Over at the "Sabbath keepers" blog, Stephen Korsman posts an exchange with a sabbatarian over 1 Cor. 16:1-2, a text used as evidence for the observance of Sunday in the early church: "Now in regard to the collection for the holy ones, you also should do as I ordered the churches of Galatia. On the first day of the week each of you should set aside and save whatever one can afford, so that collections will not be going on when I come."
None of my DIES DOMINI essays address the text, with good reason: after reading two articles in Novum Testamentum several years ago, I concluded very little can be determined from it. Those articles represent the best academic exchange over this passage (the former largely directed against Bacchiocchi's research, the latter an [Adventist] response to the former):
None of my DIES DOMINI essays address the text, with good reason: after reading two articles in Novum Testamentum several years ago, I concluded very little can be determined from it. Those articles represent the best academic exchange over this passage (the former largely directed against Bacchiocchi's research, the latter an [Adventist] response to the former):
Llewelyn, S. R., “The Use of Sunday for Meetings of Believers in the New Testament,” Novum Testamentum XLIII (Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2003), 205-23.
Young, Norman, H., “'The Use of Sunday for Meetings of Believers in the New Testament': A Response," Novum Testamentum XLV (Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2003), 111-22.
If you can obtain a copy of these articles (try a University database or library), they are a worthwhile read. I will summarize the key insights of each:
1. Young's study of par eautou in Greek literature clinches the argument that the expression can (and probably does) refer to activities done in the privacy of one's own home, and not at a public worship assembly, as Llewelyn sets out to argue. Thus, 1 Cor. 16:2 cannot provide definitive evidence of early Christian gatherings on Sunday.
2. Nevertheless, both Llewelyn and Young acknowledge that the choice of "the first day of the week" is peculiar. Paul never explains his choice of particular day of the week for the accumulation of alms. Llewelyn wisely rejects "Bacchiocchi’s hypothesis that it reflects reflects sound budgetary planning," which "suffers from anachronistic considerations in a period when income was not determined by weekly pay periods" (Llewelyn, 209). However, Young dismisses Llewelyn's suggestion that the choice is tied to the established day of weekly worship:
This is perhaps the sum of what can be said about 1 Cor. 16:2: it is impossible to definitively ascertain the apostle's rationale for choosing the "first day of the week" for the reservation of alms. Paul's choice of the "first day of the week" may very well be significant when exploring the origin of Sunday observance among early Christians; conversely, it might not be.
2. Nevertheless, both Llewelyn and Young acknowledge that the choice of "the first day of the week" is peculiar. Paul never explains his choice of particular day of the week for the accumulation of alms. Llewelyn wisely rejects "Bacchiocchi’s hypothesis that it reflects reflects sound budgetary planning," which "suffers from anachronistic considerations in a period when income was not determined by weekly pay periods" (Llewelyn, 209). However, Young dismisses Llewelyn's suggestion that the choice is tied to the established day of weekly worship:
Why Paul nominates Sunday to do this is unclear. However, the lack of a cogent explanation does not give one the licence to supply one without good evidence. Filling the gap in our knowledge by assuming that Christians were meeting regularly on Sunday is not evidence. (Young, 114)
Young, following Orr and Walther, instead suggests that the choice of "the first day of the week" may be tied to a prohibition against handling money on Sabbath. Unfortunately, he cannot produce evidence of the prohibition, and acknowledges that a later rabbinic text asserts almsgiving is permissible on the Sabbath (Ibid., 115; no. 22). Again, Young is forced to conclude that there is no "cogent explanation" for the choice of Sunday (Ibid., 114).
This is perhaps the sum of what can be said about 1 Cor. 16:2: it is impossible to definitively ascertain the apostle's rationale for choosing the "first day of the week" for the reservation of alms. Paul's choice of the "first day of the week" may very well be significant when exploring the origin of Sunday observance among early Christians; conversely, it might not be.
Granted no definitive solution is possible, allow me to engage in a spot of speculation that takes me far outside the reaches of this text. (Forgive me; I cannot definitively defend the following hypothesis. What I am about to do is illegitimate from a methodological standpoint, except when first proposing hypotheses. I am entirely prepared to retract my suggestion.) It is noteworthy that 1 Cor. 16:1-2 is not the only text that refers to the "first day of the week." Each gospel highlights "the first day of the week" (as well as the "day of Preparation" and the "Sabbath") in the Resurrection accounts (Matt 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1; Acts 20:7 also curiously highlights the day in a different context). As I have argued, "the fact the gospels so consistently identify these specific days is unusual, and likely, significant." (For the sake of comparison, one should note the scarcity of texts citing the second, third, fourth, or fifth days of the week.) Now if "the first day of the week" was a weekday of some significance to early Christians, perhaps in light of the resurrection, that significance may stand behind Paul's choice of "the first day of the week." This is, after all, what Llewelyn (and Rordorf before him) attempted to demonstrate: namely, that "the nomination of Sunday might indicate that that day. . . had become for this church the pivot of a seven-day week" (Llewelyn, 210).
Still, it must be reiterated that this suggestion is impossible to prove. One should not read the gospel data into the Pauline corpus (which otherwise does not mention “the first day of the week”), though it cannot be forgotten that a common tradition underlies some passages of 1 Corinthians and the (Synoptic) gospels (e.g., Matthew 26.26 || Mark 14.22 || Luke 22.19 || 1 Corinthians 11.24). Suffice to say, however, that “the first day of the week” is not simply another day in the New Testament, and the only significance attached to the “first day of the week” in the entire New Testament is its association with the resurrection of Christ. Any attempt to understand the significance of “first day of the week” in 1 Cor. 16:1-2 must at least recognize that the only biblical lead is the day’s significance within the resurrection accounts.
Still, it must be reiterated that this suggestion is impossible to prove. One should not read the gospel data into the Pauline corpus (which otherwise does not mention “the first day of the week”), though it cannot be forgotten that a common tradition underlies some passages of 1 Corinthians and the (Synoptic) gospels (e.g., Matthew 26.26 || Mark 14.22 || Luke 22.19 || 1 Corinthians 11.24). Suffice to say, however, that “the first day of the week” is not simply another day in the New Testament, and the only significance attached to the “first day of the week” in the entire New Testament is its association with the resurrection of Christ. Any attempt to understand the significance of “first day of the week” in 1 Cor. 16:1-2 must at least recognize that the only biblical lead is the day’s significance within the resurrection accounts.
At worst, the text is irrelevant to the origin of Sunday observance. At best, however, it is further evidence of the unique place of "the first day of the week" in early Christianity.
125 comments:
The New Testament refers to the "breaking of bread" on the first day. This is generally used to show that Christians gathered for Mass on the First Day.
Although the phrase "par eautou" refers to an act performed in the privacy of one's own home, that does not interfere (and may even support) the understanding of 1 Cor. 16:1-2 as proof that of Sunday observance.
Paul says, get your money together on the first day so that collections won't be going on when I get there. So naturally, before going to Mass in the privacy of their homes the believers collected there money and then brought it to Mass. That when when Paul showed up, nobody had to say, "oh, let me run home and see what I can get together."
The easiest explanation is usually the correct one, they say, and in this case I believe it.
Alternatively, the Corinthians are collecting in the privacy of their own homes, so that when Paul arrives, they will not need to begin a collection ("raising") of funds. Each one will already have funds in store, and ready for donation.
As Young wisely notes, the idea that the first century Corinthian Christians had a central treasury, and placed money into a pool of funds at a weekly worship gathering, may be anachronistic (Young, 114). We have no evidence for that assumption.
Again, I find it best to simply consider the question: "why the first day of the week?" No definitive solution presents itself, but it is an interesting issue.
I miss the days when obscure publications and notable individuals claimed to change it. This post would have been so much easier.
Hey I'll totally grant that Sunday has an interesting status in the NT, along with Friday and Saturday. As Hugo noted (and adding to it a bit), breaking bread or collecting money isn't conclusive. It could be a church service, or it could be the day the came to pick up the trash in ancient Greece. Who knows. The only thing I do know is, they worshiped on Saturday in the synagogues at least :)
Thanks, Matt.
And remember, it's even more inconclusive, since Acts 2:46 records, “every day they devoted themselves to meeting together in the temple area and to breaking bread in their homes.” Finding out out that it once occurred on "the first day of the week" (20:7) isn't news at all, though that text is also used to endorse Sunday observance.
However, 1 Cor 16:1-2 is a bit different from Acts 20:7 in specifying a weekly action, and providing no other rationale for the choice of "the first day of the week." (Acts 20:7 recommends the limitations on Sabbath travel as a particular cause for highlighting the time of the meeting.)
There is another text showing that the breaking of the bread has nothing to do with Sunday observance by definition. In Acts 2:46 we read:
"So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart" (NKJV)
or in the New American Standard version:
"Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart".
So, the breaking of the bread was happening every day. It doesn't refer to Mass on Sunday whatsoever.
:)
Still and I left comments making the same argument at about the same time. Nice, lol.
Nice to be on the same side of an argument with you, Still.
I've always been curious, since Jesus and the disciples so obviously worshiped in the synagogues, why don't the Adventists?
Thanks,
Alex in Kansas
Alex,
"They will put you out of the synagogues." (John 16:2)
lol
Now you rock Hugo!! :-)
LoL
"you rock Hugo!"
Yes, because Catholics rock. Adventists sure don't. It's more like we "Folk" or something.
Thanks for the discussion of this ... I appreciate it.
I agree that it's unclear why Paul specifies the first day of the week - based on 1 Cor alone. He doesn't explain it himself.
If we look at all the possible reasons for him specifying this day of the week, there is only one plausible one that I am aware of - the use of the day as a weekly Christian gathering. There could be various applications of that event to this verse, though.
That the first day of the week does have significance in the Bible would make it likely that that significance can be found in this verse too. We know how that significance was manifested - Sunday observance - from historical sources.
If Christians did observe Sunday at that time, did the Corinthian church do so? If so, Paul's words would seem confusing if they meant anything else. If not, they could have meant something else. Also worth considering is how the broader Christian community, with Sunday observance growing, would interpret these words as Paul's letters to individual churches circulated to other churches.
For me, the answer is simple - the most obvious solution is the most logical one. And I know of only one obvious reason for him specifying that day. There may be others I don't know of.
It's possible that the Bible gives the first day of the week some significance, and this verse is an exception. John 9:9 is a peculiar example of "I am" - all John's uses (in his Gospel, 3 letters, and Revelation) of "I am" without the word "not" attached refer to Christ, with the exception of that verse ... providing a huge flaw in the argument I once read about John's consistent use of "I am" to indicate Christ's divinity in each instance he used it. This verse was missed, making John's use one verse short of consistent. The same could be true here.
But, considering the growing practice of Sunday observance, and that being the only explanation known to me for Paul's use that holds up under examination, the two pieces fit together well, and there isn't a better explanation as far as I can tell.
Jacob Neusner, in his Mishnah Reader speaks of a Mekhilta attributed to R. Ishmael 53 (Neusner says this belongs to the earliest strata of Mishnah 200 CA/AD) Neusners translation below:
7. A. Eleazzar B. Hananiah b. Hezekiah b. Garon says, “Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy.”
B. ‘You should remember it from Sunday, so that if something nice comes to hand, you should set it aside for the sake of the Sabbath.’
There is a great deal of similarity to what Paul says in 1 Cor 16:2 (I will admit I was astonished the first time I heard about this). The reference to Sunday/first day, and the expression ‘set it aside.’
I suggest that being Sabbath keeping Christians Paul and the Corinthian Christians (like Sabbath keeping Jews from whom this practice would have came from) handled overall financial issues on the Sunday at their homes in order to preserve the holiness of the Sabbath (part of this would involve putting aside money or something nice for the Sabbath). This avoids some of the speculation involved in comments about 1 Cor 16:2.
What is also interesting is the fact that the churches in Galatians are also following the same practice (vs 1), it is a wide spread practice, and thus suggesting wide spread Sabbath keeping. Also there are many Jewish (Sabbath keeping) Christians in all of these congregations. They would be very familiar with the practice. It really makes no sense to read any special Sunday sacredness into this verse, it actually appears to imply the very opposite and suggest a Sabbath keeping group!
Additionally, ‘first day of the week’, is a very ‘Jewish’ and Sabbath keeping way of referring to Sunday. Any thoughts of uniqueness or specialness are being read into it. All days were numbered in reference to Sabbath which was the defining day of the week being God’s day. In fact the Greek literally says ‘on the first to/of Sabbath.’ Thus the defining feature of the week is the Sabbath. This is a completely Jewish method of calculating and certainly what a Sabbath keeping group would practice. It doesn’t make much sense for a Sunday keeping group to use this language. If Sunday is special it needs a special title. This comes a little later in Christian history as Sunday worship slowly by surely emerges. The change in designating Sunday is a good indication of change in process. This change is certainly not present in the New Testament.
ant
Ant,
Thank you for your comment! My response became to long to fit into a comment, so I made a post of it. That will also ensure everyone has a chance to consider the issue. We can pick up the discussion there. :-)
Again, many thanks,
Hugo
One thing you guys may be rather deliberately leaving out is the great controversy that developed when the New Christian Church were rejecting the ceremonial rituals of the Jews, including circumcision, and yet the complete silence of them complaining about the Christian changing the literal worship day from Saturday to Sunday. If that were really going on--If the Lord's day was really being changed to Sunday, there should be Jewish writings and Jewish quarrels against the error of such a choice against the immutable Ten Commandment law of God.
God doesn't cause confusion: men do. Anything God does, He makes it clear as a bell. If there was a change in the day there would be a clear statement of this. This is where all claims to Christ and warm Christian love separates and disappears. Those who accept His clear teaching are His. Those who cling to scriptures that are not clear in order to overcome those that are, will never be God's people.
Circumcision involved an issue with males only. When the new Christian church were preaching that circumcision and the other ceremonial practices of the Jews were no longer binding on the Christian, it caused great animosity and contention among the Jews. The changing of the day of worship, on the other hand, involved far more than males. It yet produced no historic quarrels from the Jews at that time showing that the Apostolic Church were changing the weekly day of worship.
"Rather deliberately"? Um... it's best not to assume a person is disingenuous from the first.
>>>"the complete silence of them complaining about the Christian changing the literal worship day from Saturday to Sunday. If that were really going on--If the Lord's day was really being changed to Sunday, there should be Jewish writings and Jewish quarrels against the error of such a choice against the immutable Ten Commandment law of God."
Why would it be problematic? The prevailing Jewish opinion said it gentiles were not expected to observe the Sabbath, and in fact, some believed it was a sin for the gentiles to observe the Sabbath:
http://books.google.com/books?id=_T_pz5ohVXEC&pg=PA97&lpg=PA97&dq=The+children+of+Noah+were+given+seven+Laws+only,+the+observance+of+the+Sabbath+not+being+among+them&source=bl&ots=IzdGX6DbrO&sig=nwXKJyCuT-4AZhgMi9msECqXLYI&hl=en&ei=_W0bSv3tO8fktgeFqszmDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PPA97,M1
If the gentiles were circumcised, they were Jews, and expected to keep the Sabbath. If they were allowed to be Christians without circumcision, they were not Jews, and by consequence, not expected to observe the Sabbath. Circumcision was the pivotal issue (and thus, most prominent in the New Testament); the Sabbath was secondary.
