| Author | Message | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 6491 Registered: 12-2003  |
Eduardo, if the NT passages about the holy days are merely about ritual sacrifices, not about "time", then the ritual times of the New Moons and yearly feasts should still be relevant today. If a weekly Sabbath is still relevant, so should a New Moon and a passover, etc, still be relevant. We likewise cannot argue that Paul "kept" or "observed" the Sabbath because it was a creation principle/ordinance. Paul said he was a Jew to the Jews, a Gentile to the Gentiles. Paul went to the synagogues in every city where he preached. He preached there in every case until the Jews would turn against him. (He always said he preached first to the Jews, then to the Gentiles.) In Ephesus, for example, he preached in the synagogue for three months. When they began to malign him, "Paul left them" and went to the lecture hall of Tyrannus where he preached "daily" for two years, "so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord" (Acts 19:8-10). Further, one cannot compare the lack of a primordial command not to take God's name in vain with the lack of a Sabbath command and thus equalize their significance and function. Leviticus 23 places Sabbath among the ceremonies the Israelites had to observe. Morality, including honoring God's name, emanates from God Himself and is clearly iterated throughout both testaments of the Bible. God's personal "ceasing" is a category quite different from His innate soveriegnty to which we must bow. God's personal "ceasing" on the seventh day of creation was a "finishing" of His work—just like Jesus finished at the cross. We are expected to bow to His finished work and enter His rest—but that is not limited to "time", nor does the entire Bible emphasize "sacred time" for anyone or anytime except during the existence of the Mosaic covenant. And the Mosaic empahsis on "time" included many days besides a weekly Sabbath. I am intrigued, Eduardo, by your passion to defend an assumed "sabbath" prior to Leviticus 16 and also its continuance after the cross, especially in light of Galatians. If one cannot argue from silence that Sabbath did not exist before Sinai (when various Biblical texts—including the Nehemiah text quoted above—link Sabbath to Israel), then similarly, one cannot argue from silence that such a day did exist for all mankind. If one dismisses the salvific implications of Sabbath, the argument that it is a "creation ordinance" meant for mankind as marriage was meant becomes quite weak. Since God did not "give" Adam and Eve His "rest" but instead "ceased" working Himself, I find creation week to be a weak argument for a special day. I find the seventh day of creation to be more of a declaration of God's sovereign Lordship than a statement about "time". Of course, if one has a niggling concern that Sabbath might be one of God's expectations for mankind, then I can understand the intesnity of the argument. If, however, there is no link between Sabbath and true worship of God, I find the arguments from silence and implication to be weak. Certainly, without a clear new covenant statement of "sacred time", I find any argument that Sabbath is more than a preference to be unconvincing. Colleen | ||
| Emr Registered user Username: Emr Post Number: 17 Registered: 7-2007 |
Ah, Colleen. You've reached the core of the issue. Historically, Christian practice has involved more than pure Soteriology (the doctrine of salvation by Jesus Christ). Whether one believes they had an advanced-enough understanding of the principles involved, the fact is that Christians, from the earliest times, were characterised not just by a more or less theoretical acceptance of Jesus' Lordship and salvation, but also by various practices, many of which, particularly before the destruction of Jerusalem, were very similar to Jewish practices. Naturally, this takes us back to the issue of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. As Christians, we all admit, I think, the Holy Spirit led the Apostles to make the right decisions as to how Gentile believers should proceed. What I find particularly interesting regarding the specific behavioural practices mentioned in the apostolic directive is that they took their list of prohibitions from the Pentateuch! Perhaps you've never noticed the parallel, but read Leviticus 17 and 18 and you'll see that the apostolic decision was ready-made by Moses. The rationale used by the apostles seems to have been to request that Gentile Christians adhere to the Mosaic legislation that involved them specifically, as indicated repeatedly in the chapters I've mentioned (see particularly Lev. 17:10, 13, 15; 18:26). By the way, that is probably the explanation for the curious wording of Acts 15:21: 'For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.' Obviously, the Gentile proselytes the apostles had in mind were not complete ignoramuses of Hebrew traditions, and seem to have attended synagogues in their respective territories. The Jewish festivals, such as the Passover, Tabernacles, etc., and the New Moons, as far as I can tell from Bible evidence, were never meant to be observed by Gentiles. Since they weren't even allowed to observe such things in OT times unless they became circumcised, it follows there was no reason why a Christian non-Jew should observe such ordinances. As for Paul's sabbatical observance, yes, of course he went to synagogues on the Sabbath wherever he went, but it appears that he used to retreat to a restful place where synagogues were not available: 'On the Sabbath we went outside the city gate to the river, where we expected to find a place of prayer' (Acts 16:13). This was in Philippi, in Macedonia. Whether he was thinking the Sabbath was a creation ordinance when he went to the synagogue or joined other Christians for worship or prayer, I cannot tell. It would appear to me that Sabbathkeeping was quite natural in his world and society. I perceive several problems in the notion that the Sabbath should be viewed as entirely irrelevant for a Christian because, supposedly, the Sabbath commandment is not 'confirmed' in NT. To begin with, many of the supposed 'confirmations' of other OT commandments were pronounced by Jesus before the cross, which wouldn't necessarily make them binding for a post-crucifixion new covenant. Actually, all the references Jesus made to the OT law, including those he most definitely made regarding the Sabbath, show he never intended to remove the OT wholesale and then surgically reimplant just nine of its ordinances. He simply exemplified the true meaning of all the Mosaic ordinances, which the Hebrews (including Moses himself) had never perceived. Legislative codes are rarely innovative. Innovation can come by way of the wording of specific cases, or in the examples given, but, usually, laws have a prehistory