- 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)
Yes, Johnny, Ellen White did say that Jesus would come back through the nebula in Orion. I grew up gazing at Orion’s belt and imagining Jesus coming—and wondering what glories of heaven that nebula hid from my eyes!
No, that understanding is no more reliable than is her vision of Enoch on Jupiter.
Arguing about the law (subtext “The Sabbath”) is truly pointless, as Paul points out in Titus 3:9. The truth about the New Covenant is really very clear throughout the NT—if one is willing to know the truth and submits him/herself to the Holy Spirit’s teaching. Read Hebrews, Galatians, Romans, for starters. 2 Corinthians 3 says it so clearly: a veil covers the hearts of those who read Moses.
Whenever a person turns to Christ, however, the veil is removed. One must be willing to walk away from Moses as any sort of continuing authority in one’s life when one is born again—just as the Transfiguration demonstrated. One must be willing stake EVERYTHING on Jesus, not hedging his bets. When one is willing to know and do whatever God’s will is, that veil disappears, and the truth of Jesus’ fulfillment of everything in the OT is so clear.
I’ve often wondered how I didn’t see these things for so long. But really, I know how I missed them: I was trying to hold onto Jesus at the same time I was trying to hold onto the law. That situation is spiritual bigamy, to quote a marvelous term I heard last weekend. We can’t be married to two spouses at once; we can’t be “married” both to the shadow and to the reality. We can only belong to one.
Colleen
I don’t think there is life on Jupiter.Jesus is the law. No man cometh to the Father but by Him. Are we arguing?Happy Sabbath, Colleen.
JohnnyC, I’ve never been an adventist. Never been inside an SDA church. I do have a son with an SDA, however.
In terms of what is moral and what isn’t, I don’t see homosexuality as a big detour. Some claim, and I can’t remember who, that the 10 commandments are God’s “moral law” and his character and all sorts of other things. Even you said Jesus is the law. Where on earth does scripture say that? IF the 10 are the beginning and the end of morality (or even Jesus), then homosexuality is not a moral issue. And if it’s not a moral issue, why on earth are so many Christians willing to debate it? I’m just trying to follow that logic to what seems to me as a natural conclusion IF the 10 commandments are “the moral law” beginning and end.
And yes, I guess in how you view sabbaths, I’ve tossed them out. They were a shadow of a reality which I have embraced in its place. Instead of remembering a day, I remember Jesus and his shed blood and the sacrifice for me that was symbolic in passover and atonement and first fruits and all other sabbaths. 2 Corin 3 is clear that their glory is passed away and fading. Jesus never fades and he’s available 24/7. I don’t really need any “other” rest mechanism.
Melissa,Is it really neccessary for me to quote bible texts to the contrary? I think not. I have a number of aquaintances who are gay. It’s difficult to walk through life in these times and not encounter homosexuality, especially in the restaurant business. Not to mention the theatre, which has been my hobby. I even have a first cousin who, after a failed marriage, crossed over. She was not born gay, rather, she adopted the behavior. I think she had heavy persuasion but, nonetheless, it was her choice in the end. As Colleen has already stated, the fact we can construct an argument to support our idea does not make it so. Homosexual behavior has infiltrated every layer of society. I suspect it has made it all the way to the white house. Legislature is being affected by it. Anything threatening to it is being tossed out. This includes the ten commandments, the heart of which is the sabbath. We, as a country, have a history of getting rid of that which we do not understand, are afraid of, or is threatening to our lifestyles. We then find a scapegoat on which to place the blame. In the case of the American Indian, we simply killed them. If there ever was a people living in harmony with God and the Earth Mother, it was them. It is not my place to condem my gay and lesbian friends. Some would say individuals belonging to a certain sect of people are not dangerous. Rather, the religion is. By the same token I say gays and lesbians are not dangerous. Rather, homosexuality is.
It seems for the latter parts of these discussions the topic on morality becomes ever-resounding. Well, let me pose a question then:
Will not keeping the Sabbath be morally wrong?
That’s like asking will killing my brother be morally wrong. Interesting how this discussion has gone silent, isn’t it?
The discussion probably went silent because it seemed that almost everything that can be said by both sides had already been said.
But to answer the question: Will not keeping the Sabbath be morally wrong?
Of course “not keeping the Sabbath” is NOT morally wrong!
In fact, it is morally wrong to KEEP the Sabbath—if you are putting yourself under the Law, in direct violation of Paul’s epistle to the Galatians!
In fact, even if the Ten Commandment covenant WERE still in force, it would STILL be morally WRONG to KEEP the Sabbath, if you are a Gentile. It was God’s special sign between Him and Israel (Ex. 31), to set them apart from the Gentiles. You were not allowed to keep the Sabbath, if you had not been circumcised and become a Jew and become a part of the Mosaic Law Covenant.
And what does the NT say about that?
“Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.” (Gal. 5:2-3 NASB.)
Since that was the entrance sign to the Mosaic/Ten Commandment Covenant between God and Israel, this also includes all other efforts at keeping the Mosaic Law, such as Sabbath keeping.
And if you put yourself under the Law at all, you are under obligation to keep the ENTIRE Law—all 613 commandments.
“For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM.’” (Ga. 3:10 NASB.)
If you want to (try to) work your way to heaven by (maybe) becoming sinless (which is still not good enough to meet God’s never-having-sinned standard)—rather than resting in Jesus Christ’s finished work on the Cross alone for your salvation and KNOWING that you HAVE eternal life (1 John 5:13)—then you better quit keeping the Sabbath!
What does God’s Word say about those who try to put people under the Law?
“I wish that those who are troubling you would even mutilate themselves.” (Galatians 5:12 NASB.)
It is a SIN against Jesus Christ to try to put people under the Law and make them keep the Sabbath.
It blasphemes Him who is the fulfillment of the Law, and who is the Reality of Rest that the Sabbath shadow pointed to. (Col 2:16-17.)
Jesus is BETTER than the Old Covenant and BETTER than the Sabbath shadow (Hebrews, incl. chapter 4).
“For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.”
“For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness 19(for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.” (Hebrews 7:12, 18-19 NASB.)
