Are “Sabbathers” Jews or Christians?
In this column I hope to elaborate an idea that surfaced in Alex Carpenter’s recent blog on “Sabbathing” and in the excellent comments that followed it.
In this column I hope to elaborate an idea that surfaced in Alex Carpenter’s recent blog on “Sabbathing” and in the excellent comments that followed it. This is that celebrating Sabbath can be a powerful and much needed Christian affirmation of Judaism, on the one hand, and disaffirmation of religious coercion, on the other. Chuck Scriven, Monte Sahlin and probably others expressed themselves along these lines. I would like to join them without implying that all of us agree about everything.
In at least two overlapping ways, our situation today is almost exactly opposite to the one the Apostle Paul faced. One of these is that he contended for the full inclusion of Gentiles as first-class citizens in a religious context that was more or less Jewish. The responsibility of many of us today is to press for the full inclusion of Jews as first class citizens in a religious context that is more or less Christian. This is one difference. The other is that the first Christians possessed no cultural or political power, whereas today we often exercise much. Paul’s basic principle remains the same: full inclusion; however, in our time its application often flows in the opposite direction.
Two more Christian realities have made our situation especially challenging. One of these is the longstanding doctrine of supersessionism. According to this ugly distortion of Scripture, now that Christianity is on the scene Judaism has no continuing theological legitimacy. The other is Constantinianism. As it is often used today, this term does not refer merely to what the Roman emperor Constantine did in the fourth century after Jesus Christ but also to the political or cultural hegemony Christianity has exercised in Western culture ever since.
Martin Luther, the sixteenth-century German who revolted against Roman Catholicism, did not reject its supersessionism and Constantinianism. He was exceedingly hostile toward the Jewish people and his cause is remembered today as the “Magisterial Reformation” because various regions in Europe either remained Roman Catholic or became Protestant according to what their rulers—magistrates chose. This was true of many of the other Protestant reformers as well, the chief exception being the Anabaptists and other participants in the Radical Reformation.
Luther’s supersessionism and Constantinianism merged in what is one of the most regrettable things any Christian has ever written. Published in 1543, titled On the Jews and their Lies, and easily available on the Internet, its aim was to prevent German Christians from being seduced by Judaism. Often coarse and crude, in this little book Luther outdid himself in rhetorical intemperance. These are his final sentences:
My essay, I hope, will furnish a Christian (who in any case has no desire to become a Jew) with enough material not only to defend himself against the blind, venomous Jews, but also to become the foe of the Jews' malice, lying, and cursing, and to understand not only that their belief is false but that they are surely possessed by all devils. May Christ, our dear Lord, convert them mercifully and preserve us steadfastly and immovably in the knowledge of him, which is eternal life. Amen.
Many historians agree that it is not altogether surprising that the Holocaust took place in Martin Luther’s Germany. But it was not only Lutherans who looked the other way. Many Christians of all sorts—including Seventh-day Adventists—did the same. And it was not only Germany that was at fault. Although they knew what was going on, many nations, including the United States, chose not to get involved until it was virtually too late.
By the twentieth century, the evil brew of supersessionism and Constantinianism had become so potent and pervasive that millions of innocent men, women, and children—primarily Jews but many others, as well—were tortured and murdered in one of the most prominent centers of Christian culture without meaningful outcries from within or without.
We have to take this very, very seriously. It is not credible in our time to be Christians of any sort as though the Holocaust never occurred or that the lethal combination supersessionism and Constantinianism did not make major contributions to what went so horrible wrong. This is why in ecumenical theological circles today both are undergoing the process of severe “deconstruction.” They are being demolished and replaced with better ideas and practices so that we can truly say “never again!”
Although there is still much theological work to do, already there is virtual agreement about one thing. This is that it is possible to be Jewish and not Christian, but it is not possible to be Christian and not Jewish. As a matter of firm theological principle, many Christian thinkers today who are not Seventh-day Adventists hold that even to ask whether we are Jewish or Christian is to pose the question about their relationship in a profoundly unacceptable way.
We know that we have asked that question. We know what our answers have been. We know where they have led. And we know that we are not going to leave open the slightest possibility of going there again. The stakes are just too high.
In this context, “Sabbathers” have something to offer the larger Christian world, which is looking for powerful ways to reconnect Judaism and Christianity. As many have noted, it is a good idea to rest and to reflect on a regular basis and this can be done on any day of the week with equal value. But to celebrate Sabbath when the Jews in all their particularity—some would say peculiarity—do so is to make two very powerful statements. One of these is that, as the Apostle Paul clearly states (Rom. 11:17–24), Christianity is a branch that is grafted into the living tree of Judaism. The other is that every attempt to use the coercive power of government to enforce purely religious observances is anathema.
Despite our continuing interest in chronology, some of us who are current or former Seventh-day Adventists have terrible timing. Just when the circumstances are right for us to make a contribution in the area of abstinence from drinking alcoholic beverages and eating meat, we decide that these are embarrassingly old-fashioned. Likewise, just when the situation is ripe for us to help Christianity in its eager desire to free itself from the horrors of supersessionism and Constantinianism, we decide that “Sabbathing” is “too Jewish” and “too legalistic.”
How funny! How sad!
David Larson teaches in the School of Religion at Loma Linda University.
Comments
David, I disagree with you on several fronts:
1. There is no other way under heaven by which one can be saved, and that is Jesus, the Messiah, that was rejected by the Jews. They may now individually accept Jesus, but collectively, "the curtain was torn from top to bottom" ending the Jew as God's chosen people.
2. Romans 11: 17-24 speaks of broken off branches. Those that did not accept the Messiah are these broken branches. The root is not Judiasm but Christ Himself.
3. If you are trying to get Christiandom's attention to Judiasm, reactivate animal sacrifices, the blood running off our podiums would sure get their attention, [and some of us in jail].
4. One does not have to be an antisemite as Hitler was, but one does not have to be a dispensationalist that believe their are two ways to heaven, there is only one, Jesus.
John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
One of your best articals ever Dave.
RDS and Michael
Thank you for your comments! I am grateful that you read the column and responded.
RDS
I gather you have less difficulty with what I wrote about Constantinianism than what I said about supercessionism. In any case, there may be some value in discussing them separately.
My question is whether Judaism as a religious movement, and not merely a genetic lineage, has continuing any theological ligitimacy.
At least supersessionism is clear. It says "no."
The doctrinal implication of this would seem to be that under ideal circumstances the religion of Judaism would completely and permanently disappear from the face of the earth, living only in our memories.
I do not find it within me to say that. When it is put that starkly I doubt that many do.
How, then might we depict the proper relationships today between the religous movements of Christianity and Judaism?
Until we answer a question along these lines I'm not certain that we can make much progress in our discussion of Sabbathing. What do you think?
Thank you!
Dave
What is a Jew? A descendant of Judah? One who "keeps" Kosher?
One who Worships Jesus Christ as the Lord of the Sabbath?
I lived in a closed community in which live Kosher Jews, Jehovah Witnessess, Blacks, Gay Couples, We all get along just fine. At Christmas, the neigbhorhood put out lumminaries. They skip the streets in front of the Kosher and Jehovah Witnesess homes, yet on progressive parties all participate. Immediate Classification prejudices all subsequent thinking. I know the Sabbath can be a delight and a curse. God made it a blessing, man has devised it as a curse. I invite people to Jesus, not the Sabbath. I invite people to find rest and peace in Him. I invite people to rest, work, eat, study, prayer, worship in the name of the one who made us and saved us. Time become important only when community activity requires order not when man demands it. It is man not God who exists in time. Let us use our time together in graceful and worshipful fashion 24/7. It become great fun. Yesterday, the day before, the 4th of July, BiLo's was packed. I had just completed a minor surgery and was in the store for weekly groceries. My cart was full. Every line was full and long. Finally, I got to the check-out. Immediately, the clerk from the next check[out line came over to help my clerk. She greeted me with: "Hi Dr. Zwemer, good to see you again. I replied in kind, then I complemented her on her helping a blind man around all 14 lanes. Then as she packed the food we asked about all the tropical fruit and how to use it. We had a great time. That didn't happen because of the 4th of July. That happened because when I market, I make friends and they respond in kind. That is what a Christian is and so many Jews are Christians and many Seventh-day Adventists are Hebrews. Tom
Dave,
Thanks for your thoughts. However, I must agree with RDS concerning the identity of the tree in Rom. 11.
