| Author | Message | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 730 Registered: 10-2002  |
(Forgive me if these are things that people have gone over many times before, but some understanding lit up inside of me the other night and I thought I'd share...) Did Jesus Break the Sabbath? From these verses the writer says He did. And not only that, in response to criticism of breaking the Sabbath, Jesus didn't merely correct them on "which works" were acceptable on Sabbath (as He did in the synoptic gospels). Instead, here He said plainly, "Yes, I am at work, and My Father is and has been at work to this very day" (and "this very day" was a Sabbath day). I suddenly understood that "healing" is an act of creation. It requires the creative power of God. It is possible to split hairs and say it's only "repairing", yet when you see that "creation" made "life", and then "sin" brought "death", sin essentially "un-did" creation. It requires the same power of creation in order to bring "life" again. This is most clearly seen when Jesus healed the man born blind. His eyes had never worked. This was an act of brand-new creation. And He had done it on the Sabbath! Jesus showed that He was the creator when He healed the born-blind man's eyes. He took the dust of the ground as God had at creation, and put it on the man's eyes. He mixed His own saliva in it, perhaps indicating that life was in Him, and the power to heal, restore and create life was in Him. It seems the directness of Christ's act of creative power here was not lost on the Jews. They didn't miss the message. But we did in Adventism. Somehow in focusing on the 4th Commandment (of the 10), we focused in on the weekly cycle of 7 days and got this idea that God also rested every seventh day. We thought it was God's day of rest, and somehow assumed that He, too, must be resting on Sabbath. But Jesus' actions and words in John 9 show that God did not and does not rest on the Sabbath day. God the Son did not cease from creating as God had ceased [rested] from creating at creation. God rested on the first "seventh day". When the Sabbath days were given later to Israel, He was by that point already "back at work". He did not rest on their Sabbaths, and He does not rest on ours, either. So what was the Sabbath for? Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man. It was not made for God, but for man. Somehow when looking at these verses from Mark as an Adventist, I always thought that Jesus was referring back to creation, that He was talking about the purpose of the "rest" in the creation story. But no! Jesus was talking about the purpose of the Sabbath of Israel! Jesus said clearly that the Sabbath day was made for man... why was it made for man? It was made to lead us to rest in Jesus! In retrospect, it's completely strange to ask the question, "Did Jesus break the Sabbath". Why? Because the Sabbath was made to point to Him! The Jews (and we as Adventists) had all gotten things a bit mistaken... we had missed the message, the purpose of the Sabbath day, and had assumed that we were somehow made for it. So when Christ came, the Light, we wanted the Light to stay in His shadow, to make sure that He didn't "break it", so to speak. This basically shows how as humans we tend to take our eyes off of God (off of the Light) and pick apart His shadows, making laws of them and judging one another by them. And even should God come and walk among us (as He did!), instead of recognizing Him, we would tend to judge Him in the same way, too! But, "the Son of Man is no lackey to the Sabbath. He's in charge." (Mark 2:27-28, The Message) And He's no lackey to us, to our judgment, either. (Message edited by agapetos on March 17, 2007) | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5559 Registered: 12-2003  |
Exactly, Ramone. You are right about Jesus and the SabbathóHe did break the day. From the time Adam and Eve sinned, God was back at workóalways. He has been engaged in His creative work of healing and redeeming ever since in order to bring us back into the rest Adam and Eve had on that creation seventh-day. As our younger son said to me one day, "When God finished creating, He might just as well have said, 'It Is Finished'." He's right; creation yielded the same thing Calvary did: no separation between man and God. God is completely accessible to man, and man can now be one with God. And you're so right that the question "Did Jesus break the Sabbath?" is really a non-question. The Sabbath is not an eternal insitution to which Jesus is subject. It is a created day subject to Him. He owes it no honor, for the creation honors the Creator. Now, He has fulfilled and replaced the Sabbath day with Himself! Colleen | ||
| Borgch Registered user Username: Borgch Post Number: 14 Registered: 8-2006 |
Agapetos -- thanks for this most excellent post! You've put into succinct writing some concepts that I've been meaning to flesh out on paper for myself. But you've done such a nice job that I don't think I'll have to! Do you mind if I save and share your post?! I just received a copy of the book In Granite or Ingrained? from a friend who came to visit from out of state. Interestingly, he didn't say one word to me about my non-SDA status during the few days he was staying with us--nor did we have any spiritually oriented conversation (though I tried to get something going a couple of times). Rather, he simply left a copy of the book with my wife while I was at work today. I don't want to digress too much, but this sort of thing happens to me all too frequently! SDA Relatives and family friends talk to my wife about me and completely avoid engaging me on spiritual topics. It's so frustrating to me because I'm the one who really wants to talk about these things! My wife doesn't want to be harassed about my spiritual state! Has this happened to any of you other Formers out there? Anyway, I know the aforementioned book has been brought up on this forum before. Has anyone out there read through the whole thing? After reading the Introduction and part of the first chapter I just have one feeling... "Ugh...!" this is going to be a long one! I'm not sure I'll be able to slog my way through. Talking or making arguments back to the book will do no one any good, and it's looking like he's already pursuing some lines of reasoning that are based on fundamental assumptions that I disagree with. What's worse is that I don't think my friend who gave me the book will be interested in talking it over with me! OK, I've babbled long enough. My bottom line questions are: Has anyone read the book and, if so, what did you think of it? | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 3538 Registered: 3-2004  |
