Okay, sorry about that. Somehow comments were turned off, but it's fixed now. Shabbat Shalom!

I take a different view.

For most Adventists (and I readily admit exceptions), church attendance is rather limited to the cycle of saturdays. This (Holy Saturday) Sabbath, as pregnant with meaning as it is, is left alone on the Adventist calendar. For this majority, there is no "eighth day," no "resurrection day" commemorated with a church service. Next Sabbath will have no paschal significance whatsoever.

Consequently, most Adventist churches attempt to co-opt a celebration of the Lord's Resurrection on this Sabbath, but this article is right to observe: "Holy Saturday is blunt and bleak and uncomfortable." In the gospels, Holy Saturday is completely untouched by the joy of the resurrection. In this light, it is obvious why Christians have long insisted on commemorating the Sunday of the resurrection too. (There is, after all, significance to the particular days of the week on which these events occur in the gospels. Every gospel highlights the sequence of "day of preparation," "sabbath," and "the first day of the week"--underscoring the significance of each. Adventists themselves, for instance, see the "Sabbath rest" connection in Christ's sleep in the tomb.)

It is unfortunate, then, that Adventists have lost any sense of the joy proper to the "first day of the week." I hope they feel the discomfort and bleakness of this Paschal Sabbath. It may very well lead them to long, hunger, and thirst for the joy Christ infused into "the first day of the week." Rather than polemicize one against the other, we could see one thirsting, longing, to be completed by the other.

Hugo, thank you! This is precisely why we are celebrating the Resurrection tomorrow morning, on Sunday! It would indeed be a crime to focus on the bleakness of Holy Saturday without the "rest of the story." Thank you so much for your comments.

The church I attend also has an Easter celebration outdoors, followed by an egg hunt for the children and brunch for all.

Adventists have shunned Easter for their entire history, so as not to be seen honoring the first day! What a picture to the world to ignore the one and only reason that there is a Christian church, period! Had there been no resurrection, there would have been no Christians and no churches, including Adventists!

Adventists, so fearful of giving any recognition whatsoever to Easter, although it is impossible to deny the resurrection was on the first day of the week, have given themselves a black eye among Christian denominations. The whole raison de etre of the church is Easter Sunday! How futile to attempt to ignore it.

The Gospels do not even agree on which day Christ died: So how can there be such certitude over a "Holy Saturday"?

The comment:

"I offer a general charge against Christianity for its failure to honor the fourth commandment, for our failure to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy."

Clearly, Christians never became Jews, which would have required them to observe circumcision, Sabbath, and other Levitical laws. This is clearly explained by the earliest NT writer and founder of Christianity that the law written on stone is obsolete, and Christ has replaced it. Of all Christians, only SDAs and a few others, continue to require both Jewish and Christian rituals and are a hybrid: neither fully Christian or fully Jews. The Sabbath, as stated in the Ten Commandments in the OT, was NEVER, never, given to anyone but the Jews, which all the rabbinical teachers insist upon. Only someone who first chooses to become circumcised is even allowed to keep the Jewish Sabbath and Kashrut. Adventists continue to beat a dead horse.

God did not die. By definition - God can not die. The human person of Jesus, experienced death. God was present in the darkness that surrounded the cross.

"The cross is but a revelation to our dull senses of the pain that has existed in the heart of God since the inception of sin."

Elaine,
When I read the Genesis story of creation, I see a call for a Sabbath rest which even God observed. This happen long before there was a Jewish people or commandments written on stone.

Pastor Bell,

Thanks for your response! I'm glad to see that! :) A sincere and curious question, though (for you, or anyone else):

I know many Adventists are reluctant to commemorate Easter Sunday precisely because it suggests Sunday can have a special significance on the calendar. They see the observance of Easter as tending towards regular Sunday worship. Do you believe the commemoration of Easter Sunday should/does tend towards the commemoration of Sunday more generally? Is it possible to commemorate/find meaning in Easter Sunday, and not also, the other Sundays in the year? Should we try to strictly avoid finding an Easter significance in every Sunday?

Yes, we can say God died, because of the union of the divine and human in Christ. What classical theology has called the "Communicatio Idiomatum."

There is a Lutheran hymn for this day that speaks of this mystery:

1. O darkest woe!
Ye tears, forth flow!
Has earth so sad a wonder?
God the Father's only Son
Now is buried yonder.

2. O sorrow dread!
Our God is dead!
But by His expiation
Of our guilt upon the cross
Gained for us salvation.

3. O sinful man!
It was the ban
Of death on thee that brought Him
Down to suffer for thy sins
And such woe hath wrought Him.

4. Lo, stained with blood,
The Lamb of God,
The Bridegroom, lies before thee,
Pouring out His life that He
May to life restore thee.

5. O Ground of faith,
Laid low in death.
Sweet lips. now silent sleeping!
Surely all that live must mourn
Here with bitter weeping.

6. Oh. blest shall be
Eternally
Who oft in faith will ponder
Why the glorious Prince of Life
Should be buried yonder.

7. O Jesus blest,
My Help and Rest
With tears I now entreat Thee:
Make me love Thee to the last,
Till in heaven I greet Thee!

Hugo,

Why throw the baby out with the bathwater? Yes, I see no reason that we can't commemorate Jesus' resurrection on Easter Sunday without tending towards Sunday worship. The seventh-day Sabbath remains sacred, but it is healthy to remind outselves of the Resurrectin on that special day each year. It can also build a bridge with other Christians withous compromising our own distinctives.

I think that what Ryan Bell's idea of recognizing that Jesus rested in the tomb on Sabbath by not having a festive service, which then is followed by the festive worship on the next day (which is biblical) is a great idea. Celebrating the resurrection on Sabbath is better than totally ignoring it (as is commonly done in many Adventist churches - unless they dedicate Easter Sabbath to condemn the observance of Easter), but it is not the same as doing it on Sunday.

The main service for Easter is actually done on Saturday night in Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, etc., churches.

I just got back from a sunrise Easter service at the park organized by three Methodist churches in the area. I attended this service with a couple other friends from church. Other Adventist friends I know will be attending services at Presbyterian and Anglican churches in the city today.

At our local church, we managed to organize a Good Friday service this year, and a special communion service for Sabbath. Somehow, it seem incomplete with out some kind of service celebrating the resurrection. I really like the way Henry put things and wish I could celebrate Easter in some sort of official way with others from my immediate faith community.

Above all man needs assurance, second man needs community, third man needs expression and communication. The Christian year was designed to provide all three--certainly the resurrection is the crowning moment of not only man but the universe. What a opportunity to set aside denominatinal differences, watch the sun rise together and recite the 24th psalm in one voice. Lift up ye heads O ye Gates! One can say more but one cannot say less "Christ is Lord! Tom

Elaine, was Adam a Jew? I don't think so and he kept the Sabbath. You seem to be beating a dead horse.

You seem to have so much hatred against adventists, I think it consumes your life because you're often the first to make comments on this blog and they're ALWAYS very negative and pejorative and often, wrong. I can't see anyone worshipping God in spirit while harboring so much hatred...

Your comments also show the SAME old and baseless allegations against Adventism that have not and will never have any impact on us because they have no credibility, they have been refuted repeatedly and the only ones who like them are the people who make them up.

It may be good for your spiritual life to take a break from blogging and go back to your Bible and spent time alone with God. Blogging is ruining your spiritual life, the evidence is patent.

Bill: "The main service for Easter is actually done on Saturday night in Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, etc., churches."

Right, but outside of Sabbath hours (sundown or midnight). By then, it's already the first day of the week, by design.

Elijah said:

"Elaine, was Adam a Jew? I don't think so and he kept the Sabbath."

You recommend I should read the Bible more. Perhaps you will be so kind to show from the Bible where God ever commanded that Adam should observe the Sabbath or that he ever did so.

If Adventists are to be known as the "people of the book" the biblical evidence for their positions should be found directly from the Bible, shouldn't they? Assumptions can easily be made; proving those assumptions should come before being made.

Holy Saturday without Easter Sunday is like the cross without the resurrection. Christ is risen and he rose on the first day of the week, the Lord's Day. This article really made me see a major difference we have with Adventists. I hope that somehow you can experience the joy of Easter as we do.
Fr. Jim

It probably needs to be pointed out that this is Ryan Bell's personal reflection on Holy Saturday and doesn't represent Adventist belief in general.

Adventists fully embrace the joy and hope of the resurrection as an eternal and everyday reality. The resurrection was a momentary event with eternal dimensions. It needs to be celebrated everyday, not only once a year (Easter Sunday), nor simply weekly.

Also, for me 'Holy Saturday' is not a bleak day. Jesus died in triumph on friday,'it is finished' he shouted as a champion. It is Jesus attitude which defines that particular Saturday not that of the disciples. They were full of doubt and despair, not only for the saturday but for a large part of the sunday. Jesus however rested as a king who had perfectly accompished his mission. Beautiful and confident rest! All it awaited was to throw death off early sunday morning.

Jesus resurrection is not confined nor memorialised in a day in the New Testament. Rather it is remembered in baptism, and in the experiential power and presence of the Holy Spirit which brings the resurrected Christ to us moment by moment, and in joyful hope of the future resurrection.

This is a joy much bigger than Sunday. We enter it every moment if we are open to Christ. Christ is our paradigm.

God Bless all

ant

ELaine,

So you suppose that God observed the Sabbath while Adam and Even went on their honeymoon somewhere in Venus?? Please explain yourself.

Elijah, like Elaine suggested, just read the texts.
It stated that God finished His work, and rested on the seventh day.
There is know indication that Adam or Eve rested. And there is no indication that they were invited to, or requested to.
Why would they need a day of rest, they hadn't done any work, and they were already communing in God's presence.
The belief that Adam and Eve observed the seventh day Sabbath, is mere speculation, and there is certainly no mention of it in scripture. Again, I invite you to read the texts...

It seems peculiar Elijah, that you say God "observed" the seventh day. I fail to see that in my Bible.
God rested on THAT seventh day, because his work was done. He hallowed THAT day, because of the completed work. At this point, there is no indication that this has/or was to become an ongoing memorial to creation...it doesn't say that....anywhere.
Again, no mention of Adam or Eve "observing" or "keeping" the Sabbath....ever. To state differently is an opinion not based on the Scriptural record....

Elijah, before you come on here and accuse people of "hatred against Adventists", and accusing them of continually coming on with baseless allegations against Adventism, maybe, just maybe, you should read what the Scriptures actually say, instead on reading into it, your preconceived notions and opinions. It would be helpful to leave the name calling aside, and just discuss the texts at hand, and what they actually say. We can't give them meanings that aren't there, just to satisfy our preconcieved understanding....

Elijah,
Might I suggest that Randy is correct in saying that, according to the BIBLE, God rested on that one "seventh day" of creation week and makes no mention of an on-going rest on any other "seventh day". In fact, Jesus refutes the idea that God rests from all work on any given "seventh day". When the Jews persecuted Jesus for healing on the Sabbath, His reply seems to refute the idea that there were any subsequent Sabbaths on which God, or His Son, rested.

After Jesus had healed a man on the Sabbath, "the man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well. For this reason the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because He was doing these things on the Sabbath. But He answered them, "MY FATHER IS WORKING UNTIL NOW, AND I MYSELF AM WORKING. For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God." (John 5)

For those of us who see the creation week as symbolic of epochs of time in the process of creation rather than seven days, as we calculate them by the rotation of the earth, it would be fitting for God to have "rested" from this creation process and to declare His entire creation as "good" and "finished", making life, in all its varied forms, and the entire universe, to be a holy thing, to be respected and cared for.

Sirje

Fr. Jim,

Did you not see my comment above? We DID celebrate the resurrection on Sunday morning. I would never lead my congregation in a Holy Saturday service with Resurrection Sunday.

For me (and clearly not all Adventists), I am really seeing more clearly than ever that Sabbath needs Sunday and Sunday needs Sabbbath. I'll likely explore this more in a future post and pray I won't been thrown under the bus.

Ryan

This article and thread portrays the Sabbath in an unconventional light. I'm not against it, just pointing out that it neglects some of the more traditional understanding. The ten commandments provide two reasons for the Seventh day Sabbath. Creation and Salvation. This is the principal variation in the two versions of ten commandments. In the right order also, the first version creation, the second version salvation. Also, this links salvation as Re-Creation.

We forget that the Sabbath is also to remember Salvation. It seems worth recalling this in contrast to the suggestions in this thread. Death on Friday, Resurrection on Sunday, Sabbath was right in the center of the whole Salvation event.

Full respect to those who wish to remember Easter Sunday, and Friday as well.

I do not see directives in the bible to remember every Sunday. But, those who chose to, we should give them full respect. It is not in itself anything wrong. As long as it is not wielded as a 'mark of authority'. We tend to have conniptions about that! Also, we don't like it 'replacing' the Seventh day Sabbath.

But I do see other biblical directives to remember Christ's body and blood. I think all churches have communion more often than Easter. And someone else mentioned baptism is also a directive given to us to remember this event.

Sirje and Randy,

I partially agree with your defense of Elaine. There was no need for personal attack. However, if Elijah genuinely has some real concern for Elaine, then I don't know what an appropriate way to express that concern would be. Do you suggest better to say nothing? Perhaps you are right. Also, Elaine can give as good as she gets.

Now, back to the topic, I have some counter points for you.

Sirje,

You suggest that theistic evolution finished when man was created? Are we the pinnacle of evolution? Is evolution stopped since God rested? This science and theology makes no sense to me.

"God rested from all the work that he had done in creation" is not negated by "my father is working until now". Not sure what bringing this up accomplishes?