Well said Hugo. This "opinion" continues to this day among the Jews.
Also Ted, it should be born in mind that the Christians did not change any day of worship. They simply met on Sunday as their common day of gathering together. This was done primarily for two reasons:
1) God made light on the first day, and through the Gospel He has called us out of darkness into His marvelous light.
2) Jesus Christ rose from the dead on the 1st day, thus infusing it with profound significance for a Christian.
The reference for these is found in Justin Martyr's first Apology chap. 67. You can read it here if you wish:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm
Blessings to you!
tmac1238: >>>"the complete silence of them complaining about the Christian changing the literal worship day from Saturday to Sunday. If that were really going on--If the Lord's day was really being changed to Sunday, there should be Jewish writings and Jewish quarrels against the error of such a choice against the immutable Ten Commandment law of God."
Hugo Mendez: Why would it be problematic? The prevailing Jewish opinion said it gentiles were not expected to observe the Sabbath, and in fact, some believed it was a sin for the gentiles to observe the Sabbath:
http://books.google.com/books?id=_T_pz5ohVXEC&pg=PA97&lpg=PA97&dq=The+children+of+Noah+were+given+seven+Laws+only,+the+observance+of+the+Sabbath+not+being+among+them&source=bl&ots=IzdGX6DbrO&sig=nwXKJyCuT-4AZhgMi9msECqXLYI&hl=en&ei=_W0bSv3tO8fktgeFqszmDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PPA97,M1
If the gentiles were circumcised, they were Jews, and expected to keep the Sabbath. If they were allowed to be Christians without circumcision, they were not Jews, and by consequence, not expected to observe the Sabbath. Circumcision was the pivotal issue (and thus, most prominent in the New Testament); the Sabbath was secondary.
tmac1238: If in fact the Christian were converting many Jews, then the issue would be just as problematic as during that conversion Christians were telling them they don't have to be circumcised to be saved and that was clearly problematic. Circumcision was more important than the Sabbath day in your imagination. Nothing depended on circumcision else women could keep the moral law Sabbath or not. No part of the Ten Commandments has circumcision in there as even the Catholic Church attests. Jesus Himself said in Matthew 5:17-19 that "till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled."
All the ranting in the world will never cover over the fact that changing the weekly worship day was far more cataclysmic than dealing with the "small" things of circumcision. Women help to secure this point. Circumcision was a one time act while Sabbath observance came every week. The Lord's last resort to cure blindness is the fire.
David Atkins: It doesn't matter when the Christians met. Just like today many Christians are saying that they worship God everyday and even claim to go to church everyday. We worship God on Wednesday also, but that does not make it a special holy day because God has not spoken. People who think they are higher than God have spoken. That is why there is confusion.
If there is no direct command to make a day special or holy in the scriptures, there is no special or holy day. That's why even the Jews did not comment on how the Apostles met anywhere and then verbally told the world that anything had changed. Ranting the fables may change the world, but when the Son of Man cometh, then "shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." It also said in Revelation 13:3...and all the world wondered after the beast.
4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?
If all the world is doing these things, could the ever-growing Christian world be included?
Confusion ends when Christians speak from the Word ONLY. But many of them love confusion because they know ultimately they get their way when everything is confused.
Ted:
So now you're saying we "rant?" :-/ Also, why would you say "blindness" will need "the fire?" Is your argument helped by adding these things? Just focus on the biblical texts under discussion. Your arguments are good; you don't need to add those distracting elements. I mean this sincerely.
My response:
1. Yes, circumcision is a male-only issue, but that made it no less pivotal. As you said, some said salvation could not come apart from circumcision. Clearly that generation thought it was an enormous issue.
2. Circumcision was not mentioned among the "ten commandments," but it long predates it. In Gen. 17 it is introduced as a "perpetual covenant"; the same language applied to the Sabbath in Ex. 31.
3. You assume* "the law" in Mt. 5:18 merely encompasses the 10 commandments. No persuasive case can be made for this assumption; believe me, I tried as an Adventist.
4. I must also add, your overall argument is founded on silence. There are many silent points in the Bible; many stories, facts, and controversies missing.
5. The Christian abandonment of the Sabbath is a given in second century texts, and polemic between Jews and Christians on this point is evident. So we do see that phenomenon.
Hugo Mendez: My response:
1. Yes, circumcision is a male-only issue, but that made it no less pivotal. As you said, some said salvation could not come apart from circumcision. Clearly that generation thought it was an enormous issue.
tmac1238: Don't be offended by my statements about persistent rants. Just don't rant and endlessly talk the fable into reality. There is no command to change the weekly day of rest. Therefore the confusion is caused by man and not by God. The argument was not whether or not circumcision was important. The argument was that the WEEKLY rest day was far more important since it pervaded every sex and was practiced every week and was a part of the moral 10 commandments.
2. Circumcision was not mentioned among the "ten commandments," but it long predates it. In Gen. 17 it is introduced as a "perpetual covenant"; the same language applied to the Sabbath in Ex. 31.
3. You assume* "the law" in Mt. 5:18 merely encompasses the 10 commandments. No persuasive case can be made for this assumption; believe me, I tried as an Adventist.
tmac1238: Matthew 5:18 includes the 10 Commandments because verse 17 says, "think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets." This shows that people were thinking that, and the most prominent quarrel against Jesus by the Pharisees was that He broke the Sabbath and that He claimed to be God. Circumcision did not predate the moral 10 Commandments. Neither from the day Adam sinned, neither from the day Satan sinned in heaven, then when 1 John 3:4 tells us that "sin is the transgression of the law."
Here also is a description of Sodom in Lot's day: "And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked; for that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds." 2 Peter 2:7, 8. Deed that were "unlawful?"
4. I must also add, your overall argument is founded on silence. There are many silent points in the Bible; many stories, facts, and controversies missing.
tmac1238: Your arguments is founded on silence. There is no biblical command to change the day. That is the key to the confusion and nothing else.
5. The Christian abandonment of the Sabbath is a given in second century texts, and polemic between Jews and Christians on this point is evident. So we do see that phenomenon.
tmac1238: Here you make a terrible mistake, for the New Covenant works like a will, and after the testator of that will dies, absolutely no change can be made. Sunday-keeping was started in the 2nd century after Christ died, making it completely illegitimate: http://www.Seventh-dayAdventism.com/Covenants.htm
>>>>"Don't be offended by my statements about persistent rants. Just don't rant and endlessly talk the fable into reality."
Mm... you may realize how offensive this is. It is disrespectful to label someone's honest arguments off as "rants." If you do not believe I am sincere, open-minded, or coherent, why even talk to me?
>>"The argument was that the WEEKLY rest day was far more important since it pervaded every sex and was practiced every week and was a part of the moral 10 commandments."
First, you are assuming all the 10 commandments are moral commandments. Secondly, the arguments I previously produced still stand. Circumcision was the gateway to Jewish identity in the estimation of those in Jesus' day, your 2000-yr later interpretations notwithstanding. This is why the Sabbath was not as significant an issue as circumcision.
Now, you may believe the Sabbath was observed from the beginning of time. If you remain in that belief, then there is little more I can do for you. I have written about this issue many times.
>>>"Your arguments is founded on silence. There is no biblical command to change the day."
You may need to look up what an "argument from silence" is.
>>>"after the testator of that will dies, absolutely no change can be made"
We believe the Sabbath was abolished at Christ;s death, though the Church grew in its apprehension of this fact gradually. The Church also gradually apprehended the abolition of circumcision and the dietary laws (cf. Acts 10-11).
Ted McMillan: "If there is no direct command to make a day special or holy in the scriptures, there is no special or holy day."
Hi Ted,
Please help me understand clearly what you mean by this. Since there is no where in the Bible where the scriptures say "Keep Holy Sunday or the first day", you believe there is nothing special or holy about the first day of the week...Sunday?
Is my understanding of your belief correct?
I'm just wondering how you can believe that when The Gospels and The New Testament are dedicated to THE MOST momentous event in all of human history...the Resurrection of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
If that event in and of itself does not merit recognition and special regard, then I don't know what does. Our salvation is possible becacuse the resurrection was the undeniable evidence of Jesus' victory over sin and death.
What event in the Bible is grander than that event? And if that event does not make a day special for those saved, what event could?
The event of that day would make a BIG impression on those there at the time. That event has made a BIG impression on those who believe through faith for the past 2000 years.
God bless all!!!
Hi Ted,
I realize that this might be somewhat difficult to believe, but the early Christian teaching was not that the Sabbath had been "abrogated", but rather reinterpreted in light of Christ and the Gospel.
The New Testament as well as the early Christian writings teach that Sabbath observance is not a mandatory requirement by God. They understood this as a consequence of the Gospel teaching of Jesus. Therefore, neither the New Testament nor other early Christian writings teach that one must observe the Sabbath in order to please God, be accepted by Him, be saved, or whatever.
Now, of course this understanding is considered anathema to those who believe that one must observe the Sabbath in order to please God, be accepted by Him, or be saved in the end. This reasoning, which is inherent to the Adventist understanding of the Sabbath, is the same reasoning that some of the Pharisee sect had used when they said that one must be circumcised to be saved (cf. Acts 15). Though Adventists will usually deny that one must observe the Sabbath to be saved, they do say that "if" one is saved that they will keep the Sabbath. This is disingeuinous reasoning, because it's saying the same thing in a different way.
Regardless how one says it though, this reasoning was thoroughly rejected by the Jerusalem Council in Acts, and by the Church in subsequent generations.
Blessings to you always from God our Father!
Ted, if you'd like, you can visit my blog and join in the Sabbath discussion there. The address is:
www.formeradventistdialogue.blogspot.com
Hugo,
You wrote that "We believe the Sabbath was abolished at Christ;s death, though the Church grew in its apprehension of this fact gradually. The Church also gradually apprehended the abolition of circumcision and the dietary laws (cf. Acts 10-11)".Hugo, there is nothing in the Bible showing that the Sabbath has been abolished at Christ's death. Being a commandment, the suppression of the observance of Sabbath woud have needed an explicite statement, and interesting enough, it is what we see for the circumcision and the dietary laws. Now do we see any statement saying that the Sabbath is not valid any longer and that now we have a new day of worship, namely Sunday. Not at all!
Mike, You are right that the resurrection of Jesus is THE most important event in history since man fell. But this is beside the point. After His resurrection, Jesus could have said to His disciples: "Friends, because of my resurrection and my victory over death, the day of rest is now longer on the seventh day but on the first day of the week". Because, if you think that the resurrection of our Lord is important for us, it was even more so for the disciples. Don't forget that they lived many years with Jesus being taught by Him; they ate with him and shared His ministry. And at the end, instead of the victory they expected, Jesus was put to death. What a defeat! The disciples were discouraged and afraid of the Jews, the Bible says. And it is in that state that Jesus met them in the upper room (or on the path to Emmaus) after His resurrection. What looked like a defeat was in fact a victory. The disciples needed that good news after the blows they had been receiving. Now, don't you think that when Jesus was with His disciples, after the cross, He had a perfect occasion to tell them that there was a little modification in the law concerning the day of rest and the need to commemorate/celebrate His victory on the first day of the week? You would think so, above all if we consider, again, that it is the most important event in human history. Well, Jesus didn't say anything about changing the Sabbath.
And for those who think that the disciples observe the Sabbath after Jesus' departure just because they were Jewish, think again. The same Jewish disciples were supposed to teach the world (meaning, Jews and non Jews alike) and make them disciples. The teachings they were supposed to spread around was the teachings they only knew, the things that Jesus has commanded His disciples to observe. And nowhere in His teachings did Jesus say the Sabbath day would be discarded in favor to the first day of the week. There are not two Gospels, one for the Jewish disciples with a set of practices and a day of worship, and one for the non Jewish with another set of practices and another day of worhip.
So the issue is not whether the resurrection day is important or not because we all know it is. The issue is to know what we do with this. Men may think that it is worth marking the day. Why not. But God didn't issue a commandment to shift the rest from Sabbath to Sunday. It doesn't prevent Christians to consider that the first day of the week is special but they have to acknowledge that it is man-made (of course, it does't mean that it is a bad thing by definition) and that it is not sanctioned by God (God called the Sabbath His holy day but never called (and Jesus neither) the first day of the week His holy day).
Hi Still,
You said: "(God called the Sabbath His holy day but never called (and Jesus neither) the first day of the week His holy day)."
Please refresh my memory...where does Jesus calls the Sabbath "His holy day"?
Thanks!
God bless all!!!
Hi Still,
You are exactly right!
There is no command to rest on Sunday in the New Testament instead of the Sabbath. Furthermore, there is no "transference" of the "sanctity" of the Sabbath to Sunday as well.
The New Teastament and early Christian writings do not present this view. In fact, they do not even explicitly state that the Sabbath was done away with or "abrogated".
What they do teach is that the Sabbath, and the rest it provided, have been reinterpreted through the Gospel of Christ. For the early Christians, the question was not "which day do we worship on?" Rather, what they struggled with was "what is the meaning of the Sabbath in the new covenant of Christ?"
For them, the early Christians, they no longer understood that mandatory 7th-day Sabbath observance was required by God, as it was in the Old covenant. They understood the Sabbath differently as Christians. They heard St. Paul's teaching of sacred days in Romans 14, and saw that the outward observance of the Sabbath was not contrary to the Gospel; but neither was it required by God. As long as the one observing the Sabbath did not force it upon others, then they were not going contrary to the Gospel teaching. Only when they would force this on others would it be a problem.
They understood that God's service had no compulsory measures in it, and they resisted anyone who tried to introduce them into the faith.
As far as Sunday becoming a day of rest, this unfortunately is primarily a western invention (as far as I know). The eastern Churches never looked upon Sunday as a "Christian Sabbath" or as a replacement of the 7th-day Sabbath. This I believe is closer in keeping with the original Christian viewpoint.
Blessings to you!
Mike,
Jesus is God. So saying that God called the Sabbath His holy day is the same thing as saying that Jesus called the Sabbath His holy day.
Hi Still, Ant and everyone,
I think that there are a lot of issues here, and the big one is what is the NEW covenant all about; what role do the 10 commandments play in the new covenant, what about the law (the Torah) - what about new commandments of our LORD (love one another as I have loved you)?
This is also intimately associated with the writings of revelation, where we read that the saints obey God's commandments and remain faithful to Jesus (Rev 14:12 and cf Rev 12:17).
I think that St Paul has a lot to say about the law particularly in Galations 3, and would be interested to hear your thoughts on Paul's presentation of the law in that letter (especially where he says we are no longer under the law - Gal 3:25), and how this relates to our understanding of commandment keeping and Sabbath keeping.
This may be a big can of worms to open up, so it might be better to discuss at another time, but I am very keen to hear your perspective.
Blessings, Clement
More on topic than last time (sorry) - but still related.
How do we know how to keep the Sabbath?
What does it mean to keep the Sabbath and what texts do we use to learn how to do that properly?
-Clement
Hi Clement,
I'm curious, what background do you come from (religiously speaking)?
Hi David,
I am in the process of transitioning (to quote Pendleton) into full communion with Rome, was brought up Methodist and have SDA family, so a real mix!
I am sorry if I don't state my particular persuasions more clearly in my posts.