Praise God for a New Law and a better hope in Jesus Christ!
Jeremy
So, Jeremy, are you saying the “New Law” is actually no law at all? When Jesus died did not the Gospel go to the Gentiles?
Johnny, it is a straw-man argument to try to make a “New Law” to be “no law”.
The law of Christ is clearly written throughout the pages of the New Testament. No one here is advocating lawlessness—and no one here is advocating a “feel good” approach to morality. The NT is extremely clear about the level of morality a Christ-follower is to embrace. Further, the NT is extremely clear that no one can possibly achieve this level of morality with the indwelling Holy Spirit and learning to submit to Him (read Romans 8, for example).
Truth and reality are found in Scripture, and it comes alive by the Holy Spirit working in us as we submit our lives to every verse.
Colleen
Colleen, thank you for staying in touch. It is exactly this kind of reasoning that will bring about the sunday laws. The message of the sabbath was taken to the Gentiles after the Jews rejected it. It was not neccessary for them to be circumcised. They wern’t going to be Jews, they were just going to be saved. I think Pauls’ message was a rebuke, Jeremy. I think even the original catholic church was honoring the sabbath. Agreed, your last quote points to Christ. Jesus doesn’t have to offer sacrifice because He is the sacrifice. We, on the other hand, must render our obedience to Him. “I will put My law into their hearts and in their minds will I write them.” Their was no more offering for sins because Jesus was the offering. “He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses. Of how much sorer punishment suppose ye shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God…” If you thought breaking Moses’ law was bad… “Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and today, and forever. Be not carried about with diverse and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace…” Both of you, I am truely intrigued with your background and your current way of thinking. Please stay in touch.
Johnny C,
WHERE exactly in the NT is the “message of the Sabbath” taken to the Gentiles? I only see the message Jesus Christ and Him crucified taken to the Gentiles.
And Paul says: “For I determined to know NOTHING among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.” (1 Corinthians 2:2 NASB.)
That is the Gospel that was taken to the Gentiles. The Gentiles were told to NOT keep the Law of Moses.
You wrote: “So, Jeremy, are you saying the ‘New Law’ is actually no law at all?”
I did not say that. I quoted Hebrews 7:12: “For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.”
This new law is called the Law of Messiah (Christ) in a couple places in the NT, including in the following passage:
“To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law;
21to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.” (1 Corinthians 9:20-21 NASB.)
Notice that Paul says he is not under the Law (Jewish/Mosaic Law), but then he says that he IS under the Law of Christ. So the Law of Christ (Messiah) is obviously NOT the Mosaic Law—it is a NEW Law that the Messiah instituted.
It is not “no law”—as Colleen pointed out, we have the whole NT explaining it to us, and the indwelling Holy Spirit holds us accountable and leads us. He (the Holy Spirit) is the New Covenant Law of Messiah written in our minds and hearts.
The early church did not believe in or keep the Sabbath. Take a look at these quotes from the early church fathers: http://www.bible.ca/H-sunday.htm
You wrote: “It is exactly this kind of reasoning that will bring about the sunday laws.”
How is our reasoning going to bring about the “Sunday Laws”? (BTW, please quit trying to deny that you believe in EGW/Seventh-day Adventism—the strange “Sunday Law” prediction comes straight from EGW/SDA!)
We are NOT saying that Sunday is the Sabbath, or that it is a required day of rest, worship, or anything else. The Sabbath day has been abolished.
How is that reasoning going to bring about the “Sunday Laws”??!?!
BTW, for those of you not familiar with the cultic theology of Seventh-day Adventism, the SDAs and their prophet Ellen G. White teach that the Protestants and Catholics will unite with each other and with “Spiritualism” to enact a UNIVERSAL law which forces people to worship God on Sunday. They teach that Christians will persecute them (the seventh-day “Sabbath-keepers”) for not keeping this law and will have them arrested and sentenced to death. This doctrine makes many of them fear and hate Christians. They teach that anyone who worships GOD on Sunday, knowing that it is not a prescribed holy day, will receive the Mark of the Beast—and that keeping the seventh-day Sabbath will earn you the “seal of God” (although the Bible says that we who have been born again have already been sealed by THE HOLY SPIRIT unto the day of redemption—Eph. 4:30).
I still must ask, what is wrong with obeying the Sunday Law and worshipping God on that day? Where does God forbid us from worshipping Him on ANY day?
In fact, it would be a sin not to obey the Sunday Law, according to Romans 13:
“Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
2Therefore whoever resists authority HAS OPPOSED THE ORDINANCE OF GOD; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.” (Romans 13:1-2 NASB.)
You’re not opposing any ordinance of God by worshipping Him on Sunday (even if you believe in Sabbath-keeping), but you WOULD be opposing the ordinance of God if you were to disobey the governing authorities and disobey the “sunday law”!
The Sabbath commandment does not say that you can’t worship God on Sunday—and in fact it does not even say to worship God on the seventh-day; only to REST.
Even Ellen G. White once wrote that the Sunday laws should be obeyed and to devote Sunday to God as a day of doing the Lord’s work and holding religious meetings!
So I have to wonder where the persecution comes in…
Jeremy
Jeremy,If you really desire to know my religious background, please e-mail me. Yes, I have read a good deal of Ellen White’s writings. That much is obvious to those with our background. You make a very good argument and I understand what you, Colleen, and others are saying but when you say, “the Sabbath day has been abolished’, I am totally freaked. There are many reading this thread who feel Sunday is the Sabbath as much as I believe Saturday is. The very apostles were in subjection to the governing authorities, even unto death when the ordinances of man were contrary to the word of our Lord. I agree with much of what you have to say in this post. We are all wondering where the persecution will come in. They must have had it pretty good in Noah’s day too, you know.
Well, it all comes down to this:
What is the Old/Mosaic Covenant?
“So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.” (Deuteronomy 4:13 NASB.)
Is that Covenant still in effect?
“When He said, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.” (Hebrews 8:13 NASB.)
Jeremy
We are trading our freedom for security every day. The ten commandments have never changed. The new covenant is in your heart. I love you, man.