Randy,

Was there any indication that Adam and Eve were instructed to keep any of the commandments? Why should we expect they kept only 9 out of the 10 commandments. What proof is there that they were not involved in the creation memorial? What proof is there that the creation memorial was unknown before Moses? Lack of evidence is proof of nothing. If we have faith that God's Law is eternal, as is very much indicated by the Bible, then it is reasonable to expect that Sabbath has always been kept. We are told that God sanctified it, and we are told that in the context of keeping a literal 7th day memorial.

There is indeed biblical proof that Sabbath was kept before the ten commandments were codified by God for us. The Israelites were instructed to collect 2x Manner on 6th, to have enough for the 7th. This was done before the ten commandments were given.

It's also more than reasonable to understand that the 7 day cycle had origins prior to the Israelites. The definition of a new week is not speculated is it? It's not unreasonable the possibility that the rests that Moses and Pharaoh argued about were the same seventh day rests that followed them into the wilderness. Isn't it the same word used for rest as it is for Sabbath.

The ten commandments have still been generally respected by all Christian denominations, until fairly recently. Why is it that only in the context of the Sabbath does the argument come up about the Law being fulfilled?

One of the functions of the Law is to help us recognize sin. We do not break the Law, as said in our language, when we are in sin, we are under the law. Like a measuring stick. Recognizing sin is not the only function. The Law ALSO provides to recognize the opposite of sin? Defeating the law defeats the purpose of salvation. The only area where Law is challenged in this sense is the fourth commandment.

If you accept we should keep 9 out of 10 commandments, then please show proof why we should do away with the Sabbath commandment.

Thanks Chris,
You correctly point out the weak arguements for non observance of the 7th day Sabbath.
Insider trading and multilevel ponzi investments are not specifically mentioned in the garden of Eden either.
The fact the 10 commandments say remember sails over some peoples radar.

It never cease to amaze, even after 80+ years in the SDA church, to see the extent to which some will go to try and claim incidences from the Bible on sheer speculation when there is no texts or evidence to support such claims.

This may be convincing to biblical illiterates, and has been successful in gaining converts who have little knowledge of what the Bible actually says. For those who have the benefit of many years in SDA schools with the Bible study reqired each year, such illogical and untruthful claims do not present evidence and for those who choose to rewrite scripture to augment their position are an embarrassment to the church they claim to represent.

Elaine,

Not quite sure exactly which points you are challenging. You seem to question the framework of the whole discussion. I understand that you disagree with biblical authority anyway. If you don't accept creation, or resurrection, then I can understand you would object to this thread.

Yeah, OK, some of my speculations are less convincing than others. I clearly framed my points in terms of possibility and reasonableness, necessitating some speculation. Yet my questions are not invalidated because of that.

But what is religion or faith without any speculation? Should we be left with a purely literalistic interpretation of the Bible? Surely you would challenge that as well. Should we not apply any reason or construct any interpretation for fear of being wrong?

I support efforts to see our prejudices reduced. I commend Ryan Bell's actions towards that. ALL Christians are brothers and sisters, we should see them as such. It occurs to me that our track record is not so bright in that regard. I also try to point out that with understanding, we can become more open without compromising our core beliefs.

My local Adventist church celebrates the Resurrection on our Sabbath of the "Easter" weekend.

Just as Christmas, since we are a small church, we celebrate the Christmas spirit through out the season (December), and has the big celebration also on the Sabbath that is closest to "Christmas Day". We know Dec 25 was not real Christ's birthday anyway.

But I have problem with using the word Easter to indicate the Resurrection of Christ. It reflects the pagan practice and origin.

Egg hunting for kids on that weekend should be treated the same way as the practice of giving gifts to children in Christmas . . . for the season (like harvest season, summer vacation, etc.)

Randy, Sirje et al

Well, the Bible doesn't say that Adam and Eve ate on Friday, or slept on Friday, yet no one would challenge the fact that they did.

The notion that God celebrated His creation, including the creation of MAN and WOMAN as a marvelous act, by resting on the Sabbath while Adam and Eve did something else is the most idiotic concept I have ever heard against the Sabbath.

Obviously that means nothing to the evolutionists who peruse and comment on this blog. Sorry to say that the God of the evolutionist is the most miserable creature to have ever existed in the universe. He was so weak that he couldn't come up with a solution to create the world and needed a bazillion years to reach that. And even then, look at what came of his creation, a bunch of murderers, rapists and thieves.

Good work, god!

Chris,
For the purposes that Genesis 1 and 2 were written, as an explanation how things on earth and in the heavens got to be what they are, creation was indeed finished with man. Genesis further states that God rested from this creation process (I'm sure He wasn't tired), and blessed His creation, declaring it to be holy - the ultimate sabbatical epoch (in line with the seventh year being a sabbatical year).

This has nothing to do with God resting every Sabbath from then on, as Jesus didn't rest from His proscribed work on the
Sabbath and declared that neither does God rest.

I'm sure evolution to some degree is still going on. I do believe man is the pinnacle of creation but only as seen in Jesus.

Sirje

Sirje,

Let me ask you something... When you want to set an example to someone, do you tell them what to do or show them? I would have to say the correct answer is to show them by setting and example. It's obvious that when in the bible God created man he couldn't teach them to sanctify and hollow a day he had not even created so much as even rested. By God resting on that Seventh day, Sabbath, he provided an example to do as he did.

"By God resting on that Seventh day, Sabbath, he provided an example to do as he did."

And when do you suggest that the Creation story was first recorded? None of the BIble was written until several millenia after (if one chooses the 6,000 year theory).

If that is the assumption that man began observing Sabbath from Creation, perhaps you can describe how for thousands of years with all the Bible characters prior to Moses, there is not one single word about any of them, including Adam & Eve who observed the Sabbath. We might as well assume that they all observed Kosher from Creation, or that they were godly monotheists--never mind God's repenting for creating them and causing the flood. The many assumptions about the Bible that are OUT of the Bible, not contained within, could fill a huge volume. Maybe someone has already written it?

Elaine,

I figure that that God himself could come and you would probably lend yourself to beleive that it is some Hollywood special effect. I could say to go read a bible and open to Genesis 26:5 and would go to some foregone conclusion about what that implies...but hey the devil works hard for people to believe the lies that he feeds people. He, the Devil, is probably one that has more Spectrum Cred than Tom Zweemer himself.

Fernando,

Surely, you are not suggesting that the Devil wrote the Bible?
Or, is he the one that suggests adding to the Bible what it does not clearly state? Who is feeding who? Is it truthful to declare that Adam and Eve kept Sabbath when there is absolutely no mention of it in the Bible?

Ryan, I would be quite interested in seeing connections made between the 1st/8th and 7th day. That could bear some good fruit. I look forward to your article.
Fr. Jim

Michael,

Within the commandment itself, "remember" can simply be interpreted to mean to start remembering from this point forward. Unfortunately, it's ambiguous enough, so it is not a silver bullet. I agree with your interpretation, but I believe the net must be cast a bit wider to capture the truth in that one.

Sirje,

Neanderthal, cromag, sapien or sapien sapien? An intermediate species? An ancestral species? Which man? I don't even understand what the lines are between those species. There must have been some gradual intermediaries. Given that the species line is really an arbitrary definition, how far back do you go to say which Man was created on the 6th day/epoch?

"I do believe man is the pinnacle of creation but only as seen in Jesus" So, now creation (6th day/epoch?) finished with Jesus? Unusual thought to me, but if so, then wouldn't that mean even more reason that the Sabbath commandment is important? Not less important.

You are suggesting that Jesus broke one of the Ten Commandments even before He proclaimed "it is finished". When was He allowed to break the Ten Commandments? I suggest it makes more sense to believe He kept all Ten Commandments.

Contradiction: "God rested from this creation process" vs "declared that neither does God rest" doublethink??? You pit one against the other, to what end? If they are talking about different types of rest, then they are not at odds with each other - so if I am to take it in this context, it is a moot point. And Christ did not actually break the Sabbath.

If they are talking about the same sort of rest, then you have a mutually exclusive proposition, either God did rest, or he didn't. It appears you take at least some spiritual meaning from Sabbath, so I conclude you accept some form of the idea that God rested. If so, then what is the point of bringing up what Jesus said about it? And if I am to take it in this context, then you would have the alternative corollaries that either Jesus was wrong, or that Jesus completely negated the Sabbath, and so we would be wrong to take any spiritual meaning from God's rest. Further, this means that it was just for the Jews, and so the idea you have about epochs is meaningless, unless the idea about epochs was only relevant to the Jews. In either case the idea of Sabbath relating to epochs has no meaning for us now.

"and blessed His creation, declaring it to be holy" This either is anthropomorphic or it isn't. Choose one, and stay consistent. Why do you get to have it both ways? If the accounts are simply anthropomorphic, then the blessing and declaring it holy was definitely implied for the humans to see it as such, Adam and Eve were thus intended to see Sabbath that way, because they were the only humans involved in the story up to that point. However, if the story is not anthropomorphic, then the rest of creation is not simply anthropomorphic either, and we are to understand a literal creation, hence a literal Sabbath.

Elaine,

When was the NT written? Why no mention of transference to Sunday? In Acts, Paul appears to be keeping Sabbath as per the old customs. Surely, if not then such a thing would have been recorded? You criticise us of implying what is not there! Then how about criticising those who suggest that the Bible supports transference of Sabbath to Sunday?

If we had to make a choice of which one was more reasonable, (Sabbath before Moses vs Sabbath transference to Sunday) and use your rules of keeping it within acceptable interpretations based on the Bible, then that would be an interesting discussion. I wonder which one would have a stronger case? My experience is obviously biased at the moment, but I wonder if we put the arguments down side by side, which one would be more convincing.

Why such a delineation between God's people as Jews, and God's people as Christians. Are we not all God's people? Does this delineation necessarily mean that one of the ten commandments is not relevant to us as Christians? What say you of the other nine?

And, why can't remembering creation (an act that occured before the Jews) and salvation (as we see in Christ) be useful for Christians today? Why can't the commandment that asks us to pause from our work, be useful for us today as well?

What is the problem with anyone wanting to observe the 7th day Sabbath? Is there something wrong with it?

"What is the problem with anyone wanting to observe the 7th day Sabbath? Is there something wrong with it?"

Absolutely not. Paul clearly taught that everyone should be persuaded in his own mind. He also most explicitly taught that the new Gentile (formerly pagans) did NOT have to become Jews by observing their customs before becoming Christians: IOw, the Jewish Christians were free to observe their practices, but attempting to require Gentile Christians to do so was condemned.

No one is disputing that it is good to pause and rest from our work on one day. The requirement that it only be ONE particular day was never given or required of Gentile Christians. And, unless you are a Jew, you would be categorized as Gentile--everyone not a Jew.

Yes, we are ALL God's children, and again, Paul emphasized that when declaring there were no longer males and females, Jews and Greeks, slaves and free: we are all one in Christ.

The NT does not support any specific day for Christians as mandated observance. There are many doctrines adopted by all Christians today, incuding Adventists, that were not part of the original Gospel: The Trinity, Incarnation, Divine/human nature of Christ. No where does the Bible ever identify them as requisites for Christians. They were added many centuries later.

Likewise, the Sabbath was never abrogated for Jews; but also, never required of Gentiles. Even in the NT they were meeting on the first day of the week and many early church fathers (they also instituted doctrines we adopted) write very early in the second century that the new Christians were meeting on the first day in celebrating the Resurrection. IOW, it gradually became a Christian day of honor so much so that in the middle fourth century, Constantine recognized and ordered that it be a day from work--not worship--for most of the Roman Empire. He, nor no one single individual, even an Emperor, could institute such a change; but Christians did and it became a fait accompli.

I love how the first few comments refer to my article and then everyone goes back to arguing about Adventist hangups. Thanks, Fr. Jim, for keeping the conversation going in a constructive way.

Elaine,

Are you stating that prior to Christ dying on the cross the sabbath was not meant for gentiles? It was ONLY for the Jews?

ISAIAH 56:
1 This is what the LORD says:
"Maintain justice
and do what is right,
for my salvation is close at hand
and my righteousness will soon be revealed.
2 Blessed is the man who does this,
the man who holds it fast,
who keeps the Sabbath without desecrating it,
and keeps his hand from doing any evil."

3 Let no foreigner who has bound himself to the LORD say,
"The LORD will surely exclude me from his people."
And let not any eunuch complain,
"I am only a dry tree."

4 For this is what the LORD says:
"To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,
who choose what pleases me
and hold fast to my covenant-

5 to them I will give within my temple and its walls
a memorial and a name
better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
that will not be cut off.

6 And foreigners who bind themselves to the LORD
to serve him,
to love the name of the LORD,
and to worship him,
all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it
and who hold fast to my covenant-

7 these I will bring to my holy mountain
and give them joy in my house of prayer.
Their burnt offerings and sacrifices
will be accepted on my altar;
for my house will be called
a house of prayer for all nations."

8 The Sovereign LORD declares—
he who gathers the exiles of Israel:
"I will gather still others to them
besides those already gathered."

Ryan,

My hangups are about losing the meaning of the Sabbath. You did present an unconventional meaning. Actually it comes close to contradicting my understanding of the Sabbath. Skating on thin ice, as they say. But, I don't have any big problem with what you presented, I acknowledged the value in what I think you are trying to achieve. In that sense, I may actually be aligned with Fr. Jim.

But if my hangups are not 'constructive' to you, then should I apologise for that? Or, to put it another way, do you expect all comments to be devoid of an Adventist perspective (or hangups as you call them.)

