| Author | Message | ||
| Cas |
Hi ONUMA21, I, like you have been concerned about the Sabbath and have been reading and searching for some time. You have come to the right place, I learn so much from the FAFers on this web site. A very informative book on the sabbath is Sabbath IN Crisis, by Dale Ratzlaff. I think you can get to his website from the links section of this site. There are enough websites to keep you reading for months on this subject alone! If you would like a list of more of them let me know. God Bless. Cas | ||
| Colleentinker |
Hi, ONUMA21! Welcome to FAF! Lydell, Jude, Lynn, and Cas have answered so well. The Sabbath didn't really make sense to me, as Lydell alluded, until the Old and New Covenants made sense to me. As an ADventist, I'd been taught that there was really no difference between the covenants; they were just different ways of saying the same things. That's just not true. The Old Covenant (given through Moses to Israel in the Sinai Desert) was a legal/relgious system to give the Israelites some order as a new nation. It was, as Colossians 2:16 states, only a shadow pointing to the real thing: Jesus. Everything about the Old Covenant was a shadow, or symbol. To borrow an explanation from Dale Ratzlaff (Sabbath in Crisis is a wonderful book), the transfiguration was a turning point for me. Moses (the law) and Elijah (the prophets) appeared with Jesus before Peter, James, and John. The disciples bowed to the ground and heard a voice from heaven say, "This is my Son; listen to Him!" When the disciples looked up, Jesus alone stood before them. The law and the prophets were gone. What's more, Jesus told the three not to tell anyone what they had seen until after his resurrectionóafter the sacrifice would have been made and the Old Covenant would be finished. The temple veil rippedóno longer did God's glory live in a compartment over an ark containing tables of stone. After Jesus' ascension the Holy Spirit came to live in its new temple: the living church! The lawóincluding the Sabbathóis now inside us! Praise God! Check out Dale Ratzlaff's site also at www.ratzlaf.com. You can get his books there. Colleen | ||
| Lori |
ONUMA21, Jack Gent has an easy to read booklet about the Sabbath, you can find it online at: http://www.ex-sda.com/5-Gods-Rest.htm I suggest you read articles like this one (there are many others, also) go through and read the chapters surrounding the verses that are quoted. Then read the entire book of Galatians, it helped me to put the Sabbath in perspective, and then read the entire book of Exodus, so you thoroughly see that the laws were given only to Israel. When you a guided by the Holy Spirit and you are putting yourself in the situation (reading the Bible) to receive knowledge from God's word, you will find the truth!!!!! Keep Seeking!!!! Lori | ||
| Bruce H |
ONUMA 21 I did not give up on the sabbath easily. I did a whole lot of studing, do it I GUARENTEE you will get a blessing. By the way a study of the covenants should be done with this. When you have read Sabbath in Crises I have some more book's to read. Read all of them both pro and con but trust that the Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth. And do not be affraid to accept the truth. God's truth can stand up to any scrutany!!!!!!!! Bruce Heinrich BH | ||
| Lydell |
Colleen, I'm still so glad that you shared that bit about the transfiguration. The first time you posted it it was like a slap upside the head. Man! How can we overlook such obvious things?! Have already had opportunity to share it with a couple of never-have-been-SDA's. I think one of the ministries that the Lord has for us former's is to let our Christian friends know just how important it is that they really grasp this thing of grace having triumphed over the law. Until they know that, they will be inclined to buy into some from of legalism. | ||
| Colleentinker |
Lydell, Richard and I and several formers in our area have commented to each other about exactly what you said: one of our ministries is to never-been-SDAs who don't actually understand the covenants. Satan has used an amazingly subtle ploy to disarm Christianity; it's diluted with shades of legalism. The real thing is powerfulóas we're beginning to discover! | ||
| Dennis J. Fischer |
Thanks, Colleen, for sharing a very significant insight from the Transfiguration scene. I grew up in a rural, German SDA church in western North Dakota(where the men sat on the right and the women on the left side of the aisle--old European style). I well remember a local church leader saying that "all those non-Adventist preachers talk about is Jesus-Jesus-Jesus; what we need to do is keep the Sabbath and pay our tithe." Obviously, he qualified as a modern pharisee. Christian history reveals that Judaizers were alive and well in every century since the Cross. | ||
| Plain Patti |
I found this on another forum (Adventist Issues), and I am posting it here with the permission of the author, Louis Kuntz. Jesus and the Sabbath Did Jesus live in accordance with the terms of the Sinai covenant? To some extent he did. As Paul put it, "when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law [the Sinai covenant] to redeem those who were under the law . . . " (Gal 4:4-5). Jesus was circumcised on the eighth day according to the law. He honored Moses. He kept the feast days. In short, Jesus lived as a Jew. But he also contradicted Moses and the old covenant. In the Sermon on the Mount he appeared as the new Moses, the Prophet who was to come, saying over and over, You have heard that it was said... But I tell you.... Matt:21-22, 27-28, 31-32, 33-34, 38-39, 43-44. He declared distinctions between clean and unclean foods no longer valid: In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean". Mark 7:18,19). While he affirmed a reverence for the temple, the focal point of Judaism, Jesus also proclaimed that now that he was present the place of worship was irrelevant: a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. John 4:20-24. And how did Jesus relate to the sabbath, the weekly sign of allegiance to the old covenant? Like a good Jew, he worshipped at the synagogue every sabbath as was customary: on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. Luke 4:16. But he did not keep the sabbath as Moses had commanded. In fact, Jesus was a sabbath breaker. Some would argue against this by asserting that he only broke the rabbis' traditions regarding Sabbath observance and not the revealed law from Sinai. But this cannot be maintained in the face of biblical evidence. Let us look at two examples. The first example is found