- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostAdrian Warnock Interviews...Me!
- Next Post »A La Carte (02/06)
Call The Sabbath A Delight
- 02/05/06
- 245
I recently heard someone say “I follow all 9 of the 10 commandments.” It is true, isn’t it, that we continue to regard each of the other 9 commandments as being integral to the Christian life, but have disregarded the fourth. A few years ago I read an article written by an unbeliever and published in a major newspaper where she questioned how Christians could simply disregard this commandment. Her conclusion was that it was mere disobedience - that Christians disregarded the commandment simply because following it would conflict with our lifestyles. Was she on to something, or did she merely misunderstand the relationship of the Old Testament to the New - a very common problem with believers and unbelievers alike?
Call The Sabbath A Delight is the first book I have read dedicated entirely to the subject of Sabbath observance in the post Old Testament era. I have read bits and pieces of information regarding why we should or should not continue to honor the fourth commandment, but never a book-length treatment. This particular book is published by Banner of Truth which should give a pretty good indication of which side the author will take. He represents the view that I was raised with. I was raised in a Presbyterian home and attended Reformed schools and churches and was continually admonished to keep the Sabbath holy. I spent one year of my life in Scotland and there we were taught that we were not even to play with friends on Sunday, but were instead to read our Bibles and study our Catechisms. While the author, Walter Chandry, may not be that strict, he clearly believes that Christians have abandoned a practice which we need to rediscover out of obedience to God.
A common argument against observing the Sabbath in our time is that Christ did away with the moral Law when He died for us. Underlying this observation is a belief or assumption that the Sabbath was somehow a burdensome obligation for God’s people, but nothing could be farther from the truth. The Sabbath was a creation ordinance, for even in a perfect world God rested on the seventh day and declared it as being set apart to Him. So when we examine this issue we need to do so free from a bias that the Sabbath was an obligation. On the contrary it was a wonderful privilege, given by a loving God. Any harm that befell the day was the fault of sinful humans who are adept at turning anything wonderful into something burdensome.
The author covers the following topics:
- The Commandment is Holy
- The Commandment is Spiritual
- The Commandment is Good
- Does the NT Teach the 4th Commandment?
- Sabbath Observance: Mosaic and Christian
- Motives for Sabbath-Keeping
- Which Day of the Week in the Sabbath?
- Difficult Cases of Conscience
I will leave you to read his arguments on your own if the topic interests you. His conclusion is that the Sabbath, as a creation ordinance, continues to this day so that God requires that we continue to honor it even today. “No age has ever more intensely needed Sabbath-keeping than ours. Attempts to scrap God’s moral law and to replace it with institutions and schemes of human invention are miserably failing. Sabbath-keeping in isolation is not an answer to all man’s ills. Yet, this law is intimately related to all others and has a necessary connection with the other branches of God’s moral code. Where even small segments of mankind have succeeded in implementing a joyful observance of the Sabbath, they have reaped enormous benefit. It is time for us, too, to call the Sabbath a delight and to return unto the Lord.”
While his arguments are compelling, I am not sure that they are strong enough to convict the evangelical who has never even considered that the Sabbath may extend to our day. His argument is valuable, though, for it represents the view held by many Presbyterian and Reformed believers. Their belief is one which many, if not the majority, of Christians held until recent times.
As for me, I admit with some shame that I do not honor the Sabbath as I used to. I refrain from working and try to set the day apart, but certainly do not treat the day in a way which would make my Presbyterian friends proud. Do I believe that the church would benefit from returning to honoring the Sabbath? I certainly do. But do I truly believe this is an obligation? That is where I am not quite so sure. I struggle with this issue and intend to keep reading about it, studying both perspectives.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (245)
Chelsey I think pointed out something that has stuck in my mind through all of this discussion.
one should examine their heart and think about their motives for not wanting to make the Sabbath a day of rest.
Have you done this, those of you who argue we are not under law, that we need to acknowledge the grace of Christ, that he came and fulfilled the law, etc. All these issues are true, yet perhaps we have missed the boat in trying to analyze away the need to commit to this. It would certainly involve change, something that is never initially easy.
Try blessing yourself and someone you know or love this week on the sabbath by resting and honoring our Lord, instead of what activity you might usually do that may only lead to rushing around and wasting time.Just a thought…
Boyfrienddan, Romans 5:12-14 is explicitly clear how people before Sinai were judged sinful:
“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned—for before the law was given sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.”
The 10 Commandments were not the basis of sin before the law was given. Adam’s sin was the basis of mankind’s sin (see also 1 Corinthians 15:21-22). Before the time of Moses, Paul is saying, Adam was the only one who broke a direct command of God: do not eat of the fruit. That disobedience resulted in his sin—and ours. We are sinners because of Adam, and before Sinai, mankind were sinners because Adam sinned, and in Adam we all died.
It’s true that sin is the trangsression of the law; we insult God, however, if we equate His eternal law with the 10 Commandments. He Himself is the Law. All Law resides in and originates in God. God’s law is much more than the decalogue. Indeed, God’s law included His command to Adam and Eve not to eat of the forbidden fruit. His law also included the implicit request that they trust Him even when the reason for his stated command didn’t make sense.
No, the decalogue was not necessary for mankind to be sinful. The Decalogue/Sinai law was added 430 years after Abraham until the Seed would come (Gal. 3: 15-25). It was added “so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more…” (Romans 5:20).
When humanity finally had the law to explain what sin looked like, sin actually increased. It did not decrease. It’s like putting a “do not spit” sign next to a sidewalk. Before the sign was there, you probably never thought of spitting. Once the sign is there, spitting becomes a focus, and temptation is born. THAT was the purpose of the law: making mankind AWARE of what was sinful and driving him into temptation and sin so that he would discover his depravity and desire rescue.
The law was for the purpose of holding us prisoners, “locked up until faith should be revealed. The law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law” (Gal. 3:23-24).
No, the written law was not in view between Adam and Moses. Sin reigned, but humanity had so supressed the knowledge of God by their wickedness (Romans 1:18-20) that they had become largely unconscious that they were sinful sinners. God gave the law to bring them back to consciousness—and to the desperation that would drive them to humble themselves before God and to awaken a desire for their Savior.
God’s Law does not equal the Decalogue. God’s Law is embodied in God Himself. To call the decalogue His eternal law is to insult Him. He is our Law and Lawgiver.
Colleen
Thanks Colleen.
“It’s true that sin is the trangsression of the law; we insult God, however, if we equate His eternal law with the 10 Commandments. He Himself is the Law. All Law resides in and originates in God. God’s law is much more than the decalogue. Indeed, God’s law included His command to Adam and Eve not to eat of the forbidden fruit. His law also included the implicit request that they trust Him even when the reason for his stated command didn’t make sense.”
I would like to know too, what God’s eternal law is, what its basis is, and how to make sense out of it.
Allow me, however, to get into a matter of hypotheses (if you don’t mind.)
1) The Pharisees in Jesus’ time were the only ones who said He was breaking the Sabbath law. Upon closer inspection (especially in His dialogues with them in the gospel of John), “What have law have I broken for you to have a reason to stone me?” the answer was not because of the Sabbath, but because they deemed Him blasphemous for equating Himself with God. My hypothesis for this one (if you don’t mind) is that Jesus’s teaching is a reversal of the common practice that was prevalent in the post-captive Jewish nation. Remember that the reason for their captivity, and almost-destruction as an entire nation, is because of their transgressions. Post-captivity, their idea of “transgression” was in effect, closely tied to their “works.” Jesus reversed this by making sure the Sabbath was recontemplated to mean as a blessing, and not an obligation. In a sense, Jesus did not break the Sabbath law. He was reestablishing it.