Elaine,

OK, depends on how you interpret the Sabbath. If it is truly simply a Jewish custom that had been done away with, then you would be right. But if we understand the 7th day Sabbath to be meaningful, and that fits in with the 10 commandments as being codified God's Law, as immutable, then your conclusion is not the same.

One can interpret Paul to be teaching about accountability with respect to insufficient knowledge of the Law, rather than dismissing all of God's Law. Addressing legalism and judgementalism heresies, rather than saying that the Sabbath should no longer be observed.

I concede that I can not convince you. I can put all that aside for a second, and agree it comes down to interpretations. I have mine, you have yours, etc.

So, the next step is, what say you if Sabbath keepers were forced to break the Sabbath. To be honest, this is one of the only two real issues I am worried about, when discussing the Sabbath.

1) Would you accept my refusal to not break the 7th day Sabbath?

The second part is if Sunday keeping was 'clearly' presented as a mark of authority, for anything other than the creator and redeemer God. Perhaps you dismiss this as paranoid conspiracy, and you may be right, but if it actually happened...

2) Would you accept my refusal to not worship on Sunday, if I believed it was presented as per this scenario?

If you accept my freedom of religion, then I will accept yours. I agree with you that "everyone should be persuaded in his own mind." Some of the Eastern stuff you were talking about I suspect comes into it here. Can you provide any more assurance that you accept my freedom to believe these things? That would be sufficient for me.

Chris, you have my permission (I don't think you need it) to worship on any day you wish, along with my assurances that I will never persecute anyone for the day they choose to worship, or not worship. I have no concern about a date in the future (?) that SDAs have projected where the "remnant who keep the commandments" will be persecuted for a day of worship. For those who do, that is also their freedom of religion. FWIW, I am not concerned whatsoever of anyone's right to practice his religion, nor mine. Each one may interpret scripture as he likes; but to project that belief on others by assumptions of scripture is skirting eisegesis.

Chris,
You posted: "So, the next step is, what say you if Sabbath keepers were forced to break the Sabbath. To be honest, this is one of the only two real issues I am worried about, when discussing the Sabbath."

How does one get forced to break the Sabbath? But a better question, what constitutes "breaking the Sabbath" these days?

Anticipating your answer, there's a whole slew of people already working on the Sabbath with the church's blessing including medical personnel, and most of all, pastors; and I'm not so sure all those warming the pews are actually "keeping" the Sabbath either.

And, yet a better question, how can anyone be FORCED to "worship" on any day, including Sunday?

Sirje

Fernando, perhaps you will be willing to show us that the Hebrew prophets were ever directed to preach to the Gentiles. These were all directed to the Hebrews (offering sacrifices in the temple) and only "foreigners" who were first circumcised were allowed to observe and worship with the Gentiles and their services at temple.

Projecting Christ back into the Hebrew prophets was NEVER done until the first century when the Gospel writers both re-interpreted and blatantly changed the original meanings. If what the Bible was saying to those who adopted it as Scripture, are we really free to read it today in a way utterly out of keeping with what it meant at the decisive moment of its adoption? By even adopting the Bible, one's trust must be in what was essentially an editorial decision made by an unknown editor or editors. After all, who decided what the Bible should consist of? Ask any rabbi for the proper interpretation; or better yet, read some of the Talmud for interpretations.

Here's an orthodox Jewish Hebrew scholar on this subject:

"Perhaps most striking of all for modern scholars was the whole matter of the sabbath. The sabbath, they noted, was a subject dear to priests. True, it is mentioned outside of priestly text as well, but in priestly writings the proper observance of the sabbath is stressed in a way not found elsewhere. When they considered Genesis 1 carefully, they concluded that the sabbath--and not the creation per se--was its true subject. The whole account of how the world was made, they said, had been set forth in this six-day scheme SO AS TO STRESS THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SEVENTH DAY, THE SABBATH. From the very beginning of the world, this priestly author was saying, the sabbath has existed; indeed, God arranged the creation into six "days" so as to be able to rest on the seventh day, AND SO SHOULD YOU. That, rather than a simple recitation of the facts of the creation, seemed to modern scholars to be the whole point of chapter 1." *

And the great difference in the earliest story of creation found in the second chapter of Genesis.

*Kugel, James L. "How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scriptures, Then and Now."

Just to add a little to the discussion, the oldest version of the 10 commandments, in the often ignored Exodus chapter 34 mentions only observing every seventh day - without naming which one. I take it as a clue that fixing that day must have come later.

Also observing "a" seventh day is more in keeping with modern knowledge. Observing the Sabbath day assumes a flat earth, whereas in reality when there is a day where you are, there is a night at the opposite point of the globe. And let's not forget the international date line is a human concept - it was not found in the Bible! Not to mention that closer to the 2 poles both day and night can take 6 months. Should adventists there gather for worship every 7 years?

Jag, those are some of the reasons that we need to remember that the three different accounts of the giving of the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20, Ex. 34, and Deut. 5) were all a part of the covenant made ONLY with the Israelites "who were brought out of the land of Egypt" for a particular people at a particular time and a particular place; no one else. They were not given to the the pagans around them.

They could only be applied to a specific locality on the face of the earth and the humans who recorded the story were limited in their knowledge of both geography and the world. The futile attempts to require an impossible command for moderns today raises many of the questions you have done. The island of Tonga in the S. Pacific is crossed by the International Date Line (something no one in Moses' time could possibly have known) and part of the island elected to keep one day and the other side is a day late (or early) depending on which side of the island which you reside. Nothing was known about international travel where one flies on Friday and the next day is Sunday. Which 7th day of that week should be observed?

The poles also represent an impossibility for anyone attempting to observe Sabbath from sunset to sunset--a feat that only the small country of Judea and surrounding area could practice.

No one here, as yet, has furnished one single NT text requiring Christians to observe ANY day for rest or worship. Why not if it as such an essential for one's salvation?

Elaine,

Thank you. You were able to not deny what you thought of the question at the same time as answer it. I appreciate that a lot. I tend to compartmentalise those things, and say to myself, well they are not happening now so there is no issue right now. They are just hypothetical at the moment. And I agree, they are not sufficient reason to be paranoid of our brothers and sisters in Christ. Yet, I reserve the right to think about what would happen if those things actually did happen...

Sirje,

My questions were for Elaine, she was able to provide assurance, she understood what I needed. To answer your questions it is very personal, I could only tell you what works for me. I don't know what would work for you. I have not had much correspondence with you before, but am happy to share my thoughts on this complex issue with you as well. The difficulty is, I am not sure what your position is. I have questioned you on your comments, and have had no response to those questions. It would show good faith if you were to acknowledge my questions as well.

Your recent questions seem to pose as if the concept of keeping a day holy is too foreign for you, then I am going to have trouble explaining it. But at least you said "and I'm not so sure all those warming the pews are actually "keeping" the Sabbath either". That gives me some hope that you actually may have your own thoughts of what it means already. So, not exactly sure why you are asking me to explain my perspective. I'll try and provide you an answer anyway.

Firstly, I fully accept there are responsibilities that must be kept on the Sabbath. Keeping these responsibilities does not constitute breaking the Sabbath.

Jesus said, "It is lawful to do well on the Sabbath days" That is clear from scripture, and He specifically rejected the idea of breaking the Sabbath commandment.


Matthew 12:10–12
10 And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him.

12 How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.


Secondly, it's not about our actions, you seem to hint at already. To 'remember' the Sabbath day is a spiritual process. The outward actions are not necessarily a good place to judge someone keeping it, I agree with that. And I concur with the Apostle Paul, that we should not judge that.

So, you asked me what do I think it means to break the Sabbath? It might be different for everyone, so I would have to generalise it to being forced to do something that withheld us from keeping it. We should be free to keep it in any way we choose that facilitates our remembering it. This includes putting aside everyday actions, and doing something different to make it special, and the special actions that we do on the Sabbath should be designed to facilitate us remembering. So, whatever rituals we use for that, if any of them are forcibly taken from us, then that is violating our freedom to keep it how we choose. I think that would constitute forcing us to break it.

So, you asked me what do I think it means to be forced to show worship on another day? Well, like I already said, this would have to be framed in the context of being specifically and obviously proclaimed as an action that demonstrates authority to anything other than the Creator and Redeemer. If Sunday observance was obviously known as anything other than worshiping our God, then I would be within my rights to refuse to be seen to do that.

For example, the fact that some Catholics have declared that Sunday demonstrates the 'Mother' Church's authority over other Churches, it becomes a mark of authority for the Catholic church rather than for God the creator and redeemer. Perhaps I should say, it becomes a mark of God as seen through tradition (with all due respect to that) trumping the God of creation and redemption.

Thankfully, not all Catholics say this. And other churches do not readily acknowledge this. Actually, I would hope to think that is only a small minority. So, having said that, at the moment I think it is not widely seen as a mark of authority, therefore I have had no problem attending a Sunday church at times. So, it is a very hypothetical proposition at the moment. And, if Catholic clergy were more openly willing to accept that they are of a sister church, rather than the mother church, then I think I would be less concerned. But, while they maintain their current stance, I have the right to reserve my concern.

So, hopefully I have answered your questions to your satisfaction. If you need any more clarification, I will try to respond.

The example is given where a man pulls his ox out of the ditch on the Sabbath. Then knowing he did no wrong he proceeds to open up Ezekiel's ox towing business...(Open Seven Days a Week!) completely missing the relevant factors in the equation.

Elaine,

Exodus 34 is not presented as what God wrote on stone, it is something like a localised paraphrase, with less authority than the Ten Commandments. I think two versions are more generally accepted, rather than three. Wikipedia has some bizarre things at times.

Matthew 12:10–12 certainly is NT support for the Sabbath, from Jesus himself. If you don't interpret it as such, that is your choice. But please be reasonable, and understand that others do see that there is support for the Sabbath in the NT.

Straw man: "Why not if it as such an essential for one's salvation?" And I thought you would know that! One could say this of any other commandment also, and be equally as wrong. Yet even here, the only one in contention is the issue that shows authority to the creator and redeemer.

Your argument about Tonga is meaningless, because those people have in fact found a way to keep the Sabbath, by your own admission. Are you judging them that they are not keeping it properly?

I am sure that if I was to move to Antarctica, I would still find a way to remember the 7th day. Do you suggest I couldn't find a way to keep it? Or, you wouldn't approve of my keeping it, because of your 'sunset' requirement?

Other churches have always acknowledged the ten commandments! Even the Catholic church has not done away with the Decalogue. The issue therefore is not about it's Jewishness. The issue only seems to become apparent about the interpretation of the fourth commandment.

There is the intro to all the commandments, "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery" You could perhaps argue this is for the Israelites only, but this has not stopped the Decalogue being accepted in general by pretty much all churches, has it? And we can all relate to being brought out of slavery

So the argument of Jewishness is restricted to one of the commandments only, and then only in one version as well.

Let's look at that version of that commandment.

"Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day."

You may argue this is for Israelites only. But, there is also the interpretation of the Passover, and salvation from Egypt is a type, also used in other places of the Bible, to point to Christ and our salvation. Therefore, it is not an unreasonable interpretation to believe that the commandments spiritual meaning, as indicated in the bible, is about salvation which comes through Christ.

Then, we still have the other version of the commandment, which asks us to remember creation. Is that not applicable for us as well.

I understand why Jews would want to frame even creation to point to their Jewishness. But I think that is stretching the natural reading of it, to take it to the point to the southern tribes only! It seems that pretty much all Christians have in their Bible an Old Testament. And, a lot of us believe we are continuing from the promises given to Abraham as well, so if that is the case, we can claim that same Jewishness anyway that is being claimed in that argument, which really if the argument is consistent, goes back prior to the southern tribes identity, as well as continues on in all believers, and all children of Adam and Eve who were created. The word Jewishness just becomes a spiritual meaning, if the claim is to be consistent.

A nephew, as a medical student at LLU, was asked how he would know which day to keep if he were on a South Pacific Island and just awaken from a coma and didn't know what day of the week it was. he replied, i would walk across the island to the Catholic mission and find out which day they worshipped and I would worship one day sooner.

The Chair of the Math Department at PUC had a very difficult time with the Sabbath on a round world. A Sabbath rest is a great blessing to man. Keeping the Sabbath has been a curse from the post-exile period on. None other than the Son of God said so. Tom

Chris,
Thank you for responding to my untimely questions. I thought this being a public forum, I might be able to clarify what you meant with your response to ELAINE. My apologies if I spoke out of turn.

Your response left me confused, however; or maybe you're confused, I don't know. Seeing that Sabbath observance is one of the Ten Commandments, you would think there would be some specific instructions to what constitutes observance. As it turns out there are, but they are part of the laws we think have been abolished so that leaves us only with, "in IT you shall not do any work". But you have stated that Sabbath observance is a "spiritual process" and not gauged by outward actions, so that negates the working prohibition, for you. On the other hand, you do worry about rituals with which we surround the Sabbath being prohibited and thus preventing us from "keeping it". You are further concerned with "being seen" to be giving authority to the "mother church", another outward phenomenon.

Since you were perplexed as to why I was asking these questions at this time, I am happy to explain. SDA theology has placed a halo around the Sabbath commandment, if only by using it in its identifying name, but also in its emphasis in the "end-time" scenarios, where all good SDAs are going to be chased into the mountains etc; so your further explanations about Tonga and the Arctic circle also become perplexing. If keeping of the Sabbath is about "finding a way to keep it" even when the edges of the Sabbath are gone, and all the instructions we were given about "6 to 6 PM" and later, "sundown to sundown" are meaningless, then one can assume that the Sabbath can be kept even on, let's say, Monday or even Sunday. Sundown was obviously used in cultures where there were no digital clocks, or calenders. If there were any true Christians living above the Arctic circle, they would surely be out of luck, and would have to make up their own Sabbath "rituals", as you put it - which makes the whole issue meaningless.