I have recently been reading a lot of Roman Catholic and Adventist literature, and find this blog incredibly helpful and uplifting. It is great to be able to discuss things here, and read other peoples perspectives from all sides.
I am intrigued as to what prompted your question?
Also I just left a comment on your blog!
Hi Clement,
I read your comment on my blog, and replied! :)
My question was simply prompted in that some of your questions seem to show a lack of what SDA's believe. So I thought that maybe you had not been, or currently were not an SDA; and I was just curious from what background you were coming from.
Sorry if I sounded nosey! :)
Take care, and may God's blessings rest upon you always!
Hi Still,
You said: "Jesus is God. So saying that God called the Sabbath His holy day is the same thing as saying that Jesus called the Sabbath His holy day."
Yes, I agree with you that Jesus is God, The Word of God. I should have been more specific when asking you where Jesus said the Sabbath was "His Holy day". Please allow me to clarify my question. I was asking where in the Bible you find reference to Jesus, The Word of God, when He was made flesh and became man and walked amongs us...where does Jesus, the God/man walking and teaching on earth face to face with humans...refer to the Sabbath as "His Holy day"? I know He said it in the OT, and even wrote it down on tables of stone with His finger...I'm just looking for the NT references.
Clement in one of his posts above points out the importance of looking at this in the context of the old and new covenants. We should explore this further in depth, because this is key to understanding this issue.
The Sabbath was the sign between God and the humans who entered into covenant with Him when He gave The Law to Moses after speaking with Moses face to face.
This same God once again spoke face to face with humans, when He became flesh and blood and dwelt among us. God, Jesus, taught his disciples and the multitudes in person. Through His life, death, and resurrection mankind entered into a new and everlasting covenant with God.
As in the first covenant where God commanded His people to "remember" the sabbath, the sign of the covenant that revealed and pointed to God The Creator; he commanded His people to remember something...something different from the Sabbath...something to remember always until He returns the second time. And this sign of the New and Everlasting Covenant reveals and points to God The Redeemer.
Do you know what that sign is...the sign of the New Covenant.
I can only find, and please correct me if I'm wrong, two commands of God to remember something when He entered into the old and new covenants.
The first was the Sabbath. Please share with me what the other is.
And thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me!
God bless all!!!
Hi Mike,
You mentioned that in order for us to understand the Sabbath properly we should view it from the perspective of the two covenants. This is a fascinating point of view.
On my blog I have a post entitled "Adventist arguments: The Sabbath Part 1" where I speak about this issue. Feel free to check it out, and let me know what you think.
Blessings always!
Hi Mike,
You said
where does Jesus, the God/man walking and teaching on earth face to face with humans...refer to the Sabbath as "His Holy day"?
Matthew 12:8 is probably a good text for your question.
"For the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day."
The Sabbath is not a day that Adventist's should keep as a works based thing. This is far from why God has told us to keep His day.
Jesus says " If you love me, keep my commandments" John 14:15.
This is why we should keep the Sabbath day holy, because of our love for God.
That is what the commandments are all about, the first four love for God and the next six love for your fellow man. they are all about love.
We should not keep the Sabbath because we think that we should out of a matter of have to. It also reminds us of our creator.
The only commandment out of the ten that says to "remember" is the fourth, because somehow I think God knew that man was going to forget, thus why it also mentions the creation account through the commandment also.
Just a curious question. Why do so many christians today have a problem with and single out the seventh day Sabbath commandment, but have no problem with the other nine?
God bless
Craig
Craig,
Many Christians "have a problem" with the sabbath commandment because it is the only one not reiterated in the new testament. Also it is the only one that is ceremonial rather than moral.
I think it is more clear what all the other commandments require of us, though I will come back to this in a moment. But, "remember the sabbath day and keep it holy" - how does one "keep it holy", unless we are to follow the Jewish law on the sabbath as set out in the rest of the law. This is why I asked in a previous post about how we are supposed to keep the sabbath.
Interestingly Christ's only teaching on the Sabbath was not in support of the Jewish way of keeping it, so there is a very practical question which arises - if we are to keep the sabbath holy, what does this mean for a christian. I am not sure how one goes about answering this from a bible only perspective and would be very interested to know.
More importantly, and following in David Pendleton's footsteps, I would suggest that the new law of Christ (love - as St Paul puts it) reinterprets all of the 10 commandments. For example, according to Christ: murder is committed when an angry word is spoken against your brother; adultery is committed when looking lustfully on another women.
Additionally he also adds new commandments (Love one another, as I have loved you).
I think that the sabbath is also reinterpreted (or to put it another way comes to its fuller meaning or even fulfillment) in Christ. This is explained a bit in the letter to the Hebrews, where we read about entering into the Sabbath rest in the new covenant.
Perhaps Hugo might like to write a series about different readings of Hebrews, as I think this would be particularly useful to all parties here! (Not too much of as ask Hugo ;)
I think that there are many other issues with the Sabbath, chiefly among them are its apparent institution at creation, and the reliance this has on a literal 6 day creation.
I am, as ever, keenly interested in everyone's thoughts on these matters.
Yours,
Clement
One quick addition:
Craig, I think we agree on lots of things, especially the idea of the law of Christ (Galations 6:2) which we are now all under, rather than the old law. I think the crucial question is what constituted the old law. I think this is where Adventist's differ from other Christians in that they say the 10 commandments were not part of the old law, or the old covenant, but are eternal. Where as other denominations do not see the distinction between the 10 commandments and the rest of the law which we are no longer under (Gal 6). In fact, I think that the bible is quite clear that the 10 commandments WERE the terms of the old covenant, ie they WERE the old covenant. I think this is what Exodus 34 27-28 is saying here:
Then the Lord said to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." So he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did not eat bread or drink water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.This is why the ark of the covenant is so called - because it contains the covenant - the ten commandments. It is also interesting to note that this is also a type of Mary: The ark contained the words (commandments) of the old covenant, she contained the WORD of the new covenant; the ark contained the manna (bread) from heaven, Mary contained the true bread from heaven.
Again - I am very interested to hear everyone's thoughts on this.
-Clement
Hi Craig,
You mentioned that we should not think of keeping the Sabbath in terms that we have to. Then you ask at the end of your comment why most Christians have a problem with the Sabbath, but not the rest of the commandments.
If the Sabbath is not something that should be considered a requirement, then the real question ought to be, "Why do Seventh-day Adventists make the Sabbath such an issue with other Christians who do not observe the Sabbath, because they believe it is not required of them to do so?"
Clearly, with the Adventists making such an issue out of Sabbath-keeping it becomes clear that you have inadvertantly misrepresented their position. Adventists do indeed believe that observance of the seventh-day Sabbath is mandatory for all Christians to practice.
And please do not quote the familiar, "We do not keep the Sabbath to be saved, but because we are saved" nonsense. Please forgive my bluntness in this regard, but I heard that for a long time as an Adventist, and even then I did not like it. The reason why I didn't care for it is because it is saying the same thing in a different way, with the implication that if you do not observe the Sabbath; then perhaps you're not really saved. It is a subtle "knock" against another person's faith.
The truth of the matter is that Sabbath-keeping has historically been understood by the Christian Church as a voluntary thing, rather than a mandated requirement. Adventists stray from the Apostolic faith by making Sabbath observance a mandatory requirement by God upon all. It makes the grace of God of no effect, and thus defaces the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
May God's blessings be yours always!
Hi David,
I was asking as a matter of interest why the Sabbath commandment is singled out and not the other nine. We all believe in the other nine and that they are still binding so why not the fourth?
You said.
"We do not keep the Sabbath to be saved, but because we are saved" nonsense.
The reason why I didn't care for it is because it is saying the same thing in a different way, with the implication that if you do not observe the Sabbath; then perhaps you're not really saved. It is a subtle "knock" against another person's faith.
We can do nothing to save ourselves, even keeping the Sabbath does not save anyone. It is only through what Jesus has done for each of us that we are saved. The church has not mandated the keeping of the Sabbath, it is God's command not ours. Anyone who says I will keep the commandments because they will save me is keeping them for the wrong reason, including the Sabbath.
You have to ask yourself the same question with all of the commandments. Why do we keep them?
Is it because we have to or because we love God?
Why do you keep the other commandments "to be saved or because you are saved and love Christ for what He has done for you?
Jesus says " If you love me, keep my commandments" John 14:15.
Anonymous said.
Many Christians "have a problem" with the sabbath commandment because it is the only one not reiterated in the new testament. Also it is the only one that is ceremonial rather than moral.
Luke 23:56 says in the New Testament.
"And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment"
If the Sabbath commandment was done away with at the cross why were they still observing it after the crucifixion?
Furthermore why would Jesus himself have kept the Sabbath as an example to us if He was going to abolish it later?
God bless
Craig
Mike,
If I don't make a mistake, the place where Jesus asked to remember is at the moment of the Passover when Jesus said, "do this in remembrance of me".
About the reason why the Sabbath seems to be an issue for the SDA and not for the others, it is simple: it is because it is not an issue for the issue for the many Christians. It is not that the Sabbath is more important than the others. It is that the fourth commandment was neglected. We see the same thing with the Baptists. It is not that baptism is more important than other commandments but some people saw that the meaning of baptism was overlooked and decided to present the ful teaching concerning baptism.
At the time, the adventist movement was created, if the issue had been the commandment about the graven image and not the Sabbath the name could have been the Iconoclast Adventists for example :-)
So, it was not that the Sabbath was more important, it was about the factthat the Sabbath was missing. And according to James, if you break one commandment, you are guilty of breaking the law.
Now, concerning the Sabbath as being ceremonial rather than moral, I think it is not correct. The Sabbath is hignly moral. The Sabbath refers to God as the Creator, our Creator and, as such, He has a moral authority over His Creation (humans included) in the same way parents have a moral authority on their own childen. It is because He created the universe that He has a moral right over it and this is why He deserves to receive our worship and obediance. The Sabbath reminds us of all of that.
Don't forget that as the source of authority, He also decide what is right. And often, it is where the problems with humans starts. We want to do what pleases us, even when it is supposedly to please or worship God. We see this from the beginning. Cain wanted to make an offering to God. Nothing wrong with that. The problem was that Cain wanted to do it his way when God, in virtue of His divine authority, said otherwise. Same thing with king Saul. God told him to destroy everything from the Amalekites but Saul decided to do thing his own way and he lost everything (read Samuel 15:1-23). Saul gave all kinds of excuses to justify his actions but Samuel said that "to obey is better that sacrifice".
It is the same thing with the Sabbath. People can give many reasons but is it what God say? Yes, we want Sunday to be special because of the resurrection of Jesus. Again, why not. But it doesn't mean that the Sabbath has been abolished.
Now, let's consider the "Jewishness" of the Sabbath. Let's be serious here. The Sabbath is no more Jewish than "Thou shall not kill". If the fourth commandment is Jewish, so is the first one one, or the fifth one, or the sixth one. And no one has any problem with the nine commandments beside the Sabbath and no one is saying that these commandments are Jewish.
David, you wrote that "the truth of the matter is that Sabbath-keeping has historically been understood by the Christian Church as a voluntary thing, rather than a mandated requirement". I wonder were you got the idea. The Bible says that after the death of Jesus the disciples (and they were Christians) kept the Sabbath according to the commandments. Also, if the Sabbath (which has always been a commandment in the Bible) is supposedly a voluntary thing, why should Sunday, for which there is no commandent in the Bible, be mandatory? Sure, Sunday is important because it is the day of the resurrection of our Lord. But God never made it a commandment. So, it should never be mandatory. So why were people persecuted, fined or jailed for not respecting the "sacredness" of the first day of the week? Why are religious leaders trying to make the country recognize the sacredness of Sunday to the point of trying to legislate on it?
To conclude, I'd like people to recognize the fact that Christians still speak of the Ten Commandments today (remember former judge Moore?) proving that we still consider the day of worship as being part of the commandments.
Hi Craig and Still!
Craig, Matt. 12:8 is indeed a good verse, but unfortunately does not answer my question, nor show Jesus commanding that it be kept. If you read the chapter of Matthew 12 you find that it is about catching Jesus and His disciples breaking the Sabbath, violating the Law. They wanted a good reason to kill Him.
Matt:12:5Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? 6I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. 7If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice, you would not have condemned the innocent. 8For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."
Jesus, God, is telling His accusers that He is greater than the temple, greater than the Law, because He is The Lord, of the Temple, of The Law, and of all creation. Jesus' interactions with the religious leaders regarding the Sabbath is, throughout the Gospels, continuously trying to give His instructions and commands, in person, as to how the law should be kept. Jesus God, teaches mankind face to face in person about His Law, which reveals how to interact with God and with fellow humans. Jesus teaches the fullness of the 10 commandments in Matthew chapters 5-7, and throughout the Gospels. He explains and commands what He wants from us and why, and what the fullness is...that being love.
But nowhere in the Gospels do we find Jesus commanding that the Sabbath be kept as he does with the other 9 commandments. And Love is what He desires. Love defined by Jesus' God's, life and words on this earth.
If you can find another verse that answers my question regarding the Sabbath in the Gospels, or even the NT, I will wait patiently.
Still, Thank you very much for answering my question...Yes you are correct. And just as the Sabbath was the sign between God and His people, that He is The Creator God and those who remembered the Sabbath were His people; The Lord's Supper is the sign of the New Covenant between God and His people, that He is The Redeemer God re-creating fallen sinful people into His image for those who remember the life giving sacrifice of Jesus' body and blood on the cross, which is present to us sinners each day when we eat His body and drink His blood until He comes again in glory, or we pass away from life on this earth. By eating His body and drinking His blood, and remembering Him as often as we do it, we proclaim Jesus life giving sacrifice for us until He returns. And the benefits of His sacrifice, that He made once for all mankind, is available to sinners of every generation from the time of His resurrection until He comes the second time. And this is how we become His Body, His Church...the Living Body, the Living Church.
This is the true, living, life giving, Passover Lamb, whose blood was shed for, and is given to us. And He is real...and He gives life...eternal life.
God bless all!!!
Mike,
All what you said is fine and well but nothing in it shows that the Sabbath has been abolished. The Ten Commandments are still called the Ten Commandments today, even by Christians. No one is calling them the Nine Commandments. Even the Pope calls them the Ten Commandments. A commandment is not a suggestion. "Thou shall not kill" is not suggestion. "Thou shall not covet" is not suggestion. "Honor your father and mother" is not a suggestion. The Ten Commandment, being a unit, have to be kept, even the fourth one. Whatever human reasoning we may apply, what matters is what God says and not what we, humans, find either convenient or reasonable. Because king Saul decided to do things his own way, he lost everything in spite of the fact that he thought that what he did was a good idea. Concerning the most important event of human, that is, His resurrection, Jesus never said to get rid of the Sabbath and never said that, in a sudden, what was mandatory before became voluntary.
Mike,
All what you said is fine and well but nothing in it shows that the Sabbath has been abolished. The Ten Commandments are still called the Ten Commandments today, even by Christians. No one is calling them the Nine Commandments. Even the Pope calls them the Ten Commandments. A commandment is not a suggestion. "Thou shall not kill" is not suggestion. "Thou shall not covet" is not suggestion. "Honor your father and mother" is not a suggestion. The Ten Commandment, being a unit, have to be kept, even the fourth one. Whatever human reasoning we may apply, what matters is what God says and not what we, humans, find either convenient or reasonable. Because king Saul decided to do things his own way, he lost everything in spite of the fact that he thought that what he did was a good idea. Concerning the most important event of human, that is, His resurrection, Jesus never said to get rid of the Sabbath and never said that, in a sudden, what was mandatory before became voluntary.