I’m confused myself, Johnny C:
“Truth and reality are found in Scripture, and it comes alive by the Holy Spirit working in us as we submit our lives to every verse.” And so in saying this we can take it onto the Holy Spirit to SELECT certain things that we must keep and things we reject that are in Scripture?
“In fact, it is morally wrong to KEEP the Sabbath—if you are putting yourself under the Law, in direct violation of Paul’s epistle to the Galatians!” - I find it strange why at this point, one cannot say that “to keep the Sabbath is in direct violation of CHRIST’s teachings,” Rather, of Paul. I am perplexed by this.
I agree with Johnny C’s point that a lot of Christians today have no idea which one was the actual, factual Sabbath. That is a contention that we must not deny face. Because although Jeremy and Colleen may both agree of a “Sabbath abolition,” the fact of the Bible remains, that there was, and still is, Sabbath (without the contest of whether to keep it or not, in your terms). It is like awakening people to the fact that there WAS a Flood, there WAS a certain day that the sun stood still, there WAS a “Jewish teacher” who was innocently hung on the cross. Ask a certain Christian when their concept of the Sabbath is, and more often than not, they’ll tell you it is on a Sunday.
I think we are trying to oversimplify the Law of love that a lot of the “New Covenant” believers are trying to administer to us. If the proceeds of the “new covenant” prose that are dealt with in Jeremiah are to be construed, there still is that lingering fact - we have sinned. I can easily ask - so what law is it that is written in our hearts? And why is there still so much evil in this world?
And it is still prevalent, that in a sense we equate Sabbath-keeping with Jewishness (or SDAism, as some of you may call it). The Jews have been lambasted so much, I think. “But unless you exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees, YOU CANNOT ENTER THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.” Shall I say, we are in direct violation of CHRIST’s teachings?
I came up with the “morality” issue in somehow insuating whether Christ’s salvation is merely directed at our “moral” or “immoral” acts. My personal opinion: I don’t think so. The Bible did not say: “God is moral.” My Bible says, “God is love.”
I was reading on the link that Jeremy gave. Some things I noticed:
“It (Sunday) is the day God requires all Christians to gather together to worship and eat the Lord’s Supper (communion, break bread) Acts 20:7.” Although the preceding implications stated that it is not a Holy day, suddenly, they strike me with this one. “God requires?” Acts 20:7 didn’t say anything about that.
The site also says that since the word “Sabbath” was not in Genesis’ creation account, it has no bearing as one eternal. I could explicitly say that the other nine laws that are in the ten commandments weren’t there either.
The “Historical” records being presented were somehow confusing too. Sure, they said that “early Christians” adopted, by themselves and no external force whatsoever, the worship on the first day, and implicated the non-keeping of the “Jewish Sabbath.” Has it improved from there? No. It took the martyrs that they wrote about to actually had to die to prove that there is such a thing as dying FOR God and what they believed (and had faith in) to be true.
Colossians 2:14-17. I can have that be enforced in my Christian walk in two ways: Abolished ordinances? Heb 9:1 talks about ordinances of the sanctuary service too. The other part of the message: “Let no man judge you …” Reading upon the site given, I cannot say I am not being judged in the day that I keep.
I still say that in the things I’ve read from the site (www.bible.ca), here are some things one can observe:
1. Anything that the BIBLE cannot fully say in a way that all of us can understand: Go to church history. Only they have the final say.2. The Law is The Law. You can’t say Adam had knowledge of even the ten commandments. But you can still say that Adam sinned.3. Adventism is evil. The fact that you can be enlightened only once is enough to tell you that there is no other authority that can give me what I desperately need for spiritual enrichment.4. The ten commandments and the old covenant are the same. So that even if the ten commandments say that there is evil in adultery, it has no bearing. I can only trust that Christ got the mention of adultery from somewhere else.*Sidenote for this, uhm, fact: Christ said. “I have not come to abolish the law and the prophets.”5. That which Christ did not say, is a given through tradition.
“Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; Taste not; handlenot; which ll are to perish with the ushering; after the commandments and doctrines OF MEN?”
Dan,I’m not sure I grasp where you are coming from but I will comment on your “observations”.First, God will have the final say.Second; Adams’ sin was failing the one true test that proved his loyalty to his maker. As for the rest of the “commandments”, there was an understood law of love and order in the universe under which he and his wife lived and all other created beings in other worlds continue to live. Third; “Adventism is evil”? The reformers took what light they were given and advanced the gospel to that extent. Fourth; The ten commandments are designed to keep order in the universe. It is an unspoken, understood law of love. The “old covenant” was given to God’s chosen people. They were set apart. As far as the ceremonial laws go, I think we all understand they were designed to point forth to the cross. That much was given to our first parents when they were expelled from Eden.I cannot debate your sidenote. Jesus came to fulfill the law.Finally, tradition is a dangerous concept.I do not steal or kill, for example, because I love my neighbor. Not because I fear a jail or death penaly by doing so. If I had not been commanded to “remember” the seventh day sabbath, I would continue to honor it for the same reason set forth from the beginning. Keeping the sabbath, for me, is a profession of faith, and trust, and loyalty, and love.After all, in a book full of “thou shalt nots”, it is one of the few things He actually tells us TO do.
Dan,
What are you saying—that Paul should not be part of the New Testament???! Paul’s epistles are the Word of God—he explains the teachings of Christ to us.
” I can easily ask - so what law is it that is written in our hearts?”
It is the New Covenant Law of Christ—much more than ten simple commands.
“And it is still prevalent, that in a sense we equate Sabbath-keeping with Jewishness (or SDAism, as some of you may call it). The Jews have been lambasted so much, I think.”
Who’s attacking the Jews? All we’re saying is that we are not supposed to follow commands given to the Jews, when we are Gentiles. And the Mosaic Law has now been abolished anyway (Eph 2:15).
I am are not anti-Jews at all. I am just saying we should not be following Judaism. We are Christians—we should be following CHRIST’s teachings!
“‘But unless you exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees, YOU CANNOT ENTER THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.’ Shall I say, we are in direct violation of CHRIST’s teachings?”
The only way to exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees is to have Christ’s righteouness IMPUTED to our account, by faith in His life and death as sufficient to save us.