2) I still can’t see how one can read Hebrew 3 and 4 and miss the points “there remains,” “when you hear God’s word, do not harden your hearts,” and the rest of the discussions. I noticed in two of the posts here however, when the question arises that Sunday becomes the Sabbath, and is kept as such, it is held to be “what the early church has established.” We read the whole letter to the Ephesians and we read of the early church as being as faulty too. “Doctrine of man?”
3) That grace is still something that we don’t deserve, but is freely given. Romans and its discussions present the view towards believers themselves. “Do we continue in sin?” In defining that, “truly, sin is a transgression of the law.” How does one, even a believer in Christ, be able to “continue in sin?” if the background (the mirror of the law) of sin seems to have been abolished?
4) Why is it that we can’t reverse the other laws of the decalogue, and nail them at the cross too, and only the Sabbath commandment? Tim’s question seems simplistic, yet severe: Why just keep the other 9, when there were ten. Sure Colleen, we insult God if we box Him by just defining Him as reflected in the 10 commandments. But aren’t we still boxing Him by saying that He is less than that either? (“For the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD our GOD,” not saying that the Sabbath is ours. It is still His. It is FOR us, as the NT says.)
5) Keeping the Sabbath DOES NOT earn you salvation. Nor will honoring your father and mother. Nor is making sure that you don’t profane God’s Name. So why follow these “moral laws” if you can’t be saved by them anyway? Does it mean that being saved by grace alone, we are free to do anything? Where and how do we draw the line? “Faith without works is dead.” “You are saved by faith through grace in Jesus Christ.” If we live that, “Our faith is evidenced by works.” The “Jews” (because not all of them) were only in the pitfall for believing they could “work” for their salvation (thus, keeping the Sabbath for them was of redeeming value). As followers of Christ, we believe that we are saved, and thus, do according to good works. I don’t have any problem with accepting this fact, because Jesus Himself said, “If you do not believe me for what I say, then believe my deeds.”
6) Finally, since faith does become a very central truth in the acceptance of grace, why is it that we don’t have much faith in a God who can tell us that He has created the heavens and the earth in six days and rested on the seventh? If we are asking God for His eternal purposes, and it is evidently laid out for us, (i.e, a Sabbath rest in Hebrews 4), why can’t we just TRUST Him that this is good for us? (Read Jeremiah 42-44)
None of us can keep any law, not against adultery, not the Sabbath, if there was no Redemption through Christ. “Here is the patience of the saints. Here are the ones who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.” Rev. 14:12
I am having trouble believing that I counted nearly 39,000 words in the above comments dating back the last 8 days, and all because of a book report.
I don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings, but you people have not shed any light at all on the subject. All you seem to have done is tickle each other with how much you believe you know.
If a person wanted to know about Sabbath rest (a very important NT concept), I could not recommend that he read your posts. He would go away confused and disheartened. He might even say, if these are Christians, there is no such thing as rest.
What is your point? Does any of you even know what the point is?
Let me repeat for the theological students: 39,000 words! 94 pages in Microsoft Word.
I say, take a break, take a nap. Rest a while. You are not clearing a way through the forest. The trees have gotten in your way.
Boyfrienddan, I know all of the arguments you present above intimately. I learned all of them in Adventism. And all of them are created and sustained in order to preserve the doctrine of seventh-day Sabbath-keeping. Even more deeply, this doctrine MUST be defended because of the “counsel” of Ellen White and her unique teachings about the alleged great controversy, the prophesied national and international Sunday law, and the teaching (now often avoided by never abandoned) that “keeping Sunday” is the mark of the beast.
At the core, the arguments you present are not for the purpose of exalting Christ and His finished work. Adventism does not truly teach Christ’s “finished” work. In fact, it clearly teaches (officially) that one cannot know whether or not he is saved eternally. He can only know from moment to moment whether or not he is likely saved; he cannot know the future for sure. These are unbiblical teachings.
The Bible does not mandate Saturday observance for Christians. Even the Reformed theologians and Christians who post here agree that Saturday sacredness per se is not a Biblical command for the Christian, although they do argue for the continuance of the law in the capacity of a guide to moral behavior.
Your arguments, dan, ultimately lead to confusion and to something Paul called “another gospel”. They do not withstand the test of inductive Biblical scrutiny.
Colleen
To Colleen
I don’t know why you would dismiss these thoughts as mere “doctrinal” heresy of a certain church, when these thoughts do still grow in parallel with Scripture. I am also still awaiting your thoughts on God’s eternal law, what it is, and the basis of such.
I’d like to point out an experience of mine regarding a typical churchgoer’s view of salvation. I have spoken to congregations and asked them, “Do you think you are saved?” and ask a raise of hand. Zero. And then I proceed to ask them why it is so. And the typical answer: they still don’t think they have worked hard for their salvation. Alas, it is a very sad thing.
So I proceed to tell them that Christ has already done what He promised to do: Save us from this sinful world through His death. Unless we tell ourselves that THAT death was for us, and that we accept it, we can never be saved. The better news about that is that He lived, the same way each of us can live through Him.
My point in telling you this is, yes, there is a certain reliance about being “holy” or a “saint” in order for one to convince oneself that one can be “saved.” And in this case, Christ’s sacrifice becomes void. So many times have those who struggled to go back to church tell themselves, “If only I was good enough.” The point we can share for people like this, is that “Jesus is enough,” for one to go back to God.
Going back to the topic at hand:
“The Bible does not mandate Saturday observance for Christians. Even the Reformed theologians and Christians who post here agree that Saturday sacredness per se is not a Biblical command for the Christian, although they do argue for the continuance of the law in the capacity of a guide to moral behavior.”
I would only assume that the Bible you’re talking about here would be the NT? One of the things that I noticed in the presentation of this view is the term “Jewish Sabbath,” and I end up asking, “What was wrong with the Jewish Sabbath anyway, in its pure, original term?” Was there only a Sabbath by the time the Jews existed? Was the Sabbath just so foully bad a setting for humankind that it had to be abolished? I can only ask, for now.
One of the things that alarms me the most is this - the fact that suddenly, we all take it as impossible in realizing God’s will through His law. If we do so, we demerit Christ’s integrity as well as He lived among us, and became human for us, masking His divinity so that he can bear the sorrows of this world just like us. The argument may go on as far as denouncing that Christ was only able to do what He did on Earth because He was God. That, I would say, cannot be Scripturally correct also. He was man to take on, even the law that is (or was, if you prefer to believe), when He was on Earth. However, through this victory, His is our mediatorship in Heaven. He did it, because time and again, we refuse to believe that God had the power through His Spirit to make His law abound in the life, not of the Jew, or the Christian, but for every human being.