Messiah and the hope of the Messiah is identified by Paul as the olive tree. Jews are the "natural branches," while Gentile believers are the branches that have been grafted into the Messiah and his hope. The warning is just the same; if the natural branches were not spared because they did not maintain faith and faithfulness, how much more quickly will God break off the ones grafted in if they should do the same. Such thought should lead to the same place you have articulated. No one has a corner on being the people of God. It all depends on his mercy and our continued recognition of such. Anti-anyone cannot flourish in such a palpable climate of humility and gratitude.
The lamenting of our not seizing the opportunity of making powerful social and faith statements through Sabbath, vegetarianism, and abstinence from alchohol, is something we should all consider. However, I wonder if we are seeing a reaction in the church to generations of equating such with one's "righteousness," and the judgementalism that went along with it.
Thanks...
Frank
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinianism
Constantinism -
"...
The charge is that Christianity does not require states to confess Christianity and to adhere to Christian orthodoxy, but that states must be neutral (or "secular", in modern parlance); that the Emperor Constantine I made Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire in violation of the principles of Christianity. The charge is even made that Constantine renamed the ancient Roman pagan religion as Christianity and made it the official religion of state in an effort to preserve Roman paganism, and that this act is the origin of Catholicism, or, as it is pejoratively called, Romanism."
David, to the extent that Constantinism is part of history, I have no problem with it. I do not feel any religion should be force on any secular government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism
"Supersessionism
... and replacement theology are particular interpretations of New Testament claims, viewing God's relationship with Christians as being either the replacement or completion of the promise made to the Jews (or Israelites) and Jewish Proselytes. Biblical expressions of God's relationships with people are known as covenants,[1] so the contentious element of supersessionism is the idea that God's New Covenant with the Christian Church replaces God's Mosaic Covenant with Israel and B'nei Noah, and in particular the Mosaic Law (or Torah)."
Yes, I believe in replacement theology. The Jews way is no more, there are no sacrifices, and we are the new adopted ones to the Abrahamic promises. The Jews that accept the Messiah can be part of the "Vine" but must accept Christ, therefore be Christian, or at least a Messianic Jew.
Because you believe in replacement theology, doesn't make you a Jew hater. I certainly do not agree or believe in Constantinism combining with supersessionism is more than someone like Luther's dream, to the extent Romanism and supersessionism are what we all are to accept. That is not supported Biblically.
I believe Christ fulfilled the 1st Covenant, and introduced us to a "new" Covenant making the first "obsolete".
RDS
So, then, as you understand Scripture, might it be best for Judaism as a religious movement wholly to disappear, except for in our history text books? These are hard questions no matter how we answer them!
Dave
The 1st Covenant was a foundation for the 2nd. It is part of history. I don't believe the Jewish Religion should disappear anymore than the Roman Catholic Religion. What I wish doesn't matter. Because it exists and we had our roots in the Jewish religion doesn't mean we have to observe remnants of that religion, unless Biblically instructed to do so. Obsolete, means obsolete. A computer that is obsolete, may still work, but is usually set in the corner, and its limitations recognized by those seeking the truth.
I recall the Yankee Society of the National Association of Senveth-day Adventist Dentists meeting at a Jewish resort in the Catskill Mountains. I was an invited speaker. The dining room was Kosher. The owners "sold" the resort to a non-Jewish Corp. on Friday at Sundown for one dollar and bought it back for a dollar at Sundown on Saturday.
I was impressed--with the Gospel Story's accuracy of Jewish thought and behavior. I rejoiced at Seventh-day Adventist view of hospitality until I recently read a new note in the Andrews Alumni Journal inviting Alumni to their annual meetings stating that They should pay for their Sabbath Lunch prior to the Sabbath or use a credit card. Seems to me there is more work in a credit card transaction than in making change.
How far does one have to advance in theology before one encounters common sense? Tom
It seems to me that if one believes that accepting Jesus is the only way to God and rejection of Christianity means damnation, then of course one would believe that not just the Jewish religion but every other religion besides Christianity should become obsolete. Not to be achieved coercively mind you, but still, isn't that the goal?
The idea that Judaism is obsolete fits right into antisemitic ideology.
This doesn't get taught in Primary Sabbath School, nor in the average Christian History lectures, particularly in Adventist schools (although Andrews' History Dept. has a great Holocaust class), but the textual reality is that some of the philosophy behind the theology about first and second covenants and Sabbath to Sunday was guided by anti-Jewish sentiment by the early Christians.
Of course this doesn't mean that Sunday-keepers attach the same meaning to that, but it is important in a discussion to understand that some of the arguments and terminology led and (as we learned from Zirkle) still lead to treating Jews and Jewish faith as second or obsolete to Christianity.
On this day that the racist Baptist Jesse Helms died and we celebrate American values, I'd like to note that many Jews worked with African-Americans in order to increase civil rights for all.
Many of them drew upon their prophetic faith traditions, the same ones that Jesus did. To dismiss that as obsolete (Webster: "no longer in use or no longer useful") or as "its limitations seen by truthseekers" in practice limits our vision of what scripture means to just a few handpicked verses, all the while missing the large expanse of God's Word as truth forever.
We don't need call an entire religion obsolete to justify changes.
Consider this short passage by Walter Brueggemann, one of the most widely respected Biblical scholars in America. I like how he comments on the classic new covenant text in Jeremiah and provides some context for us thinking about we can reconstitute always, already truth in our lives. He references new understandings by the Vatican, which is key, as Catholic inherited and promulgated some of that anti-Jewish theology.
http://books.google.com/books?id=WvX4ZlRUxwYC&pg=PA189&lpg=PA189&dq=Brue...
As Dave Larson establishes, taking the Judeo part of Judeo-Christian seriously - not just politically, but theologically - helps Christianity avoid the "replacement" or "progressive addition" (1st to 2nd covenant) mistakes that antisemitism scholar David Novak notes. Instead, all humans should aim to fit the Biblical extension model, in which we broaden the blessings of Sabbath rest and community commitment to as many as possible, without denigrating the still present past.
Alex
Thank you for your elaborations of my elaborataions of your blog about Clifford Goldstein's column and other things!
Even if we don't convice very many former and current SDAs, perhaps we can show them that there are ways to think about Sabbathing other than the ones that have become so tedious and tiresome in our circles.
As usual Bruggemann is on target. I might suggest that Hebrews is less a misreading of Jeremiah than it is an appopriation of it for its own purposes, however.
As you know so well, how any text is used in the New Tesatament is rarely a reliable guide to what it meant in the Old. The New Testament writers weren't in the business of publishing commentaries.
I don't think that this was not deceit on their part; rather, they were openly using the old texts in new ways.
In a very real sense postmodern theology is post-Holocaust theology. What happened exposed the dark side of premodern and modern Christianity.
More generally, the meaning we give to a text today must stay close to what it first meant but also take into account how it has been used over the centuries. We may have to put things differently today because of what has happened in the intervening years.
I think we should never read the Gospel of John in public without noting in passing that its refrences to "the Jews" did not explicitly distinguish between the "good" and "bad" ones, though it surely was aware of the difference.
I think this way of handling the Gospel of John is an example of "Present Truth," an expression that has both temporal and spatial connotations.
Thanks again!
Dave
Beth
I think my first impression might be something like yours. But upon reflection I might wince at the implication that in no sense has God been at work in the other religions in ways that are of continuing value to us.
Perhaps God has been able to teach the Zen Masters something that we Western Christians have been too activistic to learn, for example.
These are interesting and important questions. Thank you for participating!
Dave
Don't forget that it took Jesus and His walk to Emmaus to teach us the Gospel of the Old Testament. He tried at the Sermon on the Mount and in His reading from Isa. It took Jews named Paul/Apollos to tell us Gentiles what the O.T. meant.
But Salvation is in Christ alone not in books. Tom
How we read Scriptures matters. ("You search Scriptures because in them YOU think...") Hmm...
'Asked once why Jews and women became such a focus for his scholarly work, especially in such books as The School of St. Matthew (1954), The Bible and the Role of Women (1966), Paul Among the Jews and Gentiles (1976), and Meanings (1984), he replied: "The Christian Bible includes sayings that have caused much pain, both to Jews and to women. Thus I have felt called to seek forms of interpretation which can counteract such undesirable side effects of the Holy Scriptures."'
