Christians and the Sabbath

Last update: May 15, 2017

Most Christian denominations today worship on Sunday, or the first day of the week, rather than on the Sabbath, or the seventh day of the week.  Yet, Seventh-day Adventists and other Sabbatarians continue to observe the Sabbath as a “holy day” – along with practicing Jews.  Why?  What is so important about Sabbath observance for Seventh-day Adventists?  And, is it even biblical?

Table of Contents

Common reasons why Adventists continue to keep the Sabbath:

Sabbath observance is one of the Ten Commandments:

Perhaps the primary reason why Adventists continue to observe the 7th-day Sabbath is that it is one of the Ten Commandments written by God’s own finger in stone (Exodus 20:1-17 and Deuteronomy 5:12-15). God does very little writing with His own finger – and only once in stone (Deuteronomy 5:22).  This suggests the permanent nature of the Ten Commandments as a written expression of the Royal Law of Love toward God and toward one’s neighbor (James 2:8; Galatians 5:14; Matthew 22:37-40). James, for examples, specifically links up the Royal Law of Love with the Ten Commandments as follows:

If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who said, “You shall not commit adultery,” also said, “You shall not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker. Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

James 2:8-13

Here James is simply repeating what Jesus said about the Law being based on the underlying Law of Love – a fundamental principle upon which all of God’s laws are based (Matthew 22:37-40).

Added to this is the fact that only the Decalogue, written by the Finger of God, was placed inside of the Ark of the Covenant.  All of the other Mosaic laws were placed on the outside of the Ark “as a witness against you” (Deuteronomy 31:26).

Jesus kept the Sabbath:

Another common reason cited for Sabbath observance for the Christian is that Jesus kept the Sabbath.  It was His custom to worship in the local synagogue on the Sabbath day (Luke 4:16).

And, when accused of breaking the Sabbath, He cited Jewish law that allowed for the breaking of the Sabbath in certain situations – to include a direct service to God (Matthew 12:5) or to relieve the suffering of man or even beast (Luke 13:15; Luke 14:5; Matthew 12:11).  Jesus concluded with the argument: “How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” (Matthew 12:12).

Of course, since this was in fact right in line with Jewish law, there wasn’t much that could be said to contradict this conclusion on the matter.  However, just to drive His point home a bit more, Jesus added, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” (Mark 2:27).  Here Jesus claimed that He had Himself originally created the Sabbath to be a blessing for all of mankind (“anthropos” in the original Greek text) – not just for the Jews. Also, as the Creator of the Sabbath, Jesus claimed to be able to appropriately define the meaning of the day as the “Lord of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:28). It is in this way that Jesus could accurately claim that He truly kept all of the Laws of God perfectly as God actually intended them to be kept (John 15:10).

Even during His own time in the grave, Jesus paid respect to the Sabbath by staying in the tomb over the Sabbath hours.  The same is true for His followers during this time. “Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes, but they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment.” (Luke 23:56). This clearly indicates that neither Jesus nor His followers saw any change in Sabbath sacredness following the crucifixion.

Beyond this, Jesus predicted that future Christians would continue their observance of the Sabbath after His time – explaining that His followers should pray that their future flight from the Roman armies, armies that would destroy Jerusalem (some 40 years later in 70 AD), not take place in the winter or on the Sabbath day (Matthew 24:20). The usual counter to this argument is that Jesus said this for practical reasons, not because His disciples would be keeping the Sabbath as a holy day, but so that they could more effectively flee if their flight were not on a Sabbath day (given that the gates of the cities would be closed on the Sabbath).

The problem with this argument, however, is that, according to Josephus, everything was left wide open for the Christians to flee from Jerusalem.  Even the gates of the temple itself were miraculously opened as a sign of God’s departure (Link). Also, the Roman armies initially retreated and the Jewish soldiers chased after them – leaving the city and the countryside undefended and wide open for the Christians to escape (Link).  Numerous historians have commented on this miraculous situation:

“This counsel [of Matthew 24:16] was remembered and wisely followed by the Christians afterwards. Eusebius and Epiphanius say, that at this juncture, after Cestius Gallus had raised the siege, and Vespasian was approaching with his army, all who believed in Christ left Jerusalem and fled to Pella, and other places beyond the river Jordan; and so they all marvellously escaped the general shipwreck of their country: not one of them perished (see Matthew 24:13).”

Adam Clarke (1837) Commentary On Matthew 24

“How exactly the several passages of story in Josephus agree with these predictions will easily be discerned by comparing them, particularly that which belongs to this place of their flying to the mountains. For when Gallus besieged Jerusalem, and without any visible cause, on a sudden raised the siege, what an act of God’s special providence was this, thus to order it, that the believers of Christian Jews being warned by this siege, and let loose (set at liberty again) might fly to the mountains, that is, get out of Judea to some other place! Which that they did accordingly appears by this, that when Titus came some months after and besieged the city, there was not one Christian remaining in it”

Henry Hammond (1659), vol. 3, p. 160

“It is a remarkable but historical fact that Cestius Gallus, the Roman general, for some unknown reason, retired when they first marched against the city, suspended the siege, ceased the attack and withdrew his armies for an interval of time after the Romans had occupied the temple, thus giving every believing Jew the opportunity to obey the Lord’s instruction to flee the city. Josephus the eyewitness, himself an unbeliever, chronicles this fact, and admitted his inability to account for the cessation of the fighting at this time, after a siege had begun. Can we account for it? We can. The Lord was fighting against Jerusalem Zechariah 14:2: ‘For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city: The Lord was besieging that city. God was bringing these things to pass against the Jewish state and nation. Therefore, the opportunity was offered for the disciples to escape the siege, as Jesus had forewarned, and the disciples took it. So said Daniel; so said Jesus; so said Luke, so said Josephus”

Foy Wallace (1966), The Book of Revelation, p. 352

Clearly then, there would have been no physical issue regarding Christian escape if it had been a Sabbath day.  So, this doesn’t seem to be the reason why Jesus reminded the Christians to pray that their flight not take place on the Sabbath day.  Rather, fleeing on the Sabbath day would be less desirable because it would mean that they wouldn’t be able to actually enjoy the Sabbath if they had to flee on that day.

The Sabbath was created in Eden before the Fall of mankind:

At the end of the creation week described in Genesis, “God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.” (Genesis 2:3). Later, Jesus explain that the “Sabbath was made for man (literally translated “the man” or “Adam”).” (Mark 2:27)

It seems, then, that Jesus originally created the Sabbath day as a special social day of rest from the usual activities of life to have an entire day to spend especially with God. This was a gift from God for all of humankind – originally given back in Eden before sin had even entered the world.  Why then would such a gift be discarded by the Christian?

The Sabbath will be kept in the New Earth by all mankind:

“As the new heavens and new earth that I make will endure before me,” declares the LORD, “so will your name and descendants endure. From one New Moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, all mankind will come and bow down before me,” says the LORD. (Isaiah 66:22-23)

The disciples of Jesus kept the Sabbath:

It seems as though the disciples of Jesus continued to keep the Sabbath, as Jesus kept it, even after His death and resurrection.  There are many mentions of the disciples and other followers of Jesus coming together to worship on the Sabbath day – as was their custom (Acts 17:2). The Book of Acts alone gives a record of Paul holding eighty-four worship meetings upon that day (Acts 13:14, 44; 16:13; 17:2; 18:4-11).  In fact, the best interpretation of John’s phrase “the Lord’s Day” is that John was talking about the Sabbath (Revelation 1:10).  After all, up until that point in the history of the early Christian Church, only the Sabbath had ever been referred to as “the Lord’s Day” (Mark 2:28 and Isaiah 58:13). This is right in line with the fact that the Christians continued to worship in the temple and in their synagogues, as they had always done (Acts 3:1). No significant changes to their customs of worship are described in the Bible.

There was also never any dispute between the Christians and the Jews about the Sabbath day. This is good evidence that the early Christians still observed the same day that the Jews did.

The Early Christian Church kept the Sabbath:

Historians are in general agreement that the early Christians, Jews and gentiles, continued to observe the Sabbath as a holy day – as well as Sunday in celebration of the resurrection. This is despite the fact that a number of early church fathers favored Sunday observance over the Sabbath – especially starting the second century during the anti-Jewish laws of Emperor Hadrian.

Philo of Alexandria (20 BC – 50 AD):

Philo, who was born and raised in Alexandria, Egypt.  He noted that the seventh day was to be a festival, “not of this or that city, but of the universe” – not to be reserved for the Jews only:

The seventh day is the completion of creation, “for it is the festival, not of a single city or country, but of the universe, and it alone strictly deserves to be called ‘public’ as belonging to all people and the birthday of the world.”

“Every seventh day is sacred, which is called by the Hebrews the sabbath; and the seventh month in every year has the greatest of the festivals allotted to it, so that very naturally the seventh year also has a share of the veneration paid to this number, and receives especial honour.”

“The fourth commandment has reference to the sacred seventh day, that it may be passed in a sacred and holy manner. Now some states keep the holy festival only once in the month, counting from the new moon, as a day sacred to God; but the nation of the Jews keep every seventh day regularly, after each interval of six days; and there is an account of events recorded in the history of the creation of the world, comprising a sufficient relation of the cause of this ordinance; for the sacred historian says, that the world was created in six days, and that on the seventh day God desisted from his works, and began to contemplate what he had so beautifully created; therefore, he commanded the beings also who were destined to live in this state, to imitate God in this particular also, as well as in all others, applying themselves to their works for six days, but desisting from them and philosophising on the seventh day, and devoting their leisure to the contemplation of the things of nature, and considering whether in the preceding six days they have done anything which has not been holy, bringing their conduct before the judgment-seat of the soul, and subjecting it to a scrutiny, and making themselves give an account of all the things which they have said or done; the laws sitting by as assessors and joint inquirers, in order to the correcting of such errors as have been committed through carelessness, and to the guarding against any similar offences being hereafter repeated.”

Philo of Alexandria (Link, Link)

Polycarp of Smyrna (69-155 AD):

Polycarp personally knew the Apostle John, and was his disciple.  All of his life he was devoted to the teachings of John and the other Apostles and was considered to be a Nazarene.  The 15th-century Jewish historian, sometimes called Rabbi Ifaac wrote:

“Polycarp…Born late in the reign of Nero, he became a Nazarene.”

Hoffman , David. Chronicles from Cartaphilus: The Wandering Jew. Published by , 1853. Original from the University of Michigan. Digitized Sep 7, 2007, p. 636

The Nazarenes:

Being a Nazarene meant, of course, that Polycarp continued to observe the Sabbath as a holy day of worship – as did the Apostle John before him since Polycarp was John’s disciple.

As late as the eleventh century, Cardinal Humbert of Mourmoutiers still referred to the Nazarene sect as a Sabbath-keeping Christian body existing at that time (Strong (1874), Cyclopedia, I, New York, p. 660). Modern scholars believe it is the Pasagini or Pasagians who are referenced by Cardinal Humbert, suggesting the Nazarene sect existed well into the eleventh century and beyond (from the Catholic writings of Bonacursus entitled “Against the Heretics“). It is believed that Gregorius of Bergamo, about 1250 AD, also wrote concerning the Nazarenes as the Pasagians.

The argument by some that the Nazarenes followed the floating “Lunar Sabbath” is based largely on John Keyser’s book, “From Sabbath to Saturday where a statement by Clement of Alexandria (150-215 AD) is referenced as follows:

“Neither worship as the Jews; for they, thinking that they only know God, do not know Him, adoring as they do angels and archangels, the month and the moon. And if the moon be not visible, they do not hold the Sabbath, which is called the first; nor do they hold the new moon, nor the feast of unleavened bread, nor the feast, nor the great day.” (Stromata, Chap. 5)

Lunar Sabbatarians commonly interpret this statement as follows:

This clearly indicates that at this time the weekly Sabbath was still dictated by the moon’s course (Link).

Well, not quite. Certainly, this passage does not trump the numerous statements from many authors concerning the regular weekly cycle of seven fixed days followed by the early Christians (including the Nazarenes) – along with a fixed Sabbath day every 7th day. Therefore, what Clement is most likely talking about here is one of the annual sabbaths – like the “Feast of Trumpets” (which happens to fall on “the first” day of the month of Tishrei).

For a more detailed discussion of the whole notion of a “Lunar Sabbath” see: Link

The Minim:

The same appears to be true of those who followed the teachings of the Apostle Paul – including the gentile Nazarenes up into the fourth and fifth centuries. They were sometimes derisively referred to as “Minim” by some of the Jews:

“In fact some Minim of gentile stock, following St. Paul, taught that the Law had been abolished with the exception of the Decalogue…”

Bagatti (Catholic Scholar). The Church from the Circumcision, p. 108

Irenaeus on Polycarp:

This devotion to the teaching of the Apostles was carefully noted by those around him and by those who came after.  For example, Irenaeus, a contemporary of Polycarp (130-220 AD), spoke of Polycarp as follows:

But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna…always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time

Irenaeus. Adversus Haeres. Book III, Chapter 4, Verse 3 and Chapter 3, Verse 4.

It is also interesting to note that Irenaeus and Eusebius both record how the Apostles Philip and John, as well as faithful church leaders and martyrs such as Polycarp and Melito, kept the Passover on the 14th of Nisan in accordance with the gospel and would not deviate from it.

Besides observing the Passover exactly on the 14th of Nisan, not always on the Sunday following, Polycarp also observed the Sabbath – as did the Nazarenes in general. Irenaeus, on the other hand, was known as a “peacemaker” and so adopted weekly Sunday observance as well as Easter Sunday observance (not usually on the 14th of Nisan).  He also downplayed Sabbath observance, giving it a metaphysical meaning similar to the Gnostics – despite the influence of Polycarp.

Roman supporters ultimately did largely eliminate the Christian observance of the Passover on the 14th of Nisan – by the decree of the pagan Emperor Constantine in 325 AD.

In any case, while Irenaeus commended Polycarp for blasting the “heretic” Marcion (who tried to do away with the Old Testament, the law, and the Sabbath), he apparently did not think that changing the date of the Passover to Sunday (as some Roman bishops did) or the day of worship to Sunday (as Justin advocated) was heretical.

The account of Polycarp’s death at the stake also appears to cite Sabbath observance by his followers. According to the letter “The Martyrdom of Polycarp” by the Smyrnaeans:

“On the day of the preparation, at the hour of dinner, there came out pursuers and horsemen” and Polycarp was killed “on the day of the great Sabbath at the eighth hour.”

The encyclical epistle of the church at Smyrna, The Martyrdom of Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, Verses 7.1 & 8.1. Charles H. Hoole’s 1885 translation

Note: The margin says, “The great Sabbath is that before the passover.”

The use of these two expressions (“day of the preparation” and “the day of the great Sabbath”) strongly indicates that those in Polycarp’s area were still keeping the Sabbath as well as Holy Days, like the Passover, in the latter portion of the second century. Otherwise, since Asia Minor (including Smyrna) was a Gentile area, the terms “preparation day”, which was generally used in reference to the Friday preceding the weekly Sabbath day (since food preparation could be done on the annual sabbaths, but not on the weekly Sabbath), and “great Sabbath” would not have been relevant.

Vita Polycarpi (3rd to early 4th century):

This work is attributed to Pionius and is dated anywhere from the 3rd to the early 4th century A.D.  Many historians view the Vita Polycarpi as a book of legends and fantastic supernaturalism, quoting non-existent documents, and not of any real historical value beyond what was taking place during the 3rd or 4th centuries. However, many historians view this document as having some historical value, such as in its descriptions of the life and liturgy of the 3rd-century church in Smyrna – as well as Christian interactions with the Jews and pagans. Specifically relevant to this discussion, the Christian community in this region of Smyrna is specifically described, in the Vita Polycarpi, as keeping the Saturday Sabbath in the same manner the Jews – and gathering for Biblical instruction and to celebrate Sabbath as a feast day with their brethren.

Polycrates of Ephesus (125-196 AD):

In the closing decades of the second century, Polycrates, a faithful church leader who had been personally trained by Polycarp, took over a leadership position (and was eventually crucified). He remained prominent Christian leader who was faithful to the example of the Apostles of the Jerusalem Church. Polycrates taught the true Gospel of the literal establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth, the unconscious state of the dead awaiting the resurrection, and the importance of keeping God’s Law.

Toward the end of the second century, Victor, bishop of Rome, had begun labeling Polycrates and those who followed his teachings as heretics—sources of discord and schism in the church. Polycrates remained faithful despite increasing pressure and isolation as well as persecution and hostility from fellow Christians as well as the surrounding pagan society.

Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch (120-190 AD):

And on the sixth day God finished His works which He made, and rested on the seventh day from all His works which He made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because in it He rested from all His works which God began to create…Moreover, [they spoke] concerning the seventh day, which all men acknowledge; but the most know not that what among the Hebrews is called the “Sabbath,” is translated into Greek the “Seventh” (ebdomas), a name which is adopted by every nation, although they know not the reason of the appellation.

Theophilus of Antioch. To Autolycus, Book 2, Chapters XI, XII. Translated by Marcus Dods, A.M. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight

In the fifteenth chapter of this book, Theophilus compares those who “keep the law and commandments of God” to the fixed stars, while the “wandering stars” are “a type of the men who have who wandered from God, abandoning his law and commandments.”

In short, Theophilus bears testimony to the validity and binding nature of the commandments of the Decalogue, including the Sabbath, and says not one word concerning the observance of Sunday or the “Lord’s Day” as a holy day.

Historians on Sabbath Observance by Early Christians:

Edward Brerewood (1565-1613):

“It is certain that the ancient Sabbath did remain and was observed (together with the celebration of the Lord’s day) by the Christians of the East Church, above three hundred years after our Saviour’s death.”

A learned treatise of the Sabbath, written by Mr Edward Brerewood professor in Gresham Colledge, London. (1631)

T. H. Morer (1701):

“The primitive Christians had a great veneration for the Sabbath, and spent the day in devotion and sermons. And it is not to be doubted but they derived this practice from the Apostles themselves, as appears by several scriptures to the purpose.”

Dr. T. M. Morer, Dialogues on the Lord’s Day, p. 189. London: 1701

Jeremy Taylor (1613-1667):

“The primitive Christians did keep the Sabbath of the Jews;…therefore the Christians, for a long time together, did keep their conventions upon the Sabbath, in which some portions of the law were read: and this continued till the time of the Laodicean council.”

“The Whole Works” of Rev. Jeremy Taylor, Vol. IX, p. 416 (R. Heber’s Edition, Vol XII, p. 416).

Dr. Theodor Zahn (1838-1933):

“[The early Christians] observed the Sabbath in the most conscientious manner: otherwise, they would have been stoned. Instead of this, we learn from the book of the Acts that at times they were highly respected even by that part of their own nation that remained in unbelief….

That the observance of Sunday commenced among them would be a supposition which would have no seeming ground for it, and all probability against it….

The Sabbath was a strong tie which united them with the life of the whole people, and in keeping the Sabbath holy, they followed not only the example, but also the command of Jesus.

Geschichte des Sonntags, pp. 13, 14.

Lutheran Bishop Grimelund of Norway (1912-1896):

“The early Christians were of Jewish descent, and the first Christian church in Jerusalem was a Jewish- Christian church. It conformed, as could be expected, to the Jewish law and Sabbath-custom; it had no express instruction from the Lord to do otherwise…

But, one could reason, that for all this it does not follow that one should give up and forsake the ‘Sabbath’ which God Himself has commanded, nor that we should transfer this to another day of the week, even if that is such a memorable day. To do this would require an equally definite command from God, whereby the former command is abolished, but where can we find such a command? It is true, such a command is not to be found.”

“Sondagens Historie,” p. 13-18. Christiania, Norway: Den norske Lutherstiftelses Forlag, 1886.

Johann Gieseler (1792-1854):

The well-known Protestant church historian, Johann Gieseler, explains the situation as follows:

“While the Jewish Christians of Palestine, who kept the whole Jewish law, celebrated of course all the Jewish festivals, the heathen converts observed only the Sabbath, and, in remembrance of the closing scenes of our Saviour’s life, the Passover, though without the Jewish superstitions. Besides these, the Sunday, as the day of our Saviour’s resurrection, was devoted to religious worship”

Church History, Apostolic Age to A.D. 70, Section 29. See also: A Compendium of Ecclesiastical History,” Vol. I, chap. 2, see. 30, p. 92. Edinburgh: 1846.

Peter Heylyn (1599-1662):

And, during the first few hundred centuries, “Sabbath keeping was the practice generally of the Easterne Churches; and some churches of the West… For in the Church of Millaine [Milan]; … it seemes the Saturday was held in a farre esteeme … Not that the Easterne Churches, or any of the rest which observed that day were inclined to Iudaisme [Judaism]; but that they came together on the Sabbath day, to worship Iesus [Jesus] Christ the Lord of the Sabbath.”

Augustine of Hippo, a devout Sunday keeper, attested that the Sabbath was observed in the greater part of the Christian world (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 1, pp. 353-354) and deplored the fact that in two neighbouring Churches in Africa, one observed the seventh day Sabbath, while another fasted on it.

Dr. Peter Heylyn, History of the Sabbath, London 1636, Part 2, para. 5, pp. 73-74, 416) original spelling retained)

 

Moses B. Stuart (1780-1852):

Professor Stewart, in speaking of the history of the Christian Church during the period from Emperor Constantine to the Council of Laodicea, says:

“The practice of it [the keeping of the Sabbath] was continued by Christians who were jealous for the honor of the Mosaic law, and finally became, as we have seen, predominant throughout Christendom. It was supposed at length that the fourth commandment did require the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath (not merely a seventh part of time). And reasoning as Christians of the present day are wont to do, viz., that all which belonged to the ten commandments was immutable and perpetual, the churches in general came gradually to regard the seventh day Sabbath as altogether sacred.”

Appendix to Gurney’s History, etc., of the Sabbath, pp. 115, 116.

So, after Constantine’s time, there seems to have been in a measure a revival of interest in, and reverence for, the Sabbath in the minds of most Christians throughout the Christian world – especially in the Eastern churches, where the influence of the Western Roman Church was less powerful.

Early Attempts to Remove the Sabbath from Christianity:

Hadrian (76-138 AD):

It is well documented that the early Christian church continued to keep the Sabbath throughout Christendom for a very long time.  However, in Rome and Alexandria Sabbath did observance first started to wane in the early second century. Under Vespasian (69-79 AD) both the Sanhedrin and the high priesthood were abolished, and under Hadrian, the practice of the Jewish religion and particularly Sabbathkeeping were outlawed (around 135 AD). There was, in fact, a growing sentiment against anything resembling Jewishness during this time that was widespread – to include the Christian world as well as the pagan world.

Writers such as Seneca (65 AD), Persius (34-62 AD), Petronius (66 AD), Quintilian (35-100 AD), Martial (40-104 AD), Plutarch (46 AD), Juvenal (125 AD), and Tacitus (55-120 AD), who lived in Rome for most of their professional lives, reviled the Jews racially and culturally. Particularly were the Jewish customs of Sabbathkeeping and circumcision contemptuously derided as examples of degrading superstitions.

Clearly then, Hadrian’s laws were not targetted at Christians, per se, but against the Jews in particular – largely because of the very bloody and costly Jewish revolts. Jerusalem was completely destroyed and then rebuilt as a Roman city with Roman temples. Jews were barred from even entering this city – while Christians were still allowed to enter. The Christians themselves largely got around the anti-Sabbath laws by “doing good deeds” and being generally active on the Sabbath – citing the activity of Jesus Himself on the Sabbath and how doing such activities for God was “lawful” to do on the Sabbath – as Jesus Himself point out.  Fairly quickly, however, the leadership of the Christian churches, especially in the west, saw the expediency of viewing Sabbath observance in a more and more spiritual sense rather than in the literal sense that it had previously been observed.

Research has shown that during the second and third centuries various prominent leaders of the Christian communities endeavored, by being busy doing “divine work” on the Sabbath and allegorizing the meaning of the Sabbath to lessen its status as compared to Sunday or “The Lord’s Day”, to cope with Roman laws against Sabbathkeeping – to include Justin Martyr (100-165 AD), Irenaeus (130-202 AD), Pothinus (87-177 AD), Tertullian (160-220 AD), Clement (150-215 AD), and Origen (185-254 AD).

Justin Martyr (100-165 AD):

Of course, many started to allegorize the meaning and purpose of the Sabbath – according to the teachings of the Gnostics which heavily influenced those in Rome and Alexandria beginning within the 2nd Century. For example, Justin Martyr wrote:

“The Lawgiver is present, yet you do not see Him; to the poor the Gospel is preached, the blind see, yet you do not understand. You have now need of a second circumcision, though you glory greatly in the flesh. The new law requires you to keep perpetual sabbath, and you, because you are idle for one day, suppose you are pious, not discerning why this has been commanded you: and if you eat unleavened bread, you say the will of God has been fulfilled. The Lord our God does not take pleasure in such observances: if any one has impure hands, let him wash and be pure; if there is any perjured person or a thief among you, let him cease to be so; if any adulterer, let him repent; then he has kept the sweet and true sabbaths of God. “

Dialogue with Trypho the Jew Chapter XII.

For we too would observe the fleshly circumcision, and the Sabbaths, and in short all the feasts, if we did not know for what reason they were enjoined you,—namely, on account of your transgressions and the hardness of your hearts. For if we patiently endure all things contrived against us by wicked men and demons, so that even amid cruelties unutterable, death and torments, we pray for mercy to those who inflict such things upon us, and do not wish to give the least retort to any one, even as the new Lawgiver commanded us: how is it, Trypho, that we would not observe those rites which do not harm us, —I speak of fleshly circumcision, and Sabbaths, and feasts?

Dialogue with Trypho the Jew Chapter XVIII.

“Wherefore, Trypho, I will proclaim to you, and to those who wish to become proselytes, the divine message which I heard from that man. Do you see that the elements are not idle, and keep no Sabbaths? Remain as you were born. For if there was no need of circumcision before Abraham, or of the observance of Sabbaths, of feasts and sacrifices, before Moses; no more need is there of them now, after that, according to the will of God, Jesus Christ the Son of God has been born without sin, of a virgin sprung from the stock of Abraham. For when Abraham himself was in uncircumcision, he was justified and blessed by reason of the faith which he reposed in God, as the Scripture tells. Moreover, the Scriptures and the facts themselves compel us to admit that He received circumcision for a sign, and not for righteousness…

As, then, circumcision began with Abraham, and the Sabbath and sacrifices and offerings and feasts with Moses, and it has been proved they were enjoined on account of the hardness of your people’s heart, so it was necessary, in accordance with the Father’s will, that they should have an end in Him who was born of a virgin, of the family of Abraham and tribe of Judah, and of David; in Christ the Son of God, who was proclaimed as about to come to all the world, to be the everlasting law and the everlasting covenant, even as the forementioned prophecies show.”

The Second Apology of Justin for the Christians, Addressed to the Roman Senate. Chapter XXIII and XLIII

As an aside, if Sunday was known as the “Lord’s day” during the last of the first and the early part of the second century, how can we explain the fact that the two strongest advocates of Sunday observance in the second century, Barnabas and Justin Martyr (in fact, the only ones who actually denounced Sabbath observance and urged the observance of Sunday in that period – most of the rest of the church leaders and members during this time clearly continued to observe the Sabbath day as a day of worship) never referred to Sunday as “the Lord’s day”? Although they were trying to find a reason for observing Sunday, yet they always referred to it simply as the first day, or the eighth day; and in one instance Justin used the heathen expression, “he tou heliou hemera,” the day of the sun, in referring to it. If Sunday was then known as “The Lord’s Day,” and these men were urging the observance of it as a replacement for the Sabbath, why did they not use that title, and cite the apostle John as their example? All this seems to indicate that these men and their associates knew nothing about Sunday as “The Lord’s Day.”

In any case, it is quite evident that the idea of being able to keep the Sabbath without actually being “idle,” as were the Jews, was rather widespread among the early second century Christians – despite those like Justin Martyr who wanted to give up the concept of Sabbath observance altogether. Christians during this time faced the constant possibility that, because of some adverse event, the pagans would rise up against them and accuse them, yet again, of causing the gods to become angry. Thus, Christian leaders did what they could to demonstrate by their lives that they were upright, noble citizens – not at all like the unruly Jews.

All this taken into account sufficiently distinguished the Christians from the Jews regarding Sabbath observance in the eyes of the Romans who were, during Hadrian’s time, primarily targeting the Jews themselves. Also, Hadrian’s laws were not evenly enforced throughout the Roman Empire.

However, there is no doubt that the various attitudes of Christians relating to the Sabbath laws of Rome during the second and third centuries paved the way for the more drastic changes that took place in the fourth century, especially during the reign of Emperor Constantine.

Never the less, Sabbath-keeping, the original position of the Church, had already spread west into Europe from Palestine. It spread East into India (Mingana, Early Spread of Christianity, Vol. 10, p. 460) and then into China.

Irenaeus (130-202 AD):

Irenaeus also acknowledged that Christ did not do away with the Decalogue or the law of the Sabbath within the Decalogue.

“Perfect righteousness was conferred neither by any other legal ceremonies. The decalogue however was not cancelled by Christ, but is always in force: men were never released from its commandments.” (ANF, Bk. IV, Ch. XVI, p. 480)

He emphasized, in contrast to the common Jewish position, however, that Jesus said, “It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath” (Matt. 12:12, NKJV). It followed, then, that humanity need not be idle on the Sabbath:

“And therefore the Lord reproved those who unjustly blamed Him for having healed upon the Sabbath-days. For He did not make void, but fulfilled the law. . . . And again, the law did not forbid those who were hungry on the Sabbath-days to take food lying ready at hand: it did, however, forbid them to reap and to gather into barns.”

Beyond this, however, Irrenaeus argued that Sabbath observance, on the 7th-day, was not really necessary – since, according to him, the Patriarchs before Moses did not observe the Sabbath.

“Abraham himself, without circumcision and without observance of Sabbaths, believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness; and he was called the friend of God. James 2:23 Then, again, Lot, without circumcision, was brought out from Sodom, receiving salvation from God. So also did Noah, pleasing God, although he was uncircumcised, receive the dimensions [of the ark], of the world of the second race [of men]. Enoch, too, pleasing God, without circumcision, discharged the office of God’s legate to the angels although he was a man, and was translated, and is preserved until now as a witness of the just judgment of God, because the angels when they had transgressed fell to the earth for judgment, but the man who pleased [God] was translated for salvation. Moreover, all the rest of the multitude of those righteous men who lived before Abraham, and of those patriarchs who preceded Moses, were justified independently of the things above mentioned, and without the law of Moses. As also Moses himself says to the people in Deuteronomy: The Lord your God formed a covenant in Horeb. The Lord formed not this covenant with your fathers, but for you.” Deuteronomy 5:2

Iranaeus, Against Heresies, (Book IV, Chapter 16 – Link)

Tertullian (160-220 AD):

Tertullian pointed out:

“It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath” (Mark 3:4) and went on to explain, “For when it says of the Sabbath-day, ‘In it thou shalt not do any work of thine,’ by the word thine it restricts the prohibition to human work—which everyone performs in his own employment or business—and not to divine work.”

However, Tertullian went on to attack Sabbath observance in more direct terms:

“[L]et him who contends that the Sabbath is still to be observed as a balm of salvation, and circumcision on the eighth day . . . teach us that, for the time past, righteous men kept the Sabbath or practiced circumcision, and were thus rendered ‘friends of God.’ For if circumcision purges a man, since God made Adam uncircumcised, why did he not circumcise him, even after his sinning, if circumcision purges? . . . Therefore, since God originated Adam uncircumcised and unobservant of the Sabbath, consequently his offspring also, Abel, offering him sacrifices, uncircumcised and unobservant of the Sabbath, was by him [God] commended [Gen. 4:1–7, Heb. 11:4]. . . . Noah also, uncircumcised—yes, and unobservant of the Sabbath—God freed from the deluge. For Enoch too, most righteous man, uncircumcised and unobservant of the Sabbath, he translated from this world, who did not first taste death in order that, being a candidate for eternal life, he might show us that we also may, without the burden of the law of Moses, please God”

An Answer to the Jews Chapter II.

As far as Sunday observance, it was, according to Tertullian, all based on tradition – not on scripture:

We count fasting or kneeling in worship on the Lord’s day to be unlawful. We rejoice in the same privilege also from Easter to Whitsunday. We feel pained should any wine or bread, even though our own, be cast upon the ground. At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign [of the cross].

If, for these and other such rules, you insist upon having positive Scripture injunction, you will find none. Tradition will be held forth to you as the originator of them, custom, as their strengthener, and faith, as their observer. That reason will support tradition, and custom, and faith, you will either yourself perceive, or learn from some one who has.

Tertullian, De Corona, Sects. 3 and 4.

Then again, at times, Tertullian appears to actually give preference to the Sabbath – even over the observance of “the eighth day”:

For my own part, I prefer viewing this measure of time in reference to God, as if implying that the ten months rather initiated man into the ten commandments; so that the numerical estimate of the time needed to consummate our natural birth should correspond to the numerical classification of the rules of our regenerate life. But inasmuch as birth is also completed with the seventh month, I more readily recognize in this number than in the eighth the honor of a numerical agreement with the Sabbatical period; so that the month in which God’s image is sometimes produced in a human birth, shall in its number tally with the day on which God’s creation was completed and hallowed.

Tertullian, De Anima, chap 37.

In presenting such an argument Tertullian appears to show his faith in the Ten Commandments as the rule that should govern the Christian’s life – and even gives preference to the seventh day as the Sabbath, the origin of which is from God’s act of hallowing the seventh day at creation.

Occasionally, Tertullian also appears to put on equal footing the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day (or Sunday).  In this treatise “On Fasting,” chapter 14., he terms “the Sabbath – a day never to be kept as a fast except at the Passover season, according to a reason elsewhere given.” And, in chapter 15., Tertullian exempts from the two weeks in which meat was not eaten “the Sabbaths” and “the Lord’s days.”

He next declares that Isaiah’s prediction respecting the Sabbath in the new earth (Isaiah 66:22, 23), was “fulfilled in the time of Christ, when all flesh – that is, every nation came to adore in Jerusalem God the Father… Thus, therefore, before this temporal Sabbath [the seventh day], there was withal an eternal Sabbath foreshown and foretold.”

In chapter 6, Tertullian repeats his theory of the “Sabbath temporal” [the seventh day], and the “Sabbath eternal” or the “Spiritual Sabbath,” which is “to observe a Sabbath from all ‘servile works’ always, and not only every seventh day, but through all time.” He says that the ancient law has ceased, and that “the new law” and the Spiritual Sabbath has come whereby every day is the Sabbath.

Yet, in a seeming backpeddle, Tertullian appears to claim that Jesus never actually broke the Sabbath nor did Jesus do away with the Sabbath:

In order that he might, whilst allowing that amount of work which he was about to perform for a soul, remind them what works the law of the Sabbath forbade – even human works; and what it enjoined – even divine works, which might be done for the benefit of any soul, he was called ‘Lord of the Sabbath’ because he maintained the Sabbath as his own institution. Now, even if he had annulled the Sabbath, he would have had the right to do so, as being its Lord, [and] still more as he who instituted it. But he did not utterly destroy it, although its Lord, in order that it might henceforth be plain that the Sabbath was not broken by the Creator, even at the time when the ark was carried around Jericho. For that was really God’s work, which he commanded himself, and which he had ordered for the sake of the lives of his servants when exposed to the perils of war.

Tertullian, Book iv. chap 12.

In this paragraph, Tertullian explains the law of God in the clearest manner. He shows beyond all dispute that neither Joshua nor Christ ever violated it. He also declares that Christ did not abolish the Sabbath. He further explains this seemly contradictory position as follows:

Now, although he has in a certain place expressed an aversion of Sabbaths, by calling them ‘your Sabbaths,’ reckoning them as men’s Sabbaths, not his own, because they were celebrated without the fear of God by a people full of iniquities, and loving God ‘with the lip, not the heart,’ he has yet put his own Sabbaths (those, that is, which were kept according to this prescription) in a different position; for by the same prophet, in a later passage, he declares them to be ‘true, delightful, and inviolable.’ [Isaiah 58:13; 56:2.] Thus Christ did not at all rescind the Sabbath: he kept the law thereof, and both in the former case did a work which was beneficial to the life of his disciples (for he indulged them with the relief of food when they were hungry), and in the present instance cured the withered hand; in each case intimating by facts, ‘I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it,’ although Marcion has gagged his mouth by this word.

Tertullian, Book iv. chap 12.

Here Tertullian shows that God did not hate his own Sabbath, but only the hypocrisy of those who professed to keep it. He also expressly declares that the Saviour “did not at all rescind the Sabbath.”  He continues as follows:

For even in the case before us he fulfilled the law while interpreting its condition; [moreover] he exhibits in a clear light the different kinds of work, while doing what the law except from the sacredness of the Sabbath, [and] while imparting to the Sabbath day itself which from the beginning had been consecrated by the benediction of the Father, an additional sanctity by his own beneficent action. For he furnished to this day divine safeguards – a course which his adversary would have pursued for some other days, to avoid honoring the Creator’s Sabbath, and restoring to the Sabbath the works which were proper for it. Since, in like manner, the prophet Elisha on this day restored to life the dead son of the Shunammite woman, you see, O Pharisee, and you too, O Marcion, how that it was [proper employment] for the Creator’s Sabbaths of old to do good, to save life, not to destroy it; how that Christ introduced nothing new, which was not after the example, the gentleness, the mercy, and the prediction also of the Creator. For in this very example he fulfills the prophetic announcement of a specific healing: ‘The weak hands are strengthened’, as were also ‘the feeble knees’ in the sick of the palsy.”

Tertullian against Marcion, b. iv. chap 12.

Although Tertullian is mistaken here in his reference to the Shunammite woman (It was not the Sabbath day on which she went to the prophet: 2 Kings 4:23), he affirms many important truths here.

What we have then in the person of Tertullian is someone who very conflicting thoughts and statements. He often contradicts himself in the most extraordinary manner concerning the Sabbath and the law of God. He asserts that the Sabbath was abolished by Christ, and elsewhere emphatically declares that he did not abolish it. He says that Joshua violated the Sabbath, and then expressly declares that he did not violate it. He says that Christ broke the Sabbath and then shows that he never did this. He represents the eighth day as more honorable than the seventh, and elsewhere states just the reverse. He asserts that the law is abolished, and in other places affirms its perpetual obligation. He speaks of the Lord’s day as the eighth day, (the second of the early writers who makes an application of this term to Sunday, with Clement of Alexandria, A. D. 194, being the first). Also, like Clement, Tertullian uses the term “the eighth day” and teaches a “perpetual Lord’s day” – or, like Justin Martyr, a “perpetual Sabbath” in the observance of every day. He also promotes the bringing of “offerings for the dead” on the Lord’s day – and the perpetual use of the sign of the cross. However, Tertullian expressly affirms that these things rest, not upon the authority of the Scriptures, but wholly upon that of tradition and custom. And, although he speaks of the Sabbath as abrogated by Christ, he expressly contradicts this assertion by writing that Christ “did not at all rescind the Sabbath.”  Beyond this, Tertullian argues that Jesus imparted an additional sanctity to the Sabbath day – which “from the beginning had been consecrated by the benediction of the Father.”

This strange mingling of truth and error plainly indicates the age in which Tertullian lived. He was not so far removed from the time of the apostles but that many clear rays of divine truth shone upon him.  Yet, he was far enough advanced in the age of compromise with pagan concepts and secular civil laws against the Sabbath that he stood on the line between expiring day and advancing night.

See also the commentary of J. N. Andrews on Tertullian: Link

 

Clement (150-215 AD):

Clement of Alexandria wrote in a similar Gnostic manner regarding Sabbath observance for the Christian:

“For the teacher of him who speaks and of him who hears is one—who waters both the mind and the word. Thus the Lord did not hinder from doing good while keeping the Sabbath; but allowed us to communicate of those divine mysteries, and of that holy light to those who are able to receive them.”

Of course, so far this seems fairly straightforward.  However, Clement goes on to argue more clearly along Gnostic lines as follows:

“The eight day appears rightly to be named the seventh, and to be the true Sabbath, but the seventh to be a working day.”

Rev. A.A. Phelps, in “An Argument for the Perpetuity of the Sabbath,” p. 159

Here Clement argues that Sunday is really the seventh day and that the seventh day (Sabbath) is really the sixth day – and goes on to explain that Sunday is a work day of ordinary labor while Saturday remains a day of rest.  Clement proceeds at length to show the sacredness and importance of the number six – which for him is the Saturday the Sabbath. (Link)

It is also a striking coincidence that the first mention of Sunday as a mystic “eighth day” should be found in the Gnostic pseudo-Barnabas (Link), and that the first mention of the term “Lord’s Day” as a mystic day typifying the renewed life should be made by the Gnostic philosopher Clement of Alexandria – the very one who first endorsed this pseudo-epistle as valid scripture.  He was also the first to forward the solar day of the Pagans as the mystical “eighth day” of the Lord (represented by Sunday and the resurrection with Christ into a new world and a new eternal age of light).

“And they purify themselves seven days, the period in which creation was consummated. For on the seventh day the rest is celebrated; and on the eighth, he brings a propitiation, as it is written in Ezekiel, according to which propitiation the promise is to be received.”

Clement, Book iv. chap 25.

Again, the following quote is the first instance in the writings of the Christian fathers in which the term “the Lord’s day” is expressly applied to Sunday. However, Clement does not say that he inherited this concept from Saint John or any other apostle of Christ.  Rather, he finds authority for this in the writings of the Greek philosopher Plato, of all people, whom Clement thinks spoke of this concept prophetically!

And the Lord’s day Plato prophetically speaks of in the tenth book of the Republic, in these words: ‘

And when seven days have passed to each of them in the meadow, on the eighth day they are to set out and arrive in four days,’

By the meadow is to be understood the fixed sphere, as being a mild and genial spot, and the locality of the pious; and by the seven days each motion of the seven planets, and the whole practical art which speeds to the end of the rest. But after the wandering orbs the journey leads to Heaven, that is, to the eighth motion and day. And he says that souls are gone on the fourth day, pointing out the passage through the four elements.”

Clement, Book v. chap 14.

By the “eighth day” to which Clement here applies the name of the “Lord’s Day” is no doubt intended the first day of the week.  However, having presented arguments in favor of the eighth day, Clement, in the very next sentence, tries to establish, from the Greek philosophers no less, the sacredness of that seventh day. This shows that whatever regard he might have for the eighth day, he certainly thought of the seventh day as sacred as well…

But the seventh day is recognized as sacred, not by the Hebrews only, but also by the Greeks; according to which the whole world of all animals and plants revolves.

Hesiod says of it:-

‘The first, and fourth, and seventh days were held sacred.’
And again: ‘And on the seventh the sun’s resplendent orb.’