“He can only know from moment to moment whether or not he is likely saved; he cannot know the future for sure. These are unbiblical teachings.” I do not think that the “future” and “salvation” has a direct link to each other in this effect. For one, salvation is sure, but the question is, for who? Second, the “future” will always become now, as we can easily put it. Knowledge of the future, however, becomes different in itself. Consider the parable of the ten virgins, and parallel to the one where Jesus says, “not all who say Lord, Lord, will enter the Kindom of Heaven.” The ten virgins had knowledge of the future, the coming of the bridegroom, but only five of them were equipped for that (the Holy Spirit). The surety of salvation lies in the fact that yes, the Bridegroom will come. What effect however, will this knowledge of the future have?
Regarding the great controversy not by Ellen White, I suggest you read Philip Yancey’s book, Disappointment with God. It may not be directly what you expect, but it does have the idea within it.
I’ve gone long enough for this, and I don’t think Jeff appreciates such a heavy and taxing text. Still, a great discussion.
To Jeff
Quite a challenge you posed there.
“What is your point? Does any of you even know what the point is?” So I paste from the way above blog: “Do I believe that the church would benefit from returning to honoring the Sabbath? I certainly do. But do I truly believe this is an obligation? That is where I am not quite so sure. I struggle with this issue and intend to keep reading about it, studying both perspectives.”
The struggle with the issue - is the Sabbath still there?
For me, under my Biblical convictions, yes, it still is. For one, I do not adhere to the fact that the Sabbath being mentioned in Exo 20:8 is a ceremonial thing. Why? Because I don’t see anything ceremonial about making sure we acknowledge God for His Creatorship. Did God need to rest? My answer: God chose to have another day after creating six, just to say that He rested, hallowed, and sanctified it. Why is it important for a Christian (or even a non-Christian) today? Because the true Sabbath itself, the one that Jesus even kept while here on Earth, still “remains” as a rest for His people. Why do people believe that there is no longer a Sabbath, or that it is purely ceremonial, or that it was changed to another day? My answer (and this, is purely MY answer), is because we just have too much of ourselves to care.
“Boyfrienddan, you are horrible for saying that last part.” I feel horrible for saying this last part. But that is somehow the truth. What is the essence of the Sabbath provision? “Let go.”
What does it mean when something is holy? It is set apart, special. A holy nation. A holy priesthood. Set apart. Very special indeed. Are we holy? If you say no, then what is Christianity for? If you say yes, then we are embracing salvation to its fullest. So how does it mean that the Sabbath is holy? Is it because it is special? Is it because it was set apart? You decide.
“Let go.” Will you be able to trust God enough to be a Christian by closing your business during the Sabbath? Would you? The Sabbath is burdensome, therefore, has to be abolished. It doesn’t become a practical thing anymore, these days. Uhuh. Is Christianity just being practical? Christ did not keep the Sabbath holy anyways. Did he not? “It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” It is also lawful to do good in any other day. He also said, “Love one another.”
“Let go.” There is just so much that we have to do, we don’t need to keep the Sabbath anymore and it is enough for us to know that Christ has saved us from sin and now we are free from the bondage of the law. Then again, “Rather, we uphold the law.”
“Let go.” I JUST DON’T THINK THE SABBATH IS FOR THE CHRISTIANS LIVING TODAY. “Truly, truly, I say to you, He who believes on Me, the works that I do he shall do also, and greater works than these he shall do, because I go to My Father.” Jn 14:11
“Just let go.”
I don’t believe the purpose of this blog is to discuss Adventist theology. That being said, I’ll repeat what I previously wrote about God’s law: It is God Himself. All law—moral, physical, biological, etc.— resides in and comes from Him. We limit Him and His will if we limit our acceptance of His law to the 10 Commandments.
“Scripture contains no command for Christians to keep Saturday.” You asked if I meant the NT? Of course; the OT contains no commands addressed to Christians. They did not yet exist. Christianity could only come to be as a consequence of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, and His gift of the Holy Spirit to indwell His believers.
Reading the Bible with prayer to understand it without the filter of any extra-Biblical authority yields a much different book than one “gets” when one reads it in light of a pre-determined doctrine in which one is invested.
I completely understand how the Bible looks to you, Dan—because I saw it the same way for many years. Only, however, when we turn to Christ and away from Moses is the veil removed (2 Cor. 3).
Extra-Biblical prophets and messengers have no place in a Christ-followers experience. No matter how we try to distance ourselves, we can’t escape their influence unless we consciously accept the Holy Spirit in place of our “messenger-shaped” understandings.
Jesus is enough.
Colleen
Boyfrienddan, are you trying to say it is more “burdensome” to close a business on Saturday than on Sunday? I don’t understand why sabbitarians think it is more “convenient” to “rest” on Sunday than on Saturday. A day away is a day away. But I want to question your position that you see nothing that says the sabbath was ceremonial.
Scripture clearly explains, if allowed:
Lev 23:1 And Jehovah spoke to Moses, saying, Lev 23:2 Speak to the sons of Israel, and you shall say to them, The appointed feasts of Jehovah which you shall proclaim, holy gatherings, shall be these: These are My appointed seasons: Lev 23:3 Work is to be done six days, and in the seventh day shall be a sabbath of rest, a holy gathering; you shall do no work; it is a sabbath to Jehovah in all your dwellings. Lev 23:4 These are appointed seasons of Jehovah, holy gatherings which you shall proclaim in their appointed seasons: Lev 23:5 In the first month, on the fourteenth of the month, between the evenings is the Passover to Jehovah.
The same preface used to announce the passover (vs 4) is the exact same one to describe the 7th day sabbath (vs 2). And what do those verses tell us? These are appointed “seasons”, feast days. I’m sure you don’t keep passover because you see it as ceremonial, but it is no different for the 7th day sabbath. Do you know of any scripture that says the 7th day sabbath is a moral obligation other than the assumption it is so because it is in the 10 commandments? And to really split hairs, where does the 4th commandment “command” worship? Even in this passage the rest is to be “in your dwellings”. It was a rest day, but every sabbitarian I know says it was also expected that one attend worship services…but where does the commandment SAY that? Truth be told, no one “keeps” the sabbath in the carnal form, not even sabbitarians. Someone above, probably Jeremy, detailed the obligations for the sabbath according to the Bible. I doubt many here turn off their gas furnaces or water heaters or stay in their dwellings for 24 hours.
Hebrews 4 has come up as requiring the sabbath, but again, one needs to carefully look at what the text actually says.
Heb 4:2 For, indeed, we have had the gospel preached to us, even as they also; but the Word did not profit those hearing it, not having been mixed with faith in the ones who heard. Heb 4:3 For we, the ones believing, enter into the rest, even as He said, “As I swore in My wrath, they shall not enter into My rest,” though the works had come into being from the foundation of the world. Heb 4:4 For He has spoken somewhere about the seventh day this way, “And God rested from all His works in the seventh day.” Heb 4:5 And in this again, “They shall not enter into My rest.” Heb 4:6 Therefore, since it remains for some to enter into it, and those who formerly had the gospel preached did not enter in on account of disobedience, Heb 4:7 He again marks out a certain day, saying in David, Today (after so long a time, according as He has said), “Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts.” Heb 4:8 For if Joshua gave them rest, then He would not have afterwards spoken about another day. Heb 4:9 So, then, there remains a sabbath rest to the people of God. Heb 4:10 For he entering into His rest, he himself also rested from his works, as God had rested from His own. Heb 4:11 Therefore, let us exert ourselves to enter into that rest, that not anyone fall in the same example of disobedience.
