| Author | Message | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 1264 Registered: 9-2006  |
This is what I first saw as a problem with Adventist Sabbath keeping. They seem to look at the Bible today from the front of the book. While the natural view I came up with was the view from the cross backwards to the front of the book and then from the cross to the end of revelations. This just came natural to me when I first was saved, although I understood much less than I do now, the understanding of our Sabbath rest in Christ came as a result of studying Adventist views, I didn’t even understand the mechanics of salvation, I knew that God had saved me, but I didn’t understand how, I knew that God had come into my heart and changed me and was still at work in my life and I knew that very well, not only from the physical evidence, but from the Holy Spirits affirmation in my heart and mind that these things were true. Once I understood the mechanics of how salvation works I then understood that perpetual rest that we have in him and the seal of the Holy Spirit. Actually I suspect that this problem of understanding exist with all “Seventh day Sabbath” keepers including SDB and others in one way or another even with mental assent to the central figure of the Bible, the cross. I think that the problem with the seven day Sabbath keeper is thinking that there still has to be something else to be done, well, there is, faith needs to take hold,, faith must take hold in order to enter into that eternal Sabbath rest, while he very well may be saved he still has not entered into that Sabbath of rest, and it equals to faith not yet realized, its like a chair he sits down in and then begins to wonder if it will hold him up, I very well sat down in Jesus offered chair some years ago and then did the same thing. Ever since I understood that there was absolutely nothing left to be done I have realized a greater and greater rest in him, a blessed rest that I can only marvel at and sometimes it leaves me weeping in gratitude and rejoicing. I think this has to be a spiritual realization even though is written in his blessed word of promise. It has made me want to serve him in any way I can, it has freed me to serve him and live in his command to love others I think, it has freed me to live period and now he has begun to show me the heart of a servant, it has freed me to serve others and is giving me confidence to do so, and I see the finished work of the cross in a much deeper reality, He loved us so much that he came to sacrifice even unto death that we might have rest, no longer living under condemnation although our own righteousness is as filthy rags still, I am learning by resting to trust him with more and more of my self, parts of which I could not give up before and I know I still have more to give up, but I am learning to give. Another thing it has done is that it has freed me to be myself, I know that if I make a mistake in my attempt to minister and give to others I know I will not stand condemned. The spiritual insight to that Sabbath of rest he has for us is so important and yet so few Christians really attain it I think. The unrepentant sinner can not possibly attain it for it is for the people of God and it is eternal in nature, oh saints what a loving God we serve, worship and praise. I don’t have trouble lifting my hands in praise and worship, any more they just sort of pop up on their own, yep, I’ve been one of those stiffer than a fence post people, I was so straight laced I would be jumping for joy inside, but I could have won fifty dollars a service in five card stud poker, now you will meet few Pentecostals like that! You know what? I am beginning to care less what they think of me because I am at rest in Jesus. These are just some of my observations I THINK I have seen, don’t mean I am demanding to be heard. As our dear sweet Mary said in another post, if you can use it, use it, if not, ignore it. River P.S. you folks go on, i'll just sit here and rest in Jesus a spell.  (Message edited by river on August 10, 2007) | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 557 Registered: 11-2005 |
Eduardo, A wonderful book that will answer many of the questions you have about the Sabbath is "The Sabbath and the Lord's Day, by H.M. Riggle." While I have a number of books addressing the subject, this book has much really good material (including contemporaneous material) that I have not seen anywhere else. It also includes a detailed history of Adventism's changing relationship to Sabbath doctrine. It addresses a number of "blind spots" that Sabbatarians generally overlook. To address the Sabbath question, I would highly recommend its addition to your library. http://www.ratzlaf.com/Qstore/Qstore.cgi?CMD=011&PROD=1001721730 Gilbert Jorgensen | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1205 Registered: 4-2000  |
Eduardo, Although the eighth day or Sunday (also well-known as "the Lord's day" and the "Resurrection Day") is a very special day for Christ-followers, it is not regarded as a holy day in the same sense that the festal Sabbath was. Indeed, every Sunday is a weekly Easter. I know of no specific rules today about how Sunday should be celebrated. Romans 14:5 certainly does NOT mandate a specific day as being holy. This is yet another freedom we have in Jesus Christ, our true Sabbath Rest. In regard to the Old Testament Scriptures being valid for teaching and instruction, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Our pastor is preaching on various Psalms this summer. These are the most inspiring sermons I have ever heard. People from other churches come to hear these powerful messages from the Psalms. Nobody wants to miss a single sermon in this series. Although the NT is a later, clearer, and final revelation to man, it does NOT supercede the OT canon. If it did, this would create a major problem for biblical inspiration plus violating the Pauline injunction in 2 Timothy 3:16. The weekly Sabbath was clearly ceremonial in nature with its double sacrificing and shewbread replacement requirements. Interestingly, I have never met an Adventist who actually denied that the Sabbath shewbread or the Sabbath sacrificing pointed to Jesus, the Bread of Life. The weekly Sabbath was also historically regarded as ritual in nature by the Jews. Both the Sabbath and tithe laws changed during OT times; however, MORAL laws never changed for even a nanosecond. Repeatedly in redemptive history, we see how MORAL laws were transferred from one covenant to another. The New Covenant is a shining example of this transference. However, if we insist upon observing any shadows pointing to the Cross, we are actually denying the reality of Christ. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 6515 Registered: 12-2003  |