Hi Mike,
Jesus was in fact the creator ( Colossians 1:16, John 1:1-3. This means that Jesus made the Sabbath & kept the Sabbath in the beginning & commanded us to do the same, thus why the creation account is in the fourth commandment This is why Jesus calls Himself the Lord of the Sabbath, because He made it. Why has the Catholic Church removed the word "remember" & also the creation account from the fourth commandment? God/Jesus included these details so that we would know what day the Sabbath is.
By saying that the Ten Commandments were given to the Jews on the two tablets Does this say that the Sabbath is only for the Jews or for all mankind? Were there Jews in the beginning at creation, were Adam & Eve Jews?
Being that Jesus made the Sabbath does it make sense to say that He also kept it on Earth? Why would He suddenly change it after millenia of time?
God bless
Craig
To Craig & Still,
You are both either implying or directly stating that observance of the Old Testament seventh-day Sabbath is a mandatory requirement for Christians. What exactly do you mean by this?
Hi Still and Craig,
First, Still, I agree with you that we should go by what God says and do all that He commands. Human reasoning isn't such a bad thing, but is not perfect as is God. It appears here that we have two different stories we are defending...call these stories beliefs if you will...or interpretations...but they differ. So where, and what, is the support for our differing stories?
God commands...we should follow God.
On the mountain with Moses, God entered into a covenant with the people He just freed from slavery in Egypt. God commanded many things in that covenant, part of which were the 10 commandments. These 10 differed from the other commands because they were written by the finger of God Himself. One of those commands was to remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy and to rest. In resting they could pray and think about the God who freed them from slavery. This God was not to be confused with any other god that people worshiped in Egypt. So in the command to rest, God identifies Himself as the True God...The Creator God. In following the command to remember the Sabbath Day, the people would be directed to their deliverer. God commanded that they remember that day once a week, on the seventh day. The Old Covenant.
When the fullness of time came, God became a man...Jesus..a man, but still God. God now came to deliver, not just a group of people held in slavery to a worldly king, but to free all mankind from slavery to sin and death, in which all mankind was held by Satan.
God-Jesus, once again taught His law in the commands He gave in His teachings as recorded in the Gospels. His commands can be found throughout the Gospels, but particularly in Matthew chapters 5-7. In those chapters He teaches deeper truths about the 10 commandments He wrote with His finger back with Moses. He also teaches other things and commands other things from His followers.
In the crowning act of salvation Jesus offers Himself willingly on the cross and dies for us...to free us and all mankind, not just one particular group of people, from sin and death. He commands us to remember Him and this most glorious act of all time, by eating His body and drinking His blood. God commanded that we remember Him and His sacrifice for us, not just on one day, but as often as we eat His body and drink His blood. The New Covenant.
(cont')
(cont' 2)
Now we get into where our stories differ and the whole issue of human reasoning. I would suggest that your story is as much, if not moreso, based on human reasoning, than on the scriptures and commands of God. So here we go...
Nowhere, at least nowhere that I can find and so far no where that anyone who disagrees has been able to provide a citation, is there found in any of Jesus teachings or even in the New Testament itself, Jesus commanding anyone to keep holy the Sabbath Day. He touches on 9 of the 10 in Matt.5-7, but no where does He teach about the importance of keeping the sabbath day holy. He does teach those who accuse Him and His disciples of breaking the sabbath, that they had misconstrued the meaning of the sabbath...but no where does He command His follows to follow the sabbath, as Adventists say He does. If so...where...what verses.
When Jesus tells His accusers the He is Lord of the Sabbath, He is telling them that He is God and that He is more important than a day.
So there are two stories which seem to be lacking really clear scriptural support...Saturday and Sunday.
The Saturday story is supported mostly in the writings of Ellen G. White. The Sunday story is supported by the writings of The Church.
The Saturday story is of the gravest importance to those who believe it. Let's face it, the final conflict according to Seventh-day Adventists boils down to those who keep Saturday holy and those who keep Sunday holy.
The Sunday story is not as much about the importance of a day as it is about the importance of a person...Jesus..God...and His sacrifice for us.
The Saturday story was put together by, or at least put on paper by Ellen G. White.
The Sunday story, which should more accurately be called The Eucharist story was put together by the apostles, and put down on paper and taught by The Church.
One story is about 160 years old. The other story is about 2000 years old.
But to avoid human reasoning and go by what God commands...which I tried to explain above...I now ask Craig (or anyone) for the scriptures to support what he claims are in the scriptures:
1. Where in the Bible does God command anyone to keep holy the sabbath day from the very beginning, or anywhere before He gave the commands to Moses?
2. Unless you have access to a Catholic Bible that I do not have access to...where has the Catholic Church changed anything in Exodus or Deuteronomy regarding the Sabbath command?
3. Where in the Gospels or anywhere in the New Testament does Jesus or God command to keep the sabbath holy, or teach that the sabbath will be the issue of such great importance that the Seventh-day Adventist church teaches that it will be?
With only the story provided by Ellen White regarding the Sabbath, it appears that human reasoning is required as much, if not far more, to prove the SDA claims, than those of The Catholic Church.
As for me and my house, we will follow God and His teachings as preserved for 2000 years in The Church He established.
But if you can provide scriptures for your story in answer to my questions above...well...won't I have some 'splainin' and red faced apologizing to do!:)
God bless all!!!
To Mike,
Don't you mean "God bless ya'll!!!"?
LoL! XD
Hi David!
Yes...Of course you know when I use a yankee word like "all", I'm merely using a shortcut for the correct English expression "Y'all"....LOL
God bless Y'all!!! And you all too!!!
Mike,
Matthew 5-7 doesn't speak about stealing or honoring your father and mother or about graven images. Are we then off the hook?
Also, concerning the Sabbath, it is not a SDA's theory. In fact, Ellen White got it from the Seventh Day Baptists. Ellen White was not a Sabbath Keeper at the beginning. The Seventh Day Baptists met together from year 1653, even maybe in 1617 (according to Wikipedia). And before the Baptists, there were other christians, all along centuries, who have kept the Sabbath.
Also, don't forget that a story doesn't become true just because of its age. An error is still an error after 2,000 years. For example, the Jews had a false idea of the Messiah for centuries. To this day, almost 2,000 years after Christ, they are still waiting for the Messiah. Are they right is their waiting? For almost 2,000 years, they have told themselves a story. My, a story that old can only be true, right?
We all know that it is not the case as Jesus, the Messiah, has already come.
So we can see that the age of a story has nothing to do with its truthfulness.
As for the Eucharist story being taught by the Church, yes, it is.
But as being put together the way the Church teaches it, I beg to differ (for example, where do you see in the Bible any apostle telling us that the new day of worship is Sunday?).
Early documents from the Church's Fathers mentioned the fact that some christians were keeping the Sabbath (I gave some references a few comments ago (by the way Hugo, is there an easy way to retrieve and display for myself all the comments I posted on your site, or not?)). This shows that for 2,000 years, some christians thought that the Sabbath had to be kept.
Hi Still,
Yes you are correct regarding what you said about stealing and honoring your father and mother not being in Matthew 5-7. If you noticed I said in my first part of that post
"His commands can be found throughout the Gospels, but particularly in Matthew chapters 5-7."
So thank you for holding my feet to the fire and motivating me to provide the other scripture references:
Matthew 4
Matthew 19
Matthew 22
Mark 10
Mark 12
Luke 4
Luke 10
Luke 18
So no, it appears we are not off the hook.
So Mrs. White borrowed the theory from the Seventh-day Baptists...and elaborated quite a bit on it from what I've read. And she does seem to create a story out of it that just can't be found anywhere else...at least not by me. So if anyone knows who else taught this story of the sabbath being the final test at the end of time please enlighten me. As you point out, stories shared by groups don't make them truth.
And now we are back to Jesus commands in the Gospels...and that elusive Keep the sabbath holy command. Please share the scriptures with me.
Why is the sabbath and Jesus' relationship with it so different in the Gospels as compared to the story Mrs. White tells?
I would venture to guess that Hugo, Brandon, and David have written articles that better explain this issue, from the Catholic standpoint...I would just like to see the Bible texts that support the SDA claim to Bible only doctrine. Thanks in advance!
God bless all!!!
To Still,
Please answer my question.
Mike wrote:
"So thank you for holding my feet to the fire and motivating me to provide the other scripture references"
You're welcome. The pleasure is mine. :-) (to me, "challenging" each other (in a nice way) is one of the best way to expand our understanding of one another or of Scriptures. So thank you for exchanging with me).
"So Mrs. White borrowed the theory from the Seventh-day Baptists...and elaborated quite a bit on it from what I've read."
"Why is the sabbath and Jesus' relationship with it so different in the Gospels as compared to the story Mrs. White tells?"
Mike, can you elaborate? Thanks.
David wrote:
"To Still,
Please answer my question." Hold your horse, friend. I am just one person... :-)
So many things to do... So little time... :-)
Okay, now that I am done pitying myself, let's try to answer your question. :-)
First of all, why call the Sabbath the Old Testament Sabbath? No one calls the "Thou shalt not kill" the Old Testament "Thou shalt not kill"? No one today is saying that this commandment is for the Jews only. In fact, no one is calling the other eight commandments the Jewish commandments. We all joyfully apply these commandments in our churches without pausing a beat to wonder if these commandments are Jewish or not. And we perfectly know that a murderer or a liar, for example, will not inherent the Kingdom of God, unless they repent, of course (read Revelation 21). So, everybody who is a christian will say that, yes, observing the nine commandments beside the Sabbath is a requirement and is mandatory.
Now, Second, let's come to the Sabbath.
Let's first state a fact: every religion (or family of religions) linked to the Bible (that is, Judaism, Catholicism and Protestantism) recognize that there is a special day, a sacred day dedicated to God. For the Jews and the Sabbath-keepers Christians, it is the seventh day of the week; for the others, it is Sunday, the first day of the week. For the Jews, the keeping of the Sabbath is mandatory. For the Catholics and most Protestants, the keeping of Sunday is also mandatory (ask John Paul II. I don't know for the Orthodox, but I guess it is the same. Correct me if I am wrong).
Pope John Paul II in Dies Domini spoke about the need of the Day of Rest. Of course, for him, the day of rest is Sunday and he spoke more than once about the sanctity of Sunday and many Protestants are willing to follow him on this.
But what about the christian Sabbath-Keepers? Is Sabbath mandatory? It would be strange that the day of rest would be mandatory for the Jews and for the Sunday-keepers but not for the christian Sabbath-keepers. So yes, for those who believe in the integrity of the Ten Commandments as written by the finger of God Himself, the Sabbath is a mandatory requirement.
If the Sabbath is not mandatory, why would Sunday be? If the Sabbath is not sacred, why would Sunday be sacred? The Sabbath has much more standing in the Bible that Sunday. Which day is called by God His holy day? The Sabbath (God never said that the Sabbath was the holy day because the Jews decided it was so. God said it was His holy day and asked the Jews to respect it. The seventh day would have been the holy day of God with or without the Jews). Which day is Jesus the Lord? The Sabbath (again, Jesus would have been the Lord of the Sabbath with or without the Jews).
None of the texts referring to the first day of the week shows in a undisputable manner that Sunday has received God's sanction.
You said that "the early Christian teaching was not that the Sabbath had been 'abrogated', but rather reinterpreted in light of Christ and the Gospel." First of all, how early? Are we speaking of the Christians mentioned in the Bible or are we speaking of those coming afterward? The Christians in the Bible never had a problem with the Sabbath. And each time Jesus had to rebuke the Pharisees concerning the Sabbath it was not because there was a problem with the Sabbath but because of the people who were messing up with the Sabbath, making the Sabbath a burden. The Gospel of Christ never created a problem in the mind of the Christians in the Bible concerning the Sabbath.
You wrote that the Sabbath was not mandatory "as a consequence of the Gospel teaching of Jesus." I would answer that nowhere in the Bible is a text saying the Sabbath is not a requirement any longer. As for being a consequence of the teaching of Jesus, I'd like you to show me that (and by the way, is there anything in the teaching of Jesus that would make Sunday a mandatory requirement?).
Hi David,
Since your question was directed to me also.
Are the other 9 commandments mandatory to you?
Are they mandatory to me?
What do you mean by mandatory (do you mean God forces us to do it?) I say no.
God has commanded that we keep the Sabbath, not as a matter of it being Mandatory, but He has given us the freedom of choice. God could make us do whatever He wants, but He would thus control us out of fear and we would be robots, this is something God would not do because of who He is. This choice is one made out of love for God, same as the other commandments. We keep them because of our love for God, not because He said do it or else.
Jesus says " If you love me, keep my commandments" John 14:15.
Jesus does not say "keep my commandments because you have to."
"If" is the operative word meaning there is a choice in the matter. Love should be the governing motive for keeping all of God's commandments.
Please do not think I am saying that you or anyone else does not have a genuine love for God because you don't keep the Sabbath.
As a Christian I can't make you do anything, but it is my duty to tell others what God has convicted me about the Sabbath.
God bless
Craig
I would like to wrestle with a crucial issue:
The link between the sabbath and creation, was it observed before Moses gave the law?There are two recountings of the ten commandments in the O.T. Exodus and Deuteronomy. Let's look at the sabbath command in both places:
Exodus: "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
Deuteronomy: "Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, as the LORD your God has commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor the alien within your gates, so that your manservant and maidservant may rest, as you do. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. THEREFORE the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.The passage from Exodus links the sabbath command back to the creation, or at least to the creator.
But this is not seen in Deuteronomy. In fact here, the reason for keeping the sabbath is explicitly stated, "Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. THEREFORE the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day."
I would also point out the first verses of Deuteronomy 5: Moses summoned all Israel and said: Hear, O Israel, the decrees and laws I declare in your hearing today. Learn them and be sure to follow them. The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. It was not with our fathers that the LORD made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today."
Hence, these things were not part of the God's covenant with Abraham, and the other patriarchs. In fact, the very first mention of the Sabbath as a day to be kept, is from Moses in Exodus 16:23 He said to them, "This is what the LORD commanded: 'Tomorrow is to be a day of rest, a holy Sabbath to the LORD. So bake what you want to bake and boil what you want to boil. Save whatever is left and keep it until morning.' "
Here is the first time that the sabbath is instituted for human observance, and it comes in relation to the manna God provided in the desert. Thus the first biblical example of Sabbath keeping is absolutely specific to the situation that the Jews found themselves in, in the wilderness.
cont - Clement
(cont)
I have read that some hold that the sabbath was actually instituted at the creation. Because this requires a 6 day creation and a literal seventh day rest, I suppose this is why many SDA's are so attached to a literal 6 day creation, (regardless that the sun and moon were only created on day 4 so measurement of a day in terms of evening and morning as recorded must have been somewhat different to how we would do it today).
God does give a commandment to Adam in Genesis, but it is not about the Sabbath, it is about the fruit of the tree of knowledge. There is no mention whatsoever of any other commandment.