before a particular. For instance, as far as I know, no law of the United States is older than 231 years. And yet, many of them, had a tradition of centuries in England and other countries long before America was even discovered. So, yes, the Sabbath, and many other commands, were part of the Mosaic law, but that doesn't mean such laws were freshly invented in the days of Moses, because, as I've pointed out above, several significant ones among them are known to have been in existence for centuries, if not from the very beginning of civilisation. Now, the problem is history. All of the early leaders of the church throughout the Mediterranean world were Jews, as attested by historian Eusebius of Caesarea. That changed slowly, but dramatically, after the downfall of Jerusalem, in AD 70, which was the death knell for the Jewish control of the church. After that, there were many developments in the Christian church. The Catholic and Orthodox churches, being the oldest, claim that all their practices have the backing of the apostles and of the bishops apointed by the apotles. Although the argument of unbroken continuity has historical problems, it is reasonably compelling. Now, Protestantism, in its various forms, has always tried to connect itself with its Christian roots bypassing or sidestepping Catholic/Orthodox tradition. What we should probably ask ourselves is, Is that achievable? At exactly what point in history do we want to graft ourselves into the tree of the historical Christian church? In the pre-AD 70, Sabbath-keeping church in Jerusalem and Judaea, in post-AD 70 Rome, or in post-Nicene Constantinople? On the other hand, if we reach the conclusion that history has no reverse gear, we would need to accept that perhaps an uncomfortably large array of practices in different cultures nowadays deserve, after all, the qualification of Christian, provided they adhere to an orthodox understanding of Soteriology. Eduardo | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 6495 Registered: 12-2003 |
The Acts 15 regulations against blood, strangled animals, meat offered to idols, and immorality addressed two issues: the Gentiles' own religious histories and habits—they weren't to eat the things that caused them to revert back to their paganism out of condioned responses—and the issue of Gentile and Jewish Christians being able to eat together. Jews were not required to give up their restrictions any more than Gentiles were required to adopt them. The restrictions against blood and strangled animals pre-dated Moses. Those were part of the Noahic covenant. They were considered, by the Jews at least, to be for all mankind. The immorality command addressed a couple of issues as well: a specific prohibition that would guard those Gentiles from the responses generated by years of practicing temple prostitution, and the issue of exclusive commitment which marriage reflects: the eternal commitment of the Briedgroom to His Body the Church. The issue, again, isn't history. The issue is Jesus. His incarnation was a singularity that did change the story of humanity. We now worship God directly through Jesus with no shadows or symbols. Jesus Himself IS everything the Mosaic law represented: the sanctuary, the mercy seat, the shewbread, the altar of incense, the cities of refuge, the high priest, the atonement, the sacrifice, the True Law—Jesus is everything. Romans 14 allows us to worship particularly according to conviction. But nowhere does Paul (and I say Paul because he was the one chosen by God to explain the administration of the mystery--the new covenant--Ephesians 3:8-9) ever suggest our worship is to reflect ancient practices. We are to live according to the Spirit—Romans 8—allowing the Spirit to empower us to put to death the misdeeds of the body, but nowhere does this living by the Spirit reveal external worship practices such as holy time. Jesus, in fact, did away with the concept of holy place (and by inference, holy time) in John 4:23-24 when he told the woman at the well, who asked where the correct place to worship was, that the time was now here when true worshipers were to worship in spirit and in truth. Those two things—spirit and truth—are not temporal/physical. Worship is based in truth—revealed by God's Word (both the Living Word and the written word) and spirit—the part of us brought to life by the Holy Spirit. Neither Jesus nor Paul alluded to time when discussing authentic worship. Habits are one thing—cultural conditioning is another—but worship is direct, now, between the born-from-above heart of a Christ-follower and the Father of us all. Our preferences are allowed—Romans 14 is clear. But we have to take the words of the Bible at face value. We can't impose the possibility of past traditions being required where the word of Scripture is clear. Colleen | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 1253 Registered: 9-2006  |
In the old covenant men were required to walk “under” its commands and in the new covenant we are commanded walk in the Spirit, it does not concern a day but a state of being, we don’t walk in the Spirit for one day a week only, But constantly, and our Sabbath of rest is also constant, providing we are walking in the Spirit. That is the difference between the two covenants as far as I can see, when we walk in the spirit there is no danger of committing murder or Sabbath breaking either one, we abide in him and he abides in us and we are not under condemnation for anything and it makes the argument for Sabbath day keeping a moot point. You study the scripture without understanding what walking in the Spirit is and what it consist of and that is my own opinion and of course you are entitled to yours. From the time he was nailed to the cross and the day of Pentecost we walk in a new way and we are commanded now to walk in the Spirit, Sabbath keepers and law keepers can dig up all the condemnation they desire, but it won’t put one who is walking in the Spirit under a single bit of condemnation, not one single bit. IMHO of COURSE. River | ||
| Larry Registered user Username: Larry Post Number: 72 Registered: 5-2007 |
EMR, are you sure you are not suffering from some sophisticated sda hangover? I cannot really understand the motive for all this bluster! Can you simplify your message/point? | ||
| Emr Registered user Username: Emr Post Number: 18 Registered: 7-2007 |
Dear friends, Over the next few hours I'll be driving home after a few days' holiday. I'll try to respond to your observations when I'm back online. Let me just clarify now my latest statement in m previous post. I had said that 'if we reach the conclusion that history has no reverse gear, we would need to accept that perhaps an uncomfortably large array of practices in different cultures nowadays deserve, after all, the qualification of Christian, provided they adhere to an orthodox understanding of Soteriology.' I should have added this: Unfortunately for Adventists, for as long as they adhere to antibiblical teachings, such as the 1844 investigative judgment or the bicameral heavenly sanctuary, their Soteriology is definitely NOT orthodox. Best. Eduardo | ||