I did not read what the link to bible.ca said—my ONLY reason for linking to that page was what I clearly stated: for the quotes from the Early Church fathers, to show that the Early Church did NOT believe in or keep the Sabbath as had been CLAIMED by Johnny C.
I was not endorsing that webpage.
“4. The ten commandments and the old covenant are the same. So that even if the ten commandments say that there is evil in adultery, it has no bearing. I can only trust that Christ got the mention of adultery from somewhere else.”
Even if an author of a New Law did get some of his laws from a previous Law—does that mean the previous Law is still in effect?
America adopted many laws from British Law but that does not mean the British Law was still in effect for Americans or that America wanted anyone to be under British Law. They were to be under an entirely New Law: American Law.
“*Sidenote for this, uhm, fact: Christ said. ‘I have not come to abolish the law and the prophets.’”
The Greek word for “destroy” (KJV) or “abolish” (NASB, NIV), according to Strong’s concordance, can mean, “to loosen down (disintegrate), i.e. (by impl.) to demolish…” So “destroy” may actually be a better translation of that word. Jesus didn’t come to “overthrow/tear down/demolish” the Law but came to fill it up/complete it/finish it/fulfill it! It’s looks like a sort of opposites are being portrayed by Jesus—tear down vs. fill up.
But Ephesians 2:15 says that Jesus did abolish the Law. The Greek word there is a different word. Strong’s concordance says that word means, “to be (render) entirely idle (useless)…” It’s also the same word that’s used in 2 Corinthians 3. So while Jesus did not come to tear down the Law, He came to fulfill/complete it, and once He did that, He DID abolish/do away with/disannul (Hebrews 7:18) the Law!
Hebrews 7:18 says that the Law has been, literally, canceled/put away. It is the same Greek word used in Hebrews 9:26 for “put away” where it says that “now once at the consummation of the ages He [Jesus] has been manifested to PUT AWAY sin by the sacrifice of Himself.”
So, as much as our sin has been canceled and put away and is GONE—so is the LAW.
It has been replaced by the Law of Messiah.
Jeremy
Let’s look at what Jesus said in Matthew 5:17-18 (NASB):
“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18”For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law UNTIL all is accomplished.”
Now that Jesus has accomplished everything and fulfilled the Law—it can now pass away, and has, according to Hebrews 8:13:
“When He said, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to DISAPPEAR.”
Jeremy
Jeremy,God has a people. Jews, Gentiles, we’re all alike. The Mosaic law was nailed to the cross, yes, but not God’s law. There was no dispute over which day was the sabbath until the reign of Nimrod because until then there was only one sabbath day. Jesus fulfilled all that had pointed forth to His ultimate sacrifice for our redemption. That is the old covenant that has been put away. “All” is not yet accomplished. The world as we know it is becoming obselete, and growing old, and getting ready to disappear. Be ready.
You were able to grasp where I was coming from, Johnny C.
What if it was so, Jeremy? What if Paul’s was not supposed to be an acceptable teaching (I did read somewhere that Paul’s teachings kind of contradict those of Christ)? What will we do then?
If only the Four Gospels were our only reference, where can we find that there is no Sabbath anymore after Christ’s death and ressurection? We can easily say that we shouldn’t believe Paul because HE WAS NEVER THERE?
I still remember one of the questions in the pages over at the www.bible.ca, concerning Seventh-day Adventists:
“If the Sabbath law is still in force, then why do they not stone their own members when they break the Sabbath as the law said?”
Apparently, as it proposes, SDAs don’t like being asked these questions. Well, that’s an easy answer: “Whoever did not sin, cast the first stone.”
That, I think, is the essence of the law of Love. Including the keeping a peculiar day, because we accept to be a peculiar people.
In Matthew 11-12, Jesus clearly teaches that the Sabbath was a mere ceremonial law, a shadow pointing forward to Himself. In 11:28-30, He says that HE will give rest for your soul. In 12:1-5, Jesus defends His disciples’ Sabbath-breaking and does not claim they were not breaking the Sabbath. Instead, He says that it’s ok for them to be breaking a ceremonial law (the Sabbath) and compares it to David breaking a ceremonial law when he was hungry. It would not be ok to break a moral law, such as stealing, just because you’re hungry! The Sabbath is obviously ceremonial like the law David broke when he was hungry. Then He says that the priests BREAK the Sabbath in the temple and are innocent. It is obviously not a moral law or else they could not be innocent. In 12:5-8, He says that the temple service (ceremonial) is greater than/takes precedence over the Sabbath, and then He says that He is greater than even the Temple, and especially the Sabbath—in fact, He is Lord over it. He is the Fulfillment and Substance of all of those things which were mere shadows of Him: the Sabbath, the Temple, the Whole Law.
That is what Hebrews 10:1 says. BTW, Hebrews was not written by Paul. Hebrews 2:3 indicates that Paul did not write the book, since Paul says that he got his gospel directly from Jesus and not from people, and the author of Hebrews says:
“how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard,” (Hebrews 2:3 NASB.)
Compare that to what Paul said:
“For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” (Galatians 1:11-12 NASB.)
Jeremy
For more from the Gospels, see my last post before the above one, about Matthew 5:17-18.
Also:
“The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.” (Luke 16:16 KJV.)
Jeremy
Look at that above verse! JESUS is the one who said the Law is done, and that He was instituting a NEW Covenant (Luke 22:20).
But if Paul is a false apostle, how can you trust Luke’s Gospel, as he was a friend of Paul’s who wrote Acts???
And then how can you trust Peter, who says that Paul’s writings are Scripture? And how can you trust Mark, who was Paul’s friend—and apparently Mark’s gospel actually came from Peter. And how can you trust John and Matthew who endorse Peter, when Peter endorses Paul???
Also Paul was welcomed by James. And Jude proudly said he was James’ brother.
So, we’re left with absolutely no New Testament except for the book of Hebrews which teaches that the Law (including Sabbath) has been done away with, and teaches the same theology that Paul does! So Hebrews must be false, too.
Hmm, I guess we can’t have a New Testament.
But then how can we believe in Jesus??