Eduardo, when I say that Jesus must be the interpretive "lens" for the OT, I am not espousing the Marcion heresy—and somehow I think you actually know that. To say that the OT is only understood when we look backwards at it through Jesus and the cross in no way diminishes its inspiration and validity for us today. Clearly the Sabbath as taught in the Mosaic covenant is a different sort of law than the moral imperatives which have always been written on people's consciences, even those who had no law, according to Romans 2. Only in the NT do we understand its significance: even for the Jews, it was not primarily about "time", although "sacred time" was the medium God used to make sure Israel remembered His redemption and promise of eternal rest. Even for the Jews, they were to refrain from working one in seven--whether it was lambing season or lentil harvest--and they would be more pospersous than their pagan neighbors who never ceased working to appease their gods and 'buy" a frutiful harvest. When Israel would be successful, therefore, neither they nor their pagan neighbors would be able to credit Israel for their own success. Clearly, they had been "sidelined" every week while the work went on around them. Both they and their neighbors would have to admit that their God had achieved success for them. Just as, during the exile and during the early conquest of Canaan, the reputation of God preceded Israel as the God who won victories over their enemies, so their material success, if they obeyed God and rested on the Sabbaths, would be clearly only from God. Sabbath has NEVER been primarily about sacred time. The shadow of Israel's sacred day prefigured the finished work of Jesus and our eternal and complete dependence upon and rest in Him. Colleen | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 960 Registered: 10-2002  |
Greetings in Jesus, Eduardo! I'm jumping in here a little late and without reading everything, but this paragraph caught my eye: If you begin by establishing in your mind that the Apostles were setting out to support "Moses" to the Gentiles, then you can arrive at this conclusion. However, consider things logically: The issue at hand was specifically how much of Judaism the Gentiles should and should not be taught. If the Gentiles had already been instructed "in Moses", there would be no need to say things such as refrain from idolatry, blood, sexual immorality, etc. There would be no need to state these things because all the books of Moses state them over... and over... and over... and over! And they are again stated over and over throughout the prophets. The mere fact that the apostles had to state them shows that the Gentiles were not heavily exposed to Moses. And further, the mere fact that the apostles wrote an instructive and authoritative letter to the Gentiles shows that the apostles were not urging the Gentiles to anchor themselves in Moses. While the OT was still used, the primary first and last message that went to the Gentiles was the Gospel -- that Christ died for our sins and rose again on the third day, and was seen by the apostles and taken up to heaven, and will come again bringing salvation for those who are waiting for Him. The OT was used (and is properly used today) to help us keep Christ as our sole foundation -- for there is no other foundation than Him. God's morality, however, existed prior to the Law (which came 430 years after Abraham) and exists after the Law was fulfilled in Christ. However, the anchor, root and foundation of our morality is in what Christ has done for us. This is repeated in various ways throughout the New Testament, where nine times out of ten the appeal to moral behavior is made because of Christ (as opposed to because of a law). The sentence "For Moses has been preached in the synagogues since the earliest times" is unusual only if reading it from the Adventist perspective. "For" can also be translated "because". Additionally, the NIV rendering grammatically shifts the subject of the sentence (I like the NIV, don't get me wrong). The NRSV renders it better: "For in every city, for generations past, Moses has had those who proclaim him, for he has been read aloud every sabbath in the synagogues." The subtle shift in subject is interesting. The NIV focuses on "Moses" (passively, that he was read aloud in synagogues). But the Greek & NRSV show add another subject to the sentence: those who proclaim Moses. Thus the stress of the sentence is not on Moses, but rather on those who proclaim Moses. Therefore, since the sentence begins with "for" or "because", this is a response or answer to the previous part of the passage. It is the reason that the previous part of the passage is stated. So in effect, then, it is saying: "We should not trouble the Gentiles who are turning to God, but we should write to them to abstain from [...] because people who preach Moses are in every city." The inference is clearly not to offend the Jews in the Gentile cities. Further, this also implies that the teaching of the apostles (such as Paul's letters, etc.) was sufficient to teach them these things. This letter was written not only for the sake of the Gentiles, but also for the sake of the Christian Judaizers who were seeking to Judiaze the Gentiles. It would serve to show Judaizers that, "No, this is the clear word of the apostles on the matter." In short: 1) If Gentiles received their instruction from the Law of Moses, then it was unnecessary for the apostles to state what they did in the letter, because Moses taught all those things. 2) Rather, it is obvious that they stated these things for Gentiles to use as an answer/rebuttal to people who would seek to tell them they needed to keep Moses' directives better. There is another obvious reason that using this passage to support keeping Mosaic laws (such as Sabbath, diet, etc.) is problematic: if we use that sentence to say the Gentiles were being anchored in Moses, then we must also concluded that the Gentiles were attending synagogue every Sabbath! Yet nowhere in the book of Acts do we get this idea. Instead, we see Paul and the apostles going to the synagogue to speak with Jews and then after getting kicked out (as it usually happened), they went to speak with Gentiles--often next door! This is the meaning of Paul's phrase, "First for the Jew, then for the Gentile." Nowhere in the New Testament do we see the apostles urging Gentiles to attend the synagogue. The phrasing of Acts 15:21 says "because Moses has been read in the synagogues". If we concluded that this is supporting Moses/Sabbath-keeping, then we must also conclude that the Gentiles were "in the synagogue" every Sabbath. And then we must then further conclude that "the Gentiles" the apostles converted were not Gentiles off the street, but were rather Gentiles who were already interested in Judaism and who had already been attending synagogue for some time! It would seem to say then that the apostles never actually left the Jewish circle at all, but rather went "to the Gentiles" on the other side of the synagogue. This reasoning, as you'll no doubt note, is absurd, not to mention without foundation in the New Testament. ******* Side note about some "Sabbath" comments you'd made earlier: The command to observe Sabbath isn't found anywhere prior to Exodus 16. It is possible to infer that it came earlier, but it is complete speculation. The fact that modern Jews do not expect or demand Sabbath reverence of Gentiles is a testament to the fact that Sabbath was given only to the ancient nation of Israel, not to the Gentiles. Nehemiah's mention of it (along with many other things mentioned in the book) may be singled out simply because Sabbath was the sign of the Sinaitic covenant (see Exodus 31, I believe). It held a specific importance for that covenant. This is also the reason that God singles it out in Jeremiah & Ezekiel when he specifically talks about "the covenant" being broken. The desecration of the Sabbaths is singled out because they were a sign of that covenant. This is significant also because no nation has ever been judged for Sabbath-breaking except for Israel. While Gentile nation after nation was judged for bloodshed and immorality in the Old Testament, nowhere, nowhere is any nation faulted for desecration of the Sabbath except for Israel. The reason is obvious and clearly understood by Jews: the Sabbath was part of the covenant given to Israel at Sinai. (If you doubt this, peruse some Jewish websites online and read explanations about why it is okay to let Gentiles light a fire on