| Pnoga Registered user Username: Pnoga Post Number: 9 Registered: 1-2007 |
Well they had it with me. I posted enough scripture to prove that the 10 Commandments are no longer binding and that the Sabbath is Jesus. The moderator wouldn't post it. She sent me an email saying she will not post it because she doesn't want debating about the Sabbath. Finally I just got the email this morning Stating we are sorry to see you leave the Group, please come again. She kicked me off. I went back to the group to read, and she posted to several users that wanted to reply to my posts that she let me go. It's a shame how Satan tries to hold back the Gospel of truth. I was being well mannered the whole time, and yet I was booted out. Funny how SDAs only tread down this one path with the same playe out verses to prove their doctrine. But when you show them the context of their verses and add a ton more that support that the 10 no longer are binding, they start accusing you of taking the verses out of context. I even posted whole chapters. One lady said to me "Why do you post long drawn out threads? Do you want to be a pastor?" | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 544 Registered: 11-2005 |
Pnoga, We are proud of you. You did the best that you could! I was reminded of how Paul got kicked out of the synagogue for preaching the truth. The Jewish leaders didn't want to hear it. Gilbert Jorgensen | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 1257 Registered: 9-2006 |
Well Pnoga, I am not really surprised that they kicked you off, you probably was as good as gone before you got there, sorry they gave you the boot, it is frustrating to deal with Adventist, I know in my own experience that they are pretty much set in this thing, I am pretty much faced with the same problem in dealing with them face to face, I constantly have to be very careful around them and the reason for that is that if I go head to head I know my ministry to them will be over and done with, its not that I don’t want to quote scripture by the ton to them, I want to, in my own self, tangle with them so bad I can taste it, but if I do I know I will break off all communication with them and then five years work would be down the tubes, gone in one hour. I spent four years looking into them and looking into scripture without the aide of anyone, not the internet and not other people, I found the truth about their beliefs and their condition, doing my best to be led by the Holy Spirit and I can’t even tell you the answer of why I did it, nor can I give an answer of what I will do with this information in future as far as they are concerned, all I know is I am unsure from day to day, I just have to pray that God will give me wisdom and knowledge as to what to say and what not to say, I pray that God will give you wisdom and knowledge when you folks are amongst them, your relatives and friends, I mean. I just can’t see what good you can do if you make yourself down right enemies of them while all at the same time you may feel they are enemies of the gospel. There are a lots of enemies of the gospel out there, but I remember what happened when they came to get Jesus and he told Peter to put up his sword. So what do I do, cut a few ears off and get myself hung for it? That’s exactly whats going to happen, proverbially speaking. As I followed this thread I thought about Adventism and I remembered some scripture and looked it up again, I had a heck of a time finding it but I found it and here it is. Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. Matthew 23:14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. Matthew 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. Matthew 23:16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! Matthew 23:17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? This is exactly describes Adventism and their thing with the Sabbath, meats, IJ and E.G. their practice of cutting the heads off of those who would dare to preach the Gospel of saving grace among them. To them the gold is greater than the temple and you or me or anyone else are not careful they’ll cut your head off without a backward glance and pickle your brain. What did Jesus say about being wise as serpents and harmless as doves? Matthew 10:16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Finally found that one too. I really feel like when I am among Adventist I feel like I just walked onto a wolf pack and I better walk softly and carry a big stick. Just to my way of thinking about the whole thing, its not like taking the gospel to a people that have never heard the Gospel, they read it and twist it into a pretzel, they are blind to it, but they are dead set against anyone who would come against the gold that they got stored up against the day of reckoning. Who was Jesus talking to up there in those scripture? Don’t look to me like he was talking to the ignorant and unlearned heathen to me. Look what the Adventist do, they go all the way to Guatemala or Tim-Buck-Too to say they baptized 15 souls “into the church” and they sure ain’t talking about no Protestant church or into Jesus Christ either. They give a week of classes to make sure them folk, mostly innocent children and dumb teenagers at that, to make sure they end up just as much of a child of heresy as they are. Hey, they’ll put up with your sins and your cheese eatin just as long as you don’t preach against their heresy and their prophet, and just by the way, lay off the gospel a grace bit too, preach E.G, 1844, IJ, just reword it to sound E-vangelical so’s we can fool the protestants and keep them off our neck another day, after all we wanna look like them, we don’t wanna act like them we just wanna look likem so don’t come in here talking likem er your off the payroll and we’ll move you out like you was never here. (That’s their thinking, not mine) They didn’t dig your long post eh? I don’t suppose they would like mine neither, my ain’t known fer bein short. Luck too youins that venture amongst them, keep a sharp eye out and watch your back side, Take two of you along so’s you can stand back to back. River | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 4121 Registered: 3-2004  |
On CARM it is so nice to have other formers and other Christians back you up. We are there to help each other. I just met a person on CARM, a Christian, who lives here in Vegas. Small world!!! His brother attended the SDA academy I attended in California. Diana | ||
| Emr Registered user Username: Emr Post Number: 19 Registered: 7-2007 |