So, to sum it up, if we don’t believe in Paul, we can’t believe in Jesus!
Jeremy
WOW!
I missed ALL this action…
Go figure. I was resting. It was Sunday.
Thank God for the rest we have in Christ, huh?
Love y’all,James H.
Bravo, Jeremy. Bravo. I thank Christ that the New Testament is so inspired by the Holy Spirit. I rejoice for Paul, and his counsel.
So, going back to my posts a couple of times ago - do people really know that Saturday is the Sabbath? Check: 225.
Now you quote Matthew 11 and 12, as pertaining to Christ himself “breaking” the Sabbath. But how about: “Wherefore it is LAWFUL to do well on the Sabbath days.” Matt 12:12. After all that argument with the Pharisees about having done “unlawful” things, here suddenly Christ sets a precedent over what may be done in the Sabbath. What “ceremonial laws” would have been amiss, when through Christ the law of Love persists?
The same chapter you hold to be abolishing the seventh-day, the same is where Christ Himself does not pertain to such an act.
Even with Matt 5, you can easily say that the “fulfillment” has already come. But has the earth and heaven passed away? How may you reconcile such seeming contradictions?
That’s what may blind us (though you can mark me as being SDAist/EGWist), even such the religious leaders in the days of Christ did, is that we measure what we do with the salvation that we have, although we seem to reverse-engineer it. But ask yourself - do you perform the Lord’s supper to be saved? Do you get baptized to be saved (although that’s another area there)? So, do you keep the Sabbath to be saved? We may easily well say, “Oh, now I see the truth!” But Christ Himself has taught about being able to “see”, but because of such a claim, we are “blind.”
Jesus Christ, when He was on Earth, made the Sabbath a delight. How? “Do good.”
I haven’t taken communion in decades since that is a church activity and I haven’t attended a church service in as long. That’s not to say I am against belonging to a church. I’m just not a joiner. You do pose an interesting question, Dan, when you ask, “do you perform the Lord’s supper to be saved?” Jesus said, “this do in rememberance of me. ” Was that a new commandment? As for baptism, I was baptized once when I was a child of nine. (There you have it, Jeremy) I suppose the conversion experience that led to that profession of faith would be what many consider being saved. I do not suppose that with the latter rain converts are going to rush out in hords to be baptized. Rather, I think they are going to accept Jesus as their saviour and invite Him into their hearts wherever they may be. The Holy Spirit will take care of the sealing process. “Do you get baptized to be saved?” That may be like saying you have to belong to a church to be saved. I think not. I believe that with the Loud Cry millions will come out of the churches and become one, commandment keeping church. Every truely honest soul, I believe, will come to this understanding. “So, do you keep the sabbath to be saved?” I find it interesting how so many millions have no problem with keeping nine commandments and have total disregard for the fourth. I do understand that merely conforming to the law of God and keeping these laws out of a sense of duty or obligation only is not where it’s at. That’s where the Pharisees got hung up. “Look at me. I’m not sinning! Therefore I am righteous.” I accept the gift of salvation as a final reward. I have no problem with Paul’s teachings, Jeremy, I just don’t see him exercising any authority to override any of the teachings of Jesus. Nor do I understand Jesus changing anything. Jesus never fails and He does not change. He is perfect.Jeremy, you sound like we already have heaven on earth. I understand the new testament as a volume of promises. The fulfillment of which is yet to come.
Johnny and Dan, you really can’t establish spiritual truth by philosophical argument. What we THINK things mean is irrelevant. We can’t dismiss the words of Scripture (or explain them away) because we think they don’t fit the picture we have of “truth”.
As John Piper says in his book “Brothers, We Are Not Professionals”, the difficult passages in the Bible are there for us to take to the Lord Jesus, asking Him to teach us Himself and to reveal His truth to us. If we are not willing to submit our intellects and our penchant for textual “analysis” to God for His teaching through His Spirit, we will end up in error and deception.
As for Paul (and yes, I take the very words of Scripture seriously—it is not my prerogative to explain them away or to alter their meanings), here are his words:
“I became a servant of this gospel by the gift of God’s grace given me by the working of his power. Although I am less than the least of all God’s people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ and to MAKE PLAIN TO EVERYONE [emphasis mine] the administration of this mystery which for ages past was kept hidden in God who created all things.”
Paul, the apostle sovereignly selected by God, the very one who was taken into the “third heaven” fourteen years before the book of 2 Corinthians was written (and years before any of his episltes was written), the one who saw eternity and was not permitted to tell what he saw (see 2 Cor 12)—this is the one whom God selected to explain the working of the new covenant. He actually saw and was taught by God the things he wrote.
How dare we sit here in 2006 and, from our cursory readings of the New Testament, decide that Paul may not have spoken with God’s authority?
If we can’t take Paul’s words as the completely reliable, authoritative words of Scripture, we have no reason to take any of the Old Testament or of the Gospels as authoritative, either. Either all is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16), or none of it is reliable.
We must be very careful how we approach the word of God. We stand in danger of saying our own understanding is superior to the revelation by the Holy Spirit given to the holy men of God who wrote as they were inspired by Him. Such an attitude comes awfully close to blaspheming the work of the Holy Spirit.
Colleen
Dan,
Yes, Jesus said it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath. What He did not say was that it was keeping the Sabbath or not breaking the Sabbath. He clearly said that the priests break the Sabbath and are blameless. What they were doing was very lawful—in fact, their service in the temple was prescribed by the Law itself. They were breaking the Sabbath (a ceremonial law), yet were keeping the Law as a whole. The temple service took precedence over the command to rest on the Sabbath day.
The apostle John clearly says that Jesus broke the Sabbath (John 5:18).
“Even with Matt 5, you can easily say that the ‘fulfillment’ has already come. But has the earth and heaven passed away? How may you reconcile such seeming contradictions??”
Heaven and earth do not need to pass away first!
Jesus said, “until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law UNTIL all is accomplished.”
That does not mean heaven and earth must pass away first. Not at all. Once “all is accomplished” the Law can disappear. It’s just a very strong way of wording things. He is saying that the Law must be fulfilled first—and that once it is, its job is done and it can disappear. That is what the double “until” means—if the second one happens, then the Law can disappear.