in Matthew 12: At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the sabbath; his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, "Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the sabbath." (Matt 12:1-2) Were the Pharisees correct? Was this act contrary to the law? Without a doubt the answer to both questions is yes. The very first sabbath command that God gave to anyone is that which we have already noted in Exodus 16:23-30: "This is what the LORD commanded: 'Tomorrow is to be a day of rest, a holy Sabbath to the LORD. So bake what you want to bake and boil what you want to boil. Save whatever is left and keep it until morning.'" So they saved it until morning, as Moses commanded, and it did not stink or get maggots in it. "Eat it today," Moses said, "because today is a Sabbath to the LORD. You will not find any of it on the ground today. Six days you are to gather it, but on the seventh day, the Sabbath, there will not be any." Nevertheless, some of the people went out on the seventh day to gather it, but they found none. Then the LORD said to Moses, "How long will you refuse to keep my commands and my instructions? Bear in mind that the LORD has given you the Sabbath; that is why on the sixth day he gives you bread for two days. Everyone is to stay where he is on the seventh day; no one is to go out." So the people rested on the seventh day. That law specifically prohibited gathering food and traveling out of one's place on the seventh day. Any work such as gathering food was to be finished on the sixth day, the day of preparation. What were Jesus and his disciples doing? Traveling through a grainfield gathering food! Didn't Jesus know about the preparation day? The Pharisees knew the law, and on the basis of the law from Sinai they were right in challenging Jesus. But Jesus didn't answer with the excuse that they were hungry and this was an act of necessity. In no way did he argue on the basis of Moses' law - He was clearly in violation of it. Instead, Jesus first argued that as David and his men ate the showbread in the temple when hungry, yet remained guiltless, so also now; symbols are only symbols and must take second place to human need. Symbols were made to benefit people, not to control them. But the second part of his argument is startling. Jesus said: Have you not read in the law how on the sabbath the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are guiltless? I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. (Matt 12:5,6) Christ was referring to the fact that for priests doing temple duty, work on the sabbath was permitted. Why? The temple was the focal point of the covenant. Its inner sanctum held the terms of the covenant as well as the presence of God himself. But Jesus said, "Something greater than the temple is here," referring to himself. Jesus was proclaiming that he is the reality, the fulfillment of all that to which the temple pointed. And here is the thrust of his argument: If priests in the service of the temple could break the sabbath law prohibiting work and yet remain guiltless, so too could the disciples profane the sabbath in the service of Jesus who is greater than the temple. The sabbath was only a sign, signifying that a person was entitled to worship in the temple as a member of the covenant people. The temple was therefore greater than the sabbath, because there Israel worshipped God. The temple worship was a reality greater than the sabbath. But Jesus is greater than even the temple, and this means that he is also the reality which is greater than the sabbath. The second example of Jesus breaking the sabbath is found in John 5. Jesus found a paralytic by the pool of Bethesda in Jerusalem. He healed the man and said, "Rise, take up your pallet and walk.î John continues the story: Now that day was the sabbath. So the Jews said to the man who was cured, "It is the sabbath; it is not lawful for you to carry your pallet.î But he answered them, "The man who healed me said to me, `Take up your pallet, and walk.'ì John 5:9-11 Were the Jews right? Was it unlawful for the man to carry his pallet according to God's word, or was it just contrary to their traditions? In the time of Jeremiah, when God was about to punish his people for sabbath-breaking, the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah: Take heed for the sake of your lives, and do not bear a burden on the sabbath day or bring it in by the gates of Jerusalem. And do not carry a burden out of your houses on the sabbath or do any work, but keep the sabbath day holy . . . Jer 17:21,22 This was not just a Jewish tradition, it was a commandment of God. What did Jesus tell the man to do? - to carry a burden in Jerusalem on the sabbath day in direct contradiction to an Old Testament command! And Jesus didn't stop there. When the Jews challenged him, he shocked them even more. Rather than explaining that he was merely showing the right way to keep the sabbath, Jesus admitted their charge. His answer was, "My Father is working still, and I am working" (John 5:17). This was on the sabbath and Jesus said, "I am working.î What does the fourth commandment of the decalogue say? "The seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work.î What did Jesus say he was doing? Working! Working to bring forth the new age, the new creation. Then John summarizes the two reasons why the Jews were attacking Jesus: "This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath but also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God" John 5:18 Was Jesus actually making himself equal with God or was this merely the Jews' accusation? Of course he was claiming personal divinity. This is John's account. Was he also breaking the sabbath? According to the Gospel writer, of course he was. The book of Hebrews uses the sabbath as a type of Christ. Throughout the epistle the argument is that Jesus is better than the old covenant; better than Moses, priests, the temple, sacrifices, the promised land, etc. And in Hebrews 3 and 4 the author uses the sabbath rest of God at creation as a type of the real rest believers have in Jesus. Hebrews 3 speaks of the promised rest for Israel in the wilderness. God invited them to enter the promised land and rest. Instead, through unbelief they died in the wilderness. The next generation did enter the promised land with Joshua, but because of unbelief they too did not find the rest. Hundreds of years later the psalmist again offered God's invitation to rest. He termed "today" (the present) as the time when the invitation remained open, saying, "Today, when you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.