Sabbath [etc.] and but not Jews.) ******* "The Sabbath was made for man"... When we read this sentence we often think that it is talking about "rest" being made for all mankind. But the deepest meaning of Sabbath is revealed in Colossians 2---it was a shadow of Jesus Christ. In this fulfilled sense, the Sabbath was made for all mankind -- to show them that Jesus Christ is their peace! Just as the Old Covenant was not made as an end to itself, but rather was given "as a tutor" to point all generations (Jew and Gentile) to the New Covenant (Jesus Christ), in the same way, the Sabbath command (which is only found within the Old Covenant's pages) was also given to show all peoples and all generations that Jesus Christ is our peace, our rest, our Sabbatismos. To understand this, it is not necessary to "keep Sabbath", just like it is not necessary to slay lambs in order to understand that Christ is the Lamb of God. The context of the sentence also points to this -- although that specific sentence is in Mark's gospel and not in Matthew's, the rest of the context exists almost word for word in both gospels. Each one adds a few things here and there, but the things that are in both speak volumes. One of the added things is that the parallel passage in Matthew immediately follows Christ's invitation, "Come to Me and I will give you rest", which is immediately followed by the Matthew-and-Mark context of Christ and His disciples doing Jubilee Sabbath activities on the Sabbath day (showing that the Jubilee had come in Jesus). Jesus then cites King David being above the law, showing that Jesus (the Son of David) is the King and above the law. Next Jesus cites the priests breaking the law but being guiltless -- Jesus is also our High Priest, and He is above the law and guiltless. Finally the punchline is laid: It is okay for the disciples to do this because Jesus is Lord of [over] the Sabbath! ****** Another side-note: Perhaps the reason that "Don't take the Lord's name in vain" is not found prior to Sinai is that God did not reveal His name ("I am") prior to Moses, as it says in Exodus when Moses is worrying about what to tell the Hebrew leaders when he returns to Egypt. They could not be held accountable for taking in vain the name of a God they had not known the name of. ******* Final side note for today. You commented: The two texts you cited unfortunately support what people have said here if you read them in the context of understanding that Sabbath was part of the Old Covenant. The Exodus text mentions "the alien within your gates." In other words, Sabbath was not to be violated in the covenant community. No such directive is given for outside the gates of Israel. And in Isaiah, right next to saying foreigners (or eunuchs) keeping the Sabbath, it also says, "Foreigners who bind themselves to the Lord... and keep His covenant." This binding of oneself to the Lord and keeping His covenant is in the context of the Old Covenant, the Sinaitic covenant. To enter this covenant, it was necessary that all males in the house (and a man was the head of the Hebrew household) be circumcised. For a foreigner to "bind himself" to the Lord meant becoming circumcised under that covenant. The entrance to that covenant was by circumcision. Thus, the Isaiah text does not disagree with what others have written on this forum. Rather, it shows that if a foreigner wanted to keep Sabbath, he also had to keep the entire Old Covenant --which itself began with circumcision. ******* The foundation of understanding "Sabbath" is that one text that Adventists wanted to avoid allowing to mean "the Sabbath day" at all costs -- Colossians 2:16-17. The foundation of understanding "Sabbath" is that it was a shadow of Jesus Christ. It was not the substance, but He is the substance. It was not the reality, but He is the reality. It was the shadow, He is the fulfillment. This is the key to understanding the deepest and most wonderful beauties of "Sabbath". The answer is not found in our observance of a day -- not in our work or obedience of observing a day. Rather the answer is found in the gracious provision of God: Jesus Christ. Anytime we try to understand "Sabbath" by looking elsewhere than "Jesus is its reality" (He is our peace, our rest) we will end up in strange semi-Judaizing territory, because then we will fail to understand that "all the fullness of God [even His rest] dwells in Jesus Christ, and you have fullness in Him" (Col.2:9-10). We will see Christ as being somewhat less-than-fullness, and ourselves as not having the fullness of God in Christ, and we will then seek further rest/fullness elsewhere, such as in the shadows of the Old Covenant. I began writing a study on "Sabbath" but had to stop because God kind of whacked me over the head with deeper personal understanding of His rest, and also because my son was born in March. Blessings in Jesus' love, in His rest. Ramone Romero (in Osaka, Japan) | ||
| Emr Registered user Username: Emr Post Number: 23 Registered: 7-2007 |
I’ve often heard the criticism, and I agree with it, that Adventists are way out of line in the idea that some OT laws are moral (in their opinion, the ten commandments), whereas others were ceremonial (in their opinion, most of the other Mosaic laws). Sadly, that same argument is often heard among former Adventists, although applying it somewhat differently from before. The idea that some laws are moral, whereas certain others are of a different nature, might never have occurred to anyone had the proponents of such a notion been aware of the etymology of the English or Spanish adjective moral. It derives from the Latin noun mos (genitive moris, nominative plural mores), and it simply means custom, that is, a set of behavioural patterns accepted by one given society. In other words, societies practising polygamy find it very moral indeed; and idol worshippers in many nations keep following a very old form of morality. The various forms of morality in human civilisation have been established by legislation and culture. Now, nowhere in the Bible do we learn the idea that some laws in the Pentateuch are endowed with some mysterious, pervasive character known as ‘morality,’ whereas other laws are divested of such excellent ‘moral virtue’ and are, rather, despicable habits intended for unenlightened people. In the world of the Bible, all customs, whether exclusive to the Hebrew civilisation or not, were the result of divine revelation as expressed in a specific command from the divine Lawgiver at any time in history, starting at creation and ending in Christ’s ascension. Naturally, some people might argue that there would have never been anything wrong in working on the seventh day if God had not once said not to work on the seventh day, which, in their view, justifies the notion that the Sabbath commandment is inherently different from the other nine. But this way of thinking is not biblical. The same kind of reasoning may be used for the other nine commandments. Take, for instance, the commandment prohibiting adultery. Why exactly is that more ‘moral’ than the fourth commandment? It could be argued that there would have never been anything wrong in having sex with whatever number of men and/or women if God had not created the institution of matrimony. Shall we, then, say that matrimony is ‘ceremonial’? Or, take the narrative of man’s fall. The Bible says it resulted from human disobedience to one specific divine command. Now, let’s consider the nature of that particular command not to eat the fruit of one given tree in the Garden of Eden. Was it a ‘moral’ command, or was it a ‘ceremonial’ command? Was there anything ‘morally’ wrong in eating that particular kind of fruit? I would strongly resent the notion that mankind has to go through suffering and death because of some petty disobedience to an arbitrary, ‘ceremonial’ command that wasn’t even ‘moral’ to begin with! Of course it was moral! Whatever God says, by the very nature of Who he is, is moral! Clearly, all such appeals to the purportedly different nature of the various commands in the Bible fail to do justice to biblical revelation. All the commandments in the Bible, including those regulating animal sacrifices, were moral for the simple reason that they regulated acceptable behavioural patterns and because they were the explicit order of the divine Lawgiver, who alone has all the authority to say what is ‘moral’ and what is not. Best. Eduardo | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 4126 Registered: 3-2004  |