All those sabbathkeepers of old did not enter rest because of disobedience. And what was the disobedience? Lack of faith, right? But is there still a “right” day to enter God’s rest?? Vs. 7 says he again speaks of another day and he calls it “today”, not the 7th day. If the 7th day had been able to provide them rest, he wouldn’t have had to speak of another day …that’s what verse 8 says. TRUE rest was not in a day. What remains is “rest” and it is available any day … vs 9. Hebrews 4 moves from the concept of a single day for rest (the shadow) to a rest available in Christ any day (the reality). Hebrews NOwhere re-affirms 7th day observation. It only affirms another day, called “today” to enter God’s true rest through faith in Christ.
The scripture is clear that God does not change…and his purposes does not change…and it is impossible for God to lie. No where does it say he cannot change his creation. The sabbath was “made…”. It is not God. To try to say it cannot change, is to say it is God. That makes it an idol.
To comment on something someone else said about the 10 commandments being God’s nature…. God is not the “minister of death”. God is the author of life. The law written on stone is called “a ministration of death”.
2Co 3:4 And we have such confidence through Christ toward God; 2Co 3:5 not that we are sufficient of ourselves to reason out anything as being out of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God, 2Co 3:6 who also made us able ministers of a new covenant, not of letter, but of Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit makes alive. 2Co 3:7 But if the ministry of death having been engraved in letters in stone was with glory, so as that the sons of Israel could not gaze into “the face of Moses” because of the glory of his face, which was to cease, 2Co 3:8 how much rather the ministry of the Spirit will be in glory! 2Co 3:9 For if the ministry of condemnation was glory, much rather the ministry of righteousness abounds in glory. 2Co 3:10 For even that which has been made glorious has not been made glorious in this respect, because of the surpassing glory. 2Co 3:11 For if the thing done away was through glory, much rather the thing remaining is in glory. 2Co 3:12 Then having such hope, we use much boldness. 2Co 3:13 And not as “Moses, who put a veil over his face,” for the sons of Israel not to gaze at the end of the thing being done away. 2Co 3:14 But their thoughts were hardened, for until the present time the same veil remains on the reading of the Old Covenant, not being unveiled, that it is being done away in Christ. 2Co 3:15 But until today, when Moses is being read, a veil lies on their heart. 2Co 3:16 But whenever it turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.
Verse 7 tells us the ministry of death was engraved on stones. What else do we know from scripture was engraved on stones? The 10 commandments, yes with God’s own finger. The above passage tells us it’s glory is fading and from the old covenant. We are now ministers of a new covenant through Christ. I don’t know any plainer language.
There is a passage that talks about what defiles a man (Matt 15). I don’t have it in front of me, but Jesus has been challenged because of the lack of ritual washings. He makes the statement that it’s not what goes into the man that makes him unclean, but what comes out because that reveals the condition of his heart. You could say that principlly the same thing is true in regards to a persons actions. It is not the bad behavior that makes us unclean/lawbreakers, it is the wickedness in our heart that conceived the bad thought that caused the bad action that makes us sinners. I can not kill or not steal and still have a heart of anger and envy or greed. I can go to church on Saturday and just like those of Joshua’s day (Hebrew 4), still not enter God’s rest. Those thinking “some” of us are advocating we are now free to kill should remember that we are guided by Christ now, who told us not to be angry, not to lust, etc. He deals with our hearts, which controls behavior, not merely with our self-control which has little impact on our heart.
As Colleen mentioned, I too am aware this is not a discussion about Adventism. However, the issue of the sabbath is the primary recruiting tool, and it is out of concern that people might get pulled into that culture and all that means that you hear such passionate discussion. Appreciate the warning (I wish I’d had it 6 plus years ago). Don’t be fooled. The sabbath as it appears on the surface is the least objectionable of their heretical doctrines. The SDAs mission is to convert non-SDAs to “the sabbath truth”. And anyone with a non-SDA understanding of the sabbath is their target…no matter what they might say up front. If you reject the sabbath, you reject salvation, according to their views. Just be aware of such false gospels.
Sorry for the length.
Considering that some have already bowed out of this discussion, this may be my last post on the subject. Plus, I go away for 2 days and come back with 100 more messages to keep up with, I just don’t have the time ;-).
Some things, however have caught my eye. It seems for Chad and Colleen, the decalogue/10 words/10 commandments have absolutely nothing to do with God’s moral law. Though there is fulfillment and expansion in Christ which is the focus of Redemptive History, recall that Moses did not invent the decalogue, it was given by God. Not that the 10 commandments are themselves God’s moral law, but they are a summary of it, and the Westminster Larger and Shorter catechisms do a wonderful job expounding this.
Chad commented on how he could not understand how the Sabbath could change from Saturday to Sunday if it is part of God’s unchanging law. I think the obvious answer here is Christ. The law in its civil, ceremonial, and moral aspects pointed to fulfillment in Christ. So then the Sabbath itself did not change, but rather the observance of it in light of Christ. The principle to worship God while resting from earthly labors one day in seven still remained, however the Sabbath rest was grounded in the resurrection celebration of the ascended Christ.
Now on the changing of the day of observance from the last day of the week to the first, the testimony of the New Testament early church is sufficient. Christ rose on the first day (John 20:1) and Christ revealed himself to his disciplies (John 20:19). Believers then began to meet together on the first day of the week instead of the last (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16:1-2;
It is this day that became known as the “Lord’s Day” (Rev 1:10). It is made for man (Mark 2:27-28) and Christ is the Lord over it. For this reason it is important to avoid the tendency to make lists of “do’s” and “don’ts”. The focus is to be on rest and worship, in attending to the means of grace together as one body.
To be able to call the Sabbath your delight (Isa 58:13). I do prefer to refer to Sunday as the Lord’s Day, or as the WCF refers to it “the Christian Sabbath.” This makes a helpful distinction that it is different than the OT Sabbath in its observance, though the heart of the command still applies.
That may be it for me, for now. I’m doing my best to not rob my church and family of their time.
Peace, Andrew.
Nowhere in all of this did I hear made mention of the Sabbath as being a memorial to His creation.
That’s because, Johnny, the Bible doesn’t say it’s a memorial of creation. The Bible points out that the Sabbath pointed back to God’s REST at the end of creation. Sabbath never represented “work”—God’s or humans’. It represented God ceasing from His work.
Exodus 20 says God made heaven and earth in six days and rested on the seventh day. THEREFORE (as a consequence of his resting) He blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. It was about His ceasing, finishing His work—not about his working.
What Jesus did at the end of creation and at the cross had similar effects in the lives of humans. Both “ceasings” ushered mankind into the presence of God with no work or contribution on their part. Jesus provided the means of our being one with Him.
Colleen
Hi, Colleen,You’re so right! However, when He blesses something is it not blessed forever? He could reverse it but certainly no man can. I concede the memorial thing may have been a little subtle indoctrination. Yet, if it is not a memorial, what would you call it?
Johnny C, I’d call it a big waste of time. God would have created something else on the seventh day.
I however, disagree with Colleen’s point that the BIBLE (which includes the OT, not just the NT) does not say anything about the Sabbath being a memorial, grammar-wise. The point of a memorial has something to do with remembrance. In effect - Exo 20:8-11 still maintains “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” Keep it in memory.