Finally back on line, I can now give a succinct answer to some of the previous posts. Larry, I wasn't aware that I was blustering. What makes you think I am? I think capitalising many sentences is considered bad manners, as it is a sign of shouting, but I wasn't shouting. Neither are my observations some kind of SDA hangover. Sophisticated or not, my observations were biblical observations, so it should be quite simple, if you think I misrepresented the Bible evidence, to say why and where. The 'message,' as you call it, I was trying to give was simply this: We should stick to Bible evidence as closely as possible, and I illustrated the necessity of such an approach as an observation to a well-meaning, but inaccurate statement by Gilbert, a kind of interpretation shared by thousands, in the sense that the Sabbath was an institution freshly invented on the occasion of the exodus. Popular and appealing as the idea may be, I've presented biblical objective evidence that, at the very least, some of the Mosaic legislation predated Moses by several centuries, which means that the inclusion of such laws in the Mosaic laws is no indication as to their actual chronological origin. I don't think you can refute this obvious, entirely elementary fact. On the other hand, I pointed out that a well-known passage in the Gospel of Mark presents Jesus' observation that 'the Sabbath was made for man.' Now, unless someone can successfully demonstrate that what the Son of Man meant was 'the Sabbath was made for the Jew,' our Lord's very diction connects the institution of the Sabbath with creation, not Sinai. You can add to the above as many texts from Paul as you wish, and that may be well and good, and such texts may add much to our understanding of the issue of Sabbath-keeping and the nature of Jesus as our full Sabbath rest, but that won't change a thing as to the biblical origin of the Sabbath day. I'd rather abide by Jesus' dictum: The Sabbath was, indeed, made for man, not man for the Sabbath. As for history, Colleen, I think it is much to the point. The early church in Jerusalem, consisted of 'many thousands of Jews [who had] believed,' 'all of them... zealous for the law' (Acts 21:20). I don't think that they were any better or worse than Gentile Christians elsewhere, but it is quite incontestable that those Christian Jews, the leader of whom was James —Jesus' so-called brother,— continued to keep the Sabbath, which shouldn't mean they were somehow second-rate, immature or blindly legalistic Christians. If Jesus Christ could attend the synagogue on the Sabbath without being legalistic, I guess many of his Jewish followers would have been able to imitate his example without being attibuted with the idea that their Sabbath-keeping gave them salvation. Now, the point is, if Protestantism, as an attempt to avoid certain obvious historical corruptions of the Christian faith, is an attempt to go back as closely as possible to the very roots of Christianity, where exactly shall we graft ourselves into its noble trunk? In Luther's day? In the days of St. Augustine? In the days of Clement of Rome? Or in the days of Paul AND James? All the best. Eduardo | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 999 Registered: 8-2004  |
 Edwardo, Graft ourselves in? Perhaps you did not mean that the way it sounds to me. I think the best thing we can do is lay ourselves at Jesus' feet and ask Him to graft us in where He sees fit - and that may not be the same place for every one. While God grows us in His Spirit, He may lead us through Adventism (as He has many here), Catholicism, Mormonism, Protestantism, Restoration Movements, or even Islam and other religions (I'm NOT equating all of these as having equal truth, and I fully recognize that some of these God plainly calls us OUT of) He may bring us through home churches, mega churches, little-old-country-backwoods churches, or start us out from no church at all. What is important is that we sit at His feet and learn of Him, following as He leads. Not rushing ahead or dragging behind. If you find that - to be honest with God and yourself and the place He has brought you to - you need to 'observe a day' by all means do so. Unto the Lord you observe it. If others find that - to be honest with God, themselves, and the place God has led them - they are called to 'hold every day alike' it is to God that they do NOT 'observe'. This is where Paul's reminder has come in handy for my own learning on more than one occasion: "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand." Romans 14:4 (emphasis mine) One of the more humbling things I've found with God is that He does not lead us to 'perfect understanding' or 'perfect practice' on any kind of expected timetable. There is not a set formula that He uses. He brings each person to Himself - and in the process peels away errors and misapprehensions as we surrender more and more fully to Him. We are promised that, "we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord." II Corinthians 3:18. We are promised that "when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." I John 3:2 There is a very important place in the Christian life for 'reproof, correction, and instruction', but there is also a place for 'what is that to thee, follow thou me'. I have not been called to 'fix' or 'restore' Christianity. I have been called to follow my Savior, to walk in the Spirit, and to fellowship with other imperfect not-always-correct believers. If you have been called to fix and restore I pray that God will grant you the wisdom, kindness, and courage to do so. I just strongly encourage you to be sure of your calling and follow no further and no faster than God's Spirit guides you. Blessings, Mary | ||
| Emr Registered user Username: Emr Post Number: 20 Registered: 7-2007 |
Thank you, Mary. When I used the graft figure, I was referring to a previous post of mine, where I spoke of the restorationist approach of Protestantism relative to the original gospel message of the early Christians, trying to sort of forget various bad things that had crept in throughout the centuries. I think that Luther and other reformers felt that many true Christians had lived all along the centuries up to their day, but, unluckily, many people in Europe and elsewhere had got the wrong idea about the gospel message because of tarnished notions introduced by many teachers throughout history, resulting from cherished notions that didn't have the Bible as their source. So, the idea of grafting back to the real trunk is consubstantial with the notion of a reformation. The reformers tried to bring back the original purity of gospel to 16th century Europe. You may have read far too much into my words. Best. Eduardo | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 1000 Registered: 8-2004 |