Besides this, in the creation story of Genesis, who is it that rested (the word is rested or ceased) on the seventh day? Not Adam and Eve but GOD. He rested in a job well done. His initial work of creation was complete, and it was good. It is, perhaps, interesting to note that according to Jesus, God is not resting now, he is constantly working, as is Jesus. John 5:17 17Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working."
Perhaps this is a consequence of the Fall. Ever since the fall, God has been working out our salvation, right up unto Jesus' death on the cross. Only then was he able to say, "It is finished". Finally, everything was accomplished. And now we can all enter into that promised rest, through God's infinite grace we are able to walk with him by faith, as Adam and Eve before the fall.
As always, I would be very interested to hear peoples thoughts and comments,
-Clement
Hi Clement,
You said
God does give a commandment to Adam in Genesis, but it is not about the Sabbath, it is about the fruit of the tree of knowledge. There is no mention whatsoever of any other commandment.
Besides this, in the creation story of Genesis, who is it that rested (the word is rested or ceased) on the seventh day? Not Adam and Eve but GOD. He rested in a job well done.
I would agree with you that it says God rested because He saw that it was good, but you have to ask the question. Why did God bless and sanctify (set it apart) the Sabbath (the seventh day) at creation? Did God set it apart for himself or His creation, Adam and Eve & us? Why would God bless & sanctify a day if it was only for himself, and then wait to tell it to His creation about 2,000 years later?
Did they not know the other 9commandments either? Could they kill, steal, commit adultery, worship graven images etc. before God wrote them in stone?
How did those before the Ten commandments know what sin was if there was no law? How could Cain have been held accountable for murdering his brother if there was no command of God " thou shalt not murder?
First, I would like to say to Still that I enjoy talking with you too in a nice way and I like you!
Second, Craig I like talking with you too, but you haven't addressed my three questions above...so we can all talk about them now as I "elaborate" upon the claims I made above about Mrs. White's "story" for which Still has rightfully called on me to provide evidence.
So here we go, and I think it best if we take a couple examples at a time...and not just because there are so many of them, but because it might be easier to focus on points and not lose them.
My first question to Craig from post above:
1. Where in the Bible does God command anyone to keep holy the sabbath day from the very beginning, or anywhere before He gave the commands to Moses?
First example: Patriarchs and Prophets, Chapter 2, page 47,48 http://www.egwtext.whiteestate.org/pp/pp2.html
:"After resting upon the seventh day, God sanctified it, or set it apart, as a day of rest for man."
Really? Where is that documented in the Bible?
"Following the example of the Creator, man was to rest upon this sacred day, that as he should look upon the heavens and the earth, he might reflect upon God's great work of creation; and that as he should behold the evidences of God's wisdom and goodness, his heart might be filled with love and reverence for his Maker."
Again, where in the Bible creation story is man anywhere commanded or requested to rest on that day?
"In Eden, God set up the memorial of His work of creation, in placing His blessing upon the seventh day. The Sabbath was committed to Adam, the father and representative of the whole human family. Its observance was to be an act of grateful acknowledgment, on the part of all who should dwell upon the earth, that God was their Creator and their rightful Sovereign;"
What verses talk about the sabbath being committed to Adam?
"that they were the work of His hands and the subjects of His authority. Thus the institution was wholly commemorative, and given to all mankind. There was nothing in it shadowy or of restricted application to any people.
God saw that a Sabbath was essential for man, even in Paradise."
Again where does this idea, that "a Sabbath was essential for man, even in Paradise" come from other than Mrs. White?
"He needed to lay aside his own interests and pursuits for one day of the seven, that he might more fully contemplate the works of God and meditate upon His power and goodness."
A reasonable question: In the garden paradise, Adam and Eve, before the fall, were with God daily...He walked in their midst...thier lives everyday for all eternity (had they not sinned) was living in the presence of God contemplating His works and goodness and power, and sharing life with Him!
"He needed a Sabbath to remind him more vividly of God and to awaken gratitude because all that he enjoyed and possessed came from the beneficent hand of the Creator."
Why did man need one day to remind him more vividly of God when man was with God daily. I know husbands are "forgetful", but perfect Adam couldn't have been that forgetful from one moment to the next with God so near Him.
I must admit that having read Mrs. White's books more than once in my lifetime, it was nice to read that chapter today. It is an interesting and compelling and convincing story she tells...even uplifting...but where are the scriptures that support her story of creation?
There are many examples of the "license" she takes in her writings, and we can work through them all until Hugo runs out of disk space...but we'll limit our discussion for now. I would love to hear your thoughts, but moreso I would love to see the Bible scripture support, for these beliefs that are claimed to be from the Bible only.
(cont'd)
(cont'd) 2
But, what Sill wanted me to elaborate on was Mrs. White's story in the Gospels. So I will begin with one example regarding her Sabbath story there.
My thrid question to Craig from a post above:
3. Where in the Gospels or anywhere in the New Testament does Jesus or God command to keep the sabbath holy, or teach that the sabbath will be the issue of such great importance that the Seventh-day Adventist church teaches that it will be?
My comment to Still from an above post:
"And now we are back to Jesus commands in the Gospels...and that elusive Keep the sabbath holy command. Please share the scriptures with me. Why is the sabbath and Jesus' relationship with it so different in the Gospels as compared to the story Mrs. White tells?"
First example: The Desire of Ages, Chapter 29, page 287 http://www.egwtext.whiteestate.org/da/da29.html
This chapter is worth the read. She points out about Jesus being accused of breaking the sabbath, and how Jesus states that "He is Lord of the Sabbath". Later after we discuss these first examples, I would like to discuss this text, in context. It is used very much by Adventists in discussing the seventh-day sabbath requirement for Christians...but looking at the context of this teaches something else...I think...we'll talk about this later on...but first...
"Those who hold that Christ abolished the law teach that He broke the Sabbath and justified His disciples in doing the same. Thus they are really taking the same ground as did the caviling Jews. In this they contradict the testimony of Christ Himself, who declared, "I have kept My Father's commandments, and abide in His love." John 15:10."
This entire chapter is about the Sabbath, and she summarizes Christ keeping the Sabbath with John 15:10. It makes sense, it is very convincing, and yet here is where her story takes over. Below is John 15:10 from the NIV (read from any version, Greek included). The commands that Jesus is talking about and HE HIMSELF MAKES in this verse speaks for itself. The sabbath is not part of the subject of this verse.
John 15:9"As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love. 11I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. 12My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. 14You are my friends if you do what I command. 15I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. 16You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. 17This is my command: Love each other.
I look forward to any response.
God bless all!!!
Hi Mike,
You said
Where in the Bible does God command anyone to keep holy the sabbath day from the very beginning, or anywhere before He gave the commands to Moses?
Where does it say that they did'nt before Moses? seems strange that God would have kept His holy day to Himself for 2000 years.
You must agree that everythimg in the Bible is not black and white and clear cut in the words you would like it to say.
The point I'm making here is, does the Bible mention everything in clear cut language or must we search the scriptures putting them all together not just one here or there to come to the right answers?
The Bible speaks of the Sabbath the whole way through from Genesis to Revelation. Don't you think there is a reason for this?
You said
Where in the Gospels or anywhere in the New Testament does Jesus or God command to keep the sabbath holy, or teach that the sabbath will be the issue of such great importance that the Seventh-day Adventist church teaches that it will be?
He did not have to command to keep it holy. The people already knew that God had said to keep the Sabbath day holy in His 10 commandments in the Old Testament. They only Had the Old Testament scriptures in Jesus' time.
The fact that Jesus kept the Sabbath day says to me that we ought to as well.
The New Testament speaks of Paul and the gentiles keeping the Sabbath.
"And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath." "And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God." Acts 13:42, 44, emphasis added. "And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks." Acts 18:4.
"And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures." Acts 17:2. "Paul and his company ... went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down." Acts 13:13, 14. "And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither." Acts 16:13.
Was Abel commanded to sacrifice the best of his flock to God or did He already know?
Did Cain know it was wrong to bring his sacrifice of the fruit of the ground?
Had God commanded these sacrifices in Genesis? No
God said to Cain after he brought his offering " If you do well, will you not be accepted?
Does this tell you that Cain knew what was right?
We don't need God to specifically spell it out that He had told them what was well because the story tells us so.
Same as the Sabbath. God did not need to command Adam and Eve to keep the Sabbath. Adam and Eve would have been with God sharing the Sabbath day with Him.
God bless
Craig
Dear Craig,
you said:
You must agree that everything in the Bible is not black and white and clear cut in the words you would like it to say.
The point I'm making here is, does the Bible mention everything in clear cut language or must we search the scriptures putting them all together not just one here or there to come to the right answers?
I think that what you highlight is a crucial point in how we interpret the bible, and is probably worthy of a thread all of its own. Suffice to say that many different hermeneutics exist, not to mention the whole issue of Sola Scriptura.
Clement
Dear All,
A common thread in this post seems to be the issue of keeping the ten commandments, (or at least nine of them)!
As I hope we all agree, Jesus reinterpreted the meaning of these commandments for us, examples included murder and adultery as I and others have previously mentioned.
I think that Jesus also reinterpreted the Sabbath command, as all the teaching we have on it from him, is counter to the thinking of the Jews at the time.
Now I pose a question: What if the command to set aside a Holy Day for God still stands, but that day for Christians is the Lord's Day, not the Sabbath?
In the same way that "Thou shalt not kill" grows into, and is fulfilled in the law of Christ by "you commit murder if you hate your brother", cannot the Sabbath (recalling the first creation, the first Adam and the Old Covenant) grow into and be fulfilled by the Lord's Day, the new creation, the second Adam (Christ) and the New Covenant. Additionally, is this not exactly what we see in the Easter narrative? The rest, silence, stillness and hopelessness of the grave on Holy Saturday grows into and is fulfilled by the joy and hope of Easter Day, the Lord's Day, as Christ rises as the first fruits of the new creation.
Can we not still keep the spirit of the law, including the ten commandments, by making a special day of Sunday, the Lord's Day, as a mark of his resurrection, as we have come to a new hope in Christ Jesus the hope of the new creation?
And is this not what the early church did? Was the church not born on a Sunday, the first Pentecost, the coming of the spirit, the SEAL of the new covenant!
This typology is just staggering, the Jewish feast of Pentecost, which took place 50 days after the Passover and which celebrated the sealing of the Old Covenant on Mount Sinai, grows into and is fulfilled by the Christian Pentecost, the coming of the Holy Spirit, and the sealing of the new covenant - that the spirit might be the seal on hearts.
That the first Pentecost was a Sunday has been conceded by scholars on all sides including Samuele Bacchiocchi.
So perhaps what I am trying to say (if that is not too convoluted!) is that Catholics and other "Sunday-keepers" do honour the Decalogue, as Christ interprets it for the whole of the world thourgh his church, the Pillar and Grounding of all Truth.
-Clement
Hi Clement!
Your posts in this thread are well worth the time for everyone to go back and read again...in my opinion.
You are very clear in communicating very important points. Very Biblical points!
Thank you!
God bless all!!!
In reply to anonymous' question:
How did those before the Ten commandments know what sin was if there was no law? How could Cain have been held accountable for murdering his brother if there was no command of God " thou shalt not murder?"
You touch on a very important and difficult question! And I think it leads on slightly from my previous two posts today (I really should do some work, oops!). I will deal with the actual question you ask second. Firstly, I think is important to say that there is clearly a development in the law originally given to Moses, by Christ in the New Testament. We have talked about examples of this in terms of the ten commandments (murder and adultery etc) but this is true of the rest of the law as well, for example on divorce (allowed by Moses, not be Christ), love of enemy, turning the other cheek (not an eye for an eye).
This gradual development also leads to new commands of Christ, chiefly "to love one another as I have loved you."
Thus God gently leads as from where we are, to where he wants us to be. He gradually teaches us his will, bit by bit, as we can deal with it, so as not to scare us off! That is how much he loves us.
In this light, what are the 10 commandments, and how was Cain accused without explicit commands?
I would quote the catholic encyclopaedia: This legislation expresses not only the Maker's positive will, but the voice of nature as well--the laws which govern our being and are written more or less clearly in every human heart. The necessity of the written law is explained by the obscuring of the unwritten in men's souls by sin. These Divine mandates are regarded as binding on every human creature, and their violation, with sufficient reflection and consent of the will, if the matter be grave, is considered a grievous or mortal offense against God. They have always been esteemed as the most precious rules of life and are the basis of all Christian legislation.
Thus, the natural law, that convicts as all, Jew, gentile, Christian, agnostic, - God working by his spirit in our consciences, this law has always been evident.
I realise this may be a slightly different position to one I took earlier, but I hope you will forgive me for re-accessing my position in the light of others thoughts and further study.
Clement
Mike,
Thanks for the encouragement - it is much appreciated!
Clement
Hi Craig,
Thank you for your responses!
You asked me where in the Bible does it not say that they kept the sabbath until the time of Moses? My answer is that it does not say in the Bible anywhere that they kept the sabbath until the time of Moses. I know that is an awkward answer grammatically based on your question...so to make it clear. There is no where in any Bible I've read that talks about anyone keeping the sabbath before the time of Moses and the Exodus.
Yes it does seem strange that God would keep something holy just for Himself. And now we are entering the discussion as to what is God's Rest on the seventh day of creation. It is no accident that the phrase "morning and evening" is so obviously lacking from the seventh day of creation in Genesis, since it appears in every day in the previous six days. We can discuss that later on.
But that still does not address Mrs. White's additions to the creation story in the example I gave from her writings, that are just not documented in the Bible account.
I agree that the Bible speaks of the sabbath...but other than in the four Gospels, The Book of Acts, The Book of Colossians, and The Book of Hebrews, where is the sabbath mentioned? It is not mentioned in any of the other NT books...at least I cannot find it in all the others.
So help me be clear in what you are saying about Jesus not needing to teach about keeping the sabbath holy. You said that the people already knew about keeping the sabbath holy from the 10 commandments. Are you saying that they all knew about the sabbath, but forgot the other 9 commandments about which Jesus taught? It seems to me that they most likely knew all 10 commandments.
There are about 9 verses in the NT regarding the first day of the week and about 57 regarding the sabbath...and none of them speak about, or command, to keep holy either day. Something is changing here in the NT...we'll keep exploring this.
Now, I'm glad you bring up the offerings of Cain and Abel...because this is where it really gets interesting!
You are correct that there is no command from God to Cain and Abel to make these offerings...if there is I cannot find it in the Bible.
You assume that God must have commanded them to make these offerings...and that is a reasonable assumption.
And here is where it gets interesting. I assume that Cain and Abel must have learned from their parents Adam and Eve about cretation, the fall, being banished from the garden, and that God was still interacting with them. I assume, based on the lack of command evidence, that Cain and/or Abel were moved to do something nice and reverent and worshipful, and that they discussed among themselves that they would make an offering to God. It seems Abel's heart was in it more than Cain, and God saw this.
Now we have two interpretations based on a story without clear sriptural evidence to support either of our claims...both of which seem reasonable.
Now, I believe the Holy Spirit is guiding me that my interpretation is correct. I also believe that you believe the Holy Spirit is guiding you that your interpretation is correct?
So who is correct?
This is one of the problems with Bible only authority.
But back to the sabbath in the NT.
God bless all!!!
Hi Clement!
