The Eternal Sabbath and the Arch-type/type problem...

Funny how pivotal a role the Sabbath can play isn't it?
There is an objection to the view that the creation days where normal days - in that the seventh day is said to be the Arch-typical Sabbath, God's Sabbath, which as you might well guess is eternal. Those that espouse this view see Hebrews chpt 4 as defending there idea that after God created he entered into His rest - and remains in that rest.
There may be some benefit to such a view, but the question of the nature of the first Sabbath - the seventh day of creation - is what is crucial for us to consider. If we take such a view, we have to be careful not to confuse God's covenantal relations with his aseity. By this I mean that we have to ask ourselves, Did God intend to communicate to Moses something of His covenant relationship to His creation by resting on the seventh day from His work of creation - or should we maintain that God in himself rested? Or perhaps more importantly - is the Sabbath a reality because of the covenantal relationship between God and man (i.e. is God saying something to man in it)? Lastly, the question could be phrased - "was man created for the Sabbath or was the Sabbath created for man"? Do we conclude from Christs phrasing that the Sabbath was "created"- as Christ referring to the creation events recorded in Genesis chapter 1 - or is he referring to the institutionalizing of it as a religious observance in the giving of the Law in Exodus? This seems rather plain, since the idea of man's being made clearly refers to his original creation and not the giving of the Law. But the objection is that God enters rest on the seventh day of creation, so why does Christ say that the Sabbath was made for man? Well, it shouldn't be to hard for us to see that the whole creative enterprise is first and foremost for God's own glory, so in that sense everything was created for Him (and unto Him), but at the same time we see rather quickly that all things are a revelation of God in His covenant relation to His creation, and this revelation is for the good of man not because God needed it. In this sense we do not so much see the first Sabbath as an Arch-type detached from man - but rather we see God as the Arch-typical covenant head entering into the rest that He intended for us to enter, which fits very nicely with the reasoning behind the institution i.e. rest on the seventh day because I rested on the seventh day! - but still points eschatologically toward a better rest. Also we must confess that the only way in which God is said to enter into rest must be covenantal, for we can not conceive of it otherwise. Therefore the duration of the rest that God enters into and the benefits of that rest - are they not all to confirm and illustrate and teach what man covenantally has been given in the Sabbath? Hebrews 4 indeed alludes to an eternal rest, but not so much from the creations seventh day as from Christs completed work (which unfortunately is why many would deny any Sabbath observance in the NT). However, we should begin to see that the first Sabbath was proto-typical for man in his religious and covenantal obligations - and Christs Sabbath is the new Arch-typical Sabbath; changed in reference to the object being rested in - from creator to redeemer. But even Christ entering into His rest is covenantal, a participation in His person, and though it is "Arch-type" it still has an eschatological force to it. It is the Eternal Sabbath for man in the not yet, but proto-logical for man, again in his religious and covenantal obligations, in the now.

By these things I cannot see any weight to a statement that the seventh day of creation was not a normal day in duration, and that is the basic thrust of there position. Again unless we are willing to obscure God's covenant dealing with man - the plain meaning of the Sabbath both OT and NT belongs as beneficial to man - not as an intangible mega-mystery.