Another thing with one of the points she raises on another post: “Scripture contains no command for Christians to keep Saturday.” You asked if I meant the NT? Of course; the OT contains no commands addressed to Christians. They did not yet exist. Christianity could only come to be as a consequence of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, and His gift of the Holy Spirit to indwell His believers.” The OT does not contain commands addressed to Christians? How about: “Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your understanding. In all your ways, acknowledge Him, and He will direct your paths.” Prov 3:5,6. I don’t see why Christians cannot apply that when that is a core of Christian faith? Or how about the New Covenant message? Jeremiah? Shall we be selective in this sense then?
The Sabbath, I suppose, is not JUST a law. It is a reality. Just as God is real in His Creatorship. Just as Jesus Christ was real in His death, resurrection, and redemption. They are not equal (never assume that one can equate God with the Sabbath), but they are real.
Were not the sacrificial laws Christian laws? Is that not how Abel lost his life? If he was’nt a follower of Christ, what would you call him?
I stopped reading closely around post 100 and skimmed the rest to see if there was a truly detailed treatment of the Galatians issue, which I don’t believe there is.
Before I start, allow me to compliment everyone here as this has been the most rewarding, fruitful, and genuinely God-centered discussion on this site in a while. It has been refreshing and heartwarming to see believers honestly and humbly wrestling together with God’s Word and its implications for our lives. (Now for my long-winded spiel).
I’m currently teaching through the book for a young adult group in a PCA church. I’ve been using commentaries from Calvin, Luther, Bruce, Longenecker and Morris as well as my own mediocre (yet improving) Greek skills. One agreement amongst all commentators is that Paul switches argumentative styles multiple times in Galatians. The general agreement is that he initially uses the extreme of the law being re-introduced as a means of justification so that the real issue, daily living by the law (nomism), can be dealt with in the latter two chapters. Paul isn’t saying that the Judaizers in that situation are actually trying to add the law as a means of justification, but are trying to introduce it as the rule of practical Christian living in response to their observation of the libertine behavior of the Galatian believers.
I believe the key understanding for Galatians, especially the Mosaic Law, comes in Galatians 3:19-25.
Here’s a verse by verse breakdown that I hope helps everyone involved:
v.19 —First, the law was added. That must carry an aspect of subordinate/supplementary with it. It is in the aorist passive meaning that it was brought into effect after the covenant promise was given.—Second, the reason was transgressions. A cursory look at Romans will help us to understand that the reason is cognitive i.e. making us aware of transgressions. —Third, the word translated “promise” is in the perfect tense. In this grammatical construct it allows us to see that the past promise now has present results. There is no way, in light of all of Scripture and the thrust of Galatians specifically, to see this as anything other than grace as a result of Christ’s resurrection.
v.20—Maybe the hardest to deal with here. The only agreement I could find is the idea that God’s dealing is now directly with us and not through an intermediary such as the law was.
v.21—The first major key to understanding the relationship. While the law is no longer sufficient for salvation, and we will see later is clearly intended as only temporary, it is NOT contrary to the promises of God. Even if the purpose of Galatians is to show that the law is no longer our rule of thumb for living, and I believe that to be the case, that does not make it contrary to the realized promises of God.
v.22—This verse is in reference Galatians 3:10 which is citing Deuteronomy 27:26. The purpose of the law was to imprison us so that faith in Christ could free us. The law could not free us totally, only temporarily, so why would we return to it when our freedom has been delivered to us?
v.23—While v.22 focuses on the relation of the law as being condemning, v.23 shifts to the laws supervisory role. This is extremely important to understand as we move to the next few verses.
v.24—Here is the key word to understand. Most translations will say the law was a GUARDIAN. The word for guardian is pedagaigos (pedagogue) which eventually came into use for a teacher, but at the time of Paul’s writing was only used for a slave in a patrician household whose role was custodial/disciplinary and most importantly, temporary.Plato described the role this way: “…not those good for nothing else, but men who by age and experience are qualified to serve as both leaders and custodians of children.”It was only until Christ came. It was there only to caretake until the coming of Christ to offer the justification that the law couldn’t.
v.25—This strikes at the heart of the Judaizers teaching and is the basis for all that is in 5:1-6:18. The law no longer has a purpose to meet.
Ultimately, the law was insufficient. What we have, faith in Christ, goes much deeper and fulfills all from everyday life to our eternal outcome. In chapter 4, Paul refers to both the Jewish law and the Gentile false beliefs with the term elementary principles and says that returning to either one is denying the freedom of Christ in favor of inadequate slavery.
My reason for not murdering those who offend/attack me is not “thou shalt not murder.” The Holy Spirit who inspired that standard also inspired the Matt 5:21-22 teaching that anger and insults are deserving of the same punishment. My reasoning for not murdering is having the mind of Christ, having been saved by faith, and knowing that because of that I no longer need the command to not murder because it should be completely against everything that I am. In that same vein, I no longer need the command to set aside one day to rest in the Lord as I now am indwelt by His spirit and now should have the natural outcome be resting in Him constantly.
As for those who mentioned physical rest, I do understand where you are coming from. When I was in Hawaii, I was a youth leader as well as teacher in the Christian school there and multiple sport coach. Needless to say, for anyone who has done any of those jobs, combining them can be incredibly taxing. With the way the schedule worked out, I had a very simple pattern I tried to use. Saturday was the only day where I could really get away and “rest.” Everyone knew that to contact me on that day, without emergency reasons, would make me quite the unhappy camper. Now, I have a full day Sunday with my church (start around 8am and finish around 7pm usually), but I am finishing my degree online and can basically schedule the rest of my week however I see fit. I no longer take a specific day due to the extreme flexibility I have most of the time. I have occasionally taken a full day here or there, but it’s due to unusually busy times and not due to observing something that is less than what we currently have been given by God.
For those who disagree with this assessment, I simply ask for grace in doing so. Even within my own congregation our assistant pastor gave a message on the Sabbath just a few weeks ago in which he took the Sabbatarian view. While he and I are in complete disagreement on this issue, we fellowship together without problem and I can say God has used him to build me up as much as any other elder we have.
All of you, read the last chapter of the bible carefully no matter how many times you’ve done it before.
I just wanted to add this to the discussion. In regards to Galatians 4:10 (days, months, times and years) John Calvin had this to say:
When certain days are represented as holy in themselves, when one day is distinguished from another on religious grounds, when holy days are reckoned a part of divine worship, then days are improperly observed. The Jewish Sabbath, new moons, and other festivals, were earnestly pressed by the false apostles, because they had been appointed by the law. When we, in the present age, intake a distinction of days, we do not represent them as necessary, and thus lay a snare for the conscience; we do not reckon one day to be more holy than another; we do not make days to be the same thing with religion and the worship of God; but merely attend to the preservation of order and harmony. The observance of days is a free service, and void of all superstition.
AMEN!
‘man alive’,
I would realy recommend reading on from posts 100 through. There was some really good discussion in those posts.
GreatestmanAlive,
Greetings,I appreciate the Calvin quote. However, this is to be balanced with the perspective that he believed church attendance on Sunday was not optional for the believer, even to the point of wanting the civil magistrate to enforce it.
Given that you are in the PCA, have you interacted with the Westminster Confession on the matter?
