| Author |
Message |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 953
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 10:57 am: |     |
As far as Sabbath at creation is concerned, Genesis merely says God rested on the seventh day because His work was done. There is no mention of a command for Adam and Eve to rest. They certainly had nothing to rest from--they were living in perfect holiness, intimately connected to God. That day was holy at creation because God's work was done, and his creation was in prefect accord with Him. Nothing was wrong! (Also, the Genesis account does not put an evening and a morning on the seventh day--not that there wasn't one, but as far as the significance of what happened on each day goes, the rest God entered and the resultant blessing from His finished work had no end recorded.)
Interestinlgy, when Adam and Eve sinned, their Sabbath living with God ended. God did not give them the Sabbath as a reminder or as a discipline at that point. He gave them hard labor, and He cursed the earth. The Sabbath that began on the seventh day of creation ended. No "memorial", however, of unbroken rest and communion with God or of His seminal power which brought them out of bondage in Egypt toward rest in the Promised Land was given until Exodus 16.
Creation just doesn't support Sabbath observance!
Colleen |
Logophile
Registered user
Username: Logophile
Post Number: 11
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 11:01 pm: | |
Hi Jeremy,
I noticed that at least one of the articles you cited was by Pastor J. Mark Martin. That wouldn't happen to be you, would it? Just curious.
Anyway, before continuing, I want to make sure something's clear: I don't believe salvation is attained by obedience--whether to laws found in the Old Testament or to those found in the New. (Either would be legalism.) I also don't happen to believe that Christians who don't observe the Sabbath are less effective channels for the Holy Spirit than those who do. I have attended and been much blessed by worship services on Sunday. I do not think that Sunday worshipers "have the mark of the beast," or any such nonsense as that. :-) Also, as it happens, the Christian ministries I'm most supportive of are non-sabbatarian ministries.
Now...
You may have a point about the offerings and sacrifices on the Sabbath not being the "shadow of things to come." At the same time, it remains that the text of the fourth commandment points backward to God's rest on the seventh day, after he had finished his Creation (Exodus 20:11)--something that had already happened--not forward to something of which it was merely a shadow.
You pointed out that, just because two jurisdictions have overlapping laws, the citizens under one jurisdiction are not therefore obligated to obey all the laws of the other. And, of course, that is correct. But I think your parallel with the Old and New Testaments is not correct. This is because the New Testament writers do not simply issue admonitions concerning Christian behavior that happen to be similar to those found in the Old Testament; rather, New Testament writers sometimes actually cite the Old Testament Scriptures as their authority for these admonitions. These citations indicate a recognition of the continuing authority of the Old Testament.
Examples:
[quote]Matthew 19:16-19. "Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"
"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."
"Which ones?" the man inquired. Jesus replied, "'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'"[/quote]
What "commandments" is Jesus referring to here? It sounds like he's quoting from the Ten Commandments, with "Love your neighbor as yourself" being a summary.
[quote]Romans 13:8-10. "Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."[/quote]
What "law" is Paul talking about here? When he says, "...and whatever other commandment there may be...," what other commandments is he referring to? Paul appears to be going off the same list as Jesus used, and he sums them up as, "Love your neighbor as yourself." Evidently, Paul considered this aspect of the law to carry authority, just as Jesus did. In other words, this law apparently hadn't been nailed to the cross.
[quote]James 2:8-11. "If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker."[/quote]
Again, "Love your neighbor as yourself." Note that James specifies that this is "found in Scripture," thus affirming its authority based on Old Testament Scripture--not simply because he was inspired to "reinstate" some good moral principles for New Testament believers. And again, the two examples James cites are from the Ten Commandments.
I agree that the Ten Commandments were the covenant God made with Israel. The ark of the covenant was so called because it contained the tablets of stone. I also agree that the Sabbath was the sign between God and Israel--though I would maintain that God made the seventh day holy long before Israel arrived on the scene. I think it's obvious, however, that the Ten Commandments were regarded as authoritative by Jesus, Paul, and James and that they did not, therefore, belong just to the Old Covenant. It is claimed that nine of the ten commandments are repeated in the New Testament--the Sabbath being the one that isn't. Yet when Jesus, speaking of the time when his followers would flee to take refuge during the great tribulation, said to "pray that your flight will not be in winter or on the Sabbath," he implied that the Sabbath would continue to be significant long after his death and resurrection. Even if he was speaking immediately to Jews, the Jews who believe in him aren't under the Old Covenant any more than Gentiles are. Why would Jesus attach this future significance to the Sabbath if it was merely a shadow, the reality of which was in Christ?
I would agree that the new covenant is qualitatively different from the old: we do not serve in the old way of the letter (which kills) but in the new way of the Spirit (which gives life). But what was wrong with the first covenant? According to Hebrews 8, "God found fault _with the people_ and said, the time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah... they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them ...This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time: I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts." The problem was apparently not with the laws of the covenant but with the means by which the people were trying to fulfill it--their own efforts. (That they were relying on their own efforts, rather than living by faith, is obvious from how they reacted to the prospect of going into Canaan two years out of Egypt.)
This is also the problem with the Galatians, for which Paul takes them severely to task. They had begun with the Spirit and now were trying to attain their goal by human effort. You cited Paul's analogy of Hagar and Sarah, with the admonition to "get rid of the slave woman's son, because her son will never share in in the inheritance with the free woman's son." But if the fact that Hagar represents Mount Sinai implies that those who believe in the Ten Commandments are in slavery and should be gotten rid of, then it's difficult to see how the children of promise fare much better--since nine of those ten are said to be repeated in the New Testament, anyway. Also, if Paul were here deprecating the laws in the Ten Commandments, it would seem very strange that he affirmed them in Romans. Again, the point of freedom versus slavery does not appear to be about which rules you do or do not have to keep, but whether you are living by the Spirit or by the flesh (and trying to look like you're living by the Spirit).
Not out of thoughts on the subject, but I'm not comfortable making this post any longer.
logo |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 109
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 11:05 am: | |
No, Pastor J. Mark Martin is not me. He is a former SDA Pastor in the Phoenix area.  And sdaoutreach.org is his web site. I think all of the articles I linked to are written by him.
About the Sabbath being a shadow:
Look at the giving of the Passover feast in Exodus. There is no "looking forward" in that either. It says to keep the Passover as a memorial of God delivering--a past event! But would you argue that the Passover is also not a shadow, and that Paul is wrong? Everyone recognizes the Passover as pointing forward to Jesus even though in Exodus it's only a memorial looking back to a past event. Anyway, I believe that Paul was inspired writing Colossians, and that he means what he says.
When Jesus spoke to the rich young ruler, He was not quoting the Ten Commandments! He quoted several of them, but He also quoted from the rest of the Law. He quoted Leviticus 19:13 ("defraud not"--Mark 10:19), and also Leviticus 19:18 about loving your neighbor.
Romans 13 also quotes "love your neighbor as yourself." Again that is from Leviticus 19:18 NOT the Ten Commandments!