You said way above in this thread: "And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.This is why the ark of the covenant is so called - because it contains the covenant - the ten commandments. It is also interesting to note that this is also a type of Mary: The ark contained the words (commandments) of the old covenant, she contained the WORD of the new covenant; the ark contained the manna (bread) from heaven, Mary contained the true bread from heaven."
The ark also contained the rod of Moses' brother Aaron (The Priest), which grew a living bud on it. Mary contained Our True High Priest.
This was something I wanted to point out to ant in some other thread on here, but I lost track of which thread we were on when discussing this. It had to do with John seeing The Ark in Heaven in the Book of Revelation ...chapter 11 I believe.
God bless all!!!
Hi all,
Clement you said
And here is where it gets interesting. I assume that Cain and Abel must have learned from their parents Adam and Eve about cretation, the fall, being banished from the garden, and that God was still interacting with them. I assume, based on the lack of command evidence, that Cain and/or Abel were moved to do something nice and reverent and worshipful, and that they discussed among themselves that they would make an offering to God. It seems Abel's heart was in it more than Cain, and God saw this.
I don't think they would have discussed it among themselves. God would have shown Adam & Eve that a sacrifice was required for sin, which He did in Genesis 3:15 a direct prophecy of THE sacrifice Jesus would make. God made tunics of skin and clothed them Genesis 3:21. It would appear that the first sacrifice was made by God to cover Adam & Eve. I believe this was the starting point for the animal sacrifices, pointing to the "Lamb of God who takes away the sins the world".
Mike you said
I agree that the Bible speaks of the sabbath...but other than in the four Gospels, The Book of Acts, The Book of Colossians, and The Book of Hebrews, where is the sabbath mentioned? It is not mentioned in any of the other NT books...at least I cannot find it in all the others.
Let me understand where you are coming from. Are you telling me here that because you can't find it in every single book of the Bible that it is not true?
God bless
Craig
Hi Still,
You said, "So yes, for those who believe in the integrity of the Ten Commandments as written by the finger of God Himself, the Sabbath is a mandatory requirement."
I appreciate your honesty in this. My next question is:
If a person believes in the "integrity" of the Ten Commandments, but because of a different interpretation (i.e. understanding) of Scripture they do not see the Sabbath as a mandatory requirement by God, then would this person and their worship be accepted by God?
Thanks in advance!
PS: You said, "the keeping of Sunday is also mandatory (ask John Paul II. I don't know for the Orthodox, but I guess it is the same. Correct me if I am wrong"
Among certain Protestants Sunday is regarded as a "Christian Sabbath", therefore, for them Sunday observance is mandatory. For Roman Catholics Sunday is not regarded as a "Christian Sabbath" as per Hugo's assertion. However, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states,
"The precept of the Church specifies the law of the Lord more precisely: "*On Sundays* and other holy days *of obligation* the faithful *are bound* to participate in the Mass." "*The precept* of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the holy day or on the evening of the preceding day."
The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. *For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation*, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor. *Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin.*" CCC 2180-2181.
It would appear that Sunday worship in the Catholic Church is a mandatory requirement by the Church on pain of committing a "grave sin", unless there are expedient conditions preventing attendance.
No where in the early Christian writings of the first 300 years of the Church is Sunday viewed as a day of obligation. To the best of my knowledge, Holy Orthodoxy does not believe that Sunday attendance is an obligation. This is because Sunday was never looked upon by the early Christians, and subsequently the Orthodox, as a "commandment" by God.
I hope that helped!
Here are a few Orthodox sites a quick Google search brought up:
Perhaps it is sad that it needs to be said, but it needs to be said it is a sin to simply avoid, miss and skip the services of the Church. Period. (Fr. John Dresko)
http://www.dneoca.org/articles/communicant1095.html
It is often a sin to miss church. (A Church Bulletin)
http://www.orthodox.net/redeeming/redeeming.02.22.html
Those who neglect to attend commit a sin in that they neglect the commitment to Christ implied in being an Orthodox Christian, and hinder the work of the Holy Spirit in their lives.
http://www.saintnicholas.org/church_attendance.htm
Obviously, the Sunday and Festal liturgies are intended (typically, the only services performed in most Orthodox churches in this country). As in Catholicism, the Orthodox believe failing to observe the Church's holy days by attending church is a sin.
Hi Craig,
You said, "What do you mean by mandatory (do you mean God forces us to do it?)"
No, I do not mean that God "forces" us to do it. What I mean by "mandatory requirement" is that it is something that we must do, have to do, necessary to do, compelled to do, commanded to do, etc; and if we fail to do it, then we are acting contrary to what God wants. Does seventh-day Sabbath observance fall within this definition?
You said, "God has commanded that we keep the Sabbath, not as a matter of it being Mandatory, but He has given us the freedom of choice."
It would appear that you have just answered my question from above.
Your comment that God has commanded the Sabbath, yet it is not mandatory, is illogical. If someone has commanded something, then it is mandatory to be done by those under the person's authority. Therefore, if God commands something, then it is not optional. It is a mandatory requirement for all involved.
You said, "This choice is one made out of love for God, same as the other commandments. We keep them because of our love for God, not because He said do it or else...Please do not think I am saying that you or anyone else does not have a genuine love for God because you don't keep the Sabbath."
You say we keep the commandments out of love for God. Therefore, the logical implication is that if we do not keep the Sabbath, then we do not really love God; your comment at the end notwithstanding. This is the same reasoning that one uses when one says, "We do not keep the Sabbath to be saved, but rather it is because we are saved that we keep the Sabbath". The implication is clear: if we do not keep the Sabbath, then we are not really saved. This reasoning, though I do not believe you meant it this way, is insidious.
So it would appear that you wish to make the Sabbath a mandatory requirement for all people without calling it a mandatory requirement for all people. I imagine that you are doing this because you realize that deep down mandatory Sabbath observance does away with God's grace ultimately. Works based salvation is the end result when Sabbath observance is a commandment by God upon all people.
To Hugo,
Another quick Google search came up with this:
Refrains from calling non-attendance a "sin":
http://www.goarch.org/resources/sermons/sermonettes/sermonettes077
Also refrains from calling non-attendance a "sin":
http://orthodoxyordeath.com/Orthodox%20Answers.html
Church attendance not an "obligation":
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Eastern-Orthodox-1456/2008/11/Church-attendance.htm
As can be seen by your references and mine, there is no set understanding in Orthodoxy regarding Church attendance. Though all believe it is important, not all will be so bold as to call non-attendance a sin.
In the Orthodox Study Bible it has this to say in the footnotes from Rom. 14:1,
"In Orthodox Christianity, there are things that cannot be compromised, and there are areas of flexibility. God is gracious and allows diversity in doubtful things (v. 1), matters not related to essential doctrines and moral teachings. The weak in the faith are people who assign primary importance to secondary matters. The two examples of flexible areas given here involve food restrictions (v. 2) and the observance of liturgical calendars (v. 5), things which the weak might try to use to judge others or to divide the Church. In both cases, we are commanded to give flexibility to others, just as God Himself does (v. 3)."
The early Christian writings in neither the New Testament nor Ante-Nicene Fathers portray Sunday as a day of "obligation", which if not attended is a "grave sin". This is because Sunday was not viewed as a "commandment" by God. Any and every day that Christians met together was when the faithful should meet. The earliest Christan practice was every day (cf. Acts 2:46; 5:42). This is continued in the Didache 4:2 and Barnabas chp. 19. This is still practiced in Orthodox monasteries to this day when they perform the Divine Liturgy every day.
Sin is such a strong word to use for something like the non-observance of liturgical days. We do not live in the Old Testament, but the New. St. Paul deals with this concept in Rom. 14:5-6 and Gal. 4:9-11. And Jesus deals with it in principle when He refers to the "place" of worship, which can be easily substituted with the "day" or "time" of worship (cf. John 4:21-24).
The Orthodox Church has refrained from making an official judgment on this with a Council, and I believe that this is wise. The focus is not to be the mandatory observance of certain days and feasts, but communion with God and His people.
May God richly bless you always!
David,
Your last post reminds me of a quote from Augustine, "In Essentials, Unity; in Non-essentials, Liberty; in All Things, Charity."
I think that the point you make about freedom and bending to the weak is crucial. I wonder if Sunday obligation can be seen as a bending to the weak? Let me elaborate....
It is true that many Catholics (and not just those in monasteries) gain hugely form a daily Eucharist. I wonder if by stipulating a day of obligation, the church in her love for the weak, is making sure that none miss out on the great blessing of communion with God at least once a week, coming together, as the people of God, to share in the one bread, that with the whole church and all the saints and angels we might praise and glorify God together.
I think that it could be argued that the Sunday obligation was put in place precisely for the weak, as the strong in faith do not want to miss any opportunity of communing with our Lord and therefore need no further encouragement!
As a further example, western monks operating under the Rule of St Benedict, have a maximum of 3 hours between their calls to prayer. This could be viewed as a very deep devotion of the strong in Faith, which it is. It is also a wonderful starting point for the weak in Faith (or beginners!), because if they have wandered in their thoughts and actions away from God, they can only do that for 3 hours, before being brought right back to him in prayer. This can be a wonderful starting point, encouragement and support.
I think this is the point, that the Sunday obligation is there to encourage those who need the encouragement to come and receive the blessings on offer. It is not meant as a stumbling block, in fact, it is there to make things easier!
Do let me know if this makes sense!
Blessings,
Clement
Hi David,
David you said
"Your comment that God has commanded the Sabbath, yet it is not mandatory, is illogical. If someone has commanded something, then it is mandatory to be done by those under the person's authority. Therefore, if God commands something, then it is not optional. It is a mandatory requirement for all involved."
I believe it is quite logical. If I command you to do something, do you still have a choice in the matter? We have an the option of salvation that God has given us, God can't force anyone to accept His salvation, it is through our choice that we accept Him as our salvation. God has commanded us to observe His commandments beacause of our love for Him. The fact that God does'nt force us shows His love for us. God's love is still there for us even If we don't love him, that is GRACE
Why does Jesus say " If you love me...." If I had no choice in the matter then Jesus could have said "You MUST love me and you MUST keep my commandments."
Mandatory is the wrong word to me.
When we love God ALL the commandments (not just the Sabbath) are not a matter of have to, but they become natural as a result of a loving trusting relationship with God.
David you said
if we do not keep the Sabbath, then we are not really saved.
I did not say that. As I said before we cannot save ourselves by what we do. It is who we know personally (God/Jesus) that saves us.
What about my question to you.
Are the other 9 commandments mandatory (or compulsory as the dictionary puts it) to you or do you keep them because you have a loving relationship with God?
You said
This is the same reasoning that one uses when one says, "We do not keep the Sabbath to be saved, but rather it is because we are saved that we keep the Sabbath".
You can add the other commandments to this statement also. "All christians should not keep the commandments to be saved, but rather because they are saved."
God Bless
Craig
David / Craig,
I think this line of discussion is perhaps entering into the Faith / works / salvation debate. It sounds as if Craig's comments are not typical of the protestant view!
Just a quick thought.
Clement
Hi Craig!
You asked me: "Let me understand where you are coming from. Are you telling me here that because you can't find it in every single book of the Bible that it is not true?"
No not at all. But I thought you were saying that the sabbath is true because it is found in every book from Genesis to Revelation, based on your following comment:
"The Bible speaks of the Sabbath the whole way through from Genesis to Revelation. Don't you think there is a reason for this?"
I was merely pointing out that the Bible does not speak of the Sabbath the whole way through the Bible as you stated, and shared with you those 7 books of the NT where sabbath is spoken of.
There are 20 books in the NT that do not mention the sabbath,the book of Revelation being one of them. Based on your reasoning, do you think there is a reason for this?
God bless all!!!
Hi Clement!
You requested: "Do let me know if this makes sense!"
Yes it makes sense, and every one of your posts make real good sense!
I love reading all the posts on here and learn so much from everyone...but your posts are particulary edifying...at least to me...so thanks! Keep posting!
God bless all!!!
David,
1. The footnote you cited (from the OSB) does directly address the issue we are discussing. It's fine; it's legitimate; but I would be careful.
2. I found the canon I was looking for: Quinsext Council Canon LXXX: "If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or any of those who are enumerated in the list of the clergy, or a layman, has no very grave necessity nor difficult business so as to keep him from church for a very long time, but being in town does not go to church on three consecutive Sundays--three weeks--if he is a cleric let him be deposed, but if a layman let him be cut off." This should settle my case. Sunday observance is required in Orthodoxy on pain of being "cut off."
3. The footnote you cite is wrong for other reasons as well. The assertion that Orthodoxy does not enforce a particular liturgical calendar is clearly wrong in view of canon 8 of II Nicaea: "Since some of those who come from the religion of the Hebrews mistakenly think to make a mockery of Christ who is God, pretending to become Christians, but denying Christ in private by both secretly continuing to observe the sabbath and maintaining other Jewish practices, we decree that they shall not be received to communion or at prayer or into the church." Also, Canon 29 of the local council of Laodeceia (whose canons were respected by later, ecumenical councils): "Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.." Clearly, the observance of the old liturgical calendar of Judaism is a cause for condemnation. Orthodoxy does not give its weak members "freedom" to do so.
The particulars of observing liturgical days was also a matter of anathematization, as in the Quinsext Council, Canon LVI: "We have likewise learned that in the regions of Armenia and in other places certain people eat eggs and cheese on the Sabbaths and Lord's days of the holy lent. It seems good therefore that the whole Church of God which is in all the world should follow one rule and keep the fast perfectly, and as they abstain from everything which is killed, so also should they from eggs and cheese, which are the fruit and produce of those animals from which we abstain. But if any shall not observe this law, if they be clerics, let them be deposed; but if laymen, let them be cut off."
David,
you asked "If a person believes in the "integrity" of the Ten Commandments, but because of a different interpretation (i.e. understanding) of Scripture they do not see the Sabbath as a mandatory requirement by God, then would this person and their worship be accepted by God?"
I am a little bit reluctant to say what God would think of this or that or accept or not :-)
What I know from the Bible is that He "winks" at our ignorance. If we don't know anything about something, He is gracious enough not to condemn us about it. If we do according to the light we have, God accepts what we give Him (but, as someone said before me, He might not leave us where we are as He wants us to progress)
I found it interesting when you said, that "this is because Sunday was never looked upon by the early Christians, and subsequently the Orthodox, as a "commandment" by God". I too believe that Sunday was never a commandment by God. Now if someone wants to consider Sunday special because of the resurrection of Christ I have nothing against it. But we have to remember that it is not a commandment from God.
Clement, I doubt that it was to help the weak that Sunday observance was made mandatory. It was more for a question of authority than anything else. You cannot force someone to receive a blessing. Each time coercion is used, the Spirit of the Lord is not present.
As for the term "mandatory", it is not a dirty word. God has some absolute requirements. He doesn't want us to kill. It is not a suggestion. He doesn't want us to lie, to steal, etc. If God has these requirements, it is for our own good and the benefit of our neighbors, not because God is a tyrant. The law of God makes sense.
Now, we have to be careful not to turn the law of God into a legalistic system. We are not supposed to obey God because we are afraid of Him but because we love Him and because we love our neighbors.
I can understand why Craig is being very cautious with that term.
Hi all,
Still you said.
He doesn't want us to kill. It is not a suggestion. He doesn't want us to lie, to steal, etc. If God has these requirements, it is for our own good and the benefit of our neighbors, not because God is a tyrant. The law of God makes sense.