And Homer: ‘And on the seventh then came the sacred day.’
And: ‘The seventh was sacred.’
And again: ‘It was the seventh day, and all things were accomplished.’
And again: ‘And on the seventh morn we leave the stream of Acheron.’

Callimachus the poet also writes: ‘It was the seventh morn, and they had all things done.’
And again: ‘Among good days is the seventh day, and the seventh race.’ And: ‘The seventh is among the prime, and the seventh is perfect.’
And: ‘Now all the seven were made in starry heaven, In circles shining as the years appear.’

The Elegies of Solon, too, intensely deify the seventh day.

Clement, Book v. chap 14.

See also the review of J.N. Andrews: Link

Origen (185-254 AD):

Likewise, Origen (a disciple of Clement of Alexandria) argued that Christian Sabbath observance should be different from Jewish Sabbath observance:

“It is fitting for whoever is righteous among the saints to keep also the festival of the Sabbath. Which is, indeed, the festival of the Sabbath, except that concerning which the Apostle said, ‘There remaineth therefore a sabbatismus, that is, a keeping of the Sabbath, to the people of God [Hebrews 4:9]’. Forsaking therefore the Judaic observance of the Sabbath, let us see what sort of observance of the Sabbath is expected of the Christian. On the day of the Sabbath nothing of worldly acts ought to be performed…”

Homily on Numbers 23, para. 4, in Migne, Patrologia Græca, Vol. 12, cols. 749, 750

Beyond this, however, Origen argued that the Christian should live as if every day were holy to God, and clearly indicated that Sunday was considered a day of worship by Christians in his day – along with the Sabbath:

“If it be objected to us on this subject that we ourselves are accustomed to observe certain days, as for example the Lord’s day, the Preparation, the Passover, or Pentecost, I have to answer, that to the perfect Christian, who is ever in his thoughts, words, and deeds serving his natural Lord, God the Word, all his days are the Lord’s, and he is always keeping the Lord’s day.”

Origen Against Celsus. Book 8 Chapter XXII.

This wasn’t the only issue with Origen’s efforts to harmonize Christianity with Gnostic philosophy.

“In his attempt to reconcile the gospel and his philosophy he miserably compromises some of the most important truths of Scripture… [Origen] maintained the pre-existence of human souls, he held that the stars are animated beings; he taught that all men shall ultimately attain happiness; and he believed that the devils themselves shall eventually be saved.”

Killen, “Ancient Church,” second period, sec. 2, chap. I.

It is no wonder then that Origen wrote in such mystical terms regarding the Sabbath and the “Lord’s Day” – as well as many other Christian Doctrines.

“There are countless multitudes of believers who. . .are most firmly persuaded that neither ought circumcision to be understood literally, nor the rest of the Sabbth, nor the pouring out of the blood of an animal, nor that answers were given by God to Moses on these points.”

Origen, De Principiis, b. ii. chap 7 (Link)

Origen continually asserts that the spiritual interpretation of the Scriptures, whereby their literal meaning is set aside, is something divinely inspired. But, when this notion is accepted as the truth who can tell what is actually intended by the author? Truth starts to become what anyone wants it to be – kind of like interpreting modern art. And, this is how Origen interpreted the concept of the Sabbath in Scripture as well.  He seem to recognize the origin of the Sabbath at the beginning of creation, but still gives it a hidden mystical meaning:

“For he [Celsus] knows nothing of the day of the Sabbath and rest of God, which follows the completion of the world’s creation, and which lasts during the duration of the world, and in which all those will keep festival with God who have done all their works in their six days, and who, because they have omitted none of their duties, will ascend to the contemplation [of celestial things], and to the assembly of righteous and blessed beings.”

Origen, Book vi. chap. 1xi. TFTC 86.4

Here we get an insight into Origen’s mystical Sabbath. It began at creation and will continue while the world endures. To those who follow the letter it is indeed only a weekly rest, but to those who know the truth, it is a perpetual Sabbath enjoyed by God during all the days of time and entered by believers either at conversion or at death.

This is true with regard to Sunday-observance as well – or the “Lord’s Day”. Origen divided his brethren into two classes. In one class are the imperfect Christians who content themselves with the literal day while in the other class are the “perfect Christians” whose Lord’s day embraces all the days of life.

Undoubtedly, Origen reckoned himself one of the perfect Christians since his own observance of the Lord’s day did not consist in the elevation of one day above another – for he counted them all alike as constituting one perpetual Lord’s day.  This is the same doctrine promoted by Clement of Alexandria, who was Origen’s teacher in his early life. The keeping of the Lord’s day with Origen (as with Clement) embraced all the days of his life and consisted, according to Origen, in serving God in thought, word, and deed, continually.  Or, as expressed by Clement, one “keeps the Lord’s [Day], when he abandons an evil disposition and assumes that of the Gnostic.”

Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD):

Augustine of Hippo, regarding why the Christian no longer needed to observe the Sabbath wrote:

So, when you ask why a Christian does not keep the Sabbath, if Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it, my reply is, that a Christian does not keep the Sabbath precisely because what was prefigured in the Sabbath is fulfilled in Christ. For we have our Sabbath in Him who said, “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest unto your souls.”

Augustine of Hippo: Reply to Faustus the Manichæan. Book XIX.-9

Sabbath vs. Sunday:

Emperor Constantine (274-337 AD):

The increase in references about the Sabbath in early Christian church literature, both for and against, indicate that some sort of struggle was beginning to manifest itself on a rather widespread basis. The controversy wasn’t so much about Sunday observance, for that had long been established in most Christian communities throughout the Christian world.  The problem was over continued Sabbath observance, which was also just as widespread throughout Christendom for the first several centuries. Some thought that a Sabbath fast should be imposed while others strongly rejected burdening the seventh-day Sabbath with fasting. Some wanted everyone to work on the Sabbath “doing good” and others wanted to maintain the Sabbath as a day of complete rest and idleness – similar to the way the Jews observed the Sabbath. And, of course, there were those who wanted to do away completely with Sabbath observance in order to get rid of all traces of Judaism.

However, the controversy over Sabbath observance increased significantly within the fourth and fifth centuries and expanded well beyond Rome and Alexandria. What could have triggered this conflict on such a wide scale in the fourth and fifth centuries? Undoubtedly, one of the most important factors is to be found in the activities of Emperor Constantine the Great in the early fourth century – and subsequently by other “Christian Emperors.”

Not only did Constantine give Christianity a new status within the Roman Empire (from being persecuted to being honored), but he also gave Sunday a “new look.” By his civil legislation, he made Sunday an official rest day of the state. His famous Sunday law of March 7, 321, reads:

“On the venerable Day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country, however, persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits; because it often happens that another day is not so suitable for grain–sowing or for vine–planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost.”

Codex Justinianus, iii., Tit. 12.3, trans. in Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 5th ed. (New York, 1902), Vol. 3, p. 380, note 1.

This was the first in a series of steps taken by Constantine, and by later Christian Emperors, in regulating Sunday observance according to national civil laws. It is obvious that this first Sunday law was not particularly Christian in orientation (note the pagan designation “venerable Day of the Sun”). However, Constantine, on political and social grounds, was ever endeavoring to merge together heathen and Christian elements of his constituency by focusing on a common practice.

“Constantine’s decrees marked the beginning of a long though intermittent series of imperil decrees in support of Sunday rest.”

A History of the Councils of the Church, volume 2, page 316.

“What began as a pagan ordinance, ended as a Christian regulation; and a long series of imperial decrees, during the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries, enjoined with increasing stringency abstinence from labor on Sunday.”

Hutton Webster, Rest Days, 1916, pp. 122-123, 270. [Webster (1875-1955) was an anthropologist and historian at the University of Nebraska].

In 386 AD, Theodosius I and Gratian Valentinian extended Sunday restrictions so that litigation should entirely cease on that day and there would be no public or private payment of debt. Laws forbidding circus, theater, and horse racing also followed and were reiterated as felt necessary.

Theodosian Code, 11.7.13, trans. by Clyde Pharr (Princeton, N.J., 1952), p. 300.

Constantine enacted several Sunday laws during his reign (306-337 A.D.) followed by at least fifteen additional Sunday decrees within the next few centuries after his death – including Governmental decrees in the years 365, 386, 389, 458, 460, 554, 589, 681, 768, 789, and onward and church council decrees in 343, 538, 578, 581, 690 and onward. These laws restricted what could be done on Sunday and forbade Sabbath keeping. Each law became more and more strict, each penalty more and more severe. This, in itself, is strong evidence of the continued desire by many Christians, throughout the Christian world, to continue to keep the 4th Commandment of the Decalogue of God.  In fact, in the centuries following Emperor Constantine, there was a significant revival in Sabbath observance within the majority of Christian Churches throughout Christendom.

Gregory of Nyssa (335-394):

Still, the concept of the Sabbath as a holy day held on in the Christian world.

Gregory of Nyssa, also known as Gregory Nyssen, was bishop of Nyssa from 372 to 376 and from 378 until his death. He is venerated as a saint in Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, and Anglicanism.  Yet, even during this time, following the decrees of Constantine, Gregory wrote about the equality of the Sabbath day with the “Lord’s Day”, or Sunday worship:

With what eyes can you behold the Lord’s day, when you despise the Sabbath? Do you not perceive that they are sisters, and that in slighting the one, you affront the other?

Expostulation of Gregory of Nyssa, 372 AD, Dialogues on the Lord’s day, p. 188; Hessey’s Bampton Lectures, pp. 72, 304, 305.

Spain – Council of Elvira (A.D.305):

Canon 26 of the Council of Elvira reveals that the Church of Spain at that time kept Saturday, the seventh day.

“As to fasting every Sabbath: Resolved, that the error be corrected of fasting every Sabbath.”

This resolution of the council is in direct opposition to the policy the church at Rome had inaugurated, that of commanding Sabbath as a fast day in order to humiliate it and make it repugnant to the people.

Persia (335-375 AD):

“They despise our sun-god. Did not Zorcaster, the sainted founder of our divine beliefs, institute Sunday one thousand years ago in honour of the sun and supplant the Sabbath of the Old Testament. Yet these Christians have divine services on Saturday.”

O’Leary, “The Syriac Church and Fathers,” pp.83, 84.

Pope Innocent (402-417):
Pope Sylvester (314-335) was the first to order the churches to fast on Saturday, and Pope Innocent (402-417) made it a binding law in the churches that obeyed him (in order to bring the Sabbath into disfavor):

“Innocentius did ordain the Saturday or Sabbath to be always fasted.”

Dr. Peter Heylyn, “History of the Sabbath, Part 2, p. 44.

John Chrysostom (349-407 AD):

John Chrysostom, a contemporary of Gregory and Asterius and Archbishop of Constantinople, was strongly opposed to anything Jewish, including Sabbath observance.  Yet, Sabbath observance was so common in his day that he said:

“There are many among us now, who fast on the same day as the Jews, and keep the sabbaths in the same manner; and we endure it nobly or rather ignobly and basely.”

Comment on Galatians 1:7 in Commentary on Galatians (The Nicene and Post–Nicene Fathers [NPNF], 1st Series, Vol. 13, p. 8).

“Wherefore dost thou keep the sabbath, and fast with the Jews? Is it that thou fearest the Law and abandonment of its letter? But thou wouldest not entertain this fear, didst thou not disparage faith as weak, and by itself powerless to save. A fear to omit the sabbath plainly shows that you fear the Law as still in force; and if the Law is needful, it is so as a whole, not in part, nor in one commandment only; and if as a whole, the righteousness which is by faith is little by little shut out. If thou keep the sabbath, why not also be circumcised? and if circumcised, why not also offer sacrifices? If the Law is to be observed, it must be observed as a whole, or not at all.”

John Chrysostom, Homilies on Galatians 2:17

 

The interpolater of Ignatius (4th Century):

“If any one fasts on the Lord’s Day or on the Sabbath, except on the paschal Sabbath only, he is a murderer of Christ.”

Pseudo–Ignatius, To the Philippians, ch. 13 (ANF, Vol. 1, p. 119).

Apollinaris Sidonius (430-489 AD):

Apollinaris Sidonius (430-489 AD) also agrees (Speaking Of King Theodoric Of The Goths):

“It is a fact that it was formerly the custom in the East to keep the Sabbath in the same manner as the Lord’s day and to hold sacred assemblies: while on the other hand, the people of the West, contending for the Lord’s day have neglected the celebration of the Sabbath.” (Apollinaris Sidonii, Epistolæ, lib. 1,2; Migne, 57).

Ulfilas (310-383 AD)

This practice of Sabbath-observance, so clearly characteristic for Greek Christians for hundreds of years, though largely lost by the Christians of the West during this time, was again brought from the East to the West by the Greek missionaries. In the fourth century, the early Greek missionary Ulfilas from Asia Minor introduced Christianity among the Goths. It is believed that Ulfilas, as all Greek Christians of that time, was a Sabbath-keeper, teaching the Goths to observe the Seventh-day Sabbath. Latin Historian Sidonius Appolinarus (530 AD) reports following about the Ostrogoths:

“It is a fact that formerly those who dwelt in the East were accustomed as a church to sanctify the Sabbath in the same manner as the Lord’s day, and to hold sacred assemblies; wherefore Asterius, bishop of Amasia in Pontus, in a homily on incompatibility called Sabbath and Sunday a beautiful span, and Gregory of Nyssa in a certain sermon calls these days brethren and therefore censures the luxury and the Sabbatarian pleasures; while on the other hand, the people of the West, contending for the Lord’s day, have neglected the celebration of the Sabbath, as being peculiar to the Jews… It is, therefore, possible for the Goths to have thought, as pupils of the discipline of the Greeks, that they should sanctify the Sabbath after the manner of the Greeks.”

Sidonius Apollinaris, Epistolae, book 1, letter 2 in PL 58: 448 translated in Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Truth Triumphant: The Church in the Wilderness (Rapidan, VI.: Hartland Publications, 1995), 136-37

Visigoths and Ostrogoths which invaded Italy and Spain were traditionally known for keeping Saturday.  In fact, the great Ostrogoth leader, Theodoric (AD 454-526) was also believed to observe the 7th-Day Sabbath.

 

Athanasius (~366 AD): 

According to Athanasius, chief Egyptian (Hellenistic, not Coptic) delegate at Nicea and the 20th Bishop of Alexandria, in his writings around 366 AD:

“On the Sabbath day we gathered together, not being infected with Judaism, for we do not lay hold of false sabbaths, but we come on the Sabbath to worship Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath,”

Athanasius, Homilia de Semente, Sec. 1, in MPG, Vol. 28 Col. 144, Greek.

Timotheus (381-385 AD):

Timotheus, Bishop of Alexandria in 381-385 AD, speaks of the necessity of abstaining from sexual relations on “the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day [Sunday] . . . because on these days the spiritual sacrifice [the eucharist] is offered to the Lord.”

Responsa Canonica, Migne, op. cit., XXXIII, 1305

Epiphanius (380 AD):

Epiphanius of Salamis (Cyprus) also bears witness to the special place of the Sabbath alongside Sunday as a day of Christian gathering-see his “Exposition of the Faith” at the end of his Panarion (380 AD).

Sozomen (400-450 AD):

The fact remains though that, outside of Rome and Alexandria, the rest of the Christian world continued to observe the Sabbath as a memorial of creation. Of course, gradually, Sunday observance also became popular early on within many Christian churches as a celebration of the Resurrection of Jesus.  The mid-5th Century historian Sozomen reported,

“The people of Constantinople, and almost everywhere, assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the first day of the week, which custom is never observed at Rome or at Alexandria.”

Sozomen. The Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen. Comprising a History of the Church, from a.d. 323 to a.d. 425. Book VII, Chapter XIX. Translated from the Greek. Revised by Chester D. Hartranft, Hartford Theological Seminary, Under the editorial supervision of Philip Shaff, D.D., LL.D. and Henry Wace, D. D., Professor of Church History in the Union Theological Seminary, New York. Principal of King’s College, London. T&T Clark, Edinburgh, circa 1846

Socrates Scholasticus (380-440 AD):

The 5th-century historian Socrates Scholasticus of Constantinople noted:

“For although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this.”

Apostolic Constitutions (375-380 AD):

Consider the testimony of the Apostolic Constitutions from the early Christian era:

The Apostolic Constitutions or Constitutions of the Holy Apostles (Latin: Constitutiones Apostolorum) is a Christian collection of eight treatises which belongs the Church Orders, a genre of early Christian literature, that offered authoritative “apostolic” prescriptions on moral conduct, liturgy and Church organization. The work can be dated from 375 to 380 AD. The provenance is usually regarded as Syria, probably Antioch.

Of the Apostolical Constitutions, Guericke’s Church History says:

“This is a collection of ecclesiastical statutes purporting to be the work of the apostolic age, but in reality formed gradually in the second, third, and fourth centuries, and is of much value in reference to the history of polity, and Christian archaeology generally.” – Ancient Church, p. 212.

Here are a few passages relevant to the Ten Commandments and the keeping of the Sabbath as holy:

“Have before thine eyes the fear of God, and always remember the ten commandments of God, – to love the one and only Lord God with all thy strength; to give no heed to idols, or any other beings, as being lifeless gods, or irrational beings or demons. Consider the manifold workmanship of God, which received its beginning through Christ. Thou shalt observe the Sabbath, on account of Him who ceased from his work of creation, but ceased not from his work of providence: it is a rest for meditation of the law, not for idleness of the hands…

O Lord Almighty, thou hast created the world by Christ, and hast appointed the Sabbath in memory thereof, because that on that day thou hast made us rest from our works, for the meditation upon thy laws…

Thou didst give them the law or decalogue, which was pronounced by thy voice and written with thy hand. Thou didst enjoin the observation of the Sabbath, not affording them an occasion of idleness, but an opportunity of piety, for their knowledge of thy power, and the prohibition of evils; having limited them as within an holy circuit for the sake of doctrine, for the rejoicing upon the seventh period…

On this account he permitted men every Sabbath to rest, that so no one might be willing to send one word out of his mouth in anger on the day of the Sabbath. For the Sabbath is the ceasing of the creation, the completion of the world, the inquiry after laws, and the grateful praise to God for the blessings he has bestowed upon men.

Testimony of the Apostolical Constitutions (375-380 AD), Book ii. sect. 4, par. 36.

Let the slaves work five days; but on the Sabbath day and the Lord’s day let them have leisure to go to church for instruction in piety. We have said that the Sabbath is on account of the creation, and the Lord’s day, of the resurrection.”

Testimony of the Apostolical Constitutions, Book viii. sect. 4

See also the review of JN Andrews: Link

Didascalia (300s AD):

Robert A. Kraft

The Greek form of the Didascalia tradition, which probably dates from the 4th century (probably from Syria), exhorts the people not to forsake the daily assemblies, especially the Sabbath and Sunday days of rejoicing.

Various other sources supplement this material by giving us a more precise picture of what was (or was not) involved in “Sabbath observance.” The 29th canon of the Synod of Laodicea (c. 380) argues against a “Judaistic” manner of keeping the Sabbath-i.e., in idleness: “For it is not necessary that Christians Judaize and have leisure on the Sabbath, but let them work on that day, and give precedence to the Lord’s Day – if indeed they are able to have leisure as Christians.”

But the same Synod prescribes that, “the Gospels along with other scriptures be read on the Sabbath” (Canon 16), and recognizes the special nature of the two days, Sabbath and Lord’s Day, during Lent (Canons 49, 51). A similar attitude is attested by the Christian editor (possibly from Antioch in Syria) who expanded the Ignatian Epistles at about the same time:

Therefore let us no longer observe the Sabbath in a judaistic way and rejoice in idleness. . . . But each of you should observe Sabbath in a spiritual way, rejoicing in study of laws. . . . And after keeping the Sabbath, let every lover of Christ celebrate the festival of the Lord’s Day – the resurrection day, the royal day, the most excellent of all days.

Pseudo-Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians, 9.3-4 (ed. Funk-Diekamp)

Finally, if we are allowed for the moment to treat the Apostolic Constitutions as somewhat of a unity representing 4th-century Hellenistic Egyptian Christianity, we will find that it not only refers to the Sabbath and Sunday festal gatherings which commemorate creation and resurrection respectively, and advocates rest from usual labors on these two days, but it also guards against leaving the impression that a person should be idle on the Sabbath – “for creature as for creator, Sabbath rest means study of the laws, not idleness of hands.”

The Apostolic Constitutions and related literature are also quite clear that one is not to fast on the Sabbath (the Jews also never fasted on the Sabbath, but viewed it as a day of celebration – a feast day), except at Passover/Easter time in memory of the Lord’s death and burial – an attitude which is widely attested by other contemporary witnesses such as Basil of Cappadocia, John Chrysostom of Antioch and even Augustine of Hippo.

Now, it is quite clear that Sabbath observance, along with Sunday observance, was a widespread practice among Coptic Christians at this time. But this practice was not limited to the Coptics. Both Hellenistic Egypt and the rest of the Hellenistic Christian East knew of and practiced the dual observance of Sabbath and Sunday in the 4th century.

See also: Kraft, Robert A.. “Some Notes on Sabbath Observance in Early Christianity.” Andrews University Seminary Studies (AUSS) 3.1 (1965): 18-33. (Link)

XXXVI. O Lord Almighty Thou hast created the world by Christ, and hast appointed the Sabbath in memory thereof, because that on that day Thou hast made us rest from our works, for the meditation upon Thy laws…Thou didst give them the law or decalogue, which was pronounced by Thy voice and written with Thy hand. Thou didst enjoin the observation of the Sabbath, not affording them an occasion of idleness, but an opportunity of piety, for their knowledge of Thy power, and the prohibition of evils; having limited them as within an holy circuit for the sake of doctrine, for the rejoicing upon the seventh period…On this account He permitted men every Sabbath to rest, that so no one might be willing to send one word out of his mouth in anger on the day of the Sabbath. For the Sabbath is the ceasing of the creation, the completion of the world, the inquiry after laws, and the grateful praise to God for the blessings He has bestowed upon men.

Apostolic Constitutions – Didascalia Apostolorum Book VII, Section II)

This is from the seventh book of the Apostolic Constitutions, the Didascalia, which contains seventeen Sabbath blessings in six prayers that are identical to the Jewish “Amidah of the Sabbath”. This is pre-rabbinic liturgy put together by Ezra the Scribe.

 

Eastern Orthodox Church:

Zeger-Bernard van Espen writes that, “Among the Greeks the Sabbath was kept exactly as the Lord’s day except so far as the cessation of work was concerned [since the Apostolic Constitutions allowed for ‘good works’ to be done on Sabbath].”

The Canons of the Synod of Laodicea, NPNF2 14:133, notes by van Espen

This difference between the Western and Eastern Church was over the original determination of the Eastern Church to follow the Apostolic Constitutions – which conflicted with the determination of the Western Church, during later centuries, to distance itself from anything remotely resembling Judaic practices.

Council of Trullo (692 AD):

In the Eastern churches, it was a general rule that there should be no fasting on Saturday and, specifically, that Saturday, as well as Sunday, should be exempt from fasting in the period before Easter. The Council in Trullo (692 AD) strongly reacted against the proposed changes of Rome (to include making the weekly Sabbath a day of fasting). The decisions of the Council of Trullo was confirmed in five canons, four directly, that the Sabbath (Saturday) remained a feast day for the Church. In Canon 55 issued by the Council of Trullo, a portion of the Apostolic Constitutions was referenced which said, “If any cleric shall be found to fast on a Sunday or Saturday (except on one occasion only [during the Easter Weekend]) he is to be deposed; and if he is a layman he shall be cut off.”
In this canon, the fathers of the Council in Trullo reacted against the noncanonical practice of fasting by the church in Rome on Saturdays and Sundays during Lent and throughout the year. At the end of the Apostolic Constitutions, “Ecclesiastical Canon” no. 64 states:

“If any one of the clergy be found to fast on the Lord’s day, or on the Sabbath-day, excepting one only [Easter weekend], let him be deprived; but if he be one of the laity, let him be suspended.”

On the basis of this statement, the Eastern church adopted, as a general rule, that there should be no fasting on Sabbath, and that Sabbath and Sunday should be excluded from the period of fasting before Lent. The one exception in the whole liturgical year was the Sabbath just before Easter.

In fact, there was only one Sabbath during the year when, according to the Council in Trullo (late 7th century), the faithful should fast: the “Great Sabbath of Lent”. The Apostolic Constitutions 7.23 describe this as the Sabbath of “our Lord’s burial, on which men ought to keep a fast, but not a festival. For inasmuch as the Creator was then under the earth, the sorrow for him is more forcible than the joy for the creation.” It is clear that for the Eastern churches the Sabbath day, as well as Sunday, had to be set apart not just as a special day of nonfasting, but also as a day of worship on which the faithful should experience both the joy of the creation and the resurrection of Jesus.

See also: Radiša Antić, The Controversey over Fasting on Saturday, 2012

As an aside, the practice of fasting on Sabbath became a popular way to undermine Judaism.  The Church of Rome became the first champion of the Sabbath fast and soon became eager to impose it on other Christian communities. This is well attested by the historical references from Bishop Callistus (A.D. 217-222), Hippolytus (c. A.D. 170-236), Pope Sylvester (A.D. 314-335), Pope Innocent I (A.D. 401-417), Augustine (A.D. 354-430), and John Cassian (c. A.D. 360-435). The fast was designed not only to express sorrow for Christ’s death but also, as Pope Sylvester emphatically states, to show ‘contempt for the Jews’ (execratione Judaeorum) and for their Sabbath ‘feasting’ (destructiones ciborum).

Nicetas Stethatos (1000 – 1090 AD):

Around the same time another learned theologian from the East, Nicetas Stethatos, wrote a booklet (Libellus Contra Latinos) in which he accused the Roman Church of breaking the rules of the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles against fasting on the Sabbath, as well as of being disobedient to the Scriptures and the canons of other church councils, which had forbidden this practice.

Nicetas Stethatos, “Libellus Contra Latinos,” (PG 120:1011-1022).

Pope Leo IX (1002 – 1054 AD):

Pope Leo IX believed that he inherited absolute power over all Christian people and institutions from Peter himself. Pope Leo XI said that a donation of the Patriarch of Constantinople proved that “the Holy See possessed both an earthly and a heavenly imperiam, the royal priesthood”. He said that “only the apostolic successor to Peter possessed primacy in the Church.”

Migne, Patrologia Latina, vol. 143, pgs. 744-769.

However, the Eastern Church primarily claims to be successors of Saint Andrew (the first Apostle) and of Saint John.

The Great Schism began with an open letter written by the Bishops Leo and Michael Ceralarius of the Eastern church to Bishop John of Trani of the Western church in southern Italy. It was addressed, received and replied to several times by several Bishops. This letter as was written originally by Eastern aligned Bishops and Archbishops. In the last replies, they called the Pope “brother” rather than “most holy father” or “reverend Pope”. However, the first letter was addressed, “to all the chief priests, and the priests of the Franks, and the monks, and the peoples, and to the most reverend Pope himself.”

The two biggest issues in the letter were in regard to the Sabbath not being a day of fasting, but a festal day, and regarding Rome’s use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist (Link)

Pope Leo IX in his letter accused Constantinople of historically being the source of heresy. He claimed in emphatic terms that the Bishop of Rome held primacy even over the Constantinople. Of course, the Eastern Orthodox Church did not take very kindly to this. The response of Patriarch Michael of Constantinople, who took the title of “Ecumenical Patriarch”, was none too subtle in that he addressed Pope Leo as “brother” rather than “father.”

Eventually, Pope Leo IX decided, early in the year of 1054, to send a group of theologians to Constantinople to discuss further the contended issues. This group consisted of three papal legates: Cardinal Humbert; Frederic, deacon and chancellor of the Church of Rome; and Peter, archbishop of Amalfi. However, Cerularius refused to meet with Cardinal Humbert and kept him waiting with no audience for months. When they were eventually granted an audience, the papal legates discussed the disputed issues with the patriarch, the emperor, and publicly, with Nicetas Stethatos, in the presence of the emperor, his court, and other persons of high rank in affairs of state and church. Patriarch Michael Cerularius was offended by the letter brought to him by the legates and responded to the accusations concerning the Sabbath observance by saying: “For we are commanded also to honour the Sabbath equally with [Sunday] the Lord’s [day], and to keep and not to work on it.”

Cerularius, “Letter I,” (PG 120:777, 778) – – Humbert, “Brevis et Succincta Commemoratio,” (PL 143:1001, 1002).

Again, the three main Schism letters from the “Patriarch of Constantinople”, Michael Cerularius and his representative Archbishop Leo of Achrida, were focused primarily on keeping the Sabbath holy, and not turning it into a day of fasting or of work. These included the decrees of earlier church councils that the Orthodox Church should not fast on Sabbaths which occur during Lent.

“[Christians are] commanded to honor the Sabbath . . . to keep [it] and not to work on it.”

Patriarch Michael Cerularius, 1054

There were several replies by the Pope Leo IX primarily reverting to slander against Constantinople and exerting primacy of Rome (which the east never fully recognized). He said he had a right to enforce the fasting on Sabbath across all the lands of Christendom (East and West). However, the Eastern (Orthodox) church maintained the same position in all of the replies. Before, during and after the breakup, the church affirmed that they cannot and will not relent on the Sabbath commandment, in order to appease Rome. Rome had long been trying to sneak in a breaking of the Sabbath in regards to keeping Lent (when it lands on the Sabbath). However, again the Eastern Church reiterated its claim since the first century, and in every century, the official doctrine to not fast on the Sabbath. (Link)

Excommunication of the Eastern Orthodox Church (1054 AD):

After these unsuccessful discussions and other attempts to bring the Eastern church into submission to the Church of Rome, there occurred one of the most dramatic and most devastating events in the history of Christianity. On July 16, 1054, the Sabbath day (Link; Link), when preparations had been made for the liturgy on that day, the three papal legates entered the Church of St. Sophia and laid the bull of excommunication on the altar and walked away, toward Rome, shaking the dust from their feet.

Patriarch Michael Cerularius, in turn, excommunicated the Cardinal and the Pope and subsequently removed the Pope’s name from the diptychs, starting the East-West Schism.

From that day on, the fracture between Constantinople and Rome has never been completely healed. The key problem being that the Eastern churches continued to observe the weekly Sabbath in a way that was much too similar to the way the Jews observed the weekly Sabbath…

As an aside, consider that the Divine Liturgy is held on the weekly Sabbath here. This is interesting because, although weekday liturgies are common in the Greek Orthodox tradition, only monasteries or convents have liturgical services every single day. The time of the Great Lent may be an exception since during this time there are typically many liturgical days (since many Orthodox Churches have “Pre-Sanctified Liturgies” at least once a week in addition to the other feast-day-related celebrations).

Cardinal Humbert (1015-1061 AD):

In his work, Adversus Calumnis Graecorum (Against the Calumnies of the Greeks), Cardinal Humbert wrote (11th century):

“Therefore, in such observance of the Sabbath, where and in what way do we [Latins] have anything in common with the Jews? For they are idle and keep a holiday on the Sabbath, neither ploughing nor reaping, and by reason of custom do not work, but they hold a festivity and a dinner, and their menservants, maidservants, cattle, and beasts of burden rest. But we [Latins] observe none of these things, but we do every [sort of] work, as on the preceding five days, and we fast as we fast on the sixth day [Friday] next to it. However, you [Greeks], if you do not judaize, tell (us) why do you have something in common with the Jews with the similar observance of the Sabbath? They certainly observe the Sabbath, and you observe (it); they dine, and always break the fast, on the Sabbath. In their forty day period they break the fast every Sabbath except one, and you [Greeks] in your forty day period break the fast every Sabbath except one. They [the Jewish Christians] have a twofold reason for observing the Sabbath, obviously by reason of the precept of Moses, and because the disciples were saddened and heavy (of heart) on this (Sabbath) day on account of the death of the Lord, whom they did not believe to be about to be resurrected. Wherefore, because you observe Sabbath with the Jews and with us Sunday, [the] Lord’s day, you appear by such observance to imitate the sect of the Nazarenes, who in this manner accept the Christianity that they might not give up Judaism.”

Here we see that Cardinal Humbert argued, as late as the 11th century, that the Christians from the East continued to celebrate the Sabbath in a similar way as do the Jews and Nazarene Christians (“why you have something in common with the Jews in a similar observance of the Sabbath?”; “They certainly observe the Sabbath, and you observe [it]”). He also states that the Jews and by analogy the Christians from the East “are idle and keep a holiday on the Sabbath, neither ploughing nor reaping, and by the reason of custom do not work.” Further, he explains the theological reasons why the Jews and the Christians from the East observe the Sabbath: observing “the precept of Moses,” according to the revelation given to humanity through the prophet Moses in the Pentateuch and more specifically the Ten Commandments, and (2) the fasting of the Orthodox Church on only one Sabbath during the year—the day when Christ was in the tomb and “the disciples were saddened and heavy (of heart) . . . on account of the death of the Lord.” Cardinal Humbert concludes that since the Christians from the East “observe the Sabbath with the Jews” and the Lord’s Day (Sunday) with the Latin church, they must be designated as a sect, not fully in line with the teachings of the Western Churches – which, according to Humbert, defined full and complete Christianity at that time.

Michael Cerularius:

At least equally important, if not more so, is the response given by Patriarch Michael Cerularius, in which he states that Christians are “commanded also to honour the Sabbath equally with the [Sunday] the Lord’s [day], and to keep [it] and not to work on it.”

Consequently, Cerularius did not deny the accusations made by Humbert, but argued instead that Christians are “commanded,” by biblical revelation and the apostolic tradition, to honor, worship, and not work on the Sabbath – even as on Sunday.

This, of course, remained a point of serious contention between the Eastern and Western Churches until modern times.  “The observance of Saturday is, as everyone knows, the subject of a bitter dispute between the Greeks and the Latins.” Neale, “A History of the Holy Eastern Church,” Vol 1, p. 731. (Referring to the separation of the Greek Church from the Latin in 1054)

“The observance of Saturday [Sabbath] is, as everyone knows, the subject of a bitter dispute between the Greeks and the Latins.”

Neale, A History of the Holy Eastern Church, Vol 1, p. 731. (Referring to the separation of the Greek Church from the Latin in 1054)

See also: Radiša Antić, The Controversey over Fasting on Saturday, 2012

6th-7th Century Scotland and Ireland:

“It seems to have been customary in the Celtic churches of early times, in Ireland as well as Scotland, to keep Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath, as a day of rest from labour. They obeyed the fourth commandment literally upon the seventh day of the week.”

Professor James C. Moffatt, D.D., Professor of Church History at Princeton, The Church in Scotland, p. 140.

Ironically St. Patrick himself evidently kept Saturday as a day of rest, (A.C. Flick, The Rise of Medieval Church, pp. 236-327).

 

The monks sent to England [in 596 A.D.] by Pope Gregory the Great soon came to see that the Celtic Church differed from theirs in many respects… Augustine himself [a Benedictine abbot] . . . held several conferences with the Christian Celts in order to accomplish the difficult task of their subjugation to Roman authority… The Celts permitted their priests to marry, the Romans forbade it. The Celts used a different mode of baptism from that of the Romans… The Celts held their own councils and enacted their own laws, independent of Rome. The Celts used a Latin Bible unlike the [Catholic] Vulgate, and kept Saturday as a day of rest.”

Alexander Clarence Flick, The Rise of The Mediaeval Church, 1959, pp. 236- 327 [Dr. Flick (1869-1942) was professor of European history in Syracuse University and author of an important historical work].

The Catholic historian Alphons Bellesheim (1839-1912) comments regarding the Sabbath in Scotland:

We seem to see here an allusion to the custom observed in the early monastic Church of Ireland, of keeping the day of rest on Saturday, or the Sabbath.

Bellesheim, History of the Catholic Church in Scotland, Vol. 1, p 86

In Scotland, until the tenth and eleventh century, it was asserted that:

“They worked on Sunday but kept Saturday in a Sabbatical manner … These things Margaret abolished.”

Andrew Lang, A History of Scotland from the Roman Occupation, Vol. I, p. 96; see also Celtic Scotland, Vol. 2, p. 350

The Scots were Sabbath-keepers up until Queen Margaret (reigned from 1503-1513), according to Turgot:

It was another custom of theirs to neglect the reverence due to the Lord’s day, by devoting themselves to every kind of worldly business upon it, just as they did upon other days. That this was contrary to the law, she (Queen Margaret) proved to them as well by reason as by authority. ‘Let us venerate the Lord’s day,’ said she, ‘because of the resurrection of our Lord, which happened on that day, and let us no longer do servile works upon it; bearing in mind that upon this day we were redeemed from the slavery of the devil. The blessed Pope Gregory affirms the same.’

Turgot, Life of Saint Margaret, p. 49

 

8th Century India, China, and Persia:

“Widespread and enduring was the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath among the believers of the Church of the East and the St. Thomas Christians of India, who never were connected with Rome. It also was maintained among those bodies which broke off from Rome after the Council of Chalcedon namely, the Abyssinians, the Jacobites, the Maronites, and Armenians.”

Philip Schaff-Herzog, The New Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, art. Nestorians; also Realencyclopaedie fur Protestantische Theologie und Kirche, art Nestorianer.

10th Century Kurdistan:

“The Nestorians eat no pork and keep the Sabbath. They believe in neither auricular confession nor purgatory.”

Philip Schaff-Herzog, The New Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, art. Nestorians.

11th Century Scotland:

“They held that Saturday was properly the Sabbath on which they abstained from work.”

Celtic Scotland, Vol. 2, p. 350.

12th Century Wales:

“There is much evidence that the Sabbath prevailed in Wales universally until A.D. 1115, when the first Roman bishop was seated at St. David’s. The old Welsh Sabbath-keeping churches did not even then altogether bow the knee to Rome, but fled to their hiding places.”

Lewis, Seventh Day Baptists in Europe and America, Vol. 1, p. 29.

16th Century Germany:

Andreas Rudolph Bodenstein von Karlstadt, better known as Andreas Karlstadt or Andreas Carlstadt or Karolostadt, was a German Christian theologian during the Protestant Reformation.

Carlstadt, a co-worker with Martin Luther in the Sixteenth Century German Reformation, accepted the Bible Sabbath as correct, and published his belief:

“When servants have worked six days, they should have the seventh day free. God says without distinction, ‘Remember that you observe the seventh day’ . . . Concerning Sunday it is known that men have instituted it . . . It is clear however, that you should celebrate the seventh day.”

Andres Carlstadt, Von dem Sabbat und gebotten feyertagen (Concerning the Sabbath and Commanded Holidays), 1524, chap. 4, pp. 23-24 [Karlstadt (1480-1541) joined Luther at Wittenberg in 1517, and later taught at Bazel from 1534 onward].

So, what did Luther say of Carlstadt’s Sabbath views?

“Indeed, if Carlstadt were to write further about the Sabbath, Sunday would have to give way, and the Sabbath, that is to say, Saturday, must be kept holy.”

Martin Luther, in his pamphlet, “Against the Celestial Prophets,” quoted in Life of Martin Luther in Pictures, page 147.

It seems at least a little bit rather strange, then, that Luther never did accept the Sabbath as his friend Carlstadt did.  In fact, it is because of Luther’s inconsistency regarding the Sabbath that his claim that Protestantism was based “on the Bible and the Bible only” or “sola scriptura” was successfully challenged during his famous 1519 debate with Dr. John Eck.  Dr. Eck was the most staunch defender of the catholic faith at the time. During the course of the debate, both men were coming down to their final appeals to the people. Martin Luther’s final argument was essentially that, “Dr. Eck doesn’t know a thing about Scripture and isn’t willing to listen to a thing about Scripture.“

Dr. Eck’s refutation of Luther’s accusation was so devastating that it rendered Luther speechless and ultimately caused him to lose the debate. What he said is a matter of historical record as follows:

“If you turn from the church to the Scriptures alone, then you must keep the Sabbath with the Jews, which has been kept since the beginning of the world.”

Dr. John Eck, Enchiridion, pp. 78-79

Martin Luther was accusing Dr. Eck of not knowing anything about Scripture. He was accusing the Catholic Church of going in the wrong direction by not following him in the reformation based on a clear biblical foundation for everything. But as Dr. Eck pointed out, Luther himself was not keeping the Sabbath. And if he really wanted to go by “sola scriptura“, then he needed to start keeping the Sabbath.

Needless to say, Martin Luther lost that debate… in no small part, I believe, because of Luther’s strong personal antisemitism.

Summary:

So, a fairly clear picture emerges from the testimony of numerous historical sources regarding the practice of the early Christian churches.  It seems incontrovertible that the early Christians continued to keep the Sabbath as a very common practice in most areas all over Asia, Africa, and Europe for hundreds of years – and in some places, like Ethiopia, until modern times. The Eastern Church (Syrian Sabbath-keeping Christians in particular) cherished a strong missionary spirit. They rapidly spread towards Persia and China where they existed for over 1000 years. Researcher Alphons Mingana wrote:

“There existed large Sabbath-keeping bishoprics or conferences of the Church of the East stretching from Palestine to India.”

Sabbath-keeping Christianity flourished under the Mongols and was even accepted among many high-rank Mongol officials during Mongolian rule. In 1625 Jesuit missionaries in China discovered an ancient Chinese monument that reported the existence of a statue which witnessed the presence of the seventh-day Sabbath keeping Christian Church of the East of millennia before. The monument, dating from 781 AD and written in Syriac and Chinese, included these words:

“At the command of Emperor Tae-Tsung, to honor the arrival of a Syrian missionary and his companions to the capitol in the year AD 635 from Ta Tsin (Judea).”

One of the passages reads:

“On the Seventh-day, we offer sacrifices after having purified our hearts and received absolution from our sins. This religion, so perfect and so excellent, is difficult to name, but it enlightens darkness by its brilliant precepts.”

Amazingly, Sabbath-keeping subsisted in China and Mongolia until the end of the 14th century when Tamerlane, the Turk conqueror, made sure that all Christianity disappears in his kingdom.

See Wilkinson, Truth Triumphant, 337-339. Manuel Komroff, The Travels of Marco Polo (New York: Liveright, 2003,© 1930), 29.

However, many Eastern Churches, to include the Armenians, as well as Ethiopian and Coptic Christians, still have a form of Sabbath observance today – according to the Apostolic Constitutions.

In keeping with this, it is also telling that over 100 languages refer to the 7th day as the “Sabbath” (Link). Clearly, the concept of the Sabbath became very widespread around the world and in many many cultures due to the influence of Christianity. There is simply no rational way to deny such facts of history by citing a few cases (primarily in Rome and Alexandria) where Christian leaders spoke out against Sabbath observance and gradually more and more in favor of Sunday observance alone as a day of worship.

See also the notes of Robert Kraft regarding Sabbath observance in the early Christian Church:  Link

Why Don’t All Christians Observe the Sabbath?