You ask "what Law" Paul is referring to, as if the Ten Commandments are "the Law." But there is only 1 Mosaic Law, which contains 613 commandments.
Again, James quotes "love your neighbor as yourself" which is from the "ceremonial" or rest of the Law (Leviticus 19:18). And he is calling "love your neighbor as yourself" the royal law, not the Ten Commandments!
So if you're going to insist that the New Covenant does not only include that which it states, but that due to it's quoting of the Law, we are also under the Law, then you would have to say that we are under the WHOLE Law, all 613 commandments!
But the Bible says that we are NOT under the Law, that we have been released from the Law, that we are not under the Old Covenant, which is the Law, and specifically the Ten Commandments!
You say: "I think it's obvious, however, that the Ten Commandments were regarded as authoritative by Jesus, Paul, and James and that they did not, therefore, belong just to the Old Covenant."
As I pointed out, those passages also quoted from the rest of the Law, so you would have to keep the WHOLE Law, according to your reasoning.
"Yet when Jesus, speaking of the time when his followers would flee to take refuge during the great tribulation, said to 'pray that your flight will not be in winter or on the Sabbath,' he implied that the Sabbath would continue to be significant long after his death and resurrection."
It would be difficult to have to flee in the winter. The same with the Sabbath. The gates of Jerusalem were closed on the Sabbath, therefore making it difficult to flee.
"Why would Jesus attach this future significance to the Sabbath if it was merely a shadow, the reality of which was in Christ?"
Why would Paul say "it was merely a shadow, the reality of which was in Christ" if that was not true???
"I also agree that the Sabbath was the sign between God and Israel--though I would maintain that God made the seventh day holy long before Israel arrived on the scene."
It could not be for the Gentiles AND be a sign between God and Israel! How could it be a special sign between God and Israel if the Gentiles were allowed to keep it, too?!
"The problem was apparently not with the laws of the covenant but with the means by which the people were trying to fulfill it--their own efforts."
We cannot fulfill the Law, even if we "live by faith"! That's why Jesus came and fulfilled it for us! The Law says if you don't keep the whole Law, you have to die. So Jesus had to "redeem those who were under the Law"! (Galatians 4:5)
The Bible very clearly says that the Law is a yoke of slavery, and that we are to cast it out. I don't see how anyone can get around that.
If we are supposed to keep the Sabbath, then why did God not put it in the New Covenant? As I said, a covenant only includes that which it specifically states.
And Galatians 4:10 specifically states that we are not supposed to observe "years" (Jubilee, etc.), "seasons" (seasonal feasts, Passover, feast of Tabernacles etc.), "months" (new moons), "days" (Sabbath days)!
Jeremy |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 965
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 12:09 pm: | |
Logo--When James refers to "the royal law found in Scripture" (v. 2:8) he is not referring to the 10 Commandments. He immediately identifies the "royal law" as being "Love your neighbor as yourself", and that is a quote from Leviticus 19:18. In fact, he is contrasting the royal law with the ten commandments.
In verses 9-11 he reminds them that the least infraction of the law renders people convicted as lawbreakers. Then, in verses 12-13, he says to "speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment."
Paul identifies the law as "the written code...that was against us and that stood opposed to us." (Colossians 2:14) Galatians 3:10 says, "All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: 'Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." In 1 Corinthians 15:56 Paul says the power of sin is the law. In other words, where the law is the authority for human behavior, sin actually increases. (Romans 7:8) Further, Paul says that "sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death." (Romans 8:11)
This paradox doesn't make the law BAD; it makes it, however, the means of producing such depths of sin in us that we will finally acknowledge our utter sinfulness. It works AGAINST us in terms of sin. (Romans 7:13)
It's only usefulness was to prepare people for the Messiah by convincing them that they actually needed Him! It was never intended to be a continuing authority over mankind. (Galatians 3:15-25)
James was writing to the very earliest Jewish converts who were scattered, having returned to their homes after Pentecost as Christ-followers. They knew the Torah; James had only the Torah to use as Scriptures. Yet he was instructing them how to live as Christ-followers. He was reminding them that they had to live out their faith. He was not commanding them to keep the 10 Commanmdents; he was admonishing them to live by the Royal Law of love--the law that brings liberty, not the law that brings death.They could keep the commandments quite well without living by the Royal Law--but they would be failing to live the life Jesus came to make possible.
The problem with assuming that the Mosaic law (including the 10 Commandments) is eternal is that the Bible is quite clear in Romans, Galatians, 2 Corinthians, Colossians, Hebrews--that it was temporary, lasting only until Christ. The logical fallacy Adventists (and others who uphold the law as a standard of uman behavior) fall into is to say, "Of course the law is eternal--otherwise it would be OK to lie, cheat, steal, bear false witness, etc."
God's own person IS eternal. Morality is eternal because it is who God is. Morality exists because God Is, and because He has put His image in His creatures. It is a fallacy to equate God Himself and His eternal qualities with a temporary law God gave at Sinai and fulfilled at Calvary. Romans 1:18-20 and 5:12-14 is quite clear that long before a law was given--and even to those who did not receive the law--the eternal qualities of God were made known through what has been created. No man is without excuse. God did not need the 10 Commandments to make His will known to mankind.
Never does the Bible equate the 10 Commandments with God's eternal, sovereign attributes. God Himself is our judge and our source of law. Abraham knew God and his moral requirements before there was a law. After the cross, God's people know Him and His moral standards because of the Holy Spirit--not because of the law.
Of course, there would be no need to define eternal law with this much hair-splitting if it weren't for the Sabbath--the fourth commandment. Because of that commandment, people feel a need to "prove" that the written law is eternal. The Bible, on the contrary, is clear that the law is NOT eternal. God is.
Jesus eternally fulfilled the law--all of it--and His fulfillment removed the need for a temple. We are the temple now. His fulfillment removed the need for the tables of stone. His life reveals righteousness. His fulfillment removed the need for "sacred time". He is the reality the sacred time foreshadowed. In Him all distinctions between sacred and secular are dissolved. When we are in Him, all our time is sacred, and we are called to live in continuous submission to Him so even our "secular" activities are to and for and from Him. In Jesus we no longer "prove" our loyalty to Him by observing time. Rather, we honor Him and surrender to Him in every activity and thought.
Living by the Spirit is much more demanding, if you will, than observing the Sabbath. Our entire lives must be lived IN the Sabbath, who is Jesus.
Also, when Paul says to throw out the bondwoman and her son--who represent Sinai and are in slavery--he is not saying that Sarah and Isaac still retain nine commandments. His point is that the law is now obsolete--all ten commandments! Now we live as children of promise, symbolized by Isaac and Sarah, and we live by the impulse and persisent nudging of the Holy Spirit who convicts us of our new identities as Sons and Daughters of God. We now can live with God's eternal morality at work in us, because the Spirit Himself brings us to life and gives us His power to transform our hearts.
The Holy Spirit does not give us the strength to keep the 10 Commandments. Rather, He gives us Jesus Himself. His power and victory are in us. OUr job now is to say Yes to Him--or to give in to the flesh. It's a continual matter of surrender.