î But his readers didn't receive the rest. The writer of Hebrews again presents the invitation to enter the rest, this time comparing it to the sabbath. He says: For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not speak later of another day. So then, there remains a sabbath rest for the people of God; for whoever enters God's rest also ceases from his labors as God did from his. (Heb 4:8-10) What is this sabbath rest? The meaning of the text is better understood with the reading "Sabbath-like rest.î That Sabbath-like rest is found in the gospel and those who believe the gospel have already entered that long-promised rest, as Hebrews 4:3 says, "we who have believed enter that rest.î The writer then gives his appeal so that all who wish to may enter that rest. Through the gospel of Christ we now have the reality, the true and permanent rest of which the weekly sabbath was only a type, a dim foreshadowing. Our Salvation Rest in Jesus is as good as it gets. Louis Kuntz -- March 9, 2000 | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Plain Patti, Strikes again! That was the most penetrating presentation on this subject I've seen to date. Thanks, Patti. More! More! Go get 'em and bring 'em back. This reminds me of a sixth-grade-level saying, "Be alert. We need more lerts." Jude | ||
| Plain Patti |
> I am involved in discussion of the Sabbath on three other fora. :) I am posting some of the essays here FYI. Feel free to skip over them. I. An In-depth Study of Hebrews 4 This is a rather lengthy discussion of Hebrews 4 and related passages. I have divided it into parts so as not to unduly tax anyone's brain or strain the eyes. ----------------------------- Hebrews 4:9 So there is a special rest (sabbatismos) still waiting for the people of God. The only appearance of this particular word (sabbatismos) in the entire Bible is in Hebrews 4:9, and it is not given in verb form. From The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon: "Original Word -- sabbatismovþ Transliterated Word -- sabbatismos Word Origin -- from a derivative of (4521) TDNT Entry -- 7:34,989 Phonetic Spelling: sab-bat-is-mos' Part of speech: Noun Masculine "Definition 1. a keeping sabbath 2. the blessed rest from toils and troubles looked for in the age to come by the true worshippers of God and true Christians" Dr. Bacchiocchi and other SDA apologists try to tell us that this word is translated "Sabbath-keeping." Notice the word sabbitismos is a noun, not a verb. The literal translation is a "keeping sabbath," not "sabbath-keeping," but a perennial rest from our labors. It is not something we do (i.e. it is not a verb), although I can see why lawmongers would interpret it as such; it is something (i.e. noun) that we are given in Jesus Christ: "the blessed rest from toils and troubles looked for in the age to come by the true worshippers of God and true Christians." Do you know what the entire theme of the Book of Hebrews is? It is the superiority of our Lord Jesus Christ on this earth to anything that preceded Him. Hebrews 1:1-3 -- Christ is superior to the prophets. Hebrews 1:4 -- Christ is superior to the angels Hebrews 3 -- Christ is superior to Moses Hebrews 4 -- Christ is superior to Joshua Hebrews 5 -- Christ is superior to the Aaronic priests Hebrews 6 -- In Christ lies our hope Hebrews 7 -- The work of Christ is superior to the work of the Aaronic high priest Hebrews 8 -- The heavenly sanctuary (Christ) is superior to the earthly Hebrews 9 -- The Messianic covenant is superior to the first covenant Hebrews 10 -- Forgiveness in Christ is superior to forgiveness by sacrifice Hebrews 11 -- Faith in Christ is superior to works Hebrews 12 -- Summary: Christ is the fulfillment of all things and Author and perfect Finisher of our faith In the light of this, let's take another look at that text: Hebrews 4:9 So there is a special rest still waiting for the people of God. This noun sabbitismos which is found nowhere in the Bible except in this one verse of Hebrews 4, follows in the same line as the rest of the book of Hebrews. It is a superlative , showing that this is a different kind of rest, both from the weekly sabbath and from the rest that God gave the children of Israel under the leadership of Joshua. More evidence that this sabbatismos does not refer to the weekly sabbath is found in preceding verses: Hebrews 4:4 For somewhere (that is, somewhere else) he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: "And on the seventh day God rested from all his work." 5 And again in the passage above he says, "They shall never enter my rest." 6 It still remains that some will enter that rest, and those who formerly had the gospel preached to them did not go in, because of their disobedience. 7 Therefore God again set a certain day, calling it Today, when a long time later he spoke through David God set aside a different day--this is in contrast to verse 4 that mentions the weekly sabbath--calling it Today. Today is the day that God wants us to enter His rest. 9. There remains, therefore, a rest. Since God has set aside a rest for his people, and, in the previous verses it is clear that it is neither the Sabbath nor the Canaan rest, a rest remains for the people of God. The sabbath and the Canaan rest were only types (shadows, if you will) of the sabbatismos that we find in Jesus Christ. 10. For he that is entered into his rest. When God rested on the Sabbath, the type of the true rest, his works ceased. So when our rest comes, our efforts to gain salvation by the work of our own hands will cease. 11. Let us labor therefore. Since this glorious rest, our sabbatismos in Christ, remains for faithful believers, we should make every effort to achieve it, and especially take heed that we do not fail through disbelief as our spiritual ancestors did. So it becomes very clear that the theme of Hebrews holds true for chapters 3 and 4. Just as Christ is found superior to all other things in the rest of the book, so in this passage, the rest that Christ offers to those who trust in His saving act is SUPERIOR to the weekly sabbath and to the rest that God gave the children of Israel under Joshua, and we must make every effort to "enter into His rest." | ||
| Plain Patti |