Eduardo, If you want to keep the 7th day as sabbath, I have no problem with that. If it is a salvation issue with you, that is between you and God. I will go by what Rom 14:5,6 says, "One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord." I do not condemn you or judge you and please do not condemn me or others who do not think as you do. On this site we have former SDAs who are Seventh day Baptist and Catholic and Baptist and non denominational and others. As long as they are following Jesus as they have learned that is what is important. What day they worship on is between them and God. With Christian love, Diana | ||
| Emr Registered user Username: Emr Post Number: 24 Registered: 7-2007 |
Greetings, Ramone (or is it Ramón?). I’ve never written a paper on the Sabbath from a biblical perspective. I remember writing one about the Sabbath in the Talmud when I was in college. It was very entertaining, with lots of crazy stuff. Let me comment briefly on some of the issues you raise. Young’s Literal Translation for Acts 15:21 is as follows: ‘for Moses from former generations in every city hath those preaching him—in the synagogues every sabbath being read.’ In order to dispel the notion that Young might have transposed the logical order of words of the sentence, here’s a transliteration, with no diacritics, of the passage: ‘Moyses gar ek geneon archaion kata polin tous kerysontas auton echei en tais synagogais kata pan sabatton anaginoskomenos.’ (I’ve used ‘y’ as the transliteration of upsilon, and ‘ch’ as the transliteration of chi; the omicron-upsilon diphthong, I’ve left as ‘ou.’) Gar is a conjunction used to express cause, inference, explanation or continuation. Contrary to the English conjunction because, gar can’t be the first sentence in its clause, but refers to the sentence or phrase that has gone before, just like in English. So, maintaining that the antecedent of gar in verse 21 is the Judaising efforts described in verses 1 and 5 probably stretches Greek grammar a little bit too far. Besides, contrary to the first several narrative verses in chapter 15, the gar-statement is a part of James’ speech, which begins in verse 13, so his gar must of necessity refer to something he himself has said before. Hard as I try to find a different antecedent, the only one I can identify is this: ‘It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath’ (19-21). This causative link is later stressed by the apostolic letter itself when he said: ‘It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements’ (28). This is not establishing anyone’s ‘mind that the Apostles were setting out to support “Moses” to the Gentiles.’ Quite the opposite. The apostles were setting out to disabuse the Gentiles from the Pharisaic claim that they had to become circumcised if they wanted to become believers. Very intelligently, the apostles, and not just in Acts 15, set out to establish that certain things in the Pentateuch were binding for Gentiles, whereas many others weren’t. If they hadn’t believed that, I guess they would never had quoted from the Pentateuch at all. And the specific reason as to why the apostles only mentioned those few Gentile-applicable requirements from Leviticus was because ‘Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.’ Now, it is a matter of history, as attested in the book of Acts and even the Gospels, that the early Gentile Christian believers were sympathisers of Judaism. Remember the centurion in Capernaum? ‘The centurion heard of Jesus and sent some elders of the Jews to him, asking him to come and heal his servant. When they came to Jesus, they pleaded earnestly with him, “This man deserves to have you do this, because he loves our nation and has built our synagogue”’ (Luke 7:3-5). Remember Cornelius? ‘At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment. He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly’ (Acts 10:1f). Remember the Bible-reading, Ethiopian official? It seems to me these people were Gentiles, but they are all said to have had considerable knowledge of Jewish practices. How do you think they acquired that knowledge? Admittedly, they could have read the Hebrew or Greek Scriptures, but, far more likely, they just acquired that knowledge from speaking with Jews about religious matters. Can you think of a better context in Israel to speak about religious matters than in a synagogue or the temple. I personally can’t. Besides, the early Christians (I’m speaking of the pre-AD 70 era here), both in Israel and abroad, didn’t have church buildings to go to when they wanted to meet for prayer or worship, so they naturally went to the temple (only those living around Jerusalem, of course), or to the local synagogue, if available. There’s nothing extraordinary in this. It’s a matter of history. You may want to reappraise your intimation (‘The inference is clearly not to offend the Jews in the Gentile cities. Further, this also implies that the teaching of the apostles (such as Paul’s letters, etc.) was sufficient to teach them these things’) that the reason for the gar was that further elaboration was unnecessary in view of apostolic letters. The Council of Jerusalem is believed to have convened around AD 50, whereas what was probably Paul’s first letter, 1 Thessalonians, is thought to have been composed in AD 51. 2 Thessalonians followed shortly afterward. 1 Corinthians may be dated around AD 53. Galatians was probably written in AD 55, followed the following year by 2 Corinthians and Romans. The letters to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and Philemon are thought to have been written sometime in AD 60-62. The letters to Titus and 1 and 2 Timothy were written shortly before Paul’s death, perhaps in AD 63 or 64. The final split between the synagogue and the church came as a result of Jewish persecution against Christians. That’s probably why John of Patmos qualifies the synagogues in Smyrna and Philadelphia as the ‘synagogue of Satan’ (Rev. 2:9; 3:9). So, no Ramone, the reasoning that most of the early Gentile converts to Christianity were quite knowledgeable of Judaism isn’t absurd at all. On the contrary, considering that most readers of Paul would be of Gentile extraction, it would be absurd of him to quote from Scriptures they were ignorant of. Why would he quote from the OT if they were entirely unfamiliar with that corpus of literature? Did he intend to dazzle them? Obviously, some of his listeners, like those in Berea, had the interest, and the means, to ascertain for themselves what the OT actually taught, not a thing of little consequence in an era with no computers. Your ‘testament’ in your first side note is of no consequence. I don’t derive my understanding of God’s will or commands from the way Jews may or may not interpret things now. I am very interested in how they interpreted things