Of course, this begs the question as to why there are so few Sabbatarians now?  Why do most Christians around the entire world observe Sunday, rather than the Sabbath, as their day of worship? What happened to the original respect for Sabbath observance by Christians over the centuries?

The short story of Sabbath and the Early Church:

Sabbath first observed alongside Sunday:

For several hundred years the early Christian Church continued to observe the Sabbath day every seven days. Of course, very quickly Sunday observance also became popular, taking on the name “The Lord’s Day” in honor of the resurrection of Christ.  So, for a long time both days were observed as holy days by most Christians throughout the early Christian world.

Hadrian’s Anti-Jewish Laws suppress Sabbath observance:

However, the anti-Jewish decrees of Emperor Hadrian in the second century put additional pressure on Sabbath observance, thereby favoring Sunday observance – especially in the regions of Rome and Alexandria.

Constantine’s Sunday Law enhanced Sunday observance:

By the time Emperor Constantine came along in the fourth century, Christianity became the official state religion – which was a mixed blessing.  Sunday became the official day of rest for the state government and Sabbath fasting was promoted by the Western Church.

It is interesting to note that even Constantine did not intend to reflect the Sabbath commandment of the Decalogue in his Sunday Law – since he specifically exempted agricultural work from being limited by his Sunday law.  However, the laws that he did enact regarding Sunday as a day of rest still had an effect.

Now, there is no evidence that Constantine’s Sunday laws were ever specifically made the basis for Christian regulations of the day, but it seems clear that the leaders of the Christian Church at that time felt increaing pressure to support Constantine and justify his laws.  After all, Constantine had just handed the Church a great benefit of official status and many of the leaders of the Church felt obligated to be as cooperative as possible. So, Sunday worship was emphasized even further – along with references to the Sabbath commandment in the Old Testament now being applied to forms of Sunday observance.

Eusebius:

Consider, for example, the work of early church historian Eusebius, who was also Constantine’s biographer and his keen admirer. In his commentary on Psalm 92, “The Sabbath Psalm,” Eusebius writes that Christians would fulfill on the Lord’s day all that in this Psalm was prescribed for the Sabbath – including the worship of God early in the morning. He then adds that through the new covenant the Sabbath celebration was transferred to “the first day of light [Sunday].”

Migne, Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 23, Col. 1169.

“The day of his [Christ’s] light . . . was the day of his resurrection from the dead, which they say, as being the one and only truly holy day and the Lord’s day, is better than any number of days as we ordinarily understand them, and better than the days set apart by the Mosaic law for feasts, new moons, and Sabbaths, which the Apostle [Paul] teaches are the shadow of days and not days in reality.”

Eusebius, Proof of the Gospel 4:16:186.

Ephraem Syrus:

Later in the fourth century, Ephraem Syrus suggested that honor was due “to the Lord’s day, the firstborn of all days,” which had “taken away the right of the firstborn from the Sabbath.” Then he goes on to point out that the law prescribes that rest should be given to servants and animals. The reflection of the Old Testament Sabbath commandment is obvious.

S. Ephraem Syri, hymni et sermones, ed. by T. J. Lamy (1882), Vol. 1, pp. 542–544.

Long decline of Sabbath observance:

With his sort of Sabbath-style worship being placed more and more on Sunday, along with giving Sunday the title “The Lord’s Day”, it was inevitable that the Sabbath day itself (Saturday) would eventually take on lesser and lesser importance in the eyes of more and more Christians over the generations. And, the controversy that is evident in the literature of the fourth and fifth centuries between those who would debase the Sabbath and those who would honor it reflects this struggle – a struggle that would continue on for many more centuries…

Socrates and Sozomen:

As already mentioned, the fifth–century church historians Socrates Scholasticus and Sozomen provide a picture of Sabbath worship services alongside Sunday worship services as being the pattern throughout Christendom in their day, “except in Rome and Alexandria.”

It seems, then, that the “Christian Sabbath” of Sunday as a replacement for the Biblical Sabbath was mainly a development of the sixth century and later.  For the Eastern Orthodox Church this change took place even later – well beyond the 11th century.

Council of Laodicea (363–364 AD):

The earliest church council to officially deal with the Sabbath debates was a regional eastern conference in Laodicea about 364 AD. Although this council still manifested respect for the Sabbath, as well as for Sunday, in the “special lections” (Scripture readings) designated for those two days, it nonetheless stipulated the following in its Canon 29:

“Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday but shall work on that day; but the Lord’s day they shall especially honour, and, as being Christians, shall, if possible, do no work on that day. If, however, they are found Judaizing, they shall be shut out from Christ.”

Charles J. Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, trans. Henry N. Oxenham, Vol. 2 (Edinburgh, 1896), p. 316. Canon 16 (ibid., p. 310) refers to lections; and the fact that Saturday as well as Sunday had special consideration during Lent, as indicated in Canons 49 and 51 (ibid., p. 320), also reveals that regard for the Sabbath was not entirely lacking.

The regulation with regard to working on Sunday was rather moderate in that Christians should not work on that day if possible! However, more significant was the fact that this council reversed the original command of God and the practice of the earliest Christians with regard to the seventh–day Sabbath.

God had said, “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work” (Exodus 20:8–10, RSV). In contrast, the Laodicean council said:

“Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday but shall work on that day.”

So, the command not to work on Sabbath was transferred, instead, to Sunday.

Of course, the smaller council of Laodicea was never universally accepted – especially among the Eastern Orthodox Church which still continued to observe the Sabbath as they always had. This small regional council of Laodicea was not even included as one of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. The local Laodecian council was held in a time of war with much political upheaval. However even within the text of the canons decided there, it also specifies and endorses Saturday Sabbath observance – indicating the very slow progressive loss of the Sabbath as a holy day in the minds of most Christians. Most Orthodox Churches do not even embrace five out of the seven ecumenical councils. So even if one of the big seven ecumenical councils disregarded Sabbath it would still be a moot point.

Even the Seventh Ecumenical Council (or Second Council of Nicea), which also was strongly politically motivated, did not outright reject the Sabbath. It merely says that people keeping the Sabbath exclusively in the Jewish way should be shunned – while the Sabbath was still considered to be a Holy day.

Third Synod of Orleans (538 AD):

The Third Synod of Orleans, though deploring Jewish Sabbatarianism, forbade “field labours” so that “people may be able to come to church and worship” – on Sabbath!

Charles J. Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, trans. Henry N. Oxenham, Vol. 4 (Edinburgh, 1896), pp. 208, 209.

Second Synod of Macon (585 AD):

Half a century later, the Second Synod of Macon in 585 and the Council of Narbonne in 589 AD stipulated strict Sunday observance.

Charles J. Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, trans. Henry N. Oxenham, Vol. 4 (Edinburgh, 1896), pp. 407, 422.

King Guntram’s Decree (585 AD):

The ordinances of the former “were published by King Guntram in a decree of November 10, 585 AD, in which he enforced careful observance of the Sunday.”

Charles J. Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, trans. Henry N. Oxenham, Vol. 4 (Edinburgh, 1896), pp. 409.

Walter W. Hyde:

Finally, during the Carolingian Age, a great emphasis was placed on “The Lord’s Day” observance – ironically according to the “Sabbath commandment.” Walter W. Hyde, in his “Paganism to Christianity in the Roman Empire“, has well summed up several centuries of the history of Sabbath and Sunday up to Charlemagne:

“The emperors after Constantine made Sunday observance more stringent but in no case was their legislation based on the Old Testament… At the Third Synod of Aureliani (Orleans) in 538 rural work was forbidden but the restriction against preparing meals and similar work on Sunday was regarded as a superstition.

“After Justinian’s death in 565 various epistolae decretales were passed by the popes about Sunday. One of Gregory I (590–604) forbade men ‘to yoke oxen or to perform any other work, except for approved reasons,’ while another of Gregory II (715–731) said: ‘We decree that all Sundays be observed from vespers to vespers and that all unlawful work the abstained from.’ …

Charlemagne at Aquisgranum (Aachen) in 788 decreed that all ordinary labor on the lords day be forbidden, since it was against the Fourth Commandment, especially labor in the field or vineyard which Constantine had exempted.”

W. W. Hyde, Paganism to Christianity in the Roman Empire (Philadelphia, 1946, p. 261).

Clearly, God’s Sabbath commandment was never quite forgotten – just molded a bit over a few hundred years. And, eventually, after enough time had elapsed, Sunday came to be the Christian rest day as a substitute for the Sabbath day.

Seventh-day Sabbath remnants:

However, in some areas around the world, the true seventh-day Sabbath was not entirely forgotten. This was true in scattered areas around Europe itself and elsewhere. For example, particularly in Ethiopia, groups of Christians could be found who kept both Saturday and Sunday as “Sabbaths,” not only in the early Christian centuries but down into modern times. So, when did Sabbath observance begin here?

Towards the end of the 5th century, nine Monophysite priests from Syria introduced monasticism into Egypt and Ethiopia. As late as 16th century, Ethiopian Christians worshiped almost exclusively on Sabbath. Some of the statements by Ethiopian Emperor Galawdewos (A.D. 1540-1559) represent the evidence of perpetual Sabbath-keeping:

“We do celebrate the Sabbath, because God, after He had finished the Creation of the World, rested thereon… and that especially, since Christ came not to dissolve the law but to fulfill it. It is therefore not in the imitation of the Jews, but in obedience to Christ, and His holy apostles, that we observe that day.”

Charles E. Bradford, Sabbath Roots, The African Connection (Barre, VT.: L. Brown and Sons, 1999), 26.

“A Further Note on the Sabbath in Coptic Sources,” AUSS Vol. 6 (1968), pp. 150–157. For the reference mentioning both Saturday and Sunday as being “named Sabbaths,” see p. 151. The source is Statute 66 in G. Horner, The Statutes of the Apostles (London, 1904 and 1915), pp. 211, 212. A number of sources deal with the Sabbath in later Ethiopian history.

The Ethiopians received the Eastern form of Christian doctrine in the fourth century. The Sabbath had not then been discarded as the day of rest, though the Sunday festival was observed. In the seventh century, the rise of the Saracen [Mohammedan] power cut Abyssinia [Ethiopia] off from the knowledge of the world.

Gibbon says: ‘Encompassed on all sides by the enemies of their religion, the Ethiopians slept near a thousand years, forgetful of the world, by whom they were forgotten’ (Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chap. 47, par. 37).

And when discovered by the Portuguese in the sixteenth century, they were found making the seventh day, as well as Sunday, a day of rest, not having known of its being set fully aside in the course of apostasy. Gibbon relates how the Jesuits never rested until they persuaded the Abyssinian king (A.D. 1604) to submit to the pope, and to prohibit Sabbath observance.

Bible Students Source Book, p. 895.

Sunday as the new Sabbath:

Nevertheless, for a good share of Christendom, the Sabbath had, by the sixth through eighth centuries, been changed to Sunday. For most Christians, God’s rest day of both Old Testament and New Testament times had, through a very gradual process, become a workday and had been supplanted by a substitute rest day – a substitute Sabbath if you will.

However, all Christians who consider the Bible itself as the God-given guide for their lives, rather than the decisions of human beings over hundreds of years of time, should ask themselves whether the worship day of Christ and His apostles (Sabbath, the seventh day of the week) should not still be observed today.

The Catholic Argument:

So, what reason do Catholics themselves give for observing Sunday rather than the Sabbath day?  They have a ready explanation.  They observe Sunday, rather than the Sabbath, based on the God-given authority of the Church.  In the sixteenth century, a papal council plainly declared:

“Let all Christians remember that the seventh day was consecrated by God, and hath been received and observed, not only by the Jews, but by all others who pretend to worship God; though we Christians have changed their Sabbath into the Lord’s Day.”

Thomas Morer (1651-1715), Kyriake hemera, Discourse in Six Dialogues, London: printed for Tho. Newborough, 1701, pages 281, 282

Subsequently, T. Enright, a Catholic Priest in Kansas City writing in the late 1800s argued:

“It was the holy Catholic Church that changed the day of rest from Saturday to Sunday, the 1st day of the week. And it not only compelled all to keep Sunday, but at the Council of Laodicea, AD 364, anathematized those who kept the Sabbath and urged all persons to labor on the 7th day under penalty of anathema.”

Clearly, the authority of the Church is considered to be greater than that of the Bible itself:

“The [Catholic] Church is above the Bible, and this transference of the Sabbath observance is proof of that fact.”

– Catholic Record (September 1, 1923)

Letter from C.F. Thomas, Chancellor of Cardinal Gibbons on October 28, 1895:

“Of course the Catholic Church claims that the change was her act…And the act is a mark of her ecclesiastical power and authority in religious matters.”

And again:

“The Church changed the observance of the Sabbath to Sunday by right of the divine, infallible authority given to her by her Founder, Jesus Christ. The Protestant claiming the Bible to be the only guide of faith, has no warrant for observing Sunday. In this matter, the Seventh-day Adventist is the only consistent Protestant.”

“The Question Box,” The Catholic Universe Bulletin (August 14, 1942): 4:

But since Saturday, not Sunday, is specified in the Bible, isn’t it curious that non-Catholics, who claim to take their religion directly from the Bible and not from the Church, observe Sunday instead of Saturday? Yes, of course, it is inconsistent; but this change was made about fifteen centuries before Protestantism was born, and by that time the custom was universally observed. They have continued the custom even though it rests upon the authority of the Catholic Church and not upon and explicit text in the Bible. That observance remains as a reminder of the Mother Church from which the non-Catholic sects broke away—like a boy running away from home but still carrying in his pocket a picture of his mother or a lock of her hair.

John A. O’Brien, The Faith of Millions: the Credentials of the Catholic Religion, Revised Edition (Our Sunday Visitor Publishing, 1974): 400-401:

In the Catholic Catechism of Christian Religion, in answer to a question as to the day to be observed in obedience to the fourth commandment, this statement is made:

“During the old law, Saturday was the day sanctified; but the church, instructed by Jesus Christ, and directed by the Spirit of God, has substituted Sunday for Saturday; so now we sanctify the first, not the seventh day. Sunday means, and now is, the day of the Lord.”

Catholic Catechism of the Christian Religion

Sunday – fulfillment of the Sabbath: Sunday is expressly distinguished from the Sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the Sabbath…

The Sabbath, which represented the completion of the first creation, has been replaced by Sunday which recalls the new creation, inaugurated by the Resurrection of Christ…

In respecting religious liberty and the common good of all, Christians should seek recognition of Sundays and the Church’s holy days as legal holidays.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Section 2 Article 3 (1994):

Q. Which is the Sabbath day?
A. Saturday is the Sabbath day.
Q. Why Do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
A. We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic .      .. …..Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.

The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine (1957): 50:

Question: Have you any other way of proving the Church has power to institute festivals of precept?

Answer: Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her, she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday the 1st day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the 7th day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority.

Stephen Keenan, CatholicDoctrinal Catechism, 3rd Edition: 174:

Beyond this, the Catholic Church declares that:

“The observance of Sunday by the Protestants is an homage they pay, in spite of themselves, to the authority of the [Catholic] Church.”

Louis Gaston Segur, Plain Talk about the Protestantism of To-Day (London: Thomas Richardson and Son, 1874): 213:

“If Protestants would follow the Bible, they should worship God on the Sabbath day by God is Saturday. In keeping the Sunday, they are following a law of the Catholic Church.”

Chancellor Albert Smith for Cardinal of Baltimore Archdiocese, letter dated February 10, 1920:

The Orthodox Argument:

“In the tradition of our Church [Greek Orthodox], Saturday like Sunday is considered a festal day. Even during the Great Lent the rules of fasting are relaxed on Saturdays and Sundays”.

Father Alkivia dis Calivas, Professor Emeritus of Liturgics Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology in Brookline, MA. 2002-2003 Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America.

“It would behoove Orthodox Christians to rekindle within themselves the zeal of the Christians of the first centuries and be truly dedicated to the Lord on the seventh day by going to church and taking holy Communion. By doing this, they will attract to themselves the blessing of the Lord, and their other activities will become more profitable.”

Bishop Alexander (Mileant), of The Holy Trinity Orthodox Mission, published July 4th 2005

“St. Constantine the Great, the first Christian emperor, honored the Church’s practice of celebrating the Lord’s Resurrection every Sunday by decreeing, in AD 321, that every Sunday would be a holy day. For Orthodox Christians, Saturday is still the Sabbath, the day on which the Church especially remembers the departed, since Christ rested in the tomb on Great and Holy Saturday.”

St. Sophia, Greek Orthodox Church in Bellingham Washington, from their statement of beliefs, last accessed 4/22/17 (Link)

“We still observe Saturday as the Sabbath. Saturday (except Holy Saturday) is never a fast day (although abstinence continues) and the Liturgy is always allowed to be celebrated. Saturday is the Sabbath, the day of rest remembering the day the Lord rested after Creation and the day the Lord rested in the tomb after the Crucifixion. Sunday is the Lord’s day, celebrating his Resurrection and we rest on this day as well as we would for any Holy Day. Under Christian Emperor’s we were afforded the ability to rest on both days. In secular society we often only get one and Sunday trumps Saturday, but Saturday does not cease being the Sabbath because of it…

Saturday is the Sabbath because it has always been so. If one can go to Liturgy and refrain from work on both Saturday and Sunday one should, but since the end of the Byzantine Empire this has not been possible. Sunday, Resurrection day, remains our primary day of worship because this is what was handed down to us from the Apostles.

Fr. Deacon Lance Weakland, Greek Byzantine Catholic Church, 2008 (Link)

In conclusion, Saturday is still the Sabbath. Like the Jews, we can still understand this Seventh Day to be as a day of participation in God’s rest after creation and the recognition of the goodness of all of God’s works. It is a day that should be spent quietly, with God, in the reading of Scripture and in prayer, or doing Christian works of mercy and love towards our neighbors.

We must see beyond the historical manipulation of Sunday into a “Christian Sabbath” and return to the fact that Sunday is truly the eschatological Lord’s Day, which manifests itself in the eucharistic Liturgy. It is a day that fills us with joy in knowing that when this cycle of time ends in this age, the new age will dawn, and it is then that we will find our ultimate rest in Jesus Christ in the “unending day” of His Kingdom.

Dr. Paul Meyendorff, Is Sunday the Orthodox Christian Sabbath?,
Liturgical Theology 342 – The Church Year and Its Hymnography, Fall 1999 (Link)

Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches distinguish between the “Sabbath” (Saturday) and the “Lord’s Day” (Sunday), and both continue to play a special role for the faithful. Many parishes and monasteries will serve the Divine Liturgy on both Saturday morning and Sunday morning. The church never allows strict fasting on any Saturday (except Holy Saturday) or Sunday, and the fasting rules on those Saturdays and Sundays which fall during one of the fasting seasons (such as Great Lent, Apostles’ Fast, etc.) are always relaxed to some degree. During Great Lent, when the celebration of the Liturgy is forbidden on weekdays, there is always Liturgy on Saturday as well as Sunday. The church also has a special cycle of Bible readings (Epistle and Gospel) for Saturdays and Sundays which is different from the cycle of readings allotted to weekdays. However, the Lord’s Day, being a celebration of the Resurrection, is clearly given more emphasis. For instance, in the Russian Orthodox Church Sunday is always observed with an all-night vigil on Saturday night, and in all of the Eastern Churches it is amplified with special hymns which are chanted only on Sunday. If a feast day falls on a Sunday it is always combined with the hymns for Sunday (unless it is a Great Feast). Saturday is celebrated as a sort of afterfeast for the previous Sunday, on which several of the hymns from the previous Sunday are repeated.

In part, Eastern Christians continue to celebrate Saturday as Sabbath because of its role in the history of salvation: it was on a Saturday that Jesus “rested” in the cave tomb after the Passion. For this reason also, Saturday is a day for general commemoration of the departed, and special requiem hymns are often chanted on this day. Orthodox Christians make time to help the poor and needy as well on this day.

Wikipedia, Sabbath in Christianity, Eastern Christianity and Saturday vs. Sunday observances (accessed 4/30/17 – Link).

The Protestant Argument:

So, why then to almost all protestant churches continue to observe Sunday? – in apparent acquiescence to the authority of the Catholic Church?  It isn’t that protestant denominations are unaware of the apparent inconsistency in their practice of Sunday observance.  Consider a few of the following commentaries along these lines:

Anglican/Episcopal:

“And where are we told in the Scriptures that we are to keep the first day at all? We are commanded to keep the seventh; but we are nowhere commanded to keep the first day …. The reason why we keep the first day of the week holy instead of the seventh is for the same reason that we observe many other things, not because the Bible, but because the church has enjoined it.”

Isaac Williams, Plain Sermons on the Catechism, vol. 1, pp.334, 336.

“There is no word, no hint, in the New Testament about abstaining from work on Sunday …. into the rest of Sunday no divine law enters…. The observance of Ash Wednesday or Lent stands exactly on the same footing as the observance of Sunday.”

Canon Eyton, The Ten Commandments, pp. 52, 63, 65.

We have made the change from the seventh day to the first day, from Saturday to Sunday, on the authority of the one holy Catholic Church.”

Bishop Seymour, Why We Keep Sunday.

Baptists:

“There was and is a commandment to keep holy the Sabbath day, but that Sabbath day was not Sunday. It will be said, however, and with some show of triumph, that the Sabbath was transferred from the seventh to the first day of the week …. Where can the record of such a transaction be found? Not in the New Testament absolutely not…

To me it seems unaccountable that Jesus, during three years’ intercourse with His disciples, often conversing with them upon the Sabbath question . . . never alluded to any transference of the day; also, that during forty days of His resurrection life, no such thing was intimated…

Of course, I quite well know that Sunday did come into use in early Christian history . . . . But what a pity it comes branded with the mark of paganism, and christened with the name of the sun god, adopted and sanctioned by the papal apostasy, and bequeathed as a sacred legacy to Protestantism!”

Dr. Edward T. Hiscox, a paper read before a New York ministers’ conference, Nov. 13, 1893, reported in New York Examiner, Nov.16, 1893.

Congregationalist:

“It is quite clear that however rigidly or devotedly we may spend Sunday, we are not keeping the Sabbath. The Sabbath was founded on a specific Divine command. We can plead no such command for the obligation to observe Sunday …. There is not a single sentence in the New Testament to suggest that we incur any penalty by violating the supposed sanctity of Sunday.”

Dr. R. W. Dale, The Ten Commandments (New York: Eaton &Mains), p. 127-129.

“The Christian Sabbath [Sunday] is not in the Scriptures, and was not by the primitive Church called the Sabbath.”

Timothy Dwight, Theology: Explained and Defended (1823), Ser. 107, vol. 3, p. 258.

Disciples of Christ:

“‘But,’ say some, ‘it was changed from the seventh to the first day.’ Where? when? and by whom? No man can tell. No; it never was changed, nor could it be, unless creation was to be gone through again: for the reason assigned must be changed before the observance, or respect to the reason, can be changed! It is all old wives’ fables to talk of the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day. If it be changed, it was that august personage changed it who changes times and laws ex officio – I think his name is Doctor Antichrist.’ “The first day of the week is commonly called the Sabbath. This is a mistake. The Sabbath of the Bible was the day just preceding the first day of the week. The first day of the week is never called the Sabbath anywhere in the entire Scriptures. It is also an error to talk about the change of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. There is not in any place in the Bible any intimation of such a change.”

Alexander Campbell, First Day Observance, pp. 17, 19. and The Christian Baptist, Feb. 2, 1824,vol. 1. no. 7, p. 164

Lutheran:

“We have seen how gradually the impression of the Jewish sabbath faded from the mind of the Christian Church, and how completely the newer thought underlying the observance of the first day took possession of the church. We have seen that the Christians of the first three centuries never confused one with the other, but for a time celebrated both.”

The Sunday Problem, a study book of the United Lutheran Church (1923), p. 36.

“They [Roman Catholics] refer to the Sabbath Day, as having been changed into the Lord’s Day, contrary to the Decalogue, as it seems. Neither is there any example whereof they make more than concerning the changing of the Sabbath Day. Great, say they, is the power of the Church, since it has dispensed with one of the Ten Commandments!”

Augsburg Confession of Faith art. 28; written by Melanchthon, approved by Martin Luther, 1530; as published in The Book of Concord of the Evangelical Lutheran Church Henry Jacobs, ed. (1 91 1), p. 63.

“The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance, and it was far from the intentions of the apostles to establish a Divine command in this respect, far from them, and from the early apostolic Church, to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday.”

Dr. Augustus Neander, The History of the Christian Religion and Church Henry John Rose, tr. (1843), p. 186..

“But they err in teaching that Sunday has taken the place of the Old Testament Sabbath and therefore must be kept as the seventh day had to be kept by the children of Israel …. These churches err in their teaching, for Scripture has in no way ordained the first day of the week in place of the Sabbath. There is simply no law in the New Testament to that effect.”

John Theodore Mueller, Sabbath or Sunday, pp. 15, 16
Methodist:

“Take the matter of Sunday. There are indications in the New Testament as to how the church came to keep the first day of the week as its day of worship, but there is no passage telling Christians to keep that day, or to transfer the Jewish Sabbath to that day.”

Harris Franklin Rall, Christian Advocate, July 2, 1942, p.26.

“But, the moral law contained in the ten commandments, and enforced by the prophets, he [Christ] did not take away. It was not the design of his coming to revoke any part of this. This is a law which never can be broken …. Every part of this law must remain in force upon all mankind, and in all ages; as not depending either on time or place, or any other circumstances liable to change, but on the nature of God and the nature of man, and their unchangeable relation to each other.”

John Wesley, The Works of the Rev. John Wesley, A.M., John Emory, ed. (New York: Eaton & Mains), Sermon 25,vol. 1, p. 221.

Dwight L. Moody:

The Sabbath was binding in Eden, and it has been in force ever since. This fourth commandment begins with the word ‘remember,’ showing that the Sabbath already existed when God Wrote the law on the tables of stone at Sinai. How can men claim that this one commandment has been done away with when they will admit that the other nine are still binding?”

D. L. Moody, Weighed and Wanting (Fleming H. Revell Co.: New York), pp. 47, 48.

Presbyterian:

“The Sabbath is a part of the decalogue — the Ten Commandments. This alone forever settles the question as to the perpetuity of the institution . . . . Until, therefore, it can be shown that the whole moral law has been repealed, the Sabbath will stand . . . . The teaching of Christ confirms the perpetuity of the Sabbath.”

T. C. Blake, D.D., Theology Condensed, pp.474, 475.

Common arguments against Sabbath observance:

Colossians 2:

Perhaps the most common passage cited with regard to the lack of Sabbath observance by protestant Christians is Colossians 2:16-17.  For example, the anti-Sabbatarian writers of “Lying for God” quote this passage as one of their foundational Scriptures:

“Let no man therefore judge you in food, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.”

This passage is cited as proof that Jesus did away with the Law at the cross, to include the weekly Sabbath, as no longer binding for the Christian.  It is usually argued that Jesus fulfilled the shadowy Law so that the Christian need not live under the Law, but under grace.   After all, it was Paul himself who explained, “You are not under the law, but under grace.” (Romans 6:14).

What many fail to understand, however, is that the weekly Sabbath does not foreshadow a future event, but past events. Yet, here in Colossians, Paul specifically explains that he is talking about the laws that were put in place to foreshadow the coming of Christ. There were ceremonial laws, animal sacrifices, and yearly sabbaths that pointed toward the life and death of Jesus. Obviously, these met their reality in Jesus Himself. However, the weekly Sabbath does not point forward, but backward. It is not a “shadow of things to come.” It is for this reason that it was written in stone and placed inside of the Ark of the Covenant with the rest of the eternal moral laws of the Decalogue. You don’t write a temporary “shadow” on stone. And, you don’t place a “shadow” on equal footing with other eternal moral laws – moral laws that were and are and will forever be binding for all of humanity. Even among anti-Sabbatarians, most recognize that at least nine of the Ten Commandments are still binding upon the Christian.  Why then was a temporary “shadow law” placed among these nine permanent non-shadowy laws written in stone by His own finger?  That conclusion simply makes no sense.  It is inconsistent with the idea of a rational God.

But what about the order of words used in Colossians 2:16?  Aren’t there parallels to other passages within the Old Testament? – confirming Paul’s intention to include the weekly Sabbath in this particular passage?

In Col 2:16 the word sabbaton is mentioned along with two other terms – heortes “religious festival” and neomenias “new moon celebration.” If we want precedents for Paul’s usage, it is not enough to find examples of the third term. We must find examples of all three terms used together in comparable ways. Three-part groupings of terms similar to the list Paul uses occur in Num 28:1-29:40; 1 Chr 23:30-31; 2 Chr 2:4; 8:12-13; 31:3; and Neh 10:33-34; Ezek 45:13-17, and 46:1-15. Of the eight, Ezek 45:13-17 comes closest and might be said to provide a parallel, but it is not the best parallel because there is one better, and besides, Ezekiel includes terms not in Paul’s list. But the sequence is right. The other seven passages give the references to time in ascending order (Sabbaths, monthly festivals, yearly festivals), rather than descending order (yearly festivals, monthly festivals, Sabbaths) as Paul has them. In other words, in the other seven passages the sequence is backwards. There is one other thing to notice. In all eight passages the context is positive, i.e., the biblical writer is talking about what should be done on the Sabbaths, New Moon celebrations, and festivals referred to (or in the case of Ezek 45:13-17, the festivals, New Moon celebrations, and Sabbaths). In Colossians Paul is not speaking positively, nor is the writer he draws on in writing what he does. The wording found in Col 2:16 comes not from any of the above eight passages, but from Hos 2:11.

I will stop all her celebrations [Hebrew kolmsosa]: her yearly festivals, her New Moons, her Sabbath days — all her appointed feasts. (Hos 2:11)

Here there are only three terms (in Greek translation heortas, noumenias, and sabbata), the sequence of the terms is identical to Paul’s, and the intent is negative. Each of these facts strengthens present hypothesis that Col 2:16 is modeled on Hos 2:11.

Hosea’s wording is a bit odd, however, for two reasons. He says “all her celebrations,” but then uses a term that only refers to part of them. Not all of the annual convocations were festive. So how could the term “celebrations” (masos), or “festivals,” to refer to “all” of them? On the other hand, since he uses the term hag (haggah) to refer to “yearly festivals,” why would he leave out both Trumpets and Day of Atonement, which are never called hag? At this point something in Hosea’s choice of words doesn’t seem to add up.

There were two distinct groupings of annual convocations in ancient Israel. One group (group A: Passover, Pentecost) is called úag “festival” (Hosea’s term above), the other (group B: Trumpets, Day of Atonement) is never called úag. Trumpets and Day of Atonement are called “sabbaths,” Passover and Pentecost are never called “sabbaths.” Tabernacles occupies middle ground, since in Lev 23:39 it is called both hag and “sabbath” (thus we could say [+hag, +”sabbath”]), but Passover and Pentecost are consistently [+hag, -“sabbath”], while Trumpets and Day of Atonement are consistently [–hag, +”sabbath”]. The first group (plus Tabernacles) are joyous, the last two solemn. The first group (plus Tabernacles) are pilgrim festivals, the last two solemn “rest” times. Group B events (plus Tabernacles) are called “sabbaths,” group A events are never called “sabbaths.” Hosea was carefully aware of such distinctions.

Thus our first assumption should be that, even if his choice of words remains puzzling to us, he knew what he wanted to say and used his words correctly.

Consider one additional fact. The Sabbath was not intended to be somber, but joyful. Through Isaiah God says we should call the Sabbath “a delight [oneg]” (Isa 58:13). That would fit with Hosea’s word masos “celebration.” But bear in mind that the people Hosea was writing to had gotten some things wrong. That’s why he was writing to them. For them the Sabbath was not a time of joy, as intended, but a bother (see Amos 8:5). So why does the prophet use the term sabbat (w-sabbatah) in Hos 2:11? Answer: He wasn’t referring to the weekly Sabbath…

What Paul says, based on the above passage from Hosea, is best understood as being laid out in chiastic form (ABA’). The convocations referred to are respectively yearly (group A), monthly, and yearly (group B). It would be possible to claim that the arrangement is linear (ABC) rather than chiastic, and that the occasions referred to are respectively yearly (groups A and B), monthly, and weekly. But is this really possible? Group B convocations are never called hag “festival.” They were not festive. Paul was not creating a paragraph out of thin air. He was drawing inspiration from an Old Testament passage. If so, the passage in question has got to be Hos 2:11. This is the only [biblical passage] which lists the convocations in the same order Paul uses and speaks of them negatively. The real point to notice, however, is that if Paul has Hos 2:11 in mind, he’s not talking about the weekly seventh-day Sabbath when he uses the word sabbaton in Col 2:16.

Dr. Frank W. Hardy, The Sabbath in Colossians 2, p. 7-8 (2010) – Link

No Distinction Between any of the Old Testament Commandments:

That there is a moral-ceremonial separation in Biblical laws is a bedrock premise of Sabbatarians, used in defense of the Sabbath. However, as almost all SDA Bible scholars know, it is comprehensively a faulty conclusion, again, derived from the Proof-text approach to scripture. Ancient peoples, including the Israelites knew of no such distinctions of laws, neither does the Bible give any formula for identifying which laws were ceremonial and which laws were moral. The Hebrew word for law used in the OT is Torah, and the Greek equivalent is Nomos. These are umbrella terms used to designate all laws, not segmentations of law.

Clinton Baldwin (2017), The Sabbath Issue in a Nutshell: An Exegentical and Theological Approach, p. 8 (Link).

The problem with this argument is, of course, that in many places the authors of the Bible show a very clear distinction between the Ten Laws of God written with His own finger on stone and the other Mosaic laws.  It is clear that Paul himself was well aware of this distinction. For example, it was Paul who wrote, to the Corinthians no less:

Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts. – 1 Corinthians 7:19

In this passage, Paul argues that one of the most revered laws of Moses, the law regarding circumcision, didn’t matter for the Christian.  However, Paul goes on to add that only keeping the commands of God matter.  Which commands of God are these? – if circumcision isn’t one of them?  Well, Paul explains in his book to the Romans:

What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” … So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful. – Romans 7:7-13

Clearly then, Paul does not consider the commandments of the Decalogue to be no longer binding on the Christian.  He certainly does not consider the command against coveting to be in the same category as circumcision. He draws a very clear distinction here between the decalogue and the other Mosaic laws.

Likewise, James, writing after the time of Jesus, calls the Decalogue the “Law of Liberty”:

But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing. – James 1:25

For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. – James 2:11-12

Here James is being very clear that the Christian will be judged by the Decalogue – a set of God’s Laws that James describes as the Law of Liberty.  Again, this is a very clear distinction. Even though we are saved by God’s Grace, the Christian is still subject to the Decalogue and is enabled to keep it through the power of God. Paul himself argues, “Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means!” (Romans 6:15).  Again, sin is defined by the Law – which was not done away with by any means. Rather, the Law becomes irrelevant for the Christian once the Christian accepts the grace and power of God as the only means to overcome sin – the continual breaking of the Law.

And, as previously mentioned, a clear distinction between the Decalogue and the other Mosaic laws was drawn during the time of Moses in that the Decalogue, written on stone by the Finger of God, was placed inside of the Ark of the Covenant while the other Mosaic laws were placed on the outside in a separate compartment (Deuteronomy 31:26).  If that isn’t a clear distinction I don’t know what is?

Now, remember that the temple service was a copy or replica of what was in heaven – including the Ark of the Covenant.  What is interesting here is that this Ark was described by John as still being in heaven after Jesus had already died and gone back to heaven:

Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. – Revelation 11:19

So, it would seem as though the Ark of the Covenant wasn’t just for the Jews, but is the eternal home of the Decalogue in heaven – within the Temple of God Himself. This strongly points out the eternal nature of the Decalogue, while, at the same time, confirms the temporary nature of the sacrificial system and laws associated with it that pointed toward, or foreshadowed, the Messiah.

Again, such shadow laws are quite different and distinct from the Laws of the Decalogue, which are not a mere “shadow” of future realities, but are themselves eternal in nature – set up from the beginning of human existence on this planet.

 

Romans 14:5 and “The New Covenant”:

“One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind.” (Romans 14:5)

Therefore, it is argued by anti-Sabbatarians, the Sabbath is no longer an obligation for the Christian who lives by God’s grace and faith the victory of Christ on our behalf… according to the “New Covenant” of grace set up by Jesus at the time of His death and resurrection.

Of course, when challenged on this position, most will agree that it is still wrong to murder, steal, commit adultery, covet, etc…  In fact, most will agree that nine of the ten commandments of the Decalogue are still good for the Christian to continue to observe – only that under the New Covenant Jesus explained that even if you hate your brother your are guilty of murder or even if you lust after a married woman in your heart you are guilty of adultery (Matthew 5:28).  However, when honestly and carefully considered, none of these ideas are really “new”.  After all, the Ten Commandments themselves point out the underlying problem of internal motives. Paul himself explains that he would not have known the problem with his own motives if the Law had not pointed out the problem with coveting something that belongs to someone else:

What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” – Romans 7:7

Even the concept of murder, mentioned in the Ten Commandments, implies pre-existing hate for one’s neighbor.  That is why Paul boils it all down, like Jesus did, as concludes:

The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” – Romans 13:9

Really, then, the “New Covenant” is simply a restatement of the “Old Covenant” since the Ten Commandments were simply a written expression of what true love for one’s neighbor would look like…

The real question then, for most people, ultimately, boils down to Sabbath observance alone – not any of the other commandments of the Decalogue…

Nine of the Ten Commandments still Binding:

So, why is the Sabbath the only commandment “nailed to the cross” while the rest of the nine commandments of the Decalogue remain intact?  Well, most who are presented with this question tend to argue that the “New Covenant” commandments presented by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) and elsewhere during His lifetime, never mentions Sabbath observance as still binding, but does mention all of the other commandments within the Decalogue as being “written on the heart” (Jeremiah 31:33 and Romans 2:15,29).  In fact, some go so far as to argue that Jesus deliberately broke the Sabbath commandment in order to demonstrate its temporary nature. The fact is, however, that God didn’t change His moral Law when Jesus died on the cross. Rather, Jesus death created a change in us…

The change that took place at the cross is not a change in God. He is still holy now just as He always was before. Nor is it a change in His law. That’s holy too (see Rom 7:12). It’s a change in us, giving us a new relationship with both God and His law. This change is made possible by the power of the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, we would all be lost. God did not send His Son into the world so He could justify changing His attitude toward us, but so we could have a different attitude toward Him. He does not change. His law does not change. These things in and of themselves were never the problem, so how could changing them be a solution?

Dr. Frank W. Hardy, The Sabbath in Colossians 2, p. 6 (2010) – Link

The Ten Commandments are Not Eternal:

Less commonly, the argument is forwarded that none of the Ten Commandments are eternal in nature.  Recently, Clinton Baldwin (a New Testament theologian and former Adventist) made this argument as follows:

Eternity has to do with existence prior to the creation of our planet, and existence subsequent to the 2nd advent. The Sabbath came at the end of creation week, therefore, it could not have been a requirement in heaven. The commands “You shall not commit adultery,” “Honor your mother and your father so that you may enjoy long life in —- Canaan, or “Have no other gods beside me,” would not have been relevant in eternity before sin; neither will we need a Sabbath in the new earth where we will live in the intimate presence of God forever, and where we shall count no time by years. The decalogue is certainly not eternal. It was given within the context of Israel’s escape from Egyptian slavery, and was conditioned and colored by that mighty covenantal act of God (Exo 19: 1-5; 20:1-18; Deut 5: 1-5)

Clinton Baldwin (2017), The Sabbath Issue in a Nutshell: An Exegentical and Theological Approach, p. 4-5 (Link).  See also Baldwin’s 2012 book: The Sabbath: More Than a Day – A Person (Link).

The main problem here is that Baldwin doesn’t seem to recognize that the Ten Commandments are simply an expression of the underlying “Royal Law” – the Law of Love (James 2:8).  Since God “is love” (1 John 4:8), the Law of Love forms the basis of His government.  This has always been true and it always will be true.  This Law expresses itself in different ways depending upon different circumstances.  Humans may have different needs and abilities with respect to say, angels.  We have fathers and mothers, whereas they do not.  We are sexual creatures whereas they are not. Therefore, laws tailored to our unique characteristics would be called for as far as what it would take to remain in line with the Law of Love.

Does this, therefore, mean that such laws are not “eternal”?  – as Baldwin claims? Well, as long as the unique features of humanity remain, such laws would be eternal in nature going forward because any violation of such laws would be a violation of the underlying eternal and universal Law of Love.  Yet, Baldwin claims that such laws would have been “irrelevant” before sin.

Of course, the Law is irrelevant if it is not being broken – if it is naturally being obeyed. But, that doesn’t mean that it didn’t exist.  Even in Eden before the fall it would have been wrong to dishonor father or mother or to commit adultery – or to break any of the other of the Ten Commandments.  After all, the Law is what defines sin itself since sin is “the transgression of the Law” (1 John 3:4).  Without the pre-existence of a moral Law, sin cannot exist – not even in theory.

Baldwin is also mistaken in his notion that the New Earth will not have any semblance to the original Earth made for Adam and Eve – with the Sun, moon, and stars being used to mark the passing of seasons like days, weeks, months, and years.  Baldwin claims, without any apparent biblical basis that, “In the very presence of God, where we will count no time by years, it will be perpetual holiness at all times.”  However, the solar system and universe don’t just pass away just because the Earth will one day be remade as it was originally intended to be.  Yes, God will live with us here on Earth and we will no longer be dependent on the light of the Sun, moon, or stars (Revelation 22:5).  However, this does not mean that they will no longer exist or be useful to humanity for marking the passage of time. Times and seasons will continue to exist in the New Earth as things were originally intended to be (Isaiah 66:22-23).

The Ten Commandments are not “All Encompassing”:

There are some who claim that the Ten Commandments simply don’t cover enough when it comes to the fallen human condition – that there are ways to sin which the Ten Commandments simply don’t cover:

The Ten Commandments are very limited both in terms of specific principles and precepts. There are no stipulations regarding, anger, malice, benevolence, humility, long-suffering; loving of one’s enemies and forgiveness (Matt 5-7; Phil 2:1-8; Rom 12: 1-21). There are no laws to avoid deceit, hypocrisy, envy or slander (1Pt 2:1-5 ). There are no regulations to be merciful, to be a peacemaker, to be patient, kind, not jealous, not to brag, or not to be arrogant (1Cor 13:1-13) and the list continues.

Clinton Baldwin (2017), The Sabbath Issue in a Nutshell: An Exegentical and Theological Approach, p. 5 (Link).

This argument is based on a misunderstanding of the basis of the Ten Commandments. Again, this basis is the Royal Law of Love towards God and towards our neighbors – a Law upon which hang all other moral laws (James 2:8 and Matthew 22:37-40).