Peace,Andrew
I have dealt with the Confession on that matter, and it is one reason why I teach under the supervision of an elder instead of possibly being an elder. The Confession is not without flaw and is not within the God-breathed canon of Scripture and thusly must be viewed in light of Scripture. I would say I agree with it on 99.9% of things and that is enough for me.
In regards to Calvin, lets once again look at WHY he held the Sunday meeting important. It was not in regards to keeping the Law/Sabbath, but out of maintaining order and harmony. While he may have gone overboard on enforcing Sunday worship, he did so out of a correct understanding of what Sunday is for the church. The biggest aspect of this issue is the motive/reason for Sunday worship which biblically cannot be as a result of observing the Sabbath.
To TGMA,
“In regards to Calvin, lets once again look at WHY he held the Sunday meeting important. It was not in regards to keeping the Law/Sabbath, but out of maintaining order and harmony.”
If Calvin would have thought about this, and reasoned it as so, wouldn’t have God meant the same thing when He gave the Sabbath command?
I guess we all just have to live awhile to come to the understanding of the importance of the Sabbath. I know I did and I was raised in the faith. It’s not arguable. It just is.
My thoughts exactly Johnny C. I have figured faith was like that too - it’s not arguable. It just is. That’s a great thought.
Man Alive, very interesting exegesis on Galatians. Further, I do admire your courage in saying you have slight problems with the Westminster Confession and that it is not canonical. It is often politically and personally risky to disagree openly with church authority or tradition, whether it’s “apostolic” or a creed or a modern-day messenger. These things shape us deeply from our mother’s milk, so to speak.
Just one possibility on verse 3:20: the reference to a “mediator” is an outgrowth of verse 19 where it says the law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. I understand this to mean Moses was the mediator. The emphasis here is that the covenant was between God and Israel, and Moses mediated the agreement by delivering the covenant terms from God Himself.
In verse 20, the focus returns to the New Covenant and uses the idea of “mediator” as a transition. Whereas a mediator was necessary to facilitate the agreement between God and Israel, no mediator is necessary to facilitate the covenant between the Father and the Son as our Substitute. The One God in the Persons of the Father and the Son (and the Holy Spirit, too) are/is the Party in the New Covenant. No mediator is necessary—because God keeps the covenant in Himself. He is faithful to His promises—and He is One.
The fact that there is no mediator in the New Covenant which was established on the basis of Jesus’ sacrifice and resurrection instead of on the basis of the law speaks to the fact that it is a better covenant because it is complete in God Himself. (See Hebrews 7:12; 18-22; 8:6-7.)
Johnny C, I’m not sure I understand your point about the last chapter of the Bible. I do see there that there will be no need for sun or moon because Jesus Himself is the light, and there will be no night. This reality means that there will be no days—there will be no “seventh day” in the new earth. Jesus Himself, however, will be our object of continuous worship and “observance” for eternity.
He is so much greater that I had once understood. He is literally our all-in-all. Praise Him!
Colleen
You present quite a challenge, Colleen. I like to think of Jesus as my attorney. I don’t see him sitting on a throne next to God being entertained by the heavenly hosts. I see Him pleading my case before the Father in a sanctuary much like the one the children of Israel carried around with them in the wilderness enroute to the promised land. When He leaves the Most Holy place, then, and only then, will His work of intercession be completed. At that time God’s Spirit will be withdrawn from the world and we will have only our faith in Jesus on which to rely. Much like Noah and his family after the door of the ark was closed.I think “no night there” refers to the Holy City where God dwells. The world was designed with a perfect blueprint creating a balance between night and day. Nature at night is a glorious as by day in a perfect world. I suspect the other worlds were created after a similar fashion. Will the light from His throne encompass all of “planet Heaven”? Who knows? Do the angels sleep? Will we have need of sleep? I imagine so as rest has been the central theme of this discussion.So what “commandments” is John referring to in verse 14?
Johnny C,
The most reliable manuscripts do not say “commandments” in Rev. 22:14. In fact, the KJV is one of very few translations which contains the word “commandments” in that verse. Here is how the NASB translates it: “Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city.”
What “commandments” is John referring to in the rest of the book of Revelation, where it does use that phrase? John tells us what he means when he talks about the “commandments”:
“and whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do the things that are pleasing in His sight. 23This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us. 24The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.” (1 John 3:22-24 NASB.)
Your other comments promoting heretical SDA doctrine are off-topic, but I’ll address them quickly.
If Jesus ceases His intercession for us, we’ll have only our faith in Jesus to rely on? Actually, your false prophetess teaches in her book the Great Controversy that we’ll have to rely on our own perfection and sinlessness since there will be no more intercession for us. But the BIBLE says, “Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He ALWAYS lives to make intercession for them.” (Hebrews 7:25 NASB.)
And the Holy Spirit will NEVER be withdrawn from those of us whose spirits have been raise to eternal life (born again) and have been eternally connected to the Holy Spirit, since we have been sealed with the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption (Eph 1:13-14, 4:30)!!!
Regarding there being NO NIGHT, here is what the Bible says:
“they will see His face, and His name will be on their foreheads. 5And there will no longer be any night; and they will not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God will illumine them; and they will reign forever and ever.” (Revelation 22:4-5 NASB.)
Notice that it is not just talking about where God dwells, it is talking about US!
There will be NO night—without night, you cannot have a start or end to a Sabbath day!
About the Sabbath being a memorial of Creation—the point was that it cannot be called a memorial of CREATION. As Colleen said, it pointed back to God’s REST in Genesis. And it pointed back to Israel’s deliverance from Egypt (which is why the Lord commanded Israel to keep the Sabbath—Deut. 5), and it was also a shadow pointing forward to Christ, who is the Reality. No, the Sabbath day was NOT a reality—only a shadow. Heb. 4 says that the Sabbath rest which remains for the people of God is NOT keeping the seventh day but is entering God’s Rest and resting TODAY and everyday in Jesus Christ and His finished work for us on the Cross.
BTW, the word “Remember” does not make the Sabbath a “memorial”—it was only a command to remember to keep the Sabbath day holy, as a sign of the Old Covenant between God and Israel (Ex. 31).
Jeremy
”[…] and it was also a shadow pointing forward to Christ, who is the Reality. No, the Sabbath day was NOT a reality—only a shadow.”
I forgot to give the reference for that: Colossians 2:6-17.
JESUS CHRIST alone is the Reality. The Law only had a shadow of the good things to come, in Christ (Heb. 10:1).
Jeremy
Oops—that should say Colossians 2:16-17!
Well, as I see it all boils down to: If the Sabbatarians are right, the non Sabbatarians lose. If the non Sabbatatians are right we both win. Something to think about.
Well, that’s only part of it Linda. Keeping the Sabbath only will not get me a free ticket to heaven. We must have His testimony embedded in our hearts and souls.
Jeremy,When the ark of the covenant is brought out of it’s place of hiding will you still sing the same song? It is so marvelous to discover how God’s plan comes together. Colleen, why would I think that God made this world any different from any other? I don’t think He had to experiment with different plans. What cause is there for me to believe they do not celebrate the Sabbath the same as you once did?
True, JohnnyC, I did not mean to imply that keeping the Sabbath was a ticket to heaven. But blatent rebellion against the law of God is not a ticket in either.
I have been following this thread since I left earlier in post 147.
