Olam and the Seventh Day

 

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.  

 

 

Raiders of the Lost Ark - Church of God Splinter Syle

 

Why is it that Armstrongism is filled with so many whack-a-doodle church leaders who imagine themselves as the real Indiana Jones who will make astounding discoveries right before the end of the age happens? God is apparently such an impotent and weak god that it needs all the help it can get.
We start with none other than the world's greatest theologian and God's most important man to ever grace the COG movement — Bob Thiel — the man who can’t remember half the dramatic pronouncements he’s made over the years — decided back in 2013 that his microscopic Continuing Church of God might be the chosen vessel to locate the actual Ark of the Covenant. Not metaphorically. Not spiritually. 
The physical gold box with the cherubim and the stone tablets. 
While taking photos at the tourist-infested Cenacle on Jerusalem’s Mt. Zion (you know, the one layered with Crusader, Muslim, and now selfie-stick history), a rabbi named Avraham Goldstein apparently spotted the perfect mark: an American cult leader with access to other people’s hard-earned tithes and an ego the size of the Temple Mount. “Psst… the Ark is right under here in some tunnels. Want to ‘consider involvement’?” 
And Bob, in his infinite prophetic wisdom, did exactly that. He wrote it up. He floated the idea to his followers. He even tied in a convenient dream from someone in his group about “a secret in the mountain.” Then… nothing. Thirteen years of glorious radio silence. The Ark remains hidden. The tunnels remain undug. And Bob has apparently forgotten he ever said any of this, because that’s what happens when your entire brand is built on throwing out half-baked prophetic claims and hoping nobody keeps receipts.
But wait — it gets better. This isn’t even original stupidity. It’s derivative stupidity.
Enter Gerald Flurry and the Philadelphia Church of God, the self-declared “true remnant” that loves nothing more than cosplaying as Herbert W. Armstrong with better production values. Flurry’s outfit has been pushing their own sacred treasure hunt for years. They have an actual booklet called Jeremiah and the Ark of the Covenant. They love telling the old British-Israelite bedtime story that the prophet Jeremiah didn’t just take the throne to Ireland — he apparently took the Ark too, and buried it under Hill of Tara for safekeeping until the true Philadelphia Church of God could come along and dig it up like the world’s most pious Indiana Jones. On top of this hill is a giant phallic symbol that Bob so lovingly touched as he recorded himself speaking amazing words while standing next to it.
Yes. Tara. The same Hill of Tara where actual British Israelites already showed up with shovels in 1899–1902, tore up the ancient site in a “forlorn hope” of finding the Ark, and accomplished nothing except vandalism and disappointment. But why let a century of failure and basic archaeology get in the way of a good myth? Flurry’s group still references “British historians” claiming the Ark is down there with Tea Tephi or whoever the current lost-tribe princess is. They’ve hinted, suggested, and generally acted like they might be the ones to finally crack the case.
This pathetic obsession didn’t start with the splinters. It goes all the way back to the golden age of the old Worldwide Church of God.
In 1981, right after Raiders of the Lost Ark hit theaters and made everyone excited about the Ark again, two heavyweight WCG insiders — Stanley Rader (Herbert Armstrong’s powerful lawyer, treasurer, and right-hand man) and Robert Kuhn— filed a $210 million lawsuit against George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, and Paramount Pictures.
Their claim? Spielberg and Lucas had stolen the entire idea from an unpublished novel and screenplay called Ark written by Kuhn. Yes, really. They genuinely believed (or at least pretended to believe in court) that the biggest adventure movie of the decade had ripped off their Ark story.
Because, of course, the Ark belonged to the Worldwide Church of God. How dare Hollywood make a fun, exciting movie about it without first cutting the cult a check? The sheer audacity of Steven Spielberg making entertainment out of something the WCG had been using for decades to scare people into paying tithes was apparently too much to bear.
The lawsuit was filed with maximum WCG drama. It went nowhere meaningful (the outcome was quietly buried, as these things often are), but it perfectly captured the movement’s eternal mindset: We own the Ark. We own the story. We own the specialness.
Because in the great Armstrongite splinter Olympics, you can’t just collect tithes and argue about which splinter is the real continuation of the real work. You need drama. You need holy relics. You need to out-special the other cults. Jerusalem tunnels too mainstream for you now, Bob? Fine — Flurry will take the Irish version. Same fantasy, different postcode.
This is the entire business model of Armstrongism in a nutshell. When the original Worldwide Church of God collapsed, the splinters didn’t evolve into normal churches. They doubled down on the props. HWA funded big digs and played geopolitical archaeologist? Then every splinter has to have its own version. Flurry sends students to actual excavations in Jerusalem to look important. Bob Thiel has to settle for a single 2013 conversation with a rabbi and 13 years of “we’re considering it.” And when that fizzles, there’s always Tara waiting like a backup delusion.
And let’s not forget the theological speed bumps these geniuses have to swerve around. The Bible is very clear that only Levites were allowed to carry or touch the Ark. Touch it without authorization and you die — ask Uzzah, who found out the hard way when the oxen stumbled. Bob himself quoted this inconvenient fact… then immediately added the classic cult escape hatch: “But there was a change in the priesthood in the New Testament, so maybe ministers that God accepts can handle it now.”
How convenient. The rules are deadly serious and non-negotiable until the exact moment they would apply to a self-appointed apostle or pastor general with a shovel and a messiah complex. Then, suddenly, the New Testament makes everything flexible. Uzzah gets vaporized for steadying the box, but Bob Thiel or Gerald Flurry touching it? Probably gets a participation trophy and a new sermon series.
If either of these outfits actually found the Ark tomorrow, the first non-Levite hand that reached for it would be playing the most expensive game of “who wants to get smote” in history. But I’m sure they’d have a fresh “new understanding” ready by Monday explaining why the rules don’t apply to them.
At the end of the day, none of this is about the Ark. It’s about selling the fantasy that you are part of the tiny, chosen, cosmically important group that might uncover the ultimate proof while everyone else is just living normal lives. Thirteen years after Bob’s big announcement, the only thing that’s been consistently excavated is more hot air and more tithe money. Flurry’s Irish version is still sitting there like a backup plan nobody actually expects to work.
Keep digging, gentlemen. Keep telling your members they’re funding the most important archaeological work on the planet. Just remember: in this game, the Ark is never found. 
The only thing that keeps getting unearthed is the same desperate need to feel special while the rest of the world moves on.