The Narrow Path Ministries

I need this passage explained from a preterist perspective, and from someone who doesn't think we are under the law which includes the Sabbath.

My father-in-law, my sister, and all the pro-Sabbath books use this as an argument that we should be keeping the Sabbath. I've got great resources from premillenial and dispensational people on why were are not under the Sabbath as Christ fulfilled it, but for some bizarre reason they claim we'll be under it once again in so-called Millenial Kingdom.

Isa. 66 says:

22 “ For as the new heavens and the new earth
Which I will make shall remain before Me,” says the LORD,

“ So shall your descendants and your name remain.
23 And it shall come to pass
That from one New Moon to another,
And from one Sabbath to another,
All flesh shall come to worship before Me,” says the LORD.
24 “ And they shall go forth and look
Upon the corpses of the men
Who have transgressed against Me.
For their worm does not die,
And their fire is not quenched.
They shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.”

I'm not a preterist or a dispensationalist, but I would like to offer my thoughts anyway.

There is no doubt in my mind that the passage is futurist. It may be referring to the coming Kingdom Age or Millenium. In any case, it is written by the Hebrew prophet Isaiah to Hebrew people. So it seems natural that the expressions "new moon" and "sabbath" would be used ----terminology that would be familiar to Hebrew readers.

I don't read anything in the passage which encourages sabbath keeping or new moon observance.

All I see in it is that there will be a perpetual worship of Yahweh by all people! This perpetuity is desribed by the phrases "from new moon to new moon" and "from Sabbath to Sabbath".

23 And it shall come to pass
That from one New Moon to another,
And from one Sabbath to another,
All flesh shall come to worship before Me,” says the LORD.

I agree that to see a Sabbath keeping command in this is reading more into this verse then is meant. It is as Paidion said just a way of saying we shall worship the Lord all the time. In fact it kind of says the opposite of a Sabbath teaching in that every day is a worship day which is a New Covenant teaching.

Ask your relatives if they also think that we should be keeping New Moons. They have to be consistent, if Isaiah 66 proves that Sabbath keeping is to be done now, then it also proves that New Moon keeping should be done now. Also, ask them if we are obliged to be observing Passover (Ezekiel 45:18-25) and the Feast of Tabernacles (Zechariah 14:16-19).

Personally, I believe that in the Kingdom of God, we will indeed be keeping these feasts, but not in this age. I don't think it's so bizarre for God to do this.

Personally, I believe that in the Kingdom of God, we will indeed be keeping these feasts, but not in this age. I don't think it's so bizarre for God to do this.

A lot of people have this idea.

This is how I look at it. The Kingdom of God is here now in an earlier stage. I see the coming of Christ and the Millenial Kingdom as the mature stage of the Kingdom. Christ gave parables illustrating the different stages and growth of the Kingdom.

If the Jewish feasts, Sabbaths, New Moons, etc. are reinstated, that would seem to be a step backward. Why should the "shadows of things to come" be reinstated when the real things (of which they are but shadows) will be permanently present?

Paidion wrote:If the Jewish feasts, Sabbaths, New Moons, etc. are reinstated, that would seem to be a step backward. Why should the "shadows of things to come" be reinstated when the real things (of which they are but shadows) will be permanently present?

Yeah I know this line of reasoning. But the fact that something was a shadow pointing to something future doesn't necessarily mean that itmust be dispensed with once the future thing has come.

Remember, the early Christians continued to keep these feasts long after Christ's ascension and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Of course, we could say that they were mistaken and still stuck in their obsolete Old Covenant mindset (as people do when considering Acts 1:6) but there's no need for this. They obviously did not consider it a problem to observe the shadows even though the substance had come.

Something which was previously pointing forward in anticipation can just as easily be pointing backward in remembrance (Passover and Tabernacles were always retrospective in their outlook - pointing back to the Exodus and wanderings).

This issue was debated at length by Sam Frost (a preterist) and Tim Warner, a premillennialist. It's in round 3:
http://www.pfrs.org/preterism/bio.html

Ely

Hi, Steve,

In fact it kind of says the opposite of a Sabbath teaching in that every day is a worship day which is a New Covenant teaching.

The Mosaic economy required daily sacrifice, so every day is a worship day in the "Old Covenant" teaching. The Sabbath is more than merely a weekly day of worship. Or to come at it another way - the Sabbath is not the Christian Sunday on a different day.

Shalom,
Emmet

kaufmannphillips wrote:Hi, Steve,

In fact it kind of says the opposite of a Sabbath teaching in that every day is a worship day which is a New Covenant teaching.

The Mosaic economy required daily sacrifice, so every day is a worship day in the "Old Covenant" teaching. The Sabbath is more than merely a weekly day of worship. Or to come at it another way - the Sabbath is not the Christian Sunday on a different day.

Shalom,
Emmet

That's an excellent point right there! See Numbers 28:1-8 and Deuteronomy 6:4-9. Also, for the attitude of upright believers under the Old Covenant, check out for example Psalm 1:2 and Luke 2:36-37. God has always required His people to offer up their bodies as living sacrifices, this is not a New Covenant inovation. Sabbath was different from theother days in that He required His people to rest from regular work, but to still be offering themselves to Him as living sacrifices, while they rested!

Yeah I know this line of reasoning. But the fact that something was a shadow pointing to something future doesn't necessarily mean that itmust be dispensed with once the future thing has come.

It seems that even the eucharist or communion will be dispensed with when the real thing (Jesus Christ) has come.

1 Corinthians 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

Paidion wrote:

Yeah I know this line of reasoning. But the fact that something was a shadow pointing to something future doesn't necessarily mean that itmust be dispensed with once the future thing has come.

It seems that even the eucharist or communion will be dispensed with when the real thing (Jesus Christ) has come.

1 Corinthians 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

Do Paul's words necessarily mean that once He comes we will stop proclaiming His death? Maybe something in the grammar indicates this, I don't know. (The preposition "achri" is sometimes used without the idea of a termination of an action, for example, in Acts 2:29, 23:1, Rom 5:31, 8;22, 1 Cor 4:11).

To me, it'snot problematic to evisage us continuing to partake of the Lord's Supper after He comes. Jesus Himself appeared to be looking forward to such a time when He said the following:

14 When the hour had come, He sat down, and the twelve apostles with Him. 15 Then He said to them, “With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; 16 for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it [i.e. this Passover] is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” 17 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” Luke 22

Jesus was apparantly looking forward to once again partaking of the Passover in the Kingdom. It may also indicate that He was antipating partaking of the Lord's Supper.

Here's an interesting thought. Throughout His time here, Jesus had been partaking of the passover even though He was the "substance" of the shadow, THE Lamb of God. OKay, He hadn't yet been slain, but He was still the Lamb of God as John testified so joyfully (John 1:29, 36).

Just some thoughts.