Here's an idea - how about we go with what the New Testament, meant for world-wide consumption, has to say about our rest - in Christ. In fact, Jesus, pretty much, turned all the commandments on their head when He made them a moral issue rather than outward display; and, gave us the Spirit as a guide to what God wants from us.

As Elaine has stated, the Ten Commandments were for a specific people, at a specific time, under specific circumstances. Today, we hardly EVER hear sermons on "honoring our mothers and fathers", which was concerned with national purity, or covetousness in this consumer age, for that matter. Jesus gave us God's commandments in just two parts, "Love God and love your neighbor", and left us the Holy Spirit to figure out how that is done.

Sirje

Tom,

Can you please provide reference to the Sabbath being a curse, I would like to see it in context. Perhaps it would counter my interpretation of Matthew 12:10–12. Thanks.

I think you have brought up an interesting aspect of the discussion.

Perhaps we have turned it into a curse, its meant to be a blessing to stop work, and have a break. If our tendencies are towards workaholic, then perhaps the idea of stopping work offends us. This means our priorities are all mixed up.

Alternatively, if it becomes no longer a rest, but a cultural requirement, if it becomes a 'work', then I can also see that becoming a curse as well. And again, it is our priorities that are all mixed up to cause this one.

I think the fourth commandment goes nicely with the first three, in terms of addressing our place with respect to God. It's about priorities and acknowledging authority. An authority that is recognised by us in stopping work, resting, and remembering, is a worthwhile authority.

Of course, that is my perspective, I offer sympathy if you see it as a burden.

Sirje,

Again, you challenge me, without responding to my questions to you.

Yes, I was confused by your questions. Still am.

"you would think there would be some specific instructions to what constitutes observance" Yes, there are, and no, they have not all been done away with.

The commandment itself is sufficient to derive spiritual meaning, and enough of an idea to derive action. Ceasing from work, remembering the Creator, remembering Salvation.

The remembering is an inner action. Mind/Forehead.

The ceasing of work is an outer action. Hand.

For me, keeping the Sabbath utilises both. If my actions in this regards are causing others to stumble, then please elaborate.

And my thoughts of remembering God should not be hurting anyone?

I never said actions were meaningless. I do say that we should not judge each others actions. We should leave judgement to God.

However, if I was asked to do an action, that had a very specific meaning associated with that action which I believe to be wrong, (I can think of a few actions I should refrain from) then I am within my rights to refuse to do that action. Do you deny that? Even if it is only in action (hand), then I can still refuse.

Chris,
I've gone over your responses and, try as I might, I can't find one question you posed to me. Please tell me what I've missed.

Sirje

Chris,
I have gone over your posts and found a few questions that I might try to answer.

No, there's nothing wrong with you keeping the Sabbath in whatever way you see fit - nobody's business but your own, except there is something in the church manual about being kicked out of the church for "breaking the Sabbath",so I assume there are stipulations as to what "breaking the Sabbath" might mean. I'm assuming it means WORKING on the Sabbath which is an outward act, by the way. But then, we have so many people exempt from that too, leaving me confused. But then you add, "remembering" to Sabbath observance - remembering the Creator and remembering salvation, both being inner action and not detectable by any church official. In fact, I think a Christian probably remembers his Creator every day of the week, and most deffinately, he remembers salvation.

You must be kidding by asking your next question as to "how your worshipping on Sabbath might cause others to stumble". Your keeping the Sabbath probably causes no one to stumble, but the church's insistence that the Sabbath is slavific certainly does. And yes, the Sabbath becomes salvific when it becomes the test of discipleship in the end-time scenario.

Sirje

Sirje,

I apologise, I didn't mean that you spoke out of turn. On the contrary, I enjoy the responses from you. I just felt that you misunderstood me, and I was speculating on why that may have been.

As to the questions I think you missed, they were in the response I made to you, posted directly after Fr. Jim's comment, if you look back up the thread.

Sometimes, I use too many words, I need to work on distilling my thoughts. But I tried to provide you with some ideas that I think question your ideas.

Some of my questions were asking you to expand on your idea of epochs and creation, because I thought that somehow you were using that to counter the traditional understanding of the Sabbath. I am willing to explore your ideas through. I question when it challenges my understanding, and that provides you the opportunity to explain it. I mean no disrespect in the questions.

My latest line of questioning is trying to get at what issue you are pointing out with regards to an apparent contradiction in what I said. If so, then I feel you have misunderstood me.

I don't agree with the caricatures you present my understanding. It seems to me that you raise straw men out of Adventist theology.

If you want to argue that Sunday and Monday mean the 7th day to you, then that is your choice. Then we will have to agree to disagree. But I stick with the 7th day that I know.

You make too much out of the actions and rules as requirements, in order for you to judge them as contradictory. They become your requirements, not those of the believers who follow their own beliefs. Paul warns us not to do that sort of thing.

Chris

Just go back to Michael's facetious comment about the enterprising Jew who established a business of hauling Oxen out of ditches 24/7. How many an ox falls in a ditch within a day's journey of any spot in Judea-let alone on a Sabbath day? The guy would be out of business in a week! My point was and is that fundamentalists then and now placed burdens on the Sabbath that no man could bear. See the exchange of Jesus when His disciples were accused of working on the Sabbath for rubbing the hulls off of grain on the Sabbath. Or of Jesus healing the blind man on the Sabbath day or of the lamb man whom Jesus told to take up his bed and walk on the Sabbath. One doesn't have to look further than an Academy dorm on Sabbath afternoon to find out what laziness does to an idle mind. Recall, the story Jesus told about the house that was cleared of a devil and left empty and many more devils rushed into the empty space. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Man needs rest--the Hebrews were slaves 24/7--God gave them rest. Then in the post-exile period the fundamentalists made the Sabbath worse than Pharaoh. Fundalmentalist Adventists do the same. I recall a popular Adventist theologian discussing Sabbath. He pointed out that a farmer, carpenter, laborer all needed the Sabbath in order to have time to read, study, and rest. But a theologian who reads and studies all week long--needs to get out in the garden and trim roses, pull a few weeds, or pick a few strawberries. yes even pull an ox out of the ditch.

My, and my family's, best Sabbath afternoon's were spent with Dr. John Roos and family on nature walks in the desert, mountains, or shore within a day's journey of LLU. Of course, after a Sabbath School with Dr. Graham Maxwell and a Sermon by Pastor Paul Heubach.

In the Southern Union all one gets is a string of sermon's all entitled: "Ye are Idle!" followed by a list of do's and don'ts. Even a retired General Conference officer travels up to a 120 miles to find a SDA church in which worship is to a Christ that came, lived, died, rose, and will come again. Now his wife is ill and he can't be gone for more than a few minutes. So we worship together and take a short ride through the piney woods of Eastern Georgia. This was a glorious year for dogwoods, redbuds, and azaleas. The Sabbath that God gave us has been distorted into a living hell by jealots who would "vindicate" God--for shame. Tom

Sirje,

I missed your last response, before I posted my last one. You said, "And yes, the Sabbath becomes salvific when it becomes the test of discipleship in the end-time scenario"

Yes I understand what you are saying. There are some things that have been portrayed that appear contradictory, I agree with you on that. However, it does not mean to me that the whole commandment needs to be thrown out.

Also, for those following it out of desire, then it is not a prerequisite of salvation, it is responsive - just like keeping any other commandment. Do you think murdering may be a test, or how about stealing. Certainly the seal of God will be supernatural, and not our own work that accomplishes that.

One of the differences, I suggest, is how you interpret what keeping it means. I suspect that understanding a more spiritual way of keeping it might resolve your concerns. You appear to have issue with 'how' to keep it. And, you rightly point out that the establishment appears to have had issue with this as well. I can see that too. But that does not mean that there is no right way to keep it. Just that we should not dictate exactly what the right way is. Just as I believe Paul was saying.

Your assumptions may be more fundamentalstic than required. When the Church sees someone blatantly breaking the Sabbath, within the framework that they themselves had agreed to when they joined the church, then I can understand a pathway towards 'chucking' them out. However, I think that the way this works in practice is not the way you are posing it. I would be surprised if someone would actually be thrown out of the church for popping into maccas on the desperate occasion.

As for posing it as a test in the end times. There are certainly other ways to understand that, than I think you do. If a blatantly obvious choice was presented, and it was clear it was about authority, then it would not really be a test of wits or anything like that. I would think that the decision would need to be conscious and obvious. Which I thought I stated already. So, I don't think it will be as ambiguous as it seems to us now. If it does stay as ambiguous as it is now, then I understand your point. But if the choice were to become blatant, then your point is not really a challenge to the credibility of the scenario. To fully resolve your challenge to this, I think that it would supernaturally obvious, with no room for doubt, as well as supernaturally enabled.

"how your worshipping on Sabbath might cause others to stumble" Well, more like rhetorical, just pointing out that I can see absolutely nothing wrong with me keeping the Sabbath. Trying to work out what your problem with it is. Your questions imply there is something wrong with the Sabbath.

The strongest argument you have come up with, is that sometimes, the Sabbath has been used in a bad light. Well, OK, I agree with that. But that does not convince me to stop worshiping on the Sabbath the way I know how.

Addressing your point about every day - I too remember those things every day of the week. To suggest that I don't is judgemental and insulting. But sometimes, when dealing with customers, and bosses and stresses in every day life, there certainly are times that I forget to remember. Therefore, the value of setting aside a specific time to do this should be apparent. Do you deny the value of setting aside a specific time, or do you just disagree with the time that we do it? If you agree with the value of setting aside a specific time, then we are left with the question of authority about which time to set aside.

Tom,

I see. Perhaps I am a bit zealous also, but I sincerely hope I don't sound like I am judging anyone for any reason, including how they keep the Sabbath. Just raising what I think it means.

Thanks for the clarification.

Worship has severl relevant questions:

The first of course is Whom to worship and why?

Followed by how to worship, of which Paul's letter to the Church at Corinth provides the best response.

Then where to worship of which Christ's interview at the well is the best response.

Then with whome to worship? All who call upon Christ's name believing.

The last question is when to worship--The answer of course is whenever two or three are gathered together in His name.

The time, place are of least importance. The Who and why are paramount. That is the message of Rev. 14. The Angel has the Everlasting Gospel--One is commanded to worship the gift giver and Him only. Tom

Christ,

If I may interject as regards, Ex. 34: "Wikipedia has some bizarre things at times."

No, this is not Wikipedia... this is a real discussion in the world of scholarship, where Ex. 34 is often referred to as the "ritual decalogue," and thought of as a major variant of the decalogues of Deut. 5/Ex. 20. (My field is Hebrew Bible.) I would not be quick to dismiss others' comments as "wikipedia."

Sirje,

To answer your question. I believe, biblically speaking, there is a way to worship on sabbath and it is found in Isaiah 58:13-14:

13If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:

14Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.

To anyone,

As a gentile convert, I fellowship on Saturday because I appreciate the continuing eschatological nuances that are related to it...even for we gentiles. I do not choose to judge those that worship their risen creator/savior on the first day and perhaps we should all reciprocate that attitude.

Who are we to judge another's servant in these matters that relate to worshiping God? Does not their master do that...and don't tell me we haven't "judged" Sunday keepers...and don't tell me some have not judged "Sabbath keepers."

I suggest that both strict Sabbatarians and strict Sunday keepers may be lost...if that is their focus and priority.We worship the Lord of creation and the "risen Lord."

That said, To you who attended Andrews, how did the SDA Seminary address the fact that the plural Gk.sabbaton is used in 11 verses in the NT including Mt.28:1, Lk.4:16, Acts 13:14 and Col.2:16? How do we know that Paul was not referring to the weekly sabbath not being a requirement for the gentile converts in Col.2:16 which likewise uses the Gk.plural? Just Curious.

regards,
pat

Hugo,

I certainly did not check Wikepedia to determine the Bible sources for the giving of the Decalogue. The Bible is the only necessary source for these three variants.

Fernando,

You quote an oft-used text from the Hebrew Bible, writing to Jews, to validate the Sabbath command. It was never intended for Gentiles nor Christians, but for the Jews who had so often departed from their convenantal promises.

Nearly always overlooked are the last verses of the 66th chapter, so frequently used in support of Sabbath:

"From New Moon to New Moon, from sabath to sabbath, all mankind will come to bow down in my presence says Yahweh. And on their way out they will see the corpses of men who have rebelled against me. Their worm will not die nor their fire go out; they will be loathsome to all mankind."

Do we ignore the New Moons today? Are they not as significant as the Sabbath, as they are frequently mentioned together, even in the NT.

To repeat Loren Siebold's discourse on "Sorting Out the Testaments," he plainly states that the four unique SDA doctrines, and especially Sabbath, they are all from the Old Testament. If SDAs cannot find a single command or requirement to observe Sabbath, are they truly Christians while selecting their essential doctrines from the OT? Can any church claim to be truly Christian and be very selective with the choices, while at the same time ignoring many others? Is this not a problem that has been glossed over since its beginning?

The only text SDAs have been able to use in defending its position on Sabbath is to use Jesus' example; ignoring that he was first circumcised, his parents gave the requisite offerings at temple for his birth, he lived and died a Jew. The earliest NT writer, Paul is very explicit, along with Peter, that the Gentile Christians should not ever be required to first become a Jew or that they should observe Jewish laws and ceremonies. How can SDAs outside of nearly all the Christian churches, maintain that the OT laws are relevant today, and essentially ignoring the message of Paul, the founder of Christianity and the apostle to the Gentiles?