One question I have for JohnnyC is this, can you explain to me the meaning of the following passage and demonstrate how it fits into your theology:
Jeremiah 3:16-17And when you have multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, declares the Lord, they shall no more say, “The ark of the covenant of the Lord.” It shall not come to mind or be remembered or missed; it shall not be made again. At that time Jerusalem shall be called the throne of the Lord, and all nations shall gather to it, to the presence of the Lord in Jerusalem, and they shall no more stubbornly follow their own evil heart.”
this is clearly a passage relating to the New Covenant. I am not sure how you would deal with this passage because of your comments above such as:
“When the ark of the covenant is brought out of it’s place of hiding will you still sing the same song? It is so marvelous to discover how God’s plan comes together. ”
Looking forward to your answer.
CT
What I am saying, Chad, is that the Lord has preserved such artifacts for His glorification to be revealed at a later date. Personally I believe it has already been found. It’s only a matter of politics as to when it will be brought out and revealed to the world. I think the essence of your question relates to the completion of HIs work. In the earth made new there will be no more sanctuary.
JohnnyC,
I will ask you again in different language.
If we are presently operating in the NC, which was spoken of here in this passage of Jeremiah, and if indeed we find ourselves operating within its sphere, then how is it that you can justify such statements about the finding of the ark. The point is that what God does in the new covenant, in the day of salvation, in teh gospel age, is of such a magnitude that no longer will people be thinking anything about the ark of the old covenant. It wil not come to mind, or be remembered, or be missed.
This, in fact, is exactly what the author to the Hebrews has said so plainly.
You identify the return of the ark of the old covenant with the full revelation ofthe glory of God. Yet this passage clearly identifies the full reception of the glory of God (all the nations shall gather to the presence of the Lord) with the statement that that old ark of the old covenant will no longer be brought to mind or be remembered. Nor would we expect to find a new one, as it also says it will not be made.
It seems to me that anyone looking to find these artifacts is in effect offending the Lord Jesus Christ who according to the NC promises in Ezekiel, is jealous to remove all the idols from the hearts of his people, and to alone be the reciever of all their religious devotion and thought.
Also, the text mentions nothing ofthe sanctuary, which we also know there will not be, but rather it specifically mentions the ark.
So I ask again, how can you justify this position?
CT
Chad,This text is placed in the midst of a call to repentance. I agree that in the new earth the memory of the ark of the covenant will be blotted out. There will be no more use for it as the Lord will have brought a complete end to sin. Jesus entered into His ministry in the midst of a call to repentance. He completed His mission on a Friday and rested, even in death, over the sabbath. When Jerusalem fell Jeremiah saw to it the ark of the covenant would not fall into the hands of the Babylonians by placing it in hiding during the final seige. As long as the land lay desolate it enjoyed her sabbaths because it did not rest in their sabbaths when they dwelled upon it.”To fulfil the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jermiah, until the land had enjoyed her sabbaths: for as long as she lay desolate she kept sabbath, to fulfil threescore and ten years.” I used the word, “sanctuary”, because that is where the ark dwelt. The people did not worship the ark. They worshiped God. The Mercy Seat is where He dwelled among them.I’ve been a student of the bible for forty years, Chad. I did not know that reference to the ark existed. Thank you for bringing it my attention. Colleen and Jeremy are going to love that admission.
JohnnyC,I understand that the people did not worship the ark. And I understand that you are not worshipping the ark. But what I am saying is that in the new covenant, not just the new heavens and earth, the Lord Jesus Christ dwells with his people in such a way that there is no concern whatsoever for the old ark of the old covenant, which itself was just a symbolic part of a lesser covenant.
I think you are missing my point rather widely.
CT
Our Lords’ last commission to the apostles was to go and teach all the world to observe all things He had commanded them. The new covenant of which you speak will come. I do not understand it to be ushered in, however, until Jesus is finished in the temple that the Lord pitched and He once again utters those famous three words, “It is finished”. He returned to heaven to continue His work. He sent the Comforter to dwell with us in the meantime.
EVERYONE reading this blog:
If you do not believe that Seventh-day Adventism is a non-Christian cult, please just look at what Johnny C has been saying—he is a Seventh-day Adventist and he is describing what traditional Adventism and it’s false prophet Ellen G. White teach.
Johnny C,
If Jesus had to continue His work (and make atonement starting October 22, 1844 since the Cross wasn’t good enough, according to Adventism, and the atonement is completed with Satan bearing our sins as the scapegoat) and say, “It is finished” again—what on earth did He say “It is finished” for the first time?!! Those words meant nothing?! You are blaspheming Jesus Christ and His Cross.
The New Covenant has already been “ushered in” by Jesus’ own precious blood 2,000 years ago!
“And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.’” (Luke 22:20 NASB.)
The New Covenant is certainly in effect right now!
“Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but )our adequacy is from God, 6who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant,” (2 Corinthians 3:5-6a NASB.)
Johnny C wrote:
“Well, that’s only part of it Linda. Keeping the Sabbath only will not get me a free ticket to heaven. We must have His testimony embedded in our hearts and souls.”
In other words, Sabbath-keeping plus Ellen G. White (whose writings ARE “the testimony of Jesus” according to SDAism) equals salvation.
Hmm…something seems to be missing.
Like maybe Jesus Christ, and His life, death, and resurrection! ! ! ! Grace is missing from that equation. Faith is missing. JESUS is missing!
But I guess you’re saying that we’re saved by Ellen G. White through Sabbath-keeping, rather than by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
Jeremy
Hello, Jeremy,This discussion is not about religion, it is about the sabbath. I am not a member of any denomination. I have not attended a church service in twenty years except for an occasional wedding or funeral. I am not a seventh day adventist. I am not ashamed to be accused of being one, however. I have read many writings by the author of whom you speak. I was especially impressed by her description of the fall of the twin towers written in 1906. God does have one true church but not of brick and mortar. It is in your heart and mine, my brother. I have no preconceived notions about sabbath keeping. I just do it. Sounds like I have touched a nerve and that you got more indoctrination than I ever did. If you care to get more personal please e-mail me. Now, for the purpose of this thread, I will go back to the bible. You have hurled many accusations in my direction and I will address them as you have presented an even greater challenge than Colleen. But not now as I will have much to say and I despise very long posts. God bless you and all your former adventist friends.
“If I have told you earthly things, and ye believed them not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?”“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.”“Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens: A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man…” “But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.”“For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us…”These are all quotes from the New Testament. I do not wish to bore many readers here with too much scripture. You are encouraged to read and study for yourselves. The problem with our society today is too many people have been spoon fed scripture until they have become fed up. We must search these truths out for ourselves. Jesus is the mediator of the new covenant. He is in the heavenly sanctuary intercessing for us before the Father, who is on the throne. The Comforter is with us today. He is in our hearts, in our souls, and in our minds. He is that “still small voice” that speaks to us wheather we are doing good or evil. These are the three seperate entities of the Godhead; the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. When Jesus returned to heaven to commence with His work of intercession, He sent the Comforter in His place to be with us. Jesus is not with us today. The Comforter is. The Comforter did not die for us. Jesus did. The plan of salvation did not end at the cross. I cannot take my sabbath rest in Jesus and ignore the sabbath day until the new covenant takes effect. I state that last sentence only for the sake of argument, so to speak. I believe God’s law is now and forever and that the sabbath will be observed in the new earth.