The definition of sabbatismos from The New KJV Lexicon makes all kinds of sense in the light of the entire chapter of Hebrews: "a keeping sabbath." That which "keeps" is something that remains without rot or mold or fading or other spoilage--A "keeping sabbath" is a "perpetual" one. It is a fact that Jesus never instructed his disciples to keep the sabbath. This is not to deny that this is because they were raised in a society that did this already. However, I find it quite interesting that there is no command for the disciples to teach the Gentiles to keep the sabbath. In fact, the only times that sabbath keeping is mentioned in the writings of Paul are to say that we are not to judge one another on the basis of sabbath-keeping. Colossians 2:16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. Romans 14:5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. Hebrews 4, of course, speaks of the sabbath, but it shows, like Colossians 2:17, that is was an OT shadow to point to the Reality in our rest from our works to save ourselves in Christ. To requote, this time from the NRSV: Hebrews 4:9 There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; 10 for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his. 11 Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience.* * Or disbelief. If you read back in this chapter and in the third chapter, obviously the example that the children of Israel set was the sin of disbelief. Hebrews 3:7 So, as the Holy Spirit says: "Today, if you hear his voice, 8 do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion, during the time of testing in the desert, 9 where your fathers tested and tried me and for forty years saw what I did. 10 That is why I was angry with that generation, and I said, `Their hearts are always going astray, and they have not known my ways.' 11 So I declared on oath in my anger, `They shall never enter my rest.'" They did not believe that God would actually deliver the land of Canaan to them; they were afraid because the scouts sent out by Moses had come back with reports of "giants in the land." Therefore, on the borders of the promised land, they murmured and complained and refused to enter the land that God had promised them. This is what this text means when God declared, They shall never enter my rest; He would not allow them to enter the land of promise and rest from their wandering in the wilderness, not because they would not keep His commandments, but because THEY WOULD NOT BELIEVE HIM. 12 See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. 13 But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called Today, so that none of you may be hardened by sin's deceitfulness. 14 We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first. 15 As has just been said: "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion." God calls us today to enter into rest with Christ. To rest from our foolish attempts to save ourselves TODAY. 16 Who were they who heard and rebelled? Were they not all those Moses led out of Egypt? 17 And with whom was he angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the desert? 18 And to whom did God swear that they would never enter his rest if not to those who disobeyed? 19 So we see that they were not able to enter, because of their unbelief. This is a direct reference to the book of Joshua. Remember the story? Joshua 1:13 "Remember the command that Moses the servant of the LORD gave you: The LORD your God is giving you rest and has granted you this land.' 14 Your wives, your children and your livestock may stay in the land that Moses gave you east of the Jordan, but all your fighting men, fully armed, must cross over ahead of your brothers. You are to help your brothers 15 until the LORD gives them rest, as he has done for you, and until they too have taken possession of the land that the LORD your God is giving them. After that, you may go back and occupy your own land, which Moses the servant of the LORD gave you east of the Jordan toward the sunrise." 16 Then they answered Joshua, "Whatever you have commanded us we will do, and wherever you send us we will go. Obviously the "rest" spoken of in these passages is not the observance of the seventh day sabbath, but a rest from aimless wonderings in the Wilderness of Sin. When the children of Israel actually entered Canaan, after wandering around restlessly for 40 years, they did not even have to fight; God delivered the land into their hands. Remember Jericho? But 40 years earlier, the children of Israel did not believe that God would keep His promise, even though He had just brought them out of Egypt with miracle after miracle. So God said they could not enter the promised land because they disobeyed, or disbelieved. Deuteronomy 1:20 Then I said to you, "You have reached the hill country of the Amorites, which the LORD our God is giving us. 21 See, the LORD your God has given you the land. Go up and take possession of it as the LORD, the God of your fathers, told you. Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged." 22 Then all of you came to me and said, "Let us send men ahead to spy out the land for us and bring back a report about the route we are to take and the towns we will come to." This, in itself, was a lack of faith on the part of the Israelites. God says, "I have given you this land, go and take possession of it." But the Israelites said, "Well, let's scope it out first, to see if it is feasible." 23 The idea seemed good to me; Evidently, Moses did not quite trust God 100 percent either. He agreed to the plan. It is a fact also, although it may be unrelated, that Moses was not allowed to enter the Promised Land either. so I selected twelve of you, one man from each tribe. 24 They left and went up into the hill country, and came to the Valley of Eshcol and explored it. 25 Taking with them some of the fruit of the land, they brought it down to us and reported, "It is a good land that the LORD our God is giving us." 26 But you were unwilling to go up; you rebelled against the command of the LORD your God. 27 You grumbled in your tents and said, "The LORD hates us; so he brought us out of Egypt to deliver us into the hands of the Amorites to destroy us. 28 Where can we go? Our brothers have made us lose heart. They say, `The people are stronger and taller than we are; the cities are large, with walls up to the sky. We even saw the Anakites there.'" 29 Then I said to you, "Do not be terrified; do not be afraid of them. 30 The LORD your God, who is going before you, will fight for you, as he did for you in Egypt, before your very eyes, 31 and in the desert. There you saw how the LORD your God carried you, as a father carries his son, all the way you went until you reached this place." In the same way today, many Christians do not trust that the Lord will carry us "as a father carries his son," all the way to the Promised Land. They continually say, "Yes, but we must do our part." Which indicates, as is pointed out in Hebrews, a lack of faith in the work of God. 32 In spite of this, you did not trust in the LORD your God, 33 who went ahead of you on your journey, in fire by night and in a cloud by day, to search out places for you to camp and to show you the way you should go. 34 When the LORD heard what you said, he was angry and solemnly swore: 35 "Not a man of this evil generation shall see the good land I swore to give your forefathers, 36 except Caleb son of Jephunneh. He will see it, and I will give him and his descendants the land he set his feet on, because he followed the LORD wholeheartedly." 