But what I really find interesting about this passage is that Jesus says in verse 17 “the Law or the Prophets”—He is not just talking about the Ten Commandments!
So how can this passage be used to say that Jesus did not get rid of the Ten Commandments, but DID get rid of the rest of the Law?
Johnny C,
Of course Paul does not contradict Jesus’ teachings. As Colleen quoted above though, he does make plain the new covenant and the teachings of Jesus.
And we need to take his clear statements as they read.
When he says to cast out the Ten Commandments in Galatians 4:30, we must obey.
Jeremy
“We must be very careful how we approach the word of God. We stand in danger of saying our own understanding is superior to the revelation by the Holy Spirit given to the holy men of God who wrote as they were inspired by Him. Such an attitude comes awfully close to blaspheming the work of the Holy Spirit.” This is exactly what I mean Colleen, when I posed a question about Paul. Trust me, I’m not against any of his teachings, writings, or inspiration. What I am trying to say is that we can always exercise the same kind of testing with the whole of Scripture, and basically, we end up not coming up with the same conclusions.
I do not think we can question the reliability of Scripture at all. Based on how I see it however, we pick one part of it and neglect the other (as shown in my post answering Matt 11 and 12).
Take this for example. www.bible.ca claims that there was no mention of the Sabbath in the Genesis creation account. Sure, there was none. That is true. But can you really say that there was no mention of the same seventh-day that Sabbath is all about? You can’t, can you? So that conclusion may be what you are talking about as a danger - pointing to a certain “truth” when we can see for a fact that this revelation itself can give its own testimony.
We may think that these have no bearing at all, but let me point to you Christ Himself. He had one of the most notoriously new kind of teaching that the people have never heard of in line with their religious leaders. But He was never afraid to give them Scripture after Scripture that defined other Scripturally-based beliefs by the Jews. So, if I present Scriptural basis of something that may confine your own Scripture basis, what will the accepted truth be?
We all do understand that ultimately the Holy Spirit is our teacher and guide for how we can further benefit from Scripture. But that is beyond the point that I am going for. My question remains: Can we still convince others that there at least was a seventh-day Sabbath and point that as a fact? How is that pertaining to our lives today? The latter, I think, is a question that this blog has been trying to address from the start. Not anti-SDA. Not anti-EGW. Not anti-law. WHAT DOES THE SABBATH MEAN TODAY?
I didn’t get to read Jeremy’s reply. Sorry.
Well, to be really going back on track:
What was the Sabbath for? Some of you have answered that it is the “covenant between God and the Jews.” But underlying that, why would an all-knowing, all-powerful God include that in such a “covenant?”
Has the seven-day weekly cycle passed? Where did we get the idea of using seven days anyway? Do we have, “everyday” now?
If you can tell me that the God of the Bible has made this really useless principle of setting one day apart, what kind of God is He? Why should we even bother?
I pose these now, not as philosophical arguments, nor to deter any of us from accepting plain Bible truth. I ask these to try to convince you to think beyond “the Law” and see the Spirit of the Law. The Law of Love.
Jeremy,John does not say Jesus broke the sabbath. John says that the Jews said that Jesus broke the sabbath. Colleen,If I blaspheme the Holy Spirit, He will leave me. I sense His presence in my life daily and I thank God for that. I rely on that presence to convict me of sin and lead me into truth.
“What does the sabbath mean today?” “And He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up: and, as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.”“And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures.”“For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow in His steps.”
The sabbath is a sign forever;”Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever…”
The sabbath is a sign of God as the sanctifier;”Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them. And hallow my sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the Lord your God.”
“For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord.”
For me that is quite clear. I guess the question still remains, why is the sabbath there? Why is it so seemingly important? Why make it an issue at all?One might also ask, why did God place that one tree in the midst of the garden? All it did was mess everything up for everybody. Why did that one tree have to be such an issue? How did our world, in the sorry state of affair it is today, result from the placement of a single, solitary tree?
I just want to commend everyone for a gracious, helpful discussion. It’s not often that a discussion on the Internet goes 232 comments and is still civil and worth reading!
Thank you, Tim. Nice to hear from you. Thank you for posting the find that started this thread.
Tim, nice to “meet” you. Thank you for this blog.
I had an email conversation two or three years ago that put a required Sabbath in a whole new light. The person communicating with me was a Bible translator with Wycliffe. He was working on producing a written version of the Bible for an isolated, primitive tribe on an island that I can’t remember right now.
Here’s what he told me. This particular tribe (primitive, as I mentioned!) had no developed numeric system. They did not use any form of currency, and they did not formally count or quantify. They had representations for “one” and “two”, but beyond the number two, they had no numbers. Similarly, they did not have any concept of a week.
If the Sabbath were important for everyone, this translator told me, this tribe would have to be taught to count before they could be taught the gospel. Jesus, however, was something he could translate into even the most primitive language and culture.
The gospel must be entirely applicable in any culture. The concept of a sacred day does not translate into all cultures.
God’s expectations for His people cannot be different from one culture to another.
Colleen
“God’s expectations for His people cannot be different from one culture to another.”
This is still debatable, however, Colleen.
I say this because of Jonah’s experience. Culturally, the Assyrians were OK with much violence in their midst. But God was not OK with that. God’s expectations were completely opposite of their culture.
I guess we proceed to ill define the power of the Holy Spirit in this way if we suddenly say, “culturally, it cannot be.” Jesus Christ went beyond the culture of the Jews, a culture that grew into legalism, and redirected them to what really mattered - a relationship with a saving God.
I believe and have faith, that the gospel of the kingdom transcends any culture in this world. That’s what the gospel is for.
“A relationship with a saving God” is exactly what God desired for the Assyrians as well as for the Jews. His expectations did not differ; He sent Jonah, an Israelite, to Ninevah because He wanted the Assyrians to have faith in His promises—just as He desired Israel to have faith in His promises.
God’s expectations for people do not change from culture to culture. He desires for all people to respond to Him with faith in His Name and to forsake all other loyalties that claim their hearts in deference to Him. These requirements can be understood in any culture.