in OT times or in NT times. After the split with the church, I’m no longer interested. The Sabbath was, indeed, a sign of the Sinaitic covenant. It wasn’t the only one, though. More often than not, the prophets paid particular attention at how their fellow citizens followed the imperatives of the last six commandments. For instance, before mentioning Sabbath desecration, Ezekiel denounced Jerusalem as follows: ‘In you they have treated father and mother with contempt; in you they have oppressed the alien and ill-treated the fatherless and the widow’ (Eze. 22:7). In any case, it is curious that, when describing his ideal post-exilic temple (and the period after the exile was explicitly scheduled by Jeremiah as the time of the new covenant, Jer. 31:31ff) the Sabbath would still be among the ordinances observed by the redeemed (Eze. 46:1, 4, 12). Your second observation, that ‘no nation has ever been judged for Sabbath-breaking except for Israel,’ is partially correct. Of course, in my view, that only proves that man is more important than the Sabbath, as Jesus himself taught. What would the point be of saying that such and such foreign nation failed to keep the Sabbath when they were polytheistic idolaters to begin with, quite disrespectful of God’s holy name? Following the general trend of the writings to their fellow citizens, the Hebrew prophets indicted their heathen neighbours for their failure to abide by the demands of the last six commandments. With the exception of idolatry, which is clearly ridiculed, the first four commandments aren’t on focus in the prophetic messages against foreign nations. Would you conclude, then, that the third commandment was purely Jewish and that, consequently, has no value whatsoever for us? Your second side note is interesting, and I agree with much of what you say there. There is one problem in your interpretation, though. Jesus himself cannot possibly be the Sabbath he said was ‘made’ for man. Jesus wasn’t made. He is the Maker. And, quite certainly, man is not more important than Jesus, but man is more important than the Sabbath. When I brought the passage of Mark 2:27f into this conversation I asked a question. WHEN was the Sabbath made for man? Was the man actually made for man in Sinai? Or, as the connection between Gen. 2:2f and Exo. 20:11 indicates, which quote each other, was the Sabbath made for man in Eden? And, definitely, extrabiblical Jewish literature of all ages, of which some people (Clifford Goldstein, for one) are so fond of to prove certain things has always recognised a connection between the Sabbath and Eden. There’s another problem in your third side note. It is true that the Hebrew text uses the divine name YHWH, but, more often than not, blasphemy, profanity or using God’s name for no purpose at all are not primarily related with that Hebrew name, but rather with the very concept of a Supreme God. Now, the third commandment considered such a scenario, but it is inconceivable that, even if unattested, something similar didn’t exist before Sinai. Your final side note suggests that, since the Sabbath commandment doesn’t say anything about its applicability outside the borders of Israel, it must mean it was part of the old covenant. I must confess that this kind of reasoning confuses me. The command not to take God’s name in vain does not specify that it was binding for people living in Damascus. Is it, then, a part of the old covenant too? Does that make it no longer binding? You further insist that foreign Sabbath-keepers had to become circumcised. Sorry, but I’m afraid I have to say that you need some kind of biblical proof for that. Someone who became circumcised was no longer a foreigner. The Sabbath legislation definitely contemplated the existence of Sabbath-keeping foreigners, and ancient Jewish historians, such as Josephus, even mention the existence of foreign rulers who followed Jewish beliefs and practices without being circumcised. But don’t take my word for it. Here are Josephus’ words: About this time it was that Helena, queen of Adiabene, and her son Izates, changed their course of life, and embraced the Jewish customs, and this on the occasion following… 34 Now, during the time Izates abode at Charax-Spasini, a certain Jewish merchant, whose name was Ananias, got among the women that belonged to the king, and taught them to worship God according to the Jewish religion. He, moreover, by their means, became known to Izates, and persuaded him, in like manner, to embrace that religion; he also, at the earnest entreaty of Izates, accompanied him when he was sent for by his father to come to Adiabene; it also happened that Helena, about the same time, was instructed by a certain other Jew and went over to them. But when Izates had taken the kingdom, and was come to Adiabene, and there saw his brothers and other kinsmen in bonds, he was displeased by it; and as he thought it an instance of impiety either to slay or imprison them, but still thought it a hazardous thing for to let them have their liberty, with the remembrance of the injuries that had been offered them, he sent some of them and their children for hostages to Rome, to Claudius Caesar, and sent the others to Artabanus, the king of Parthia, with the like intentions. And when he perceived that his mother was highly pleased with the Jewish customs, he made haste to change, and to embrace them entirely; and as he supposed that he could not he thoroughly a Jew unless he were circumcised, he was ready to have it done. But when his mother understood what he was about to do, she endeavoured to hinder him from doing it, and said to him that this thing would bring him into danger; and that as he was a king, he would thereby bring himself into great odium among his subjects, when they should understand that he was so fond of rites that were to them strange and foreign; and that they would never bear to be ruled over by a Jew. This it was that she said to him, and, for the present, persuaded him to forbear. And when he had related what she had said to Ananias, he confirmed what his mother had said; and when he had also threatened to leave him, unless he complied with him, he went away from him; and said that he was afraid lest such an action being once become public to all, he should himself be in danger of punishment for having been the occasion of it, and having been the king’s instructor in actions that were of ill reputation; and he said, that he might worship God without being circumcised, even though he did resolve to follow the Jewish law entirely, which worship of God was of a superior nature to circumcision. He added, that God would forgive him, though he did not perform the operation, while it was omitted out of necessity, and for fear of his subjects. So the king at that time complied with these persuasions of Ananias. But afterward, as he had not quite abandoned his desire of doing this thing, a certain other Jew that came out of Galilee, whose name was Eleazar, and who was esteemed very skilful in the learning of his country, persuaded him to do the thing; for as he entered into his palace to greet him, and found him reading the law of Moses, he said to him, ``You do not consider, O king! that you unjustly break the principal of those laws, and are injurious to God himself [by omitting to be circumcised]; for you ought not only to read them, but chiefly to practice what they enjoin you. How long will you continue uncircumcised? but if you have not yet read the law about circumcision, and do not know how great impiety you are guilty of by neglecting it, read it now.’ When the king had heard what he said, he delayed the thing no longer, but retired to another room, and sent for a surgeon, and did what he was commanded to do. He then sent for his mother, and Ananias his tutor, and informed them that he had done the thing — Antiquities, xx.17, 34-46. Josephus and the first Jewish instructor were right: Worship of God is of a superior nature to circumcision. In the second Jewish instructor we can easily identify one of the Judaisers the book of Acts and the NT epistles talk about. In addition, notice that the events Josephus described were exactly contemporary of the NT discussion regarding circumcision. Claudius ruled from AD 41 to AD 54. Blessings to you too, Ramone. Since our sons are on holiday, my wife and I are at home taking care of our elder son’s dog, and resting in Jesus as well. Eduardo (in Madrid, Spain) | ||