Borgch, I would be tempted to send it back with a note that says, "thanks for caring, but I would rather have a verbal discussion with you and know what you think. I have the Bible and I do not need this book." But that is just me. God is so good and so awesome. Diana | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5668 Registered: 12-2003 |
Diana, I like your idea! Borgch, I haven't yet made it through the book. I've started it, but it is so convoluted and confusing that I'm having a hard time reading it. It is full of straw-man arguments. Dale Ratzlaff said he had trouble reading it too because it was full of the old typical Adventist reasoning. It's confusion! Colleen | ||
| Borgch Registered user Username: Borgch Post Number: 15 Registered: 8-2006 |
Diana, I actually mentioned something in an email to him last night about expecting to be able to talk to him about the book after I read it. And I asked him if he'd be willing to read a book of my suggesting (I'm thinking something along the lines of Sabbath in Christ here)... but I haven't heard back from him yet. We'll see what happens! Thanks for your input Colleen. I know what you mean about convoluted. It reminds me of reading William Miller's "proofs" about Jesus returning in 1844. When I first read them I thought, "Huh? I didn't get that." So I read them again and had the same response. Then I realized "Uh, yeah... I'm not getting these 'proofs' because they don't make a lick of sense!" It's good to be free! God is indeed Great! Chad | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 746 Registered: 10-2002 |
Sure, Chad, go ahead! God is awesome!  | ||
| Dale Registered user Username: Dale Post Number: 1 Registered: 4-2007 |
I have scanned the book, In Granite or Ingrained?. My reactions are as follows: 1. The book starts out by laying down several assumptions and then builds on those assumptions. 2. The book does not seem to be a real inductive study. Rather, it appears to be a study done to support Adventism. 3. The book starts the Old Covenant with the entrance of sin, while Scripture places it at Sinai. 4. There seems to be confusion between the covenant made with Abraham and that with Israel at Sinai. These are two different covenants. 5. The author speaks of "The Sinai Covenant of Grace and Pure Gospel" Then goes on to support this by using texts which are either not related to the Sinaitic Covenant, or are taken out of context. 6. The book tries to support the idea that when the NT speaks negatively of the old covenant, it refers primarily to the attitude of the people, not the covenant itself. 7. Statements such as “The Holy Spirit’s work is not different in the New Testament era than it was in the Old. What is different is the “raw material” the Holy Spirit has to work with.” I do not think this statement will stand the test of investigation. 8. Another doubtful statement “When discussing old covenant/new covenant concepts, Paul often had in mind no the two historical division of spiritual history represented by the Old and New Testaments, but rather two vastly different religious experiences.” This may sometimes be true, but to reduce the difference between the covenants to experience does not do justice to the New Testament teaching on this topic. 9. The author states that every human is born into an old covenant experience and must be converted into the new. He is making Paul’s illustration in Gal. 4 the “truth” rather than letting the illustration point to the truth of the difference, not only in the experience of the covenants, but of the structure including requirements, signs, etc. 10. There are so many assumptions in stating what Paul and the other NT authors meant that it would be an exceedingly tedious job to list them all. For example, “It seems clear that the “yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear” is not a reference to the Sinai covenant.” No, I think that is exactly what it means! 11. The author draws conclusions based on assumptions. For example: “Just as the new covenant, which was specifically “for the house of Israel.” Applied to all “those who believe’” so that Sabbath, which was God’s chosen “sign between Himself and Israel, should likewise apply to all “those who believe” Here the author completely misses what the NT means for the gospel to go to the Gentiles. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5686 Registered: 12-2003 |
Dale, thank you!! It's so good to have you here! Thanks for your thumbnail assessment of "In Granite or Ingrained". As I was driving home from women's Bible study within the last hour (I missed you, Grace-but you're excused!), I heard Lonnie Melashanko on Voice of Prophecy explaining that the Sabbath was a "sanctuary in time" which God "created" on the seventh day. He said that God gave the Sabbath so we would refresh our souls by meeting with Him one day a week. That point really disturbed me; our souls are refreshed by being born again by the indwelling Holy Spirit—and this refreshing—this completely NEW life—never ends. We don't intensify it by observing a created day. Israel anticipated this refreshing by resting on Sabbath; we now HAVE Jesus the eternal rest, and to cling to the day is to miss the point. While I realize that Paul writes in Romans 14 that we should judge no one for observing a day, I know that for those who have observed Sabbath with