IOW, people do not need to be able to count to seven in order to have a saving relationship with the Redeemer.
Colleen
“IOW, people do not need to be able to count to seven in order to have a saving relationship with the Redeemer.” I do agree about “how” we can actually achieve a saving relationship with our God. And that has nothing to do with us - it is a power that only the Spirit of God can provide. I go back to that example of Jonah, where it stated that one of the reasons why such awesome forgiveness went to Nineveh was because “they do not know their left from their right.” As I see this Assyrian predicament, I think, yeah, these are the kinds of things that God overlooks through His grace. However, that did not mean that the Assyrians did not have to transform their ways. Upon receiving the warning, the people actually DID SOMETHING. Not because they knew they could, but because they have hoped for mercy, and they got it.
It is the message - Christ, the Word, which can transform, and span cultures.
…And will continue to do so until the end of time as we know it. It is His desire that none should be lost.The people of Nineveh repented and changed their “works” as a result of their repentance. ” IOW,” Christian nature at work.
My previous comments were a little general, so let me get it back on track with the Sabbath.
Based on Tim’s book report, “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,” my answer here would be, no, keeping the Sabbath is not an obligation. Nor is honoring God an obligation. It is a result of the transformation under grace. (You may say that, ‘wait a minute, honoring God is NOT an obligation? So what am I a Christian for? Well, the sub-answer would be - Christianity is not an obligation either. It is a choice you have to make based on your faith in a Savior).
To be transformed into the Christian life, is to at least become a new Creation, a new being who WAS skeptical about devotion to God, but is NOW confident about what God can do in one’s life. That includes the Sabbath (IMHO), which sets us apart as Christ-trusting servants.
Dan, I suggest that you spend some time studying Galatians, then the book of Hebrews, and then Romans. The New Covenant is truly NEW, and now that we have the revelation of the Lord Jesus, our only continuing obligation is to honor Him.
There is much that doesn’t make sense when you try to understand the Bible with an Adventist background. You have been taught a certain way to understand the Bible, and when the Bible seems to contradict what you understand other passages to be saying, the temptation is to play with vocabulary to “explain” the disjunction, or to ignore the contradicting passages. The cognitive dissonance can be very confusing and unsettling.
There is a way to KNOW what is true. One must be willing to know—one must go before God and confess to having questions and confusion and commit to knowing Truth regardless of the cost. Knowing the Lord Jesus must be more important than cherishing what one has been taught.
Then you simply ask God to teach you the truth as you read the Bible. Ask Him to help you read it without any “preset” understandings or interpretations. I had to ask God to help me read the Bible without any subconsious Ellen White filters on my mind.
The discovery of true Bible teaching and the true identity and work of Jesus and the will of God may take months or even years to fully fall into place. But this you can KNOW: God is completely faithful, and when a person truly desires to know what is real, what is True, and truly wants to honor God, He will reveal Himself and teach you with His Spirit directly as you study the Bible.
We have a singular loyalty as Christ-followers: Jesus Himself. Our obedience is to Him, to the Law of the Spirit He puts in our spirits when we trust Him and are born from above. He does not share our alliegiance; a “sacred day” plays no part in our achieving or maintaining salvation. Jesus alone is all we need; He is our eternal security.
Jesus is enough!
With prayers for you,Colleen
Thanks for the prayers Colleen. I appreciate it.
In lieu with what you posted however, I have to be a little critical. For one, you may “think” that I am one of those Adventists that you seem to have met. However, I should tell you that even my life-story is founded upon an honest conversion, unlike some that you may have encountered to be “generation-Adventists.” So for one, the tests that you applying on me as a person is too stereotypical.
I say this because of two things: One, the actual existence of this blog (along with its 200+ now posted comments) is proof enough that the topic does not just easily lay to rest. The fact that historically and Biblically, the Sabbath itself has become a great issue, it is something every Christian has a bit to think about. “Come and let us reason together.”
Two, because there is an underlying message of “maintaining” salvation. I term this loosely because it may be misinterpreted. But what I mean is simply illustrated in the parable of the ten virgins (all slept, but only half were prepared), which gives us a picture of making sure we know that the Savior comes, but we are equipped.
I do not know your Adventist background either. I have read your posts in the FAF discussion forums, and most of them resenting the Adventist organization. Honestly however, I could not say I am well convinced about the thoughts of the discussion, because the same people who regard the Sabbath as such, also seem to think that: God will allow the torment of those who do not accept Him when the days of the Earth end and is recreated and; that the “souls” of the dead today are with God in Heaven. My challenge - I could not find these in the same Bible that you are trying to advocate.
My point Colleen - my daily conversion in Christ and His Spirit has made me love Him so much to look forward to a day, a whole day, away from all my cares and devote to Him more. Yes, there is my daily devotions. But just like what we do with our families, special times do BECOME special times. That is the way I see the Sabbath. And that is the way I see a relational God. And yes, the Bible does tell me that.
And, according to Romans 14, no one is to judge you for any day you keep holy. That is between you and God, and were you to abandon that day for reasons apart from faith, that would, for you, be sin.
I realize that this blog is not primarily for or about Adventists. Because of the fact that I had to work through the position of the law in the New Covenant at such a detailed level, however, because of my Adventist background, I repsectfully disagree with the particular view of Reformed theology about the third use of the law. If the law is, indeed, a continuing authority for Christ-followers, the Adventists absolutely have the best argument. One cannot continue to embrace the Decalogue at any level as an authority for Christians and ignore the fourth commandment. To say that the day has been transferred or changed is really not Biblical. It can be argued from the standpoint of tradition, but not from a position of “transference”.
I can embrace a traditional day of public worship—Sunday—but I cannot embrace it as a “sacred” day. That suggeseted “transference” is not in the Bible.
What IS Biblical, though, is that Jesus fulfilled the entire law. Jesus Himself said He had to fulfill all that had been written in the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms (Luke 24:44). Again, there is no Biblical example or mandate for separating the law into moral, civil, and ceremonial parts. Always, in both the Old and the New Testaments, the Law is referred to as a unit—all 613 laws of the Torah are included, even the 10 Commandments. It is a church tradition introduced around the 3rd or 4th century that “divided” the law into components. Such division is not found anywhere in Scripture.