I hear you Eduardo. It is important to seek to get at the truth and to cut through the confusion of error that has grown up around it. This is why we must at all times submit ourselves and every cherished doctrine to Jesus, the Author and Finisher of our faith. I grew up an SDA and therefore 'had the truth', then, more recently, having experience with the restorationist movement of Campbell and Stone (which tries to go back and hold only the Bible - and, at least in the church I was part of, goes WAY liberal), I've come to the tentative conclusion that trying to 'go back' to something somehow 'purer' is a good recepe for getting off track. That those who do often 'go back' to error instead of truth. And even if they don't go back to error, there sometimes creeps in a 'spiritual pride' that 'we have the truth and others don't. What I've found instead (in my own walk, not saying yours must be the same) is that it is my business to learn from the past, live in the present, and look to the future. To seek God's face today, and ask Him to bring me to Himself, trusting that He will do it rather than that I will somehow go back and straighten out all the mistakes others have made. The reason I write is that your posts have made my think anew just how I got to where I am now. It has been good for me to think out loud. Hopefully the ideas will be useful to someone else as well. To whoever, take what you can use and leave the rest! Blessings, Mary | ||
| Larry Registered user Username: Larry Post Number: 77 Registered: 5-2007 |
EMR, was the shadow made for man and not man for the shadow? Col 2:16,17. Which sabbath was Jesus talking about? Shadow or reality? Which one will save you? When God rested on a particular 7th day, was He keeping a shadow? Do we have evidence that God also rested on day 14, 21, 28, etc? If I told you to pick up a bunkbed and walk with it for 10 miles on sabbath, would you consider yourself having broken the Mosaic law which forbid even picking up light sticks for a fire? Yet the Giver of the sabbath rules had a part in breaking those regulations when He told the sick man to pick up a bed and walk, clearly not in keeping with the current day regulations. Obviously, Jesus should have instructed the healed man to come back after sundown to retrieve his goods, right? What rules was Adam given for keeping a sabbath? If it is not in the Bible, you had better not be adding. The sabbath word is not even used in Genesis. Proverbs 30:5,6 states that the word of God is flawless. If you cannot find any sabbath keeping information or regulations until the time of Moses, consider it of no import. (Message edited by larRy on August 10, 2007) | ||
| Emr Registered user Username: Emr Post Number: 21 Registered: 7-2007 |
Larry, let me begin by answering your second question. Jesus was NOT made, so he couldn't be saying he was made for man, or that man wasn't made for him. He certainly was speaking of something created. I feel no burden to second-guess what Jesus might have intended to say in Mark 2:27f, for his message is transparent. Firstly, the Sabbath was made for man (not just for the Jew); secondly, man (not just the Jew) is more important than the Sabbath. I am sorry if someone wishing to uphold the pet theory that the Sabbath was a fresh invention that appeared out of the blue on the occasion of the exodus, can somehow feel threatened by this rather objective evidence authored by our Lord himself, but, as I've said, there's no need to second-guess what he was saying. You ask me if I have evidence that God rested on the 14th, 21st or 28th days after creation. None whatsoever. What would I need that for? Jesus taught: 'My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working' (John 5:17). Actually, the whole universe can exist only through God's will and, spoken in human terms, his work. It seems to me that when the Bible says that God ceased creating on the seventh day it means by the seventh day the whole array of creation was complete and perfect, and nothing further was necessary after the creation of the first humans. Your fourth observation that the Giver of the 'sabbath rules' contravened the Mosaic legislation is entirely correct, of course. The Giver of the 'adultery rules' is known to have done just as much, isn't he? Would you conclude from Jesus' salvific attitude toward the woman caught in adultery that adultery is nowadays as permissible as Sabbath-breaking? Was Adam given any Sabbath rules? If he was, I'm not aware what they were, and I feel no burden whatsoever to imagine what they might have been. Similarly, I have no idea exactly what the earliest humans after the fall were told about idolatry, false testimony or covetousness. From this, should we conclude these things were lawful back then? The fact remains, Larry, unless you can prove otherwise, that God blessed the seventh-day before the fall. Millennia later, the Exodus rendition of the fourth commandment uses as its rationale the fact that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh. I fail to see any logic in the notion that the first six days were definite periods that man was to imitate in his worldly labours, whereas the Sabbath day was only loosely connected with some indefinite, unended, fuzzy divine rest. Nothing in fourth commandment would seem to suggest that the seventh day was any less definite than the six previous days. Your fifth observation is fraught with difficulty. I cannot find any Sabbath-keeping information or regulations until the time of Moses. Your advice is that, as a result, I should consider the Sabbath of no import. The problem is that, if I were to use that kind of logic, I should also consider of no import such things as blasphemy or idolatry, because there is no explicit command to mankind about that in Genesis either. I still haven't seen an argument about the Sabbath's assumed 'Jewishness' that will hold water. On the other hand, the NT is very explicit about certain OT customs that were purely Jewish, such as the Passover, repeatedly called 'the Passover of the Jews' (John 2:13; 6:4; 11:55), which, naturally, confirms the OT dictum that any male foreigner wishing to celebrate the Passover had to become circumcised, i.e., become a Jew. Not so with the Sabbath observance, which was explictly mandated for nationals and foreigners. In the fouth Gospel even Friday is called 'the Jewish day of Preparation' (19:42), which show Adventists have no business 'preparing' for the Sabbath. However, the common designation 'Jewish Sabbath' or 'Sabbath of the Jews' is conspicuously absent from the NT, which should be evidence enough that would-be commentators of these issues had better strictly stick to the methods of Systematic Theology when studying such things. Finally, as for Col. 2:16, 17, this is a well-known text by Paul, perhaps the most forceful among several others dealing with food and drink and religious festivals, no doubt including the weekly Sabbath. Now, your first question