Thanks Pat

You always do well in your observations. Tom

Because SDAs have chosen their unique beliefs from the OT, isn't
"Old Testament Christians" an oxymoron? Their proof texts for these come straight from the OT and not the NT. Is the NT the Christian Gospel or not?

Elaine

It is not simply that the SDA Sabbath belief is Old Testament, Its ethos is Old Testament--Fundamentalism with a capital F. As the writer of Hebrew observed--they (F)ailed to enter into His Rest! See Hebrews chapter 4. They work harder at it that most contemporary Jews. The typical Jew has a Friday evening service and that is that! After that it is "white steak" all around! Tom

Hugo,

Thanks for the clarification. It seemed bizarre to me at the time, that was my personal response a few minutes after I read it for the first time. Please don't take my use of the word bizarre to mean that I discredit the idea altogether. My question was about its authority - I didn't see it presented with the same authority as the other versions of the ten commandments. It's not my field, so feel free to use more technical words than bizzare :)

Pat,

The priority check is great.

Elaine,

But all main Christian churches have some form of the Decalogue taken from the OT, you are not just arguing against Adventists when you say that the OT Laws are done away with! When you say that it is not Christian, then why do ALL main Christian churches use it?

Tom,

Having grown up in the Church, I think I have seen exactly what you mean. My experience though, is that over the last decade or so, a lot freer attitude towards it in general. Hopefully a trend in the right direction. With my kids now, I certainly never try to make the Sabbath a burden or restriction for them. Quite the opposite, I try to make it a day of blessing for them, something they look forward to. They enjoy it, and look forward to it.

Elaine,

I apologise, I didn't mean that you read it from wikipedia, that was me who read it on wikipedia, and you got my immediate response to the idea.

Pat,

I have not studied in seminaries or anything, so I am only asking from my own layman knowledge. But what does it matter if Paul did mean the same Sabbath, as we take it? Even if Paul meant that, I would agree with Paul, and say that we should not judge eachother, on any action - most especially the ones that we see as precious for ourselves!

I get the inference from you, that some try to argue that Paul was not even talking about the same Sabbath. In that case, it sounds like a red hearing / straw man type of misidrected argument. That is just my opinion. I can see why you would address it if that is so.

Chris,
The scope of your questions and issues you wish me to discuss is wider than is possible to cover in short spurts of communication here, but I will attempt to answer you the best I can.

You asked about the relationship between epochs, creation and the Sabbath as I had mentioned earlier. First, time is relative, as our physics classes have taught us, and even the Bible states that with God one day is as a thousand years etc., in other words, time, from God's perspective is not the same as it is for us as we calculate it by the movements of the earth. Genesis is not a scientific explanation of creation but an account of WHO is responsible for this universe. Surprisingly enough, the six days of creation seem to correspond to the time periods science has calculated for each epoch in its explanation of earth's history. Suffice it to say that each day represents a phase of creation, in the Bible, culminating with the seventh, the day God ceased from creation and rested. That day is the day we are living in right now and have been since day six. God blessed that day and gave it to us to enjoy and use it to celebrate His sovereignty - the Sabbath of earth's history. If we want to celebrate it weekly as a reminder of God's creative nature, great; but every day is part of that Sabbath in reality, and as Jesus said, "it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath day".

The weekly Sabbath was indeed given to the undisciplined crowed of Pharaoh's slaves to bring them back to a knowledge of the true God which they had been made to forget in their years of slavery. The fourth commandment, along with the other nine, addressed the issues these people were having to deal with if they were going to become a cohesive people living under the one God.

From a Christian perspective the entire story of the Hebrew people becomes symbolic and a parable of the Christian experience - bondage in Egypt (sin); being saved from death by placing the blood on the door posts (Christ's blood, symbolized by the Passover); the escape from Egypt; the wilderness experience, and finally, Canaan. Interestingly enough, Moses never did get to take them into Canaan, but Joshua (Jesus) did.

The book of Hebrews is written for the Jews, who had it all figured out with its priesthood and the ceremony. Hebrews tells us that all that ceremony was only a shadow pointing to the reality which is Christ. He is God's ultimate WORD (prophet); He is superior to angles; superior to Moses (which in New Testament lingo means the LAW); superior to the Aaronic priests, in the line of MELCHIZEDEK who had nothing to do with the ceremonial system of the Hebrews; and finally, Christ is the superior sacrifice.

In the section where Hebrews shows that Christ is superior to "Moses" comes the section on the Sabbath; and here we are told that despite the Hebrew Sabbath which was their identifying mark as a people, they still came up short and needed a different REST - a rest in Christ - a rest from trying to merit God's blessings.

I find myself identifying with that Hebrew crowd. The Sabbath has been part of my entire adult life and it was a good part. I can't imagine substituting any other day for the Sabbath; but like the Jews, I have to focus on my true REST. Does this mean I have to abandon the Sabbath? - NO, but its meaning/purpose has now changed to represent a rest that was not part of the Sabbath celebration before. The irony is that the Sabbath observance promoted by the church completely denies that rest in Christ because it has made Sabbath observance necessary for salvation. Just go to any Revelation seminar.

Do I make too much of actions and rules and requirements imposed by the church? It depends on what geographic part of Adventism you live in.

I haven't covered everything you asked. I may try later.

Sirje

Chris

I think you are correct. The Sabbath is to be a delight.
I also think that Cliff got it right in his recent encounter in India. The separation of the Sheep and the Goasts is not over a day but over one's emphathy and charity toward those in need. See Matt 25.

There is also much Gospel in the exchange between Jesus and His disciples over the issue: "Who sinned, this man or his parents?" I think you know the rest of the story.

Finally remember Christ's words about the Sabbath--It is not God's time. It is man's The Sabbath was made for man. That is why my scholarly friend commented as he did about the difference in Sabbath keeping between a day laborer and a scholar. The laborer needs a day to rest and study, a scholar needs a day in the garden. Obviously both need time to worship. Tom

Sirje,

Sorry if I have gone too far. I started out in this thread with a comment that was meant to reflect on the traditional understandings as well - as in contrast with the meaning presented in this article. And by that, I didn't mean the negative traditional understanding, although I have to acknowledge that exists as well.

However, when I saw people attacking what I thought was a positive understanding, I wanted to question the challenges further. I thought you were attacking my understanding of the Sabbath as the Sabbath Rest in Christ. I thought you were denying any significance of the Sabbath. It looks like I misunderstood you. Sorry for that.

I think I am starting to understand your perspective. I am becoming less confused - thanks for clarifying.

Jesus as the real meaning of Sabbath Rest, I fully agree, that is actually what I was trying to get at originally. That is what is different with the article's portrayal of Sabbath. The Sabbath is already imbued with Easter meaning.

Like I said, I have no problem with the different way of looking at it, I just thought it interesting to compare the ideas side by side. I pointed out a potential issue from my perspective, that is as far as I went against the article. At the same time, I appreciate the intention of Ryan Bell.

If it is truly portrayed that "Sabbath observance necessary for salvation". Then I understand your issue. It is ridiculous and contradictory to think any of our actions can bring salvation. I fully concur.

Tom,

I do believe relationship is part of what it means. And I will leave that to each conscious how they interpret their relationship with the Creator and Redeemer, who we understand to be Jesus Christ. To me, this does entail setting aside mundane every day things, and thinking of higher things.

For example, I work behind a computer in an office all week. Sometimes I might get out and mow the lawn on the Sabbath. Being outdoors lifts me to higher things. So I fully get what you are saying.

Growing up a PK, Sabbath was the busiest and most hectic day of the week, not only for the preacher, but his entire family. Often, mother had visiting company for dinner after church, necessitating much prior planning and extra duties serving, being hostess, and cleaning up afterwards. The small children had to be entertained and not left to "play with the neighbor children" on that day.

In those circumstances, we always looked forward to Mondays, as Dad's day off. If it was summer, we would take a picnic lunch to a favorite creek for swimming and relax with the family.

This truly was our family's "day of rest." Which is why each person and family should be able to choose a day of rest which fits a schedule. As we all know, SDAs have a hierarchy of "work" which is appropriate on Sabbath. However, this is to the exclusion of most all professions other than healthcare. In today's world, there are many employeees who do not have the luxury of choosing when, or even if they work. With unemployment at the highest since the Great Depression, work is valued whenever one can find it. When a family needs to be fed,
it is crass and irrational to expect that one should refuse to work a certain day due to religious obligations--when at the same time many workers in healthcare and "necessary" workers are exempt.
Is it unnecessary to feed one's family?

The Sabbath command was given ONLY to the Israelites when they were a very agrarian society, never given to the Christian Gentiles, and never a single command (compared to the numerous ones to the Israelites throughout the OT) in the NT that the Sabbath was still in force, or that it should be observed; on the contrary, Paul explains this very succinctly and why there are still many who ignore his teachings is a mystery: "Let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day--things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ."

Hi Chris,

“I get the inference from you, that some try to argue that Paul was not even talking about the same Sabbath. In that case, it sounds like a red hearing / straw man type of misdirected argument. That is just my opinion. I can see why you would address it if that is so.”

Chris, I think we often simplify the problems in the early church. You did have Jewish Christian converts attempting to impose all Jewish practices on the gentile converts in order to be a true follower of Christ. In addition, I suggest, in Colossians you had syncretistic and ascetic beliefs and philosophies combining and including “Sabbath practices” being “imposed” on believers.

As early as around 100 A.D. the early church was moving away from associations with Judaism including the Sabbath to “resurrection day’ worship. It avoided the political problems of association with the Jews as well as differentiating Christianity from Judaism. This occurred before the Bishop of Rome had such power and influence over the issue.

I am not suggesting Paul himself desired, practiced or authorized another day of worship. I am suggesting that He was saying that no one was to come into judgment of another on how they accepted and practiced the annual, monthly and weekly Sabbaths of Judaism and that was not to be the norm of deciding who was a Christian.

Perhaps it is wise for us to not judge/condemn how our fellow Christians choose to show worship to our Creator/Savior whether on the traditional Sabbath or Resurrection Sunday.

Some make that issue the substance and lifestyle of their message.

That’s my point for “unity of Spirit” in Christ as regards this issue.

Regards,
pat

Thanks Again Pat.

We must meet. Tom

Tom,

If not here...by God's grace in heaven brother.

pat

Elaine,

Thanks, I understand, feeding one's family is certainly at least as important as pulling an animal out of the ditch.

And, yeah, I partially relate, my childhood Sabbaths were probably not quite such a burden. But I remember, all these restrictions on my fun. Couldn't play football, couldn't watch TV, couldn't swim... However, I was fortunate that these restrictions were relaxed by my parents, and were really only imposed from the culture of the church. I think my parents were seen as a bit 'liberal' at times. But I always had sympathy for the other kids. Even the young mind can recognise these problems.

Your father was able to provide you special time, that sounds like it was a wonderful blessing. I think I would have been blessed more from your Mondays than from your Saturdays also.

Pat,

I do have some but only limited knowledge of that history. And I suspect that perhaps a lot of Adventists have even less. I would go further than saying 'simplify' - I think we are definitely presented a biased viewpoint traditionally. I think it helps to put some reality into the picture, so I appreciate you doing that.

In this day and age, I hope to think that most of the Adventists I know do not question the Christianity or salvation of those who don't follow the Sabbath. I know many would be incensed by the accusation that they did do that! On the other hand I do see this as an issue for some, but hope it's only the minority.

But, I don't think this should be confused with believing that the 7th day Sabbath is right - that's all I was getting at. I accept and appreciate how you prioritise that.

Pat,

P.S.

"As early as around 100 A.D. the early church was moving away from associations with Judaism including the Sabbath to “resurrection day’ worship. It avoided the political problems of association with the Jews as well as differentiating Christianity from Judaism. This occurred before the Bishop of Rome had such power and influence over the issue."

I accept this to some degree, but also question weather it was the whole christian church, or only certain pockets.

Hi Chris,

Thanks for your thoughts.

No it definately wasn't "the whole church" but the movement was that way before the Bishop of Rome had "the say" over the church much later. The Jerusalem church would most likely have been continued "sabbath keepers" in some regard.

The "Titus event" and general disdain of the empire for the Jews was a good reason to not be closely related to the Jewish faith as time developed and this was the "poltical" side of the equation.

So much was happening that "the sabbath" was certainly not front and center. The focus of the church was on the One who had died for our sins and risen from the dead...The Christ. I suggest it should be ours too!

regards,
pat

Chris,

Several years back I was traveling to Atlanta from Orlando to see my Children. Between Macon and Atlanta there was a huge billboard that said on both sides, "Sunday...The Mark Of the Beast."

Who do you think might have put it there? What meaning might it have to some? Is it really the way to spread "the gospel"?
Where might that person or persons gotten the idea?

I would like to think "out loud" as to Rev.13:18 for a moment.
The Greek anthropos without the article "the" is used likewise in Rev.16:18 with both being in the singular.

Usually the translation could simply be "man or mankind."

When we think of numbers in the Bible, 7 might be perfection, 7 as completion of creation as examples. 6 perhaps a lesser number and that perhaps as the day of man's creation.

What was Babel about as related in Gen.11:2-4?
Could this be as simple as humanity desiring autonomy and placing itself above the creator in the created order and the outcome?

Is not the "prophetic" message of Daniel and Rev.in the "political realm" and "spiritual realm" not simply about the Kingdoms of man ultimately(even while patiently being used by Him)rebelling against God and Christ ultimately overcoming them? Rom. 1:18-32: Rev.17:12-17.