It is interesting, then, that the Ten Commandments actually do cover, either directly or indirectly, everything that Baldwin cites here as not being covered.  For example, the command against murder implies that one cannot hate one’s brother – for murder pre-supposes that hate for one’s neighbor existed prior to the actual act of murder.  In other words, the Ten Commandments highlight the problem with the underlying motive of a person that is the thing that is actually responsible for wrong actions against one’s neighbor.  And, if there were still any real confusion along these lines, the 10th commandment against coveting anything that isn’t yours, in particular, removes all doubt as to the fact that motive is the real issue here since coveting or selfishness is the basis of all sin.

How so?  Well, if one isn’t coveting something that rightfully belongs to someone else, there isn’t going to be any “deceit, hypocrisy, envy or slander”. The necessity of selfless love in order to achieve a pure level of motivation this is strongly implied in the Ten Commandments.  The fact that Jesus had to spell it out in even greater detail only speaks to the self-deceptive nature of the human heart.  Clearly though, the Ten Commandments are, by themselves, able to convict fallen human beings that they need help. As Paul himself explained,

I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” – Romans 7:7

And, the Law remains the basis for defining sin as sinful (1 John 3:4).  Without any law, there is no sin.  That means that murder is still sinful as is idol worship or dishonoring father or mother or coveting – or breaking the Sabbath.

The Ten Commandments are not Perfect:

Some also argue that the Ten Commandments contain errors with respect to the highest levels of morality – that they do not reach Divine perfection. While it is true that the language of the Ten Commandments was addressed to men (in line with the culture of the day) it is not true that a careful reading of the Ten Commandments, in context, will fail to reveal the underlying Law of Love upon which it is based.  Of course, a perfect revelation of Love to humanity can only be found in the person of Jesus.  This does not mean, however, that the Ten Commandments became irrelevant once Jesus was revealed.  Jesus simply demonstrated what living according to the Royal Law of Love really meant.  Breaking any one of the commands of the Decalogue would still be a violation of the underlying Law of Love against God or against one’s neighbor.  Jesus came to demonstrate the beauty of the Law.  He didn’t come to undermine it or to do away with it.  Yet, there are those who actually propose to find errors in the Decalogue – in order to undermine its authority for the Christian:

Of course, a perfect revelation of Love to humanity can only be found in the person of Jesus.  This does not mean, however, that the Ten Commandments became irrelevant once Jesus was revealed.  Jesus simply demonstrated what living according to the Royal Law of Love really meant.  Breaking any one of the commands of the Decalogue would still be a violation of the underlying Law of Love against God or against one’s neighbor.  Jesus came to demonstrate the beauty of the Law.  He didn’t come to undermine it or to do away with it.  Yet, there are those who actually propose to find errors in the Decalogue – in order to undermine its authority for the Christian:

Yet, there are those who actually propose to find errors in the Decalogue – in order to undermine its authority for the Christian:

Allowed for Slavery:

 The Sabbath command allowed the Israelites to keep slaves – It states: “You shall not do any work, you nor your man servant or your maid servant.” The Hebrew word translated “servant”– ebed, means slave. Here as in several other places in the OT, the Israelites were allowed to keep slaves, just that they were supposed to be kind in allowing them to rest while they also rested on the Sabbath (Exo 20:10). A perfect law does not allow for slavery.

Clinton Baldwin (2017), The Sabbath Issue in a Nutshell: An Exegentical and Theological Approach, p. 5 (Link).

The Hebrew word “ebed” can mean either “slave” or “servant” depending on context (Link). In fact, this word, as used in the Old Testament, usually refers to a subordinate social position. For example, Abraham had “servants” (ebed) – yet was not reprimanded by God for this.

Certainly then, it is not morally wrong to hire or maintain servants. Clearly, the background context of the use of the term “ebed” in the Ten Commandments is God’s anger with Pharoah with regard to turning the entire Israelite nation into a nation of true slaves – slaves who were mistreated and who were not allowed to leave and go elsewhere.  God had just freed Isreal from such servile bondage and repeatedly warned them against doing likewise to others (Deuteronomy 24:21-22). Rather strong language was used against those who thought to capture and force another human being into slavery:

Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession. – Exodus 21:16

This is one of the reasons why God specifically spoke to how even servants were to be treated – that servants and strangers (non-Jews within one’s influence) and even animals should be given the Sabbath rest every single week (a sign of moral worth before God). The concept of slavery, such as that witnessed in America against the negro, was very much contrary to God’s expressed wishes.

If a countryman of yours becomes so poor with regard to you that he sells himself to you, you shall not subject him to a slave’s service. He shall be with you as a hired man, as if he were a sojourner; he shall serve with you until the year of jubilee. He shall then go out from you, he and his sons with him, and shall go back to his family, that he may return to the property of his forefathers. For they are My servants whom I brought out from the land of Egypt; they are not to be sold in a slave sale. You shall not rule over him with severity, but are to revere your God. – Leviticus 25:39-43

The Bible is in fact quite clear that all humans stand on equal footing before Him.

And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place. – Acts 17:26

There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. – Galatians 3:28

Command against Murder limited to fellow Jews:

“Thou shall not kill,” (Exo 20:13) in the primary context this meant, do not kill your fellow Israelite under certain circumstances. However, pertaining to the Canaanites and certain disobedient Israelites, it was perfectly OK to kill them (See Deut 20:16; 7:1-2,16; Josh 10:40; 11:11). This is certainly not a perfect expression of God’s will.

Clinton Baldwin (2017), The Sabbath Issue in a Nutshell: An Exegentical and Theological Approach, p. 5 (Link).

The Hebrew word used in Exodus 20:13 is “ratsach” – which is primarily translated as “murder” – not just any form of killing (Link). From within the context of the Ten Commandments, the word ratsach almost definitely means “murder” – which is the reason why most translations of the Bible render it in this way. Premeditation and hate for one’s neighbor as the basis of killing is considered in the Bible to be the type of killing that is morally wrong:

Now if the avenger of blood pursues him, then they shall not deliver the manslayer into his hand, because he struck his neighbor without premeditation and did not hate him beforehand.” – Joshua 20:5

Now, consider that “murder” is a specific type of killing.  Not all killing is defined as murder. For example, killing during war in the heat of battle is not the same thing as murder – and is not forbidden in the Ten Commandments or anywhere else in the Bible. However, murder is forbidden – and not just against the Jews.  To suggest that the Jews thought that murdering non-Jews was “perfectly Ok” or that God intended it to be Ok to murder non-Jews is absolute nonsense and hardly worth discussing.

After all, the “Cities of Refuge” were not set up by God just for the Isrealites, but for those non-Jewish resident aliens or those who were simply passing through the country as well:

These six towns will be a place of refuge for Israelites and for foreigners residing among them, so that anyone who has killed another accidentally can flee there. – Numbers 35:15

Clearly then, God valued the lives of all human beings as well as the Isrealites – and made provision for the welfare of non-Jews as well as Jews in the laws He gave to Isreal.

Command against Adultery Defines Women as Property:

Exegetically, the command that forbids adultery (Exo 20:14), applied only to Israelite males committing adultery against another man’s property. Whereas, contextually the woman was the property of the man, and the man was free to marry more than one wife, or even have concubines along with his wife, adultery was never an act committed against a woman, but against the property of another man. A man could not commit adultery against a woman. He did such only against another man, that is, by violating the man’s property. How can we designate a law that denies such a basic right to women as completely perfect or moral for that matter (whatever we define morality to be)?

Clinton Baldwin (2017), The Sabbath Issue in a Nutshell: An Exegentical and Theological Approach, p. 5 (Link).

When a man and woman get married, they are each other’s property – they both belong to the other.  The Bible is quite clear in this regard.

My darling, I am yours, and you are mine. – Song of Solomon 2:16

‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate. – Mark 10:7-9

That is why taking another man’s wife or another woman’s husband is equivalent to stealing something that belongs to someone else.

Yes, the language of the Ten Commandments is addressed to men as per the culture of the times in which it was given, but this does not mean that women are therefore not thought of as independent and equal moral beings (Galatians 3:28).  As equal moral beings before God, women are just as subject to the Decalogue. This is why Jesus Himself told the woman who was caught in the act of adultery to “Go and sin no more.” (John 8:11).

Also, it was never God’s will that any man marry more than one wife and live in a polygamous relationship.  This was not the original design for the marriage relationship in Eden since God only made one wife for Adam. In Genesis 2:23,24 we read that “a man is to leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife.” God did not say here that man was to be joined to his “wives”. God also specifically warned against marrying multiple wives (Deuteronomy 17:17) and that a Godly man should be the husband of just one wife (Titus 1:6).  Jesus also explained that “a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh” (Matthew 19:3-9). Jesus spoke here of one man and one woman marrying and becoming “one”.

Still, God works with people where they are and with the cultural background they come from – which may not be ideal. Yet, the original ideal that God had in mind, which is clearly stated in the Bible, should not be forgotten here.

Other Gods Acknowledged:

The statement, “You shall have no other gods beside me,” (Exodus 20:2) acknowledged the physical existence of other divine beings like Baal, Marduk, Ea, Enlil and the thousands of other deities in the ancient world. This law simply required that they should not worship them, despite their ontological existence. This practice is called henotheism. It pervades most of the early OT. This is certainly not the most perfect expression of God’s knowledge base. Thus, the Ten Commandments is not a perfect law of God. It was given as a limited set of laws designed to regulate the behavior of a young nation consisting of a group of ex-slaves. Again, it emerged from God’s mighty covenantal act of liberating Israel from slavery and is hence colored by that context.

Clinton Baldwin (2017), The Sabbath Issue in a Nutshell: An Exegentical and Theological Approach, p. 5-6 (Link).

The claim that God Himself acknowledged the actual existence of other Divine beings is simply not a correct exegetical reading of this passage in the context of what the rest of the Old Testament has to say.  The Old Testament writers were very clear that the idols that were worshiped were not Divine beings at all – that there was only one God.

There is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me. – Isaiah 45:21

There you will worship man-made gods of wood and stone, which cannot see or hear or eat or smell. – Deuteronomy 4:28

The idols of the nations are but silver and gold, The work of man’s hands. – Psalms 135:15

Clearly then, the passage in Exodus 20:3 referring to “other Gods” does not mean that God is suggesting the actual existence of other Divine beings.  Rather, God is simply acknowledging the existence of idols and the temptation for human beings to actually worship the works of their own hands – and even to convince themselves that these works actually do represent Divine beings.  God is warning His people not do be sucked into this particular temptation because, as explained throughout the Bible, there is in fact only one God in existence (James 2:19).

Only Negative Commandments:

A law that for the most part tells you what you must not do, but does not tell you what you ought to do, is certainly not the best expression of God’s will. We do not do good by not doing bad. Again, contextually, this law was designed for a group of recently released ex-slaves. It formed the hub of the Old Covenant. A code which Paul called “the ministry of death” (2Cor 3:7). Later we will see that, in Jesus, God raised the bar, and declared – you have heard that it was said, but I (Jesus) am now saying to you (Matt 5-).

Clinton Baldwin (2017), The Sabbath Issue in a Nutshell: An Exegentical and Theological Approach, p. 6 (Link).

Again, in context, it is not too hard to tell that the basis of the Decalogue is the Royal Law of Love.  In fact, the Old Testament writers clearly spell this out.  Right in the Torah itself the Divine command is given to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18).  Subsequently, Jesus Himself included this particular command in His reference to the Decalogue, highlighting the underlying basis of love behind the Decalogue:

“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” “Which ones?” the man asked. Jesus answered, “‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not bear false witness, honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself.’” – Matthew 19:17-19

The rich young man clearly understood what Jesus was talking about here.  He understood that the Law was based on love for one’s neighbor – which really is a positive command.  If love is in play, no negative commands would be needed – they would be irrelevant.  Negative commands are only needed once the Royal Law of Love is broken.  At this point, the negative commands come into play to point out this fact – that one is not acting lovingly toward one’s neighbor if one is doing any of the negative things listed against one’s neighbor.

Paul refers to the Decalogue as something that brings death (Romans 7:10 and 2 Corinthians 3:7) because living against the Royal Law of Love, living in sin, eventually results in death (Romans 7:5) – for sin is the transgression of the Law (1 John 3:4).

In this line, if Jesus “raised the bar” as Dr. Baldwin claims, then it would be even harder to keep the Law – it would be even more a “Law of Death” as Paul puts it. Raising the bar doesn’t make keeping the Law any easier, but harder.  Of course, the fact of the matter is that the Law was always impossible to kept outside of the power of God in one’s life.  The reason for this is because humanity became naturally selfish after the Fall.  And, for one who is naturally selfish, any law based on Love will be impossible to keep without Divine help from the One who is Love.  In short, “the bar” has always been set at perfect selfless love.  Nothing has changed in this regard except for a better understanding of the underlying motive behind the Decalogue – which was highlighted in the life, deeds, and words of Jesus.  Salvation has always been based on the unmerited grace of God made possible by the selfless sacrifice of Jesus on our behalf.  And, it is only by God’s power acting on our behalf that we can actually love our neighbors as ourselves.

Consider also that limiting the Ten Commandments to a handful of things that one cannot do is rather liberating – for it means that everything else that is in line with the Royal Law is open and lawful for the follower of God.

The Sabbath Commandment is Ceremonial:

Exo 31:13; Ezk 20:12 explicitly state that the Sabbath command is a sign. A sign naturally demands a ceremony for its expression. Thus, the Sabbath is “ceremonial.” i.e., in terms of commemorating a reality. It points backwards to creation and forwards to the cross (Exo 20:8-11; Col 2:14-16). It was the chief sacrificial day of the week. Twice as many sacrifices were offered on Sabbath as on week days (Num 28:1-10). The Sabbath is also inseparably linked to the sanctuary and its services (Exo 25-31:18; Lev 19:30 & 26:2) See, Jesus: God’s Obligatory Sabbath, Chapter 4.

Clinton Baldwin (2017), The Sabbath Issue in a Nutshell: An Exegentical and Theological Approach, p. 6 (Link).

Baldwin is correct in noting that the weekly Sabbath points backward in remembrance of a historical event – creation week.  However, Baldwin is mistaken in his suggestion that the Sabbath is like the ceremonial laws of the temple service and sacrificial system which foreshadowed the coming Messiah.  The citation of Colossians 2:14-16, as discussed above, is commonly given to support this particular argument.  But, as is also commonly done, Baldwin forgets to include verse 17 – which provides the key qualifier to the previous verse:

Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day — things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. – Colossians 2:16-17

Notice here that Paul specifically points out that he is speaking of specific shadow laws that were intended to foreshadow the coming of the Messiah.  This excludes the weekly Sabbath which was given in the Garden of Eden before the Fall as an eternal reminder of Creation and an eternal gift to mankind – an entire day that God Himself wishes to spend especially with us and where we set aside all secular activities to spend an entire day with God.

It is for this reason that the weekly Sabbath commandment was included with the Decalogue, written on stone and placed within the Ark of the Covenant, while none of the other temporary ceremonial laws, laws specifically foreshadowing the coming Messiah, were included.  A sharp distinction was made in the Torah regarding these laws and Paul also recognizes this distinction – as would all of the other Jews of his day.

 

Jesus broke the Sabbath to undermine its authority:

“The Gospel writers clearly stated that Jesus broke the Sabbath. Since Jesus did actually break the Sabbath, the heresy that the Ten Commandments equal God’s Law would make Him a sinner, which is an impossibility because Jesus was 100% God when He appeared to human beings in human form.”

Lying for God, 10th Ed., 2015, p. 102 (Link)

The problem with this argument is, of course, that Jesus Himself claimed that everything that He did was actually “lawful” for everyone to do according to God’s Law – and always had been lawful.  He explained that God had originally designed that the Sabbath commandment could be “broken” under certain conditions – such as the work of the priests in the temple who consistently “broke” the Sabbath commandment, but in a lawful manner:

Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? – Matthew 12:5

Jesus also explained that it had also always been “lawful” to do good on the Sabbath when it came to relieving the suffering of human beings or even animals:

So Jesus asked the experts in the law and the Pharisees, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath or not?” But they remained silent. – Luke 14:4

And He asked them, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to destroy it?” But they were silent. – Mark 3:4 and Luke 6:9

Then he asked them, “If one of you has a child or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull it out?” – Luke 14:15

“You hypocrites!” the Lord replied, “Does not each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or donkey from the stall and lead it to water? – Luke 13:15

Jesus concluded by pointing out the obvious:

How much more valuable is a person than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath. – Matthew 12:12

And, it wasn’t just Jesus saying this.  The teachers of the Law in Jesus’ day knew full well that this was, in fact, the case according to their own laws.  According to their own teachings, it had always been lawful to “break” the Sabbath commandment in situations where one could relieve the suffering man or beast.  According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, here are some lawful reasons for “breaking” the Sabbath:

The technical term for suspensions of the Sabbath is “doḥin et ha-Shabbat” (push aside or set back the Sabbath). For a higher duty, that of observing the Sabbath was held in abeyance. A priest might violate the Sabbath in the discharge of his sacerdotal work at the altar, or while performing the sacrificial rite, or any other function, assigned to him. For “en Shabbat ba-miḳdash” the Sabbath law is not applicable to the service in the Temple (Pes. 65a). Acts necessary for the Passover are not affected by the prohibitions (Pes. vi. 1, 2). The blowing of the shofar is permitted (R. H. iv. 1). A Levite may tie a broken string on his instrument while performing in the Temple (‘Er. x. 13). Circumcision also takes precedence of the Sabbath, though whatever preparations for this rite can be completed previously should not be left for the Sabbath (Shab. xviii. 3, xix. 1-3). But wheneverthere was danger to life, or where a Jewish woman was in the throes of childbirth, the Sabbath law was set aside (Shab. xviii. 3). In the case of one dangerously sick, whatever was ordered by a competent physician might be done regardless of the Sabbath; but it had to be done by pious and prominent Jews, not by non-Jews (“Yad,” l.c. ii. 1-3). It was forbidden to delay in such a case, for it was intended that man should live by the Law, and not die through it (Yoma 85a, b; Sanh. 74a; ‘Ab. Zarah 27b, 54a; Mek., Ki Tissa). Water might be heated and the lamps lighted. In accidents, too, every help might be extended…

It was permissible to take animals to water, provided they carried no load (“Shibbole ha-Leḳeṭ,” p. 74, where it is explained that covers necessary for the comfort of the animal are not considered a load). Water might be drawn into a trough so that an animal might go and drink of its own accord (‘Er. 20b). If an animal has fallen into a well, it is provided with food until Sabbath is over, if this is possible; but if it is not, covers, cushions, and mattresses are placed under it so that it may get out without further aid; the pain of the animal is sufficient excuse (“ẓa’ar ba’ale ḥayyim”) for this Sabbath violation…

In view of the spirit of philanthropy that, as Maimonides constantly asserts (“Yad,” l.c. ii. 3), underlies the Law, it is difficult to understand the controversies with Jesus attributed to the Pharisees in the New Testament.

Emil G. Hirsch, Joseph Jacobs, Executive Committee of the Editorial Board., Julius H. Greenstone, Sabbath, Jewish Encyclopedia, 1906  (Link)

Clearly then, it was because the Jews already knew that what Jesus was doing was in line with the Law that they refused to answer His questions regarding the requirements of Law and what it said when it came to acting, on the Sabbath, to help a person or animal who was in need.

At this point, of course, Jesus went on to explain that the Sabbath had originally been made, by Him, as a gift for all of mankind, not just for the Jews:

 

Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. – Mark 2:27

 

The term Jesus used here for “man” was “anthropos” in the original Greek. Clearly, this indicates the intended universal nature of the gift of the Sabbath for the benefit of all of mankind back in Eden – when Adam and Eve were still in their innocence.

Every day should be treated like a Sabbath:

At this point, a new argument is often forwarded:

“Honoring God results in making that day a delight [in reference to the Sabbath discussion of Isaiah 58:13-14]. Realistically, would not honoring God make every day a delight?

If we judge righteous judgment, looking to the heart and intent of heart, a Christian meets the requirements of Isaiah 58:13-14 cited above. A Christian seeks to honor God every waking moment. A Christian’s life focus is on serving God and dedication to God. A Christian’s actions or works are not geared to the self, but done in the furtherance of serving and honoring God. A Christian’s life is hidden in Christ. The “old man of sin” has been crucified; that old self that was self-serving and living a life devoid of God in their life. The Sabbath for the believer now transcends any one specific “day” of rest or cessation of labor that was previously in vain, eventually ending in death. This one enters into God’s rest He entered into on that seventh day of Creation through faith.

Lying for God, 10th Ed., 2015, p. 103-104 (Link)

In other words, God doesn’t really care about honoring one day over another, and never really did, because everyone should have been doing the will of God every day – not just on the Sabbath.  In this way, the Sabbath was, and is, no more special or honorable than any other day of the week should be before God.

The problem with this argument is, of course, that Sabbath observance was intended as a special time entirely devoted to God, free of secular activities or individual pursuits for personal gain.  It simply doesn’t follow then that God never really intended to set aside a particular day of the week as unique or “holy” – a day devoted to spending “quality time” with Him.

But why observe a particular day of the week? – one particular day in seven?  It seems rather arbitrary since it appears to be independent of any external physical phenomenon (such as the rotations of the Sun or the moon).  Of course, that’s just the point.  Are we willing to do what God says without a need for any other reason?  Sabbath observance can, therefore, be viewed as a sign or symbol of our love for God – of our willingness to do whatever He says just because He said so.

But isn’t motive of primary importance to God?

A work is good or evil based on its own merits, and not according to what day it is performed. One looks to the intent of heart. One does not look to the day it was performed, which again is to judge according to appearance.

Lying for God, 10th Ed., 2015, p. 104 (Link)

While a person’s motive is indeed most important to God, and God does look upon the heart of a person (1 Samuel 16:7) once one has a conscious understanding of a command of God, one cannot disregard such a command while still maintaining the motive of love toward God.  An act may be otherwise innocent and even good in and of itself, but if it knowingly goes contrary to a direct command of God, it is evidence of a disrespectful unloving attitude toward God. Secular work to maintain one’s self and one’s family is not in and of itself a bad thing. In fact, it’s a good thing.  However, when God asks us to set aside even good things for a time or asks us to selectively do one thing, in particular, among several seemingly good options, it would be a bad thing to knowingly disregard God’s request.

A good example of this is the story of Cain and Abel where Cain thought it perfectly reasonable and good to bring the best produce of his garden to offer on the altar before God – and so it would seem if God had not specifically asked for a lamb to be sacrificed.  God rejected Cain’s offering because Cain knowingly acted contrary to God’s clear direction in this matter – despite the fact that Cain brought God the very best produce from his garden. (Genesis 4:3-7)

What’s wrong with bringing your very best to God?  Nothing – unless God has asked for something specific that you knowingly aren’t doing.

A similar thing happened to King Saul. God told Saul that he was to utterly destroy the Amalekites – even the animals. Yet, Saul disobeyed with the excuse that he had saved the best of the animals to sacrifice to God. That seems like a lovely motive, except that this action was in direct violation of a very clear command of God.  It was Samuel who explained the importance of careful obedience to the commands of God regardless of any rationalizations for why one might try to do something “better” than what God has actually requested of us:

“To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams.” (1 Samuel 15:22)

The same is true for the Christian today.  If someone is truly ignorant of a particular command or request on the part of God, and that person is honestly acting according to the very best knowledge and motivations that are currently available, then God accepts this person and their actions.  Jesus Himself pointed out that there is no “sin” where there is honest ignorance of the will of God.

Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.” – John 9:41

If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. – John 15:22

However, when additional knowledge is gained, one cannot simply continue as one did before, but must modify one’s actions accordingly if one wishes to maintain pure motives before God.

This is true when it comes to a knowledge of the Sabbath.  There are many who honestly do not know what God has commanded regarding the Sabbath day.  There are those who honestly observe a different day as holy, and God accepts their honest sincerity before Him.  There are even those who have never even heard the name of God or of Jesus, yet they can be saved if they are living according to the best light and knowledge that they have available to them.

For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares. – Romans 2:13-16

So, God does indeed value honest and sincere motives and love above everything else.  Again, however, such pure motives cannot exist within someone who has additional knowledge of God’s wishes that they simply aren’t willing to follow.

Jesus Fulfilled All of the Laws:

A related argument is that Jesus fulfilled all of the Laws, and therefore none of them are binding on the Christian.

Since Jesus fulfills all the laws of the OT, it therefore means that He also fulfills the Sabbath. The fact that the Sabbath occurred in the Ten Commandments cannot, and does not place it outside of the range of Jesus to fulfill it. In fact, if Jesus is not the fulfillment of the Sabbath, then it has absolutely no meaning and should not be observed.

Clinton Baldwin (2017), The Sabbath Issue in a Nutshell: An Exegentical and Theological Approach, p. 16 (Link).

What is, again, interesting about this argument is that most Christians will still admit that nine of the original Ten Commandments are still binding on the Christian and were made part of the “New Covenant” – even though they were “fulfilled” by Jesus. How can that be?  Where is the consistency here in challenging the persistence of just one of the Ten Commandments due to the argument of being “fulfilled” by Jesus?

The fact is that Jesus kept the moral Law, as our example, and was the final offering for sin – doing away with the need for the sacrificial system and sanctuary service that pointed forward, or foreshadowed, the coming of the Messiah.  After the death of Jesus, there simply was no further need for such reminders of His coming sacrifice. Once this event happened, in reality, such sacrifices and ceremonies became meaningless.

However, honoring father and mother or being faithful to one’s wife didn’t become meaningless at the death of Jesus.  Why not?  Because, these Laws were not meant to foreshadow the life and death of Jesus, but were set in place from the very beginning of human existence on this planet as eternal moral laws regarding how the universal Royal Law of Love (James 2:8) would make us act toward each other and toward God.

In this line, the weekly Sabbath was also set in place, from the very beginning of Earth’s history, as a gift to humanity, a reminder of creation and the Creator, and as a sign of our love and devotion to God as our Creator and, after the Fall, as our Redemer.  The weekly Sabbath was included with the rest of the moral laws of the Decalogue and placed inside of the Ark of the Covenant – clearly distinguishing it from all of the other laws of Moses, including the laws relating to the sanctuary services which did, in fact, foreshadow the coming of the Messiah.

Sabbath given only to the Jews:

But, what about the argument that, according to ancient Jewish laws and customs, the Sabbath was only given to the Jews? – that no Gentile could observe the Sabbath on pain of death? As cited in the book, “Lying for God“, the Jewish Encyclopedia explains this perspective:

Jewish Perspective:

Resh Laish (d. 278) said, “A Gentile observing the Sabbath deserves death” (Sanh. 58b). This refers to a Gentile who accepted the seven laws of the Noachidæ, inasmuch as “the Sabbath is a sign between God and Israel alone,” and it was probably directed against the Christian Jews, who disregarded the Mosaic laws and yet at that time kept up the observance of the Jewish Sabbath…

In a remarkable apology for Christianity contained in his appendix to Seder Olam (pp. 32b-34b, Hamburg, 1752), gives it as his opinion that the original intention of Jesus, and especially of Paul, was to
convert only the Gentiles to the seven moral laws of Noah and to let the Jews follow the Mosaic law— which explains the apparent contradictions in the New Testament regarding the laws of Moses and the Sabbath.

Jewish Encyclopedia

The Book of Jubilees (a Jewish pseudepigraphal work of the second century BC) says that “the Creator of all things.., did not sanctify all peoples and nations to keep Sabbath thereon, but Israel alone”

“The Book of Jubilees,” in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, ed. R.H. Charles, vol. 2, Pseudepigrapha [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913], p. 15

The Creator of all blessed it, but he did not sanctify any people or nations to keep the Sabbath thereon with the sole exception of Israel. He granted to them alone that they might eat and drink and keep the Sabbath thereon upon the earth’

Jubilees 2:31, James Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, [New York: Doubleday, 1985], vol. 2, p. 58

Book of Jubilees and Mishneh Torah:

First off, the Book of Jubilees, written in the mid-second century by some unknown author, is not canonical and contains various discrepancies compared to the Bible. Beyond this, the Jubilees is not consistent regarding its testimony on Sabbath observance. Consider, for example, the following passage where Enoch is said to have kept the Sabbath – even before the Flood. And, according to the Jubilees, even the angels originally kept the Sabbath from the beginning of time – and were circumcised as well:

“[Enoch] recounted the weeks of the jubilees, and made known to them the days of the years, and set in order the months and recounted the Sabbaths of the years…”

Jubilees 4:18, in R. H. Charles’, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, Vol. II, p. 18. (Link)

“And all the angels of the presence, and all the angels of sanctification, these two great classes, He hath bidden us to keep the Sabbath with Him in heaven and on earth.

Jubilees 2:18 (Link)

“And every one that is born, the flesh of whose foreskin is not circumcised on the eighth day, belongs not to the children of the covenant which the Lord made with Abraham, but to the children of destruction; nor is there, moreover, any sign on him that he is the Lord’s, but (he is destined) to be destroyed and slain from the earth, and to be rooted out of the earth, for he has broken the covenant of the Lord our God. For all the angels of the presence and all the angels of sanctification have been so created from the day of their creation, and before the angels of the presence and the angels of sanctification He hath sanctified Israel, that they should be with Him and with His holy angels.”

Jubilees 15:26-27 (Link)

Interesting how the angels were created already circumcised – even though Jesus explained that the angels “do not marry nor are given in marriage” (Matthew 22:30).

However, the concept of the Sabbath being exclusive to the Jews is also found in the “Mishneh Torah” (written between 1170 and 1180 AD), and does seem to represent the understanding of many of the Jews during certain times in history. Note, however, that the “Mishneh Torah” isn’t the same thing as the “Mishnah“, which was written down much earlier in the early 3rd century AD (see below).

The Mishneh Torah (Hebrew: מִשְׁנֵה תּוֹרָה‎‎, “Repetition of the Torah”), subtitled Sefer Yad ha-Hazaka (ספר יד החזקה “Book of the Strong Hand”), is a code of Jewish religious law (Halakha) authored by Maimonides (Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, also known as “Rambam”), one of history’s foremost rabbis. So, while not exactly canonical, it would seem to reflect the thinking of Jews, at times, as follows:

A gentile who studies the Torah is obligated to die. They should only be involved in the study of their seven mitzvot.

Similarly, a gentile who rests, even on a weekday, observing that day as a Sabbath, is obligated to die. Needless to say, he is obligated for that punishment if he creates a festival for himself.

The general principle governing these matters is: They are not to be allowed to originate a new religion or create mitzvot for themselves based on their own decisions. They may either become righteous converts and accept all the mitzvot or retain their statutes without adding or detracting from them.

– Mishneh Torah, chapter 10 (Link)

This is indeed pretty harsh language against anyone thinking to observe Jewish laws and customs, including the Sabbath, without first becoming full converts to Judaism. In fact, Judaism holds that gentiles (goyim; “non-Jews,” literally “nations”) are not obligated to adhere to all the laws of the Torah (indeed, they are forbidden to fulfill some laws, such as the keeping of the Sabbath in the exact same manner as Israel). Rabbinic Judaism and its modern-day descendants actually discourage proselytization. The Noahide Laws (as listed below) are regarded as the way through which non-Jews can have a direct and meaningful relationship with God or at least comply with the minimal requisites of civilization and of divine law.

Seven Laws of Noah:

The Seven Laws of Noah:

  • Do not deny God.
  • Do not blaspheme God.
  • Do not murder.
  • Do not engage in incest, adultery, pederasty, or bestiality, as well as homosexual relations.
  • Do not steal.
  • Do not eat of a live animal.
  • Establish courts/legal system to ensure law and obedience.

New World Encyclopedia (Link)

The “Ten Commandments” of the Bible (though in some ways quite different) were, according to the Talmud, simply added in addition to these pre-existing Laws of Noah:

Ten Commandments Incorporate Laws of Noah:
Talmud:

“Surely it has been taught: The Israelites were given ten precepts at Marah, seven of which had already been accepted by the children of Noah, to which were added at Marah social laws, the Sabbath, and honouring one’s parents.”

Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin, Folio 56 (Link)

Samuel Bacchiocchi:

This might sound as though the additional laws mentioned in the Ten Commandments were not known before they were given to Moses.  However, this isn’t a correct understanding of Jewish beliefs.  There seems to be a bit of inconsistency, actually, in how the Jews viewed the Sabbath.  On the one hand, during times of severe persecution, they appeared to view the Sabbath in more exclusive terms. Yet, in relatively peaceful times, they tended to view the Sabbath in more universal terms. Samuel Bacchiocchi (Adventist author and theologian) explains:

The Jewish attempt to reduce the Sabbath from a creation ordinance established for mankind to a Mosaic ordinance given exclusively to Israel, was developed by Palestinian rabbis to preserve a Jewish identity, at a time when the Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes implemented a program of radical Hellenization of the Jews through the prohibition of sacrifices and Sabbathkeeping (175 B.C.). The result was that many Jews fell away, “sacrificed to the gods and desecrated the Sabbath” (1 Macc. 1:43). Pious Jews resisted passionately against such Hellenization, preferring to be slaughtered rather than desecrating the Sabbath (1 Macc. 2 :32-38).

The need to preserve a Jewish identity at that critical time inspired an exclusivistic and nationalistic view of the Sabbath. Some Rabbis taught that the privilege of Sabbathkeeping was denied to the Gentiles and reserved exclusively to Israel. As stated in the book of Jubilees, “He [God] allowed no other people or peoples to keep the Sabbath on this day, except Israel only; to it alone he granted to eat and drink and keep the Sabbath on it” (2 :31).69…

It must be said, however, that such a view represents a late secondary development rather than an original tradition. This is borne out by the fact that even in Palestinian literature there are references to the creation origin of the Sabbath. For example, the Book of Jubilees (about 140-100 B.C.), while on the one hand it says that God allowed “Israel only” to keep the Sab-bath (Jub. 2:31), on the other holds that God “kept Sabbath on the seventh day and hallowed it for all ages, and appointed it as a sign for all His works” (Jub. 2:1).

In Hellenistic (Greek) Jewish literature the Sabbath is un-mistakably viewed as a creation ordinance designed for all people. For example, Philo, the famous Jewish philosopher, not only traces the origin of the Sabbath to creation, but also delights to call it “the birthday of the world.” Referring to the creation story, Philo explains: “We are told that the world was made in six days and that on the seventh God ceased from his works and began to contemplate what had been so well created, and therefore he bade those who should live as citizens under this world-order to follow God in this as in other matters.” Because the Sabbath exists from creation, Philo emphasizes that it is “the festival not of a single city or country but of the universe, and it alone strictly deserves to be called public, as belonging to all people.”

Bacchiocchi / Ratzlaff Sabbath Debate: Part 2 (Link)

The fact of the matter is that Bacchiocchi is right – as Isaiah, Philo, Jesus, and even the Talmud (to include the Mishnah itself) testify.

Isaiah, the Old Testament prophet, is fairly clear that non-Jews who wished to serve God and keep His Laws, including the Sabbath commandment, would be accepted by Him:

And foreigners who bind themselves to the LORD to serve him, to love the name of the LORD, and to worship him, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant —  these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.” (Isaiah 56:6-7)

Also, many Jews believe that the Sabbath was universal in nature, created for all of mankind.  Consider, for example, the thoughts of Philo along these lines…

Philo: Universal Sabbath was made for all of mankind:

Philo of Alexandria, living at the same time of Christ (20 BC – 60 AD), argued that the Sabbath was made for all of mankind as a “universal festival” – a time of holy celebration that isn’t limited to the Jews only since God created the Sabbath to be celebrated as “the birthday of the world”.

 Philo of Alexandria (Link, Link)

This echoes the words and sentiments of Jesus Himself who said that He had in fact personally made the Sabbath as a gift for all of humankind/anthropos (Mark 2:27).

Even according to the Talmud, the patriarchs who lived before Moses came on the scene knew of and obeyed the laws of the Torah – before they were written down by Moses.

 

Patriarchs before Moses kept the whole Torah: 
Talmud and Midrash (or Medrash) Rabba:

In the Talmud (Tractate Yoma 28b) it is written that Abraham kept the entire Torah. This includes both the “Written Law” (the five books of Moses) and the “Oral Law” (the explanations of how to carry out that Written Law).

The material of the Midrash is mostly from the time of the Amoraim (200 – 500 AD). Some of the Midrash (particularly Mechilta, Sifra, and Sifre) can be traced back to the Tannaim (400 BC – 200 AD). As far as the Bereshith Rabba (or Genesis Rabbah), it dates from the sixth century. A midrash on Genesis, it offers explanations of words and sentences and haggadic interpretations and expositions, many of which are only loosely tied to the text. It is often interlaced with maxims and parables. Its redactor drew upon earlier rabbinic sources, including the Mishnah, Tosefta, the halakhic midrashim the Targums. It apparently drew upon a version of Talmud Yerushalmi that resembles, yet was not identical to, the text that survived to present times. It was redacted sometime in the early fifth century.

In any case, the Medrash (Beraishis Rabba 95:3) says that Jacob studied the Torah just as his fathers had done – and that he sent Judah to Egypt to establish a House of Study before Jacob’s family arrived to settle there. Apparently, according to the Talmud and Midrash Rabbah anyway, Jacob had the Torah, in some form or another, as well.

The Medrash Rabba explains that Abraham knew the entire Torah as well (as does the Mishnah Yomi: Kiddushin – more detail below). But how could this be?  Who gave Abraham this information?  Rabbi Shlomo Ibn Aderes, the “Rashba” (Spain, 1235-1310) in his classic Responsa (Responsa #94) explained this idea:

The Torah is not merely a book. It is an abbreviation of the entire mass of spiritual wisdom. Because of our own inability to grasp these concepts in their totality, let alone to figure them out on our own, we were given the Torah at Sinai with 613 commandments instructing us to do, or abstain from, particular physical actions. Additionally, the Torah has practically infinite textual references to the concepts of spiritual wisdom. The Torah, as we were given it, is our key to these concepts. In our time we’ve seen the great discoveries that mankind has made in medicine, technology, the arts, and other areas of the physical world. Our forefathers, in their tremendous wisdom, were able to tap into the discoveries of the spiritual world. They didn’t need to be given the Torah to discover it; they discovered it on their own. (Link)

The “Medrash” or Midrash (Beraishis Rabba, 1:2) also states:

“He [God] looked at the Torah and created the world.”

First of all, this means that the Torah preceded God’s creation of the world. This suggests that it is not merely a book – it is a body of wisdom. It also means that God used the Torah as a type of blueprint for the universe. We now can understand how the Patriarchs could tap into the knowledge of the Torah. With their intense level of consciousness they could see the principles of the Torah in the world around them; in the world that was built following the Torah’s blueprint.

Of course, this includes knowledge of an obedience to the command of God to keep holy the weekly Sabbath on the seventh day…

The Shemot Rabbah, a Midrash on Exodus dating to the 10th to 12th centuries, offers this comment for when Moses “looked upon their burdens”, while he was considered a naturalized Egyptian:

“And he saw his brothers, with their burdens. He saw that they had no rest, so he went to Pharaoh and said: ‘If one has a slave and he does not give him rest one day a week he dies; similarly, if you will not give your slaves rest one day a week, they will die’. Pharaoh replied: ‘Go and do with them as you wish’. And Moses ordained for them the Sabbath for rest.” (Shemot Rabbah, 1:28)

In this Hebrew commentary, the Sabbath is seen as predating the Exodus. The Sabbath becomes an issue of contention while in slavery in Egypt. The conflict comes to a head when Moses returns to deliver Israel.

Exodus 5:5, 9 – “And Pharaoh said, ‘Behold, the people of the land are now many, and you make them rest (šaḇaṯ) from their burdens (seḇālāh)!’ … ‘Let heavier work be laid on the men that they may labor at it and pay no regard to lying words.'”

“This is to teach us that the Israelites possessed scrolls with the contents of which they would expect deliverance, every Sabbat, assuring them that the Holy One Blessed be He would redeem them. Thus, because they rested on the Sabbath, Pharaoh said to them: ‘Let heavier work be laid upon the men and let them not expect deliverance from false words. Let them not expect deliverance, or be refreshed on the Sabbath day.” (Shemot Rabbah, 5:18)

Here we can see that the issue of the burdens (seḇālāh) of the Israelites has been resumed and Moses has been teaching that they should rest (šaḇaṯ) from their labors. Thus we have another example that in the Hebrew teachings, the Sabbath predated the giving of the Manna.

The Mishnah:

Of course, according to the authors of “Lying for God” (Kerry Wynne and Larry Dean), the Mishnah was considered superior to the rest of the Talmud and Midrash texts:

Recall that the Pharisees rejected the Talmud as merely the production of Human opinion, although the stewards of the oral law had, in their minds, placed the Mishnah within the body of Jewish oral law call the Talmud.  When Jesus told His followers to obey the teachings of the Pharisees, by the process of elimination we have no other possibility left than that Jesus instructed His followers to obey the teachings of the Mishnah and to reject all other parts of the oral law.

The Mishnah rejects the idea that the Torah existed before Moses… (Link)

This argument is mistaken for several reasons.  But first, a little background.

The Mishnah was collected and committed to writing about 200 AD and forms the first part of the Talmud. Orthodox Judaism teaches that Moses received the Torah (the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) from God and that he wrote down everything God spoke to him. However, it is also taught that God gave Moses explanations and examples of how to interpret the Law that Moses did not write down. These unwritten explanations are known in Judaism as the Oral Torah. The Oral Torah was supposedly passed down from Moses to Joshua and then to the rabbis until the advent of Christianity when it was finally written down as the legal authority called Halakha (“the walk”). The two main sections of the Oral Torah are the Mishnah and the Gemara.

The Mishnah (משנה, “repetition”) essentially records the debates of the post-temple sages from AD 70—200 (called the Tannaim) and is considered the first major work of “Rabbinical Judaism.” It is composed of six orders (sedarim), arranged topically. It is the first major written redaction of the Jewish oral traditions known as the “Oral Torah”. It is also the first major work of Rabbinic literature. The period during which the Mishnah was assembled spanned about 130 years, or five generations, in the first and second centuries AD. Judah the Prince is credited with the final redaction and publication of the Mishnah at the beginning of the third century AD in a time when, according to the Talmud, the persecution of the Jews and the passage of time raised the possibility that the details of the oral traditions of the Pharisees from the Second Temple period (536 BCE – 70 AD) would be forgotten (Link).

After the Mishnah was published, it was studied exhaustively by generations of rabbis in both Babylonia and Israel. From 200—500 AD, additional commentaries on the Mishnah were compiled and put together as the Gemara. Actually, there are two different versions of the Gemara, one compiled by scholars in Israel (c. 400 AD) and the other by the scholars of Babylonia (c. 500 AD). Together, the Mishnah and the Gemara form the Talmud (Link).

