Olam: it’s so far that we can’t see the end.
Olam and the Seventh Day
By Scout
Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual (olam, Hebrew) covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever (olam, Hebrew): for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. (KJV, Exodus 31:16-17)
I have said that God made the Sabbath a SEPARATE, ETERNAL, and PERPETUAL COVENANT, entirely separate and apart from what we term "the Old Covenant" made at Mt. Sinai ― Herbert W. Armstrong in his booklet “Which Day is the Christian Sabbath,” 1972.
“Olam and the Seventh-day” sounds like a Disney movie about a Hebrew boy named Olam who learns about the seventh-day Sabbath. But “olam” is, rather, a term in Hebrew that usually means “a long time” but can mean “eternity”. The KJV translators seem to have made facile decisions about how to translate olam in the Old Testament. I know of no documented, substantive exegesis concerning how they arrived at the decision to translate olam in its various usages in the Biblical text.
In my examination of this issue, I will be relying extensively on the work of Dr. Eitan Bar who is an Israeli Jew and also a Christian and a graduate of the Dallas Theological Seminary. Dr. Bar has a valuable word study of olam in his book titled, “Hellfire Deconstructed.”
Briefly, How the Old Testament Views Eternity
Eternity seems to be one of the leitmotifs of the Old Testament. One gets the feeling of infinite duration as some scriptures are read. If you get that feeling, the translators have probably misled you. Dr. Eiten Bar wrote:
“One of the risks in interpreting an ancient Jewish Middle Eastern text—the Bible—from a Western perspective is the anachronism fallacy, which involves injecting modern ideas into the ancient text. This issue becomes particularly apparent when considering the concept of time. In Western philosophy, eternity is a subject of extensive debate, but the concept, as understood today, essentially does not exist in the Near Eastern biblical context.”
The idea of infinite duration imposed on the ancient Hebrew language of the Old Testament creates an anachronism. It is like Shakespeare writing of a striking clock in the play “Julius Caesar” when the mechanical striking clock was not invented until the Middle Ages. The Hebrew term “olam,” which is often translated anachronistically as forever or everlasting, much later concepts, really just means something like “hidden” or “not visible” in the sense that it is beyond sight. It means something that lasts so long or extends so far, for instance, that we cannot see the end of it from where we stand. It does not rule out that it is finite or will one day end. There are many Biblical examples of something that is olam and is of finite duration. In Jeremiah 5:29, olam refers to a period of 70 years. This issue of semantics has a direct impact on how Exodus 31:16-17, concerning the seventh-day, is interpreted.
So, if you are reading the Old Testament and the text is laced with references to eternity, consider that your expansive mood may stem from the wrong impression, that the term olam for the most part does not mean eternity. And it is time to read more deeply.
A Reassessment of the Seventh-Day Sabbath Covenant Text
When the Sabbath Covenant of Exodus 31 is reviewed in light of the equivocal meaning of olam, the Covenant might be eternal or it might not be. While olam refers to a finite but long duration, the term olam can also be used to mean “eternal” in at least one place in the Old Testament. God is referred to as El Olam or the Eternal God. Clearly, there is no finitude or possibility of a distant future ending possible in this usage. So, how do we figure out what Olam means? Olam means “a long time” or “eternity” depending on context. So, we must look at the context.
Exodus 31 does not stand by itself. In fact, nothing in the Old Testament stands by itself. It is all under the authority of the New Testament. This is because Jesus himself is the Word of God. The Old Testament is not superior to Jesus. It is absurd to think that Jesus was just another Torah-keeper, that the law is at the center and Jesus is peripheral. This profound transition from the Old to the New Testament is described by the Apostle John when he said, “The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” Notice that Jesus brought not only grace but the truth. Jesus brought us the true state of reality. This is one reason that the teachings of the New Testament may legitimately modify the Old Testament.