Have you ever wondered why Christ-followers who obviously live by the Spirit are not convicted of the Sabbath if they haven't been part of a Sabbatarian church? If Sabbath were an eternal sacred slot in time, the Holy Spirit would be sure to reveal it. Jesus would have been sure to stress it. The apostles would have been sure to teach it. The reasons Christ-followers don't become convicted of the Sabbath is that they are convicted instead of Jesus.
The Sabbath was Jesus' shadow. We can come out of the shadow now and stand fully in the light of Jesus Himself. The Holy Spirit's job is to covict us of the identity and reality of Jesus, not of the Sabbath. By continually drawing us back to Jesus, He changes our hearts and our motives by His power.
The law is not eternal. God is. His attributes are eternal. The law was merely to make God's people aware of how depraved and helpless they really were. It was to prepare their hearts for the Messiah who would deliver them from their bodies of death. It was to reveal God's unwavering demands and humanity's inherent death sentence. It was to awaken deep need and desire in people's hearts for God Himself to rescue them from their helpless wickedness.
The law's purpose as tutor to prepare people to Christ has been fulfilled. Jesus has come! We look to Him, not the law. His eternal moral heart is ours in Jesus.
BTW, I'm sure Jeremy will speak for himself when he gets to the forum, but no, he is NOT Mark Martin! He's...Jeremy--just who he says he is!
I can only say an amazed "Thank you" to God for the way He has dealt with us. He Himself is our salvation, our righteousness, our Sabbath rest. He has made us His--and we have absolutely nothing to do with our own acceptance before God. We are set free from the law of sin and death and made alive in Christ Jesus. Praise Him!
Colleen |
Tdf
Registered user
Username: Tdf
Post Number: 7
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 12:28 pm: | |
I've been away from my computer for some time and I'm afraid that I stirred something up when I confessed that I still honor the Sabbath as a memorial of Creation. Note again that I am firmly grounded in the Bible's teaching that salvation is by faith alone and that a person's adherence to (or failure to keep) the law will not allow that person to earn salvation or lose it. With that said, I have some questions:
(1) What do you make of Genesis 2 where it says: "so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. And God BLESSED THE SEVENTH DAY AND MADE IT HOLY."
(2) What do you make of Exodus 20 where it seems to explain the effect of what He did on the 7th day of the creation week: "Remember the sabbath day, to KEEP IT HOLY. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God, IN IT THOU SHALL NOT DO ANY WORK. . . . . For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, AND HALLOWED IT."
(3) Do you think it's possible that, in Exodus, God simply reiterated what He had done at creation?
(4) What do you make of the fact that Moses began re-teaching the importance of the Sabbath to the children of Israel, even before the Ten Commandments were given by God (see Exodus 16)?
(5) Why does Christ point in Matt. 24:20 to a post-resurrection event where the Sabbath would be observed (i.e. we should pray that our flight not be on the Sabbath day)?
(6) Is it possible that a person could believe that there is one law (the "ceremonial law" and the "10 commandment law"), that this one law was nailed to the cross, and yet that God is actually writing all of His law on our hearts (see 2 Corinthians where it says that the spirit of the law and not the letter is written on our hearts)?
(7) Is it possible that God's work under the new covenant is to place the principles of the law on our heart such that they become a part of character (THROUGH HIS STRENGTH AND NOT OUR OWN) as a result of our faith in and relationship with God, that the principles of honoring our parents and the Sabbath and avoiding adultery, murder and theft are still good principles and that the spirit (and not the letter) of these principles can be written on our heart pursuant to the New Covenant (see also Hebrews 8 and John 13:33-35)?
(7) Is it possible that a person could be blessed by a Sabbath observance, believing that it was instituted at Creation, avoiding the extremes of imposing legalistic and onerous rules that could never kept, and viewing the Sabbath as an opportunity to commune with God?
(8) If a person were to keep the Sabbath under the above-described mindset and based on the above-listed biblical principles, would that person be a new covenant Christian or an old covenant Christian?
Your thoughts are certainly welcome. |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 111
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 1:15 pm: | |
Tdf,
I suggest that you read the previous posts in this thread (and also the post of mine which I linked to in my first post on this thread regarding Genesis, Creation, and the Sabbath) as they answer a lot of those questions.
(1) and (2) have been answered in previous posts and this post which I linked to in my first post on this thread.
(3) No, the Bible says in Ezekiel 20 and Nehemiah 9 that the Sabbath was first commanded after the crossing of the Red Sea.
(4) If you note the wording of Exodus 16, it sure sounds like it was the first time God commanded the Sabbath! It's the first time the Bible records it being commanded to be kept by anyone--why would you think that He had commanded it previously if the Bible doesn't say that (and it says otherwise in Ezekiel 20 and Nehemiah 9 as I said)? And Jesus implies in John 7 that circumcision came before the Sabbath!
Also, Deuteronomy 5 says that God commanded the Sabbath because He had led them out of Egypt.
(5) This was answered in my last post.
(6) Nowhere does the Bible say that "the spirit of the law" is written on our hearts. When the Bible says "Spirit" it simply means the Holy Spirit! Also, "letter" does NOT mean "letter of the law." It's simply another word for "the Law"! If God is writing all of the Mosaic Law on our hearts then why aren't we all being convicted to keep the Sabbath, Passover, New Moons, Feast of Tabernacles, circumcision, etc.? And the New Testament actually discourages these observances!
The Law was only a "tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor." (Galatians 3:24b-25 NASB.) Galatians 3 also says that the Law was added 430 years after Abraham and that it was added "UNTIL the Seed (Christ) would come"!
(7) See answer to #6. Also, regarding the John 13 passage that you mentioned, Jesus says that He is giving a new commandment!
(8) I would have to say "old covenant Christian."
Here is an excellent study on the Law and the Covenants:
http://www.sdaoutreach.org/law-study.cfm
God bless,
Jeremy |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 968
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 3:55 pm: | |
Tdf, all your questions are questions I struggled with--but praise God, they all make sense in a unified whole picture now!
Please see my post just above Jeremy's--I discuss the fallacy of equating God's eternal moral attributes with the "law". The Bible clearly explains in Galatians, Colossians, Romans, and Hebrews that the law is obsolete for Christ-followers. I second JEremy's suggestion that you read this thread fairly carefully. Both he and I have addressed the Sabbath at Creation question in some detail, and others including Esther have added some very detailed and insightful observations about the law and the new covenant.
As I've said before--the day we worship is not a saving point. For a person steeped in Adventism, however, the day has a significance not found in most other churches. Although we can say words about it that sound acceptable from a new covenant framework, in reality most us either cannot give it up, or we give it up only with great fear and guilt as an act of sheer faith in the belief that Christ is enough. Praise God, He confirms our decisions to leave the day when we make them, but He does let us wrestle with whether or not He is enough or whether we must also have the day!
I believe that God guides us in His own time to each step we take toward complete faith and trust in Him.