Yes I agree with what you have said, He does'nt want us to do these things, kill, lie & steal because of His Great love for us. Same as why He told Adam & Eve not to eat or touch the tree in the garden. God gave them a command but the tree was still in the garden so they still had a choice in the matter.
That's why I would not use the word "Mandatory" because that means it is compulsory.
So yes God commands these things for the good of us and our fellow neighbours, not because He is a dictator but because He knows what is best for us.
Mike you said
No not at all. But I thought you were saying that the sabbath is true because it is found in every book from Genesis to Revelation, based on your following comment:
"The Bible speaks of the Sabbath the whole way through from Genesis to Revelation. Don't you think there is a reason for this?"
I was'nt meaning every single book when I made this comment. If you take strawberry swirl ice cream as an example. You will not necessarily find a piece of strawberry in every part of the ice cream, you could still get vanilla on it's own. I am mearly using a figure of speech. The Sabbath in the Bible, just like the strawberry in the ice cream, it's not mentioned specifically in every book but is blended throught out the Bible from beginning to end.
God Bless
Craig
Hi Still,
you said:
Clement, I doubt that it was to help the weak that Sunday observance was made mandatory. It was more for a question of authority than anything else. You cannot force someone to receive a blessing. Each time coercion is used, the Spirit of the Lord is not present.
Are we coerced into keeping the commandments or do we do it out of love? It is this same argument for Sunday Observance, it is good to meet together at least once a week, and the church encourages this through her God given authority. It is not coercion any more than the commandments are coercion, it is just saying that this is the best thing for you. This is exactly Craig's argument in his most recent post. Everyone has a choice, there is no coercion: you can do what God wants or not, we are free to sin, but we are also free (thanks to the infinite grace made available to us through Christ's sacrifice on the cross) to do God's will.
We are free to follow the teachings of the church (which is the pillar and foundation of truth 1 Tim 3:15), and we are free not to.
But I do not think there is any coercion involved. If fact, after Vatican II and especially reading Humanae Dignitatis, it is clear that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that all forms of coercion are wrong as you say.
-Clement
Still,
One further thought. I have come to a new realization recently (yesterday in fact!) that I need to give more people the benefit of the doubt in every situation, and especially when discussing religious issues.
Your comment about the church's motives in encouraging sunday observance seems to stem more from a general feeling of distrust of the church, rather than an objective analysis of the situation.
I doubt that it was to help the weak that Sunday observance was made mandatory. It was more for a question of authority than anything else.
I wonder what would happen if we all were able to try and look at things without the lens of our preconceptions, or even prejudices to a particular view / church / theology - and I myself am guilty of such offences more than most.
-Clement
Hi Craig, You said: "I was'nt meaning every single book when I made this comment. ... The Sabbath in the Bible, just like the strawberry in the ice cream, it's not mentioned specifically in every book but is blended throught out the Bible from beginning to end."
Thank you for the clarification and your acknowledgement that the sabbath is indeed not discussed in every book of the Bible. It probably shows up in a greater percentage of the OT books, but in the NT, the discussion of it certainly diminishes after the Book of Acts, and is absent from the majority of NT books, and is not found at the end.
God bless all!!!
Hi Still and Craig,
I was wondering if you had any comments regarding Mrs. White's additions, in her writings, to the Biblical account of the creation story, based on the one example I provided above?
Thanks in advance if you do!
God bless all!!!
A question for Still and Craig, or any Adventist who might feel inclined to comment...well, I don't want to limit this to Adventists, so to anyone who would like to comment...but I am particularly interested in Adventist answers to my question...which is:
During the time Jesus' earthly ministry, which do you think the Jews regarded with more importance..the Temple and its services, or the Sabbath, and why?
Or do you think the Jews regarded both with equal importance and why?
Thanks in advance for your comments!
God bless all!!!
Clement,
History shows that the churches have done more than encourage people to observe Sunday. When people use fines or jail time (or worse) to force others to attend church on Sunday for example, this is not encouragement, it is coercion. God didn't give the church the auhority to do that. Christ asked his disciples to be His witnesses, not His policy enforcers.
Also, there is a major difference between God's commandments and Sunday keeping: Sunday observance is not a commandment.
Concerning my comments about the "encouragements" toward Sunday observance, it was not especially against a particular denomination. Sure, the Catholic church participated in that but the Protestants also were more than happy to contribute. For example, when you read about the history of the early colonies in America, you can see communities enforcing rules forcing church attendance on Sunday.
Hi Still,
Thank you for your reply, I find it such a great blessing to be able to talk to you guys, and really appreciate all your thoughts.
I agree that that all churches have acted appallingly in times past, the Catholic church being perhaps the worst culprit. It is also important to note that most churches have publicly repented of their sins, the Catholic church included, and whilst we must be mindful of the past, we must also look at the current teaching of the church, of which Humanae Dignitatis is crucially important on this particular issue. Have you read it?
I would thoroughly recommend it, and it is one of the shorter documents from Vatican II.
As a side point:
When I stared looking at all the different denominations to see where I should be, it became very clear that all churches have had difficult times in their history, which they have had to work through. One of the difficulties I found when looking at church history is that it spans such a vast geography and time frame, containing completely different cultures and languages to nowadays.
This makes a comparison of the actions of the churches in the historical context, and what we have come to know now, very difficult, precisely because things have moved on so much. If I was to truly assess the actions of any church throughout history I would have to learn so much history to understand the context in which the church was working.
The decision I came to, was rather than start by tracing the historical development of every church, I would look at what they taught NOW, as at least I could then compare them all with each other, within the same historical context, and as this was also my historical context, I didn't have too much extra homework! I think this is really important, because the church was meant to develop, grow and mature - like a mustard seed, it starts as the smallest of seed but grows in to the largest of trees (I always thought an Acorn would have been a better analogy but that is just me!). This is why I think it is important to compare the current teachings of churches, because their understanding has grown and developed over time. This is as true for the Adventist church as it is for the Catholic church.
I say this not to appease the actions of churches through history, but just to say that in times and cultures very different from our own, what might seem completely barbarous now, was often accepted as the normal way of things at the time.
Perhaps our churches should have known better, but where they erred, they have now repented. The church is constantly in need of reform. It is at the same time, both Holy, and in need of constant redemption. Thank God, that through his endless mercy he has given us such a great savior, that through him all things may be made perfect, even the church!
Blessings - Clement
Still wrote: ". . . this is not encouragement, it is coercion. God didn't give the church the auhority to do that."
I think the following passage will prove you wrong.
Nehemiah 13:19-21
19 It came about that just as it grew dark at the gates of Jerusalem before the sabbath, I commanded that the doors should be shut and that they should not open them until after the sabbath. Then I stationed some of my servants at the gates so that no load would enter on the sabbath day.
20Once or twice the traders and merchants of every kind of merchandise spent the night outside Jerusalem.
21Then I warned them and said to them, "Why do you spend the night in front of the wall? If you do so again, I will use force against you." From that time on they did not come on the sabbath.
Hi Craig,
You said, "I believe it is quite logical. If I command you to do something, do you still have a choice in the matter?"
Are you implying that Sabbath observance is not a "commandment" by God, because then it would not be a "choice" but rather "mandatory"? This would be fascinating if indeed this is what you think.
You also said, "God has commanded us to observe His commandments beacause of our love for Him. The fact that God does'nt force us shows His love for us."
Hmm...perhaps I should quote for you the dictionary definition of a "commandment":
"a command or mandate." Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.
"An order or injunction given by authority; a command; a charge; a precept; a mandate." Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
A commandment is a mandate meaning it is mandatory to be observed. In other words, it is not a matter of choice. I hope that clears up any confusion with this issue.
Now my question to you, Craig: Is Sabbath observance a commandment from God or not?
Thanks in advance!
Hi Still,
You said, "What I know from the Bible is that He "winks" at our ignorance. If we don't know anything about something, He is gracious enough not to condemn us about it. If we do according to the light we have, God accepts what we give Him"
Well, what if a person does not observe the Sabbath, not because they are ignorant of it, but because they understand the Scriptures differently in this regard? What if a person "knows" all about the Sabbath commandment, and still does not observe it because they honestly believe that the New Testament teaches that Christians are not required to observe it? If Sabbath observance is a commandment by God, and therefore mandatory to be kept by all, then how could a person who knows about it, but rejects this belief, be accepted by God?
Thank you, Still, I look forward to your response!
Lady Dragon,
Nehemiah 13:19-21 is not the same context. Nehemiah asked the merchants not to come to bother them during the Sabbath but they kept coming even when the doors were closed. So we are not speaking of the same thing here.
David:
I used "ignorance" in a broad sense. It can cover two situations:
1) you don't know about something (this is a knowledge issue)
2) you don't understand an issue or understand something else (this is an understanding issue). So if someone really believes that the Sabbath is not mandatory (while it is still mandatory) then this person is ignorant of the fact that it is still a binding commandment (even if this person thinks that he/she knows) and, as I said, God is gracious and He will not reject this person. A perfect example is Paul. He really believed that the Christians were blaspheming and that it was his duty to do something about it. But when he realized his mistake, he used the same zeal to spread the Gospel.
So if you don't observe the Sabbath and have a very good reason (in the eyes of God) for that, God will not reject you.
Hi Hugo,
The footnote from the OSB that I quoted expresses the general "mind" of Orthodoxy on the issues of food and liturgical calendar observances based directly on St. Paul's teaching. There appears to be no need to be "careful" as you say, because for the Orthodox, canonical tradtion is interpreted in different ways from how it is understood in the west. For evidence of this I refer you to the following three sources:
http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/canon_law/afanasiev_canonical_consciousness.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_(Eastern_Orthodox_Church)
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=william_chriss
"Legalism" with regard to the canons of the Church, as you seem to be indicating (no offense intended), appears to be more of a "western" phenomenon. For the Orthodox Church, mercy, love, and compassion interpret the various canons of the Church in practice and life. Though this is not held by all people in all places and at all times, yet it is the focus of the Church it seems.
Blessings to you brother!
Hi Still,
Thank you for being honest.
My next question:
If Sabbath observance is indeed mandatory (i.e. must be observed as obligatory to fulfill God's will); and if one does not observe it simply because of a different interpretation; yet God still accepts this person and their worship; then does this not say that Sabbath observance really is not mandatory at all?
Thanks again!
Still:
You said, "Nehemiah 13:19-21 is not the same context. Nehemiah asked the merchants not to come to bother them during the Sabbath but they kept coming even when the doors were closed. So we are not speaking of the same thing here."
Be careful, SDAs forbid dancing, and you are dancing better than Fred Astaire here. Neh. 13:19-21 is exactly the same thing as the coercion you said the Church had no authority to do. Nehemiah forbade the Jews buying and selling on the Sabbath day. He put out the merchants and locked the gates and threatened them with violence, in order to prevent the Jews from buying and selling on the Sabbath. Nehemiah's actions against the merchants was part of his coercion of the Jews to keep the Sabbath. In fact, he was using his secular authority to coerce the Jews into religious observance.
>>>"Legalism" with regard to the canons of the Church, as you seem to be indicating (no offense intended), appears to be more of a "western" phenomenon.
Wow, lol. So earlier, you championed Orthodoxy at the expense of Western Christianity; as a response, I correct your caricature; now, you respond to my correction by including yet another blatant caricature Western Christianity? I mean, this is ridiculous at this point, David, lol. And today's caricature: Western "legalism" vs. Eastern "mercy," "love," and "compassion." *shakes head* As if our canonical tradition is not characterized by compassion. These caricatures are baseless, David. I'm sorry, but I am calling you out on this, haha.
In the Catholic tradition, Sunday obligation may be "excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor" (CCC 2181; cf. CIC 1245). How is this not merciful or compassionate? :-p How is it any less merciful or compassionate than the rules of your own tradition? Where is the concrete difference you assume exists?
And for that matter: you are obscuring the immediate issue with abstract discussions of "mercy" and "legalism" in Orthodox canonical tradition. I'd like you a straightforward answer: have Orthodox councils forbade willful failure to regularly attend Sunday eucharist on pain of excommunication? Why does those canons exist--to be universally disregarded in the name of "compassion"?? No, they exist to define the Church's stance on the importance of regular Sunday church attendance, and discipline those who flagrantly and obstinately forsake it.
The canons say: "If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or any of those who are enumerated in the list of the clergy, or a layman, has no very grave necessity nor difficult business so as to keep him from church for a very long time, but being in town does not go to church on three consecutive Sundays--three weeks--if he is a cleric let him be deposed, but if a layman let him be cut off." I believe the council intended to enforce exactly what it says: where "no grave necessity" or other mitigating circumstance exists (when "mercy" and "compassion" could be applied), people found forsaking regular Sunday church attendance are to be excommunicated (not even "grave sin," as in the Catholic tradition, but being "deposed" or "cut off.") Pardon me, lol, but I don't think the Adventists on the blog will read those statements and glorify Orthodox "compassion."
Earlier you said, vis-a-vis Catholicism: "to the best of my knowledge, Holy Orthodoxy does not believe that Sunday attendance is an obligation." I believe I have demonstrated the opposite. Lol, let's move on, shall we?
>>>"The footnote from the OSB that I quoted expresses the general "mind" of Orthodoxy on the issues of food and liturgical calendar observances based directly on St. Paul's teaching."
Um... no. That footnote expresses a 21st century scholar's (and his editors') thoughts on this verse. ;-) God forbid if everything in the "New American Bible"'s translation and study notes represented the "general mind" of the Catholic Church better than her ecumenical councils, catechism, and canon law.
I still love you, haha,
Hugo
David asked:
"then does this not say that Sabbath observance really is not mandatory at all?"
Not at all. Remember what I said: God winks at our ignorance but He doesn't want to leave us where we are.
Let's take an example: imagine that you are driving in a 50 mph zone but then you arrive in a 25 mph zone. Unfortunately, the zign for the 25 mph speed limit is hidden (a scene I saw in a movie :-) ). So you continue with your 50 mph speed, happily oblivious of th new speed limit. Then you are pulled over by a police officer who is more than happy to reveal to you the correct speed limit in that zone (and that the ticket will be $100.00. Thank you for driving in our neighborhood).
Now, you can plead your case to the police officer (or the judge) and show him that the sign was in fact hidden. If you can prove your case (or if your plea sounds reasonable or if the officer is sympathetic to your case) the ticket will be thrown out.
So, what would you say afterward? That because the police officer didn't give you a ticket (or the judge cancelled it) because he recognized that you made a violation in good faith, now the speed limit doesn't apply to you or is not mandatory? I doubt that you would think that way.
So, it is the same way with the laws of God in general and the Sabbath in particular. If you don't know a law God is gracious about your violation. But He wants you to know it was a violation so that you don't repeat it in the future.
Hi David,
Of course I believe that the Sabbath is a commandment of God. I would'nt be talking to you about it if I didn't think it to be important.
I am mearly pointing out the reasons our motives why we keep God's commandments.
A commandment is a mandate meaning it is mandatory to be observed. In other words, it is not a matter of choice. I hope that clears up any confusion with this issue.
Obviously you believe God is a dictator then and gives no one choice and thus you follow God out of fear.
You said before David.
"No, I do not mean that God "forces" us to do it."
How could you say this If you believe you have no choice?