- Krister Stendahl (1921-2008), Andrew W. Mellon Professor of Divinity Emeritus and former Dean of the Faculty of Divinity at Harvard
http://www.hds.harvard.edu/news/article_archive/stendahl.html
My question is whether Judaism as a religious movement, and not merely a genetic lineage, has continuing any theological ligitimacy.
------------------------------------------------------
No.
Judaism today, is not "Adventism without Jesus".
They have explicitly rejected the sovereignty of God, and have replaced it with the authority of man--and they are not ashamed about it.
(And they've been doing it at least since Jesus was around.)
Rabbinic Judaism is not Biblical Judaism.
Obviously Christ is revealed in Scripture. The reader may or may not be convicted by the Holy Spirit. The acceptance is not of the book but of the person revealed through the book by the Spirit. Jesus Christ became Man in order to reveal God. The Holy Spirit testifies to both. Tom
Alex and David, you guys have read these verses before, sounds sort of like some sort of severing between Christians and Jews, doesn't it beside the Hebrews 8:13:
Acts 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: "We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles
You two don't believe that Jeremiah 31:31-34 was conditional. The above verses in Acts doesn't sound like a continuation of the verses in Jeremiah.
Nor does this sound very good for the Jews:
Acts 18:6 But when the Jews opposed Paul and became abusive, he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, "Your blood be on your own heads! I am clear of my responsibility. From now on I will go to the Gentiles."
Was Paul an antisemite, to you two, anyone that says something against the Jews is an antisemite??? Neither Jeremiah or Romans 11 gives the Jews unconditional salvation!!!
Dave, I agree with the comment that this one of your best pieces yet!
It seems that the major argument against the Sabbath that I hear/read from other Christians is that "it is Jewish." I am reminded of when I was a teenager and was taught that jazz and the blues were evil because they were "African." When the explanation for why something is to be rejected is simply its ethnic background, that is racism. Nothing more nor less.
Until Christians can remove antisemitism from their theology and readings of Scripture, the Christian faith is severely wounded and cannot live up to the full stature of God's will for it. Perhaps that is why since the holocaust it has seemed stalled in its momentum.
Anonymous@11
As you see it, would the world be a better place today if there were no religiously active Jews? Not even one Abraham Joshua Heschel?
Dave
sorry!
Monte, David, and Alex, look what you guys are saying, since Hitler performed a Holocaust, and some believe that before that event, the Jews rejected Christ, that those some are antisemites. How convenient that the Jews have a name for those that believe they are no longer God's chosen people. Those some, I dare say are not Holocaust supporters, in fact, I believe Adventists failed by going along with Hitler at the time.
To debate time, genealogy, ethnicity, is begging the issue?
Salvation is not a factor of any of the above! Is our witness to, about, for Jesus Christ or is it not? Whose Son is He?
Even the doubting Thomas cried: "My Lord and My God!" Now in these last days how say we? Do we behave as if we really believe what we say? Tom
Alex, you continue to mix up Salvation, and making a better Society. Can a Buddhist monk help make the earth more peaceful with his beliefs, maybe. Does he have what saves Man, NO. Only one Jesus saves, and that is not ANTISEMITE just because it is not the from the Jews, or the Jews are not the chosen of God anymore, the ones that don't accept Christ are the broken branches talked about earlier in this thread.
Dave,
Salvation has never been according to the flesh but according to the Spirit of promise.
I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit…You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4 Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine…
5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. John 15:1-6.
It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is NOT the natural children who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. Rom.9:6-9.
You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 IF you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. Gal.3;26-29.
Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23 And IF they do not persist in UNBELIEF, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. Rom.11:22,23.
And...what is this unbelief?
I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins.”
John 8:24.
pat
Dave I couldn't agree more with what you are saying and I am a firm believer that God works not only through other believers in other faith traditions but also non-believers.
I was carrying out the logical ending to the concept that Christianity alone is the path to God. While I agree with your sentiment that the Jewish faith becoming obsolete would be a loss, I'm not sure there are many other Christians that can agree. It is simply the logical conclusion to a deep set belief that Christianity is right and every other faith tradition must be superseeded by it.
Wow!
One thing I'm grateful for is that none of you will be bouncers in heaven... thank God!
That person is Jesus Christ and God sure is doing everything God can to make sure as many people get in as are willing.
Johnny, is there a standard for getting in the pearly gates, or you just have to be a nice guy?:
Acts 16:29The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. 30He then brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
31They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household." 32Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house.
Johnny,
You say, "That person is Jesus Christ and God sure is doing everything God can to make sure as many people get in as are willing."
AMEN..."
16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.”
You see many are not willing to respond to the promptings of the Spirit to come to THE light ...Christ. To them there are "many ways."
The jailer's question was not surprising. The answer he got was surprising -- yet we focus more on his question than the answer.
We only ask questions that our understanding of the world can support; we do not ask "How do pigs fly?" because we don't believe they do. The jailer did not ask "How can I existentially realign myself with the God-proposition?" because his understanding of the world didn't support it. Nor did he ask "How is God going to handle this?" He asked "What can I do?" That was his background: What can I do. What quid pro quo?
And the answer he received was "Believe in Christ." Did that mean "Concede to the following ten premises about Christ and sign on the dotted line?" Or might it have meant something more ontological and -- to us, either horribly woo-woo or overly simplistic -- like "Accept your relation to God through Christ, learn who He is (and is not), and who you therefore are (and are not), and allow Him to determine your course: for He is supremely wise and supremely competent, and He knows and loves you from cap to core?"
KM, don't you think a lot of people forget this verse surrounding the incident:
Acts 16:32Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house.
There are not "many ways", there is one way.
Something Chuck pointed out much earlier in this thread deserves greater emphasis than we have given it so far. This is that the way Christianity has distanced, disdained and tried to destroy Judaism has hurt Christianity as well.
This is primarily in the area of the doctrine of creation and its affirmation of the physical and material aspects of existence. Leaving that largely behind, Christianity nearly lots its way in abstractions and unduly negative attitudes toward the body, marriage, sex and everything else tangible.
As far as I know, asceticism never took hold among the Jews.
I once heard a representative of Judaism explain that we will be in trouble with God on the final day of judgment if we do not enjoy this life as fully as possible. One hears things like that too rarely in Christian circles!
Anonymous@11
As you see it, would the world be a better place today if there were no religiously active Jews? Not even one Abraham Joshua Heschel?
Dave
Posted by: davidrlarson | 04 July 2008 at 3:47
----------------------------------------------
It depends on where they "go".
Supercessionism doesn't leave a vacuum. The Jews just join the covenant like everybody else.
The world would be a better place by as much if Rabbinic Judaism was replaced by a knowledge of Jesus Christ. That is always a positive thing.
Here is Michael L. Brown on Rabbinic Judaism:
http://www.realmessiah.com/lectures.htm
You can listen to it on MP3.
He explains how (much like Catholicism), the Rabbis conspired to create a regie where God is under their thumb. It's called the "Oral Torah", and has an entire system to run it.
Something Chuck pointed out much earlier in this thread deserves greater emphasis than we have given it so far. This is that the way Christianity has distanced, disdained and tried to destroy Judaism has hurt Christianity as well.
This is primarily in the area of the doctrine of creation and its affirmation of the physical and material aspects of existence. Leaving that largely behind, Christianity nearly lots its way in abstractions and unduly negative attitudes toward the body, marriage, sex and everything else tangible.
As far as I know, asceticism never took hold among the Jews.
I once heard a representative of Judaism explain that we will be in trouble with God on the final day of judgment if we do not enjoy this life as fully as possible. One hears things like that too rarely in Christian circles!
Posted by: davidrlarson | 04 July 2008 at 8:28
-----------------------------------------------
Mr. Larson, I am assuming you have heard of Orthodox Judaism?
You haven't seen asceticism yet! (niddah)
The problem is that there is no one "Judaism", and some "Judaisms" will even go so far as to disown others.
Collectively though, they all decisively reject Jesus, and in this, Hitler is a red herring. They rejected Jesus long before there were even Christians.
So, the so-called benefits of Judaism need to be elaborated.
Although, who knew that this would unite John Hagee with the Christian Left?
Both are unsure (to be kind) if Jesus is for Jews.
"Judensau" is a term used for European works of art that depict Jewish people doing offensive things with pigs.