I suggest that you also read Greg Taylor's story/study on this website on the stories page. You will probably also want to read, eventually, Dale Ratzlaff's Sabbath in Christ and Cultic Doctrine of Seventh-day Adventists.
The most astonishing thing I found in my journey away from Adventism is that the Bible is a completely different book than I had thought it to be. It is alive; it is totally consistent; it is extremely clear. The confusion I used to experience when I read it is gone. As I prayed that God would reveal the truth to me without the overlay of my Adventist presuppositions, the Bible became an astonishing treasure chest of insight and reality and certainty that I had never imagined it could be.
In addition, for two millennia, Christ-followers have been coming to the same conclusions regarding salvation, the law, the role of the Holy Spirit, our position in Christ; Jesus' atonement--all these things are consistently understood among Christ-followers, and they have been for hundreds and hundreds of years. I was amazed at how my Adventism shaped my world view, and I didn't even know it before the Holy Spirit began to reveal the word of God to me.
I understand your questions completely. Pray a lot and keep studying Scripture; God is faithful. He will continue to reveal Himself and His will and His truth to you. You are in my prayers.
Colleen |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 84
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 5:16 pm: | |
Colleen,
I think you make a great point about the role that Sabbath plays within the lives of "formers" or those in transition. It may well be that Sabbath is a different issue for us than it might be for others. And the reasons in our hearts (for instance hanging on out of lingering fear "but what if the SDA were right about THAT"). The thread about Sabbath guilt is a good example of the lingering impact.
I guess what I am saying is that it may take more to actually give up the Sabbath than it does to merely say that the Sabbath isn't important anymore (or salvational), but I'm still going to keep it because I am free to do so.
Jeremy,
I think your point about John 7 indicating circumcission pre-dates Sabbath is weak and reminiscent of the type of prooftexting we left behind. I think that the question of whether a person in living in the old covenant or the new can only be known by their heart.
NASB John 7:22 "For this reason Moses has given you circumcision (not because it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and on the Sabbath you circumcise a man. 23 "If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath so that the Law of Moses will not be broken, are you angry with Me because I made an entire man well on the Sabbath? 24 "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment."
|
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 113
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 5:48 pm: | |
I know John 7 by itself cannot be used definitively on that point, that's why I said "implies." But the passage does show, that for whatever reason, circumcision was more important than the Sabbath, and that the Sabbath had to be broken for circumcision, in order for the Law of Moses as a whole to not be broken. Therefore, as Esther said above:
quote:Right here Jesus was showing that if a ceremonial law, is over the Sabbath, the only way that could happen was if the Sabbath itself was purely ceremonial.
Therefore the Sabbath cannot be a moral law.
Jeremy |
Doc
Registered user
Username: Doc
Post Number: 169
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 3:37 am: | |
Just a comment on how outsiders may view this Sabbath issue differently.
I have never been SDA, I first came across it after I had been a Christian for about 15 years.
I was brought up in a Baptist church, and I believe my Dad was a real, born-again Christian. When I was young, I remember he did consider Sunday special, and we would not go to the shops or work on that day as a general rule, but he did not make a big deal out of it.
I got saved myself sometime later, and attended various churches, though the Sunday issue was never stressed as far as I remember. I had been a Christian a few years, and we were living in Wales, when I read Romans 14, and it seemed my attention was drawn to the verse that said some people consider all days alike. I decided in my own mind at that point that if that was the case, then there was no reason to make a big deal over keeping Sunday special in any way, so since then, I have considered all days alike.
That was the only time in my earlier Christian life when I believe God specifically spoke to me about day-keeping. Perhaps He was preparing me at that time for what would come later :-)
It was about ten years after that when I first met Adventists, and when I did, I could just never figure out why they were making such a huge issue over the Sabbath, which as far as I knew, was clearly irrelevant for Christians.
I believe I have been led by the Holy Spirit for many years, and in many ways, but the only thing He has ever had to say about the Sabbath, is forget it.
Don't know if that helps,
God bless,
Adrian |
Tdf
Registered user
Username: Tdf
Post Number: 8
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 8:20 am: | |
I've read several posts from people who seem to be struggling with finding the right place to worship and fellowship. Because my wife and I are experiencing some of that tension right now, my posts may hint at my frustration. I find it ironic that SDAs view my wife and me as "less than" because we don't believe that Ellen White is a prophet, and that some "formers" also consider us "less than" because we haven't abandoned the Sabbath.
When I posted earlier, I did so after carefully reading the posts in this thread. However, even after reading the posts, I simply am not convinced that the Sabbath was instituted during Moses' life (and that the Sabbath is simply a covenant between God and Israel). My reading of scripture keeps pointing me to the fact that the Sabbath was instituted at creation and that it has been desecrated and retaught at several points throughout history.
With that said, I absolutely do not condemn anyone who believes that the Sabbath holds no importance, for I realize that I may be wrong and that there may be more for me to learn. Realizing that I was seriously misled has left me with alot of humility -- I don't know if I ever want to return to thinking that I've got it all figured out. Right now, I'm simply learning to rest in the assurance of His love.
The only thing about which I am 100% certain is that I have a Savior who loves me, who died to save me and who provided a way of salvation to me, that His salvation is a free gift and that when I enter into it, I find more peace than I've ever known, despite all of my unanswered questions.
Some of the posts that I've read concern me because they appear to have the same dogmatic tone that I've experienced while talking with many SDAs, a tone that my wife and I are currently seeking to escape from. Admittedly, it puts me on edge when I read blanket generalizations indicating that a group of people represent a cult, whether it's Jehovah Witnesses, SDAs or the orthodox church. These statements completely negate the reality that God has a work to do in ALL OF US, that all of us have sinned and fallen short, that all of us have a lot to learn and that none of us are far enough away from Him that He cannot still save us.
It would seem to me that folks who post on this site, folks who were once misled by the SDA church, would be humble enough to realize that they don't have all of the answers and that the source of all truth is God -- not man. That's where I am right now. |
Carol_2
Registered user
Username: Carol_2
Post Number: 192
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 8:42 am: | |
It's interesting to me how differently people can see things. For me, I have always seen such a humble attitude on this forum....over and over again I've heard the formers here say they don't know the answers to a number of subjects, but are placing their confidence in their Lord and Savior.
As far as the Sabbath issue, I think many of us simply feel the Bible is very clear about this...and we feel such freedom from bondage, that it's very difficult not be excited about it. As I've read Galatians, Hebrews, Romans, etc., it makes so much sense to me now (whereas it didn't before, as an SDA,) and now it's just as clear as a bell! So it's hard for those of us that feel that way to come off sounding like we might be wrong about it. Is this making sense? I know it sounds arrogant, but I don't mean it to, it's hard for me to put into words.
I guess I'm just trying to say we all have to be tolerant of one another, and understand where we're coming from......from what I've observed many former SDAs see the Sabbath issue differently now, and it's not something that they find "fuzzy" or gray in anyway. So naturally they're going to be excited about sharing this with "new" formers..... it's not like they're being judgmental, many formers accept and totally believe in the New Covenant replacing the Old.