| Emr Registered user Username: Emr Post Number: 25 Registered: 7-2007 |
Dear Diana and all others, It's really hard for me to cope with so much correspondence. Be patient, please. I'd simply like to point out something important. The Sabbath is not a salvation issue for me at all. Our salvation is secure because he who achieved it is faithful, infinite and perfect. Never once have I suggested that anyone should keep the Sabbath. All this dialogue has resulted from my observation that some customary arguments against SDA positions, like those about Sabbath-keeping, are not as solid as they might look at first sight. A good cause can be damaged by a bad argument. SDA legalistic Sabbath-keeping can and should be attacked for what it is, but the use of flawed arguments can only strengthen the cause of error. What I've been presenting all along are a number of rather objective Bible evidences which, to a great extent, are not very well known to SDAs and to ex-SDAs alike. Naturally, reading the Bible and thinking on one's own without anyone else's goggles can sometimes be painful, as I know from personal experience. Larry suggested that what I was advocating might be a form of a sophisticated SDA hangup. Actually, several of my comments might look to others more like some form of a Catholic hangup. For now, I'll content myself with a plain-vanilla biblical hangup. All the best. Eduardo (Message edited by EMR on August 11, 2007) (Message edited by EMR on August 11, 2007) | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 6518 Registered: 12-2003 |
Actually, Eduardo, I agree with your argument about what is "moral" and what is merely "ceremonial". Let me say clearly, though, that the Mosaic ceremonies were shadows of Jesus. Because God commanded them, Israel was operating in disobedience if they broke those commands. But they were not arbitrary acts of obiesance offered to a capricious god. They were shadows of reality which promised the One True Mediator who was coming. Things we consider to be "moral behavior" also reflect eternal reality. God's love and justice and mercy and grace and sacrifice are eternal, and His people live in that same reality when we are His. The Sabbath, like the other holy days, was also, for Israel, a moral imperative because God commanded it. But those shadows were fulfilled in Jesus. Today Sabbath rest is as much a moral command as is not killing, stealing, committing adultery, taking God's name in vain, etc. But there is no Sabbath rest except in Christ. In fact, Sabbath rest on this side of the cross is the foundational moral imperative, if you will, that makes it possible for God's people to live in the reality of moral sacrificial love for one another and God. Unless we enter that eternal rest, we cannot live according to the law of Christ. Unless we are planted in the finished work of Christ, we cannot hope never to hate or call people names or lust or slander the name of Jesus. Jesus is the fulfillment, the reality, the EVERYTHING we need. He takes us into Himself and hides our lives in God (Col 3:3), and when we are in Christ, we "become the righteousness of God" because He "became sin for us" (2 Cor 5:21). All morality emanates from Jesus. We no longer need His shadows. We need Him. There is nothing inherently moral in a sacred day. Sabbath was holy for Israel because God appointed it to be the shadow of the coming finished work that would restore us to the rest Adam and Eve had with God. Again, if we do not understand the OT through the reality of Jesus, we lose the profound significance of how God revealed Himself from Genesis onward. We cannot interpret Jesus by the OT—it works the other way around. We understand God's laws through knowing Him. Hebrews 1:2: In days of old, God spoke to us through prophets. In these last days, He has spoken to us through His Son. The prophetic shadows of the OT are fully realized only in Jesus. Colleen PS—Ramone, good insights above. Thank you! | ||
| Sara Registered user Username: Sara Post Number: 33 Registered: 5-2007 |
Hi Eduardo, Welcome. I understand you do not consider Sabbath a "salvation issue". I have two questions that will maybe help me understand you better. 1. Are you a current member of the SDA church? 2. Do you personally make any attempt at Seventh-day sabbath observance (Saturday) in any form or fashion? If so, to what degree? Thanks, Sara | ||
| Emr Registered user Username: Emr Post Number: 26 Registered: 7-2007 |
Dear Sara, Thank you for the welcome. Your direct questions deserve candid answers, but before I present my response I'd like to explain why the Sabbath issue is not a salvation issue for me, even though there is command in the Bible, written, like a few other commandments, by God's finger, that states that the seventh day should be observed. There are several biblical lines of evidence for that position, but, for me, there is one that perfectly exemplifies the obvious truth. The day Jesus died on the cross there were two criminals next to him. One of them did not believe in Jesus and blasphemed God. The other one, however, believed, and Jesus assured him of his salvation. Now, if Jesus was able to completely save a murderer, there's no reason whatsoever why I should think that my compliance, or lack thereof, to fulfil any given commandment, such as keeping the Sabbath, avoiding profanity, refraining from adultery or murder would have any bearing on my salvation. Salvation is not determined by human conduct; it is only determined by faith in God and his Son. Now, this is my response to your questions: 1. If that's what you mean, my name still appears in their books. I haven't asked them to erase it because my wife doesn't want to stop attending, but I effectively severed my association with SDAism (I served as a lecturer) nearly twenty years ago, and have written several critiques, available on the Internet, to various aspects of SDA theology. One of these days they might take me off their records by their own initiative. 2. Yes, I do, but the way you express it sounds it as if doing it was a terrible or almost heroic thing to do. Apart from accompanying my wife to church most Saturdays, I devote the seventh day to be with my children, read the Bible, read this forum and other Christian websites, rest in our garden, and walk in the countryside near home, or in the mountains when we get to go away for a few days. I guess this is pretty much what most church-going people do on the day when they attend religious services. You are welcome. Eduardo | ||
| Sara Registered user Username: Sara Post Number: 36 Registered: 5-2007 |
Hey thanks for your answers, so clear. Sometimes that is rare! I pray for myself to have a teachable Spirit. To hear God and be obedient to His direction, whatever the cost. I pray the same for you, in all sincerity. And just so you know where I come from, I am a commited and grateful Christ follower. I do not attempt to keep Saturday, or any day Holy. I do definitely rely on His robe of righteousness to cover me, and pray to be more like Him in Holiness and every way. Blessings Sara | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 558 Registered: 11-2005 |