We must reassess the seventh-day Sabbath covenant in Exodus 31. To do this, we must see it in the context of the New Testament. Prominent in any such review will be the Jerusalem Council’s conclusions. Prominent will be the model of circumcision and how circumcision was transformed. This will inevitably lead us to the conclusion that the Sabbath is still in force. It is eternal just as Exodus 31 states. But our rest is not in the seventh-day but in Jesus. The line of reasoning follows.
The New Testament Rest is Not the Seventh-Day
It is important to understand that the concept of the seventh-day and the Sabbath are separate. We know this from the New Testament. The word Sabbath in Hebrew does not mean seventh-day or the number seven. It means a deliberate cessation of activity, therefore, implying rest. God implemented the Sabbath by resting from creation on the seventh-day in the allegorical language of Genesis. (God does not need to rest in order to recharge like a human. But he did cease from a certain kind of activity.) So, only God can re-implement the Sabbath in a different way. Jesus said, “Come to me, all you who are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls (Matthew 11:28-29, NRSV).” We now find our rest in Jesus. Notice this statement covers both physical and spiritual rest. Also, in this statement, Jesus separates spiritual rest from the seventh-day by making himself the new source of rest. The concept of rest is carried forward but the physical ritual of the seventh-day is set aside.
This change that makes Jesus our rest tells us the intent of the language of the Sabbath Covenant in Exodus in retrospect. It is important to again consider at this point that the seventh-day Sabbath, like circumcision, is a composite of a spiritual concept and a physical ritual. It is composed of both spiritual rest and the physical seventh-day observance. Olam in the Exodus 31 context does mean “eternal” but it is focused on the meaning of the Sabbath as spiritual rest rather than on the physical seventh-day. We would not know the intended usage of olam in Exodus 31 if we did not have New Testament events to refer to. It is safe to conclude that Moses did not know the full extent of what he was saying in Exodus 31 because he did not have access to New Testament revelation. So, the change Jesus made in how the rest is to happen through him asserts the meaning of olam as eternal in regard to spiritual rest only.
Let me hasten to add, that the observance of the seventh-day is not wrong. I am confident that prior to 70 AD, the Jerusalem Church observed the seventh-day and, perhaps, much of the Torah. Pauline theology and the Book of Hebrews is convincing that this observation must have been liturgical – a worship form. The seventh-day, like circumcision, only becomes a departure from Christianity if it is asserted that its observance is a requirement for salvation.
Conclusion
The Hebrew word olam because of its ambiguity is not by itself sufficient to decree that the seventh-day is the Sabbath for all of eternity as Herbert W. Armstrong states. One cannot cite the Sabbath Covenant in Exodus 13 as a means of settling all debate. One cannot approach the New Testament scripture with the eternity of the seventh-day observance in pocket as an already-decided issue because the New Testament has the final word. The covenant of circumcision was also described as eternal (olam) and ceased to be the cutting in the flesh in the Old Covenant and became a matter of the heart in the New Covenant. In regard to both circumcision and the seventh-day, the spiritual meaning has been retained but the former physical implementation has ended. This is because the New Testament gives completed, present meaning to what was intended in the Old Testament. Jesus is the Word of God in action and the New Testament message that he brought to us supplants the Old Testament.
Because Acts 15 mentions the sabbath day, I went on the Bible Hub and asked, What does Acts 15:21 mean? Here's the answer:
ReplyDeleteFOR MOSES HAS BEEN PROCLAIMED
The name "Moses" stands for the entire Law God gave through him it is continually proclaimed. Luke previously recorded this pattern when Paul visited Antioch, Acts 13:15. Jesus spoke of the same living testimony, John 5:46. The Law is therefore an active witness, still pointing to righteousness and, ultimately, to Christ, Galatians 3:24.
IN EVERY CITY
Wherever Jewish communities settled, they carried the scrolls of Moses with them. Paul could locate a synagogue everywhere he visited (Acts 14:1, 17:1). This widespread presence means God had already prepared venues where Gentile believers could continue learning the moral truths embodied in the Law, even as salvation rests in grace through faith.