the idea that the day was connected to righteousness, loyalty to God, and/or salvation in any way—the day is a stumbling block. In 1 Corinthians Paul says that idols are nothing to him; he could eat meat offered to idols with absolutely no problem. Yet in 1 Cor. 8 and in Acts 15 it was very clear that the new Gentile Christians were to refrain from eating meat offered to idols. To participate in eating such meat, they could easily be a stumbling block to other Gentiles who were struggling with Christianity and giving up their identities. Further, for them to eat meat offered to idols would place each of them in a position of participating in something that was part of their former pagan rituals, and the early church said they were not to place themselves in that vulnerable position. The Sabbath is similar for all of us who have experienced it as part of a spiritual "package" of right-standing before God. We have to KNOW we can stand in the finished work of Jesus without hedging our bets. Because it represented the seal of God to us (or the SIGN of the seal), it has a spiritual significance that we have to be willing to let go. Praise God for Jesus! Colleen | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 747 Registered: 10-2002 |
Dale! Welcome! I'm glad to see you here! Colleen, you know, I reposted the thing I started this thread with on the 4TG site (here) and after I finished typing, I thought of the point you made just now about Romans 14. We shouldn't judge people for observing a day, but you're right that if it's a barrier to righteousness, it's a big problem. I thought of one more thing: If someone wanted to continue observing the Passover festival, having unleavened bread & lamb, well, that is their Scriptural right to do so. However, if they did not know that Christ was the Lamb of God, then how sad would it be! I think in the same way, if someone has a special devotional-like time with God on Saturday, that's their right. But my goodness! If they didn't know that Jesus Christ is their resting place, that He is their righteousness! If they missed the reality for the shadow, then it's just like "having Passover" but not knowing what it means. | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 748 Registered: 10-2002 |
I thought of this kind of idea the other day, that one must go through the Old in order to reach the New. Galatians does indeed teach much differently. Interestingly, Paul writes that "when the time had fully come, God sent His Son...". In other words, God thought that humankind had gone far enough with the Old Covenant. He saw that the time had fully come for the schoolmaster to be put out of a job. Just like Isaac was born into the promise, we too can be "born again" straight into the New Covenant without having to pass through the Old first. (I guess that's what Acts 15 was about, eh!) | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5695 Registered: 12-2003 |
Great observation re: Acts 15 and not having to go through the Old Covenant to get to the New, Ramone! Colleen | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1283 Registered: 7-2003  |
Which is one reason I object to the way the Reformed view insist that the Mosaic Law is still the best tool for showing people their need for repentance. I would argue (from Romans) that gentiles are not condemned by the Mosaic Law because they were never under that covenant. I would further argue (again from Romans) that gentiles are instead condemned by God's ultimate transcendent law. So the end result is the same. Jew and gentile are both condemend in sin and in need of repentence. But it's theologically problematic to try and put gentiles under the condemnation of the Old Covenant Law prior to admitting them to the New Covenant. It seems to me that that's exactly what the classic reformed "uses" of the Mosaic Law lead to, but it's not the pattern we see in Acts. Chris | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5697 Registered: 12-2003 |
I agree. Romans and Acts say exactly the same thing to me, Chris. Romans 1 says men have suppressed the general knowledge of God (unrelated to the law but present in creation) because of their wickedness. Romans 2 explains that Gentiles, who do not have the law, are condemned by their consciences when they do things opposed to the law because "the requirements of the law are written on their hearts." Their consciences, therefore, accuse and condmen them depending on whether or not they are living by the principles God has placed in their hearts. The practical reality of Acts clarifies any remaining doubt about the law: the law was NOT required for the Gentiles, and teaching the law was not part of preaching the gospel. Jesus alone is enough. Colleen | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 756 Registered: 10-2002 |
Yes! Thank you Colleen & Chris!! Chris, it sounds like you've maybe read some things I've been writing on another forum! My whole experience of coming to Christ (as well as my wife's and her sister's) is one that was not based on repentance because we saw our sins. Later on we saw parts of us that stank, but it was not the thing that brought us to Christ. The "cleaning" began after we became His. We saw the need to repent much later, after we had accepted Him and learned that He had accepted us. And it wasn't the Law that helped us see. He is much more penetrating than that, like Hebrews 4:12 says. I have another comment I want to share with you, Chris (and Colleen) on that 'Reformed' note, but I want to keep this thread in the public area because it hits on the Sabbath issue, so I'll put my comment in a new thread in the non-SDA-related area. | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1286 Registered: 7-2003 |