The message is not about "days" but the meanings found within them. One can be a Sabbatarian and rebel against Christ as the Jewish leaders of Christ's day and...the Colossian heresy. One can do likewise as a "Sunday keeper" if it is merely a tradition without a deeper substance which would not involve "killing others" because of it. Make sense?

If we stay close to Christ by His grace and the keeping of His Spirit, everything will work out fine. That is my Faith, Hope and Love as it relates to Him...the one who loves us and gave himself for us.

May we by God's grace with that faith, love, and hope go forth and serve others with whatever capacities God has given each of us. No gift is to simple as it is but a part of the whole functioning body.

regards,
pat

Hello all, I was an Adventist for approximately 10 years, and so I am very familiar with the "standard" arguments for the sabbath. I would like to point out a few things from Scripture that I believe Adventists have misapplied or overlooked. Also, please bear in mind that I have absolutely no ill-will intended in any of this. My purpose is merely an examination of the biblical data, and possibly the enlightenment of others.

Adventist argument: The sabbath was known to the Hebrews before the giving of the law from Sinai (i.e. Exodus 16), therefore the sabbath was known in Genesis and observed by the Patriarchs.

Please forgive me if my statement of the "typical" Adventist argument comes across rather simplistic. There are a few things I would like to point out with this assertion:

1. The relevant passages in Exodus 16 are as follows:

A. "And it came to pass, that on the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers for one man: and all the rulers of the congregation came and told Moses. And he said unto them, This is that which the LORD hath said, To morrow is the rest of the holy sabbath unto the LORD: bake that which ye will bake to day, and seethe that ye will seethe; and that which remaineth over lay up for you to be kept until the morning." Exo. 16:22-23

B. "And Moses said, Eat that to day; for to day is a sabbath unto the LORD: to day ye shall not find it in the field. Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the sabbath, in it there shall be none." Exo. 16:25-26

C. "And it came to pass, that there went out some of the people on the seventh day for to gather, and they found none. And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws? See, for that the LORD hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day. So the people rested on the seventh day." Exo. 16:27-30

I believe it is worth bringing out that the phrases, "And he said unto them, This is that which the LORD hath said, To morrow is the rest of the holy sabbath unto the LORD...And Moses said, Eat that to day; for to day is a sabbath unto the LORD...Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the sabbath, in it there shall be none...See, for that the LORD hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day. So the people rested on the seventh day", found in the foregoing passages implies that this is the very first time the Hebrews had ever heard of a seventh-day sabbath. After all, why would the Israelites need to be told that "to morrow is the rest of the holy sabbath unto the LORD" if they and their fore-fathers already knew about the seventh-day sabbath from the days of Genesis? The language here seems to express a "newness" to the Israelite's experience regarding the seventh-day sabbath, rather than a simple remembrance of a past custom. Furthermore, none of these passages indicate in the slightest that the seventh-day sabbath was known prior to Exodus 16.

Also, consider that the phrase, "See, for that the LORD hath given you the sabbath" from verse 29 implies what Exodus 31 teaches, saying, "Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations...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 for ever..." verses 13, 16, and 17. This language seems to imply that God's directive was not only for the people of Israel specifically, but that the observance began with them as a people, and was particular to the covenant made with Israel.

Another passage of Scripture that should be taken into account regarding the origin of the seventh-day sabbath observance is Nehemiah 9:9-14, "And didst see the affliction of our fathers in Egypt, and heardest their cry by the Red sea; And shewedst signs and wonders upon Pharaoh, and on all his servants, and on all the people of his land: for thou knewest that they dealt proudly against them. So didst thou get thee a name, as it is this day. And thou didst divide the sea before them, so that they went through the midst of the sea on the dry land; and their persecutors thou threwest into the deeps, as a stone into the mighty waters. Moreover thou leddest them in the day by a cloudy pillar; and in the night by a pillar of fire, to give them light in the way wherein they should go. Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments: And madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant:" Notice that the passage states that God "madest known" to the Israelites the sabbath "by the hand of Moses". If the Patriarchs of Genesis, the Hebrew's and Moses' fathers, had really known of the seventh-day sabbath prior to Moses, why then would Holy Scripture inform us that the sabbath was not made known until the time of Moses? This is not an opinion, but rather inspiration in Holy Scripture.

I realise that this has already been mentioned, but I think it is worth mentioning again. No where in Genesis are we told that any Patriarch observed the seventh-day sabbath. This is important, because as sola scripturists, Adventists are bound by what the Bible says, and not by what it does not say. To assert that the Patriarchs of Genesis observed the sabbath is to deny the principle of sola scriptura, "the Bible and the Bible only". That means that opinions and assumptions cannot be made the basis of doctrine, only what is plainly written in the text. The Bible makes very clear that the sabbath was for Israel only to observe as a mandatory requirement as part of their covenant with God. Gentiles are no where mentioned in Scripture, whether Old or New Testament, as being "required" to observe the seventh-day sabbath or any other ritualistic observance from the Sinai covenant. To assert otherwise would be a violation of the sola scriptura principle as well as placing an undue burden upon the Gentiles that the Apostles were not even willing to do (i.e. Acts 15:28-29).

There is more that could be said about this topic, but I will leave it there for now. Please, if there are any comments or questions or suggestions, I would be very glad to hear them and continue the conversation. May God's blessing be upon all!

-David

Pat,

I hear what you are saying. I have thoughts like that at times also. I don't know if they harmonise with or complement or disagree with typical Adventist thought.

For example you said, 'The message is not about "days" but the meanings found within them.' Does that necessarily mean that the days are meaningless, just because we see another deeper meaning?

Alternatively, is a symbol meaningless if we understand it's meaning?

David,

If we are to stick within sola scriptura, then we can't fit your interpretation in either, without some more explanation. Consider that the Bible says that God gave the commandments to Moses on the mountain, which occured after those verses about collecting the manna etc.

If your interpretation is correct and consistent within sola scriptura, then you are suggesting that Moses was laying down the law of the Sabbath before it was known, before it was given to him by God on the mountain. So I think the timing of the covenant does not seem to agree with what you present. Or Moses was a bit presumptive?

I'm no theologian or biblical scholar, but to my mind your interpretation is more contra to sola scriptura than the alternative of believing that Sabbath already existed. And to me it seems more likely that the Israelites had lost their way, actually in ALL aspects, not just the Sabbath. Evidence of this is that the covenant consists of the whole ten commandments. Agreed that the fourth has a distinctive signalling aspect - but it is still one part of the ten.

And, understanding that the commandments had to be reminded to the new nation, then it was re-given, as in renewed, this time in a special codified sense! For example, all of the other commandments, were any of them brand new? Examples of all of the other commandants were considered throughout Genesis, but these were part of this same renewed Law as much as the Sabbath was. Would this not explain the language constructs that you are getting at?

I'll wait for your response, so we can consider which model fits sola scriptura more reasonably.

David
Just one other quick comment--another thing to keep in mind when reading the early books of the old testament was the reality that this was based on oral history and was not written down until much later, likely during the Babylonian captivity. It was highly probable that what was written was not just a word for word transcript of the oral history, which could change from person to person over time, but also colored by what had transpired since then as well as the current beliefs and situation the Hebrews were in at the time it was actually written. Another reason why it is so important to look at the Bible as more than just a history, but a story of how God has dealt with humans and their reactions over time.

It is also why the New Testament is so important for Christians to see how Christ exemplified God for us--keeping in mind the human element even in decisions as to which books to include in the accepted canon as well as efforts to modify written documents based on current religious philosophy. I like the concept of looking at the Bible as basically showing how God is saying through history--"I am with you, will you be with ME?" and illustrating how that has worked for humans in the past--what lessons can I learn to apply in my life today.

Donavon,

You beat me to it. I agree that the other side of the coin is to not criticise Adventists of being so fundamentally literalistic that we can't apply any reason to understanding inspiration at all.

The criticism takes the concept of "sola scriptura" out of context, and defines it how the critic wants to define it, in an unreasonable light.

Of course intepretation has to be made when studying scripture. Sola Scriptura does not deny the necessary requirement of interpretation, or the fact that there is fallible transmission of knowledge, via and into fallible minds.

I like your approach.

Chris,

Yes...Symbols are important, as is the Lord's supper.

My point is that we need to be Christ worshipers first...not Sat.or Sunday Worshipers. I believe it is possible for both to be valid days for true believers to gather together and Worship and extremes can come from both sides when the day becomes the focus more than the One worshiped.

Let everyone be convinced in his/her own mind and the One worshiped knows the thoughts and intents...not us and we shouldn't do the labeling.

regards,
pat

Agreed, the meaning is more important than the symbol itself. There is an issue when the symbol provides a unique and distinctive signatory of the relationship. The peculiarity itself becomes important. This belief can not be discarded so easily - nor should it! It is slightly incompatible with the idea that other symbols are equally as valid. They aren't compatible from a singular perspective. Perhaps from an accountability point of view, we have to agree that both are equally valid from their respective understandings. I agree we do well to remember that, because it is the only way to maintain ANY belief and not be judgemental of others' salvation.

What I mean by ANY belief, is that if we follow the problem through, we get to challenging the notion of Christ and God. After all, our thoughts of these are mere symbols of the real thing.

Christ first, last and always.

PS completely agreed on the focus part.

Hello Pat, thank you for your thoughtful reply. I will do my best to respond to your comments.

You said: "If we are to stick within sola scriptura, then we can't fit your interpretation in either, without some more explanation. Consider that the Bible says that God gave the commandments to Moses on the mountain, which occured after those verses about collecting the manna etc.

If your interpretation is correct and consistent within sola scriptura, then you are suggesting that Moses was laying down the law of the Sabbath before it was known, before it was given to him by God on the mountain. So I think the timing of the covenant does not seem to agree with what you present. Or Moses was a bit presumptive?"

My response: In my original post I quoted Nehemiah 9:9-14 which said,

"And didst see the affliction of our fathers in Egypt, and heardest their cry by the Red sea; And shewedst signs and wonders upon Pharaoh, and on all his servants, and on all the people of his land: for thou knewest that they dealt proudly against them. So didst thou get thee a name, as it is this day. And thou didst divide the sea before them, so that they went through the midst of the sea on the dry land; and their persecutors thou threwest into the deeps, as a stone into the mighty waters. Moreover thou leddest them in the day by a cloudy pillar; and in the night by a pillar of fire, to give them light in the way wherein they should go. Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments: And madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant:"

According to this passage, the sabbath was made known through Moses. Notice the language, "And madest known unto them thy holy sabbath...by the hand of Moses thy servant:" Clearly, according to the text of Scripture, the sabbath was made known through Moses and no one else. And as I stated before, this is not opinion, but rather inspired Scripture!

I also quoted several parts of Exodus 16 of which is found this phrase, "See, for that the LORD hath given you the sabbath" verse 29. This language sounds very similar to that of Exodus 31 where God says,

"Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations...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 for ever..." verses 13, 16, and 17.

What this implies is that the sabbath was given not only specifically to Israel, but also only to the "children" of Israel, meaning that their fore-fathers did not recieve it.

This point is further corroborated by the fact that neither Jews nor Christians throughout their history had ever believed that God gave the sabbath to the Patriarchs of Genesis. Consider the following exchange between a Jew and a Christian of the second century AD:

"But if some, even now, wish to live in the observance of the institutions given by Moses, and yet believe in this Jesus who was crucified, recognising Him to be the Christ of God, and that it is given to Him to be absolute Judge of all, and that His is the everlasting kingdom, can they also be saved?" he (Trypho the Jew) inquired of me (Justin the Christian).

And I replied, "Let us consider that also together, whether one may now observe all the Mosaic institutions."

And he answered, "No. For we know that, as you said, it is not possible either anywhere to sacrifice the lamb of the passover, or to offer the goats ordered for the fast; or, in short, [to present] all the other offerings."

And I said, "Tell [me] then yourself, I pray, some things which can be observed; for you will be persuaded that, though a man does not keep or has not performed the eternal decrees, he may assuredly be saved."

Then he replied, "To keep the Sabbath, to be circumcised, to observe months, and to be washed if you touch anything prohibited by Moses, or after sexual intercourse."

And I said, "Do you think that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Noah, and Job, and all the rest before or after them equally righteous, also Sarah the wife of Abraham, Rebekah the wife of Isaac, Rachel the wife of Jacob, and Leah, and all the rest of them, until the mother of Moses the faithful servant, who observed none of these statutes, will be saved?"

And Trypho answered, "Were not Abraham and his descendants circumcised?"

And I said, "I know that Abraham and his descendants were circumcised. The reason why circumcision was given to them I stated at length in what has gone before; and if what has been said does not convince you, let us again search into the matter. But you are aware that, up to Moses, no one in fact who was righteous observed any of these rites at all of which we are talking, or received one commandment to observe, except that of circumcision, which began from Abraham."

And he replied, "We know it, and admit that they are saved." Justin the Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 150AD chapter 46.

It is noteworthy to point out that Trypho, an unconverted Jew, did not believe nor was ever taught that the Patriarchs of Genesis received the commandment to observe the sabbath or any other of the commandments found in Exodus and later, save circumcision only, and that only for Abraham. The teaching that the sabbath was both known and observed by the Patriarchs of Genesis is a "new" interpretation in the history of Christianity and Judaism.

As regarding your comment,

"And, understanding that the commandments had to be reminded to the new nation, then it was re-given, as in renewed, this time in a special codified sense! For example, all of the other commandments, were any of them brand new? Examples of all of the other commandants were considered throughout Genesis, but these were part of this same renewed Law as much as the Sabbath was. Would this not explain the language constructs that you are getting at?"