FROM ANCIENT TIMES
The practice of public reading began early (Deut.31:12) and continued on (Josh.8:34-35, 2 Kgs 23:2). This longevity underscores God's design: His word is enduring, unchanging, and meant for every generation (Psm 119:89).
AND IS READ IN THE SYNAGOGUES
Synagogues functioned as community centers of worship and instruction, as exemplified by Jesus and Paul (Luke 4:16, Acts 18:4). Because the Law is publicly read, Jewish believers remained continually shaped by it, and Gentile believers had access to it, without bearing the yoke of ceremonial requirements.
ON EVERY SABBATH
Weekly repetition engrains truth. Exodus 20:8-11 links the Sabbath rhythm to creation, showing God's intention for regular rest and reflection. By the first century, the Sabbath was the established time for hearing Moses, ensuring that ethical teachings, such as purity, sexual integrity, and honoring God alone, remained fresh before the people.
SUMMARY
Jame's statement affirms that God has already placed His Law within earshot of both Jew and Gentile. Because Moses is proclaimed everywhere, the council could lay only essential restrictions on Gentile converts, confident that ongoing synagogue readings would continue to instruct them in God's timeless moral standards.
This confirms my belief that the issue at hand in Acts 15 was not the Law's validity, value or role, but against the Jews attempt to make a salvation issue of it which threatened the truth of the Gospel. This is the context presented to us in verse 1 and resolved in verse 11. That is the context verses 5 and 24 should be interpreted by. The Galatian heresy deals with the SAME ISSUE and resolves it in the same manner (compare Gal. 5:4 with 2:16-21).
“For Moses has been preached… and is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”
DeleteActs 15:21 is not about Gentiles learning Moses. It is about Jewish believers continuing to hear Moses, which explains why Gentiles needed to avoid blood and idolatry for the sake of unity. The council’s decision protects the gospel from legalism and protects fellowship from cultural conflict.
Acts 15:21 seems framed as if James is saying: “Gentiles will learn Moses’ moral law in synagogue.” But James is actually saying: “Jewish believers hear Moses every Sabbath, so Gentiles must avoid practices that deeply offend Jews.”
BibleHub’s commentary is trying to explain why James mentions Moses. It says: “Gentile believers had access to moral truths embodied in the Law.” This is not wrong, but it is not really the point of Acts 15. Acts 15 is not about moral instruction; it is about removing Torah as a salvation requirement and preserving unity.
BibleHub’s commentary is historically correct about synagogue practice, but it leans toward a moral‑law interpretation that as noted is not the main point of Acts 15. Moral‑law continuity, Sabbath as a positive rhythm, and Moses as ongoing moral instruction reflect a theological perspective but are not James’ purpose in the passage. This is why the commentary does not pick up the unity‑preservation logic that James is actually using.
James is not telling Gentiles to learn Moses; he is explaining why Jewish believers, who hear Moses every Sabbath, needed Gentiles to avoid certain practices for the sake of unity. Acts 15 is about removing Torah as a salvation requirement and preserving fellowship , not about moral instruction for Gentiles. The only “moral instruction” involved is that Gentiles should respect the sensitivities of Jewish believers shaped by Moses’ weekly reading.
943 (Scout, is this you)?
DeleteYou say Acts 15 is about removing Torah as a salvation requirement? Technically speaking, Torah was never a requirement for salvation in either testament. The heretical teaching here was coming from those " certain men that came down from Judea, that certain sect of the Pharisees which believed (verses 1, 5)", whom were misguided legalists themselves.
You're right, unity was at stake. But I find no reason not to accept at face value what the Biblehub says about "Moses" and the sabbath, especially if, as the post says, the 7th day is not a departure from Christianity unless it's made into a requirement for salvation. As usual, the problem here is caused by MAN and not the Law! Please forgive the redundancy, but I try to point that out when ever the opportunity presents itself.
BP8 - not me but I am in substantive agreement with it.
DeleteAt a shopping mall, I was once tapped on the shoulder by the holy spirit since the Sabbath was approaching. Contrary to the position of this post, no Sabbath keeping means no salvation.