was if 'the shadow was made for man and not man for the shadow.' There is a problem with your understanding of the passage. One of the basics of Systematic Theology is that all passages dealing with one matter or expression should be placed side by side and see what the actual understanding of the issue was in the biblical milieu. Now, Paul is definitely speaking of yearly festivals, monthly festivals and the weekly day of rest. Would you consider it fair to bring together all biblical passages dealing with the yearly festivals, the monthly festivals and the weekly day of rest and see what those passages are dealing with as a means that might shed some light into Paul's discourse, or would that be unfair, undesirable or uncalled-for? I think it would be fairly pertinent. Now, if I haven't missed some passage, these are all the biblical passages that speak of the various OT feasts grouping them very much the same way Paul does: 1 Chronicles 23:31 and whenever burnt offerings were presented to the LORD on Sabbaths and at New Moon festivals and at appointed feasts. They were to serve before the LORD regularly in the proper number and in the way prescribed for them. 2 Chronicles 2:4 Now I am about to build a temple for the Name of the LORD my God and to dedicate it to him for burning fragrant incense before him, for setting out the consecrated bread regularly, and for making burnt offerings every morning and evening and on Sabbaths and New Moons and at the appointed feasts of the LORD our God. This is a lasting ordinance for Israel. 2 Chronicles 8:13 according to the daily requirement for offerings commanded by Moses for Sabbaths, New Moons and the three annual feasts— the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks and the Feast of Tabernacles. 2 Chronicles 31:3 The king contributed from his own possessions for the morning and evening burnt offerings and for the burnt offerings on the Sabbaths, New Moons and appointed feasts as written in the Law of the LORD. Isaiah 1:13 "Bring your worthless offerings no longer, Incense is an abomination to Me. New moon and sabbath, the calling of assemblies— I cannot endure iniquity and the solemn assembly. 14 "I hate your new moon festivals and your appointed feasts, They have become a burden to Me; I am weary of bearing them. Ezekiel 45:17 It will be the duty of the prince to provide the burnt offerings, grain offerings and drink offerings at the festivals, the New Moons and the Sabbaths—at all the appointed feasts of the house of Israel. He will provide the sin offerings, grain offerings, burnt offerings and fellowship offerings to make atonement for the house of Israel. Ezekiel 46:4 The burnt offering the prince brings to the LORD on the Sabbath day is to be six male lambs and a ram, all without defect. 5 The grain offering given with the ram is to be an ephah, and the grain offering with the lambs is to be as much as he pleases, along with a hin of oil for each ephah. 6 On the day of the New Moon he is to offer a young bull, six lambs and a ram, all without defect. 7 He is to provide as a grain offering one ephah with the bull, one ephah with the ram, and with the lambs as much as he wants to give, along with a hin of oil with each ephah. 8 When the prince enters, he is to go in through the portico of the gateway, and he is to come out the same way. 9 ¶ "`When the people of the land come before the LORD at the appointed feasts, whoever enters by the north gate to worship is to go out by the south gate; and whoever enters by the south gate is to go out by the north gate. No-one is to return through the gate by which he entered, but each is to go out by the opposite gate. 10 The prince is to be among them, going in when they go in and going out when they go out. 11 ¶ "`At the festivals and the appointed feasts, the grain offering is to be an ephah with a bull, an ephah with a ram, and with the lambs as much as one pleases, along with a hin of oil for each ephah. Nehemiah 10:33 for the bread set out on the table; for the regular grain offerings and burnt offerings; for the offerings on the Sabbaths, New Moon festivals and appointed feasts; for the holy offerings; for sin offerings to make atonement for Israel; and for all the duties of the house of our God. Hosea 2:11 I will stop all her celebrations: her yearly festivals, her New Moons, her Sabbath days—all her appointed feasts. Now, if you care to read all these verses you'll see two things. Firstly, most of them do not deal with the festivals themselves, or with their nature, but rather with the various sacrificial offerings connected with the celebrations. Only in two of the cases is that connection not obvious. Those are God's dictum that, because of the people's evil conduct, even their supposedly holy festivals had become an abomination to him! Naturally, both Isaiah and Hosea lived in OT times, centuries earlier than Nehemiah. Where does this evidence lead us? What is the shadow? If I may, although I don't believe the book of Hebrews was written by Paul, I'd like to quote one of its passages, because it is, I believe, the closest parallel to Col. 2:16, 17. The anonymous author points out that '[t]he law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming— not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship… Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body (soma) you prepared for me; with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased”… He sets aside the first to establish the second.' (Heb. 10:1, 5, 6, 9). A previous passage in Hebrews had already taught that the Hebrew 'sanctuary... is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven' (8:5), and, just in case someone thinks otherwise, I'm NOT advocating the Adventist bicameral heavenly sanctuary, which I deny as unbiblical. So, it would appear, that the shadows are, first and foremost, related to the Israelite sacrificial system, and, most notiriously, to the specific sacrifices that were offered on the various annual, monthly and weekly festivals in that sanctuary. Such sacrifices, inspiration tells us, foreshadowed Christ. And, isn't that exactly what Paul is telling Christian believers in Colossae and elsewhere? In their case, their problem was compounded not so much with the sacrifices themselves, which they couldn't legally present unless they physically travelled to Jerusalem or saw to the offerings of animals there, but with their, so-to-speak, after-church pot luck celebrations in their respective communities, where groups of Christians criticised each other on account of their opinions as to how those festive occasions should be celebrated. From what Paul says, it seems all kind of craziness had crept in, with absurd discussions about legumes and meat. If you feel my view is unjustified, I'd like to know why. Can you exegete Col. 2:16, 17 for all of us? Best regards, and so sorry about this long post. Eduardo | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 6514 Registered: 12-2003 |