In any case, the claim that Jesus recognized the Mishnah as authoritative, but not the rest of the Talmud, isn’t accurate. Jesus rejected many of the oral traditions of the Pharisees in His own day as being inconsistent with the Law of Love and the original intent of God for His own Laws.

He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’

You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”

And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!”

Mark 7:6-9 (see also Matthew 15:1-9 and Matthew 23:15-27)

This is the reason that Jesus was in constant conflict with the Pharisees and many of their burdensome laws (their “oral Torah” which now make up parts of the Talmud) that were laid upon the people outside of the will or intent of God.

  • Sadducees: rejected not only the rabbinical traditions, but all of the Tanakh (Old Testament) outside of the Torah.
  • Pharisees: shaped and promoted the Oral Torah in addition to the Tanakh.
  • Essenes: seemed to have accepted not only the Tanakh, but a wide range of other texts. They seem not to have accepted the Oral Torah. (If the Qumran community was Essene, we could be more certain about their beliefs.)

Jesus, in the conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount, warned His disciples about false prophets (Matthew 7:15). Prior to this admonition, Jesus went right to the heart of oral traditions. This analysis and condemnation of the oral Torah of the Pharisees by Jesus is conceded by many modern day scholars. Davies, one such scholar, assesses the true intent of the Sermon on the Mount when he writes:

“The SM itself is not set forth as a ‘new’, revolutionary Law, in sharp antithesis to that given on Sinai.”

W. D. Davies, The Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), 31.

Again, Davies points out that the the contrasting statements “You have heard” but “I tell you” is the way Jesus sets up the ethical demands of God against those of Judaism – which are based on nothing more than human traditions that have been added to the commands of God. North also states the matter rather firmly as follows:

“The approach I have chosen here is to adopt Jesus’ use of the technique, ‘You have heard it said.’ What He was attacking in each case was either a false tradition of the Pharisees or a false interpretation they imposed on an Old Testament text.”

North, Tradition, 86. See also Greg L. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics, expanded edition with replies to critics (New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co, 1984), where he says, “These radical commands (vv. 21-48) do not supersede the Older Testamental law; they illustrate and explain it. . . . The law demanded inner sanctification and its outward expression; the scribes and Pharisees disregarded the former and perverted the latter.”

Given this background as to the limited credibility that should be given to the Talmud, the fact of the matter is that both the Gemaric and Mishnah sections of the Talmud recognize the existence of the Torah, including the Sabbath, before the time of Moses. The Mishnah itself directly claims that Abraham, despite having lived many generations before Moses, had already been a follower of the laws that were eventually delivered on Sinai – in their entirety: 

We find that Father Abraham observed the Torah [hatorah] in its entirety before it was given, as it is said: “Since Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my observances, commandments, statutes and my teachings [toratai].” (Gen. 26:5).

M Qiddushin (Kiddushin) 4:14 (Link – starting at 9:00 of 9:25)

This Mishnah text (found in the Nashim order dealing with women’s issues), of course, directly undermines the above-cited claim that, “The Mishnah rejects the idea that the Torah existed before Moses.”  Rather, the Mishnah specifically argues that Abraham observed the entire Torah before it was given to Moses – which would include the weekly Sabbath.

 

Breshith Rabbah:

In this line, the Breshith Rabbah (Genesis Rabbath) tells a story about the miracle of Sarah’s Sabbath lamp as follows:

In Sarah’s tent, a special miracle proclaimed that the Divine Presence dwelled therein: the lamp she lit every Friday evening, in honor of the divine day of rest, miraculously kept burning all week, until the next Friday eve. When Sarah died (1676 BCE), the miracle of her Shabbat lamp ceased. But on the day of Sarah’s passing, Rebecca was born. And when Rebecca was brought to Sarah’s tent as the destined wife of Sarah’s son, Isaac, the miracle of the lamp returned. Once again, the light of Shabbat filled the tent of the matriarch of Israel and radiated its holiness to the entire week. (Bereishit Rabbah 60)

Genesis Rabbah (Hebrew: בְְּרֵאשִׁית רַבָּה‎, B’reshith Rabbah) is a religious text from Judaism’s classical period, probably written between 300 and 500 CE with some later additions. It is a midrash comprising a collection of ancient rabbinical homiletical interpretations of the Book of Genesis (B’reshith in Hebrew).

At a minimum, then, it seems as though the Laws of God, to include the weekly Sabbath, were known and followed before the time of Moses (according to the understanding of the Jews).  But, were these Laws only give to the patriarchs? – and not the rest of the world?  Well, Sabbath observance, in particular, would have been seen, by the Patriarchs before the time of Moses, as a memorial of creation.  And, as a memorial of creation, established in Eden before the Fall of mankind, would have been originally intended for all of humankind for all eternity.

Jesus:

This is actually very much in line with the comment of Jesus Himself who said that He created the Sabbath as a gift for all of mankind / anthropos (Mark 2:27) – not just the Jews.

As far as the Greek term “anthropos”, consider that it can be used in a singular or plural sense. So, context is important to understand here. As used in Mark 2:27, the meaning is very clear in the original Greek:

καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς τὸ σάββατον διὰ τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐγένετο οὐχ ὁ ἄνθρωπος διὰ τὸ σάββατον

The translation is as follows:

And he said to them, The Sabbath was made for the man, and not the man for the Sabbath:

Now, look in the very next sentence where Jesus referred to Himself as “the son of man” (Mark 2:28). The word Greek word for “man” here is the same word “ἀνθρώπου” or “anthropos”. Certainly then, this would not be suggesting that Jesus was claiming to be the Son of the Jews? – right? Rather, Jesus is clearly claiming to be the Son of mankind – of Adam in particular. He is, in fact, the “second Adam” (1Co 15:45-48) and is, therefore, the representative of all of mankind – not just one particular special group of human beings. In fact, other passages also use the term “anthropos” to refer to “mankind” as well. As another example of this, consider the passage in Matthew 4:4 where Jesus says, “Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.” The word for “man” here is “anthropos”. Yet, it is very clear that Jesus is not suggesting that this only applies to Jews or to any one particular “man”. Clearly, in context, Jesus is saying that this applies to all of mankind. The same thing is true for John 2:25 where John writes, “He needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.” Again, the term used here is “anthropos” – clearly extending to all of mankind rather than being limited to the Jews or any one particular individual.

So, understood in proper context, the Greek used in Mark 2:27 is quite clear. Jesus is obviously saying that the Sabbath was made, originally, for humanity at large, not just for the Jews. It must, however, be pointed out that another interpretation is very probable – which adds additional emphasis and insight into the origin of the Sabbath at the beginning of creation. As noted above, the literal reading of Mark 2:27 says, “The Sabbath was made for the man, not the man for the Sabbath.” Notice how the article “the” precedes the word “man” in this passage. The term “the man” is the characteristic designation of Adam in the creation account found in Genesis. These very same words “ho anthropos” occur repeatedly with reference to Adam (Gen 1:27; 2:7-8, 15, 18 in the LXX). Given the cumulative evidence for a reference to creation already noted, it seems clear that Christ was saying, and was clearly understood by His listeners as saying, that the Sabbath was originally made for Adam – and through extension for all of humankind that descended from him.

Solomon Goldman:

This reasonable conclusion, that Adam kept the Sabbath before the Fall while still in his innocence in Eden, is held by many Jewish writers. Solomon Goldman (1893-1953) says:

“Both Philo and the Rabbis assumed that the first man emulated his Maker and rested on the Sabbath.”

Solomon Goldman, The Book of Human Destiny, Vol. 2, “In the Beginning,” p. 744.

It seems, then, that many of the Jews, especially the leaders, lost sight of their original purpose – which was to spread the knowledge of the one true God and His love (which is embedded in His Laws) to the entire world of peoples who had lost the knowledge of God over time. Instead of following this commission, the Jews became more and more exclusive in their thinking and proud of their privileged position in being given special knowledge of God and His Laws. They saw no need to share these gifts abroad – and ended up not recognizing the Lawgiver Himself when He came to this world to live among us as one of us.

Martin Luther:

Dr. Martin Luther, even though a Sunday (not a Sabbath) keeper, argued that the Sabbath was originally created for all of humankind in Eden, before the Fall.  Yet, ironically, he personally felt that the particular day of the week chosen for rest and religious contemplation no longer mattered for the Christian since “no one day was better than another” – as long as at least one day a week was set aside. He thought that since, by his day, Sunday had long been accepted as the common day of worship, that this practice should be maintained – “so that things may be done in an orderly fashion and no one creates disorder by unnecessary innovation.” Still, mysteriously given this perspective, Luther believed that the Sabbath had in fact originally been created by God at the very beginning of time for all of mankind to enjoy:

“God blessed the Sabbath and sanctified it to Himself. It is moreover to be remarked that God did this to no other creature. God did not sanctify to Himself the heaven nor the earth nor any other creature. But God did sanctify to Himself the seventh day. This was especially designed of God, to cause us to understand that the ‘seventh day’ is to be especially devoted to divine worship….

It follows therefore from this passage, that if Adam had stood in his innocence and had not fallen he would yet have observed the ‘seventh day’ as sanctified, holy and sacred…. Nay, even after the fall he held the ‘seventh day’ sacred; that is, he taught on that day his own family. This is testified by the offerings made by his two sons, Cain and Abel. The Sabbath therefore has, from the beginning of the world, been set apart for the worship of God…. For all these things are implied and signified in the expression ‘sanctified.’

Although therefore man lost the knowledge of God by sin, yet God willed that this command concerning the sanctifying of the Sabbath should remain. He willed that on the seventh day both the word should be preached, and also those other parts of His worship performed which He Himself instituted.”

Martin Luther, The Creation, A Commentary on Genesis,” Vol. I, pp. 138-140, (Originally completed in 1545 – Link) translation by Professor J. N. Lenker, D. D., Minneapolis: 1901; and also “Copious Explanation of Genesis,” Vol. I, pp. 62, 68. Christiania: 1863. (Link)  See also the translation by Henry D. Cole (Link)

The response of some, such as Kerry Wynne and Larry Dean in their review of this article, is that Martin Luther quickly changed his mind once he saw the true light of the Gospel:

No one denies that Martin Luther said this at one time in his career. However, it is apparent that as Luther studied the principles of the Gospel, he began to see the errors of Sabbatarian theology.  He rejected Sabbatarianism before the Ausburg Confession was written.

Kerry Wynne and Larry Dean, April 2017 (Link)

Of course, Luther never changed his mind since he was never a Sabbatarian to begin with.  After all, the Augsburg Confession was published in 1530 while Luther’s “Commentary on Genesis” (reference above) was finished November 11, 1545 – just a short time before his death on February 18, 1546. Even considering that Luther’s Genesis Commentary is a large body of work, some 3200 pages (originally delivered to his seminary students) generated over the last 10 years of his life (beginning in November of 1535 – Link), it is quite clear that Luther never recanted the idea that the Sabbath had its origins in Eden at the very beginning of the creation of our world.

The obvious point of these passages is not that Luther ever subscribed to Sabbatarian ideas for the Christian – at least not specific to the 7th-day Sabbath (though Luther did support a Sabbath-type Sunday observance and the eternal nature of the Decalogue). Rather, what these passages clearly demonstrate is that Luther believed, until the end of his life, that the Sabbath originated in Eden and was observed by Adam and Eve before, and even after, the Fall.

 

Philip Melanchthon:

Philip Melanchthon, also a Sunday (not a Sabbath) keeper, said pretty much the same thing as Luther regarding the pre-existence, before Moses, of the entire Decalogue:

“The chief features of the moral laws have been brought together in one small table, which is called ‘The Decalogue.’ As these are the external rules of the Divine mind, they sounded at all times in the Church even before Moses, and will always remain and pertain to all nations.”

Philip Melanchthon, Loci Communes, 1521 AD

Johann Peter Lange:

Consider also the conclusions of Johann Peter Lange, a German Calvinist theologian (1802-1884):

“If we had no other passage than this of Genesis 2:3 there would be no difficulty in deducing from it a precept for the universal observance of a Sabbath, or the seventh day, to be devoted to God, as holy time, by all of that race for whom the earth and its nature were especially prepared. The first man must have known it. The words ‘He hallowed it,’ can have no meaning otherwise. They would be a blank unless in reference to some who were required to keep it holy.”

Johann Peter Lange, Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, D. D., Vol. I, pp. 196, 197. New York: 1884.

 

Ten Commandments equivalent to rest of the Mosaic Laws:

Israel viewed the Law of Moses as one integrated and inseparable body of 613 equally important “covenant” points of law. You break one of these 613 laws, and you have violated the covenant. The Decalogue was only a part of the Law of Moses, and it was strikingly incomplete.

Lying for God, 10th Ed., 2015, p. 109 (Link)

Of course, this isn’t true since the Ten Commandments were given a special status by God Himself since only the Decalogue was placed inside of the Ark of the Covenant right under the “Mercy Seat”.  All of the other Mosaic laws were placed in a compartment on the outside of the Ark “as a witness against you” (Deuteronomy 31:26).

In response to this point, I’ve heard all kinds of reasons why this might have been done while still keeping intact the notion that all of the Mosaic laws were considered “equal” to the Decalogue.  One person even suggested to me that perhaps the Ark of the Covenant had been made “too small” to hold all but ten of the laws of Moses…

The reality of the situation, however, is that the Decalogue was written by God’s own finger in stone as eternal unchangeable moral Laws – while the rest of the Mosaic laws were largely “ceremonial” foreshadowing the coming Messiah and the meaning of His life and death for the salvation of a lost world.

Circumcision tied to the Sabbath Commandment:

Another argument is occasionally made that the Mosaic law concerning circumcision was equal if not superior to the Sabbath commandment – since circumcision must take place on the 8th day after birth even if this day happened to be on the Sabbath day (thereby trumping the Sabbath commandment).  So, if circumcision is not required for the Christian (according to Acts 15), why then would the Sabbath be required?

“The biblical understanding of circumcision as taught in Scripture and Jewish rabbinical writings is close to absolute proof that Sabbath-keeping ended at the cross and was officially put to rest at the Council of Jerusalem.”

Lying for God, 10th Ed., 2015, p. 110 (Link)

There are several problems with this conclusion.  Fist off, the practice of circumcision started with Abraham due to his own efforts to help God out with human efforts by taking things into his own hands, so to speak. God then gave him the rite of circumcision in order to remind him, and his children after him, that God is not dependent upon human effort to accomplish His own purposes. Before this time, obviously, there simply was no Divine command regarding circumcision. Therefore, this “law” is not an eternal moral Law set for all times and all places.  That is why it wasn’t included in Decalogue or written with the finger of God in stone.  Also, although the observance of the other commandments of the Decalogue, including the Sabbath commandment, preceded Abraham, according to the Jews themselves, the practice of circumcision did not. This particular practice and law truly did begin with the father of the Israelite nation.

Beyond this, considering how much of an uproar the issue of circumcision by itself caused for the Jerusalem counsel (described in Acts 15), if the Sabbath issue had also been on the table, much would have been said of it as well. However, absolutely nothing was said of Sabbath observance. Why not? Because, obviously, it simply wasn’t an issue.  The non-Jewish Christian converts were already observing the weekly Sabbath without any problem. This is confirmed by the historical records noted above where Sabbath observance was widespread throughout the early Christian world – and remained so for many hundreds of years and in some places well over a thousand years and into modern times.

Isreal not to make friends with other nations:

The Israelites were a stubborn and stiff-necked people according to God’s own assessment. He knew the Hebrews would easily be corrupted by associating with the Heathen. The ordinances of the Sabbath, circumcision, and the Jewish dietary laws placed a high wall of social separation between Israel and the Gentiles. If people don’t eat together, they are less likely to become friends. Along similar lines, the ordinance of circumcision made it a very painful process for the head of a Gentile household to make a decision to join an Israelite community and to live as a proselyte. Contrast this with God’s expressed New Covenant purpose to tear down this barrier between Jews and Gentiles after the cross. St. Paul was God’s specially designated ambassador of the Gospel to the Gentiles according to Scripture…

The Sabbath was a ceremonial law designed to keep Israel and the Gentiles separate, and that barrier must come down if Jews and Gentiles are to be united in the Gospel.

Lying for God, 10th Ed., 2015, p. 113 (Link)

So, God created all of the burdensome laws as walls for Isreal, not to keep them safe and give them practical advantages when living in this world, but to keep everyone else out? – to make things very difficult for the Jews to make friends with the surrounding nations? To make their way of life as distasteful as possible for anyone to want to follow Jehovah?  Really?  That was the reason for the Sabbath and the Ten Commandments and the other Mosaic Laws? – like the dietary laws?

Come on now.  It couldn’t be that these laws were actually a blessing to the Israelites? that they had objective advantages compared to all the other nations around them as far as general health and longevity is concerned (in a day and age before the concept of germs and the benefits of hygiene was scientifically understood)?  It couldn’t be that the ceremonial laws regarding the coming of the Messiah were intended to lead to the mind to carefully contemplate what God Himself would have to sacrifice to accomplish His plan of salvation?  – to help to establish a closer relationship and love for Him?  It couldn’t be that a weekly day of rest has any practical advantage or that humans are actually tuned to a weekly circadian biological cycle. Yet, as it turns out, pretty much every living thing, to include humans beings, experiences a seven-day, or “circaseptan” biological cycle. (Link, Link)?

Yet, all these advantages were really intended to be seen as very unattractive for the surrounding nations?  I guess God simply didn’t understand what He was saying when He suggested that the Sabbath should be viewed as a “delightful” day (Isaiah 58:13)? After all, how could it be “delightful” if it was actually intended as a “wall” to keep the heathen away?

The Greeks have always hated Jewish laws and customs:

As we mentioned in another chapter, Bacchiocchi seemed to be unaware that the Greek hatred of the Sabbath, circumcision, and the Jewish Food Laws continues unabated until this day. His is an odd “Judeo-centric” view of the conflict found in the Book of Maccabees. Adventism has fewer than 1,000 members in Greece today, and Greece has the lowest rate of circumcision in the Western World (less than 2 percent). Had not the Apostles swiftly abandoned the Sabbath, Circumcision and the Jewish Food laws at the Council of Jerusalem, Christianity would have quickly shriveled into an obscure sect of Judaism localized around Jerusalem. Simply put, Adventism is a non-starter in Greece because of the Sabbath and its adoption of the Jewish Food laws. The Greeks hate those Jewish traditions just as passionately today as they did 2,000 years ago…

That NONE of the Ecumenical Councils discussed the Sabbath, or issued canons on the subject, strongly indicates that there simply was no controversy on the subject. It suggests, instead, that Christians had abandoned Sabbathkeeping immediately after the Resurrection, which is the avowed position of the 300 million member Eastern Orthodox Church. Adventist leadership has been aware of Eastern Christianity’s unequivocal-position on this issue since no later than 1915, and has never acknowledged that fact; let alone addressed the contention; let alone disputed the Eastern Church’s contention; let alone refuted it. They simply ignored it all.

Lying for God, 10th Ed., 2015, p. 114, 129-130 (Link)

Clearly, the author(s) of this argument haven’t done their homework since, as shown above, the split between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church was, in no small part, due to disagreements over Sabbath observance (Link). The Eastern Church had been observing the Sabbath “in the Jewish manner” for over 1000 years and the church leadership in Rome didn’t like that one little bit. Yet, the Eastern Orthodox Church leadership would not give up on the “apostolic traditions” that they inherited directly from the apostles of Christ. So, they refused to give up on their Sabbath observance… and the rest is history.

Even before the Christian era, the Greeks showed an actual fondness for Jewish laws and customs. Consider the commentary of Josephus along these lines. Josephus was a first-century Romano-Jewish scholar, historian and hagiographer, who was born in Jerusalem. Regarding the popularity of Jewish laws and customs, including the Sabbath, he wrote:

“We have already demonstrated that our laws have been such as have always inspired admiration and imitation into all other men; nay, the earliest Grecian philosophers, though in appearance they observed the laws of their own countries, yet did they, in their actions, and their philosophic doctrines, follow our legislator, and instructed men to live sparingly, and to have friendly communication one with another. Nay, further, the multitude of mankind itself have had a great inclination of a long time to follow our religious observances; for there is not any city of the Grecians, nor any of the barbarians, nor any nation whatsoever, whither our custom of resting on the seventh day hath not come, and by which our fasts and lighting up lamps, and many of our prohibitions as to our food, are not observed; they also endeavor to imitate our mutual concord with one another, and the charitable distribution of our goods, and our diligence in our trades, and our fortitude in undergoing the distresses we are in, on account of our laws; and, what is here matter of the greatest admiration, our law hath no bait of pleasure to allure men to it, but it prevails by its own force; and as God himself pervades all the world, so hath our law passed through all the world also.”

Flavius Josephus, Against Apion (English – Link)

In short, it is a clear historical fact that the Greeks did, in fact, continue to observe the Sabbath “in the Jewish manner” for over 1000 years after Christ – a popular practice that only dwindled subsequent to the split with Rome over the course of the succeeding centuries.

The Seventh-day Sabbath is ceremonial:

Jesus viewed both the Sabbath and circumcision to be ceremonial in nature. He did not condemn the Jews for breaking the Sabbath to circumcise a child on the 8th day following his birth according to the laws of Moses. The Weekly Sabbath is listed in Leviticus 23 as one of many ceremonial ordinances…

It should be clear, now, that the Adventist interpretation that only the “ceremonial” laws were nailed to the cross is not possible for a number of reasons. The Sabbath was a ceremonial law designed to keep Israel and the Gentiles separate, and that barrier must come down if Jews and Gentiles are to be united in the Gospel. The Old Testament, as well as Jewish traditional theology, views the TORAH as absolutely inseparable covenant. No Jewish Scholar recognized a distinction between the “moral” and “ceremonial” components of the Mosaic Law, nor did any of them recognize a distinction between the “Ten Commandments” and the rest of the 613 Mosaic Commandments.

Lying for God, 10th Ed., 2015, p. 104 (Link)

While the weekly Sabbath has an arbitrary component to it and while it is a ceremonial celebration of creation, this does not mean that its inclusion in the Ten Commandments that were written by God’s own finger on stone means that it is on the same level as all of the other Mosaic laws that were placed outside fo the Ark of the Covenant in a separate box – nor does it mean that the Sabbath is temporary in nature. Also, just because circumcision could take place on the Sabbath doesn’t mean that if the requirement for circumcision goes away that the Sabbath command goes away along with it. These arguments simply don’t follow for several reasons.

First off, the Sabbath existed before circumcision existed (according to the Bible and the Talmud).  It was instituted by God during the creation week and declared to be “holy” at the very beginning of time (Genesis 2:3) – and observed by the patriarchs before Moses came along.  Circumcision, on the other hand, was given to Abraham to remind him of his failure in trying to fulfill God’s promises through human power. It wouldn’t have been required if Abraham hadn’t tried to take things into his own hands and simply sat back and trusted God to fulfill His own promises. However, once circumcision was put in place for Abraham and his offspring after him, there are practical medical reasons why circumcision should take place on the 8th day – and the Sabbath commandment always makes room for the practical needs of man and even of animals.  Again, this is because the Sabbath was made as a gift of rest for all of humankind from the very beginning of time (Mark 2:27).  It was never intended to be a burden or an ugly “wall of separation” between Jews and gentiles.  It was always intended to be something beautiful and attractive and delightful for all of humankind for all generations.

But what about the ceremonial and arbitrary aspects of the weekly Sabbath? – on the 7th day in particular?  Is God not allowed to make an arbitrary day of rest and assign it to a particular day just because He said so? – and insert it into His own moral Law written for all eternity in stone?  Also, just because God cites its origin in the creation week doesn’t mean that it is therefore somehow temporary.  Otherwise, He wouldn’t have included it with the other commandments that He wrote with His own finger in stone.

There is a reason why the laws dealing with the temple service are temporary – because they are in fact “shadows of things to come.” (Colossians 2:17).  These shadows were cast backward in time by something in the future – by Jesus Himself and His life and death on the cross.  The weekly Sabbath, in comparison, was not cast as a shadow by something in the future.  According to God Himself, the weekly Sabbath is a reminder of a past event – i.e., creation week. There is, therefore, no reason for there ever to be an end to this particular shadow.  There was a beginning, but no end to it.

So, there is a very clear difference between the “shadows” that Paul is talking about in Colossians 2 that meet their reality in Jesus compared to the Sabbath commandment that never has an end – since it references past events. It is for this reason that the weekly Sabbath is included along with the other eternal moral Laws as part of the Ten Commandments written in stone – because all of them are permanent nature.

The Sabbath a Memorial of Isreal’s Deliverance from Slavery:

This belief is based on an incorrect reading of Deuteronomy 5:14-15):

“But the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant or your ox or your donkey or any of your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you, so that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you. ‘You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out of there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to observe the sabbath day.

Now, there are those who argue that this means that God gave the Sabbath as a memorial of the Exodus from Egypt. However, the Genesis story of the making of the Sabbath (Genesis 2:1–3) and the wording of the fourth commandment written by God Himself (Exodus 20:11) makes it quite clear that the seventh-day Sabbath was set in place as an everlasting memorial of creation.

So, what then is the meaning of the passages here in Deuteronomy regarding Israel’s deliverance from slavery?  The key to understanding these two verses rests in the word “slave.” God said, “Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt.” And in the sentence before, He reminds them “so that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you.” In other words, their experience in Egypt as slaves should remind them to deal justly with their servants by giving them Sabbath rest too!

It was not unusual for God to harken back to the Egyptian deliverance as an incentive to obey other commandments. In Deuteronomy 24:17, 18, the Bible says, “You shall not pervert the justice due an alien or an orphan, nor take a widow’s garment in pledge. But you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt, and that the LORD your God redeemed you from there; therefore I am commanding you to do this thing.”

Neither the command to be just nor to keep the Sabbath was given to memorialize the Exodus, but God told them that His goodness in bringing them out of captivity constituted a strong reason for them to deal kindly with their servants on the Sabbath and treating justly the strangers and widows.

In the same way, God spoke to them in Leviticus 11:45, “I am the LORD, who brought you up out of Egypt to be your God; therefore be holy, because I am holy.” No one would insist that holiness did not exist before the Exodus or that it would be ever afterward limited only to the Jews!

Creation week Sabbath as a “Prolepsis”:

An example of literary prolepsis would be something like, “I was a dead man as soon as the murderer walked into the room with an assault weapon.” In a prolepsis, the event is said to have taken place before it actually does.

Some scholars have proposed the idea that since Moses wrote about both the events of Creation and the Exodus, that in his mind, he was thinking about the events of the 7th day of Creation as a flash-forward to the giving of the Sabbath commandment at the time of the Exodus, and that his view of the whole story is why he worded things in such a way that could even tempt a few people to think they saw a Sabbath ordinance in the Creation story. While this concept, called prolepsis, makes a lot of sense, Sabbatarian apologists do not like it.

Lying for God, 10th Ed., 2015, p. 19 (Link)

So, since Genesis clearly states that the 7th-day was created as Holy day of rest by God before the Fall (Genesis 2:3), somehow that must not really be true, but only a prophetic statement as to when the Sabbath day would actually be created at the time of Moses? – even though God Himself wrote in stone that He did, in fact, create the Sabbath day in memorial of creation?  Again, one cannot have a real “prolepsis” here when God Himself clarifies that the origin of the Sabbath was at the time of creation and remains as a memorial to that event (Exodus 20:11). Just to add emphasis, Jesus reiterated this fact noting that the Sabbath was originally made for all of humankind (Mark 2:27).

The word “Sabbath” is not used in Genesis:

Some say that since the Seventh-day in the Genesis account is not explicitly called the Sabbath by Moses, that the Sabbath did not exist at that time. This fails to understand something very important in the Hebrew.

There is some debate as to whether the noun šabbāṯ (שָׁבּת) derives from the verb šaḇaṯ (שַׁבת) or vice versa (note that the verb šaḇaṯ (שַׁבת) means “to rest” and is used in Genesis to describe God “resting” on the 7th-day). Moses, however, clearly sees that the meaning of the Sabbath derives from the act of God’s resting on the Seventh day of creation. Therefore whether the noun or verb came first, in the mind of Moses, it is clear that the action precedes that name.

This is confirmed in a very powerful way by the choice of words used in the two accounts (Genesis and Exodus) which not only reveals that it was understood the verbal action of God’s “šaḇaṯ” formed the basis of the noun šabbāṯ, but confirms that the meaning of the verb šaḇaṯ in Genesis 2 means “Rested” – as opposed to simply “Stopped” or “Ceased”.

To add additional force to this conclusion, there is a word in the Exodus dealing with the Sabbath commandment which is foreign to the Genesis account – the word “nûaḥ” (נוַּח). This word simply does not have a semantic range which could allow it to mean “stop” or “cease”. Rather, its meaning is limited, forcing one to interpret it as “to rest”, “to repose”, “to remain”, “to settle down”, “to be quiet”. This gives a final blow to those who would deny that šaḇaṯ in Genesis 2:2-3 means simply “stopped” or “ceased”. Had God wished to convey this, there were other synonyms which would have retained that semantic overlap, yet nûaḥ excludes this meaning altogether.

The real question, though, is why, with all the identical terms used in both Genesis 2:1-4 and Exodus 20:8-11, did God not choose to break the pattern by exchanging nûaḥ for šaḇaṯ. The reason is simple and seals the fact that the Sabbath existed from Creation. The noun šabbāṯ in Exodus was already the equivalent of the verb šaḇaṯ and it appears a deliberate choice to have these two words be linked up. Had the verb šaḇaṯ been used, it would have more naturally been linked through comparison to the šaḇaṯ in Genesis 2. However, by using the word nûaḥ, it is made certain that the proper name for the day in Exodus would be linked to the action of God in Genesis. 

Those who say that the seventh day of creation was not the same as the Sabbath do so in ignorance of the deliberate association of the name of the day by the time of Moses to the original action of God. The Hebrew makes it clear that the seventh day of creation was the first Sabbath by the presence of the verb from which the name takes its meaning.

The Sabbath as a “Propitiation”:

The term “propitiation” is defined as the action of appeasing a god, spirit, or person. In Christianity, it is generally tied in with the atonement of Jesus through His life and ultimately His death on the cross.  The argument made by some, such as the authors of the book “Lying for God“, is that the Sabbath is specifically tied to this concept of atonement or “propitiation”:

The Greek word (sabbaton) is translated from the Hebrew word for “Sabbath.” The root meaning of the word, sabbaton, has a distinct connotation of propitiation. Propitiation is a concept foreign to the Garden of Eden prior to the Fall, and there is no mention of anything that could even be construed as a reference to the Sabbath between the account of the Fall and the Exodus. Therefore, the idea that there was a propitiating Sabbath ordinance prior to the Fall is theologically inappropriate.

It is also mentioned, in the Encyclopedia Biblica, that “the Hebrew Sabbathon conveys the idea of propitiation or appeasement of divine anger and [it] is…the opinion [of Professor Jastrow] that the Hebrew Sabbath (i.e. CREATION Sabbath) was originally a Sabbathon― i.e. a day of propitiation and appeasement; marked by atoning rites…it was celebrated at intervals of seven days, CORRESPONDING WITH CHANGES IN THE MOON’S PHASES, and was identical in character with the four days in each month, i.e. 7th, 14th, 21st, and 28th! (The MacMillan Company, 1899. P. 4180).

The concept of propitiation is not compatible with a Creation setting for the Sabbath ordinance. Sin had not yet entered the world, and there was nothing God had to do in the way of propitiation for mankind at that time. Since the days of the Jewish Sabbath system obtain their sacredness from the animal sacrifices that are offered upon it—sacrifices which pointed forward to the death of the coming Messiah on the Cross, we have good reason not only to view the choice of sabbaton to represent it’s Hebrew equivalent as accurate and to tend to disqualify the Sabbath as a Creation ordinance on the basis of its propitiation connotations alone. Additionally, we have another reason to accept the Hebrew linguistics that indicate that the 7th day of Creation is best characterized as merely a separator placed between the days of God’s creative activity and His days of non-creative activity.

Lying for God, 10th Ed., 2015, p. 269-270 (Link)

The origins of the terms “sabbatical” and the “Sabbath” trace to the Greek word “sabbaton”. However, the Greek word “sabbaton” itself traces to the Hebrew word shabbāth, meaning “rest.” (Link).  The Hebrew word Shabbat may also mean meaning “cessation,” or “time of rest.”

There is, of course, the ancient Babylonian and Assyrian concepts of “evil days” that occurred within two months out of the year (discussed further below in the section on “The Lunar Sabbath“).  Within these two months (the 13th month of Elul II and the 8th month of Marcheshvan) the “evil days” fell on the 7th, 14th, 19th, 21st, and 28th days. These were considered to be very special days where no work was done – in honor of the moon god “Sin” (Link). These were considered to be unlucky days unless the gods were appeased, or “propitiated” by acts of devotion (Link). The name given to these days by the ancient Babylonians was šabbattū (šapattū).  The precise meaning of this expression is uncertain, but at least the concept of relaxation is implied by the limitation of various activities associated with these days.  It also seems to be known as “the day of calming [the god’s] heart.” (Link).

In short, the argument that the Sabbath was originally a day for appeasing the Gods is based on the notion that the Hebrew Sabbath was originally derived from the ancient Babylonians and Assyrians.  Certainly, most Jewish writers and even most protestant theologians do not accept this conclusion.  Consider, for example, the entry for “Sabbath” in “The New International Dictionary of the Bible” which rejects any sort of Babylonian origin for Shabbat:

“Various attempts have been made by OT critics to find a Babylonian origin for the Jewish Sabbath. There is evidence that among the Babylonians certain things were to be avoided on the seventh, fourteenth, nineteenth, twenty-first, and twenty-eighth days of the month; but the nineteenth day breaks the sequence of sevens, and there is no question that the Hebrew Sabbath is much older than this Babylonian observance. Among the Hebrews, moreover, the Sabbath was associated with the idea of rest, worship, and divine favor, not certain taboos.

Steven Barabas, “Sabbath,” in NIDB, 876.

The Dictionary of the Old Testament Pentateuch is also highly pessimistic toward the seventh-day Sabbath originating from outside of the Biblical narrative and materials:

“Over the course of the twentieth century, scholars have made proposals regarding extrabiblical origins for the Israelite sabbath. For example, a number of scholars proposed an origin of the sabbath day in Mesopotamia. Such a theory often argues that the etymology of the Hebrew word šabbāt is found in the Akkadian word šapatu (or šabatu), which probably means ‘full moon’ or ‘the day of celebrating the full moon.’ In more recent years, G. Robinson has revived the theory that the Israelite sabbath was a relic of the Babylonian moon cult. He argues that only after the exile did the monthly festival become a weekly observance. But this is extremely unlikely. Hosea 2:11, a preexilic text, implies that sabbaths were weekly and sets them apart from the new moon festival. The Babylonian moon festival had set days in the month, a pattern that is not found in the OT or in weekly sabbath observance. Weekly sabbaths do not coincide regularly with a lunar cycle of twenty-nine days…Similar theories have also purported to find the sabbath origin in Assyrian calendars or in Arabian moon festivals. In the end, however, such theories remain speculative. There is no evidence that clearly connects these with the Israelite sabbath….

Finally, the number seven, it is argued, was significant in some ancient Near Eastern cultures, in particular, in Ugaritic texts and calendars…The original Canaanite seventh day was a taboo day, an evil day, and was associated with the pentecontad calendar in which the numbers seven and fifty were significant. However, despite [this] claim…[such a] thesis lacks supporting evidence for such an origin of the sabbath or for its alleged transformation from an evil or taboo day into a time of gladness.

The quest for an extrabiblical origin of the Israelite sabbath has failed thus far at least. All of these theories remain speculative; none is convincing. The origin of the Israelite sabbath must be found within the biblical record….”

P.A. Barker, “Sabbath, Sabbatical Year, Jubilee,” in T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker, eds., Dictionary of the Old Testament Pentateuch (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003), pp 698-699.

The standard liberal Bible Encyclopedia of the 1990s and into the 2000s, the Anchor Bible Dictionary, while being careful to summarize the different theories of Sabbath origin for its entry, draws the conclusion as to how little reasonable support exists for an extra-Biblical or pagan Near Eastern origin, for Shabbat:

“In spite of the extensive efforts of more than a century of study into extra-Israelite sabbath origins, it is still shrouded in mystery. No hypothesis whether astrological, meological, sociological, etymological, or cultic commands the respect of a scholarly consensus. Each hypothesis or combination of hypotheses has insurmountable problems. The quest for the origin of the sabbath outside of the OT cannot be pronounced to have been successful. It is, therefore, not surprising that this quest has been pushed into the background of studies on the sabbath in recent years.”

Gerhard F. Hasel, “Sabbath,” in ABD, 5:851.

And, according to the Bible itself (and even sources like the Talmud, Midrash, Philo, Martin Luther, and many well-known biblical scholars – Link), the Sabbath was originally created in Eden and was to be observed as a day of celebration, rest, and joy in close communion with God and in remembrance of creation and Him as the Creator.

And again, Jesus Himself said that He personally created the Sabbath as a gift for all of humankind to enjoy (Mark 2:27).  This wasn’t a day originally created to “appease the Gods.”  Rather, it was God who created the day as a gift to mankind – as a blessing for us.

“‘Man’ (‘ādām), made in the imago Dei, ‘image of God,’ (Gen 1:26-28) is invited to follow the Exemplar in an imitatio Dei, participating in God’s rest by enjoying the divine gift of freedom from the labors of human existence and thus acknowledging God’s as his creator.”

Gerhard F. Hasel, “Sabbath,” in ABD, 5:851.

The Sabbath for Human Beings; not “Subhuman” Gentiles:

According to a rebuttal from Kerry Wynne and Larry Dean regarding this article, one of the reasons why the Sabbath cannot be viewed as being created for anyone other than the Jews is that the Jews viewed everyone else as “subhuman.”

He restricted the jurisdiction of the Sabbath to the Jews only when He stated, in Mark 2:27, that the Sabbath was for human beings only.  The Jews viewed the Gentiles as dogs, and as actually sub-human.  If Jesus had said that the Sabbath was made for both Jewish humans and gentile dog animals, the Jews who heard Him say that would have gather up stones to throw at Him for blasphemy.  The Jews of Christ[‘s] day understood the Sabbath to be the excluside property of Isreal. They knew that God’s Law [forbade] access to the Sabbath by any other people but those of Isreal. (Link)

First off, despite the very real prejudice of the Jews against the gentiles, especially those like the Samaritans, it is quite clear that God Himself had not limited Sabbath observance to the Jews.  God has specifically ordered that foreigners within Isreal’s sphere of influence as well as slaves and even animals should be given the Sabbath as a day of rest (Exodus 20:10).  Elsewhere God also specifically explains that any foreigner/gentile who wishes come to the Lord is encouraged to observe and enjoy the benefits of the Sabbath gift to all humanity (Isaiah 56:6-7).  God is simply no respecter of persons and does not show favoritism between the races (Acts 10:34). His gifts are open to all of humanity – as Peter slowly learned.

It is for this reason that Jesus used the word “anthropos” in Mark 2:27 rather than the restricting the Sabbath gift to the Jews only.  Jesus could easily have explained here that the Sabbath was originally created only for the Jews. But, He didn’t do this.  Jesus specifically explained that He had originally created the Sabbath as a gift for all of mankind – for “the man” or “Adam” in the understood meaning of the original Greek.

 

The Lunar Sabbath (The Sabbath is not Saturday):

Definition:

The Lunar Sabbath Doctrine is a recent teaching that has become popular with many in the Hebraic-Roots movement. The Lunar Sabbath concept seeks to replace the repeating weekly seventh-day Sabbath with a floating Lunar-based Sabbath where the weekly cycle is reset each month and the Sabbath always occurs on the same day within the monthly cycle.  In short, one begins counting the days of the first week of the month after each new moon so that the first “Sabbath” day would land on the 8th day of the month with subsequent Sabbath days landing on the 15th, 22nd and 29th days of the month.

Of course, this means that these “Sabbath” days would be floating relative to our modern calendar. This is because the number of days in a lunar cycle is 29.5306 (or between 29 and 30 days per month). And, as it turns out, this number of days is not evenly divisible by 7.  So, after the Sabbath on the 29th day of the month, there will be a day or two left over between that Sabbath and the beginning of the next monthly cycle.  This means, of course, that between the last Sabbath and the first Sabbath of the month more than 7 days will go by.  These extra days are considered “non-days” – not part of any “week” that occurs within a given month.

Recent beginnings:

So, how did this Lunar Sabbath concept start? Well, it started with the record producer and audio engineer Jonathan David Brown who is credited with being the first lunar sabbath keeper in this century to begin the practice of determining the Sabbath starting with the day of the New Moon each month – rather than using the modern continuously repeating seven-day week. Brown published the book Keeping Yahweh’s Appointments in 1998, which explained his Lunar Sabbath ideas – which have since gained a fairly substantial following (Link). Brown passed away in 2016 of an apparent heart attack.

As an interesting and ironic aside, Brown was an anti-Semite who was convicted for his connection to a 1990 Synagogue shooting. In 1992, Brown was sentenced to a 27-month federal prison term and fined $10,000 for accessory after the fact to a conspiracy to violate civil rights under 18 U.S.C. 3 and 241 (Hate-Crimes), and for perjury under 18 U.S.C. 1623a.

Why the lunar model rather than the set weekly cycle?

Those who support the Lunar Sabbath idea argue that the weekly cycle was originally determined in ancient human history by a rough division of the four phases of the moon.  This is why The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia advanced a theory of Assyriologists like Friedrich Delitzsch (and of Marcello Craveri) that Shabbat originally arose from the lunar cycle in the Babylonian calendar containing four weeks ending in Sabbath, plus one or two additional unreckoned days per month (Link).

Of course, if one studies the lunar phases, one may wonder how ancient observers could derive a seven-day period by watching them? After all, between what is popularly called the “new moon” and the first quarter lunation, only about five days elapse on average.  So, in order to get a seven-day interval, one must count back to the true new moon according to modern calculations, rather than visualizations, of the new moon. Further, nearly as many eight-day groups appear as seven-day periods. And, the number of days between the last quarter moon in a monthly cycle and the next “new moon” there will be nine or even ten days. Also, isn’t always easy to recognize, precisely, each phase of the moon. The thin crescent and the full moon seem fairly obvious, most of the time, but first and last quarters are not as easily recognized.  How then could the ancient Assyrians/Sumerians/Babylonians have arrived at a seven-day week by watching the moon?

Well, there are various theories as to the actual origin of the seven-day week, with many suggesting that it was a combination of things – to include the even more ancient idea that the number 7 had mystical powers and was a symbol of perfection, favored by the gods.  After all, several of the most prominent constellations are made up of seven stars, so this may have contributed to the idea that this number was favored by the gods.