Eduardo, I, for one, certainly welcome your contributions here. They help to provide additional perspective." The nice thing about FAFF is that this is a place where we can voice our different viewpoints without having to be defensive. I am also still listed as an SDA member, however I have not attended in about 11 months. I have prayed that the Lord will show me when to request a SDA membership removal in a way that will bring Him the most honor and glory. Since about 18 months ago I have been attending first an Evangelical Free, and later, a Southern Baptist fellowship. For what it is worth, I would like to share my observation. For a long time I had a "gut feeling" that something was not right about the Seventh-day Adventist line of thinking. I know that you feel the same way, because you have expressed in the past some of the same concerns. It was not until I started fellowshipping with a Christian fellowship of believers that had not been tainted with Ellen White's logic, that I really experienced true Christianity and clearly saw how far Adventism had strayed from mainstream Christianity. Now that I have experienced what it truly means to be a child of God, there is no way that I would go back. I am now experiencing not just "head" theology, but also "heart" theology." I now feel "wired" to the Holy Spirit, something I never felt as a Seventh-day Adventist. I finally feel like I am being truly honest with myself, and with God. And it physically brings tears to my eyes each week as I fellowship with real Christians who have a passion for Christ, instead of promoting an organization to the exclusion of the rest of the Body of Christ. I don't know how else to describe it. You described how you still attend the Seventh-day Adventist church "most Saturdays." Have you thought about sharing in a Christian fellowship that does not have all the "Adventist theological baggage?" Once you have "tasted it", as the writer of Hebrews says, I am confident that you will never go back to Adventism. The inner peace and harmony with the Holy Spirit's presence are indescribable. There are many others here who are exploring the joy of "experiencing the Living Water" as they transition into "life beyond Adventism". I am so glad you are here. Your brother in Christ, Gilbert Jorgensen | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 6519 Registered: 12-2003 |
I have a question, Eduardo—and I mean this with all sincerity and respect. If you do not believe the investigative judgment and/or other central Adventist doctrines, why do you stay in the Adventist church and give the appearance of grudging loyalty? If you went ahead and had your name removed from the books, you could still attend Sabbath services with your wife as Honestwitness (who is on this forum) attends with her husband. You would find you have a much stronger platform from which to disagree. Colleen | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 6520 Registered: 12-2003 |
I see that my post is a little late...I got distracted with some jobs here and only now posted what I had written quite a while ago. Good points, Gilbert! I agree with your post above. Colleen | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 4130 Registered: 3-2004 |
Eduardo, As a former SDA who now goes to a Christian Church it is an incredible peace and harmony I feel when I attend. The music is all Christ centered and so is the sermon. The people I have met are wonderful Christians who know they are not perfect. They know that all they have is because of Jesus life, death and resurrection. When you are ready, try it sometime. God be with you my friend. Diana | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1206 Registered: 4-2000 |
I wholeheartedly applaud the recommendations of regular worship in a non-SDA atmosphere or setting. This is crucial to our spiritual growth. As Christians, we truly need each other, and we have so much to learn and unlearn after our exposure to Seventh-day Adventism. My wife Sylvia and I officially left Adventism in 2000, and we have absolutely no desire to revisit it in any manner. Our return for even a brief visit would send the wrong signal to our Adventist friends. Those intent upon accurate answers will no longer remain in a toxic-faith system. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 4132 Registered: 3-2004 |
Emr, What I have learned since leaving adventism is that we are not supposed to travel this journey with Jesus alone. When Jesus sent out the disciples, he sent them out with two together. This is so true. We are here to encourage each other, help each other, applaud each other, cheer for each other, pray for each other. God put us here to journey together. As Dennis said, I have no desire to even visit the SDA church. There is one being developed 5 minutes from me. The pastor there is the one that got me started on my way out. But I have no desire to visit. We do serve an awesome God. Diana | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 966 Registered: 10-2002 |
Hi Eduardo, The spelling of my name is correct -- "Ramone" -- although unusual. **shrug** My father's family is Mexican, but born in America for two generations. I feared that citing the Greek might cause a problem, and now I regret it just because it will obscure the obvious things in the passage in that are translated correctly in any language. The Greek is distracting. I think I would prefer if you answered the points in bold, because I feel that by focusing on points of Greek grammar, you may have missed the obvious, and those points went unanswered. This is only part of the picture, Eduardo. Please read Acts and the end of Romans and note all the times it talks about believers meeting in each others' homes. These were the primary places of meeting, not the synagogues. The episode at the end of Acts is particularly relevant, where Paul goes first to the synagogue and then leaves the synagogue to go to the Gentiles. There is no mention of Paul ever taking new Gentile believers back to the synagogue. ***** Eduardo, as I read through your post---I want to say this sensitively and in love---I can't help but notice that you have learned very much and are eager to share many things that you've learned, but that somehow you have missed the obvious. In reviewing my side-notes, for example, you said many things but did not refute them, almost as if the many knowledegable things you said were a sufficient refutation. For example, the point about Sabbath not being a criterion for judgment for any nation save Israel. The point I made is that only ancient Israel could be judged for desecrating the Sabbath, and therefore, Sabbath was not given nor expected for Gentile nations. HOWEVER, because Gentile nations were judged for immorality, it shows that God has always held ALL NATIONS to a certain standard of moral obedience (see Romans 1-2) even though they had no Scriptures. The Sabbath simply is not one of these universal standards, or else Gentiles could be judged by it. Now, wait before you cite a lot of things, and consider what I've just said -- "or else Gentiles could be judged by it." What does Scripture say? "Let no one judge you... by a Sabbath." Paul understood that Sabbath was given to ancient Israel but fulfilled in Jesus. It was never universal, therefore "Do not let anyone judge you... by a Sabbath." The fact that we are not to judge one another also suggests that God does not judge us by it, either. However, Romans 14 makes it clear it is a matter of private interpretation between you and God personally. But that then leaves NO ROOM for preaching that Sabbath is universal for all people. 