A relief at St. Mary's Church in Wittenberg where Martin Luther usually preached depicts a number of Jews suckling a sow. A rabbi is portrayed as picking up its right rear leg, holding up its tail and strenuously peering into its anus as though looking for truth in a wrong and filthy place.
Photographs are available at Google Images and elsewhere on the Internet. It might be helpful to look at these and then read what Christians have said about Jews over the centuries.
The rejection of Sabbathing was part and parcel of these anti-jewish sentiments.
It seems to me one of the disconnects in the Jewish Adventist question is the assumption we have often heard on Spectrum.
That the Sabbath and evidently most other things were for the Jews only.
People throw out texts like the ones saying, "since you (the jews) reject Gods instruction ect, We are now going to the Gentiles.
What is the underlying assumption of that line of thought?
Was Gods plan at the beginning for the Jews alone and if they had accepted things and done them right salvation never would have been offered to the Gentiles?
Of course not!
The Jews were supposed to be a nation of priests. Why? All chiefs and no indians? Because Paul and the few other disciples going to all the world were plan B. If Israel had gotten it right they would have been the missionarys too.
Sometimes I get the feeling that some believe God is a God of exclusive relationships.
The God of the Jews and later Christians, the new exclusive approved God sanctioned religion.
That flaw in thinking is what Paul was addressing when he said There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:28
When their is no distinction between worshippers disciples and followers there is also no difference in God.
God never wanted anything more from the Jews than he wants from Christians.
Hebrews 13:8
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
In that sense Adventism at its best strives to be nothing more than spiritual Jews who "get it."
RDS said "KM, don't you think a lot of people forget this verse surrounding the incident:
Acts 16:32Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house.
There are not "many ways", there is one way."
RDS -- perhaps other people do overlook the verse. I can't say. Whether they do or not, that doesn't transform life-long relating into a propositional cram session: "Ok, so this is all you need to know about Him; let's get started. We'll check back with you next time we sail through, but look out for an epistle." Teaching is very much a significant part of our growing in grace and knowledge of God, and how Jesus divided up his public-ministry time demonstrates that; but a lecture with a visual aid is not the sum of that process and shouldn't be treated as if it is.
It might have been nice if Luke or another of Paul's helpers had transcribed what they taught that family, but even if we had that document we'd be remiss in trying to make their study our gold standard. God is the gold standard for all our teaching. He is the source of our identity and the power behind our turning and maturing. I don't think it's half as much about us as we'd like it to be.
You just can't get deeper than His character, and my hunch is we profit from plumbing that depth without assuming that we will ever have everything about Him locked down or that we will all perceive Him in exactly the same way. Though we share the tools and biological processes for seeing, we don't perceive colors in exactly the same way -- can you tell the difference between peach and magnolia? ;-) And the sky hasn't fallen for that difference, nor have the objects we perceive changed color because of our differences.
God Is. It's our privilege to learn as He reveals, and be transformed in Him.
I'm not sure what in my previous post elicited your last sentence, but bless you and have a restful day. :-)
Dear Dave – I appreciated your article and see how historic Adventism is reconnecting with their Great Awakening mandate, “Come our of her my people?”; moving away from apostate Roman Christianity, the mother of Constantinianism and supersessionism. Maybe it is time to reconnect to our Hebrew-Judaic roots and reconnected the New Testament back to the foundation of the Old (TaNaKh); the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings, the “scriptures” of Jesus. Was not Jesus a Torah observing Jew who celebrated all the Torah prescribed festivals, worshipped in the temple, and lived a life as an “hasid”, above the letter of the law? Did Jesus not live a life of how to fulfill the Torah? Did He not invite His disciples to “Follow Me?” Did not all his disciples live their lives as authentic orthodox Jews, including the Pharisee Shaul (Apostle Paul) and the Apostle John, the later who lived three decades after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple?
What will happen to Adventists if the prophecy of Zechariah 12:10 is fulfilled and modern Judaism accepts Yahshua (Jesus) and reclaims Him and put Him back into His Jewish historical context? Will we as Adventists say, “Praise God, You filled Your prophesy as You said You would? Would we thank the rabbanim for keeping their “covenanted role” as preserving the sacred oracles of God even without the Messiah?
Maybe Adventists were given the prophetic role to begin great spiritual movement of the greater return of the House of Joseph (Ephraim) (Zechariah 10:6-8) as the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel awaken and begin their historic return to their homelands like the Jews (House of Judah) did prior (1948) so that the “sticks” of the House of Joseph and the House of Judah in Ezekiel 37:15-28) can be reunited? Was this not the stated mission of Jesus that He did not come to do anything to the House of Judah but to save the Lost Sheep (Tribes) of the House of Israel (Matthew 10:6)? What about the “crucifixion libel” of the Jews that condemns them to oblivion? Have we not considered that “The Jewish people” were not responsible for the actions of the corrupt hierarchy of the High Priestly family of the House of Hanan (Ananias and Caiphas), whom the Jewish peasants and non-elite called “The Jews” (John 5:15)?
What would happen if Seventh-day Adventists would actually fulfill their original mandate and continue the protest-ant revolt and actually move away from Roman Constantine Christianity and towards Christian’s true historical roots, Jewish Nazarene Orthodox Judaism? Maybe we would find not Roman Christian’s “Jesus” but the real historical Yahshua, who was a Prince of David and within His genealogical lineage was truly the heir of all the royal imperial thrones that affected the lives of the Jews and could truthfully be called, “The King of kings and the Lord of lords”.
Robert Mock MD
LLU School of Medicine Class 76-A
Graduate Studies in LLU School of Religion 72-76)
robertmock@biblesearchers.com
http://biblesearchers.com/
Has David has posed a trick question?
"Are Sabbathers Jews or Christian?"
Although the origin of Sabbath is borne in Jewish literature, the said origin of Sabbath pre-dates the 'Israel' identity and therefore the Christian follow on.
Sabbathing is not neccessarily Jewish or Christian?
Sabbathing is inextricably linked with the Creation narrative and the weekly cycle. Heschel, with his 'Cathedral in Time' concept returns us to the original idea that Sabbathing is about a restraint from Material Creation much typified by our Cathedrals in Space = Place of Worship. The Roman obsession with which, caused Tetzyl to invent fund raising indulgences to the revulsion of Luther, from which we get the Reformation.
Jesus did not ask his followers to devote a day 'in rememberance' of him. When Jesus said 'Do this in rememberance of me' he was refering to the example he had set in serving his disciples in humility and a reflection on His body and blood every time we eat or drink. (Our symbolised versions is an aid-de-memoir.) Service in Love Community is therefore the appropriate symbol of allegiance...'By this will all men know that ye are my disciples' etc.
We confuse ourselves when we take 'the Lord's day' and impose its trappings as a retro fit on 'the Sabbath day'.
In reflection, the rediscovery of Sabbathing by Christians in the mid nineteenth century becomes significant precisely because of the co-timed challenge to the concept of a Creator God and the destruction of Creation through unrestrained consumption of the earths resources initiated by the industrial and corporate revolutions at that time.
We are now vividly reaping the consequence of those changes.
Sabbathing is not about 'when' we worship - that is a daily activity, it is not 'which community' - we should be inclusive in community, it is about about rest from creative activity and consumption, thereby offering worship to the Lord of Creation, the Lord of the Sabbath, the Lord of the New Creation. This we do in community.
I despair somewhat when I read that Sabbathers find no connection between Sabbath, Creator, ReCreator and awareness and restraint with regard to that which is created including mankind himself.
Happy Sabbath.
I appreciate very much the way the conversation is exploring issues in addition to, "Do we have to keep the Sabbath in order to be saved?" But perhaps we can briefly address that one too.
As Alex Carpenter has made clear, true Sabbathing has more to do with how we live here and now than what happens to us in the hereafter. We sometimes overlook this.
Jesus made clear enough the human side of salvation when he said, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" (NRSV), which makes a different point than Luke's rendition even though both are important.
I take "purity of heart" to be akin to Kant's "holy will." It is the desire to be good and do right because they are good and right and not out of hope of reward or fear of punishment.
In his parable of the final judgment Matthew's Jesus makes clear that there will be those in the kingdom who never saw or heard of the King: "Just as you did it to the least of these, you did it to me."
Paul says that not all who are "of Israel" really are. I think we can safely add that not who are "of Christ" actually are.
So we have at least four categories: (1) apparent Jews and (2) true Jews plus (3) apparent Christians and (4) true Christians.