In any case, although there are no ancient Assyrian or Babylonian records that explicitly define the seven-day week as a quarter of a lunation, there are ancient records that show that the ancient Assyrians and Babylonians did regularly observe specific days of certain months of the year (the 13th month of Elul II and the 8th month of Marcheshvan) as being special days where no work was done – in honor of the moon god “Sin” (Link). The moon god was clearly one of the most important deities in the wider pantheon of Mesopotamia. “An association with fertility may come from the moon god’s connection to cattle, and also, perhaps, from the clear link to the menstrual cycle, roughly similar to the timing of the moon’s transformations.” (Link)

This is probably one of the reasons why God, the God of the Bible, designed that the weekly Sabbath should not coincide with the cycles of the moon or any other celestial body or natural phenomenon — so as to keep His true worshipers and His own Sabbath distinct from the idolatrous worship of the Sun, moon, or stars by the surrounding heathen nations.

In any case, since twelve lunar months are approximately eleven days shorter than the solar year, the Babylonian calendar was intercalated (or evened out) every two or three years by the addition of a 13th month – the month of Elul II. During these special months the  7th, 14th, 19th, 21st and 28th days were known as “evil days” that were unlucky days unless the gods were appeased by acts of devotion (Link). The prohibitions on these days included abstaining from chariot riding and the avoidance of eating meat by the King. On these days officials were prohibited from various activities.  The priests couldn’t change their clothes or cook with fire. Common men were forbidden to travel, couldn’t consult a prophet, doctors could not treat the sick and the sick could not take their medicines, and fasting was enforced – among many other prohibitions.

Now, obviously there are 7-day “weekly” divisions here between the 7th, 14th, 21st, and 28th days of these two months, but what about the 19th day?  Why is it included among the “evil days”.  Well, the 19th day falls on the 49th day as numbered from the beginning of the previous month – making it a “week of weeks”.

Some historians believe that the concept of seven-day weeks described in these ancient Assyrian and Babylonian texts initially arose, not according to cycles of the moon, but out of the concept that the number seven was sacred and favored by the gods.  After all, to the number seven special significance has been independently applied by many peoples and cultures that were widely separated from each other by either space or time.  And, from the earliest Babylonian records the number seven enjoyed a high degree of sanctity and reverence – thought to have been derived from the Sumerians and is found in written texts dating before 2200 BC (such as the Ebla Tablets).

Of course, other historians suggest that the ancient attraction to the number seven was originally derived from observing the Sun, moon, and five larger planets or from the seven stars of the Pleiades or from the seven stars found in several other prominent constellations. On the other hand, many historians argue that the 7-day week was simply a rough four-way division of the monthly cycle.

Which came first? 

The question is, then, which came first?  Did the concept of a seven-day week really begin with the ancient Sumerians who then passed the idea on to the Babylonians who then passed it on to the Jews?  Or, was it the other way around?  Was it, as the Bible claims, that the seven-day week started in Eden and was then maintained and modified and even lost by various cultures over time? – as groups of people dispersed around the world after the Flood and became isolated from each other?

Biorhythms and the origin of the 7-day week:

As it turns out, the very biology of life seems to support the claims of the Bible here. As previously mentioned, practically every living thing has within itself a biological clock that is “tuned” to a seven-day cycle or “biorhythm” known as a “circaseptan” rhythm. Secular scientists find it difficult to explain how such a seven-day cyclical pattern would arise or evolve in living things by any natural means.

“At first glance, it might seem that weekly rhythms developed in response to the seven day week imposed by human culture thousands of years ago. However, this theory doesn’t hold once you realize that plants, insects, and animals other than humans also have weekly cycles. . . . Biology, therefore, not culture, is probably at the source of our seven day week.”

Susan Perry and Jim Dawson, The Secrets Our Body Clocks Reveal, (New York: Rawson Associates, 1988), pp. 20-21

Campbell summarizes the findings of the world’s foremost authority on rhythms and the pioneer of the science of chronobiology:

“Franz Halberg proposes that body rhythms of about seven days, far from being passively driven by the social cycle of the calendar week, are innate, autonomous, and perhaps the reason why the calendar week arose in the first place… These circaseptan, or about weekly, rhythms are one of the major surprises turned up by modern chronobiology. Fifteen years ago, few scientists would have expected that seven day biological cycles would prove to be so widespread and so long established in the living world. They are of very ancient origin, appearing in primitive one-celled organisms, and are thought to be present even in bacteria, the simplest form of life now existing.”

Jeremy Campbell, Winston Churchill’s Afternoon Nap, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1986), pp. 75-79.

What is especially interesting is that the circaseptan rhythm, among all the other circadian rhythms, appears to be the one rhythm by which all others are tuned or orchestrated.

“In Franz Halberg’s view, a central feature of biological time structure is the harmonic relationship that exists among the various component frequencies. A striking aspect of this relationship is that the components themselves appear to be harmonics or sub harmonics, multiples or submultiples, of seven…

Circaseptan and circasemiseptan rhythms are not arbitrary, even though they seem to lack counterpart rhythms in the external environment.”

Jeremy Campbell, Winston Churchill’s Afternoon Nap, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1986), p. 30

And, from a more recent paper published in 2007 the author writes:

The endogenous nature of the about weekly (circaseptan) rhythms is shown by their occurrence in animals kept under laboratory conditions precluding circaseptan periodic input, their appearance as circaseptan reaction pattern after noxious stimuli, or introduction of an antigen, and in human subjects by the observation of their free running (rhythms that are not synchronized to environmental time cues) with a frequency different from the calendar week. It appear that our seven-day week, which is found in many ancient and modern civilizations including the three main monotheistic religions, may be an adaptation to an endogenous biologic rhythm rather than the rhythm being a societally impressed phenomenon.

Erhard Haus, Chronobiology in the Endocrine System, Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, 59 (2007) 985-1014

Again, given the historical reliability of “higher” biblical critics compared to the fact that the Bible’s claims about history have proven true time and again, combined with the internal evidence for circaseptan rhythms within ourselves and many if not all living things, is it really such a stretch to imagine that the Bible might be right yet again regarding the Creation Week and the Sabbath rest? that they were both given to us by God from the very beginning of life on this planet?

Consider a situation where someone (the God of the Bible in this case) claimed to have created a given cyclical pattern of time specifically for our benefit (i.e., “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath – Mark 2:27). This is a testable claim. Given the truth of such a claim the implication is very direct and clear. Obviously, in such a situation one should actually expect to find some sort of biorhythm(s) that is tuned to this particular weekly pattern. One should also expect that if one did not follow God’s advice on following this pattern (given that God actually exists and is, in fact, our Maker), that one would be able to notice a physical difference in one’s general well being when in or out of line with God’s claimed ideal pattern for the weekly cycle. In other words, God has presented a testable hypothesis or claim to us that we can actually test in a scientific, potentially falsifiable, manner.  Perhaps there is a reason why Seventh-day Adventists are the longest-lived ethnically diverse group of “blue-zone” people in the world (Link)?

It’s like being told to use a particular fuel for your car for optimal performance – by the car’s designer. You can expect some sort of actual physical difference if you don’t use the particular type of fuel you were told to use by the car’s creator. (Link)

Consider what happens when biological rhythms are disrupted.  For example, how easy is it to travel to very different time zones very quickly in a jet?  Or, how easy is it to switch between day and night shifts at work?  Such rapid changes to biological rhythms are very disruptive to the body.  The same would be true given the “lunar Sabbath” model.  This model would clearly disrupt the body’s natural circaseptan (7-day) rhythm every single month.  Such a disruption in a natural biological rhythm would not be healthy – and therefore would have been outside of God’s original design for humanity.

Beyond this, the Bible itself is filled with references to the 7-day week – well before Moses came on the scene.  In Genesis 7:4, 7:10, 8:10-12 we see that Noah was acquainted with a seven-day week. In Genesis 29:27-28, we read that Jacob fulfilled a week for Rachel. Then, Jacob married Rachel one week after he had married Leah (Genesis 29:29-30). In Genesis 50:10, we find that Joseph mourned for his father Jacob seven days, that is, one week.Exodus 7:25 mentions a seven-day period in the time of Moses just before the Exodus. In Judges 14:10-18, we read that Samson’s marriage feast lasted for seven days, another reference to the week. In Job 2:13, we are told that Job’s three friends sat and grieved with him for seven days and seven nights.

So it is obvious that a seven-day week with the seventh-day Sabbath was familiar to the patriarchs – and even appears within our very DNA.  Going against this “natural” cycle simply goes against our original biological design and simply isn’t healthy or in any way good for humanity at large.

Joshua and Hezekiah got rid of the Lunar Sabbath:

According to some, such as the authors of the book Lying for God:

There is mathematical evidence from the Bible that between the time of Creation and the Great Flood, a solar year was equal to about 360 days.

Lying for God, pre-11th Edition, The Lunar Sabbath, p 40 (Link)

This would mean, of course, that if the lunar month was exactly 30 days long, once upon a time, that the year would be exactly equal to 12 months!  Wouldn’t that be nice?  So, what happened?  Why don’t things match up so nicely now?

Some theorists think they see evidence that the events surrounding Noah’s Flood altered that solar year a little… Then, there is the remarkable and abundant evidence that the sundial miracle of King Hezekiah caused the solar year to lengthen to approximately 365 days… Also, in Joshua 10 we have the story of how God prevented the sun from going down until a battle was won…

After the miracle of the sun dial retreating 10 degrees, the solar year mysteriously grew from about 360 days to about 365.25 days, and these same civilizations were forced to add more and more extra days to their lunar calendars to get them to sync with the expanded length of the solar year. These disruptive events recorded in the histories of ancient civilizations included these items:

Crazy weather patterns
Earthquakes and other natural catastrophes.

This is true of the calendars and histories of the Mayans in South America, the Chinese, and the civilizations of the Middle East. These facts are thoroughly documented by Velikovsky in his book, Collision of the Worlds.

The disruption of these world lunar calendars… strongly correlates with the facts that are gleaned through the study of the calendars, historical annals, and astronomical records of the major world civilizations of that age. Furthermore, there is a remarkable correlation between the records of these disruptive world events with the biblical record of the turning back of the sundial by 10 degrees as a sign requested by King Hezekiah…

Israel abandoned the exclusive use of the lunar-based weekly Sabbaths around the time of the building of the second temple in 586 BC… which would be within around two hundred years of the reign of Hezekiah.

Lying for God, pre-11th Edition, The Lunar Sabbath, p 40 (Link)

Interesting theory, but what is the basis for this theory?

This analysis comes from two different scientists, Velikovsky– who wrote in the early 1950’s– and Guy Cramer– a scientist who currently (as of 2015) researches the mathematical references of the Bible. The work of these two researchers appears to validate each other.

Lying for God, pre-11th Edition, The Lunar Sabbath, p 40 (Link)

Unfortunately, this isn’t the most solid basis upon which to build such a novel and fantastic proposal – however attractive and aesthetically pleasing it might otherwise appear to be.  “Velikovsky’s ideas have been almost entirely rejected by mainstream academia (often vociferously so) and his work is generally regarded as erroneous in all its detailed conclusions. Moreover, scholars view his unorthodox methodology (for example, using comparative mythology to derive scenarios in celestial mechanics) as an unacceptable way to arrive at conclusions… Velikovsky would rebuild the science of celestial mechanics to save the literal accuracy of ancient legends… Velikovsky’s bestselling, and as a consequence most criticized, book is Worlds in Collision… The fundamental criticism against this book from the astronomy community was that its celestial mechanics were physically impossible, requiring planetary orbits that do not conform with the laws of conservation of energy and conservation of angular momentum.” (Link)

Specifically, with regard to Velikovsky’s notion that the Earth suddenly gained 5 extra days in the year around 700 BC, consider some of the arguments made:

The Egyptian year was composed of 360 days before it became 365 by the addition of five days. The calendar of the Ebers Papyrus, a document of the New Kingdom, has a year of twelve months of thirty days each.

Velikovsky, p. 336

However, when reading the actual Sharpe translation (In 1870 Sharpe originally translated the tablet that Velikovsky based his argument on), it becomes quite clear that Velikovsky is not accurately presenting what the tablet actually says. The actual purpose of the decree was to implement the practice of leap year, not to add five days to the 360-day year, for that was already being done. Velikovsky, on the other hand, mistakenly claimed that this marked the institution of adding five days to the 360-day year – – but he could do this only by quoting the passage in question out of context.

In short, using Velikovsky’s approach, one could just as well claim that Julius Caesar’s addition of leap year was required by some change in the actual length of the year during his lifetime or that the 1582 Gregorian calendar reform was necessitated by a change that then occurred. Instead, both of these calendar reforms, along with the one that Velikovsky references, were required by earlier calendars that had failed to properly account for the true length of the year. The same is true for Velikovsky’s arguments regarding the Persian calendar changes. The Persians already knew that the year was 365 days long. So, they added the extra five days to bring their twelve 30-day months into conformity with the actual year, as did the Greeks and Egyptians (Link).

Although less well known, I’m afraid that Guy Cramer would then be “guilty by association” (Link)… not to mention the problem that the actual arguments presented are almost entirely speculative and not supported by solid empirical evidence.  There is really no way to test them in a potentially falsifiable manner.  Again, the most rational answer is that extra days were added to the year on occasion to make up the differences between the calendars and the actual 365.25-day yearly cycle of the Earth around the Sun during the time of Hezekiah – and before.

Beyond this, such arguments paint God in a bad light – as though He cannot move the Earth so that a sundial goes back 10 degrees or stop the relative motion of the Earth for a day or so without causing chaos around the world and changing the actual rotational speed of the Earth once He sets it going forward again.

This argument also paints Jesus Himself in a bad light since He went right along with the Jews of His day worshiping on a set weekly Sabbath that wasn’t based on the cycles of the moon and didn’t say a thing about it.  He didn’t say, “By the way, you’re all worshiping on the wrong Sabbath days.”  This makes Jesus appear to be either ignorant or dishonest about the Divine purpose and meaning of the Sabbath and the Sabbath commandment as part of the Decalogue.

And, finally, it doesn’t follow that a change in the number of days in a year from 360 to 365 or the number of days in a month from 29.5 to 30 would have a significant impact on how the weekly cycle itself was determined – whether it is or isn’t dependent upon the lunar cycle.  This is because a 30 day month is no more evenly divisible by 7 as compared to a 29.5 day month.

Passover and the Lunar Sabbath:

Adventists have long held that the year of Jesus’ crucifixion was 31 AD – primarily because of the 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27.  The seventieth week of Daniel’s prophecy was from 27 to 34 AD, and Christ died in the middle of the final prophetic week – which was the spring of 31 AD. There is further New Testament evidence that shows that AD 27 was the year of the baptism of Jesus – which makes 31 AD (after three and a half years of ministry) the correct year of the crucifixion.

 

Now, lunar Sabbatarians also believe that the date for the crucifixion was 31 AD (Link, Link).  However, for Adventists, this presents an apparent paradox:

  1. Jesus died on a Friday, the 6th day of the week
  2. Jesus died on Passover
  3. Jesus died in the year 31 AD

Yet, as it turns out, the Passover in the year 31 AD landed on a Wednesday, the fourth day of the week in the Gregorian calendar – according to astronomical calculations. According to the astronomical data that is available to us on the phases of the new moon and full moon in the year AD 31, the full moon (Passover always occurred during a full moon) in April that year was on Wednesday – in the Gregorian calendar.

Yet, Adventists also believe that Jesus died on a Friday, not on a Wednesday – because of the abundant Biblical evidence for a Friday crucifixion.  In fact, the Biblical evidence for a Friday crucifixion is so strong that most Christian denominations hold that the crucifixion took place in the year 33 AD (when the Passover actually did take place on a Friday).

Yet, the lunar Sabbatarians do in fact argue for a Wednesday crucifixion based on the claim of Jesus that He would be in the belly of the Earth for “three days and three nights” (Matthew 12:40). Of course, one cannot get three days and three nights from “Good Friday” to “Easter Sunday.” Friday and Saturday nights are two nights, and Saturday is one day. So, a Friday crucifixion would only provide one day and two nights. What about the other two days and one night? The conclusion seems clear that Friday cannot possibly be the day Jesus died.

The problem with this conclusion is in trying to use literal western thinking and applying it to the language Jesus was using – implying that there should be a “full 72 hours” between the crucifixion and the resurrection. But that is not the intent of Jesus’ language here. There are numerous passages where Jesus is quoted as claiming that He will be raised on the “third day” after His death (Matthew 16:21; 17:23; 20:19, Mark 9:31, etc…). It seems clear, then, that Jesus was resurrected on the third day after His death and burial (by Jewish reckoning); not after three literal 24 hour periods. If He rose after 72 hours, then all the above verses would read “on the fourth day” – by the Jewish reckoning of a day.

Of course, this solves the “three days”, but what about the “three nights”? – that Jesus specifically predicted?  How is that explained?  Well, Jesus didn’t necessarily say that he would be dead in the tomb for the entire three days and three nights.  What He said is that he would be “three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” as Jonah was in the “belly of the great fish”.  Given the context of the beginning of Jesus’ sufferings in Gethsemane before the actual crucifixion, where before Jesus had never been subjected to the power of Satan in such a direct manner, He was in a very real sense in the midst or “heart” of Satan’s power at this point.  Jesus pointed this out rather clearly when he said to those about to arrest Him in the garden:

Every day I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on Me. But this hour belongs to you and to the power of darkness. – Luke 22:53

So, at this point, the time belonged to Satan and Jesus was placed in his power for him to direct and move at his pleasure – just as Jonah was placed within the power of the great fish for the fish to move and control at will.  This would mean, then, that this “sign of Jonah” began Thursday night.  That would mean that Jesus was under Satan’s control for portions of three days and three nights (Thursday night, Friday night, and Saturday night).

Now, those who advocate a Wednesday crucifixion must adhere to a Saturday afternoon resurrection, but the many verses (especially in Luke 24) contend that Jesus rose on the third day after His death which was, according to Mark (Mark 16:9), the “first day of the week” (i.e., what we now call “Sunday”).

So, Jesus had to have been raised back to life on Sunday – or what is now known as Easter Sunday. He could not have been raised on Sabbath afternoon before sundown (despite fairly common claims in the lunar Sabbatarian community to the contrary). Also, several places in the Gospels cite Jesus as dying on the “preparation day.” A preparation day was needed before the weekly Sabbath because no food could be prepared on the 7th-day Sabbath. However, food could be prepared on an annual feast

Also, several places in the Gospels cite Jesus as dying on the “preparation day.” A preparation day was needed before the weekly Sabbath because no food could be prepared on the 7th-day Sabbath. However, food could be prepared on an annual feast sabbath – like the Passover. Also, nowhere in Jewish history does the latter appear as equal to the former in sanctity and dignity. All labor, except for servile labor, was lawful on the annual feast-day sabbaths, but not on the weekly Sabbath. The term “preparation” is never applied to any day preceding an annual feast day, but is applied by the Apostles of Christ, by Josephus, and by the Rabbis, to the day before the Sabbath. There seems, then, no good reason why any feast sabbath should have had its day of preparation; nor is there any good evidence in support of this claim.

To summarize, Sunday (or the 1st day of the week), as we have seen, actually began at sunset on Saturday evening, and by Jewish reckoning, any part of a day is counted as a day. So working backward:

– Sunday, was the third day, the day of the resurrection.
– Saturday (Sabbath) was the second day that Christ rested in the tomb.
– Friday (Preparation day) was the first day, the day of the crucifixion.

Jesus was crucified on Friday and died at 3 p.m. He rose from the dead somewhere between Saturday after sunset and sunrise on Sunday morning. There is absolutely no way to push the crucifixion back to Wednesday and still fit with the story found in Scripture. A Wednesday crucifixion is clearly impossible.

Still, this leaves an apparent contradiction for the Adventist position since Passover was apparently on Wednesday, not on Friday, in the year 31 AD.  How can this conundrum be resolved?

Well, there is a difference between calculating the phases of the moon and actually visualizing them…

The phases of the moon can indeed be predicted very accurately with modern technology and computation for any given month of any year. Going back to the year 31 AD the astronomical new moon in April clearly occurred on the 10th of April, at 11:32 a.m.  However, this is the timing of the new moon “in conjunction.” A lunar conjunction is when the Earth, moon, and sun, in that order, are approximately in a straight line (Link). The biblical new moon, on the other hand, is the crescent new moon. So, the lunar Sabbatarians simply add one extra day to compensate for this to arrive at the first visible crescent to be viewed in the night sky on April 11th.

The key question here is, is the crescent new moon always visible one day after the conjunction?  And, the clear answer to that question is no – it’s not.  According to the United States Naval Observatory:

Although the date and time of each New Moon can be computed exactly (see, for example, Phases of the Moon in Data Services), the visibility of the lunar crescent as a function of the Moon’s “age” – the time counted from New Moon – depends upon many factors and cannot be predicted with certainty. In the first two days after New Moon, the young crescent Moon appears very low in the western sky after sunset, and must be viewed through bright twilight. It sets shortly after sunset…

The sighting of the lunar crescent within one day of New Moon is usually difficult. The crescent at this time is quite thin, has a low surface brightness, and can easily be lost in the twilight. Generally, the lunar crescent will become visible to suitably-located, experienced observers with good sky conditions about one day after New Moon. However, the time that the crescent actually becomes visible varies quite a bit from one month to another.

The United States Naval Observatory, Crescent Moon Visibility (Link)

And, according to Jewish reckoning of the New Moon, there were rules to follow. Declaring the new month by observation of the new moon, and the new year by the arrival of spring, could only be done by the Sanhedrin – according to various rules of observation. For example, if the crescent of the new moon was observed for just a minute or less before full dark and then disappears, it was considered too young to be a new moon. When this occasionally occurred, the declaration of the new moon was delayed until the following night.

The Karaite Jews say this about the sighting of the crescent moon:

The ancient Israelites would have been well aware of the Crescent New Moon. In ancient societies people worked from dawn to dusk and they would have noticed the Old Moon getting smaller and smaller in the morning sky. When the morning moon had disappeared the ancient Israelites would have anxiously awaited its reappearance 1.5-3.5 days later in the evening sky. Having disappeared for several days and then appearing anew in the early evening sky they would have called it the “New Moon” or “Hodesh” (from Hadash meaning “New”).

The Karaite Korner, The New Moon in the Hebrew Bible (Link)

So, it can take up to three and half days from the astronomical new moon conjunction before the crescent new moon can be visually verified! Why such a broad range? Because the speed of the moon varies due to the shape of its orbit. The United States Naval Observatory notes that sometimes even two days are too few to actually see the crescent new moon with the number of days before it becomes visible being dependent upon several factors. Also, the Karaite Jews tell us that conclusively visualizing the new moon could take up to three and a half days.

The Jewish month starts from the crescent new moon. The 14th day is the Passover (Leviticus 23:5). If the conjunction of the new moon in 31 AD was April 10th, then the addition of 3.5 days would bring us to April 14th.  And, adding 14 days brings us to April 27th – a Friday in the Gregorian calendar (Link).

So, there really is no necessary discrepancy here for the Adventist perspective of a Friday crucifixion in the year 31 AD – a position that is most consistent with all of the claims of the Bible concerning the timing of the crucifixion (prophetic as well as eyewitness claims).

Joshua and the Battle of Jericho:

The Battle of Jericho is described as requiring the Israelites to march around Jericho for seven days in a row (Joshua 6:3-4 and Hebrews 11:30).  The argument from the lunar Sabbatarians is that it would be inconceivable that God would have asked the Israelites to march on the Sabbath day around Jericho.  Therefore, the only way to avoid this problem would be to have a lunar Sabbath situation where there were more than seven days between “Sabbaths”… which would allow for the Battle of Jericho to take place over seven days without marching on a Sabbath day.

 

With a perpetual seven day cycle, one day of the seven would have to be a Sabbath. It would seem strange if the Lord would have Israel keep Sabbath for forty years…and then have them break it as soon as they entered Canaan to defeat Jericho…but the anomaly is solved by reference to the succession of Lunar weekly Sabbaths…

According to the Book of Jasher the Jericho campaign began on the first day of the second month Lyar (Jasher 88:14-18). This was a New Moon day.  So the Jericho victory was complete on the seventh day of the month, the day before the first lunar Sabbath of the month on day eight…

The Book of Jasher is mentioned twice in Holy Writ: Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:17-19…

We feel so much better about the nature of God’s character as we see that the presence of those extra days between the 4th lunar week and the first sighting of the new Moon make it possible to accommodate the idea that acts of war are not acceptable work on the Sabbath.

Lying for God, pre-11th Edition, The Lunar Sabbath, p 24 (Link)

First off, the reference here to “The Book of Jasher” and its mention by the Bible is more than a bit misleading. Now, it may be true that the Hebrew title is usually translated Sefer haYashar or “Book of the Correct Record” – or, in the English translation, “The Book of Jasher” (following English tradition). However, this particular book is named after the “Book of Jasher” that is mentioned in the Bible. Although it is sometimes presented as the original “Book of Jasher” in the various translations (such as that of Moses Samuel in 1840), it is not accepted as such in rabbinical Judaism, nor does the original Hebrew text make such a claim. The study of Joseph Dan, professor of Kabbalah at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, in the preface to his 1986 critical edition of the 1625 text, concludes, from the Hebrew used and other indicators, that the work was in fact written in Naples in the early sixteenth century. (Link).

Consider also that the first-century Jewish historian Josephus claimed that Joshua’s marches around Jericho began on the first day of the feast of Passover, on the 15th of Abib – a lunar Sabbath (Link).

Consider also that Tertullian himself (160-220 AD), and no friend of Sabbath observance, argued that Joshua clearly fought Jericho over at least one Sabbath day:

Joshua the son of Nun, at the time that he was reducing the city Jericho by war, stated that he had received from God a precept to order the People that priests should carry the ark of the testament of God seven days, making the circuit of the city; and thus, when the seventh day’s circuit had been performed, the walls of the city would spontaneously fall. Which was so done; and when the space of the seventh day was finished, just as was predicted, down fell the walls of the city. Whence it is manifestly shown, that in the number of the seven days there intervened a sabbath-day. For seven days, whencesoever they may have commenced, must necessarily include within them a sabbath-day; on which day not only must the priests have worked, but the city must have been made a prey by the edge of the sword by all the people of Israel. Nor is it doubtful that they “wrought servile work,” when, in obedience to God’s precept, they drave the preys of war. For in the times of the Maccabees, too, they did bravely in fighting on the sabbaths, and routed their foreign foes, and recalled the law of their fathers to the primitive style of life by fighting on the sabbaths. Nor should I think it was any other law which they thus vindicated, than the one in which they remembered the existence of the prescript touching “the day of the sabbaths.” Whence it is manifest that the force of such precepts was temporary, and respected the necessity of present circumstances; and that it was not with a view to its observance in perpetuity that God formerly gave them such a law.

Tertullian, An Answer to the Jews, Chapter IV. “Of the Observance of the Sabbath,” Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. III, (Link)

Beyond this, the argument presented here from the lunar Sabbatarian perspective assumes that war, or military action of any kind, is always prohibited on the Sabbath. This simply isn’t the case.

Even the Pharisees, interpreting the spirit of the Law, and acting under the elastic rule that “there is a time to serve the Lord by relaxing his law” (Ps. cxix. 126, Hebr.; Yoma 69a), permitted the desecration of the Sabbath in besieging a Gentile city “until it be subdued” (Deut. xx. 20), in accordance with Shammai’s interpretation (Shab. 19a). This definition was not new, as already the Maccabeans had taken advantage of it in fighting the enemy unceasingly, putting aside the observance of the Sabbath for the sake of God and of their national existence (I Macc. ii. 43, 44). (Link)

Again, when called for, any “good or necessary” action that would be beneficial to mankind was considered “lawful” to do on the Sabbath. As a relevant example, consider that Sabbath observance did not prevent the chief priest Jehoiada from organizing a palace coup on the Sabbath in order to remove queen Athaliah from the throne and replace her with Joash, a rightful heir to the throne. Athaliah had murdered all the other heirs to the throne upon the death of Ahaziah and usurped the throne of Judah for herself. Jehoiada’s wife had rescued young Joash, and Jehoiada had kept him hidden for six years while Athaliah reigned as queen over Judah. The priest Jehoiada used the occasion of the transfer of the guard on the Sabbath to proclaim Joash as king

As a relevant example, consider that Sabbath observance did not prevent the chief priest Jehoiada from organizing a palace coup on the Sabbath in order to remove queen Athaliah from the throne and replace her with Joash, a rightful heir to the throne. Athaliah had murdered all the other heirs to the throne upon the death of Ahaziah and usurped the throne of Judah for herself. Jehoiada’s wife had rescued young Joash, and Jehoiada had kept him hidden for six years while Athaliah reigned as queen over Judah. The priest Jehoiada used the occasion of the transfer of the guard on the Sabbath to proclaim Joash as king because, at that time, he could arrange twice the normal guard on duty at the temple of Yahweh. On that day, a covenant was made, Joash was proclaimed king, Athaliah was put to death, the temple of Baal was torn down, idols were smashed, and Mattan, the priest of Baal, was killed.  (2 Kings 11; 2 Chronicles 22-23; R. Kittel, A History of the Hebrews Vol. II, Williams and Norgate, 1896, pp.286-287).

Also, the Sabbath did not prevent the Israelites from standing against the Philistines in Battle array as Goliath, the Philistine champion, challenged the armies of Isreal for forty days. (1 Samuel 17:16).

In this light, consider also that Jesus is “Lord of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:28).  So, whatever He commands someone to do on the Sabbath is “lawful’ – even if it would otherwise violate the Sabbath command. For example, the priests had to perform many functions on the Sabbath day, at the command of God, that were not lawful for the general population to perform. Jesus cited this example arguing, “Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?” (Matthew 12:5).

So, if Jesus, the “Lord of the Sabbath”, provides an exception for a priest or anyone else to do something that would normally be a “violation” of the Sabbath, then they are “blameless” for doing what God Himself commanded them to do on the Sabbath. And even the Jews of Jesus day were fully aware of such exceptions regarding Sabbath observance.

 

Ignatius in his Epistle to the Magnesians (107 AD):

Of the fifteen Epistles to the Magnesians generally attributed to Ignatius of Antioch, eight of them are outright forgeries. But, that’s not all, of the remaining seven Epistles that Ignatius may have had a hand in writing, according to Eusebius, there are different versions – shorter and longer versions. And, now, it is generally accepted that the longer versions have been extensively corrupted and are clearly not reliable. Most historians question the credibility of the shorter versions as well as the longer versions – to include Lardner (Credibility of the Gospel History, 1743), Jortin (1751), Mosheim (1755), Griesbach (1768), Rosenmüller (1795), Neander (1826), and many others.

Now, the passage often quoted in the Epistle to the Magnesians is taken from the “longer form” of the text as follows:

“And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord’s day as a festival, the resurrection day, the queen and chief of all the days.”

Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians (longer form), chap 9

This particular passage, although popular, was not actually written by Ignatius, but was written about the time that the Apostolical Constitutions from 375 to 380 AD. What is interesting here, however, is that even though this passage was written over 200 years after Ignatius, it still cites the fact that the Sabbath was being observed. This forged passage serves to highlight the transition from Sabbath to Sunday observance within the Christian church over time. Sunday, or the “Lord’s Day” as it was later called, was more and more often observed as a fun day, a “festival” day, while the Sabbath was more and more often observed as a day of fasting – not fun at all. No wonder, then, that Sunday became the more popular day over the centuries.

Ignatius in his Epistle to the Trallians:

The Letter to the Trallians is controversial – none of the controversies being in favor of those who oppose Sabbath observance. The most common citation appears to be a mix of the longer and shorter versions taken from “Verse 9” of the letter.  The longer version is discounted by scholars as not authentic because it was modified and lengthened much later by someone else (Link). In other words, it’s a fake.  Even according to Wikipedia it isn’t a reliable quote (Link). Now, consider that the shorter version says nothing about “the Lord’s Day.” It reads as follows:

“If, then, those who had walked in ancient practices [the prophets of old] attained unto newness of hope, no longer observing Sabbath [like the Jews], but living according to the Lord’s life [observing the Sabbath like Jesus observed the Sabbath]…”

The subsequently modified longer version, the clearly faked version, does define the “Lords’ Day” as Sunday, but also recognizes that the Sabbath was being observed by early Christians:

“Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner… but let everyone keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner, rejoicing in meditation on the law, not in relaxation of the body, admiring the workmanship of God… and after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord’s Day as a festival.”

More significant still is the context. As Kenneth A. Strand concisely and incisively remarks:

“Regardless of what the “Lord’s Life” or “Lord’s Day” may have meant either in Magnesia or in Antioch and regardless of whether or not Ignatius intended a cognate accusative, the context reveals that it is not the early Christians who are pictured as ‘no longer sabbatizing,’ but that it is the Old Testament prophets who are described . . . Surely Ignatius knew that the Old Testament prophets observed the seventh day of the week, not the first! The contrast here, then, is not between days as such, but between ways of life—between the Jewish ‘sabbatizing’ way of life and the newness of life symbolized for the Christian by Christ’s resurrection.”

The “sabbatizing” then which Ignatius condemns, in the context of the conduct of the prophets, could hardly be the repudiation of the Sabbath as a day, but rather, as R. B. Lewis, asserts, “the keeping of the Sabbath in a certain manner—Judaizing.” This, in fact, is the sense which is explicitly given to the text in the interpolated long recension:

“Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner, and rejoice in days of idleness . . . But let every one of you keep the Sabbath in a spiritual manner, rejoicing in the meditation on the law, not in the relaxation of the body, admiring the workmanship of God, and not eating things prepared the day before, nor using lukewarm drinks, nor walking within a prescribed space, nor finding delight in dancing and plaudits which have no sense in them.”

The fact that pseudo-Ignatius here urges Christians to stop “practicing Judaism” (Magnesians 8:1) or “living like the Jews” (10:3) and to follow the example of the prophets in not Judaizing on the Sabbath, implies that many Christians were still following traditional Jewish customs, especially in the matter of Sabbath keeping. If such were the case, it would hardly seem reasonable to presume that Christians in Asia had already radically abandoned the Sabbath and were observing solely Sunday. (Link)

Epistle of Barnabas (140-150 AD):

Since, therefore, the days are evil, and Satan possesses the power of this world, we ought to give heed to ourselves, and diligently inquire into the ordinances of the Lord. Fear and patience, then, are helpers of our faith; and long-suffering and continence are things which fight on our side. While these remain pure in what respects the Lord, Wisdom, Understanding, Science, and Knowledge rejoice along with them. For He hath revealed to us by all the prophets that He needs neither sacrifices, nor burnt-offerings, nor oblations, saying thus, “What is the multitude of your sacrifices unto Me, saith the Lord? I am full of burnt-offerings, and desire not the fat of lambs, and the blood of bulls and goats, not when ye come to appear before Me: for who hath required these things at your hands? Tread no more My courts, not though ye bring with you fine flour. Incense is a vain abomination unto Me, and your new moons and sabbaths I cannot endure.” He has therefore abolished these things, that the new law of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is without the yoke of necessity, might have a human oblation

The Epistle of Barnabas 1 Chapter II.

“And God made the works of his hands in six days, and finished on the seventh day, and rested on it, and sanctified it.” Observe, children, what “he finished in six days” means. It means this: that in six thousand years the Lord will bring everything to an end, for with him a day signifies a thousand years. And he himself bears me witness when he says, “Behold, the day of the Lord will be as a thousand years.” Therefore, children, in six days–that is, in six thousand years–everything will be brought to an end. “And he rested on the seventh day.” This means: when his son comes, he will destroy the time of the lawless one and will judge the ungodly and will change the sun and the moon and the stars, and then he will truly rest on the seventh day…

Further, He says to them, “Your new moons and your Sabbath I cannot endure.” Ye perceive how He speaks: Your present Sabbaths are not acceptable to Me, but that is which I have made, when, giving rest to all things, I shall make a beginning of the eighth day, that is, a beginning of another world. Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead. And when He had manifested Himself, He ascended into the heavens.

The Epistle of Barnabas Chapter XV (3-9)

This is the first historical reference to the observance of Sunday by a professed Christian-probably between 140 and 150 A.D.  However, scholars do not believe that the Apostle Barnabas wrote it nor was it written anywhere near the often claimed “74 AD.”

Joachim Neander (1650-1680):

Joachim Neander (a German Reformed Church teacher, theologian and hymn writer who lived from 1650 to 1680) said of the Epistle of Barnabas:

“It is impossible that we should acknowledge this epistle to belong to that Barnabas who was worthy to be the companion of the apostolic labors of St. Paul.”

Johann Mosheim (1693-1755):

Johann Lorenz von Mosheim (German Lutheran church historian who lived from 1693 to 1755) also speaks of the Epistle of Barnabas:

“As to what is suggested by some, of its having been written by that Barnabas who was the friend and companion of St. Paul, the futility of such a notion is easily to be made apparent from the letter itself; several of the opinions and interpretations of Scripture which it contains, having in them so little of either truth, dignity or force, as to render it impossible that they could ever have proceeded from the pen of a man divinely instructed.”

Eusebius of Caesarea (263-339 AD):

Even Eusebius, no fan of the Sabbath day, places the Epistle of Barnabas in the catalog of “spurious”, fictitious, books:

Among the spurious must be numbered both the books called “the Acts of Paul” and that called “Pastor,” and “the Revelation of Peter.” Besides these, the books called “the Epistle of Barnabas,” and what are called “‘the Institutions of the Apostles.”

Eusebius, The Order of the Gospels, Note D, p. 131 (Link)

In any case, “spurious” though he may be, it is no big surprise that the writer of Barnabas, writing well into the second century, endeavored to give the seventh day an allegorical interpretation (suggesting a Gnostic influence). After all, by that point in time, the pressure from Emperor Hadrian’s anti-Jewish laws was having its effect on Sabbath observance.

Review of “Lying for God” by Brendon Knudson:

Who’s “Lying for God”?  – 2012 review by Brendon Knudson

Review by Kerry Wynne (principle author of Lying for God):

Kerry Wynne (along with Larry Dean and David Haynes) has written a fairly extensive review of this article based largely on arguments that can be found in his book Lying for God:

DR. SEAN PITMAN CHALLENGES THE BOOK, LYING FOR GOD (original Link)

Analysis by Kerry B. Wynne and Larry Dean
Ed. by David Haynes

My responses to a few of the arguments presented that are actually novel or have not already been extensively reviewed in the article above can be found in the comment section: Link

Anti-Sabbatarian views of Dr. Clinton Baldwin:

Dr. Clinton Baldwin has also written a 2012 book (The Sabbath: More Than a Day – A Person) as well as a summary article on why he believes that the Sabbath is no longer binding for the Christian:

THE SABBATH ISSUE IN A NUTSHELL:
AN EXEGETICAL AND THEOLOGICAL APPROACH

Clinton Baldwin, Ph.D. (2017)

My response to several of the key points forwarded by Dr. Baldwin can be found in the above article starting at: Link

Interesting Video Reviewing Dr. Clinton Baldwin’s Main Arguments:

 

Debate on the Sabbath and Ten Commandments:

With extensive commentary by the authors of “Lying for God”:  Kerry Wynne and Larry Dean. – Link

Summary Video:

 

 

Summary Power Point Presentation:

Christians and the Sabbath (PPTX)

Christians and the Sabbath (Google Docs)

Christians and the Sabbath (Audio)

 

.

.

Share on Facebook0Pin on Pinterest0Share on LinkedIn0Tweet about this on TwitterDigg thisShare on Google+0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Print this pageEmail this to someone

82 thoughts on “Christians and the Sabbath

  1. I don’t know how many people will read this whole study on the Sabbath, but if we simply consider the main points of opposition that we will have to deal with, it would be helpful. In the end, the “day” aspect of the Sabbath will be the only point of controversy. The majority all believe that the “spirit of the Sabbath” is eternal and the day part is simply negotiable and equated to the ceremonial law in the old testament.

    Thus, the early church, instructed by Christ, moved “the day” to Sunday for the sake of unity and Christian evangelism. Also to distance the Christian community from Judaism and the ceremonial law. So they believe that Christ changed the day in the new testament era and the church only followed the leading of the Spirit who communicated the will of Jesus for the believing community. And thus, the mind of Christ who changed the day, is reflected by the church’s decision and action.

    This is important because when Satan impersonates Christ, he claims to have changed the day and those who communicate this truth are his agents who he has sent to tell everyone that it is the will of Christ to keep the Sunday holy. Now Satan comes to affirm this fact as he impersonates Christ and EGW tells us this the the overmastering delusion that is almost impossible to resist even for those who know the bible, and for those who don’t know the bible, they will easily be persuaded.

    So the Catholic church may admit they changed the day, but in response to what Christ has communicated to them by way of His Spirit and thus they are only fulfilling the will of Christ who was the one who really changed the day of worship. This, coupled with Satan’s affirmation that he is Christ, and he changed the day, we have a more definitive scenario to deal with than the RCC alone. We may say the RCC changed the day and this is true, but they affirm it was in response to the mind and will of Christ.

      (Quote)




    0
    View Comment
  2. Thank-you for this in-depth study on the Sabbath! This needs to be published in a book! I keep the 7th day Sabbath as a holy day each week because God told me to in the 4th commandment.

      (Quote)




    3
    View Comment
  3. It comes down to the question: Should we follow the commands of man (Sunday observance) or the command of God (keep the Sabbath)? Those who knowingly reject the commands of God do indeed commit treason against God by giving allegience to another authority, which is in fact idolatry, and, thus, place themselves under God’s judgment as unrepentance sinners facing divine judgment.

    Choose Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath, and find delight in His day. As with Cain and Able, God accepts worship and obedience on His terms. At present God’s merciful grace covers ignorance, but this will not always be the case. The Holy Spirit desires to use Scripture to illuminate truth and banish ignorance. Within obedience to God’s commands are found great blessings to enhance our relationship to God and our happiness. After all, as in Eden, the Sabbath was designed to enhance one’s relationship with God.

      (Quote)




    1
    View Comment
    • I enjoyed your book, Skip. “In granite or Ingrained?”
      The only objection was this. It seemed to me you constantly presented the old covenant as ipso facto legalism. If so, then we must accept the new covenant as ipso facto antinomianism.

      Just because people pervert a covenant does not equate to the false conclusions they may come to. So the old covenant is not legalism, nor the new covenant antinomianism. The old covenant and the new are one and the same. The old covenant is simply before Jesus came and they offered sacrifices to show faith in the coming Messiah. We do the opposite to show faith in Jesus by not offering sacrifices because He has already come. And this is the only difference between old and new covenant. They are both centered on “faith in Jesus”.