1) We are not to judge one another about it and 2) we are not to convert others to it. The parallel groupings of eating vegetables and keeping holy days in Romans 14 also suggest that the one who keeps holy days is "the weaker brother", while the one who can eat all things (and who esteems every day alike) is the stronger brother. In that passage Paul thus outlines his own beliefs but tells us to be merciful to one another, particularly towards those whose consciences are still locked into eating certain things and worshiping on certain days. To answer two of your questions: While the obvious answer is that God did not hold them accountable to what they did not know, there is also a deeper truth which Paul mentioned in Romans: "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you [Jews]." The nation was supposed to be a nation of priests, a light on a hill for the nations to see, the salt of the earth. But they were not. Instead they were judgmental and focused on correctly keeping their commands, and seeing God's mercy & lovingkindness as being mainly for themselves. God had called Abraham in order to make him "a blessing to all nations", but Israel was not a blessing to nations and not a revealer of God to them. This is a bit off the point, however. Is the third command valid? You know, if someone has to go to the Ten Commandments in order to teach reverence for God's name, then I think that the person doesn't know what "love" means. Would I abuse my wife's name? Or my son's? Then why would I abuse God's? This is an illustration of what Paul pointed out in Galatians 5 -- that the deeds of the flesh are OBVIOUS. And when you're in love with God, you don't need a command as your basis for reverencing His name. In response to your question, then, I would ask with Paul's words to Timothy: "Is the law made for the righteous?" ***** Now, back to the earlier statements, the assumption you seem to be working off of is that "had the Gentile nations been more moral, then they would have been accountable for Sabbath." This assumption is completely unscriptural. The Nehemiah text that started this whole dialogue is proof that the Sabbath was made known only to Israel. And further more, it was made known only within the Old Covenant. And still further, all that came before Christ was "in parts" and not in the clarity of the Son who is the radiance of God's being and exact representation of Him (Heb.1). In other words, it was shadows. I'll cut this section short and come back to this thought at the end of this post. ***** It seems you misread what I wrote. Read it again. I said that the Sabbath was a shadow of Jesus Christ. I did not say that "Jesus = the Sabbath" (although in fulfillment, this is true, but in shadow form it is not). The Sabbath command was made for mankind -- to show them that Jesus is the sabbatismos, that He is our peace with God, our reconciliation, and our re-entry to Eden, so to speak. Actually, no, Eduardo, my link in logic was not that weak, but was particularly illustrated in the Isaiah text you originally quoted, which says clearly that these Gentiles "hold fast to My covenant". Re-read what I wrote and then make your objection, bro. I don't know the ins-and-outs of foreigners who worshiped alongside the Jews, but Isaiah (and the rest of the Old Testament) make it clear that in order for the Gentiles to be included in the covenant promises, they had to keep the covenant. Circumcision was part of the covenant (although it came many years before the covenant, interestingly). ***** I apologize for not going through these things thoroughly -- time is short here and truthfully, these posts are ranging all over the place. I have difficulty following things when it ranges all over the place, in particular because in all of these many educated things, the foundation for understanding "Sabbath" is seldom mentioned, and many things are derived and interpreted about "Sabbath" apart from that foundation. Hence, it gets confusing, and forgive me for saying this, but it also gets irrelevent. The Bible states very clearly that Sabbath was a shadow of Jesus Christ. So if we don't start with that foundation, if Jesus Christ is not our Alpha and Omega of understanding "Sabbath", then we will miss the very point that God made Sabbath for. We might discover many things, but if we miss the main point, what are we left with? You've written many learned paragraphs, yet done so apparently without having this simple yet clear statement of Scripture as the foundation for interpreting "Sabbath". You've extrapilated source after source for meaning of Sabbath and how it applied to the nations, but missed that it was meant to point people to Jesus Christ, and that in Him it is fulfilled. I am impressed and in awe of the vast amount of knowledge you've studied, yet it is incredible to behold that at the same time the simple foundation of Sabbath interpretation has been omitted. What good is it to build a house of many intelligent interpretations about Sabbath while ignoring the clear Scriptural foundation of its meaning---that it is a fulfilled shadow of Christ? I know you have written that you believe Colossians refers to the sacrifices alone, but this is without Scriptural foundation. All of the holy days (and the Jubilee year) are shadows of Jesus Christ. Yet the idea that it was only the sacrifices that pointed forward to Jesus is unscriptural. Every ceremonial aspect of the Torah pointed to Jesus and His finished work -- including priests, sanctuary, sacrifices, festivals, food and days. Could we say that the unleavened bread--since it was not a sacrifice--was not a shadow of Jesus? Of course not. And if you believe that Colossians refers only to the sacrifices, then will you take a Sabbath year and after 49 years, a Jubilee year? I fear this sounds bad and ask for your pardon for being too direct. Yet I would hope that perhaps my bluntness about this might help in some way: that Colossians 2:16-17 is the starting and finishing point for understanding "Sabbath". The entire crux of this issue is also in Colossians 2 -- that we have all the fullness of God in Jesus Christ. If we are missing something by not keeping Sabbath, if God means for us to continue it, if the Sabbath was not a shadow of Jesus Christ, then in fact we do not have the fullness of God in Jesus Christ and must keep Sabbath in order to attain that fullness. In that case Jesus Christ plus Sabbath is our peace, and we do not have full peace with God without keeping the Sabbath day. And in that case, we may NOT enter the Sabbatismos "today" as Hebrews says, but can only do so on every seventh day. And if we are the Temple of God in which He lives now--the Holy One in us--then we are still lacking in some form of holiness on six days of the week which can only be found on the seventh. The holiness of God the Spirit in us is then insufficient and only made complete on Sabbath. Or conversely, we are in some way "unholy" six days of the week even though we have the God the Holy Spirit living in us those days. I know I've written many things, but I would truly be honored if you ignored them and focused on this point about the foundation of understanding "Sabbath". I'm highly tempted to delete everything save this last point, but leave it so that you can know I read what you replied and did try to reply, but have now shrunken back from it because I think there is a more important issue. All blessings in Jesus to you bro. Ramone |