37 Because of you the LORD became angry with me also and said, "You shall not enter it, either. So it is with us. The book of John says, "God so loved the world that He gave His only Son that whoever believes in Him will be saved." Yet there are so many Christians who do not believe that God meant what He said. They say, "Yes, Jesus Christ died for our sin, but we have to..." and then they rush on to list the things that we must do. This is not taking God at His word. He wants us to rest from our fruitless attempts to save ourselves. " So what does this have to do with the sabbath? Hebrews makes it clear that we are to rest from our works to save ourselves in the same way that God finished His work on the seventh day and rested from it. Hebrews 4:1 Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it. We are offered rest, just as the children of Israel were. 2 For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith. Through faith in Jesus Christ, we can rest in His salvation, knowing that He is true to His word and will save those who believe in Him. 3 Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said, "So I declared on oath in my anger, `They shall never enter my rest.'" And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world. 4 For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: "And on the seventh day God rested from all his work." Some sabbatarians say that this means that we should keep the seventh day sabbath because God rested from His work on that day. But notice that God rested PERPETUALLY (i. e., "His work has been finished since creation.") after the six days of creation. He did not take up His work again on the next day after the seventh. So we are to rest perpetually in Jesus Christ and trust Him to deliver us. 5 And again in the passage above he says, "They shall never enter my rest." 6 It still remains that some will enter that rest, and those who formerly had the gospel preached to them did not go in, because of their disobedience. Some people will refuse to believe that Jesus Christ is all-sufficient for their salvation. They will continue to try and work to make themselves acceptable to God. In this sense, they have disobeyed the Gospel. They have refused to believe that Jesus Christ is their full salvation and they need nothing but His life and death to save them to the uttermost. 7 Therefore God again set a certain day, This is in contrast to the seventh day sabbath. This is yet another day. calling it Today, when a long time later he spoke through David, as was said before: "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts." So you see this passage is not a call to keep the seventh day sabbath. This is a Gospel message calling all to believe in the sufficiency of the work of Christ in our behalf, TODAY. We are to enter His rest TODAY. The very fact that the author of Hebrews uses this word (today) indicates perpetuity. It is ALWAYS today. And it does not say to "rest the seventh day of the week"; it says to rest "TODAY." Is is OK to keep the sabbath? Of course. But nowhere in the New Testament is there a call for the Gentile Christians to keep the sabbath. The sabbath, circumcision, eating meats offered to idols--all of these signs of the Old Covenant and shadows of the Reality to come were meaningless now in the light of the cross. The Reality--Jesus Christ and Him crucified--is the light of the world which made the shadows disappear. | ||
| Plain Patti |
Sabbath to Sunday? It is a misconception of SDAism (and RCism) that "sabbath-keeping" was changed to "Sunday-keeping." I believe this misconception comes mainly, not from the braggadocious claims of RCism itself, but from the founding fathers of this country. The Puritans were a harshly legalistic community. Their influence on our country and on American Christianity remains even today. It was this spirit of legalism that begat all manner of spiritual woes from atrocities (the witch hunts of the late 1700s) to Sunday "sabbath-keeping." Whether our Pietist ancestors truly believed that Sunday was the day originally blessed by God or whether the sanctity of the sabbath was transferred to the first day is unclear. Regardless, they strictly enforced the abstinence of work on what they called "the sabbath," Sunday. All of our "blue laws" stem from our cultural ancestors, the Protestant Separatists. This is not to say that Catholicism did not instigate the notion of Sunday sabbath-keeping hundreds of years ago. Of course, any people that consider themselves "Protestant" are thusly and rightly recognizing their historic roots in the Roman Catholic church. The Protestants are a product of the Catholic system. And so, many of the ideas and theories established by the great church that ruled the Western world for a millenium and a half have been maintained by her offspring. This is not all bad. There are many orthodox truths in Catholicism, such as the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus. But there are many vestiges of medieval tradition also, one of these being that the early Christians transferred the sanctity of the seventh day sabbath to the first day. This is not the case. The first day was never considered a "holy sabbath" by the early Christians. The first day became a celebration of the resurrection of the Lord. Many early Christians, quite naturally, were Jewish, and still observed the sabbath according to the law and celebrated the resurrection on Sunday. The sabbath became known as a solemn day, and Sunday as a feast day. Very soon, people, being hedonistic by nature, began to look forward to the close of the sabbath and the beginning of the day of celebration. There was never a transfer of the sanctity of the sabbath and its observance to the first day. Sunday was not the sabbath, and was never regarded as such by the early Christians. The church has gone through repeated stages of alternating "revival" and secularization throughout its history. During the stages of "revival," there was, inevitably, just as in the good ol' evangelistic meetings of today, a call for repentance and moral and spiritual regeneration, not