Agapetos, I have not read your other postings so I'm not entirely sure of the position you are taking. However, I would like to clarify my position. I am not denying or minimizing the need for repentance. I am currently teaching line by line through the book of Acts. I believe I am beginning to see a pattern to the preaching and teaching that is recorded in Acts; first the bad news, then the Good News. I see the apostles preaching a message of repentance and then declaring that forgiveness of sin is found in Jesus the Christ. I see the same pattern in the book of Romans. The first 3 1/2 chapters of Romans focus on the fact that we are all, in our natural state, under the condemnation of God. Only after Paul has made it abundantly clear that everyone is naturally under God's wrath, does he then begin to share the Good News of a foreign righteousness credited to our account through faith. My problem with the Reformed position is not the call for repentance and the aknowledgement of God's wrath against sin, I agree with this and believe it is part of the biblical model. My problem is with the insistence that we must bring gentiles to repentence by teaching them from the Mosaic Law. It actually goes a bit deeper than that. The idea that we need to use the Mosaic Law as an evangelistic teaching tool really stems from a confused view of the law and the covenants. If you believe that there is really only one over arching covenant and that the New Covenant is not really new, just a different administration of the old, then you will naturally be confused about the purpose of the Mosaic Law in the life of New Covenant Christians. Chris | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1754 Registered: 10-2004  |
Good post, Chris. I totally agree. Jeremy | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5705 Registered: 12-2003 |
Chris, I also totally agree with you. I believe repentance is necessary as a part of coming to faith. Unless a person really sees that he is unsalvageable or helpless and lost, he won't see that he needs a COMPLETE Savior. A mental assent to the idea of propitiation will do--sort of like "dry-labbing" in high school chemistry class. Instead of doing the experiment and recording the results, you accept the results found by others and say, Yes, that's it! John 16:8-11 explain, in Jesus' words, that He was sending the Holy Spirit who would convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment. The law is not needed for this conviction of sin on this side of the cross. We have a more powerful convicter—God Himself. Colleen | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 758 Registered: 10-2002 |
"We have a more powerful convictor--God Himself" Hallelu Yah! The repentance He brings is so awesome and so deep... I guess one of the strange things for me is hearing the process of salvation methodized according to a standard repent for this, this and this, and then you have genuine faith, etc. For me it was a bit backwards? I knew I was helpless, and I knew I was in pain and afraid, fearful, of rejection & being hurt again. I built philosophical walls to protect myself from being hurt, and I refused "belief" because I didn't want to be wrong and be hurt. God sent me someone to help me see that hurt, wounded and terrified child inside, and then he dared me to pray, and God showed up the next day, letting me know He was with me. It was about two years later that the deep work of repentance began... He showed me how I had rejected family who had first rejected me, as well as other things of pride and so on. His Holy Spirit identified things I didn't want to see, and held a way of agape love and forgiveness in front of me to choose... and in so doing, release those who had hurt me, and find out that it was me who was more of a prisoner than they. There have been times I've read things by people who have said you need to realize this and this, you need to confess this and this, all summing up to basically saying that you can't really be fully & thoroughly saved unless you've seen that you're going to hell, etc. Something like that. And you know, I've tried at times to believe that stuff, but I just couldn't. I knew He was with me, I couldn't doubt the One who had hugged me when I was crying and wounded. I couldn't doubt Him who had put His Spirit in me, who had reconciled me to those who had once hurt me, who had filled me with His agape love and forgiveness for them---I was never able to love them, but then because of His work in my life (springing from what He had done for me on the Cross) I was surprised to find that I had a well inside me of love for those people. God is so awesome. | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 759 Registered: 10-2002 |
Ha! Hallelu Yah! In keeping with the topic of this thread, "God working on the Sabbath", I think I could sum up the way He saved me from myself this way: He brought me into His Sabbath rest--He took me to Eden--and there He began cleaning me out and washing me, like the Husband in Ephesians 5, lovingly cleaning and cherishing His bride so that she is radiant and happy. He brought me into His Sabbath, and there He began the deep work of cleaning me, step by step, bringing me through repentance and the choice to embrace His agape love for myself and others. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5715 Registered: 12-2003 |
Yes, Ramone, I do believe that sometimes our awareness of our deep innate sin intensifies AFTER we reach that place of knowing we need to know Jesus in order to survive. I also agree that we can't create a formula that explains each person's salvation process because each is unique. There are consistent events, though, among all saved people's experiences. Everyone saved must come to realize that they NEED to be saved and that they want to be cleansed by Jesus' sacrifice and forgiveness. Eveyone saved must bow the knee to Jesus and accept His sacrifice and grace and cleansing. How He administers this grace is subjectively different for each of us even if the objective facts remain consistent. Colleen | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 760 Registered: 10-2002 |
It's amazing... this is where "Sabbath" speaks so loudly. We need to know that we are not in Eden anymore, and that He is Eden, and only He can take us there. |