Hope I'm not making things worse, I guess I'm just kind of thinking out loud.
It is my hope and prayer that we will all continue to love and accept each other in Christ.
With Christian love to all of you, Carol #2 |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 971
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 9:14 am: | |
Tdf, I actually complete relate to the frustration you're exptressing. I remember feeling it in different ways and about various issues myself.
God is completely faithful. He is answering your prayers to know Him, and He is clearly grounding you in the security of His finished work. The process of growing into the freedom we have in Jesus actually takes some time--maybe weeks, maybe months--maybe even a few years. Everyone's experience is different, and God's timing is sovereign in each of our lives.
I don't know exactly how much you've read or what you've studied--I'd like to ask gently, though, if you've read much about Ellen White. And please don't hear me pushing you. God knows what you need, and He will bring it to you when it is time. (I believe, for example, that it was His timing and care of you that led you to this forum at this point in your experience, even though you feel a bit as if you're on a different page!)
But my question is, have you by any chance read The Cultic Doctrine of Seventh-day Adventists? When I finally read that book (about two years after I had been intensively studying the Bible and having a lot of blinders fall away!), I suddenly understood things about my doctrines that I had never understood before. I had discounted EGW as an authority for years, but I had never seen the need to call her a false prophet. When I really read and saw the documented evidence of a series of things she did and claimed, my understanding of her completely changed. That change in my view of Ellen actually changed my understanding of the Bible and of doctrine in ways I didn't even know were issues that needed addressing.
Between that book and reading the new covenant study found in Sabbath in Christ, the Bible became a new, living book. The changes in my understanding, though, did not happen because I learned someone's view of Scripture or read someone's interpretation of texts. The change was that for the first time, I learned to read the Bible inductively. I learned how to study the book with only prayer as my guide, and I learned to follow subjects throughout the entire Bible, reading in context what it said, and putting the pieces together.
Truly the Holy Spirit teaches us truth. In the places of our hearts and minds where we have false doctrine or deception nesting unnoticed, however, we have trouble integrating the truth as it is in Jesus. The Holy Spirit shines the light of truth into those dark corners of our own unknowing deception--but He can only do so when we ask Him to reveal and to make us willing to surrender all our faulty knowledge and understanding.
I understand your feeling that we sound dogmatic--but I want to say, your frustration makes complete sense to me--I suspect to all of us! Secondly, our certainty has grown out of an absolutely real experience with Jesus and the astonishing experience of discovering our own hidden deception. Being willing to know how we have been wrong and finding Jesus smacking us between the eyes, as it were, with the reality of the new covenant has changed us in ways it changed Paul. I don't believe we're hanging onto doctrine--we're embracing Jesus in ways we never knew we could embrace Him.
Tdf, you belong to Jesus--it's clear to me that you want to honor Him and serve Him. Just hang in there with us--we are praying for Him to honor your search for truth. We are very glad you're here with us!
Colleen |
Esther
Registered user
Username: Esther
Post Number: 87
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 11:28 am: | |
Tdf,
Please accept our apologies if we've made you feel "ganged up against". I'm sure I can speak for all of us that we don't mean that in any way. I just think that everyone here has had to contend for their beliefs valiantly against family and friends who've accused us of so many different things...that we all may be a bit too willing to jump into the debate. I understand how it seems that we're being dogmatic on the other side of the fence than we were. But we don't love you any differently, and if we were in person, I believe you could see that! In text though, our discussions on the topics at hand have come across rather one-sided.
I for one, feel that Paul spoke strongly about each being of firm opinion in his own mind correctly. And you have expressed clearly that you don't see it as a salvitic point. I think we could all agree there. It is the same as the rapture issue. Many of us fall on different sides of the fence and I have read good discussion even here regarding it. And though, each one wishes to express how they feel convicted, we don't feel that it's for our salvation.
So please accept my apologies, and know that I value your insight, and have read seriously your postings. I praise God for opening all our hearts and eyes to His knowledge and blessings! You are a sincere Christian as evidenced in your postings and nature...and we are blessed that you've joined us! Thank you for reminding me that it's our "spirit" that counts, and not our "rightness".
Blessings in Christ Jesus to you and your wife! |
Tdf
Registered user
Username: Tdf
Post Number: 9
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 1:14 pm: | |
Thank you Ric_b, Carol_2, Colleentinker and Esther for your kind words. I sense compassion in your posts and it is GREATLY appreciated. I certainly sympathesize with the hurt that you've expressed. Moving away from the SDA church has not been easy for us and it's not getting any easier. Because my wife and I are were born and bred SDA and because our ancestors were also SDA, the repercussions of our study have been deeply felt. There's just so much to consider: being true to what we're learning, understanding God, understanding doctrine, mourning the loss of our support system, fearing that we will never again enjoy family harmony, etc., etc. Colleentinker, I appreciate the book suggestion and I am certainly open. I will try to see if I can find it. Before we make any more changes, we want to fully understand them, embrace them and impliment them into the big picture understanding that we have already gained regarding our amazing Savior. I don't know where God will lead us but, through God's grace, we are becoming less and less anxious about it. If God can bring a former SDA junior academy principle to a point of surrender, to a point of understanding that I do not have it all figured out and to the point of sacrifice in order to follow Him wherever He may lead, then I know He isn't going to leave us to process all of this alone. You are absolutely right -- whatever God has for us to learn, He'll reveal it in His timing. Leaving the Sabbath issue aside, it is my hope that none of us will stop growing in our understanding of God--let's never reach the point where He can't show us something new that He wants us to learn. The specific prayer that we are praying is that God will put people in our lives who can love us as we make some very difficult decisions. Although our God is truly faithful, we sense our need for human support. I am truly touched by your words of love and support and, for now, I'm more than happy to agree to disagree. |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 118
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 3:18 pm: | |
Tdf,
I apologize if my posts have sounded too harsh/dogmatic. When I feel very strongly about an issue I have a hard time wording things other than "dogmatically" I guess you could say. As Colleen and Carol said, this issue has become so clear to us, it makes sense to us, and we are excited about it and want others to experience the liberty and freedom that we have discovered!
The books Cultic Doctrine and Sabbath in Christ by Dale Ratzlaff are available at http://www.ratzlaf.com/.
God bless you in your journey.
Jeremy |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 978
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 5:42 pm: | |
Tdf--I do want to encourage you by saying that God more than redeems what we lose as we say Yes to Him. We have lost many family and social relationships, and these compromised or severed relationships remain unhealed but guarded. Yet God has brought people into our lives that have loved us and supported us and understood us in ways those we lost never did.
He is faithful--in Him is fellowship and support and care that surpasses anything outside of Him! He will guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus. Let us know if you get those two books--they're really powerful.
Colleen |
Logophile
Registered user
Username: Logophile
Post Number: 12
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 7:49 pm: | |
Jeremy,
First, I didn't suspect you were Pastor Martin because of your references to his Web site; I just thought that perhaps the J. in J. Mark Martin might easily stand for Jeremy :-).