only for the individual, but for the church as a whole. Over the centuries, things evolve. Somewhere in the early church, during one period of revival, someone decided that one of the things that had been neglected was the observance of the fourth commandment--or third, depending upon which version was common at the time. The RCC takes the credit and glory of changing the idea of celebrating the resurrection on Sunday to "transferring the sanctity" of the sabbath of the commandment to the first day of the week. This is purely a Catholic invention, and as SDAs rightly call it, an indication of the arrogance of that Medieval system. It only remained for the RCC to reach the height (or, perhaps, depths) of its arrogance by claiming it as a sign of its authority, even over the commands of God. The early Christians did not transfer sabbath observance to the first day; that is, they did not replace the sabbath with Sunday. They merely celebrated the confirmation of that Reality on the first day, the day that Christ had risen from the dead. The sabbath sort of fell by the wayside with the rest of their Judaic habits, as mentioned by Paul, such as circumcision, abstaining from meats offered to idols, and the entire sacrificial system. I believe that the reason there is little or no discussion about the sabbath/Sunday issue in the "canon" is because the sabbath was not a grave issue for the early Christians. Paul's attitude toward sabbath observance is rather laissez-faire; he only mentioned it twice, and both times it was to say that one should not judge or be judged on the basis of it: One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. Romans 14:5, 6 This is something that struck me in my study of the New Testament. 1. The Gospel was to go first to the Jews, then to the Gentiles, correct? 2. If the Gospel was to go to the Gentiles, via Paul and others, and if part of the Gospel was to teach the Gentiles to follow Judaic customs, such as sabbath-keeping, then why is there no clear instruction to the Gentiles in the Epistles (even the book of James) that the Judaic laws--specifically the sabbath--were binding upon them? Instead, what we see in the writings of Paul is that one must not judge others in terms of the Judaic laws--circumcision, observance of holy days (sabbaths), eating unclean meats and foods offered to idols. Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem to help sort out and reconcile differences of opinions among the Jewish believers as to the imposition of the requirements of the Judaic laws upon the Gentiles. Again, the glaring issue of the time was not the sabbath, but circumcision. Acts 15:1 Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses." 6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are" The consensus of this committee was that: 19 ". . .we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath." Clearly, here the church leaders in Jerusalem missed a golden opportunity to establish and/or reinforce the necessity of observing the sabbath. I think this is further evidence that the sabbath was not considered to be binding for Christians. Not only that, but there is an strong cry against the heavy burden of the Judaic traditions: why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? While this does not "prove" that the habits of the early Christian believers did not include sabbath-keeping, the silence on the necessity to keep the sabbath speaks very loudly. | ||
| Maryann |
Patti, That is such a good study. When it boils down to a sentence, it is so simple. You believe, you rest, you don't believe, you don't rest. I have a friend I'll sent that to. It is good to re-post this and other quality of stuff often. Thank you.......Maryann | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Plain Patti, You are such an asset to this website I can hardly believe it! Thanks so much. Hope you continue to import other important studies. Also, your own contributions are extremely valuable. I perceive you to be highly intelligent and discerning. "Don't you let nobody turn you round!" Jude | ||
| Plain Patti |
Hi, Jude and Maryann, Thank you for your sweet and kind words. These latest studies are mine. I was very excited when I did the Hebrews 4 study and found the texts in Deuteronomy and Joshua that explained exactly what Hebrews 3 and 4 were about. I am sure I am not the first to make this discovery, but I felt like it. I am more and more impressed by the consistency of Scripture when viewed in the light of the Gospel. There are some things that we will never understand on this earth, but the Bible does not have nearly the number of contradictions that the SDAs like to suggest (in order to defend Ellen) when evaluated by the plumbline of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Jude, you said, "Don't let nobody turn you round." Are you kidding? I say with the disciples, "Where would I then go?" All my eggs are in one spiritual basket. I am betting my eternal life that Jesus Christ is worthy! God bless, Patti | ||
| Lynn W |
Patti, Thanks for reprinting that study on the theme of Hebrews. Now I won't have to go looking for it. | ||
| Ann |
Jude, I know Iím 4 months late, but I really appreciate your book reviews. This ìSDA...deception stirs within me a deep, righteous angerî as well. The sabbath question became an issue for me as a very young Christian. Wanting to find out the ìTruthî I asked trusted non-SDA Christians to give me bible references as to why in spite of the 10 commandments they worship on Sunday. (I wasnít interested in someone elseís opinion, I just wanted solid bible-based facts.) Of course Colossians 2:16 was one of the scriptures given to me, but being influenced by the SDA church...you should know the rest of the story. Well, the SDAís said that Colossians 2:16 refers to the ìotherî sabbaths, not the seventh day. That made perfect sense to me. Surely if God spoke the 10 commandments and wrote them in stone with His finger they have to be eternal. And if the other nine commandments are still binding, he certainly couldnít have nailed His ìmoral lawî to the cross! Well after that, no matter how many verses that were quoted to me to differ, I just could not see the ìTruthîÖuntil in my quest to find out more about this church, I found out about EGW! Praise God for the internet. I found out the ìTruthî about Colossians 2:16, checked it out myself in the Enhanced Strongís Lexicon. The word in that verse ìsabbatonî means either the seventh day of the week, or a week. Are SDAís (pastors especially) ignorant to this fact or is their purpose to deceive?! ìNow if it is not a deception, what is it?