I would simply point out that there are moral imperatives that all people know instinctively, "do not take what is not yours", "do not harm anyone", "treat others as you would want to be treated", etc. This are "built" into us so to speak. They are part of our moral nature. All people possess these moral directives, regardless of the culture. However, to set aside one particual day of the week by not doing any work on it, is not a moral imperative, nor is it "built" into us. People do not do this by nature, they must be instructed regarding it. Its simply not instinctive for us to not work one day a week, let alone a specific day like Saturday all the time. We take days off from work whenever we decide to, not because it is mandated in us to do so. The people in Genesis were human beings just like us. They had the same moral imperatives "built" into them, just like us. This is what the Apostle Paul is talking about in Romans 2,

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)" verses 14 and 15.

The Gentiles (i.e. nations, non-Hebrews) do not observe the sabbath on Saturday unless they are told about it. But they do know instinctively to do good for one another and not to wrong anyone. Their conscience is their guide, either accusing them or excusing them. The people in Genesis were Gentiles except for Abraham, who was called a Hebrew simply because he lived across a river(?). The only commandment Abraham ever received from God was that of circumcision. There is no mention of the sabbath until Exodus 16. That is why the language sounds so new and introductory pertaining to the sabbath,

"This is that which the LORD hath said, To morrow is the rest of the holy sabbath unto the LORD...And Moses said, Eat that to day; for to day is a sabbath unto the LORD...Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the sabbath, in it there shall be none...See, for that the LORD hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day. So the people rested on the seventh day".

If we are to go by Scripture alone to determine what we believe about the sabbath, then we must come to the conclusion that these passages imply. If we allow for the witness of history in our determination, then we must be taken hold by the fact that neither Jew nor Christian ever believed or taught that the sabbath was either known or observed by anyone in Genesis. The idea that the sabbath was observed in Genesis is a relatively new teaching in the history of religion.

I really hoped that helped. God bless!

-David

Hello Donavon, thank you for your response.

You said: "Just one other quick comment--another thing to keep in mind when reading the early books of the old testament was the reality that this was based on oral history and was not written down until much later, likely during the Babylonian captivity. It was highly probable that what was written was not just a word for word transcript of the oral history, which could change from person to person over time, but also colored by what had transpired since then as well as the current beliefs and situation the Hebrews were in at the time it was actually written. Another reason why it is so important to look at the Bible as more than just a history, but a story of how God has dealt with humans and their reactions over time.

It is also why the New Testament is so important for Christians to see how Christ exemplified God for us--keeping in mind the human element even in decisions as to which books to include in the accepted canon as well as efforts to modify written documents based on current religious philosophy. I like the concept of looking at the Bible as basically showing how God is saying through history--"I am with you, will you be with ME?" and illustrating how that has worked for humans in the past--what lessons can I learn to apply in my life today."

My response: If that is the case, then there can be very little for us to discuss about this matter. If we cannot trust what has been written concerning the sabbath, then what is there that we can trust in the Scriptures? Since Adventists are sola scripturists primarily, while they do allow some room for reasonings, a person is nonetheless bound as it were to the pages of the Bible to explain to an Adventist that the sabbath was never kept by anyone in Genesis. And besides, the official position of the Adventist denomination is that the New AND Old Testaments are truly inspired and are the word of God. They are both authoritative for the Adventist in matters of doctrine. And as such, Adventists are bound to accept the testimony of any Scriptural book, no matter how "early" it might have been written. Therefore, if you are an Adventist, then you are required to acknowledge the biblical passages I have brought up. To fail to do so would be to place oneself outside of the Adventist standard.

May God be with you!

-David

David,
You said, "If we cannot trust what has been written concerning the sabbath, then what is there that we can trust in the Scriptures?"

We do have the book of Hebrews to explain to the Jews, and anyone else who is worshiping God with Jewish standards, that those parameters were shadows, and Christ is to be their focus. Whatever the prophets said, Christ says it better; whatever Moses said or did, Christ does and says it better.

We also have fore-shadowing of this in incidence on the Mount of Transfiguration, as Jesus, Moses and Elijah are seen together. As the disciples watched, Moses and Elijah disappeared, leaving Jesus alone, at which point a voice was heard saying, "This is my beloved Son, listen to Him." For the Jews, Moses represents the LAW, and Elijah, the PROPHETS, which is the Scriptures for the Jews and the basis for their their entire social/religious system. Here in Mark 9, the New Testament takes that system and replaces it with Christ, and tells us that whatever Moses and Elijah had to say, Jesus says it better and we are instructed to "Listen to Him".

Sirje

David,

You quoted me rather than Pat. I don't think Pat has the same issue as I do with this. From my perspective, I dare say that Pat is more aligned with what you are saying than I am.

I do concede it is not as simple as I first thought, and I was trying to be prepared for that.

In trying to argue about sola scriptura, you have presented a corroborating witness from about two millennia after the fact? It's not that persuasive to me.

It has already been mentioned that some Christians probably did continue to maintain the Sabbath. So that argument is not clear cut either way.

An interesting question to me would then be; how did the early Christian Sabbath keepers see the Sabbath? Is it possible that they saw it similar to the way we do, that the Sabbath has more importance than the other Mosaic traditions? But I will also concede that there may be an argument for them simply continuing on the old traditions. I wonder if someone has some more light on that.

But, I see no reason to disregard the meaning of the Sabbath for us today. I do see it as more valuable, more important and authoritative than the other Mosaic traditions. It is in the class of the ten commandments, that God wrote with His own hand on stone.

There is no reason that we Christians can't all use it to signify the creator relationship. We were all created. And there is no reason that we can't use it to signify the saviour relationship either. After all, we see that we are spiritual Israelites, as all God's children are, so the meaning is no less important to us than it is for biological Israelites and Jews.

You seem to portray as if we do not acknowledge that God gave the seventh day a new meaning to the Israelites. We do acknowledge that the Holy Scriptures talk about the new significance of the Sabbath. I am happy to acknowledge that it may very well be the first time it was used as a signifying aspect of the relationship between God and His people.

I got to be careful when I say 'we'. At least it is my understanding that us Adventists acknowledge that which you are accusing us of ignoring.

Perhaps also, you might be right, and that God gave the Sabbath through Moses before the ten commandments. It is an interesting thought.

Anyway, I enjoy the light that you are shedding on the topic. It looks like you have some valuable details to share. I am learning a lot on these forums about all sorts of things. I appreciate the chance to talk about this stuff.

Thanks.

To Sirje,

Thank you for those insightful comments. I never considered the Transfiguration in quite that way. :)

To Chris,

A 1000 + 1 apologies, my good sir. I mistakenly thought that Pat had responded to me. I promise you that I will be much more careful in the future. Again, I am very sorry for the mistake.

God bless all!

David,
No need to apologise to me. I enjoy and learn from your thoughts.
Thank you for your kindness.

David
I do not disagree with your comments about the Sabbath observance prior to the exodus--if looked at from a strictly scriptural basis. My understanding of how the early books were written would lend even more credence to your point above since even with the later editing of the oral history that appears to have occurred, there is still not clear scriptural evidence of the seventh-day Sabbath being observed by the early patriarchs. The Hebrew scholars who wrote those books would appear to also agree with you. If they were trying to make the point that seventh-day Sabbath observance began with creation, they could easily have made it clearer as they appear to have done with the belief in one God.

We make a grave mistake by assuming that the collection of Bible books, even the stories within them are all chronologically organized. This is an impossibility, as no one can accurately date the early books of the Bible, nor can any specific dates be assigned to them. There is no record of any being written prior to 1000 B.C. as many of the details mentioned in the supposedly earlier stories contain anachronisms indicating they were written much later.

There are too many texts showing that the covenant with the Decalogue was never intended for anyone but the Israelites, and that no Gentiles were ever expected or commanded to obey them: it was an exclusive right of the Israelites which they jealously guarded for themselves alone.

If the New Testament should be the Christian's final authority for truth and practice and is God's final word (John: 1:1; Heb. 1:1,2) there is no command for the special Jewish ordinances to continue or be taught to the Gentile Christians as the NT nowhere commands Christians to observe either the seventh of the first day of the week as a Christian Sabbath. Nor is there a single biblical record of any people keeping the Sabbath prior to the time of Moses when it was given to the Israelites alone.

The OT is God's word, but not his final word; that is the NT. Nowhere does either testament indicate that Gentile nations should keep the Sabbath. None of the prophets ever reprimanded any but the nation of Israel for breaking the Sabbath. Even Paul in Romans 1, where he lists more than twenty Gentile sins, never mentions Sabbath-breaking.

The three reqirements which particularly characterized a Jew living under the Torah were 1)circumcision, 2) the food laws and 3) the Sabbath. These were to keep them separate from all other nations.

It was Paul who vehemently opposed the new Jewish Christians who wanted to impose these regulations on the Gentiles (Col. 2:16,17; Gal. 4:10,11; Rom. 14:5). Except for a few Sabbatarians, scholars today are agreed that these three scriptures address the matter of Sabbath-keeping and was the unanimous position taken by the early church fathers and the Reformers.

Paul never wrote to the Gentile churches about Sabbath-keeping except in a negative way. His silence on the matter or urging the young churches to keep the Sabbath cannot be regarded as an indication that he or his converts took the obligation for granted. The new Gentile communities had no background in Sabbatarianism. How strange that these new converts were warned against commiting all kinds of sinc but Sabbath-breaking is never mentioned!

The NT is not concerned with holy days any more than it is concerned with holy places, as it was for the Jews in the OT. Under the old covenant God sanctified a particular nation for service, a particular place for worship, particular food as "clean" and particular days for rest. Under the new covenant, no longer are people from one nation designated as holy (Acts 10:28,34) and no longer is one geographical site set aside for the worship of God (John 4:19-24); no longer is there a distinction between religiously "clean" and "unclean" food and no longer is there a distinction of days. Christ does no desacralize people, places, food and time, but he redeems all and asserts his Lordship over all. The idea of designating one day as holy is just as irrelevant as designating one place as holy. Such particularism belongs to the old covenant and is contrary to the catholic spirit of the Christian age.

The NT commandments are not addressed to a single nation living in Palestine, as was the OT. They are adapted to the needs of people living in a wide diversity of nations and cultures. They reach across the span of millennia and are practical in a modern, space-age society. The Christian faith must be livable any time or place. Thos who experience hardship because of Sabbath regulations are doubtlessly sincere in their desire to serve God, but they are ill-informed and bear burdens that God has not laid on the universal church.

The primitive Jewish Christians ta Jerusalem continued to keep the Sabbath; the Gentile Christians did not. When the Jerusalem council acknowledged that Gentile Christians were free from the Law, the same freedom was implicitly given to Jewish Christians.

Elaine,

Thanks for shedding some more light on the subject.

Council of Jerusalem - Acts 15. I just had a read through, and here are my thoughts... I don't get the impression from that it is rejecting the ten commandments!

Rejecting the ten commandments? To me, it's kind of absurd to think of rejecting the commandments, when we think about each one of them. Which ones are we rejecting? Certainly Christ himself addressed the premise of each and every one of them - reaffirming all of them, and rejecting none of them.

It is only one small part of one of the commandments that is peculiar. Only one comes under any sort of question in my mind. But, you could remove the peculiarity (the signifying aspect) from that one commandment, and still be left with a significant message. So, it could be argued that all ten commandments are still accepted by the Christians, and it is only the interpretation of the fourth commandment where the issue is.

Someone mentioned that the gist of the other commandments are innate. Well, I don't actually believe that. There are people who have no trouble telling lies, or stealing, as long as they believe they are not hurting anyone else. I believe that those actions are fundamentally wrong. (In this sense, I am happy to be called a fundamentalist!) It is the principal of the commandment that is being broken. The principal is not necessarily innate. We have to make a decision for the principal to be part of our own integrity. Some people do not choose to live by that. A lot of us still do.

And even the Sabbath one. Is it not for man? Is this not a a confirmation of its true meaning, rather than rejecting it all together?

At the Council of Jerusalem, I see the issue is presented by some believers who were from the Pharisees.
v5..."The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."

OK, so the issue is about the law of Moses, and about circumcision.

James provides some background, recites Amos 9:11,12, then...
v19 "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.

I think we all agree, there should be nothing hindering anyone turning to God.

v20 "Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood."

Which law is this referring to here? It's not a very comprehensive list that James provides. Are these all that is to remain out of the Law of Moses? What about murdering and stealing? All of them seem to have a specific 'yuck' factor. Don't know if that is significant, I find it interesting. Anyway, this is an affirmation of at least some type of law. So, whatever Law this is talking about, this is at odds with the suggestion that the Gentiles are "free" from the Law.

v21 "For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."

And here, the Sabbath is used in a very natural way. Certainly no mention of them not keeping the Sabbath here. If the Sabbath was one of the issues to be raised at this meeting, then this sentence is very odd. It seems to me to regard the Sabbath as a normal shared custom, not explicitly under any question.

Elaine, you said in reference to (Col. 2:16,17; Gal. 4:10,11; Rom. 14:5). "Except for a few Sabbatarians, scholars today are agreed that these three scriptures address the matter of Sabbath-keeping and was the unanimous position taken by the early church fathers and the Reformers."

This is just tautological. One wouldn't be a Christian Sabbatarian if they believed those scriptures meant that the Sabbath was abolished! I also don't mind if we interpret them as Sabbath keeping, as long as we don't stretch that to suggest that the Sabbath has been abolished. If this point was about majority - well hmm.