As long as our points of comparison are (1) and (4), those of us who are Christians come off quite well! But what if they (2) and (4)?
Is it possible that some of those the King commends in Matthew 25 are in option (2)? Perhaps they never truly saw Jesus because the way we Christians portrayed him was so grotesquely hideous. Perhaps we blinded them to him.
I don't understand Scripture to be saying that God requires people who have never heard of Jesus, or have heard only of a savage Jesus who was bent on degrading and destroying them, to say, "I accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior."
Some cannot say this because they never heard of him and others shouldn't say this because for them, thanks to what we have done, to do that would be to embrace the dirtiest of the dirty, the vilest of the vile and the cruelist of the cruel.
God requires this of no one.
What if we fast forward creation week to the 21st century and read how God was in charge of the formation of this universe according to the laws that He also created - of physics, chemistry, biology etc. ; and, what if we see the days of creation stretch out to the eons nature (God's other book) now reveals to us and we finally come to that seventh day, the day God rested from His work of creation, declaring His work (the universe and everything in it) as holy, including the time we calculate by counting the rotations and revolutions of this earth He caused to hang around the sun? Would we find that life, itself, and time, every day, is hallowed and an occasion for worship? Could we, then, read Hebrew 4 with a new perception, realizing that everything and every minute we experience is holy and we rest from all our desperations because we trust in God's goodness and the grace He delivered to us through His Son?
Thinking about this further, if the above were a possibility, it would make every mundane activity selfless, not a drudgery, serving our vanities and personal profit. Every day could be a Sabbath, on which we "do good" and sing holy songs and fulfill the Gospel injunction as well as keeping all the spiritual laws combined.
Victor,
You nicely pointed us back to creation, therefore the brotherhood of all mankind and the its symbiotic relationship with earth, as the beginning of the Sabbath tradition. God did show "restraint with regard to that which is created" on that first Sabbath. But didn't exercise restraint toward- "including mankind himself."
Adam and Eve themselves didn't have much time to create in one day, perhaps naming animals and getting acquainted with each other was the sum of their "creative" work. So I wonder how much restraint was enjoined upon them that first Sabbath. (as slaves leaving Egypt,the Sabbath restraint from work was heaven to them, as dictated in the decalogue) Yet, Jesus seemed to run into trouble with the Pharisees when He was doing the work of God on the Sabbath, and not showing what they deemed proper restraint "with regard to that which is created including mankind himself."
I am only teasing your phrase.
In reality, I do think the Sabbath brings us closer to others (not just in community worship) when we acknowledge our mutual beginnings and shared biological roots as humans, and Sabbath ought to be a celebration of those larger family ties, which includes Dave's emphasis on appreciating our jewish brothers. As for creative output- you did mention re-creation, that is probably the ideal for those who can avail themselves of it. And for those who can't (who still have to "minister" on Sabbath)- to find mental paradigms that transform their necessary tasks into another world of spiritual meaning- a difficult yet profound spiritual discipline.
Sirje,
the HS must be nudging both of us into the same wavelength. If we are in the Sabbath "end time" of earth- we "rest", yet we "work" within, by and through God's grace. Should the sabbath still be emphasized then, even in this scenario? I say yes. analogy: even a delightful marriage enjoys celebrating historical anniversaries, and has even more reason to do so.
David, just as the conversation about Joel Hunter centered around his impression that SDAs don't celebrate Christmas, you have put the responsibility for his knowledge on us. Reason and logic of Hunter have nothing to do with this. Questions like, do I have it right from these few examples, should I reserve judgement, should I ask some leaders of this group. For you to propose that individual men are the ones looked to and other men are lost or saved because of man, is not what the Bible says man, including Hunter, is to do, look to His example which is clear in the Bible. As a Religion teacher, is this what is now taught in our schools??? It wasn't when I attended.
Dr. Mock, if you study the 2 Covenants, what is to happen in the future is not regressive. The 2nd Covenant has better promises. Why would we want to reinstate Judiasm? I totally got lost with your remarks, sorry!!! When the curtain in the Jewish temple was torn, from TOP to bottom, there was no turning back to sacrifices and festivals.
David, what about sincere Buddhists, Hindus and Atheists. All what they are because they didn't like what they saw in me or you. The Bible doesn't tell them to look to me or you. It tells them to make a decision about Jesus and His example.
John 12:32 "But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."
Every Jew has a chance to accept Jesus as Messiah by HIS example. They read the Torah inside and out, read about Christ who claims to fulfill their prophecies. It is irresponsible for them not to read and test the NT, is it not.
Is the Law that contains the Sabbath subjective then, if stealing for the poor makes a better world, go for it. If a distraught wife of a friend is not in a satisfactory marriage it is ok to "make her feel good" so she can live better today. You open up a lot of questions, David and Alex.
Great column Dave and I agree- the comments are excellent. I love your analysis of Luther, his theology and your pointing out the difficulty Christians had in Nazi Germany in opposing the state. I am convinced that the last days will see most Christians make the wrong choice- hopefully we Adventists will do better then than we did in Nazi Germany!
Thanks Pat for your take on my comment.
Soteriology: We need to account for the fact that some people will reject salvation. We've had posts on Spectrum on Christian immigration policies, Christian environmentalism etc- yes there is such a thing as a Christian way of living which we call discipleship or a following of the way of Christ. Accepting Jesus as your saviour changes you. It changes how you relate to people and the world around you. It changes how you live your own life too. I see that all, outward and inward, as part of our discipleship.
Some misunderstand this call to discipleship to equal a saving work, a sanctification earned. Stated negatively, lot of people here want to relate salvation and discipleship. Or salvation and belief even. Rather, they want to say what kind of 'be-living' saves and which doesn't. This is done to lay the groundwork for their pointing out who in our world is damned. Good luck with that! Count me out! I prefer a positive witness.
Sabbath: I like the emphasis Victor put in his latest comment which Dave reminded us was present in a post by Alex a while ago.
"Sabbathing is not about 'when' we worship - that is a daily activity, it is not 'which community' - we should be inclusive in community, it is about about rest from creative activity and consumption, thereby offering worship to the Lord of Creation, the Lord of the Sabbath, the Lord of the New Creation. This we do in community.
I despair somewhat when I read that Sabbathers find no connection between Sabbath, Creator, ReCreator and awareness and restraint with regard to that which is created including mankind himself."
Well said!
David asks us to step into the relationship between Sabbath and Salvation. Another trick question?
We trap ourselves with a linear sequential view of history!
If Sabbath is something that we have to observe to experience Salvation in life after death, then clearly we have a problem.
If however, the kingdom of heaven is not just future but occupied as we live, then sabbathing now, is part of the kingdom experience. Sabbathing is part of the joy of the salvation experience. Anything less is a cut price job.
Salvation is not deferred grace and gratification.
Johnny, how does
"lot of people here want to relate salvation and discipleship"
and
"I prefer a positive witness"
differ???
“About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet, powerful in Word and Deed before God and all the people."
Lk.24:19.
Perhaps Christianity IS "Word and Deed?"...not a "silent witness" alone.
In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. 2 So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. 3 Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4 and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.”
Acts 6:1-4.
pat
RDS,
I'm interested in asking what the Christian way should be for question xyz. I'm interested in living a life which embodies faith in the saving Christ. I am interested in asking these questions within a Church that also seeks to live righteously.
I think if we do this we can be a positive witness to the world.
The alternative is to, instead of searching for 'truth' or seeking how we can best keep the greatest commandment, is to invert these goals.
If we read the Old Testament we'll find great texts like Deut. 5:10 which remind us that their system was focused not on rules but on love of God. To follow Gods command is to love God. It's so easy to miss the point... good people earnestly seeking to follow Gods command did miss the point in John 8:1-11. I don't want to confuse my discipleship with my salvation. Or, your discipleship with your salvation.
I believe that perfect freedom is found in service of God. I think it's easy to get distracted. I want to live a righteous life myself, yes. I think we'd do better to focus on living rightly ourselves.
I came to this thread and saw lots of comments on how Jews wouldn't be saved, how Buddhists couldn't possibly be saved... I think we're falling into the trap the Pharisees got stuck in. We're spending so much time on other peoples salvation that we're forgetting about our own!
