel's rest in Canaan did not fulfill the divine ideal of the rest.

Jesus (Ἰησοῦς)

Rend. Joshua, and see on Matthew 1:21.

After this (μετὰ ταῦτα)

After the entrance into Canaan under Joshua.
Geneva Study Bible

For if {b} Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.

(b) He speaks of Joshua the son of Nun: and as the land of Canaan was a figure of our true rest, so was Joshua a figure of Christ.
People's New Testament

4:8 For if Jesus. Joshua in the Revised Version. Jesus is the Greek form of the Hebrew word Joshua.

Had given them rest. Joshua led Israel over the Jordan into Canaan, but that did not give them complete rest.

Then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. If that had been true, David would not have exhorted them to seek to enter into rest. Five hundred years after they entered Canaan this exhortation is given in Ps 95:7-11.
Wesley's Notes

4:8 The rest - All the rest which God had promised.
King James Translators' Notes

Jesus: that is, Joshua
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

8. Answer to the objection which might be made to his reasoning, namely, that those brought into Canaan by Joshua (so "Jesus" here means, as in Ac 7:45) did enter the rest of God. If the rest of God meant Canaan, God would not after their entrance into that land, have spoken (or speak [Alford]) of another (future) day of entering the rest.
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

4:1-10 The privileges we have under the gospel, are greater than any had under the law of Moses, though the same gospel for substance was preached under both Testaments. There have been in all ages many unprofitable hearers; and unbelief is at the root of all unfruitfulness under the word. Faith in the hearer is the life of the word. But it is a painful consequence of partial neglect, and of a loose and wavering profession, that they often cause men to seem to come short. Let us then give diligence, that we may have a clear entrance into the kingdom of God. As God finished his work, and then rested from it, so he will cause those who believe, to finish their work, and then to enjoy their rest. It is evident, that there is a more spiritual and excellent sabbath remaining for the people of God, than that of the seventh day, or that into which Joshua led the Jews. This rest is, a rest of grace, and comfort, and holiness, in the gospel state. And a rest in glory, where the people of God shall enjoy the end of their faith, and the object of all their desires. The rest, or sabbatism, which is the subject of the apostle's reasoning, and as to which he concludes that it remains to be enjoyed, is undoubtedly the heavenly rest, which remains to the people of God, and is opposed to a state of labour and trouble in this world. It is the rest they shall obtain when the Lord Jesus shall appear from heaven. But those who do not believe, shall never enter into this spiritual rest, either of grace here or glory hereafter. God has always declared man's rest to be in him, and his love to be the only real happiness of the soul; and faith in his promises, through his Son, to be the only way of entering that rest.
[/b]
culled from http://bible.cc/hebrews/4-8.htm

I hope it helps as well.