ReplyDeleteIn nature, a baby animal separated from its parents is a death sentence. Likewise, humans need to be close to God in order to spiritually survive and not become demons themselves. Keeping the Sabbath is an important part of this.
The seventh-day, like circumcision, only becomes a departure from Christianity if it is asserted that its observance is a requirement for salvation.
Delete- perhaps you did not read that portion of the Post? If value is found in sabbath to keep on the straight and narrow this is a good thing but not all feel that be needed to fight errant behaviour.
A third of the angels followed Satan, and God does not trust the remaining two thirds. Your casual approach was tried and did not work, hence all the holy days and Sabbaths to keep the angels and humans on track.
DeleteYou are mistaking being baptised and receiving a downpayment of God's Holy spirit and the actions of being in a covenant with God with Sabbath observance.
DeleteI thought i read in this article before the statement 'the New Testament surplants the Old Testament' but i may be mistaken as i cannot find it now, or it's been modified.
ReplyDeleteThe N.T. does not replace the O.T. rarther, it fulfills and builds upon it. Together, they form an integrated story. The O.T. lays the foundation and prophesies the Messiah, while the N.T. reveals Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of those promises and establishes the new covenant. Fulfillment is not erasure.
Jesus stated in Matthew 5:17 that he came not to abolish the law or the prophets, but to fulfill it.
The moral law of the O.T. (such as the Ten Commandments) remain foundational and have been amplified by Jesus repeatedly in the N.T.
It is vital to remember the seventh day sabbath was 1. blessed by God in Genesis 2 and it was 2. sanctified, set apart by God.
God himself observed this day which is rarther important.
The Bible Project people currently have a new superb teaching video on the Sabbath and why it is to be kept in 2026.
They also have a strong series on the Ten Commandments and the purpose of them and give people much to think about.
BP8 7:47 wrote, “FOR MOSES HAS BEEN PROCLAIMED…”
ReplyDeleteI agree with Anonymous 9:43 but would state it a little more strongly. The whole tenor of what happened at the Jerusalem Council has to do with a group of Pharisees who professed faith in Jesus and were trying to get new Christian converts to follow the Law of Moses as the pathway to salvation. They weaponized the Torah to counterwork the missionary effect of Paul and bar-Nabas and their message of faith and grace. And the Jerusalem Council members took a stand. James in verse 21 was not saying that the teaching of the Law of Moses in synagogues was a good thing. It was not taught in the synagogue as simply a good ethical code to follow. It was taught as the pathway to salvation. Judaism stood against Jesus as savior and still does.
James was saying that Christians needed to have a context in order to deal with the fact that Moses was being taught in the synagogues and they would inevitably come into contact with the Torah. There was this propaganda machine for Judaism in many communities. Gentiles might even mistakenly regard Judaism as something very similar to Christianity when it was not. So, the Jerusalem Council gave them that frame of reference.
The traditional Armstrongist argument is that verse 21 means that the Christian congregations started by Paul and bar-Nabus were already keeping the Torah (in the Armstrongist sense as the path to salvation) because of the missionary work of local synagogues, so there was no need for James to even mention keeping the Sabbath and the rest of the Torah. But if they were already keeping the Torah for salvation then why would the sect of the Pharisees be trying to sell that same idea to them.
Pauline theology and the Book of Hebrews drive the theme that they early Gentile churches were not observing the Torah and only the Jerusalem Churches may have been. The Jerusalem Council promulgated the full range of what the Gentiles needed to do. There was no undercover Torah-keeping not mentioned in Acts 15.
Scout
Only noticed this in the article now: "It is important to understand that the concept of the seventh-day and sabbath are seperate."
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry but I think this idea is very wrong as the hebrew names for Sunday to Friday are numbered in hebrew, yet the seventh day is not called the 'seventh day' in hebrew but the 'shabbat day of rest'.
This is a straightforward and perhaps basic argument but one that shows the opposite to your argument: the seventh-day and Sabbath are very much combined together, like a marriage covenant.