Sabbath being a shadow: Valid point about Passover being observed as a reminder of Israel's deliverance from Egypt. You are right: this "religious festival" pointed backward to something that had already happened. At the same time, the sacrifice of the lamb was inherent to the Passover (Exodus 12:26-27). There were sacrifices to be performed on the Sabbath under the old covenant; however, these were not the essence of it.
As for the account of the Rich Young Ruler, it's true that "do not defraud" doesn't correspond readily with one of the Ten Commandments--although it is very close to "do not steal." To illustrate how plain it seems that Jesus _was_ citing from the Ten Commandments, one online commentar, at biblestudytools.net (Commentary Critical, on Luke 18), remarks that "do not defraud" must be associated with the tenth commandment, or else the eighth is repeated twice. Furthermore, even the footnotes published in my NIV Bible recognize, in the case of every one of these passages, that the Old Testament source is Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. Jesus was alluding to the Ten Commandments, and so was Paul, and so was James. "Love your neighbor as yourself" is the general principle, and the last six commandments are specific ways to carry out that principle. This is why Jesus, when asked what the greatest commandment was, responded as he did: he gave the general principles that are the basis for the particulars.
"James quotes "love your neighbor as yourself" which is from the "ceremonial" or rest of the Law (Leviticus 19:18). And he is calling "love your neighbor as yourself" the royal law, not the Ten Commandments."
I'm not sure on what basis you would define "Love your neighbor as yourself" as "ceremonial." There's plenty of stuff outside Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 that isn't ceremonial.
And yes: James is calling "Love your neighbor as yourself" the "royal law, found in Scripture." And he appears to be endorsing it. He writes, "For he who said, 'Do not commit adultery,' also said, 'Do not murder.'" James is obviously referring to something in (Old Testament) Scripture. Since he mentions only these two specific commands, does he intend his audience to regard these two as the exhaustive New Covenant expression of the royal law, or is he confident that his readers know what law he's talking about without him having to specify every particular? James says nothing about murder, honoring of one's parents, etc.
"So if you're going to insist that the New Covenant does not only include that which it states, but that due to it's quoting of the Law, we are also under the Law, then you would have to say that we are under the WHOLE Law, all 613 commandments!"
What I'm saying is that, when Paul, James, and Jesus make obvious allusions to a certain portion of the Law that happens to belong to a very well known set, it implies that they affirm its continued validity. Again, when Paul in Romans 13 adds the qualifier, "...and whatever other commandment there may be," surely it's clear that he's referring to a known set and that he's counting on his readers to know the other commandments that belong to that set.
"But the Bible says that we are NOT under the Law, that we have been released from the Law, that we are not under the Old Covenant, which is the Law, and specifically the Ten Commandments!"
Who ever said we WERE under the law? Do you recognize the importance of obeying the explicit New Testament commands to not steal, not commit adultery, honor your parents, etc.? Of course you do. Does that place you "under the law"? Obviously it doesn't. Since a recognition of nine of the ten commandments in the New Testament apparently does NOT consistute being "under the law," I really don't get how the understanding that the fourth commandment is also still relevant does place one under the law.
"It would be difficult to have to flee in the winter. The same with the Sabbath. The gates of Jerusalem were closed on the Sabbath, therefore making it difficult to flee. "
Interesting point. I hadn't heard of that before. If it's true that the Jews basically couldn't get out of Jerusalem on the Sabbath, then this weakens, and perhaps even negates, the perceived force of that particular argument. Thanks for pointing that out to me. I'll have to look into it.
"It could not be for the Gentiles AND be a sign between God and Israel! How could it be a special sign between God and Israel if the Gentiles were allowed to keep it, too?!"
Check out Isaiah 56:3-7. "Foreigners" were not to be excluded from Sabbath-keeping. Rather, the promise is "these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer _for all nations_."
"The Bible very clearly says that the Law is a yoke of slavery, and that we are to cast it out. I don't see how anyone can get around that."
The New Testament writers also quote authoritatively from the Law, implying that they accepted its continued relevance. I don't see how anyone can get around that.
Besides, if you say that the Ten Commandments are a part of the yoke of slavery that we are to cast out, how can we do this while claiming that nine of the ten commandments are given again in the New Testament--if only coincidentally?
"If we are supposed to keep the Sabbath, then why did God not put it in the New Covenant? As I said, a covenant only includes that which it specifically states."
If the Gentiles were supposed to honor their parents, why was this command not included in the letter in Acts 15? I know you've said a covenant only includes what it specifically states; however--respectfully--I don't find your reasoning on this persuasive.
Hey, thanks for engaging with me in this discussion, Jeremy. You are helping me to see both strengths and weaknesses in my position, and that's an important reason for why I'm here. :-)
logo
|
Logophile
Registered user
Username: Logophile
Post Number: 13
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 7:52 pm: | |
Colleen,
I think I've seen before the approach you present to James 2:8ff. It seems to me that there is a clear objection to the view that James is contrasting the royal law with the ten commandments:
It is readily agreed that the royal law is "Love your neighbor as yourself." But Paul refers to four of the last six commandments (including "Do not commit adultery" and "Do not murder") in Romans 13:9, where he states that these "are summed up in this one rule: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" Unless James is disagreeing with Paul, James is not contrasting the royal law with the ten commandments but identifying it with them.
"Its only usefulness was to prepare people for the Messiah by convincing them that they actually needed Him! It was never intended to be a continuing authority over mankind."
Hmmmmm.... If that's the case, then why would New Testament writers cite particular commands as having continuing authority? Note that the particular command Paul uses as an example in Romans 7 is "Do not covet." Yet he obviously doesn't mean to suggest that this command doesn't have continuing authority, because he cites it as such just six chapters later.
But this brings up an important question: Since, on the one hand, Paul recognized the importance of the command, "Do not covet," and he also recognized that this very command "produced in him every kind of covetous desire," how is Paul to fulfill the command to "Love your neighbor as yourself," one particular of which is "do not covet"?
"They could keep the commandments quite well without living by the Royal Law--but they would be failing to live the life Jesus came to make possible."
Yes, one can seem to keep the commandments without loving one's neighbor; however, can one love one's neighbor without keeping the commadments?
"The problem with assuming that the Mosaic law (including the 10 Commandments) is eternal is that the Bible is quite clear in Romans, Galatians, 2 Corinthians, Colossians, Hebrews--that it was temporary, lasting only until Christ."
I agree that the Mosaic law, including the Ten Commandments is not eternal: probably none of the last six commandments would have had any relevance to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. At the same time, the claim that the the Law lasted only until Christ is contradicted by such passages as Romans 13:9-10; James 2:8-11; and Ephesians 6:1-3.
"Have you ever wondered why Christ-followers who obviously live by the Spirit are not convicted of the Sabbath if they haven't been part of a Sabbatarian church?"
You have a point here. On the other hand, I wonder how many may actually be convicted by what they study but choose not to take those convictions seriously--perhaps regarding them as disturbing suggestions of "legalism"? After all, their pastors, and others whom they trust will probably assure them that, since the Sabbath was nailed to the cross--or whatever--because we are no longer under the law but under grace--the Sabbath is only a relic of the Old Covenant.