      The new covenant is not “new” any more than the “new” commandment of love is new. It is only “new” to those who did not and/or do not understand the covenant. “Obey and live, disobey and die” are always the covenant and for sinners, it is based on the forgiveness of sin by way of the atonement. Sin never changed the covenant. It only added the necessary factor of forgiveness or there would be no purpose to obey. Any future obedience would be useless without first being forgiven of past offenses.

      Sinless angels don’t need the factor of forgiveness. All they need to know is “obey and live, disobey and die” and as long as they continue in obedience, as Adam should have done, they can maintain a right relationship to God by way of Jesus His Son. All created being fellowship with God by way of Jesus. No one is equal to God the Father but His Son. So Jesus was first the mediator of creation, but now must also be the mediator of redemption for lost guilty sinners. Mediation is not an inovation, but a revelation. But was extended beyond the normal to make a way for sinners to be brought back to a right relationship with God like in the beginning. Thus, salvation is more akin to restoration than inovation.

      And this is what the Sabbath is all about and its true meaning and dynamic application. And this is what EGW means to “preach the Sabbath more fully.” The Sabbath is law and grace in its simplest meaning and application.

        (Quote)




      0
      View Comment
  4. Such a lot of work expended on something irrelevant. The sabbath is a day. Sunday is a day. Observance of neither save us. Only Jesus does.

    Much too long, I couldn’t read it.

    Sean Pitman. The Lord is your Saviour, just as He is mine. Write about Him.

      (Quote)




    0
    View Comment
    • Of course, Sabbath observance never saved anyone. Salvation is based on a personal relationship with Jesus and acceptance, by faith, of His life and death for us on the cross – and His resurrection. It is by grace only that we can be saved – not by anything that we have done or can ever do for ourselves. However, it is in gratitude for all that Jesus has done for us that we strive, in His power and grace, to keep His commandments – including the Sabbath. After all, His commandments are given for our own benefit and are meant to be a blessing to us. The Sabbath, in particular, was given to us a beautiful gift to be enjoyed. It is a mistaken view of the Sabbath to see it as a curse or a hindrance to one’s happiness. Just the opposite is true…

        (Quote)




      3
      View Comment
  5. Wow! What a monumental work! What incredible effort must have been expended to compile all this information. You are to be commended for your effort. However, permit me to pose a few questions.

    1. You state that “Sabbath observance never saved anyone.” Doesn’t this put you at variance with EGW?, who, in Testimonies vol. I, p. 533, she states that “to knowingly transgress the holy commandment forbidding labor upon the seventh day is a crime in the sight of heaven which was of such magnitude under the Mosaic law as to require the death of the offender. But this was not all that the offender was to suffer, for God would not take a transgressor of His law to heaven. He must suffer the second death, which is the full and final penalty for the transgressor of the law of God.” She further states that “I saw that many professed Sabbathkeepers will come short of everlasting life.”

    In Spiritual Gifts vol III, p. 253, EGW clearly outlines how the Sabbath is to be kept: “The Lord iw no less particular now in regard to his Sabbath than when he gave the foregoing special directions to the children of Israel. He required them to bake that which they would bake, and seethe (that is, boil,) that while they would seethe on the sixth day, preparatory to the rest of the Sabbath. Those who neglect to prepare for the Sabbath on the sixth day, and who cook food upon the Sabbath, violate the fourth commandment, and are transgressors of God’s law. All who are really anxious to observe the Sabbath according to the commandment, will not cook any food upon the Sabbath. They will, in the fear of the God who gave his law from Sinai, deny themselves, and eat food prepared upon the sixth day, even if it is not as palatable. God forbade the children of Israel baking and boiling upon the Sabbath. That prohibition should be regarded by every Sabbath-keeper, as a solemn injunction from Jehovah to them. The Lord would guard his people from indulging in gluttony upon the Sabbath, which he has set apart for the sacred meditation and worship”

    I once read the above EGW quotation to a minister who had been on officer of the General Conference, and asked if he ever knew even one Adventist anywhere in the world who followed her admonition. His answer was, “Not a one. Not a one.” In that event, if EGW sets forth God’s requirements for Sabbathkeeping and nobody is following them, and she further claims that violators of this commandment will come short of everlasting life and will NOT go to heaven, would it seem that no Adventist will be in heaven? Do Adventists claim that she is a true prophetess but yet neglect to read her writings and refuse to follow her admonitions? Furthermore, does EGW not claim that the mark of the beast will revolve around a national Sunday law and around Sabbath/Sunday observance? Does not the book of Revelation teach that acceptance of the mark of the beast will forfeit one’s eternal life?

    2. Do you consider “keeping the Sabbath” to be the same as church attendance on Sabbath? Do you consider “Sunday keeping”‘ churches to be the same as churches which hold worship services on Sunday? A few days ago, I asked an SDA if he kept the Sabbath, and his response was that he attended church on Sabbath. This response indicated to me that he considered them the same. Your caption that “Jesus kept Sabbath” is followed by his custom of attending the local synagogue on the Sabbath day. Jesus, of course, was sent to the people of Israel, as was foretold by Old Testament prophets, including Daniel. His purpose in attending the synagogue was to teach them about their God and about who He was–the Messiah. The synagogue was where these people were to be found on the Sabbath day! However, did Jesus actually “keep the Sabbath” according to the commandment? John 5:18 actually states otherwise: “Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal to God.”

    Likewise, if Paul went to the river to find women meeting for prayer, did he not go to teach them the gospel, as was his custom? He taught the Jews first, then went to the gentiles. Would an excursion to a riverside place of prayer signify his “keeping the Sabbath” or would it simply be an opportunity to share the good news of the gospel?

    3. Do you believe that the mark of the beast will revolve around a national Sunday law which mandates Sunday worship and prohibits Sabbath worship?

    4. If, as you say, Sabbath observance is not necessary for salvation, it would appear that you are in complete concordance with the words of Jesus, who, as He was explaining to Nicodemus in John 3:18, said, “He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” Then, in order to further emphasize His point, in verse 36, He stated, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”

    In other words, Jesus told Nicodemus in no uncertain terms that there would be two classes of people–those who believed in Him and would have eternal life, and those who will not believe in Him, who will not have eternal life. Jesus said nothing about the Sabbath as a necessity for salvation to Nicodemus. To my knowledge, He did not specify Sabbath observance as a necessary ingredient to eternal life on any other occasion either.

    So then, if according to Jesus and according to you, Sabbath observance is entirely optional, why are we to make such a big issue of this?

      (Quote)




    0
    View Comment
    • Yes, I do believe that many honest and sincere people who are not Adventists and who have never observed the Sabbath will be saved.

      You see, honest ignorance of God wishes isn’t the same thing as open rebellion against God. God judges based on the heart – based on the motives of a person. If a person is acting in love according to the very best knowledge that he/she understands at the time, God accepts that and credits it to that person as righteousness.

      Beyond this, say that a person outwardly keeps the letter of the Law perfectly – but doesn’t have a personal relationship with God. Will such a person be saved? – simply because they kept the Sabbath Law perfectly? No. Paul is very clear on this. The Law cannot save a person. It is only by the grace of God that any one of us can be saved. It is not by our own efforts or our own works that we are saved. Rather, it is through the blood and sacrifice of Jesus, on our behalf as an unmerited gift, that we gain eternal life.

      So, the Christian keeps the Law, not in order to gain salvation, but in gratitude to the One who has already saved us and enables us to truly keep the Law – through His power working within our hearts…

        (Quote)




      3
      View Comment
  6. I am completely befuddled. Perhaps you can help clear up my confusion. You said “Of course, Sabbath observance never saved ANYONE.” I understood that to mean that Sabbath observance never saved Adventists, non-Adventists, Sabbatarians, non-Sabbatarians, etc. In other words, Sabbath observance NEVER saved a single soul. Now you seem to be making allowances for one group but perhaps not another, depending on whether or not a soul is honest and perhaps dependent upon not having “the best knowledge”, etc. I hope you can understand why I am utterly confused and that you will help me understand this better.

    We are not talking about “open rebellion against God.” That has NEVER been part of my discussion, and I am not sure why this enters into this question.

    As far as “keeping the Law perfectly”, Paul clearly says this is not possible for mere mortals like us. Even if I could somehow keep the Law perfectly from here on out, there is too much in my past that would condemn me. All other mortals are in the same condition. Paul indeed made it very clear that the Law CANNOT save. Furthermore, he condemned the Judaizers in Galatians and Romans for trying to subjugate those early gentile Christians and place them back under the Law, central parts of which were circumcision and Sabbath observance, plus many, many more commandments, 613 in all! Paul called the Galatians “foolish” for falling for slavery after once having freedom.

    The most beautiful part of your response is that “It is only by the grace of God that any one of us can be saved. Rather, it is through the blood and sacrifice of Jesus on our behalf as an unmerited gift that we gain eternal life.” I can say a whole bunch of “amens” to that. I’m glad you put a period after that sentence. Please keep it there!

    EGW was very clear about the loss of eternal life for violators of Sabbath-keeping. She also claimed extra-Biblically that the mark of the beast revolves around Sabbath observance. Revelation is clear that those possessing the mark of the beast will forfeit eternal life. Do you have any Biblical support for the mark of the beast being a national Sunday law, or, for that matter, anything to do with Sabbath observance? Do you believe that a national Sunday law is in the future of this country and this world? If so, what will be your recommended approach? If not, should EGW’s writings be more carefully examined? If not, should the whole topic of Sabbath observance be more closely examined as well?

    Thank you in advance for your tremendous contribution and for helping to clear my confused state.

      (Quote)




    0
    View Comment
    • Again, there is no loss of eternal life for ignorant violators of the Sabbath. Unless the violators are well aware that they are in fact violating an actual command of God, they can be saved if they are honestly seeking God and to do God’s will. God does not condemn anyone who is honestly not aware of this or that truth. After all, that wouldn’t be fair now would it? Only those who deliberately and persistently reject a known command of God will are not savable… since they are in open rebellion against something that they know is the truth.

      Otherwise, if it’s simply a matter of additional knowledge for someone who is otherwise honest and sincere, God can work with such a person. Such a person is savable and will be saved – even if they never heard of the Sabbath.

        (Quote)




      3
      View Comment
    • The mark of the beast is any sin that can be committed. The only reason that Sunday vs. the Sabbath is identified as the “mark of the beast” is because it is related to religious liberty. No true believer would ever appeal to the civil government to enforce a 7th day Sabbath law on an unbeliever. If we can not persuade them by way of scripture, then we are aware that they will answer to God for how they responded to the bible.

      On the other hand, the children of Satan always respond to challenge by force and will call upon the civil government to enforce their agenda. But only when the issue becomes intense enough so that an either/or decision must be made. The first example is Cain killing Abel. Abel never would have killed his brother Cain because he would not conform to the way Abel understood the will of God. This principle has been repeated down through the history of mankind, and is finally culminated at the end of the world as the final test between good and evil. It just happens to be the Sabbath vs. Sunday because the early church changed the day of worship and eventually claimed it was the sign of their authority over the bible.

      It could have been any sin defined by the word of God, but it happens to be the Sabbath issue. So any sin is the “mark of the beast” and it is always man’s authority vs. God. And this is why no one has “the mark of the beast” at the present time in the present conflict on the issue of Sabbath observance. Only when it is related to religious liberty that is taken away and Sunday is enforced as a religious ordinance by the civil government.

      None the less, there will be no Sunday keepers in heaven, anymore than there will be any liars in heaven. The redeemed are 7 days ascending to the sea of glass and one of those days must necessarily be the Sabbath. There will not be a soul raised in the first resurrection who will not joyfully and willingly accept instruction on the meaning and value of the Sabbath as God has stated in His word and affirmed to them before they get to heaven.

      And yes, we are “saved” by obedience to the law of God. No one can escape the wrath of God and be saved from the penalty of the law which is death, unless they respond to the gospel just as the bible states for the sinner to respond. If you think you can be saved without responding as the bible enjoins, you are far outside what the bible teaches. So, just because we can not merit heaven, or pay for our own sins as Rome claims, does not mean we play no part in our own salvation by the way we respond to the word of God. The covenant of “obey and live” has not been negated in any way or any level by some new covenant that negates the law of God as the condition of eternal life.

      The fact that we “come short” does not negate the covenant. Jesus makes up the difference where we “come short” and His forgiveness and merit is added to our obedience and thus we have a fitness for heaven. The SDA church has adopted a lot of apostate Protestant theology that is foreign to all the confessions of faith in the historic Protestant movement. The phrase “faith alone” was formulated in opposition the Rome who claimed the believer’s response merited the favor of God. But “faith alone” simply meant the the merits of Christ alone earned our salvation and redemption. The human factor was never negated in the salvation process and was sometimes called “instrumental” as our faith unites us to Christ as a moral mandate coupled with repentance and obedience to the will of God. So our response does not “merit heaven” but is, none the less, a moral mandate for salvation. This reality is not taught in the SDA church as it should be, and the confusion will only continue until this issue is clearly defined and articulated.

        (Quote)




      1
      View Comment
      • The church’s position on salvation is quite clear. Our part to play in our own salvation is to simply accept the gift that God has provided – to simply accept what the life and death of Jesus has purchased for us and respond in love to God for who He is and what He has done. Of course, true love for God will cause the Christian to actually want to do God’s will – and God will supply the Power to succeed. However, nowhere are we told that our actions are what save us. That’s never been true.

        No one is going to say, “But I kept the Sabbath and so I deserve to be in heaven.” No one who walks through the gates of Heaven is even going to think such thoughts. We keep the Sabbath because of what Jesus has done for us, because of the salvation that has already been purchased for us and freely given to us. We do not keep the Sabbath, or any of the other Divine Laws, in order to earn merits with God. Our only merit with God is and ever will be the life and death of Jesus on our behalf…

        Beyond this, God isn’t going to exclude anyone who honestly did not know about the Sabbath. There will be many in heaven who never heard about the Sabbath. There will even be those there who never heard about Jesus or about the Father or who may not even have understood about the existence of God. God takes people where they are and looks at the heart of a person to see if they are being honest and living according to the limited truth that they actually understand at the time.

        Those whom Christ commends in the judgment may have known little of theology, but they have cherished His principles. Through the influence of the divine Spirit they have been a blessing to those about them. Even among the heathen are those who have cherished the spirit of kindness; before the words of life had fallen upon their ears, they have befriended the missionaries, even ministering to them at the peril of their own lives. Among the heathen are those who worship God ignorantly, those to whom the light is never brought by human instrumentality, yet they will not perish. Though ignorant of the written law of God, they have heard His voice speaking to them in nature, and have done the things that the law required. Their works are evidence that the Holy Spirit has touched their hearts, and they are recognized as the children of God.

        Ellen White, Desire of Ages, p. 638

          (Quote)




        3
        View Comment
  7. In reading these comments I note that the expected issue has indeed come up, though very succinctly, almost perfunctorily, in a way fittingly so, symbolically so. Why so much fuss, research, detail over a silly little thing like the 7th day Sabbath?

    Those of us who still adhere to the founding SDA doctrine of the crucial importance of the Sabbath, as proclaimed even by the name of our denomination, increasing in importance as the End approaches, becoming virtually a yes-no signal to the world of crucial obedience to God’s seemingly arbitrary command at pain of perhaps our own lives, to those of us who still hold to that, Sean’s detail and research is utterly exciting. We are supremely thankful, hardly bored.

    Speaking for myself, I don’t believe I’ve been treated to such a scholarly, well-researched comprehensive history of the observance Sabbath and the timeline and persons active in the emergence of Sunday as a replacement. This is pure history, necessary history. Our historians seem otherwise occupied, mostly with what I see as silly little diversions, analogous to how some see the Sabbath. Somebody had to get back to basics, and Sean did.

    Now we know the cast of characters. Their thinking, reasoning, the philosophic conceits and declamations, the swirling, complex winds of thought that swept the 7th day out and brought the 1st in, and the new storm of “emergent thought” currently in action to enhance and ensure that switch, for the moment rendering neither day a sign of obedience but merely a nice, even God-given, necessary day off from the increasingly stressful week, an oasis in the radioactive ruins, yet another blessing like the shade of spreading maple trees, while Jesus without imposing any commandment saves us without ado, are not the focus of Sean’s monograph, as I read it. These deviations and thrusts of philosophy behind the transition and how the competing holy days are now regarded, indeed must be considered in order to make sense of how crucial is obedience to the 7th day command. But it was at least as crucial that the history of the 7th and the 1st day be put down first.

    We now have that. Thanks, Sean.

      (Quote)




    3
    View Comment
  8. I dislike admitting that my confusion is expanding exponentially. You initially claimed that Sabbath observance never saved anyone, but now are saying that ignorant violators will not lose eternal life, thus implying that non-ignorant violators of the Sabbath will lose eternal life. What is an ignorant violator of the Sabbath? What is a non-ignorant violator of the Sabbath? You say that “Only those who deliberately and persistently reject a known command of God are not savable….since they are in open rebellion against something that they know is the truth.” So, the vast majority of Christians today have heard of Seventh-day Adventists and thus know about the Sabbath, yet refuse to join SDA’s in Sabbath observance, or rather pretense thereof. Does this mean they are no longer ignorant? Does it mean they are in open rebellion against God and against something they “know is truth”?

    How do you define a “violator of the Sabbath”? How do you define an “ignorant violator of the Sabbath”? Is a “violator of the Sabbath” 1. One who breaks any one of the Sinaitic commands regarding Sabbath observance? 2. Is it one who fails to attend church services on Sabbath? 3. Does it include one who pretends to keep the Sabbath in one way or another but is not truly following the Sinaitic laws? Is an “ignorant violator of the Sabbath” one who perhaps chooses to remain ignorant? Are these then going to be acceptable to God? Is willful ignorance going to give some a “free pass”?

    God’s Sinaitic Sabbath commandment was extensive and specific. There were rules about what could be done and what could NOT be done on this sacred day. Failure to follow these rules resulted in the death penalty, as is recorded in Numbers 15:32-36, where a man was caught merely gathering sticks on the Sabbath. He was brought to Moses, and Moses consulted with God, the author of the commandment. God’s response was to take him outside the camp and be stoned to death. He died. This is why the Jews were so angry with Jesus for breaking the Sabbath. He made Himself equal to God, because only God could alter His own commandment. Thus, if those commandments have NOT been altered, as EGW clearly states, and if no SDA today observes those commandments as they were originally given, it would seem as if every single SDA is in violation of the Sabbath. Are they in “ignorance”? They certainly ALL do much more than gathering sticks on the Sabbath. I have seen Conference officials traveling needlessly on Sabbath for their own purposes, and in far greater distances than a “Sabbath days journey”. You have doubtlessly seen church leaders who do not give any thought to Sabbath violations. Furthermore, Sabbath observance differs greatly amongst supposed “Sabbath keepers”. I know a family who swims regularly on Sabbath in their pool but yet refuses to engage in musical performances for secular reasons. Furthermore, Sabbath observance varies greatly amongst SDA’s in different parts of the world. Are SDA’s creating their own “standards” for Sabbath observance? Are these different from those originally laid down by the Creator God on Mount Sinai? These are not superfluous questions, because if God mandates something, the ONLY proper response is to follow the command to the letter of the law. Full obedience should be the only response, and NOTHING short of it. After all, if, as you seem to be now suggesting, eternal life might be at stake for some groups, this is a huge question.

    Permit me to look at certain individuals who knew about the Sabbath but yet rejected the need for observing it today. Martin Luther was such a person. Would you call him ignorant? Would you consider him to be in open rebellion against God? What is his eternal destiny for failing to follow a command he was not ignorant of?

    What about William Miller? He was most definitely aware of the Sabbath question, yet refused to observe the Sabbath or make any pretense thereof. As a matter of fact, it is my understanding that he did not highly regard his Sabbatarian followers. Was he ignorant? Was he in open rebellion against God? Will he lose eternal life because of failure to observe the Sabbath, or make any pretense thereof? Well, he certainly was in rebellion against God in his early life, as he himself clearly stated. He became a Deist, Freemason, and a mystic.

    What about Miles Grant, a prominent Millerite who rejected both the Sabbath and EGW, even though he was well aware of both. He ardently maintained that Sabbath observance is not now required. As a matter of fact, he debated Dudley Marvin Canright on the Sabbath question in the 1800’s in Napa, California. Ellen White was there, and declared Canright the victor in that debate. Canright had been a keen promoter of Sabbath observance, had written books on the subject, and had persuaded many to adopt it. I suspect that during this debate, Canright heard arguments that carried weight, and that after serious study, compelled him to abandon Sabbath observance, leave the Adventist church, and subsequently pastor a Baptist church in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

    So, what will be the eternal destiny of Miles Grant and D. M. Canright? They certainly knew about the Sabbath commandment. Canright had taught it extensively, but then changed his mind. He quite obviously remained devoted to God and pastored a Baptist church. Do you consider him to be ignorant? Do you consider him to be in open rebellion against God?

    If I had lived at anytime between Mt. Sinai and the crucifixion, I would have kept the Sabbath meticulously. This was God’s command, and the only appropriate response could be full obedience. However, what happened at the cross? Did God somehow modify His commandment and relax it, as no SDA today is following the original commandment? Did He nullify the law? Did He nullify all 613 Sinaitic commandments? Was this a contract between God and humanity, or was it a contract with only the Israelites?

    If this is a salvation issue, as you are now implying, these are essential questions to be considered, and not trivial at all, yet I am obtaining such few responses to my questions that it is almost presumptive of me to ask more. And, I do have many, many more questions about this important subject to which you have obviously devoted a lot of time and effort. You should be respected for that effort.

      (Quote)




    0
    View Comment
    • Someone who is ignorant of the requirements of God regarding the Sabbath may be very well aware of the existence of the Sabbath. Your examples of William Miller and Martin Luther are clearly in this category. Yet, both were God-fearing men and both will be saved. How is this possible since both rejected one of the Ten Commandments? Because, they clearly were honestly ignorant as to the binding nature of the Sabbath day in modern times and for all peoples.

      The problem, you see, is that only God can evaluate the heart of a person. Only God can truly and accurately judge the moral position of a person because of this. We humans simply cannot accurately judge what a person really does or does not understand. Only God knows this so only God can judge…

        (Quote)




      3
      View Comment
    • Nothing at the cross took place that altered the covenant “obey and live, disobey and die.” But this covenant is worthless if a person is already under the condemnation of sin and death. We have already “disobeyed in Adam” and are thus condemned. None the less, God has provided an atonement for sin and if we accept this provision for salvation and return to loyalty to God and His authority, we can be saved.

      So, in the end, if we are lost, it is not Adam’s fault, even though it was his fault that we are initially lost and condemned. We can individually choose the redemption and atonement of Christ, or, we can choose to remain lost. “Whosoever will may come” is the invitation to lost sinners. But Jesus said, “They won’t come to me that they might have life.”

      People are accountable for knowledge of the will of God and only if that knowledge is not available are the forgiven for sins of ignorance. Sins of ignorance become sins of rebellion if and when the sinner rejects truth presented, or ignores the opportunity to “seek and ye shall find.”

      But we are on probation and the time factor is an element that we must take into account, thus we never try to make a final evaluation on anyone and this is what it means to “judge not, that ye be not judged.”
      None the less, we can see if a person is walking in the will of God by their present actions and are duty bound to point out sin for their good. As well as to the cross for forgiveness of past ignorance.

      Jesus said to the religious leaders of His day, “If ye were blind, you would have no sin (that could not be pardoned). But now you say ‘we see’ therefore your sin remains (unpardonable.)

      This applies to all of us and we need to be aware of the outcome that happened to them will also happen to us. It’s really not that complicated, is it?

        (Quote)




      0
      View Comment
      • I generally agree, except that I don’t think we are guilty for Adam’s sin (aka: the Catholic doctrine of “original sin”) and I don’t think errors due to true ignorance can be rightly classified as “sin”. The concept of sin is based on a deliberate rebellion against that which is fully known to be right and true. Errors can be made because of ignorance, but these kinds of errors are not due to a rebellious or sinful state. For example, an angel may accidently step on the foot of the angel behind him during choir practice in Heaven and say, “Pardon me! I didn’t see you there…). such an error is due to honest ignorance and is not deliberate or “sinful” or the result of hate or selfishness against one’s neighbor.

        It is for this reason that Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would have no sin.” There is no parenthetical implication here that such errors are “sins that could be forgiven” as you claim. Jesus simply said that such errors of ignorance are not inherently sinful – period. In other words, not all errors are the result of hate or selfishness or sin.

          (Quote)




        3
        View Comment
        • “. The concept of sin is based on a deliberate rebellion against that which is fully known to be right and true.”

          This is a superficial definition of sin, Sean. “Sin is transgression of the law.” Period. God defines law and sin and our ignorance of truth does not alter the bible definition of sin.

          We are born liars and the lies we tell are simply the proof and fruit of this fact. A man with a sinful heart is a sinful man. And “the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked.” But we are not only morally depraved because of Adam’s sin, we are legally “cut off” and/or divorced from God and not members of His family.

          We are not born “in Christ” and thus we must be “born again” into Christ as a legal right to heaven, and morally transformed for a fitness for heaven. The doctrine of original sin is biblical. Just because the RCC perverts this doctrine and baptizes babies is no reason to reject the doctrine itself. The reason they baptize babies is valid. But the method is not. The RCC perverts many if not all bible truths, but this is no reason to reject the truth itself. They corrupt the Trinity, but that is no reason to reject the basic doctrine of the Trinity just as the fact they pervert the doctrine of original sin is no reason to reject the doctrine of original sin.

          Some SDA’s reject the doctrine of the Investigative judgment because some theologians pervert the meaning and application of this bible truth. Their misunderstanding and misapplication of the doctrine is no reason to reject the doctrine itself.

          Some liberals claim because of original sin, we can not obey the law. If they affirmed that we can not obey the law unless we are “born again” they would be correct. But sad to say, some claim the “born again” experience is not adequate for total victory over our sinful nature. This conclusion is bogus. Wesley said, “Sin remains, but does not reign.” That is, we still have a sinful nature, but the new nature can fully dominate and have the victory over the old nature. So, Paul says in reference to this, “I die daily.” Moral perfection is possible but it is not sinless perfection.

          This issue must be clearly understood and explained to avoid a false understanding of the saints during the time of trouble. Paul affirms, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you do show the Lord’s death until He comes.” The communion service is relevant until the coming of Jesus. No sinless angel or sinless saint would participate in the communion service. This service ends at the second coming.

          EGW affirms, “In ourselves we are sinners, but in Christ we are righteous.” This enigma is not resolved in this life. Christians are citizens of two overlapping ages and we belong to both. We begin the life of the age to come in the now. But it is not fully consummated until Jesus comes. Thus we suffer the sin affliction that intensifies the life of a believer and cause pain and suffering even when we are victorious. No one gets beyond this experience in this life.

            (Quote)




          0
          View Comment
        • The biblical definition of sin is the transgression of the Royal Law – the Law of Love toward God and toward one’s fellow man (James 2:8). It is only in this way that it can accurately be said that, “whoever loves others has fulfilled the law” (Romans 13:8). This means, of course, that sin is based on motive – on any motive that is opposed to the Royal Law of Love.

          And, if sin is based on motive (which is the only reason why God alone can accurately judge the moral status of a person), this means that actions, by themselves, are amoral – not in and of themselves “sinful”. It is all based on why a person did this or that action. This is also the reason why animals or robots cannot be accused of “sinning” – even if their actions are “bad”.

          Again, this is because sin is a conscious rebellion against the Law of Love. If Adam and Eve had not been told that they could not eat from on particular tree, then it would not have been sinful of them to eat from any and all trees in the garden. It is only because they were told not to eat from one particular tree that it became sinful, or contrary to the Law of Love, for them to go ahead and eat from the “forbidden tree.”

          The same is true of the Sabbath commandment. If God had never told anyone about the 7th-day Sabbath, no one would have been guilty of sin for not observing it. It is only when God makes a person aware of the Sabbath that it then becomes contrary to the Law of Love, or sinful, to fail to observe it. Until this point, there simply is no sin for the one who does not clearly know God’s wishes regarding the Sabbath.

          It’s identical to the situation in the garden of Eden with the Forbidden Tree. There simply is no fundamental difference here. Both situations have their basis in an arbitrary command of God. And, if a person is truly blind to such a command, they would “not be guilty of sin” – according to Jesus Himself (John 9:41).

          Jesus isn’t saying here that only sins of ignorance can be forgiven – as you suggest. After all, Jesus came to die specifically for deliberate rebellion against the Royal Law – to include the deliberate actions of Adam and Eve against a known command of God. Therefore, it is quite clear that God’s forgiveness and Jesus’ blood is not limited to “sins of ignorance” as you suggest. Rather, Jesus would not need to have come and died to save us from sin if there had never been a deliberate rebellion against the Royal Law of Love amongst the human family…

          Of course, I’ve been through all of this before with you and I fail to see the benefit of rehashing it all again.

            (Quote)




          4
          View Comment
  9. Please forgive me for my increasingly confused state. First, we are told that Sabbath observance never saved ANYONE. Then, we’re told that those ignorant of the Sabbath command can be saved, but presumably the non-ignorant not be saved. Then, of the 4 men well-versed on the Sabbath issue (1. A Lutheran reformer–Luther himself. 2. A Millerite–William Miller himself 3. A Millerite follower–Miles Grant 4. Another Millerite follower–D. M. Canright) and two are declared “savable” (Luther and Miller), while there is deathly silence on the eternal destiny of the Millerite followers.

    How does Luther obtain an “ignorance label” when he is fully aware of the Decalogue and the Sabbath commandment. He said, “For God will not give revelation to everyone; He will not promulgate a new Decalogue, but He had bound us to this commandment which resounded from heaven.” He further added, “This is the proper celebration of the Sabbath, to rest from our work and be full of God’s works.” In view of Luther’s extensive knowledge of Scripture and specifically the Decalogue and the Sabbath commandment, and in spite of his affirmation of it, he still did not observe it. Yet, he somehow merits the ignorance label so that he can become “savable”? How so? As for William Miller, he also knew about the Sabbath, as a certain segment of his followers observed the Sabbath. EGW lays the blame for that on his “friends”, who persuaded him otherwise. Thus, because his friends unfairly influenced him, he also gets the badge of “ignorant” and thus becomes “savable” as well?

    If Luther and Miller, with their extensive knowledge of the Sabbath issue, are “savable” due to ignorance and the adverse influence of friends, why the silence on the destiny of Miller’s followers, Miles Grant and D. M. Canright? Why can’t they be “savable” as well? What differentiates Luther and Miller from Grant and Canright? As I have told you, I have already decided to follow God and His commandments regardless of the consequences or the cost. Eternal life is far too precious to pass up. One day we’re here, and the next day we’re gone. Whatever we accomplish here on this planet pales in comparison to the free gift of eternal life. However, I’m not getting any response as to what constitutes Sabbath observance that is acceptable to God. You’re not directing me to what constitutes fulfilling the requirements of the Sabbath command and what constitutes violation of the commandment. It is of critical importance to all of God’s followers to understand His requirements, and then to obediently follow them. don’t you think?

    Are you not imparting this information to me so that I will remain in “ignorance” and be able to play the “ignorant card”? Do you yourself not know the answer to this question?

    You certainly must be able to tell me what differentiates the ignorance of Luther and Miller versus the ignorance of Grant and Canright. PLEASE, PLEASE, can’t you tell me why two of them are “savable” and why the other two might not be?

    I must confess to you that I am not comfortable with the “ignorance card”, as God does not seem to have functioned this way in the past. He told Adam and Eve to not come near a certain tree in the garden, and to NOT eat the fruit of it lest they die. They disobeyed. They were not kept in ignorance. Neither were the antediluvians kept in ignorance, as they heard the message of impending destruction of the world and had every opportunity to escape by entering the wide open doors of the Ark. The Israelites were given specific instructions regarding the 613 commandments and sacrifices and were not kept in ignorance. Christians today have the same opportunity of accepting or rejecting eternal life via belief and trust in Jesus as Savior. For the life of me, I don’t understand why everybody doesn’t accept that free gift.

    A final reason why I question whether the “ignorance card” will work is found in I Kings chapter 13, where a man of God was given specific instructions, which he dutifully followed until he ran into a fellow claiming to be a prophet and having a different message. Sadly, the man of God listened to the prophet and his punishment was to be killed by a lion. I likewise question whether being misled by friends will work as an excuse with God, as this poor chap was actually misled by a prophet and his punishment was swift. That argument didn’t work with Adam, who blamed his disobedience on his own wife. It didn’t work there either. It would seem to me that if God went to great lengths to offer me eternal life, the least I can do is to do some serious investigation into His expectations of me, and to no longer be ignorant. That is precisely what I’m trying to do, and with all your knowledge of the Sabbath as exemplified by your outstanding effort in formulating this extensive material, I’m not getting answers.

    I would greatly appreciate answers to the above questions, along with perhaps one more request. Abraham Heschel was Jewish rabbi who wrote a book entitled The Sabbath. He has been quoted various times in the pages of the Adventist Review and I once heard an SDA preacher lift an entire sermon from his book. Do you have any thoughts on his eternal destiny? In regard to Luther and Miller, you stated that “they were both God-fearing men and will be saved”. Why would that not also apply to Grant and Canright? And then, here is Heschel who does indeed advocate for Sabbath observance.

    Respectfully,

    Ken Christman

      (Quote)




    0
    View Comment
    • Again, as I’ve already mentioned, only God knows the heart of a person. Only God knows if someone is honestly ignorant or not. I’m not able to judge such things and neither are you. You can only know if you are being honest with the truth that you know and understand. You cannot determine this for anyone else with perfect accuracy. The same is true for me. I know deep down if I am being honest with God with respect to the truth that I’ve been given to know and understand. Obviously, God does not expect me to live according to truths that I do not know or correctly understand.

      If William Miller or Martin Luther or Grant or Canright were honestly confused about this or that truth, God knows and God will save them as long as they were honestly trying to remain in a relationship with God and follow His will.

      You ask how in the world could those like Miller and Luther have been honestly confused? – given everything that they seemed to know? I don’t know. It’s a mystery to me how someone like Luther, in particular, could have written so much about the origin and sanctity of the Sabbath and yet not applied it to himself. I find that very odd. Yet, we have been told that Luther was, in fact, honest, sincere, and Godly – and that he will be saved. The same is true for Miller and I hope it is true for Canright, Grant, and many many others. If so, that’s wonderful! I’m really happy that God is able to understand honest confusion and take this into account. I’m very glad that He is able to read the hearts of men. I certainly would get it wrong since I cannot perfectly and accurately read the heart of another person beyond myself – and sometimes I wonder if I even understand myself very well. I think God knows me much better than I know myself.

      Again, I advise you to leave the moral judgment and evaluation of others, beyond yourself, in God’s hands. Our job is simply to present the gospel message to others. After this point, we must leave the work of conversion and moral judgment in God’s hands alone…

        (Quote)




      4
      View Comment
  10. At the beginning, back in the early church, the first several centuries of it, the rationale for the switch from the 7th to the 1st day was that Christ Himself had tacitly done that by being resurrected on the 1st day, surely a cosmically crucial event worthy of the most sacred ceremonialization. This was offered as self-evident and overwhelming, and duly validated by the very vicar of Christ, as documented by Sean, if only distantly but discernibly scriptural or unscriptural.

    Now about 2 millennia later the reasoning is really quite different, startlingly different. It turns out that God never actually gave a specific day that needed formal switching, or has lost interest in one, but being consummately compassionate was all along mainly yearning to give us rest. Promises of rest, often presented metaphorically as “Sabbath rest,” are abundant in both the Old and New Testament, more abundant than clear declarations of a switch of day, and precious, increasingly precious as the world becomes increasingly stressful. And the same Jesus who was so grieved by the Pharisaical obsession with ritually detailed 7th-day slavery is infinitely more concerned with this gift of rest, plus the bonus of the possibility of undivided communion with Him or at least a lovely choral Te Deum echoing in a magnificent cathedral or Worship Complex, than the specific day. Notable advocates of this lovely picture of “the Sabbath rest” that come to mind are Abraham Heschel, noted Jewish thinker, plus sundry emergent evangelical thought leaders, and, most cogently, recent popes, once the ex cathedra thunder from Sinai, now the global vicar of gentle nonjudgmental Jesus. Or so it is presented.

    As I understand foundational Adventist prophecy, to which I still adhere, this summer of rest and the promotion thereof will prove only as a preparatory, transitional device, temporary. Circumstances, terrible ones, will require a categorical, unequivocal, no pussyfooting or evasive obeisance to the re-emergent and re-inaugurated Commander of the Universe and savior of humanity, a rerun of the yes-or-no arguably arbitrary conditions laid down by the very same God, or virtually the same, at the beginning, in the Garden of Eden, in the form of the Tree of Good and Evil – a “silly thing” like that. The 7th day, yes or no.

      (Quote)




    2
    View Comment
  11. Epistemological thoughts from from the agnostic peanut gallery:

    If Adam and Eve did not keep an accurate calendar from the start of creation, how do we know Saturday is the 7th day of the week or Sunday the 1st? If this is indeed subject to human culture – empirical ignorance of the actual 7th day – then might all Christian denominations be celebrating the prescribed day symbolically? Would this type of well meaning ignorance be forgivable in God’s eyes?

    Hypothetical: Let’s postulate that chronologically Sunday is the actual 7th day of the week, not Saturday. Who commits the greater sin: those who in error keep the Sabbath on Saturday, the actual 6th day of the week; or those who treat Sunday, which they think if the 1st day but is the actual 7th day fo the week?

    Perhaps you will allow me to digress and analogize in criminal legal theory a bit to speculate on the topic of ignorance of divine law. In common law countries, like the US, ignorance of the law is no defence. This is especially true of minor offences, such as traffic tickets where one is strictly liable if the offence is committed, regardless of one’s state of knowledge. However, for more serious criminal offences, mens rea ( a guilty mind ) is required for conviction. So, by analogy do you think in God’s eyes observance of, or lack thereof, of the Sabbath is a strict liability offence (relatively minor but not requiring knowledge of right and wrong ) or a criminal, immoral offence ( more serious but requiring guilty knowledge?) And what should the respective punishment be depending on the categorization?

    I ‘rest’ my cultural case.

      (Quote)




    0
    View Comment
    • In God’s government, it seems, honest ignorance is a valid excuse. Those who are honestly ignorant are judged to be “not guilty” of “sin”. Even if they are in error, their honest ignorance means that they have not violated the Royal Law of Love – which is the basis of all morality.

      As far as knowing which day of the week was the original Sabbath, it appears to have been passed down from generation to generation. Also, if anyone would have known for sure which day it was, it would have been Jesus. And, we know for sure which day He thought was the Sabbath…

        (Quote)




      2
      View Comment
    • @george: George, if God knew from the beginning of time that the “7th day” would get lost in the history of time, I don’t think He would have made it the center of His Decalogue! This is such a ridiculous excuse to not observe the Sabbath. (Saturday)

        (Quote)




      1
      View Comment
  12. Well, Sean, a person could truly be “sinless” by your superficial definition. Of course, it is based on the human factor’s definition of sin and not God’s definition of sin. So as long as a person decides something is not sin, then it is not sin…..period. And of course, there is no such thing as “sins of ignorance” since according to your definition, if a person is ignorant of any command of God, then it is not a sin. In which case, neither is there any need for forgiveness. But if forgiveness is a factor on any level, then it is obviously sin or there would be no need to forgive.

    You are simply wrong, Sean. And all your “fancy foot work” to get around the reality will not make you right.

      (Quote)




    0
    View Comment
    • This is not a matter of a personal definition of sin here. A person knows, via their God-given conscience, when they have or have not acted in selfless love toward their neighbor. If you haven’t acted out of love, you have sinned, and the Holy Spirit will speak to your consciences about this reality. On the other hand, if you have acted out of love, then you haven’t sinned – even if mistakes were made. You may have made honest mistakes while acting in love, but you haven’t sinned if everything you’ve done was done with sincere love. You have in fact “fulfilled the law” (Romans 13:8) since love is the fulfillment of the law (Romans 13:10). It’s as simple as that according to the Bible’s definition. There really is no “fancy footwork”. It’s very simple and very straightforward.

      The real problem, of course, is that we are all naturally selfish and unloving. We, of ourselves, cannot truly love our neighbors as ourselves. It is only through the grace of God that we can be given such a Divine ability. And, through His power, we can actually truly love our neighbors and stop sinning against them – even though we might continue to make honest mistakes.

      Such mistakes are not “sinful” since such mistakes, as previously explained, no doubt occur in heaven on a regular basis. Are you telling me that angels never make honest mistakes? Do you really believe that? I don’t. Sinless angels must often make mistakes of ignorance – because, well, they are ignorant on some level. Yet, these mistakes are not “sinful” since there was no selfishness or malice involved. And, when we all get to heaven one day, we also will continue to make mistakes of ignorance – because we will never be omniscient. Mistakes are therefore always bound to happen. Yet, such honest mistakes are not and will never be “sinful” nor did such honest mistakes demand the blood of Christ. Jesus had to die, not for honest mistakes, but because the Law of Love was deliberately broken. That’s why He had to die to redeem us.

      But, of course, we’ve been over this at least a dozen times…

        (Quote)




      3
      View Comment
      • “The real problem, of course, is that we are all naturally selfish and unloving.”

        This is true and this is why we are sinners. You refer to the sinless angels as making mistakes and in this I agree. But as you also point out, they have no sinful nature. They are not “naturally selfish and unloving” like we are. Neither are they legally separated from God and “cut off” as Adam did to the human family.

        You refer to sin as solely a “moral issue” and ignore the legal implications that are a part of how God has defined sin in the bible. The sinless angels have never rebelled against the system of government God has ordained for fellowship with created beings.

        If we evaluated and considered a “sinless angel” outside of a legal relationship with the Father through Jesus, they would also be “sinful in themselves.” Thus, you don’t have to “do” anything to be a sinner, all you have to “be” is separated from Christ.

        All of Adam’s children are “created in a state of sin” outside Christ. We are legally “cut off” and this makes us sinners even if we have not acted one way or the other in reference to what God commands. But the human family is not only “cut off” which puts us in a “state of sin” we are also morally depraved which puts us in an “attitude of sin”.

        You can’t cure sin by dealing with the attitude alone. This is the moral implications of sin. But you must also deal with the legal aspects of sin and be “born again” into Christ or you remain in a state of sin, no matter if you “keep the law” or not. But the fact is, you can not cure the attitude of sin if the state of sin is denied. The Jews tried to deal with sin outside Christ but they had no legal basis for fellowship with God. They appealed to Abraham as there legal right, but Jesus exposed this idea as false and stated, No man cometh to the Father but by Me.”

        If we accept Christ, and are “spiritually” married to Christ then our sins of ignorance are also forgiven by way of the atonement. Sins of ignorance are still sin. But they are forgiven by way of the atonement. Your whole theory is sins of ignorance is not sin, therefore, need no forgiveness. So you define sin in a shallow concept that negates any need for forgiveness if we are ignorant. This is not only false, but totally destructive to build a proper biblical relationship with God by way of a legal right to the family by being “in Christ.”