What's the difference? The difference is that which separated Christ from the stoning mob. That difference wasn't a belief in the right or wrongness of Gods commands on adultery but the very character of Gods engagement with us- our ability to not lose focus of the greatest command. Mark 12:28–34. Not only how we relate to God but how we relate to each other.
I'm glad for Sabbath. I'm glad for my holy-days of hope. It's good to be reminded that not only am I not the lord of this world, my or your salvation, but that Jesus is Lord over me.
/This is not just about grace v. works but that and more- what does the Sabbath have to say to us all? A lot, sure, but ultimately it reminds us that the God who sacrificed Godself is the ultimate of all, not you, I or us.
Johnny, there is a danger of Progressive/Left Religionists, afraid to offend, by telling what the Bible says about Salvation because of our diverse society. That is why we are for separation of church and state. Yes, others should expect tolerance by us, as we should from them:
Acts 4:10 then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. 11He is
" 'the stone you builders rejected,
which has become the capstone.[a]'[b] 12Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."
Peter, was he being antisemitic, anti-Buddhist, anti-... or saying what he believed to be true. Are we to be wishy-washy or expect the same tolerance for our declared beliefs?
Johnny, lets put Deut 5:10 in context:
Deut 5:8 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 9 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 10 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
God loves those that love him, this text was about HIM, more than about us. The Jews failed at there part. God in the 2nd Covenant made it simple and plain:
Matt 22:36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
This answer, I believe comes closer to the IMMUTABLE law of God, rather than the Decalogue. That's why I think He avoided squabbling over the 10, He even had a chance to say the 4th, didn't he? Why do you think He didn't???
I believe you are "spot on" to the problem RDS.
The "inconvenient truth" is the needed acceptance of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins and salvation by all and the "church" also assisting by deeds the needs first of all of the "body of Christ" then others as possible.
pat
Are “Sabbathers” Jews or Christians?
Neither necessarily.
RDS,
I think i was pretty clear in saying that we should ask how the Christian should live. I.e. not fear saying what discipleship looks like.
I have no interest in
1. telling people they won't be saved
2. engaging in spiritual abuse
Since we're getting off-topic, I'd suggest visiting our old blog to read my comments on one specific issue where 'truth' can become 'spiritual violence' on this thread. If you'd like you can send me an email using the "contact us/ feedback" link at the bottom of this page.
As painful as it is to read some of the comments on this site, I'm a firm believer in open communication, in part because it allows us to form broader understandings of ideas, and see their roots and relation to other ideas.
Many of you recognize the user RDS who has objected to us even discussing gay marriage and has been pretty vocal in commenting against anyone who talks about social justice values. He has also argued that the Jewish religion is obsolete.
RDS is a regular writer on these topics in other parts of the Adventist world. The following links are available to anyone with Google, in fact, several folks from our site are already familiar with him elsewhere.
Recently RDS has been promoting the old fight between the 1st and 2nd covenant. This is particularly interesting as David Larson notes the antisemitic thinking that often lies behind this supersessionist theology.
Reading more broadly, it's clear that RDS is more familiar with antisemitism than it appears from his comments here.
He links to articles that promote Holocaust denial and writes:
The link that RDS provides goes to a book review that is a classic, if almost indecipherable, example of the common racist "reverse racism" argument, except this time it's about Anti-Gentilism.
The source is the so-called Institute for Historical Review, a non-peer-reviewed journal and is one the world's leading Holocaust denial outfits. As we saw on the Zirkle post, one of the tactics of the homophobic and racist commenter is to toss out "do they really have it that bad" questions and link to antisemitic sites for the answer.
There's nothing wrong with asking questions about received wisdom. It's actually essential in anyone's intellectual maturation. But there are a lot better answers both historically and ethically to provide. Instead RDS gives us this:
Unfortunately, RDS only gives us this side. Just to be clear here, we're talking about the systematic murder of 6 million humans due directly to religious and ethnic beliefs and to many Christians' sense that they were always complaining about mistreatment from previous pogroms. Furthermore, Christians had for centuries tried to forcefully convert them - via economic discrimination and torture - precisely because of old/new covenant arguments.
Whining and whimpering?
I don't think that our outside writings are directly relevant to every argument we make, but to me, at least, this evidence does bare out David Larson's keen analysis that what lies behind 1st to 2nd covenant arguments, juxtaposed Bible sentences, and supersessionist theology is often some misunderstandings about the history of religion, particularly the Jews.
Are “Sabbathers” Jews or Christians?
Neither necessarily.
Posted by: pat travis | 05 July 2008 at 2:08
Pat, For sake of discussion what if things had gone the way God wanted and the Jews had accepted Christ?
What would a “Sabbathers” have been then?
Instead of neither I lean towards both, both now and in the hypothetical.
Beth, I understand your discomfort. We've gone back and removed the real name of poster "RDS". Also, he has been banned.
After weeks of personal attacks by RDS - we've deleted some - it just became necessary that folks get a fuller picture. His identity is pretty clear to folks who know other forums in Adventism. RDS repeatedly falsely insinuated publicly that members of this site were gay, or barely Adventist extremists. Spreading false character rumors like this in the church can really hurt people and too many people in the church have been cowed into not standing up for what they believe in for fear of losing their jobs or others whispering. It's a tough moral choice, but in this case the writings were on topic and public and the identity was pretty well known.
Like with JB, our decision was really difficult, but when people repeatedly attack other people rather than discuss or even disagree vehemently over the issues, we have to draw the line. In attacking Spectrum, RDS was outing himself, so we just made it clear.
We're here to discuss ideas, not spend our time worrying about personal attacks because we donate hours away from our friends and family in an effort to foster good conversations around Adventism.
Spectrum and the Adventist Forum have a long history of creating safe places for folks to share ideas, some of which are viewed with suspicion at first. (Of course, 20 years later its mainstream, but that's another post.) As anyone can see on our logo above, creating community through conversation is our mission. While the decisions aren't always easy, we want our community to know that they can think aloud intelligently here - without attacking others - and be safe.
Michael,
I prefer to stay in reality. Sin did occur in the beginning and the Jews "as a nation" rejected Christ. Hypotheticals don't matter.
As to "neither necessarily"-
The Colossian heresy some feel was a pagan asceticism which included "sabbathers" and other "religious" practices.The danger is ever present to incorporate "sabbath" as a religious practice without Christ according to Paul.
Of course many of Jesus' contemporaries observed the Sabbath but "would not come to Him."
----
RDS, I don't know you.. I won't make a final judgment on you based on the above appraisals. I haven't read everything you've read. You have said many good and accurate things in my view.
I don't know all your convictions on our Jewish friends as far as "human dignity" though I would share they obviously oppose the "cross of Christ" for salvation...as some on this site.
I hate/dislike the mentality of those who would hate Jews simply for their human beliefs and etnicity.
That said, Presbyterians have been falsely accused of antisemitism because of their supersessionism position. That is a legitimate Biblical and theological position.
This site needs to be careful that any who hold that view are not considered or insinuated to be antisemetic simply because of that position because that ALSO is a grave and untrue error!
regards,
pat
The Sabbath is a gift from God. Many Seventh-day Adventists as well as many Jews receive it as a order or command from God. Hebrews is quite clear that the Jews never entered into the gift of rest as God intended, history indicates Seventh-day Adventists and other Sabbatharians have the same blind spot.
"Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.!"
The works are there but the trust is missing--such has been human history from the beginning. To that extent SDA's are much like their brethern the Jews. Tom
Thank you Alex and Johnny. I understand that often there is much that goes on behind the scenes that participants are spared from. I also know this can be a tough call and I appreciate the work everyone here does.
Hi!
Perhaps we can discuss a little more the idea that every person must consciously accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior in order to be saved.
I think it possible to make a list of texts that say this or something close to it. I think it also possible to make a list of texts that reject this teaching, Matthew 25 being perhaps the most explicit of them.
Instead of siding with one list or the other, might it not be better to make as much sense as humanly possible of all of them?
When we do this I think we come up with something along these lines:
1. God's graciousness as manifest most clearly in Jesus Christ is what saves everyone who is saved.
2. There are millions who have never heard of Jesus Christ and millions who have heard of him only in a way that would require any ethically alive person to reject him. These people can be saved, and are being saved, by God's graciousness as seen most vividly in Jesus, even if they don't realize the source of their salvation.
3. The dividing line is betwen those who are "pure in heart" and those who aren't, between those who "hunder and thirst for righteousness" and those who don't.