Who knows what's really going on in the heart of a person, except God--and perhaps the person him/herself?
Also, when Paul uses "Do not covet" in Romans 7 as an example of what the Law does, he states that "I would not have known what sin was except through the law" (verse 7). Doesn't this imply that if Paul were to have simply disregarded the law (e.g., as having been nailed to the cross), he would not have felt convicted by it?
Well, my purpose here isn't to get anyone to change their minds on the Sabbath. Partly, I enjoy the discussion. More importantly, I want my reasons for believing as I do to be valid. If I present them in a place where they are guaranteed to meet opposition, whatever weaknesses may be present will probably be brought to my attention. .
logo |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 120
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 8:39 pm: | |
Logo,
"You are right: this 'religious festival' pointed backward to something that had already happened. At the same time, the sacrifice of the lamb was inherent to the Passover (Exodus 12:26-27). There were sacrifices to be performed on the Sabbath under the old covenant; however, these were not the essence of it."
Still, Paul says in Colossians 2:16-17 that the Sabbath was a shadow of Christ.
"Love your neighbor as yourself" is not part of the Ten Commandments at all. You can refrain from murdering, stealing, etc. without loving your neighbor! And the commandment about defrauding is only in Leviticus 19. So I can say the Bible is giving authority to Leviticus just as much as you can say the Bible is giving authority to the Ten Commandments! I say we have to keep all of Leviticus including the feast days, as you say we should keep the Ten Commandments including the Sabbath day! ;-)
But why should we have to assume things? Why not just go with what the Bible tells us? Galatians 3 says that the Law was indeed only until Christ (responding to your comment to Colleen). You cannot pull out any text which contradicts that, only passages which you assume are telling us to keep the Mosaic Law.
"I'm not sure on what basis you would define 'Love your neighbor as yourself' as 'ceremonial.' There's plenty of stuff outside Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 that isn't ceremonial."
I only said "ceremonial" because that is the traditional SDA distinction for "the rest of the Law." I put "ceremonial" in quotes. You know I believe in 1 Law--not a separate ceremonial law and moral law.
"Again, when Paul in Romans 13 adds the qualifier, '...and whatever other commandment there may be,' surely it's clear that he's referring to a known set and that he's counting on his readers to know the other commandments that belong to that set."
No, no, no. He's not telling them to keep those commandments! He's saying to love your neighbor. And how can you get Sabbath out of that when it's talking about loving your neighbor? ;-) Have you ever read the very next chapter where Paul says that it's ok if you regard every day alike?
"Who ever said we WERE under the law? Do you recognize the importance of obeying the explicit New Testament commands to not steal, not commit adultery, honor your parents, etc.? Of course you do. Does that place you 'under the law'? Obviously it doesn't."
I AM under the Law of Christ, according to 1 Corinthians 9!
"If it's true that the Jews basically couldn't get out of Jerusalem on the Sabbath, then this weakens, and perhaps even negates, the perceived force of that particular argument. Thanks for pointing that out to me. I'll have to look into it."
This started with Nehemiah I believe. You can even read about it in Nehemiah.
quote:"It could not be for the Gentiles AND be a sign between God and Israel! How could it be a special sign between God and Israel if the Gentiles were allowed to keep it, too?!"
Check out Isaiah 56:3-7. "Foreigners" were not to be excluded from Sabbath-keeping. Rather, the promise is "these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer _for all nations_."
Of course Gentiles could keep the Sabbath if they were circumcised, joined the covenant as that passage says, and became JEWS! I never denied that. My point still stands.
"Besides, if you say that the Ten Commandments are a part of the yoke of slavery that we are to cast out, how can we do this while claiming that nine of the ten commandments are given again in the New Testament--if only coincidentally?"
We are under a completely different covenant, and a completely different law, the Law of Messiah (Christ)!!
Why are we supposed to keep the Ten Commandments? They were NEVER given to the Gentiles. I am not a Jew, are you? The Ten Commandments were only given to the Jews!
I'm enjoying this discussion. Thanks for your friendliness. I mean this post to have a friendly tone to it, if that wasn't apparent by the text itself.
God bless,
Jeremy |
Belvalew
Registered user
Username: Belvalew
Post Number: 59
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, November 19, 2004 - 1:07 am: | |
This is a simple-minded response to all of the learned discussion that has taken place regarding this topic. I was raised a 3rd generation SDA, and as a small child I remember being grateful that there were people who were willing to be lost in order for us to have policemen and firemen, and other emergency service personnel. My mother was a nurse and frequently worked on Sabbath, but that was okay because she was caring for the health of people, and because she was told that she should donate all of her Sabbath pay to the church. I guess one can work as long as one does not benefit from that work.
Think about it, even when you were caught up in all of the day keeping and so forth, there were times when you simply didn't feel confident that you were doing it right. I remember plotting fun things to do after the sun had set and then just sitting watching the sun go down in order to be released from the Sabbath. Wouldn't that time spent just waiting for the Sabbath constrictions to be over be a form of breaking the Sabbath because one's thoughts were not about God or religious subjects at the time. We were planning to go miniature golfing, or some other recreation activity and that was uppermost in our minds.
I'm mentioning all of this because that was the practical situational ethics that I experienced in my youth. We were normal SDA kids and we were trying to do things right, and for the most part we were attending church services of some sort all day long, but we weren't necessarily keeping our minds wholely on God either.
I thank God that he has fulfilled all law on our behalf so we no longer have to watch the progress of the sun toward the horizon. We no longer have to rush our Sabbath preparations on Friday afternoons either. I can find myself to be in an attitude of worship wherever and whenever it seems appropriate. My guardian angel goes with me wherever I go, even if that happens to be inside of a movie theater...
It's too easy to get caught up in arguing the fine points of "The Law." That was the main entertainment of the Pharisees, both in Christ's day and our own. We would do much better celebrating the fact that we have been freed from the condemnation of the law by the blood of Jesus. It hurts me to know that God himself had to lay down his life so that I might live, but since he did so freely, I refuse to waste the opportunities he has given me for freedom and joy.
Belva |
Esther
Registered user
Username: Esther
Post Number: 88
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, November 19, 2004 - 6:00 am: | |
Good points Belva! And Logo & Jeremy, I've really been interested in your discussions!
You thoughts Logo on the mentioning of the law by the new testament writers make me think of somethings else. The whole Jewish system was given as proof/ foreshadow of the coming Messiah. Consequently, the Jews of the New Testament era new the Torah well. It was their culture, so to speak. Any teaching of the New Covenant would have to be "proved" by applications from the Old Covenant. Otherwise, how would the Jews know that the New Covenant was the plan intended? This is the very reason most Jews have not accepted Jesus as Messiah, because they've failed to comprehend the teachings from the old covenant, and see their reality in Jesus.
This is similar to my college experience. When doing research for a paper, I might use a quote from a very old document or publication. That doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with the whole publication...if it's a book, I might not agree with anything else in the book. But if that particular writer made a point that fits with my thesis, I will use (and give credit for) their thoughts as they back up my own.