The 7th day is as the millennium and the millennium as the 7th day - Rev 20; 2 Peter 3:8.
ReplyDeleteAgree 2:13.
DeleteAnonymous 11:34 wrote, “The N.T. does not replace the O.T. rather, it fulfills and builds upon it.”
ReplyDeleteIf that sound-bite were actually believed, Armstrongists would be keeping all the Torah and they do not. (Armstrongists actually exclude the sacrifices and the ministration of death.) When was the last time you heard of a man in your church avoiding sleeping in the same bed with his wife during her menstruation because she is unclean? Do women in your church go to Sabbath services and shake hands with other people during menstruation thus transferring uncleanness to them?
The Torah and the Law of Christ are both inspired by God so that there are naturally portions of them that are the same. The Ten Commandments, for instance. This is unavoidable and who would want to avoid it? But the Jerusalem Council itself tells us they are not the same in their overall meaning and practice. And it is not a “build upon” but a “replace.” The writer of Hebrews, in writing about the Law (verses 1 and 16), says “he does away with the first in order to establish the second” using the sacrifices as an example of this principle. In Romans 7:4 it says we are “dead” specifically to the Law.
My two cents…
Scout
Thank you Scout. I agree with your two cents worth. The Law was but a tutor to bring us to Christ and now He has come there is no need for a tutor. Simple clear and to the point….but…….the Armstrong crowd cry out. Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness, and that while uncircumcised and before Sinai. So indeed we are saved by grace and that through faith….and if we are of the faith of Abraham we are his descendants……we are called with a holy calling, not of works but by His purpose and grace….Acts spells it our well in chapter 15. Good points, thanks Scout.
Delete7:59 wrote “ The Law was but a tutor to bring us to Christ and now He has come there is no need for a tutor.” I remember when this was first pointed out and it was like a lightbulb going off. Legalism died and easy death at that moment!
DeleteAnonymous 2:10 wrote, "This is a straightforward and perhaps basic argument but one that shows the opposite to your argument: the seventh-day and Sabbath are very much combined together, like a marriage covenant."
ReplyDeleteIf that is true, then why did Jesus declare himself the replacement for the Sabbath rest in Matthew 11:28-29? There is a clear bifurcation here between the spiritual rest and the physical seventh-day. Once Jesus removed the spiritual portion of the Sabbath, the seventh-day just became another day of the week. And this was the groundwork for Paul teaching that you could pick any day of the week for worship in Romans 14:5.
Scout
My point is a simple one. Maybe I dressed it up too much. If olam does not mean "eternal" without exception and incontrovertibly, then the putative Sabbath Covenant of Exodus does not establish the Sabbath for eternity as a separate covenant. This means that the Sabbath is just like all the other laws of the Torah. In the New Testament the laws of the Old Testament may be carried forward or abrogated or transformed. It depends on what Jesus does with them. Jesus fulfilled all of them. But what happens to them after fulfillment is matter of diligent exegetical work for the church. The Ten Commandments did not go away because Jesus fulfilled them. But dietary laws did. Physical circumcision did.
ReplyDeleteAnd the Torah is not the foundation on which the Law of Christ is built. The Torah is a cohesive block of legislation. James says that it is so integrated that if you break one of the laws, you break all of them. It must go away as a block and be replaced by a new legal package in toto. This is the message of the Book of Hebrews. This does not rule out similarities between the two packages.
Scout
God blessed the Sabbath and then sanctified it and then observed it himself.
DeleteYou seem to like to confuse the covenants with the laws, muddle them all together. The ritual and sacrificial laws you muddle with the moral laws.
Scout wrote: The Torah is a cohesive block of legislation.
ReplyDeleteHow cold and calculating a sound-bite from a "Scout". What do you really scout about for ? Others crowns? To try and ruin others faith and ultimatley their lives?
No it is not, the Torah is sacred teaching, with the origins of humanity. Foundational text of belief. It's to be held, as all scripture is in highest reverence. It is divine wisdom from God, a souce of life and the ultimate guide for aligning one's heart and actions with God"s will.