Johnny, the problem as I see it is that you are INTERPRETING Scripture instead of OBSERVING it and asking yourself, rigorously, what it meant to those who first received it. Only after you answer that question can you ask the next question: in what other contexts does the writer use the word(s) in question?
Then, in what contexts does the subject or word occur in the rest of the testament? In the other testament? Only after meticulously studying a subject IN CONTEXT can one then ask what the subject means to himself—and the meaning cannot be greatly different from its original meaning.
When the Bible says there will be no night there—it is subjective interpretation to say that the passage refers “only to the New Jerusalem” and not to the rest of the world. That meaning is never suggested in the passages in Revelation, nor is it suggested in the passage in Jeremiah quoted above by Chad.
Reading Scripture has some things in common with analyzing literature: one cannot deduce conclusions which the text will not support. The fact that you can construct an argument to support your idea does not make it so. The text itself must support your conclusions. Anything else is faulty and is a misuse of the text.
The Bible does NOT say there are other worlds which have days and nights. You cannot conclude that based on the Bible. Your own reasoning is not adequate to make that case.
Now, I realize that you do not consider yourself Adventist—although I’m quite sure you have Adventism in your background—but Ellen White does refer to other inhabited planets. She even says she saw Enoch on Jupiter in one of her visions. Sorry, Johnny, but I do see your arguments taking on the shape of the subliminal influence of Ellen White. I know how long it took me to figure out how many of my cosmic assumptions were not based in logic or reality or Scripture but were the result of my early training based on Elllen’s revelations.
You really must stick with what the Bible says—speculation is not appropriate for establishing doctrine or belief.
Colleen
It’s interesting that this discussion has come to my attention now…because we are studying it in my Precepts classes; both in the Sermon on the Mount series and now Exodus. When I was a child, my ‘Christian’ uncles “observed” the Sabbath and what a miserable appearing lot they were, as were their children as they sat and sat and sat around doing nothing.
I will skip all of that and come to where I am today. God did all of His creative work for six “days” and when it was completed, He “rested” because His work of Creation was done. The Israelites worked and toiled and even gathered manna for six days and on the sixth day, gathered extra for the Sabbath day. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for blasting Him for doing good on the Sabbath and somewhere said that the Sabbath was made for Man not the other way around.
God seems to have intended that seventh day to be for our benefit, to take time to enjoy Him and rest from the weeks’ responsibilities. Even though I know Sunday isn’t the Sabbath, I have begun to think of it as “my” day to cease from the responsibilities, duties, obligations of the previous days and receive it as a day of refreshment….ie, rest. It’s a day to be enjoyed. I do more reading, studying of God’s Word, taking time for friends, just “resting” my body and my brain from the demands of the week.
I haven’t ‘arrived’ at a deep spiritual understanding of the teaching of the Sabbath Day, but I think I’m on the right track of what God originally intended it to be.
When the Bible says there will be no night there—it is subjective interpretation to say that the passage refers “only to the New Jerusalem” and not to the rest of the world. That meaning is never suggested in the passages in Revelation, nor is it suggested in the passage in Jeremiah quoted above by Chad.
One needs only to study the New Jerusalem, or Jerusalem above, to see that it isn’t a place. Every time the concept comes up prior to Revelation the indication is a people. In Galatians 4:26 we get another look at what Jerusalem above is in the greater context of the allegory of 4:21-31 and it is clear that it is the people of the promise, i.e. the church. To try and limit the New Jerusalem to a location is to miss the whole point. If there is no day or night as Revelation says, it is in reference to the church in eternity.
Hello, Colleen,Can you say, “hubble”? Go to astronomy picture of the day and get lost in their archives. I’m not telling you to “get lost”. Please do’nt misinterpret that. I especially like Tuesday’s picture of the horsehead in Orion. That is my idea of where heaven is. There is nothing biblical on which to base that. Job comes the closest when he speaks of God holding back the face of His throne by spreading His cloud upon it. He knew we would one day develop the technology to look into the very gates of heaven itself. The fastest space rocket in history is speeding toward Pluto as we speak. It passed the moon in nine hours. I am not convinced any of us are saved based on doctrine or simply beliving. We are saved through the grace of Jesus and our faith in that promise. Melissa, of course it’s easier to shut down on Sunday instead of on Saturday. All of Christiandom does it with the exception of our adventist friends and other true sabbath keepers. Ever try to get a chick-fil-a on a Sunday? Saturday is the busiest business day of the week for most in the service industry, where I have made my living the past 18 years, especially in a tourist area. My co-workers have never been able to figure why I can pass up all that good Saturday money because that’s the day everybody comes to town. They know I don’t go to church but they also understand that I respect the sabbath for what it is. There are many weeks I could double my money for the week by working a Friday night and Saturday double shift. Yet, the Lord has belssed me to the point where I can now be off the entire winter season. Of course, for many in Christiandom, the moment chruch lets out it is business as usual. Yes, Melissa, it’s just plain more convenient to take Sunday rest because everybody else is doing it. It is more socially acceptable. Jo Anne, if you read between the lines, has just testified to it.
I highly suspect the analysis of “everyone else is doing it”, JohnnyC. Our church was asked to add Saturday evening services so people could do something else on Sunday morning. My mother used to work real estate (30 years), and I can promise you, she could not get a Sunday off. In this day and age, retailers are expected to be open Sunday just like Saturday. I work in a field that requires on-call work, and I’m on call on Sunday just like Saturday. Statistics just don’t support the great “rest” happening on Sundays. If anything, stats say church attendance at any service has significantly declined, and I suspect more people are recovering from their hang-overs Sunday morning than sitting in a church pew. Even my pastor has to make arrangements to get his kid to his sporting events that happen on Sunday mornings…so I don’t know where this great rest is happening. Fortunately, I don’t find rest in a day or shadow, but in the reality of Christ.
Someone said something about the 10 commandments being from God and his moral law, but the problem is that the moral aspects of the law do not begin and end with the 10. Neither do I find any scripture stating “these are the moral laws, those are ceremonial, these are more valid than those.” There are moral components all thoughout the law, and those have been repeated in the new testament. To raise another “hot” button, no where does the 10 commandments forbid homosexuality. Certainly most Christians see that as a moral issue….but it was not even hinted at in the 10 commandments. If the 10 Commandments are the summary of God’s moral law, then we need to get out of that debate in the public square because it’s just not there. God is the author of ALL the law, not just the 10 words. Scripture doesn’t say Ex. 20 is moral and Lev 23 is ceremonial. Moral aspects of the law are throughout scripture and not definable in terms of chapter and verse.
So, Melissa, the whole concept of the sabbath, any sabbath, is being violated. Sounds as though you, and my other new found former adventist friends, have tossed it out altogether with the bath water. I agree, most folks are distancing themselves further and further from God. When you look beyond the “ten”, what else is there? Homosexuality? We’re talking about a serious detour here.
Johnny C,
The two commandments that Jesus said are the greatest are outside the Ten—and are found in Deuteronomy and Leviticus:
37And He said to him, ” ‘YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.’
38”This is the great and foremost commandment.
39”The second is like it, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ (Matthew 22:37-39 NASB.)
Jeremy
You are absolutely right, Jeremy. God’s law is summed up in those two statements. The first four describe our love to God. The last six, our love to our fellow man.