As Paul states, the Law was not bad. It was given for a purpose. The Jews were very familiar with the law, and just because it's quoted here and there...the writers seemed to be making an instruction point. Being in agreement with Jeremy and Colleen that there was no separate law. They were quoting something familiar, that they could make a practical application to the "Love your neighbor" law of Christ.
Paul also makes applications from events in old testament times. Such as, Hagar and Sarah, Isaac and Ishmael. A very interesting read is the epistle of Barnabas. Though maybe not authoritative...he does make many of the same expansions on old covenant vs new covenant.
But again, being "not under law", even these quotes of aspects of the old covenant did not make it law, but rather, an example... Our lives should be filled with Christ, and the Spirit, and as a result, the love He gives us. This is the fulfillment of the law.
Also, Logo, everything I said to Tdf above applies to you as well. I'm enjoying this discussion, but want to make clear that I love your input and insight, and though we might be on different opinions regarding this...it doesn't affect my christian love for you in the least! What you said about knowing the weaknesses of your arguments applies to us as well. And I value the experience of participating (if even just a little) and gaining a deeper understanding of my own thoughts.
Blessing in Christ Jesus! |
Tdf
Registered user
Username: Tdf
Post Number: 10
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Friday, November 19, 2004 - 6:29 am: | |
Belva,
I sympathize with your comments. It is absurd the number of rules that some folks attach to the Sabbath! I would hate for my daughter to grow up in a world like the one you described. My wife and I believe strongly that the "Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath" and, although we try to plan special things to make the day unique and special, we haven't fallen into a bunch of legalistic rules (i.e. you can't ride your bike, you can't throw a ball, you can't go swimming, you can't, you can't, you can't) and I hope that our daughter will never come to the point where she consistently dreads the Sabbath (if she does, that should be a big red flag indicating that something is wrong). Because we have made it a fun day, I don't see it as a burden. I can certainly understand why it would be a burden if you felt compelled to keep it in such a legalistic manner. |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 981
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 19, 2004 - 10:33 am: | |
The problem as I see it still is, Logo, that one cannot say that God's eternal moral attributes equal the law. Of course one can love his neighbor WITHOUT keeping the law. Enoch apparently loved his neighbors well because he walked with God. The law just isn't in the equation.
I further believe we cannot assume that people who are being led by the Holy Spirit yet are not convicted about the Sabbath are not allowing themselves to be convicted by the evidence. (That was the old argument I heard about Billy Graham--he knew about the Sabbath because Adventists had met with him, but he refused to acknowledge it. Perhaps, they said, he would before he died. Perhaps God was keeping him in partial blindness so he could call many to Christ without the appendage of the Sabbath, but then the Sabbath would come later. Or perhaps he was just being rebellious, and he would be lost after all.)
If we cannot see that God's Person does not equal the law, then we set up a straw man argument.
No, the law is not in view at all in the new covenant. Obedience to Jesus is in view; surrender to the moral purity and demands of God by allowing the Holy Spirit to transform us is in view. Choosing to live by the Spirit instead of by the flesh is in view.
The law was for the purpose of increasing our consciousness of sin and even our indulgence in sin. It was for the purpose of preparing people to recognize and desire their Messiah. But He Has Come! We now see that we are set free fromt he law of sin and death, and we have new life in Him apart from the law! And this righteousness apart from the law was what the Law and the Prophets testified about! (Romans 3:21)
Praise God, He is eternal! Praise God, we are free from our bondage to the law and alive in our slavery to the Lord Jesus!
Colleen |
Melissa
Registered user
Username: Melissa
Post Number: 587
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 19, 2004 - 12:20 pm: | |
I was fascinated by this statement, TDF.
"My reading of scripture keeps pointing me to the fact that the Sabbath was instituted at creation and that it has been desecrated and retaught at several points throughout history. "
I have heard that statement supposed into the text between Genesis 1 and Exodus 16, but never seen any scripture to support the supposition. God specifically says HE rested, not they...which would include Adam and Eve. Furthermore, is there something that strikes you as saying the Jews had merely forgotten it in their years of slavery? Also, why is it never taught to the gentiles, who never had the law? They are warned about a number of sins, but breaking any holy day is never mentioned. Where are gentiles to learn about this requirement, if it is one, from Paul's letters? I'm not trying to attack, but I am trying to understand the specific scripture that leads one to these beliefs. Here is what influences my beliefs as a gentile, I'd be curious about your understanding. (I'm a never-was SDA...so this isn't so "obvious" to me)
Lev 23 states the 7th day sabbath is one of the feast days...
romans 14 1-5 ... holy days are to be a conviction of one's mind...
Gal 4:9-11 says you observe days months seasons and years....he thinks he has labored in vain...the context calls them weak and worthless elemental things.
Col 2:16-17 says not to judge people in regards to sabbaths...
Finally, Hebrews 3-4 focuses upon the sabbath-like rest, but says in 4:7 he is again fixing a certain day, calling it "today". The context of this passage seems to be the what (rest) not the when (7th day or today). Verse 8 says if Joshua had given rest, he wouldn't have spoken of another day. So, while the rest remains, it seems it is not found in a specific day.
I tried to limit to specific texts that talk specifically about the observance of holy days post cross (except Lev 23...which seems to define the place of the sabbath from God's perspective...not moral, but ceremonial). The discussion above seems to be talking about law, but I'm curious specifically about the holy day take. The New Testament DOES specifically speak to holydays. No where is the absence of holy day observance listed as a sin, which is different than the Old Testament where the jews get chastised seemingly frequently for their holy day observance. I can't buy they needed to be taught not to murder, but did not need to be taught about holy day observance. I'm just curious if you have an explanation that I can understand. And maybe you'll understand a Biblical foundation for my understanding, even if you disagree. In many respects, it's not a law issue...no where does God say it is wrong to worship on the first day of the week. Though SOME Christians may think Sunday is a sort of sabbath, I've never met any of them...and I was personally always taught we worship on Sunday in honor of the resurrection. I don't understand how honoring the resurrection is so "wrong" and "of Satan". So, I am trying as hard as I know not to presume upon you some of the very negative statements the SDA I know has tossed at me, but I truly do not get how SDAs equate the when of worship with evil. And why is it okay to worship any day of the week, except the first? Those are some of my confusions about a day that people claim is about rest, but then condemn others for their worship. |
Flyinglady
Registered user
Username: Flyinglady
Post Number: 764
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, November 19, 2004 - 7:15 pm: | |
Tdf,
I like the comments you made about not making lots of do's and don'ts for Sabbath keeping. I did the same thing with my son. Sabbath was a day to enjoy and to know God better through nature out doors or a museum. It was a day for the family. And I am so glad I did that. This summer when I was talking to him on the phone, he told me "Thank you Mom, for not raising me a traditional SDA". It was then I realized it had been God doing it and not me. God started working on my leaving the SDA church long before I realized it and I am so thankful. He is awesome.
Diana |
|