Eduardo, If you simply read the NT without dissecting the obvious literal meanings of the words, you come up with "Sabbath, new moons, and festivals" in Colossian 2:16. Unless one has a desire to keep the seventh day "special", the obvious meaning of the passage is—holy days. Further, the real Sabbath passage in Hebrews is Hebrews 4. This passage clearly explains that there is still a Sabbath rest for the people of God—but the word "sabbatismos" used there is the only occurance of that word in the entire Bible. It is not referring to a day off. It is directly linked to the new day given called "Today", the day we are to enter His rest, and it means literally (I know you know this!) Sabbathing. It does not mean observing a day. It means literally resting. Further, the context of Hebrews 4 further explains that the rest the author speaks of is resting from one's works—as God rested at creation. We are given a new day—TODAY—in which to enter God's rest. The seventh day of creation was made holy because it was the day God completed His work. Further, that seventh day had no "evening and morning" attached to it. Unlike every other creation day, Sabbath was without beginning or ending. The account is written in such a way that we can easily see that day as not limited to passing time. Further, Hebrews 4 directly links the NT Sabbath-rest with God's rest at creation and admonishes us enter that rest while it is today. It is that creation rest—that "ceasing", that rest of God—that is the Sabbath that was made for man. Adam and Eve were created and immediately ushered into God's rest. After Jesus opened a new, living way to the Father (Hebrews 10), we are now able, again to enter that same rest. Jesus Himself is the Way—the Source, the Person of that rest for us. Eduardo, since God has spoken to us in these last days through Jesus, we cannot use the OT to exegete the NT. It is an incomplete revelation of God's will. We have to exegete the OT through Jesus, not the other way around. We have to look back at the creation Sabbath, see EXCATLY what Genesis says, and then understand it through Jesus Hmself and the NT explanations. You are totally free to observe Sabbath. According to Romans 14, it is your right to do so if you desire to do it unto the Lord. But you can't dissect the OT, apply it to the NT, and insist that a holy day is our Biblical model. We will defend your right to observe the Sabbath if that is your conviction. But we will also defend our own biblical understanding. Sabbath-day-observance is not a Biblical principle in the NC. If it were, the Gentiles would have been counseled to observe it. New Covenant "sabbathing" is far more demanding that Old Covenant Sabbath-observance. It is required of us TODAY—every single day of our lives. We cannot split our lives into "sacred" and "secular". Every breath, decision, word, and thought is to be taken captive for the Lord Jesus. We have no "secular" time that is "for us" as the old Sabbath School song said. Every moment belongs to the Lord Jesus, and we are to dedicate all our time to pursuing things of eternal significance. Further, considering the seventh day holy today would make a created entity (time) significant in a way that only God and His new creations are significant. We are to be a holy priesthood. God is holy; His name is holy. We are set apart to honor Him—and He is set apart from all creation because He is outside and beyond it. Today our only shadows are the bread and the wine of communion and our own mortal bodies. Sabbath rest has come to us in Jesus. Our glorified resurrection bodies and the marriage supper of the Lamb are still observed only in shadows. Colleen | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 554 Registered: 11-2005 |
Hi Eduardo, Some of your quotes piqued my curiosity. Would it be reasonable to think that probably this does not mean that God the Son worked up through the 6th day of creation, rested the 7th, and then went back to work, nevermore to stop afterward? While what he did on days 1-6 is different than what he did on day 7, would it seem reasonable to interpret John 5:17 as the same kind of work as days 1-6? It seems that the context for John 5:17 would require us to apply this in a totally different way than the "work" that he did during the first six days of creation. Do you feel comfortable making the assumption that these two references refer to the same kind of work. If God is no longer "resting", how does he participate with his creation in a continuing 7th-day Sabbath? Furthermore, what else was He supposed to do when he was through with creation? Keep "working"? Doing what? It is logical that He would "rest" -- for good, in regards to his creative efforts performed on days 1-6. the fact that evenings and mornings were no longer relevant to the time keeping associated with the seventh-day clues us in on that. So what would Adam and Eve have done any different on each 7-day multiple of the first 7th day? After all, at this time they had not yet sinned, and so there was no need to "work" the soil. What kind of "work" would they have done the other six days, or did this Sabbath only apply to God during the creation week? Extrapolating forward to heaven, if this is a perpetual institution, how would this be implemented in a city where there is no day nor night, and where "a day is as a thousand years"? Within the context of the overall plan of salvation would you agree that the "great divide" is the death and resurrection of Christ as referred to by Hebrews 10:20? And would you see any relationship between the 7th-day Sabbath and the "Sabbath Rest" described in Hebrews 4? What was it that the Children of Israel did not "believe"? Would that "Sabbath Rest" have existed prior to the Abrahamic Covenant? You are stimulating me to dig deeper and do more study! Gilbert Jorgensen | ||
| Emr Registered user Username: Emr Post Number: 22 Registered: 7-2007 |