The motive behind why we keep the commandments is the issue I am talking about. The fact that they are commandments of God is important, but it is our motives for keeping them that is important also.
Because if I keep them because they are mandatory and have no choice in the matter, that is because I fear the outcome if I don't.
This is not why I serve God. I serve God because I love Him. If I serve Him out of fear or because I have to then it is not love.
"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love." 1 John 4:18
God Bless
Craig
Lady Dragon,
Again, the context in Nehemiah is different. Israel was a theocracy and God had a direct authority over His people. Every nation has its laws to which its citizens are bound. Obeying the laws of the land is not coercion (unless the laws are unconstitutional, which may happens). According to the law of the land, a violation of the Sabbath was punishable by death.
Concerning the Christian church, Jesus never asked us to create a theocracy. In fact, Jesus said that His Kingdom was not of this world and that He would come back to take us with Him. Jesus asked us to teach and witness and said that through our good work and witness people would be drawn to him. To be drawn means that it is a voluntary motion. We cannot be forced to believe. Only the work of the Spirit can persuade us to accept Jesus. To do otherwise is coercion.
To Hugo,
I appreciate you "calling me on this". You have "with stood me to my face, because I was to blame". You are exactly right, and I acknowledge that. I'm very sorry I caricatured the western point of view. I now see that what I did was wrong and uninformed. I should know better than to debate an M.A. ;).
I guess my experience with the west has been characterized by an overabundance of "legalistic" thinking in theology. I have found the Orthodox east to be a breath of fresh air in this regard. I'm sure you'll point out some document or information that will show that the Orthodox are just as "legalistic" in their thinking as the west, but this has simply been my experience in the matter.
Thank you for pointing out the canons that you did. I honestly was not aware of them. Your expertise in the history of the Church is greatly appreciated, and I sincerely mean no offense. I am weak and inadequate when it comes to expressing my thoughts. Please forgive me in this regard.
I am ready to move on as well, to focus my discussions with my Adventists friends on here.
God bless always my friend!
You're fine, David, lol. I'm sorry myself for going hard on you. I always admire your humility; pray for me that I may be more like you.
And when I lose an argument to you (and ugg, trust me, there will be PLENTY of those days), go easy on me. ;-)
Yours,
Hugo
Hi Still,
I'm sorry, but your analogy does not fit my question.
I believe this is my fault for not being extra clear. Please allow me to rephrase my question to you:
What if a person, who knows about the Sabbath commandment in the Old Testament (perhaps they used to be a Sabbath-keeper like an Adventist), and is in no way ignorant or unknowing of the interpretation that Sabbath observance is a requirement, but because of a different way of understanding the Scripture chooses not to observe the Sabbath; will this person be accepted by God?
Thanks in advance!
Hi Craig,
You said, "Obviously you believe God is a dictator then and gives no one choice and thus you follow God out of fear."
I do not think God is a "dictator" Craig. I am merely attempting to establish common definitions for words. Sorry for implying otherwise.
You said, "Of course I believe that the Sabbath is a commandment of God. I would'nt be talking to you about it if I didn't think it to be important. I am mearly pointing out the reasons our motives why we keep God's commandments...The motive behind why we keep the commandments is the issue I am talking about. The fact that they are commandments of God is important, but it is our motives for keeping them that is important also."
Well, let me ask you this:
Since it is "motive" that you wish to focus on rather than the "commandment" part, do you believe or would you allow for the possibility that there is an equally valid "motive" for a person to not observe the seventh-day Sabbath? Do you believe that if a person had a really good "motive" for not observing the Sabbath, that God would hold them innocent for their supposed violation?
I'm sure your answer will be enlightening, and I look forward to it! Thank you in advance!
Hi David,
You said.
"Since it is "motive" that you wish to focus on rather than the "commandment" part, do you believe or would you allow for the possibility that there is an equally valid "motive" for a person to not observe the seventh-day Sabbath? Do you believe that if a person had a really good "motive" for not observing the Sabbath, that God would hold them innocent for their supposed violation?"
It is not motive by itself that I want to focus on. You implied that I was saying that the Sabbath is Mandatory in a earlier comment.
You said speaking to Still & myself.
"You are both either implying or directly stating that observance of the Old Testament seventh-day Sabbath is a mandatory requirement for Christians."
I don't just believe it was the Old Testament seventh-day Sabbath. I believe that it is for today also & has never changed.
I ask what would be the really good "motive" for not observing the Sabbath or for any other of the commandment. What other motives can there be for keeping the commandments other than to show our love for our creator.
I would ask if the motive is Biblical along with God's will or traditional. I would not just believe something because that is how traditon says it. The extra add ons to Gods commandments by the Pharisees and the Jews is exactly what Jesus was saying to them was wrong. Mark 7:7-13
What other motive could there be but to follow our example, Jesus who kept the Sabbath & the other commandments.
God Bless
Craig
Hi Craig,
So would you say then that as long as a person has a valid "motive" or reason why they do not observe the seventh-day Sabbath; that God accepts them and their worship?
Thank you for bearing with me in all of this. I look forward to hearing more of what you think.
God's blessings be upon you!
Still:
Israel ceased to be a theocracy when Saul was made king. Nehemiah was governor of Judah under the King of Persia. This means that Judah was governed according to the laws of the Medes and the Persians. Sabbathkeeping was a religious ordinance which Nehemiah used his secular authority to enforce.
Again, your argument does not hold water.
Lady Dragon,
Israel was still a theocracy even after Saul. Who selected the kings? God. What was the law of the land? The law of God. When they are disobedient, who sent the Israelites into captivity? God. Who delivered them afterward and restored their land? God.
So, if it is not a theocracy I don't know what it is.
Still said, "Israel was still a theocracy even after Saul."
Theocracy:
"a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler..."
Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.
It is written:
"And the thing was evil in the eyes of Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us: and Samuel prayed to the Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel, Hear the voice of the people, in whatever they shall say to thee; for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me from reigning over them." 1Kings 8:6-7.
It would appear that your comment is incorrect.
Blessings to you always!
Hi David,
You said
So would you say then that as long as a person has a valid "motive" or reason why they do not observe the seventh-day Sabbath; that God accepts them and their worship?
I believe there will be people in Heaven who had a genuine love for God & went to church on Sunday – or maybe didn’t go on any day because they didn’t know about what day was God's Holy day. I don't believe God will reject these people.God won't hold us accountable for things we don't know or have never been shown.
But I would say that if a person knows and understands that the Sabbath is God's Holy day and does not acknowledge this by keeping His day holy, then I believe this is willfully breaking God's law.
This is the same with all the commandments. If we know that we should'nt steal, but we still go ahead and do it then we are willfully breaking God's law. If we willfully break God's commandments then God is not rejected us, but we are rejecting Him.
The only valid motive as I said before for keeping all of the commandments as christians should be our love for our Creator, Friend, and Saviour Jesus, not because we think it will get us to Heaven.
God Bless.
Craig
Still:
No, Israel was no longer a theocracy once a King was appointed. God had ruled Israel, but they rejected Him as ruler when they demanded a king. Prior to Saul, Israelites paid no taxes, immediately upon having a king they were taxed.
As for who appointed the kings, after David they were appointed by heredity and civil wars. God may have appointed David as Saul's successor, but David had to fight for it. Then, of course, after Solomon came the big split between Juday and the Northern Kingdom.
Sorry, your argument still doesn't hold water. Nehemiah was not the governor of a theocracy and he used his secular authority to coerce religious observance.
Here is why I think Israel was still a theocracy. Read 2 Kings 22 which tells that story of King Josiah. When they were doing some work in the house of the Lord, some peple found the Law of God and brought it to the king and when he read it Josiah tore his clothes and said:
"“Go, inquire of the LORD for me, for the people and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that has been found; for great is the wrath of the LORD that is aroused against us, because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book, to do according to all that is written concerning us.” " (2 Kings 22:13).
What did the king said? To inquire of the Lord concerning the book of the Law of God. And God said He would pass judgement according to what was written in this book of the Law.
And further, we see Josiah leading reforms according to the Law of God.
So who was in charge? God.
Who was the king obeying to? God.
What law was using in the land? The Law of God.
According to which law was the country punished? According to the Law of God.
It is what is called a theocracy. Yes, it is true that it was not as direct as before king Saul. But God was still the leader of the land and His Law in effect (since the people were punished according to the law of God).
Still:
Thank you for proving my point in a most excellent manner!! Here we have Josiah, a secular authority coercing people into religious practices.
Look use the same chapter, but change the names. Instead of Josiah use Obama, even if everything else stays the same, you do not have a theocracy, you have a secular authority coercing (your term) people into religious practices.
So maybe coercing is the wrong word?
Lady Dragon,
You don't get it, do you? Lol.
Like my mom would say, when you have an idea in your mind, you don't have it anywhere else. :-)\
Still:
Clearly, your mom knew you very well. You've gotten this idea in your head that Israel continued as a theocracy after the time of the Judges, even though the very definition of a theocracy shows that they were no such thing.
David and Hugo, could you please explain this to Still?
Wikipedia:
Theocracy is a form of government in which a god or deity is recognized as the state's supreme civil ruler,[1] or in a broader sense, a form of government in which a state is governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided.[2] For believers, theocracy is a form of government in which divine power governs an earthly human state, either in a personal incarnation or, more often, via religious institutional representatives (i.e., a church), replacing or dominating civil government.[3] Theocratic governments enact theonomic laws.
Theocracy should be distinguished from other secular forms of government that have a state religion, or are merely influenced by theological or moral concepts, and monarchies held "By the Grace of God".
A theocracy may be monist in form, where the administrative hierarchy of the government is identical with the administrative hierarchy of the religion, or it may have two 'arms,' but with the state administrative hierarchy subordinate to the religious hierarchy.
Theocratic tendencies have been found in several religious traditions including Judaism, Islam, Confucianism, Hinduism, and among Christianity: Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism, and Mormonism. Historical examples of Christian theocracies are the Byzantine Empire (A.D. 330-1453) and the Carolingian Empire (A.D. 800-888).
To Still,
Please refer to my comment to you dated June 8 that clearly shows that Israel ceased to be a theocracy (i.e. God is the supreme civil ruler) when Saul was made king.
Blessings to you always!
Lady Dragon and David,
please read the entry for "theocracy" found in the online Catholic Encyclopedia. It says that "there is no sufficient warrant for assuming on the authority of these texts that the theocratic rule in Israel came to an end with the inauguration of the monarchy, as is plain from the narration of the Lord's covenant with King David and his descendants (2 Samuel 7:1-17). According to the terms of this covenant the earthly monarch remains under the control of the heavenly King, and is constituted His vicegerent and representative. And this direct dependence of the king on the Lord for wisdom and guidance is assumed throughout the historical records of the Hebrew monarchy" (emphasis mine).
To Still,
I showed you plainly from Scripture and a reputable dictionary that Israel indeed ceased to be a theocracy (i.e. God is the supreme civil ruler), and what was your response? Did you humbly accept the correction? No. Instead, you sought out material that supported your flawed position. And that material was the Catholic Encyclopedia(!) for goodness sake. Since when does a Seventh-day Adventist run to a Catholic Encyclopedia to substantiate a personal belief??
Still, when Scripture and the dictionary both tell you that Israel no longer remained a theocracy when they got a king, it doesn't really matter what the Catholic Encyclopedia says. Unless you can somehow disprove the dictionary and a plain statement by God in Scripture, just accept the correction and move on. That would be beneficial for all involved.
Think about it, and God's blessings be yours always my friend!
David,
Are you telling me that the definition of a Catholic encyclopedia is not good enough!!?? By the way, I used that to show Lady Dragon that not every Catholic agrees with her.
Also, you gave me a definition from a good source. Here is one that is from the Merriam-Webster dictionary, another good source if there is one:
"1 : government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided " (emphasis mine and please notice the "or" in the definition. The definition you gave us was too restrictive and covered only one part of the definition which is indeed broader).
I also showed you a biblical example where we can see that, in spite of the king, God is still in charge of the land, speaking to the people through the prophets and we see the king deferring to Him.
So, again, if it is not a theocracy, I don't know what it is. If you - and Lady Dragon - want to stick to your strict definition, please feel free.
Finally, you wrote:
"Since when does a Seventh-day Adventist run to a Catholic Encyclopedia to substantiate a personal belief??"
First of all, the issue is not about a personal belief here, it is about a definition.
Second, the fact that I used a Catholic Encyclopedia shows that I don't have a particular prejudice against something just because it comes from Catholics :-)
God bless...
To Still,
That's fine, maybe you're right. Maybe our definition of a theocracy is too strict. I mean, after all God only said that the people of Israel had rejected Him from ruling over them by wanting another king to reign in His place. But they were still under a theocracy, apparently, right?
Your use of the Catholic Encyclopedia may demonstrate that you have no prejudice, that is when it comes to this issue. Actually, I'd wager that your own personal prejudice is just as strong now as ever, because you're prejudiced toward your own view. And you will use whatever source you need to in order to substantiate your view.
This is fine though, since we all suffer from this ailment. But some of us have found the cure for this disease. I'll be gracious here and let you know what that cure is: admitting that you're wrong; that the other person had a good point (perhaps they were actually right. I know, gasp at the thought!); and move on. Only then can real progress be made.
God bless you and yours!
"from the Merriam-Webster dictionary . . . or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided "
Using this definition, which you typed in bold, look at the kings of Judah and Israel and that should be proof enough that the theocracy had ceased with the anointing of Saul.
Also, is it your contention that both Judah and Israel were theocracies?
AV,無碼,a片免費看,自拍貼圖,伊莉,微風論壇,成人聊天室,成人電影,成人文學,成人貼圖區,成人網站,一葉情貼圖片區,色情漫畫,言情小說,情色論壇,臺灣情色網,色情影片,色情,成人影城,080視訊聊天室,a片,A漫,h漫,麗的色遊戲,同志色教館,AV女優,SEX,咆哮小老鼠,85cc免費影片,正妹牆,ut聊天室,豆豆聊天室,聊天室,情色小說,aio,成人,微風成人,做愛,成人貼圖,18成人,嘟嘟成人網,aio交友愛情館,情色文學,色情小說,色情網站,情色,A片下載,嘟嘟情人色網,成人影片,成人圖片,成人文章,成人小說,成人漫畫,視訊聊天室,性愛,聊天室,情色,a片,AV女優
Jesus DID comment about the Sabbath and supported it well. This is not just because the Jewish Rulers could not accuse Him of Sabbath breaking at His trial, nor was there any accusation like this against His disciples when they were condemned. Jesus wrote in Matthew 5:
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Right there Jesus said not a word or tittle of the law will be changed till heaven and earth pass. Read then in the law about the Sabbath. The day the Sabbath falls on is also mentioned there.
If Christ referring to David eating the shewbread in his day (Matthew 12:3, 4), which it was not lawful for him to eat, voided the Sabbath, THEN THAT WOULD MEAN THAT THE SABBATH WAS VOIDED IN DAVID'S DAY. Religious propagandists have overlooked this.
The law was given with grand display and ceremony in order to eliminate all confusion about the Lord's requirements for man. Why is there confusion now? The Lord never specifically stated that the Sabbath is no longer binding, as one hurdle, nor that Sunday has replaced it as another:
http://www.Seventh-dayAdventism.com
Post a Comment