î 4521 sabbaton { sabí-bat-on} of Hebrew origin 7676; TDNT - 7:1,989; n n AV - sabbath day 37, sabbath 22, week 9; 68 GK - 4879 { savbbaton } 1)the seventh day of each week which was a sacred festival on which the Israelites were required to abstain from all work 1a)the institution of the sabbath, the law for keeping holy every seventh day of the week 1b)a single sabbath, sabbath day 2)seven days, a week I guess this was probably mentioned before (like I said Iím late and I havenít read all the posts yet) but I just wanted to make my contribution. I shared this with someone the other day, his response was that if I could show him in the bible where God said that His fourth commandment no longer exists and the other nine do, only then heíll 'believe me'! My question to him was, ìIf Paul Godís messenger wrote, not out of his own will but through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that the sabbath was a ìshadowî but the ìrealityî is Christ, then why donít you 'believe the Holy Spirit'?!!î I myself am still struggling with SDA deceptions, more especially the so-called Sunday law and their interpretation of Daniel (which I have no intention of reading until I earnestly seek the Holy Spiritís guidance). Donít wanna come out interpreting it the way they do. For weeks I struggled with Matthew 5:17-19 until the Holy Spirit showed me that those verses do not mean what SDAís say they mean. I found numerous other verses to differ from SDA interpretation, by reading through whole books, not isolated verses, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit (and recently with the help of my bible study software). I think the problem is that the "EGW spirit" (not the Holy Spirit) unknowingly guides SDAís! | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Hi Ann, Four months too late? As that Yankee immortal Yogi Berra used to say, "It ain't over till it's over." I think your answer to your friend was a good one: ìIf Paul Godís messenger wrote, not out of his own will but through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that the sabbath was a ìshadowî but the ìrealityî is Christ, then why donít you 'believe the Holy Spirit'?!!î You also wrote: I found out the ìTruthî about Colossians 2:16, checked it out myself in the Enhanced Strongís Lexicon. The word in that verse ìsabbatonî means either the seventh day of the week, or a week. Are SDAís (pastors especially) ignorant to this fact or is their purpose to deceive?! ìNow if it is not a deception, what is it?î Did you read my post of some months back about Colossians 2:16? I'll repost it below. Hold on tight! THE SABBATH IN COLOSSIANS 2:16,17 Here is that famous text: ìTherefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day ñ things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.î Bible scholars are generally professors at seminaries and universities who have Ph.D. degrees in biblical studies, who know Greek and Hebrew and sometimes Aramaic and even Sanskcrit, etc., and who are also generally learned in the history and often the archaeology of the ancient Near East. These people almost universally interpret the phrase ñ ì[1] a festival or [2] a new moon or [3] a Sabbath dayî ñ as [1] a Jewish annual Sabbath (such as the Day of Atonement for them or Christmas or Easter for us today), [2] a Jewish monthly religious celebration, and [3] the weekly Sabbath day. Such scholars go all the way back to luminaries such as Tertullian, Augustine, Luther and Calvin. And that interpretation has remained almost universally inviolate to this day. Rare exception: the consensus of SDA church scholars, as seen, for example, in the official SDA Bible Commentary. There it is interpreted as [1] a Jewish annual Sabbath (such as the Day of Atonement for them or Christmas or Easter for us today), [2] a Jewish monthly religious celebration, and [3] a Jewish annual Sabbath (such as the Day of Atonement for them or Christmas or Easter for us today). Donít laugh. Itís true; you can check it out for yourself. But more recently some SDA scholars have broken with this ridiculously redundant interpretation. Among them is, yes, none other than Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi of Andrews University, renowned world lecturer and author of the book FROM SABBATH TO SUNDAY: A HISTORICAL INVESTIGATION OF THE RISE OF SUNDAY OBSERVANCE IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY (Rome: Pontifical Gregorian University Press: 1977). This book (which I will here abbreviate as FSS) is based on his Ph.D. dissertation at Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome where he graduated summa cum laude. In the ìAcknowledgmentsî of FSS he admits breaking lockstep with his church: Page 6: ìIn a few places my interpretation of certain Biblical texts (such as ... Colossians 2:14-17) ... differs somewhat from the traditional position of my Church.î Ahem! How? Here, in Bacchiocchi's own words: Page 358: ìThe Sabbath in Colossians 2:16. The sacred times prescribed by the false teachers [legalistic, 'Judiazing Christians' usually from Jerusalem] are are referred to as ëa festival or a new moon or a sabbath ñ heortas a neomania a sabbaton' (2:16). [I know enough Greek to tell you that is New Testament Greek for ìfestival or new moon or Sabbath.] The unanimous consensus of commentators is that these three words represent a logical and progressive sequence (annual, monthly and weekly) as well as an exhaustive enumeration of the sacred times.î Page 359: ìIt is therefore linguistically impossible to interpret the latter [ìsabbatonî] as a reference to the Day of Atonement or to any other ceremonial sabbaths, since these are never designated simply as ësabbatataí [plural, or, in English, ëSabbathsí].î Will he get into trouble for thus breaking lockstep? Not likely, because he sufficiently misinterprets the earlier part of Colossians 2 that this small ìheresyî is overlooked by the SDA hierarchy who know that ìthe little peopleî -- thatís you and I, folks -- will never figure it out, will never find out anyway, for they donít read SDA scholarly publications. (Come on now, admit it: Have YOU read FSS?) And theyíll never find it in the denominational publications that they do read, such as ìthe good old Review.î What this all means to you and me is that even Bacchiocchi admits that Paul is referring to the weekly seventh-day Sabbath. He won't agree that the Sabbath is one of the many pointer-shadows that became unnecessary after the Christ, the sun of righteousness, arrived on planet earth as Jesus of Nazareth. Bacchiocchi has his ways around that conclusion, but they are so devious that I donít think itís worth my time and yours to debunk them here. Just be glad you know the truth and that you can read it quite plainly in a good translation of the Bible if you are not disoriented by SDA fog. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ And now to answer your question: "The word in that verse 'sabbaton' means either the seventh day of the week, or a week. Are SDAís (pastors especially) ignorant to this fact or is their purpose to deceive?!" I think that most SDA people and pastors are willfully ignorant of this fact. And it is a fact. They don't want to hear the truth. It's a characteristic of the cultified personality to be mystified by cognitive dissonance -- facts which don't agree with the convictions onto which they hang their salvation. "My mind's made up, don't confuse me with the facts" sort of thing -- only they wouldn't agree that what you call a "fact" is indeed a fact. And if you go to sources, such as the Bible and Bible Commentaries to "set them straight," they are so threatened emotionally, that they tune you out, regale you with nonsense, get angry at you, etc. A psychologist/psychiatrist would say these people are not "integrated." A psychological definition of "integration" is this: "Coordination of mental processes into a normal effective personality or with the individual's environment." -- Webster's Tenth. And so the cultified personality is not an integrated personality. Meaning that they are double-minded or have compartmentalized their thinking. Example from MINISTRY magazine, the official journal for all SDA ministers (at least Engish-speaking): An article by a leading SDA "thinker" about eating meat. The springboard text was Mark 7:19 NIV: "In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean." After doing all the requisite theological gyrations, the article concluded that Jesus would never have spoken against HIS OWN LAW! Referring, of course, to such Old Testament texts as Deuteronomy 8:14 NIV: "The pig is also unclean... You are not to eat their meat or touch their carcasses." And so this leading SDA "scholar" was able to literally trash Jesus' own new covenant commandment in favor of the old covenant commandment Jesus was doing away with -- "nailing it to the cross" (Colossians 2:13-17 NIV)! Now the author of that MINISTRY article, my friend Ann, is a good example of a person who is not integrated, regardless of how many PhD's he sports on his resume! Bacchiocchi is another one, only worse, much worse. I read a transcript of a debate he had with a Bible scholar of another denomination. This other scholar figuratively waxed Bacchiocchi's tail feathers on the 2d chapter of Colossians. Bacchiocchi's response? He quoted Matthew 7:6 at the opposing Bible scholar: "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs." That was the response of an "un-integrated," cultified mentality who had just lost the argument and lost it very embarrassingly. And so I would answer your question this way: As far as SDA "experts" and "thinkers" are concerned, yes, their deception is deliberate, but also not integrated. And their lack of integration -- I would almost say, "their disintegration," but I'm not a psychologist -- is economically driven: They're in economic slavery to their church. Well, I hope that answers your question. I've given SDAism a lifetime of thought and questions. And I think I'm finally satisfied that it is indeed a cult, that it is basically anti-Christian (I don't mean that pejoritively, but honestly), and that it picks-and-chooses among scriptures to find those that further its agenda, which texts they then misuse and abuse. And they just can't even SEE the the ones that counter their doctrines and put the lie to their deceptions. Enough for now. Hope I've answered your questions. Bode well in the Lord, Jude | ||
| Colleentinker |
Thank you, Jude! By the way, Ann, it occurred to me while I was watching The Visual Bible's "Matthew" with my classes before Easter why Jesus told the Pharisees, "One greater than the temple is here" when they criticized his disciples for picking grain on Sabbath. I'd always wished he'd just said, "one greater than the Sabbath is here." So I decided to analyze the wording. He had just reminded the Pharisees that David and his men had eaten the temple shewbread when they were hungryóa strictly forbidden desecrationóand they were considered blameless. But I tell you, he continued, One greater than the temple is here. The temple was the spiritual center of Israel. It contained the physical presence of God, and it contained the law. The shewbread was INSIDE the temple, consecrated by being in a holy place. By saying he was greater than the tenmple, Jesus was saying he was greater than the building which housed the presence of God and the law. The shewbread was to the temple what the Sabbath was to Jesus. The Sabbath was sacred because it was a symbol of Jesus. Jesus superceded the temple itself, not to mention the contents of the templeówhich included the law. As an Adventist I had read the clause "The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath" as a sort-of parallel statement to "Elizabeth is Queen of England." England is huge, self-existing (more or less), and external. Kings and Queens come and go, but England is "eternal". Jesus, it seemed that statment was saying, is the Lord or ruler of the large, externally existing Sabbath as Elizabeth is ruler of England. Now I realize that he's really saying He himself is the large, self-existing reality, and the Sabbath is within him. Jesus "contains" the Sabbath instead of the Sabbath "containing" Jesus. It's amazing how deeply rooted our warped understandings are, isn't it? I just praise Him for leading us to himself! Colleen | ||
| Steve Pitcher |
WOW! Reading you folks, especially on this page, has been a blessing. I've had problems with the Sabbath myself. One way I've come to understand the Sabbath is that it is not to be elevated above the other commandments. When we SDA's greet each other in church with a "Happy Sabbath", to me it has become like "Happy that I can point out sin in your life." The commandments were to lead us to Jesus. They were to point out sin. Period. By saying "Happy Sabbath" we're, in effect, pointing out the sin in other people's lives. I find it quite appalling that we so easily point out sin in each other, rather than point to Jesus, as the Law was supposed to do. I agree with Colleen, our understandings are warped. I have given up the practice of saying "Happy Sabbath". I no longer need to point out sin in the lives of other people to be confident of the Hope that I have in Christ. Steve |