Just doing some googling, and found this in a site entitled "Catechism of the Catholic Church." I don't know how authoritative it is, but I don't think it is from Sabbatarians! The point is, it is contrary to the idea that the Law is done away with, and that it is not only Sabbatarians believe this.

http://www.va/archive/catechism/p3s2.htm

"2057 This liberating power of the Decalogue appears, for example, in the commandment about the sabbath rest, directed also to foreigners and slaves:"
...
"2064 In fidelity to Scripture and in conformity with the example of Jesus, the tradition of the Church has acknowledged the primordial importance and significance of the Decalogue."
...
"2065 Ever since St. Augustine, the Ten Commandments have occupied a predominant place in the catechesis of baptismal candidates and the faithful. In the fifteenth century, the custom arose of expressing the commandments of the Decalogue in rhymed formulae, easy to memorize and in positive form. They are still in use today. The catechisms of the Church have often expounded Christian morality by following the order of the Ten Commandments.
...
"2068 The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them; the Second Vatican Council confirms: "The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments."

Also, I found something claiming to be Greek Orthodox, also supporting the ten commandments.

http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7115

"The Ten Commandments, also known as the Decalogue (deca, ten; logos, word), constitute the ethical code by which the human race is guided, on the one hand, to believe in the true God, and, on the other hand to sustain the godly society in the attainment and application of God's will on earth. The Ten Commandments were kept undefiled and handed down to us as a treasure and monument of Christian civilization. The Christian Church has embodied the Ten Commandments as a basic moral code of, discipline toward God and toward men. "There is probably no human document which has exercised a greater influence upon, religion and morals than the Ten Commandments."

So, I really do not see in general that Christians have done away with the ten commandments, or that Christians see the ten commandments as only for Israelites. It seems to me, that only in the context of the fourth commandment, is this abolishment really any issue. Unless you want to include the issue about idol worship as well?

I find no sufficient reason in scripture to reject the fourth commandment. I do understand your arguments about conscience. Also I the negative portrayals as arguments against legalism and judgmentalism, rather than seeing them as instructions for Christians to abandon the commandments.

You pose that if we were meant to keep it, then it should have been explicitly commanded to us to continue keeping it. Jesus had an opportunity to do that, but notice how he did not make it a forceful issue. "Sabbath was created for man." This to me is significant, He could have gone either way. But He was rather neutral.

Matthew 24:20, Jesus says, "But pray ye that your flight be not in winter, neither on the Sabbath day." He is talking about a time after His death. It seems that the Sabbath is still to be significant after his death.

Acts 17:2 "And Paul, as his manner was went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures"

There are many examples used in the NT continuing to refer to Sabbath, with so little against it. If it was abolished, I think it should have been more of an issue.

Just did some more googling,
found http://www.sabbathtruth.com/history/sabbath_history2.asp

"Early Christians
"The primitive Christians had a great veneration for the Sabbath, and spent the day in devotion and sermons. And it is not to be doubted but they derived this practice from the Apostles themselves, as appears by several scriptures to the purpose." "Dialogues on the Lord's Day," p. 189. London: 1701, By Dr. T.H. Morer (A Church of England divine).

Early Christians
"...The Sabbath was a strong tie which united them with the life of the whole people, and in keeping the Sabbath holy they followed not only the example but also the command of Jesus." "Geschichte des Sonntags," pp.13, 14

2nd Century Christians
"The Gentile Christians observed also the Sabbath," Gieseler's "Church History," Vol.1, ch. 2, par. 30, 93.

Early Christians
"The primitive Christians did keep the Sabbath of the Jews;...therefore the Christians, for a long time together, did keep their conventions upon the Sabbath, in which some portions of the law were read: and this continued till the time of the Laodicean council." "The Whole Works" of Jeremy Taylor, Vol. IX,p. 416 (R. Heber's Edition, Vol XII, p. 416).

Early Church
"It is certain that the ancient Sabbath did remain and was observed (together with the celebration of the Lord's day) by the Christians of the East Church, above three hundred years after our Saviour's death." "A Learned Treatise of the Sabbath," p. 77

Note: By the "Lord's day" here the writer means Sunday and not the true Sabbath," which the Bible says is the Sabbath. This quotation shows Sunday coming into use in the early centuries soon after the death of the Apostles. Paul the Apostle foretold a great "falling away" from the Truth that would take place soon after his death.

2nd, 3rd, 4th Centuries
"From the apostles' time until the council of Laodicea, which was about the year 364, the holy observance of the Jews' Sabbath continued, as may be proved out of many authors: yea, notwithstanding the decree of the council against it." "Sunday a Sabbath." John Ley, p.163. London: 1640."

That's a big enough post for now. If you're like me, you will probably skip over half of it anyway!

I fully accept that some did not keep the Sabbath. I accept that some do not now. I do not judge anyone for that. This issue seems to be particularly a matter of personal choice. I agree it does seem unnatural to choose a certain time to be more important than other time. There seems to be no internal moral reason guiding us on why one day would mean anything different to any other day. That is a choice that I make, and you are free to make that choice as well.

Chris,

Just a quick "look in" by me.

"There are many examples used in the NT continuing to refer to Sabbath, with so little against it. If it was abolished, I think it should have been more of an issue."

-----------

It wasn't abolished. I just suggest it isn't to be a reqirement or endless debate among the gentiles of how, when, what way etc.the annual, monthly and weekly are to be observed.

The point is obvious to me that the way in which it is observed becomes a source of endless conflict for some to decide, "who is truly a follower of Christ."

The first four Commands are our obligation to God.

Why not, "Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2 One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8 If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord."
Rom.14:1-8.

Are we terrified that this "openness" would hurt our "distinctive prophetic vision.?"

Is it possible the real more important underlying sin is either group imposing their worship practice on another assuming they glorify God in doing so? Does it not then become more about the importance of the "day/days" than the Worship of Lord of the Sabbath day and the Resurrected Lord...The Christ.

Let Sat. and Sunday worshipers rejoice in their choice to praise God and let neither judge the other over this issue...that's my reading.

regards,
pat

Pat,

"Are we terrified that this "openness" would hurt our "distinctive prophetic vision.?""

Do I sound like this? This is a new revelation to me of what the issue might be about for some people.

What gets me going the way I have been, is when I hear that the Bible says it was abolished.

I love those verses that you quoted. Christianity is about freedom. To me also, the Sabbath is about freedom from work. I guess the Sabbath must be the quintessential commandment about free choice. But if it is projected as a requirement, then I understand the criticism.

I second your comment, "Let Sat. and Sunday worshipers rejoice in their choice to praise God and let neither judge the other"

If me sharing my perspective is seen as judging others, then I am truly sorry. I will withdraw from the conversation.

Chris,

I don't see you as judging. What I see is my nature also as a 4th/5th generation to not allow another to enjoy their worship of the resurrected Christ without reminding them they really don't worship on the right day...we have that uniqueness by golly!

When that is the way we begin to think, I suggest, that takes priority over the one we worship...Christ.

We then have "hybrids" even on this site who at times praise the Sabbath and "maybe it's necessary to accept Christ also."

Of first importance,
"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve." 1 Cor.15:3-5.

regards,
pat

"It is the principal (sic) of the commandment that is being broken. The principal is not necessarily innate."

Of all the Ten, this is the only one that is not applicable to all times and is listed as one of the many feasts and festivals that should be regularly celebrated. The civil laws are certainly applicable to all people everywhere and at all times. The first three were for the Israelites alone, as no other nation was expected nor required to be monotheists. This is part of the preamble to the Decalogue which states that is for them alone, and no one else and was not previously given.

The seventh day of the week, together with circumcision and dietary laws were given explicitly to maintain separation from the pagan nations surrounding the Jews. The entire reason for the controversy in Jerusalem was the attempt by the Jewish Christians to make the Gentile Christians conform to their laws, and circumcision was the initiation before anyone other than a Jew was even allowed to observe the Jewish practices.

Sabbath observance was never a reqirement for the new Christian church, nor should it be today if it was not then. It should be optional, as the NT clearly states. That Adventism has made it of ultimate importance has made it very difficult to show from the NT
that it should hold a place in the Christian's life.

What should be our final authority for truth and practice today? The OT or the New? As Loren Seibold has shown on another article here, all the distinctive SDA doctrines are derived solely from the Old, and by doing so, rejects the clear teaching of the New.

If that is true, as he suggests, what message does that give to the Christian world? Are Adentists more Christian or more Jewish?
SDAs are very selective in "picking and choosing" certain OT rules that should be followed today and at the same time rejecting others. Has anyone given a clear and concise standard used to make those distinctions?

Elaine,

Then I guess Jesus was living in the old testament too when he gave his two new commandments...

Matthew 22:34-46 (New International Version)

34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:
36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"

37 Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.

38 This is the first and greatest commandment.

39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.

40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Funny isn't, and maybe you know or you don't know, that these commandments aren't very new as people like to think. It's interesting that these very words were spoken in the OT.

Deuteronemy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18.

Furthermore, on and intersting sidenote if we read Rev. 14:7

7 He said in a loud voice, "Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come. Worship him who made the heavens, the earth, the sea and the springs of water."

Tell me what is the only commandment that acknowledges Jesus (God) as the creator of the heavens and earth and all that is them?

Pat,

Thanks.

Elaine,

Do we not see the OT point to Christ? Did the OT have a different God? How much of the OT do you want us to do away with?

"Are Adentists more Christian or more Jewish?" You serious?

"SDAs are very selective in "picking and choosing" certain OT rules that should be followed today and at the same time rejecting others. Has anyone given a clear and concise standard used to make those distinctions?"

I don't know. Obviously my position is too biased to answer a question like that. It mostly makes sense to me, so it is hard for me to know exactly how biased my thinking is. My conscience is clear with my understanding. Perhaps someone new to the church would be better at answering that.

Obviously, you have your own yardstick already, "clear teaching of the New"! What is the clear teaching that I am missing?

Fernando,

"All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments"

This is great. Jesus confirming that the Law and Prophets are still important.

Chris, you asked:

"Do we not see the OT point to Christ? Did the OT have a different God? How much of the OT do you want us to do away with?

Many of the prophecies in the OT were reinterpreted by Christians centuries later to confirm their pointing to Christ. Many of the Hebrew scriptures were directed toward an immediate fulfillment, not centuries, even millennia later. Gen. 3:15 is one in particular that was never interpreted as being fulfilled by Christ by any good Jew; it was the later Christians who "read into" it what they preferred to determine was speaking of Christ. No Jew ever read it in such a way: i.e., the story of Adam and Eve became "the Fall of Man" with later interpretive assumptions; the book of Genesis says nothing of the kind; nor is there any mention of sinless existence in Eden, nor is the serpent identified in the story as the devil (he is just a talking snake). All of these, and more, are actually the creation of ancient interpreters.

It becomes very difficult to equate the God as described in the OT, as represented by Jesus in the NT. In much of the OT, particularly the early books, God is pictured as arbitrary, capricious, annihilating everyone in the flood and later ordering the same for tribes in the land of Canaan. So, to compare the two results in a deep cognitive dissonance: How is it possible for these two disparate characters are one and the same?

Love to God and love to one's neighbor is most certainly stated in the Hebrew Bible, and reiterated in the NT. All nine are repeated by the apostles, excepting the Fourth. Why is that one never mentioned? And it was never given to the other nations nor were they ever expected to observe it; in fact, the Jews jealously guarded it and their other exclusive practices and rituals.

The only scripture available to Jesus and the apostles was the Hebrew Bible, and while the prophets are all part of it, they are not always directed universally, but only to the Hebrews and often for a particular situation; when taken out of context they are not always applicable universally.

Surely, there is more than sufficient NT teaching that demonstrates that no longer are Christians living under the covenant made with Israel, but are now living under the Spirit and the letters in stone are now obsolete. What letters in stone could they have been referring to?

Even predating the Bible, the Golden Rule whereby we should treat our neighbor as ourselves, is found in most cultures; indicating that some maxims are timeless as well as universal. Monotheism, as commanded in the first four commandments, were never directed to anyone other than the Hebrews and were never required then, nor in the NT for anyone else. Neither was love for one's neighbor ever required in the Decalogue. To claim they are valid today is to ignore all the writings of Paul, who is the founder of Christianity. If neither he nor any of the apostles required them, why should we today make them a requirement for salvation?

Surely, reading Leviticus with its many rules covering every part of human life is not the best guide for us to today. It would require us to eliminate all modern advances in medicine, psychology, nutrition and more. However, Adventism has reached far back into the ancient world and tried to restore selected portions as being the last word on health and preserving good life.

If anyone has ever determined how certain portions were selected as valid today, and others are no longer useful, please give us the divine wisdom that separated them.

Elaine,

"So, to compare the two results in a deep cognitive dissonance: How is it possible for these two disparate characters are one and the same?"

Any more than any other theodicy?

Is it not the same God, just described from different human perspectives? How can you have it both ways? Are you not a monotheist? Do you disagree with the first three commandments?

There are some much deeper differences between our respective models than I realised!

Hi.
I found your Web Site by Google
And I wish you the best you can get,
the peace of God through Jesus Christ.

Welcome to visit my Site.
Allan Svensson, Sweden
www.algonet.se/~allan-sv/INDEX.HTM

The great falling away

People think any revival is not coming. They refer to
2 Thess. 2:3 and tell about that a great falling away shall
come. But this falling away has taken place a very long time
ago. The entire Christendom was lead astray by false
shepherds and preachers, which preached false doctrines.
Since then, God's people have been slaves under many
churches and denominations. And the great falling away is
still today continuing. The great falling away is NOW!

Waiting for the great falling away is not needed. It began a
very long time ago. The topical are now the restoration of the
Assembly of God from the great falling away. Acts 3:21.
Revival is just this, all God's people must be released from
the great Babylon.