Is this OK? If so, why? If not, why not?
Dave
"Paul’s basic principle remains the same: full inclusion; however, in our time its application often flows in the opposite direction."
Part doctrine, part life application (ethics) was a characteristic feature of Paul's writings. If Paul were writing today, I believe he would have endorsed the above application by Dave. Thanks!
The first time I heard supersessionism challenged, if only indirectly, was way back at our mission college, by my American professor, a young (29-year old) La Sierra alum. Our references included Johannes Munck who authored Christ and Israel, an Interpretation of Romans 9-11; Paul and the Salvation of Mandkind; The Acts of the Apostles. The Anchor Bible Vol. 31. (Munck was Professor of New Testament Exegesis at Aarhus University, Denmark. My American Bible teacher had taken an exegesis course under Munck while the latter was in the United States in 1964-1965 as Visiting Professor in New Testament Studies at Princeton Theological Seminary. Munck died shortly after his return to Denmark.)
From start to finish, God's plan was to save all, inclusive of Jews and non-Jews. However, in light of the unprecedented number of Gentile conversions, compared to Jewish "hostility" and hardness of heart, there seemed to have gradually set in, among early Christians, the thought of a reversal in divine missionary strategy. Rather than Jews first, Gentiles later; it became the other way around.
One example of the reversal in outlook, rather than supersession, may be seen in Luke's alternate rendering (redaction) of the following quote from Isaiah. Notice the change in sequence of the last two lines.
Isaiah 42:6 (New International Version)
"I, the LORD, have called you in righteousness;
I will take hold of your hand.
I will keep you and will make you
to be a covenant for the people
and a light for the Gentiles,"
Luke 2:30-32 (New International Version)
30For my eyes have seen your salvation,
31which you have prepared in the sight of all people,
32a light for revelation to the Gentiles
and for glory to your people Israel.
Joselito
Thank you for this and for your references to Krister Stendahl. I have enjoyed following your links to his autobiographical reflections. How his path crossed with yours is of great interest to me. Many thanks!
Dave
I really like how this is worded.
Brother Larson writes: "1. God's graciousness as manifest most clearly in Jesus Christ is what saves everyone who is saved."
Everyone from Ellen White to now most Christians including for the first time a majority of born-again evangelicals (according to the latest Pew numbers) recognize that the Bible includes the belief that while God through Jesus saves, not everyone will know that name.
Of course, this causes some folks to wonder, why then be a Christian at all?
This should be a wake up call to us Christians. If God has sheep in many folds than perhaps being a witness for God means more than just getting someone to pray the sinners prayer. We must humble ourselves before God, but the lived salvation of Christ was and is wholistic.
Recall that it included theological work, existing in a community, friendship, religious institution reform, ritual, healing, individual service and public political advocacy and more which I can't think of because it's too early in the morning and I don't have any coffee.
When we talk about discipleship, all too often it's not actually defined out like that.
As someone who has led someone to Christ, preached in evangelistic series and colporteured for six summers, I notice how comments that our primary duty is "gettin' folks saved" sometimes functions less as a call to actual action but rather as a theological measuring stick. "Wait, you didn't say faith and grace just right."
The idea that humans don't have to do anything to be saved eternally is one of the best truths given to us. Not the least reason is because it frees us from ever having to listen to any human demand action and use heaven as compulsion. And it actually shifts our moral calculus to doing things because they are right, not for reward.
Therefore, for me, as a Christian living the Jesus-centered life means connecting those wholistic parts I mentioned above, including spending time with my friends debating what it all means for today.
Isn't the real problem for us as Adventists is that we prefer to use the Sabbath as a badge of difference? That we are different to Christians who keep Sunday, and so we argue the Sabbath/Sunday controversy to death? Then we remember that the Jews also keep Sabbath, and we want to be different from them too? It's as if we want this "dayness" to be our own special badge of proof that we are indeed the special of the special, the remnant of the remnant etc.
Yet this concentration on the actual day loses sight of what Sabbath means. It's the meaning we invest in the Sabbath that counts. Otherwise any old day will do...!
Let's think again how God might see all this,
Best to all, Jonathan
Don't have much time at the moment Dave.
How about this? There is no assurance or promise of salvation to anyone except those who receive Christ as personal savior.
There definitely is no assurance to those who hear and refuse Him and God's wrath remains on them.Jn.3:36.
All those who do not hear as well as the rest...I trust His judgment.
It seems the inclusive/pluralistic message would rather the cross of Christ never be preached because it is foolishness to the unbeliever.
What specific text do you refer to in Mt.25? The "least of these" who contextually in other texts are Christ's followers?
Also Dave, How would you classify Hans LaRondelle and "The Israel of God in Prophecy”? Is he anti-Semitic?
pat
There are worse things than the cross of Christ being foolishness to the unbeliever -- like the Christ of the cross being foolishness to the believer. The so-called "inclusive" position boils down to "God incarnated, lived, died, and rose for the sake of the world He loved; He declared His work finished, mission accomplished, and that's that." He came to rescue His kids, "while they were yet sinners" no less, because in His sovereignty He purposed to do so. He did it, and it's done. That's, like, really good news.
I have been puddling through Jurgen Moltmann's _The Crucified God_ for nearly half a year now, and would recommend it to anyone prepared to do slow battle with thick reasoning and translated German syntax.
Hi Pat!
Questions about my assurance of salvation are not among the ones I ask.
Many years ago my mother taught me that everyone will be in heaven except those for whom it would be hell. That's been good enough for me!
The idea that unless one first views onself as filthy excrement one cannot be a true Christian does not persuade me. As far as I know, that was not the experience of Samuel or Timothy or many others in Scripture.
There are those who believe that unless a person's walk with God has the same shape and sequence as Martin Luther's, it is not authentic.
That's their priviledge and I'm happy to grant it to them. We all see the world through our own eyes!
Many thanks!
Dave
Victor,
Sabbath experience- good! If I remember correctly, Charles Scriven talks about Sabbath as discipline. That Sabbath allows us to be reoriented towards God. I think he called it a holiday of hope but I don't have "The Demons Have Had It" with me to check. I like the sound of that though... 'holiday of hope'.
KM,
yet...whosoever believes...receives the benefits.
Otherwise, After all, perhaps Saul of Tarsus was already saved and needed not the Damascus Rd experience.
Dave,
You say, "The idea that unless one first views onself as filthy excrement one cannot be a true Christian does not persuade me."
Just a "plain old sinner" like you and me in need of the grace found in Christ for forgiveness of sins will do. 1 Jn.1:8-10.
pat
PS.
Dave, My question was does LaRondelle's book make him "anti-Semitic" in your world?
That's a fair question isn't it?
pat
Pat, if we're talking about the same guy who wrote Galatians and Ephesians, then yes, he seemed to think he had already been chosen from before the foundation of the world via the exec decision of One. Paul's Damascus by no means undermines or perfects what Heaven had already accomplished; through Damascus, and Arabia, and his subsequent travels and experiences, Paul learned more about the deep, beautiful mystery that is grace. It was good for him to learn about what he had received, and in part because he learned, we too have been taught.
We're in denouement here, and I totally understand that you don't agree. Fortunately, we are not saved by consensus. :-)
KM,
"It was good for him to learn about what he had received."
You sound almost like a "universalist" or "particular election guy." o-kee-doke-ee. :~)
Pat
In an earlier version of my last post that somehow disappeared, I indicated that I had very much enjoyed Doctor LaRondelle's course on the development of Protestant thought but that I have not read the book you referenced. Therefore, I don't know.
I can't imagine that he is an anti-semite; whether he is an anti-judaist is beyond my knowledge. The first is an ethnic matter, the second a theolgical one.
Which came first in the history of Western Christianity--antisemitism or anti-judaism-- is for me an interesting question. My view is that in Luther they were fused.
Finally, I also mentioned that I have found the writings of another Andrews University professor very helpful on post-holocaust theology in general and supersessionism particularly. His name is Jacques Doukhan. He is critical of supersessionism.
I hope that this post won't disappear too!
Dave
Thanks Dave,
The book was published by Andrews Press, 1983.
I quote p.210.