My issue is not with the Sabbath per se. My concern is that we correctly understand the role of the law and the absolute adequacy of Jesus’ ilfe and death as the fulfilment of the ENTIRE law. Jesus hinted at His fulfillment and supercedence of the law on several occasions during His life. His chat with the Pharisees in Matthew 12, for example, cleary stated that He Himself was greater than the temple—the seat of Jewish life, culture, and law. By declaring Himself greater than that icon, He was saying that everything the temple “held” was in Him—and more: in Him was the perfect sacrifice and offering to God; in Him was the bread of life; in Him was the law; in Him was the Sabbath rest foreshadowed in the fourth commandment—in Him was all the perfect obedience all Israel-all humanity had not been able to accomplish.
Further, on the Mount of Transfiguration, when Moses (representing the Law to Israel) and Elijah (representing the prophets) appeared with Jesus, Peter, James and John fell to the ground. Peter wanted to honor all three of them, but the voice of God said, “This is my Son; listen to Him”—and when Jesus told them to arise, the Law and the Prophets had disappeared, and He alone stood before them. Then, to emphasize what had really happened, Jesus warned them on the way down the mountain not to tell anyone what they had seen and heard until after his resurrection. IOW, they had to live under the authority of the Law and the Prophets until Jesus completed the atoning sacrifice that ushered in the New Covenant. Until His death and resurrection, Israel had to live under the authority of the law.
The fear in saying the 10 Commandments was abolished is the fear of antinomianism. Such a fear, however, is groundless. When a person accepts Jesus’ death and resurrection as atonement for his sins and as the guarantee of his own future, the Holy Spirit brings his spirit to life (I challenge you to do a careful study of the NT on the word “spirit”—use a good Bible dictionary along with your inductive Bible study), and He indwells the believer. This new birth replaces the Law. The Law was temporary, given 430 years after Abraham until the Seed (see Galatians 3). God Himself, the personification of all morality, now indwells the believer. We have no need of the Decalogue.
Just to be sure that we remember how a Christ-follower is to live, however, God has given us Scripture—and the NT explains how the shadows in the OT were fulfilled in Christ. Now, the entire text of the NT serve as instruction for God’s people, and the OT demonstrates how God has been revealing His will through successive ages since Creation.
Dan, I do not have resentment for the Adventist church. In fact, just last night as I was pondering “stuff” before going to sleep, I lay in bed and thanked God for having allowed me to grow up Adventist. I would never have come to such an amazing understanding of His personal work in my life, the astonishing reality of Jesus and His completed work of salvation, His total fulfillment of the law, and the inexpressible freedom of being submitted to Him every momrent (a paradox, right?!) if I had not had to struggle with the subtle ways Adventism veiled Biblical truth.
Quite frankly, without the subtle, pre-conscious and powerful overlay of Ellen White’s interpretations in the background, the Bible is a completely different book. It just does not teach what we thought it did about the human spirit, our condition in death, God’s justice, His mercy—really, just about everything has been slightly “twisted”.
Just FYI, 2 Timothy 1:10 explains why the OT wasn’t as detailed and clear as the NT about what happens after death. This reality couldn’t have been revealed before Jesus came and “destroyed death”. Jesus “brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.” We can’t use the OT without the full revelation of the NT explaining and isnterpreting the OT to form doctrine for Christians.
No, I do not resent Adventism at all. I believe it is a false religion, and I believe it still embraces a false prophet—but I thank God He brought me down this “road”, including my complete immersion to and loyalty to Adventism, because the reality of Jesus’ sufficiency and fulfillment of all the OT shadows is amazing. Knowing Jesus without the cognitive dissonance of having to make the OT shadows “fit” inside the new wineskin of the New Covenant is nothing short of a miracle.
I praise Him!
Colleen
“Quite frankly, without the subtle, pre-conscious and powerful overlay of Ellen White’s interpretations in the background, the Bible is a completely different book. It just does not teach what we thought it did about the human spirit, our condition in death, God’s justice, His mercy—really, just about everything has been slightly “twisted”.” Quite frankly too, it was never EGW that gave me the notion about the Biblical principles underlying the state of the dead. I just need to read Lazarus (the real one, not the parable) and his story and get from Martha that the “dead” are destined only to be reanimated at resurrection (which Christ Himself talks about happening in the end of this age). Like I said, I have been stereotyped, and will not accept it.
“God Himself, the personification of all morality, now indwells the believer. We have no need of the Decalogue.” I still, like a previous post I did, am grounded in the fact that it cannot be JUST a morality issue. It is about loyalties. Just like Paul writes that our citizenship is in Heaven, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in us becomes a point of transformation. Not so to glorify ourselves (I AM A CHRISTIAN, THEREFORE, I AM GOOD), but to glorify God (this is the whole duty of Man).
What the NT offers, is not just a magnification of the OT. It is, in itself, a transformation - from mere ceremonies and rituals, the things we call shadows, to the real thing - the Savior in our hearts. Christ Himself used the OT (and to think, there wasn’t an NT to back Him up!) and revealed that it was good, but it was the people’s choice to make all of those benefits into burden.
What real freedom offers, I suppose, is unlike any human experience we’ve ever had (IMHO). Does lawlessness constitute freedom? I wouldn’t think so. Did God change the laws He writes in our hearts? It is more powerful. Remember that the New Covenant message also states, “So that no man may teach other men, for all shall know me.” A transformation involves, not a 360 degree turn, but a 180. Turning back from what was (and I don’t mean what was in terms of “judaizing”), and what was is following the traditions of men, rather than God.
It is still a puzzling ideal why, in reading the texts on “I have not come to abolish the law and the Prophets, but to fulfill them,” we usually go to the “fulfill” part. But what about the “abolish” part? It NEVER happened.
I have to admit, Colleen, the Adventist church does have a lot of problems. It does have a lot to change. It still has a lot of legalism to struggle with. But in the end, the individual must ONLY choose Christ.
We believe that He is coming back, soon.
It’s a matter of the heart. In the end there are only two classes.