The author of Hebrews, whom I quoted in my previous post, teaches repeatedly across his book that Jesus Christ far outshines everything that preceded him. Because of such obvious truth, how exactly should a Christian regard that previous revelation in the OT? Early in the 2nd century of our era, Marcion reached the conclusion that much of the Bible had to be dismissed if what he considered the only gospel message, that of Paul, was to survive. Because of his radical view, the entire OT was credited to demonic forces. He even concluded that the God of the OT was some kind of lesser god, endowed with creative powers, but, in fact, the origin of evil. Contrary to this heretical view, the Christian church has always had the OT in high regard. As a matter of fact, the OT was the only Christian Bible for several decades, until the Gospels and the Epistles were written and later put together as a collection of sacred, apostolic writings. And even in these later writings, the apostles and oher NT writers made an overwhelming use of the OT —in many a sense, that law that was nailed to the cross— taking hundreds or thousands of quotations from the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. As a matter of fact, even such important decisions as those agreed upon at the Jerusalem Council were directly influenced by the OT itself, as I showed in one of my previous posts, since the apostles made a Gentile-oriented summary of Levitus 17 and 18. This fact alone casts serious doubt as to the merits of the thesis that the NT is a complete departure from OT religion. Now, Colleen, if Jesus and the apostles made almost constant appeal to the OT as the foundation for their teaching, how is it that you say that someone 'can't dissect the OT [and] apply it to the NT'? If that's precisely what the early Christians did! How come we can do it no more? Of course Christ is the true meaning of the OT! Christ himself is the true Israel of God! But we can't fall into Marcion's trap. The words of the NT books, even the clearer ones, can be greatly amplified by looking at how the early readers would have understood them in their milieu, and their milieu was the world of the OT, no doubt about it. Even in its more prophetic portions, such as the book of Revelation, the NT writers made constant use of the OT, giving it a true interpretation that had often escaped the attention of previous generations of believers, and of the OT prophets themselves. Now, you claim that, '[u]nless one has a desire to keep the seventh day "special", the obvious meaning of [Col. 2:16f] is—holy days.' This argument could be reversed like this: Unless one has a desire to say there are no "special" days, the obvious meaning of the passage is indicated by the context, which speaks of food and drink on special occasions, and by similar constructs in other biblical writings. The key to all such discussions is always exegesis, and never preconceived ideas. Hebrews 4 —and, yes, you are right, I know these things and I've read them in Greek as well,— however, isn't a parallel of Col. 2:16, 17 at all, although it is certainly interesting and has much to say about the nature of Sabbath-keeping. Hebrews 10, on the other hand, has many more things in common (both in English and, most importantly, in Greek) with Colossians 2:17f. Both passages speak of shadows and both passages speak of Christ's body, which is the true substance of everything and that which replaces what has gone before, which was about to perish when Hebrews was written. How can pointing out this obvious fact be illegitimate? I can understand the reasoning of the Catholic hierarchy that 'the church' (by which they mean the apostles) changed the day of worship, thereby making Sunday sacred. It would make historical sense, for the Christian Church, for much longer than one millennium, has always had a day of rest (Sunday, almost universally, after the destruction of Jerusalem), but the proposition that there are no special days of worship among Christians is not a part of historical Christianity, whether you like it or not. I'm not an expert in modern or contemprary ecclesiastical history, but it seems to me that notion is quite novel. My hunch is that it won't be much older than two centuries, and probably considerably less than that. As far as I can see, such a notion requires a highly selective handling of Scriptural data, or, more significantly, an interpretation regarding the (supposed) lack of data, such as the construct as to what the absence of the phrase 'there was evening and there was morning' for the original seventh day might convey. Every blessing. Eduardo. | ||
| Marysroses Registered user Username: Marysroses Post Number: 116 Registered: 4-2007 |
Thats really fascinating Eduardo, it is a different perspective than I usually read. I have been trying to rid myself of a tendency to go 180 degrees of anything "Adventist" over the years. I have long felt that the nineteenth century claims of "changing the Sabbath" Adventists love to quote have more to do with protestant claims that Sunday was the 'wrong' day more than with actual history. It seemed to me more like this: "Wow! we did that? Great, lets make a point out of it." It is often forgotten now that the nineteenth century was a time of social turmoil between the established, mostly protestant descendants of seventeenth and eighteenth century European immigrants, and the large numbers of Irish and Eastern European immigrants (largely Catholic and Orthodox) in the nineteenth. Jewish immigrants also had to cope with this. It was not uncommon then for Jewish and Catholic public school children, as part of their curriculum, to be asked to memorize religious materials and say prayers not of their faith, one thing that led to the development of the American system of parochial Catholic schools, and similar programs in Jewish neighborhoods. I think that this solved one problem only to create a host of others personally, regardless of my own positive experience in Catholic parochial school. But anyway, I can see that the social environment led to some extreme statements on both sides, including triumphal statements by Catholic writers not well versed in history that fed Adventist ideas. Every time I think I have the sabbath issue resolved in my mind, I end up rethinking it. Same with many issues though, I enjoy studying and challenging myself. In the final analysis though, I am a Sunday keeper and gladly so. While we do not give it the status of a biblical command, it is a precept of the Church, that we should keep Sunday as the day of rest and public worship: "Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ's Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man's eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ." CCC 2175 (notice there is a direct contradiction to the idea that one of the ten commandments was 'changed'. Sunday is *not* the sabbath on another day of the week.) To be clear, I keep Sunday because the Church asks that of me, thats the simple answer. I am leaning, as far as understanding what the bible says about public worship, towards the idea that the NT requires no specific day, but that setting aside time for worship is an example of the first Christians that should be followed. I would have great difficulty accepting that Saturday must be observed as a sabbath, due in part to the difficulty of actually identifying this particular time in modern circumstances outside of the middle east, and also to the lack of historical evidence that Christians kept it as their primary day of worship after the destruction of Jerusalem. Just my thoughts on the subject. Please write more Emr, I'm very much enjoying your posts. MarysRoses |