"It is not correct, therefore, to state that the church has replaced Israel. Rather, the Church is the continuity of the Old Testament Israel of God;it has only replaced the Jewish nation. Gentile Christians do not constitute a different or separate entity from the faithful remnant of Israel. They are ingrafted into messianic Israel."
anti-Judaist?
pat
From a prominent part of cultural SDA:
"Before ascending to heaven, Christ gave His disciples their commission. He told them that they were to be the executors of the will in which He bequeathed to the world the treasures of eternal life. You have been witnesses of My life of sacrifice in behalf of the world, He said to them. You have seen My labors for Israel. And although My people would not come to Me that they might have life, although priests and rulers have done unto Me as they listed, although they have rejected Me, they shall have still another opportunity of accepting the Son of God. You have seen that all who come to Me confessing their sins, I freely receive. Him that cometh to Me I will in no wise cast out. To you, My disciples, I commit this message of mercy. It is to be given to both Jews and Gentiles--to Israel, first, and then to all nations, tongues, and peoples. All who believe are to be gathered into one church. {AA 27.2}
Ah, Pat, those names you called me? I'd rather you didn't.
And just in case my gender comes up again, I'm a girl!
Ouch...sorry. I presumed wrongly. Hard to tell the correct gender of KM. About the names...just didn't know how else to classify "Pauls coming to realize it." Just plain "inclusivist" ok? :~)
regards,
pat
No harm done, Pat. :-)
Bless you.
Pat
Your quotation from Profesor LaRondelle is very interesting!
Based on this I would guess that he is not a supersessionist and therefore not an anti-judaist
Yet saying that "it [the Christian Church]has only replaced the Jewish nation" might be understood in one or the other of two ways: (a) that with the coming of Jesus the nation of Israel as a political entity has come to an end with no political replacement or (b)that the Church as a political entity is the replacement of Israel as a political entity.
The first would not be Constantinian, the second would. I'm guessing that he had the first in mind.
As Christian history unfolded the second is what actually emerged, however. The church became a secular as well as a spiritual power, as the Vatican still is. This is a big problem.
LaRondelle's approach might help in another direction by making it theologically unjustifiable to see the current state of Israel as a fulfillment of Biblical prophesy.
I'm not sure what EGW would have answered had she been asked if now it would be better if Judaism as a religion entirely disappeared, except in memory. This would make a good research project!
Thank you!
Dave
Excellent commentary, David, as well as from many others on this very controversial subject, shown by the profusion of posts.
Jonathan, I really appreciated your comments:
"this concentration on the actual day loses sight of what Sabbath means. It's the meaning we invest in the Sabbath that counts. Otherwise any old day will do...!"
Historically, we would know nothing about the Sabbath except for the Jews. The Sabbath was given for the Jews, and the fact that several millenia later when the Creation story was written, they gave the 7th day special significance for God, not for humans. Not until Sinai was anyone a Sabbath-keeper, and even the giving of the Commandments were specifically and only for them, no one else.
There would be no Christianity had there not been a Resurrection, and yet it has been minimized within Adventism, for many years giving no recognition to Easter observance because of its association with Sunday.
The Sabbath is a Jewish institution, and there was never a Christian sabbath, or any day given to the Christians to be observed; au contraire, both Peter and Paul gave the necessary beliefs and practices required of new Christians and never was there a special day to be of significance corresponding to the weekly Sabbath of the Jews.
Well Dave,
???...Guess it depends on your definition of "is."
Dave,
I think most of us on this site agree that the state should not enforce a day of worship or persecute a religious group on account of their beliefs. Obviously all must abide by basic civil law that applies to all citizens.
This is the issue. How shall a Jewish individual be saved? Are they safe ignoring salvation in Christ alone? Are they OK presently to continue in unbelief?
I suggest they must accept the messiah...Jesus who they have heard about and not deliberately choose to forsake.
Spiritual Israel is today the church. When Jewish individuals by birth accept Christ they become part of "Spiritual Israel" just like we "gentiles." No other promises are offered outside of Christ to the Jews.
pat
Pat,
But I understand where Dave is coming from. In the scriptures, the early Christians were the persecuted. Post-biblically, that was flipped on its head in Jewish/Christian relations. Because of the atrocities that have been perpetrated by "Christians" in the name of Christ against Jews throughout the ages, can it be that God would understand the barriers that have been placed in the way of many Jews? Barriers that may be too great for some to scale to accept Christ by name? And yet, maybe those same individuals in their worship of God and in the fruit of their lives, reveal that they know him in Spirit?
In those cases, "shall not the judge of all the earth do right?"
Just some thoughts...
Frank
The Hebrew records show that the Sabbath was given exclusively for them and no one else was even allowed to observe their ceremonies until they had first been circumcised and accepted into Judaism, as the Jews never tried converting anyone at that time.
The Sabbath is a Jewish holy day and there was never a holy day given, or required of the new Christians, as Paul and the apostles so clearly say. There is also no record of any Christians advocating or worshiping on any day as a holy day for the first four centuries, and even when they began meeting on the first day in honor of the Resurrection, it was never declared as a holy day. The Jews, surely continued observing the Sabbath and it only became a problem when they attempted to impose it upon the Gentile Christians; otherwise, no day was was given for rest or worship for Christians.
Where is the record of any Christians in the first century who began and continued to worship on Sabbath? The Jewish-Christians are never recorded in the historical records after the Temple was destroyed; and the sacrifices could only be performed at the Temple which good Jews tried to worship there at least yearly. The Diaspora Jews, of which they were by far the larger number of Jews scattered throughout the Mediterranean while Judea contained the smaller number, attended synagogue as there was no temple other than in Jerusalem.
As no worship day was ever specified for the new non-Jewish Christians, where and when was Sabbath-keeping on the seventh day ever observed in Christianity and if so, where are the records?
The Bible has no mention of Christians ever "keeping" the seventh-day, and the Hebrew Scriptures plain state it was given to them only.
The Hebrew records show that the Sabbath was given exclusively for them and no one else was even allowed to observe their ceremonies until they had first been circumcised and accepted into Judaism, as the Jews never tried converting anyone at that time.
The Sabbath is a Jewish holy day and there was never a holy day given, or required of the new Christians, as Paul and the apostles so clearly say. There is also no record of any Christians advocating or worshiping on any day as a holy day for the first four centuries, and even when they began meeting on the first day in honor of the Resurrection, it was never declared as a holy day. The Jews, surely continued observing the Sabbath and it only became a problem when they attempted to impose it upon the Gentile Christians; otherwise, no day was was given for rest or worship for Christians.
Where is the record of any Christians in the first century who began and continued to worship on Sabbath? The Jewish-Christians are never recorded in the historical records after the Temple was destroyed; and the sacrifices could only be performed at the Temple which good Jews tried to worship there at least yearly. The Diaspora Jews, of which they were by far the larger number of Jews scattered throughout the Mediterranean while Judea contained the smaller number, attended synagogue as there was no temple other than in Jerusalem.
As no worship day was ever specified for the new non-Jewish Christians, where and when was Sabbath-keeping on the seventh day ever observed in Christianity and if so, where are the records?
The Bible has no mention of Christians ever "keeping" the seventh-day, and the Hebrew Scriptures plain state it was given to them only.
The Hebrew records show that the Sabbath was given exclusively for them and no one else was even allowed to observe their ceremonies until they had first been circumcised and accepted into Judaism, as the Jews never tried converting anyone at that time.
The Sabbath is a Jewish holy day and there was never a holy day given, or required of the new Christians, as Paul and the apostles so clearly say. There is also no record of any Christians advocating or worshiping on any day as a holy day for the first four centuries, and even when they began meeting on the first day in honor of the Resurrection, it was never declared as a holy day. The Jews, surely continued observing the Sabbath and it only became a problem when they attempted to impose it upon the Gentile Christians; otherwise, no day was was given for rest or worship for Christians.
Where is the record of any Christians in the first century who began and continued to worship on Sabbath? The Jewish-Christians are never recorded in the historical records after the Temple was destroyed; and the sacrifices could only be performed at the Temple which good Jews tried to worship there at least yearly. The Diaspora Jews, of which they were by far the larger number of Jews scattered throughout the Mediterranean while Judea contained the smaller number, attended synagogue as there was no temple other than in Jerusalem.
As no worship day was ever specified for the new non-Jewish Christians, where and when was Sabbath-keeping on the seventh day ever observed in Christianity and if so, where are the records?
The Bible has no mention of Christians ever "keeping" the seventh-day, and the Hebrew Scriptures plain state it was given to them only.
Frank,
Are we now