        Sin has legal and moral implications and both must be corrected or sin is not properly dealt with by way of a bible definition. The sinless angels were created “in Christ” and thus they may make honest mistakes that would be sins of rebellion if they were not “in Christ”. Adam and Eve were created “in Christ” but rejected this relationship and tried to be “sinless in themselves” as Satan suggested. So they were legally cut off and morally depraved.

        The point is this, you can’t fix one aspect of sin without fixing the other. What is illegal is also immoral, and what is immoral is also illegal. EGW was hopeful this would be clearly defined in 1888 and the SDA movement could move forward with a clear biblical understanding of sin and atonement. It was not cleared up then, and has not been cleared up from that time to the present day. Thus we have two sides in conflict with each other, and neither side right as each holds their own false understanding of the kingdom of God.

        Small wonder Jesus said, “Straight is the gate and narrow is the way and few there be that find it.” Not because it is beyond comprehension, but because sinful man will always wrest scripture and try to make it fit his own convoluted idea of what it means, and how it should be applied and in doing so, bungles his way into oblivion refusing instruction to correct his errors. So what else is new? As Solomon said, “There is nothing new under the sun.” and “The curse causeless shall not come.”

        Thanks for letting me post. This is my last comment for now.

          (Quote)




        0
        View Comment
        • So, you argue that sinless angels can actually make mistakes without sinning? Yet, if we make honest mistakes we are sinning? I’m sorry, but I just don’t follow you here. You appear to be presenting a conflicting argument. You say that “sins of ignorance are still sin”. Yet, at the same time, you just said that sinless angels can make the very same types of mistakes due to ignorance. How can you rationally hold to both positions?

          It seems quite clear to me that “sins of ignorance” are not really “sinful” if sinless angels can make the very same mistakes without being accused of sinning. Yet, you argue: “The sinless angels were created ‘in Christ’ and thus they may make honest mistakes that would be sins of rebellion if they were not ‘in Christ’”. Of course, this makes no rational sense to me. Sin is sin regardless of if one was originally created “in Christ” or not. Adam was created “in Christ” too, perfect and sinless in his original state. Yet, despite being “in Christ” Adam fell into sin. How did this happen? Because of ignorance on his part? No, because he deliberately broke the Law of Love. That’s what sin is. It’s not some accidental mistake due to honest ignorance. Adam fell into sin, from a perfect state, because he deliberately chose to act contrary to the Royal Law of Love. And, the rest is history. The same thing is true of Lucifer and the angels that fell with him. They didn’t fall into sin because of honest ignorance. They did so quite deliberately… fully aware that they were breaking the Law of Love.

          You say that I ignore the “legal implications” of sin that are outside of the “moral issues” involved. You argue that “you don’t have to do anything to be a sinner.” But, that’s not how the Bible defines sin. There is no sin outside of morality or moral responsibility. Sin is defined, in the Bible, as “transgression against the Law” (1 John 3:4) – against the Royal Law of Love (James 2:8). Therefore, in order to “sin” you must think or do something that goes against the Royal Law of Love. You can’t simply be a vegetable and be accused of “sin”. That’s why a robot cannot be accused of sin – because a robot has no freedom of will and therefore cannot choose between right and wrong.

          You see, sin implies that there is a free will choice to be made. Without freedom of will, there can be no sin – no moral responsibility. It is only because we humans have been given freedom of will, freedom to understand and to actually choose between right and wrong, that we are moral beings and can be morally responsible for sin – for our own sins. Otherwise, if I happened to always love my neighbor as myself, no one could accuse me of sin – not even God. It is just that being able to actually truly love our neighbors has never been achieved outside of Divine power. It’s theoretically possible to be truly loving and sinless on one’s own. However, it’s just never happened is all…

          It has nothing to do with being “legally cut off.” It has to do with being unloving. If you happened to be loving, you would not be sinful – period. No law or legal argument in the universe could change that.

          You cay that “you can’t cure sin by dealing with attitude alone”, but that’s mistaken. That’s the only way to cure sin – by dealing with the selfish unloving attitude of a person. If a person can gain a truly loving attitude, that person gains freedom from sin. It doesn’t matter how this attitude change is gained. As soon as it is gained, a person gains freedom from sin – period.

          Of course, so far, only one method of fixing a selfish unloving attitude has actually worked – and that is through Divine power.

          Now, remember, forgiveness of previous transgressions against the Royal Law of Love is a different matter. Such forgiveness can only be achieved through death. And, that is why Jesus had to come and die, in our place, in order for God to be legally able to offer us forgiveness of our own individual sins against the Royal Law of Love.

            (Quote)




          3
          View Comment
  13. From your statement “I advise you to leave the moral judgment and evaluation of others, other than yourself, in God’s hands”, you seem to have terribly misconstrued what I have been trying to say all along. For the record, let me say that I stand firmly with Jesus and Paul, who taught no condemnation, or judgment, upon those who do not observe the Sabbath. I strongly reject the notion that Sabbath violators will not inherit eternal life. Rather, Ellen White is the one who condemns violators to eternal damnation. I was trying to commend you for your position that “Sabbath observance never saved ANYONE” as being consistent with the teachings of both Paul and Jesus. But then, for some reason, you reversed your position and opened the door to condemnation of some groups but not others.

    Presumably, your backtracking was compelled by a greater need to be consistent with the teachings of EGW, who also taught that Sabbath observance MUST be just like the original commandment was give on Mt. Sinai. Since nobody, including Adventists, keep the Sabbath in such a manner today, the direct implication of such a doctrine is that EVERYBODY on earth, including 19 million SDA’s, will all be labeled Sabbath violators and thus forfeit eternal life. That means that the first resurrection will be empty, and we already know from the words of Jesus and Paul that such will not be the case. While your own condemnation of certain groups somewhat reconciled your initial position with EGW, you refuse to agree with her on what constitutes Sabbath violation.

    To make matters even worse, Ellen White labels the mark of the beast as a national Sunday law promoting Sunday worship and prohibiting Sabbath worship. This is, of course, not taught by Jesus, Paul, or any other Biblical author. Since we know from Revelation that any who bear the mark of the beast will forfeit eternal life, if EGW is correct on this matter and also correct in the manner in which God expects Sabbathkeeping in this age, we would have additional confirmation that the first resurrection will be empty. If, on the other hand, this non-Biblical doctrine of the mark of the beast is incorrect, you could see 19 million plus SDA’ s possibly extending their right hands to accept a mark of the beast, rationalizing that EGW’s mark of the beast would occur in the future. Such a deception would mean the loss of eternal life to all SDA’s deceived into receiving the mark of the beast due to a prophet’s deception. Please read the story of the man of God who was killed by a lion because he listened to the words of a prophet instead of adhering to God’s mandate. For some reason, you also refrained from labeling the mark of the beast as a Sabbath/Sunday matter. Thus, while you might be consistent with EGW’s labeling of Sabbath violators as forfeiting eternal life, you do not seem consistent with her prescription for Sabbath observance.

    Since you consistently refuse to respond to important queries into the matter of Sabbath observance, I will offer my own observations entitled Biblical Facts on the Sabbath. Hopefully, you will be in agreement. If not, you will certainly point out any errors.

    In the beginning, God created all life on this planet in 6 literal days, with his crowning effort being the creation of man in His own image. Roughly 6,000 years later, two extremely brilliant but also extremely stupid scientists, James Watson and Francis Crick, finally identified the structure of DNA as the double helix. As you well know, there are base pairs interconnecting this structure (A-T and C-G) and the order of these base pairs must be precise in order for the human organism to function properly. When these base pairs become disordered, mutations occur, and mutations are always detrimental to the organism if there is any change at all. Some mutations might not do any harm, but if there is any functional change it will be harmful rather than beneficial. In other words, the human organism never improves with mutations. Any change will bring disease and possibly death. These base pair organizations are necessary for cellular function as they direct proper cellular functions, production of necessary enzymes etc. How many base pairs are there in the human body? About 5 Billion! And, they must all function correctly from the very beginning. Otherwise, you don’t have a functioning body which depends on all the proper cellular functions necessary to maintain life. You don’t see an improvement in the human organism, but only deterioration over time. Such a process could not have occurred by an evolving of a primitive organism over time, but must have had all 5 billion base pairs begin their function simultaneously.

    While Watson and Crick won Nobel prizes for their important discovery, they both remained hardened atheists, refusing to believe in an all-powerful God who created this amazing structure by breathing life into a lump of clay, instantly creating a perfect specimen with perfect DNA that would have lasted for an eternity. That is a very, very powerful God, and one who should be loved an respected. Watson and Crick were very stupid in not accepting the only rational alternative to their amazing discovery. I do not have enough faith to accept their conclusions that all this DNA just evolved by some sort of accident, gradually getting better and better.

    Well, God created all life on the planet is 6 days and rested the seventh day. He hardly needed to rest, as His creation was literally spoken into existence, and, in the case of man, breathed into existence. There is NO Biblical record of God mandating Sabbath observance in the Garden of Eden, even though He Himself rested. I would strongly urge you to reject any extra-Biblical account of such a mandate. God gave these perfect creatures full dominion over His entire creation with only one mandate, which was to not go near a certain tree and to certainly NOT partake of its fruit. Failure to obey that single mandate resulted in their expulsion from the garden, accompanied by a loss of their perfect DNA which immediately began to deteriorate, ultimately resulting in death.

    Several generations later, Adam and Eve’s descendants became so wicked that this very powerful God simply had to destroy nearly all life on the planet and start all over. He gave EVERYBODY a choice, just like He did for Adam and Eve. They could either accept the open invitation to enter the ark and be saved, or stay outside and be lost. All except 8 accepted the open invitation. After that, God found it necessary to shorten life spans, which might have been accomplished by simply turning up the mutation rate. That would be a very simple task for an all-powerful God who created 5 billion base pairs perfectly arranged out of a lump of clay which immediately functioned perfectly after inflation.

    A few generations afterwards, mankind started misbehaving again, but God found a willing conduit in whom He could trust with His promises–Abraham. He was the recipient of a promise that his descendants would be numerous, would be God’s chosen people, and through his lineage, the promised Messiah would come. The contract God made with Abraham was marked by a ritual known as circumcision, but there is no record of any Sabbath requirement. God made known to Abraham that the cost of the sin problem was very, very high. just like sacrificing Abraham’s own son, the very one through whom the promised Messiah would someday come. Abraham was ready to obey, but fortunately did not have to complete the sacrifice.

    Many years later, those descendants were being expected to continue the ritual of circumcision as a sign of the contract between God and Abraham. For some reason, Moses failed to circumcise his own two children, and God was about to extinguish their lives until they were rushed into that meaningful sign of the promise. The first Biblical record of God’s mandating Sabbath observance occurred on Mt. Sinai, and this time, it was a contract between God and all of Abraham’s descendants. It was NOT a contract with any other people. If other people wanted to follow this powerful God, they must join Abraham’s descendants, be circumcised, and follow ALL 613 commandments, along with all sacrifices, which forecasted the coming of the Messiah, who would complete the requirements of this covenant.

    While God always kept His part of the contract, His chosen people repeatedly fractured their part by ignoring the Sabbath commandment, falling into idolatry, and generally ignoring their responsibilities. This all powerful God ultimately allowed them to be conquered by a pagan Babylonian king who became the recipient of a dream that his own sorcerers could not help him with. God, however, via Daniel, not only told the King what he dreamed, but also what it meant, with a constellation of future events that was so perfect that centuries later, a pagan philosopher Porphyry decided that nobody could have known the future so perfectly, and thus, the book of Daniel could not have been written by Daniel! Over time, various mystics wrongly interpreted Daniel, but a correct interpretation of this book is so amazing as to compel anybody to believe in this all powerful God.

    Ultimately, the Messiah came to dwell amongst His chosen people and become the ultimate sacrifice in order to fulfill the requirements of the Sinaitic covenant and to replace it with a new one. He appeared on time, just as predicted, and fulfilled all the predicted events prophesied by God’s prophets centuries previously. He worked miracles and made it clear that He was the Son of God, or God Himself. He broke the Sabbath, while also going to synagogues on Sabbath in order to teach all who would listen. His teaching was clear. He taught two resurrections, one leading to eternal joy and happiness, while the other one to eternal destruction. He taught that there would only be two classes of people–those who believed and relied on Him as their Savior, and those who refused to do so. He taught that not one jot or one tittle of the Law (Sinaitic Covenant) would be changed until all was fulfilled. He gave them all a choice, and finally allowed Himself to be offered as the perfect lamb in order to fulfill the requirements of this Law. Just prior to His final breath, He uttered those words “It is finished”. In other words, IT IS FULFILLED. At that point, the Old Covenant was replaced with the New Covenant. All 613 of the mandates were met by perfect obedience via the only one who was qualified to fulfill them. Jesus became the Mediator of the New Covenant, converting an impossible contract into one which required only a recognition that we, with our imperfect DNA, are utterly incapable of fulfilling the requirements of that Law. It was replaced with accepting Jesus as the only One who could save us. God caused the veil between the Temple’s Holy and Most Holy Place to be torn from top to bottom, indicating that He no longer resided there, that the Old Covenant was voided and fulfilled, and that from then on, everybody on earth could approach Him directly through His Son. They would no longer go through His chosen people, Abraham’s descendants. They had a choice. Either follow and accept the Mediator, Jesus, and have eternal life, or reject Him and suffer the 2nd resurrection.

    Jesus even told a parable of the wedding feast, where the invite guests (Jewish people) refused to attend. So, the invitation went to all the poor. Then, the Master sent His servants to the highways and byways, inviting EVERYBODY to the special feast. Many came, but there was one poor chap who somehow got there with his own garments on, rather than accept the free and spotless wedding garment. He was thrown out into darkness. The implications are clear and serious. We cannot get in by our own efforts, which are never going to be perfect. We cannot get in by observing the requirements of an Old Covenant without keeping that Old Covenant PERFECTLY. Since none of us can keep that Old Covenant perfectly, we are doomed to start with.

    A few years later, Paul came around, and the early Christian church decided that the only thing that mattered was following Jesus and His commandments, which were to love God with all your hearts, to love your neighbor as yourself, and to follow Jesus’ teachings. All 9 Decalogue commandments were reiterated by Paul and Jesus with the exception of the Sabbath commandment. The early church actually agreed that there were only 3 requirements to be met by Gentile Christians: 1. Do not commit fornication. 2. Do not eat blood or meats that were strangled. 3. Do not eat food sacrificed to idols. That was it. Circumcision and Sabbath observance, so important to God at one time, were replaced by a new and better covenant. now open to anybody who wants it. Circumcision and Sabbathkeeping now will not help at all. As a matter of fact, by trying to keep that Old Covenant as a means to obtaining eternal life would be tantamount to trying to merit something that is impossible for us to attain with our damaged DNA. It would be tantamount to trying to get into the wedding feast via our own soiled garments. It will not work. I will never understand why everybody does not exchange that Old and imperfect Covenant with a New Covenant that is so simple to follow.

    The Scriptures teach only two resurrections. The first one is marked by no3%% judgment at all. They are those who fell asleep believing that Jesus died a substitutional death and are covered by His perfection The second death is for everybody else, including scoffers, unbelievers, and those believing they don’t need a Savior and can do it all on their own. They will be brought back to life after the Millenium in order to be judged out of the Book of the Law. None will have a good outcome. They will all fall short. There is a 0.0000% chance of a favorable outcome. Sadly, at that point using the ignorance card will be a very dicey proposition. While there would be nothing to lose for those staring hell in the face, I don’t see it being successful. The sin problem will finally be disposed of as the Devil is thrown into the lake of fire, along with all his followers. That evil Devil, or Dragon, Deceiver, will be Destroyed–the one who was directly responsible for all those other D’s–Deterioration, Disease, Disobedience, Devastation, and Death, will be gone forever. The DNA of those in the first resurrection was restored to its original and perfect state, and they will worship and trust their Creator forever.

    Final thoughts. I share with you the above Biblical account, not to win any arguments, but rather, in the hope that you will consider the Bible, and the Bible alone as the gold standard. I would earnestly pray that you not just take my word for anything, but check it all out for yourself. Read both sides of all positions. Keep an open mind and search for truth, wherever it might lead. Sure, read Abraham Heschel’s book on the Sabbath. Remember, he was a mystical Kaballistical Jewish rabbi who observed the Sabbath in a very mystical way, with Friday evening services welcoming the Sabbath as a living entity and departing the following Sabbath in the same manner. If you don’t know what the Kaballah is, look it up and ask yourself if there is any part of the Kaballah which would be acceptable to the Creator God. For some reason, SDA’s like to quote Heschel. I even heard an SDA minister lift an entire sermon entitled Grace Palace from Heschel’s book on the Sabbath. Well, there is nothing about grace in Heschel’s book. It is all about the Law. Furthermore, Heschel did not accept Jesus as Savior. Regardless of how many Sabbaths he observed, do you think he stands a chance at being in the first resurrection? While I did not see you referencing Heschel, you did reference another follower of the Kaballah–Joseph Dan. Does it matter what Jonathan David Brown believes about the Sabbath, Lunar Sabbaths, Klu Klux Klan, etc.?

    Read J. N. Andrews’ book on the Sabbath, then investigate the Mill Yard church in London, recalling that Andrews searched them out when he went as first SDA missionary to Europe. Read D. M. Canright, while also reading F.D. Nichol’s response to Canright in “Ellen G. White and Her Critics” Also read what a subsequent Baptist Grand Rapids pastor, Norman Douty, wrote about Canright. Read Ellen White herself. Then read the New Testament, especially the words of Jesus and Paul. Compare them. May God richly bless you as you study His word. I firmly accept the simple promises of Jesus that all I must do to be saved is to accept Him as my Savior, and I will not trade that promise for anything in the world

      (Quote)




    1
    View Comment
    • You seem to reject the concept of Sabbath observance as a command of God for the Christian. You appear to be arguing that Sabbath observance did not begin in Eden, but at the time of Moses? – and was therefore not originally created for all of mankind, but just for the Jews? You conclude, then, that Christians are exempt from the Sabbath commandment found within the Decalogue? – written by the finger of God in stone? – while all of the other nine Commandments remain binding for the Christian? Somehow, the only Commandment that started out with the word “Remember” was singled out to be forgotten?

      I’m sorry, but I just don’t see that conclusion to be supported by the weight of biblical evidence (and neither did the disciples of Jesus or the early Christian Church who continued to observe the Sabbath day as holy). As pointed out several times already, Jesus Himself said that He originally created the Sabbath for all of mankind (anthropos) – not just for the Jews (Mark 2:27). Jesus also pointed out that the Jews of His day were not keeping the Sabbath as He originally intended for it to be kept – as a day created for the benefit and joy of mankind. He Himself demonstrated the true way that we are to “keep” the Sabbath day holy.

      As far as your other arguments against the Sabbath, as being the only commandment of the Decalogue to somehow be “done away with” in the “New Covenant”, I’ve covered these common arguments of yours fairly extensively in my article above – after carefully reading many many arguments on both sides of this issue, .

      Now, this has nothing to do with the writings of Mrs. White. The Bible itself points out that if someone knows what is right, but doesn’t do it, that person is in a state of deliberate rebellion against God – in a state of deliberate sin. So, if a person knows the truth of the Sabbath, and then deliberately rejects that truth despite knowing God’s will, that person cannot be saved. This is a biblical position.

      Regarding the time of the end, Ellen White is simply saying that the issue of Sabbath observance will come to a head just before the final days of Earth’s history. The issue will be presented in such clear terms that everyone will know God’s true position regarding the Sabbath. I’m not sure how this will be accomplished, to be honest with you. Mrs. White doesn’t say exactly what additional evidence will be presented to remove all honest doubts from all minds. However, if this does take place and everyone does, in fact, have a clear understanding of God’s will regarding Sabbath observance, anyone who knowingly rejects God’s will once it is fully known, cannot be saved. They will, at that point, most certainly take upon themselves, “the mark of the beast” – which is, of course, a full submission to the side of an open and active rebellion against the known will of God.

      Again, this is all based on the prophecies of the Bible itself. The final conflict between good and evil will be over the commandments of God – regarding “times and laws”. One of the chief signs of God’s position and authority as the Creator, is the Sabbath – the symbol and memorial of God’s creative and redemptive power. It is no wonder, then, that Satan will try to counter the Sabbath – as he has tried to do throughout history.

        (Quote)




      4
      View Comment
  14. Sean Pitman: It seems quite clear to me that “sins of ignorance” are not really “sinful” if sinless angels can make the very same mistakes without being accused of sinning. Yet, you argue: “The sinless angels were created ‘in Christ’ and thus they may make honest mistakes that would be sins of rebellion if they were not ‘in Christ’”. Of course, this makes no rational sense to me.

    Sean, the “sinless angels” have no “sinful nature” to deal with like we do. And the sinful nature is not gone when we are converted. Here is what you fail to deal with. A born again believer is still a member of this present evil age and still a child of fallen Adam. When we accept Christ, we are now, also a member of the kingdom of God and begin to live the life of the age to come in the present, that is actually not set in place until the second coming.

    Thus, the unfallen angels do not live in two over lapping ages like we do and are not members of both kingdoms. So we must continue to define ourselves in the context of the children of sinful Adam but “by faith” we are now also members of the kingdom of God. Here was the spiritual enlightenment of Luther who said, “We are sinful and righteous at one and the same time.” As pertaining to this would we are always sinners, but by faith we are “counted righteous” by faith in Christ. You can not escape the dual citizenship and we are always sinful by nature as pertaining to the flesh, but sinless in Christ by virtue of faith and the atonement.

    This paradox is not resolved in this world or this life. So the “new man” wrestles against the “old man” in our Christian experience. The sinless angels do not have an “old man” to deal with. They do not have to “die daily” to their identity in Adam. And the believer looks forward to the second coming when we too are free from this affliction and conflict between the flesh and the spirit.

    But the sinless angels are sinless because they are “in Christ” by creation and they have no sinful nature, nor do they have a fallen identity like we do that we received from Adam. Simply put, we would have to be equal to God to be inherently sinless. So Satan said to Eve, “Ye shall be as God” or, “equal to God” so you need no mediator on any level, nor anyone to tell you what to do. Spiritualism always defines man as “equal to God” and we already know how the Pope claims He is equal to God and infallible. This is the obvious spirit of the “antichrist” who puts Christ out of the picture as having no relevance in a relationship to the Father.

    The law of intercession is not solely because of sin. It is necessitated by a creature/Creator relationship. Sin created the necessity for a “special” application of intercession. So the cross is far more a “revelation” than an “inovation”. The intercession because of sin can eventually come to a close as sin is clearly defined and understood. But the intercession between Creator and creature is an eternal principle and reality.

    The devil has used this to create on going confusion and until sin is clearly defined in all its aspects, there is no possibility for the enigma to be resolved. So original sin is simply advocated on and on as many won’t even believe there is such a thing. You can’t cure what you refuse to define and claim it is non-existent.
    But it should be obvious that “sins of ignorance” could not be called sin on any level if sin is not part of the phrase. Just like the “sinful nature” that many claim is not sin but only human weakness. But the word “sinful” obviously means “full of sin” and there is no getting around this reality.

      (Quote)




    1
    View Comment
    • Again, your entire definition of sin appears to be wrapped up in the notion of “original sin”. Therefore, you define pretty much everything we fallen humans do, even honest mistakes, as “sinful”. You evidently forget, or at least do not understand, the relevance of being a free moral agent.

      In short, we wouldn’t be morally responsible if we had no knowledge of right and wrong and the freedom to choose between right and wrong. Both of these elements must first exist before sin can exist.

      Again, this is the reason why robots and animals cannot sin. Honest mistakes, even by fallen human beings, are not “sinful” – according to Jesus Himself. The term “sins of ignorance” is a misnomer when it comes to honest mistakes. The proper term should be “honest mistakes”, not “sins of ignorance.” Otherwise, you’d have holy angels in heaven performing “sins of ignorance” – which is nonsensical.

      That is why sin is defined as a deliberate rebellion against the Royal Law of Love. And, even if holy angels deliberately go against this Law, they will fall into sin – as Lucifer and the other fallen angels did. The same is true for us as well. We must consciously choose, as free moral agents, to sin against the Law of Love. Otherwise, there is no sin. Period.

      In any case, we’ve been around this topic endlessly before… and it doesn’t seem like we’re getting any closer to an agreement this time.

        (Quote)




      4
      View Comment
  15. Gentlemen

    I have read all of your comments with great interest.

    Dr. Pitman deserves great credit for setting out the history of the Sabbath and the decisions made by theologians and politicians down through the centuries as to the practice thereof. Edifying and a great service to the Adventist church as well as the secular alike.

    I have provided a link below regarding the origin of the legal concept of mens rea ( no crime without guilty intent) below. If you have a chance to read it you will note that there is a reference to a partial biblical origin of the concept (Christ’s Sermon on the Mount). Why do I mention this? Because, respectfully, I think it has an equivalency, and goes to the heart, of the discussion between Bill and Sean about moral culpability for biblical sin. Originally the law punished all regardless of intent based on the actual commission of the offence. However this was deemed unjust and eventually criminal law ( commission of moral offences, equivalent to biblical sin) evolved so one had to have intent to commit the offence to be guilty. This is very similar to Sean’s comments about a deliberate rebellion against the Royal Law of Love, versus a strict liability approach based on original sin that humans, as free moral agents, have no control over.

    So, why you might ask, would an old, secular, reprobate, sinner like me have any interest in this debate between well intentioned, erudite Adventists? Because Mankind’s morality, no matter how one might view its source, is critical to the well being of humans no matter what their cultural, political or religious beliefs.

    Thank you friends.

    http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2828&context=jclc

      (Quote)




    1
    View Comment
  16. 1. Did the disciples continue to observe the Sabbath day as holy? NO, THEY DID NOT. THEY WENT TO THE SYNAGOGUES ON SABBATH TO TEACH THE JEWS ABOUT JESUS. THAT IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO KEEPING THE SABBATH HOLY.

    2. Did Jesus teach that the Sabbath was “for all mankind” in Mark 2:27? NO, HE DID NOT. MARK 2;27 SAYS ‘AND HE SAID UNTO THEM THE SABBATH WAS MADE FOR MAN AND NOT MAN FOR THE SABBATH;’ HERE YOU ARE TWISTING AND TURNING THE HOLY SCRIPTURES TO SAY SOMETHING IT IS NOT SAYING. JESUS IS SIMPLY SAYING THAT HUMANS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THE SABBATH, AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. THE CONTRACT WITH GOD REGARDING THE SABBATH WAS TO ONLY JEWS AT MT. SINAI. WHILE THERE WERE SOME WHO WERE NOT DIRECT DESCENDANTS OF ABRAHAM, THEY HAD TO JOIN ISRAEL IN ORDER TO FOLLOW GOD AND HIS COMMANDMENTS.

    3. Did Jesus point out that the Jews of His day were not keeping the Sabbath as He originally intended for it to be kept? NO, OF COURSE HE DID NOT. YOU DO NOT EVEN QUOTE WHERE JESUS SAID THIS. RATHER, JESUS CLEARLY BROKE THE SABBATH, AS STATED CLEARLY IN JOHN 5:18.

    4. You say that if a person knows the truth of the Sabbath, and then deliberately rejects that truth despite knowing God’s will, that person cannot be saved. VERY INTERESTING COMMENT. HERE YOU ARE JUDGING AGAIN–PRECISELY WHAT YOU ADVISED ME NOT TO DO!! WHY DOES THIS NOT SURPRISE ME? PERHAPS IT IS A SIMPE MATTER OF SOME MORTALS BEING BETTER JUDGES THAN OTHERS. IT IS CLEARLY YOU AND ELLEN WHITE WHO ARE SETTING YOURSELVES UP AS JUDGES ON THE SABBATH ISSUE. PAUL, ON THE OTHER HAND, WARNED US ABOUT PEOPLE LIKE YOU IN COLOSSIANS 2;16 ‘LET NO MAN THEREFORE JUDGE YOU IN MEAT, OR IN DRINK, OR IN RESPECT OF AN HOLYDAY, OR OF THE NEW MOON OR OF THE SABBATH DAYS’ PAUL KNEW ABOUT THE SABBATH. HE STUDIED AT THE FEET OF GAMALIEL, A DOCTOR OF THE LAW AND AN EXPERT IN SABBATH ISSUES. PAUL WAS A PHARISEE, BUT AFTER BECOMING A FOLLOWER OF JESUS, HE REJECTED KEEPING THE SABBATH HOLY. WHY? IN GALATIANS 4, PAUL TEACHES THAT THE TWO SYSTEMS OF LAW AND GRACE CANNOT CO-EXIST, AND SAYS IN VERSE 30, ‘NEVERTHELESS WHAT SAITH THE SCRIPTURE? CAST OUT THE BONDWOMA AND HER SON; FOR THE SON OF THE BONDWMAN SHALL NOT BE HEIR WITH THE SON OF THE FREE-WOMAN. SO THEN, BRETHREN, WE ARE NOT CHILDREN OF THE BONDWOMAN BUT OF THE FREE.’ SO THEN, ARE YOU SAYING THAT SINCE PAUL KNEW THE TRUTH ABOUT THE SABBATH BUT SUBSEQUENTLY REJECTED IT, THAT HE CANNOT BE SAVED? FURTHERMORE, ARE YOU NOT GROSSLY CONTRADICTING YOURSELF ON MARTIN LUTHER’S ETERNAL DESTINY, WHERE YOU ADMITTED THAT HE KNEW THE TRUTH ABOUT THE DECALOGUE AND THE SABBATH AND YET REJECTED IT. YET, YOU MAINTAINED THAT HE WOULD BE SAVED!! FURTHERMORE, IN A PREVIOUS POST YOU STATED THAT ‘WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT MARTIN LUTHER WAS HONEST, SINCERE, AND GODLY–AND WILL BE SAVED.’ REALLY? NOBODY EVER TOLD ME THAT MARTIN LUTHER WAS GOING TO BE SAVED. ACCORDING TO ANOTHER STATEMENT OF YOURS, GOD WILL BE THE JUDGE. IF SO, DID GOD TELL YOU MARTIN LUTHER WAS GOING TO BE SAVED? WHO WAS IT THAT TOLD YOU MARTIN LUTHER WAS GOING TO BE SAVED? HE CLEARLY AND DELIBERATELY REFUSED TO KEEP THE SABBATH–JUST LIKE PAUL. DOES LUTHER GET A PASS TO HEAVEN WHILE PAUL DOES NOT?

    SO, WHEN YOU REFER TO THE ‘TRUTH ABOUT THE SABBATH’, WHAT EXACTLY ARE YOU REFERRING TO? WE KNOW HOW GOD COMMANDED THE SABBATH TO BE KEPT, AS IT IS CLEARLY RECORDED IN EXODUS AND DEUTERONOMY. WE KNOW THAT ELLEN WHITE CLEARLY TAUGHT THAT THE SABBATH SHOULD BE KEPT IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY. SO, THIS ‘SABBATH TRUTH’ OR PROPER SABBATH OBSERVANCE, IS NOT BEING FOLLOWED BY ANY ON EARTH, INCLUDING 19 MILLION SDA’S. YET, YOU INSIST THAT THOSE WHO DO NOT ACCEPT THIS SABBATH TRUTH WILL BE IN A STATE OF DELIBERATE REBELLION AND WILL NOT BE SAVED. IN SPITE OF EARNEST PLEADINGS THAT YOU SHARE HOW ONE MIGHT AVOID BEING IN THIS SORRY STATE, YOU STEADFASTLY REFUSE TO EXPLAIN HOW THE SABBATH IS TO BE KEPT AND HOW ONE CAN AVOID BEING A VIOLATOR OF THE SABBATH AND LOSE ETERNAL LIFE. YOUR CONTINUED REFUSAL TO SHARE THIS KNOWLEDGE IS IMPOSSIBLE TO EXPLAIN EXCEPT FOR 3 POSSIBILITIES; 1. YOU DO NOT KNOW. IF SO, YOU MIGHT CONSIDER YOURSELF TO BE IGNORANT, BUT GOD AND ELLEN WHITE HAVE CLEARLY TOLD YOU HOW THE SABBATH IS TO BE KEPT. WOULDN’T THAT PLACE YOU IN THE CATEGORY OF DELIBERATE REBELLION? 2 YOU DO NOT CARE HOW THE SABBATH IS TO BE KEPT. THAT ONE WOULD CLEARLY PLACE YOU IN THE CATEGORY OF DELIBERATE REBELLION. 3. YOU KNOW HOW THE SABBATH IS TO BE KEPT, BUT REFUSE TO SHARE YOUR SPECIAL SECRET KNOWLEDGE WITH ANYBODY ELSE LEST THEY SHOULD BE SAVED. IS NOT THIS POSITION TOTALLY CONTRARY TO THE COMMAND IN MATTHEW 28 THAT THE GOSPEL SHOULD BE SPREAD THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE WORLD?

    THIS ENTIRE DISCUSSION IS SOMEWHAT MEANINGLESS BECAUSE YOU STEADFASTLY REFUSE TO DEFINE HOW THE SABBATH IS TO BE KEPT AND HOW ONE MIGHT AVOID LOSING ETERNAL LIFE FOR NOT KEEPING IT PROPERLY. IN MEDICAL AND TECHNICAL JOURNALS, ONE OFTEN SEES DEFINITIONS OF TERMS IN ORDER TO FACILITATE TRANSMISSION OF THOUGHTS AND INFORMATION. LEGAL AND LEGISLATIVE DOCUMENTS ALSO CLEARLY DEFINE TERMS SO THAT EVERYBODY CAN UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES. IT IS A PITY THAT YOU REFUSE TO DEFINE WAS SABBATH TRUTH, SABBATH KEEPING AND SABBATH VIOLATION CONSISTS OF. IF YOU TRULY KNOW THE ANSWERS YET REFUSE TO SHARE THEM, ARE YOU NOT LIKE JONAH, THE RUNAWAY PROPHET? PERHAPS EVEN WORSE THAN JONAH, BECAUSE JONAH WAS TOLD TO GO SHARE A MESSAGE WITH PEOPLE HE THOUGHT WOULD NOT BE LIKELY TO LISTEN. YOU, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAVE PEOPLE PLEADING WITH YOU TO SHARE THIS SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE AND TRUTH THAT YOU HAVE, YET YOU REFUSE.

    IN ONE PARAGRAPH, YOU SAY THAT THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WRITINGS OF MRS. WHITE. THEN, IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH, YOU SAY THAT ‘ELLEN WHITE IS SIMPLY SAYING THAT THE ISSUE OF SABBATH OBSERVANCE WILL COME TO A HEAD JUST BEFORE THE FINAL DAYS OF EARTH’S HISTORY. WELL, THIS IS CLEARLY EXTRA-BIBLICAL REVELATION AND SHOULD BE PROMPTLY REJECTED. DO YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED ON THE FRIDAY EVENING OF PRESIDENT TRUMP’S INAUGURATION 3 MONTHS AGO? HIS SON-IN-LAW, JARED KUSHNER, AND ORTHODOX JEW, ALONG WITH HIS DAUGHTER, IVANKA, A CONVERTED ORTHODOX JEW, WERE TO ATTEND A BALL ON THAT FRIDAY EVENING–A DANCE AT THAT!! AS ORTHODOX JEWS, THEY STRICTLY OBSERVED THE SABBATH. DANCING ON THE SABBATH, FOR SOME REASON, WAS PERMISSIBLE, BUT ACCORDING TO THE SABBATH COMMANDMENT AS INTERPRETED BY THEM, RIDING IN A CAR FROM ONE LOCATION TO ANOTHER, WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE. SO, THEY OBTAINED SPECIAL DISPENSATION FROM THEIR RABBI TO BE ALLOWED TO RIDE IN A CAR ON THAT FRIDAY EVENING. THIS IS, OF COURSE, WHY THE JEWS DECIDED TO MURDER JESUS–BECAUSE HE VIOLATED THE SABBATH, WHICH MEANT HE WAS CLAIMING TO BE GOD, AS GOD WOULD BE THE ONLY ONE TO CHANGE THE SABBATH COMMANDMENT! SENATOR JOE LIEBERMAN IS ANOTHER ORTHODOX JEW WHO WILL CAST A VOTE IN THE SENATE ON SABBATH, BUT WILL NOT RIDE IN A CAR TO DO IT!! NOW THEN, THE POINT OF ALL THIS IS THAT WITH SUCH POWERFUL SABBATH PROPONENTS RUNNING THIS COUNTRY, HOW LIKELY DO YOU THINK LAWS WOULD BE PASSED THAT LIMIT SABBATH OBSERVANCE IN PREFERENCE TO SUNDAY WORSHIP? IT IS SIMPLY NEVER EVER GOING TO HAPPEN. PERIOD. I KNEW SDA MINISTERS A HALF CENTURY AGO WHO ACTUALLY TRIED TO GET ARRESTED FOR PURCHASING CERTAIN ITEMS ON SUNDAY IN STATES THAT HAD A FEW SUNDAY BLUE LAWS. THOSE LAWS HAVE SIMPLY VANISHED. A NATIONAL SUNDAY LAW, SHOULD IT BE PROPOSED TODAY, WOULD NEVER GO ANYWHERE. THE MARK OF THE BEAST WILL NEVER EVER BE ASSOCIATED WITH SABBATH OBSERVANCE.

    You maintain that “this is all based on the prophecies of the Bible itself The final conflict between good and evil will be over the commandments of God–regarding “times and laws”. ARE YOU SERIOUS? WHEN YOU QUOTE TIMES AND LAWS, YOU ARE REFERRING TO DANIEL 7 AND THE LITTLE HORN POWER. HOW IN THE WORLD DO YOU CONSTRUE TIMES AND LAWS BEING SABBATH AND COMMANDMENTS? DO YOU NOT HAVE ACCESS TO DICTIONARIES? TIMES AND LAWS ARE NOT DEFINED AS SABBATH AND COMMANDMENTS. WHILE I RECOGNIZE THAT DISPENSING WITH DICTIONARIES IS USEFUL WHEN OVER-ACTIVE IMAGINATIONS ARE BUSY PROMOTING NOVEL THEORIES, DICTIONARIES ARE ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL TO THE EXCHANGE OF THOUGHTS AND IDEAS.

    SO, MY PLEA TO YOU IS THAT YOU USE A GOOD DICTIONARY WHEN READING THE BIBLE AND PLEASE SHARE YOUR SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE ON HOW TO KEEP THE SABBATH AND AVOID BEING IN OPEN REBELLION AGAINST GOD. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE, DO YOU FOLLOW ELLEN WHITE’S DIRECTIVES ON HOW TO KEEP THE SABBATH, WHICH IS JUST LIKE GOD COMMANDED ON MT. SINAI? OR, DO YOU FOLLOW ELLEN WHITE’S MESSAGES SELECTIVELY?

      (Quote)




    1
    View Comment
    • I’m not sure why all the capital lettering? but anyway… I appreciate your thoughts. Obviously, however, I just don’t agree.

      Jesus could have said that the Sabbath was made for the Jews, but He didn’t do that. He specifically said that the Sabbath was made for “anthropos” (mankind), and followed up by explaining that He had personally created the day Himself and was the Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:27-28). Even Martin Luther wrote that the Sabbath had originally been created in Eden for Adam and Eve and that they taught their own children to observe the Sabbath – and that the Sabbath would have continued for eternity in this world if Adam and Eve had not fallen into sin. The Talmud also says the same thing regarding Sabbath observance before the time of Moses – as do many other well-known theologians (all detailed in my article above).

      Jesus also personally kept the Sabbath His entire life as God originally intended it to be kept. Even in death, He honored the Sabbath – as did His disciples. It is explained that they all rested on the Sabbath in “obedience to the commandment.” (Luke 23:56). Clearly then, no one believed that the Sabbath commandment had been “done away with” at the cross. And, as explained in detail in my article, when Jesus “broke” the Sabbath He wasn’t breaking the Law regarding Sabbath observance. The Jews themselves were well aware that the Sabbath law could be lawfully broken in certain situations – to include the relief of the suffering of man or beast. Jesus Himself pointed out that everything that He did on the Sabbath was in fact “lawful” according to God and even the Jews themselves (Matthew 12:12). Please read more about this in the article above…

      And, after Jesus was raised and went back to heaven, his followers continued to maintain the “custom” of worshiping on Sabbath – including Paul. It was his custom to worship on the Sabbath day. Yes, the Apostles were teaching people about Jesus, but they did this customarily on the Sabbath in particular with both Jews and gentiles. There simply is no mention in the Bible of the Apostles teaching that people should no longer observe one of the Ten Commandments. On the contrary, the entire moral Law was still held in high esteem and taught to the people as binding for the Christian. This is reflected in the fact that the early Christian Church continued to keep the Sabbath for many hundreds of years throughout the majority of Christendom.

      As far as “The Beast” “thinking to change times and laws”:
      How has the papacy tried to change God’s laws? In three different ways: In her catechisms she has (1) omitted the second commandment against veneration of images, and (2) shortened the fourth (Sabbath) commandment from 94 words to just eight. The Sabbath commandment (Exodus 20:8-11) clearly specifies Sabbath as the seventh day of the week. As changed by the papacy, the commandment reads: “Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day.” Written thus, it can refer to any day. And, finally, she (3) divided the tenth commandment into two commandments. How has the papacy attempted to change God’s times? In two ways: (1) She has changed the time of the Sabbath from the seventh day to the first day. (2) She has also changed God’s “timing” for the beginning and closing hours of the Sabbath. Instead of counting the Sabbath day from sundown Friday night to sundown Saturday night as God mandates (Leviticus 23:32), she adopted the pagan Roman custom of counting the day from midnight Saturday night to midnight Sunday night. God predicted these “changes” would be attempted by the beast, or Antichrist.

      “You will tell me that Saturday was the Jewish Sabbath, but that the Christian Sabbath has been changed to Sunday. Changed! but by whom? Who has authority to change an express commandment of Almighty God? When God has spoken and said, Thou shalt keep holy the seventh day, who shall dare to say, Nay, thou mayest work and do all manner of worldly business on the seventh day but thou shalt keep holy the first day in its stead? This is a most important question, which I know not how you can answer. You are a Protestant, and you profess to go by the Bible and the Bible only and yet in so important a matter as the observance of one day in seven as a holy day, you go against the plain letter of the Bible, and put another day in the place of that day which the Bible has commanded.

      The command to keep holy the seventh day is one of the ten commandments you believe that the other nine are still binding who gave you authority to tamper with the fourth? If you are consistent with your own principles, if you really follow the Bible and the Bible only, you ought to be able to produce some portion of the New Testament in which this fourth commandment is expressly altered.”

      Library of Christian Doctrine: Why Don’t You Keep Holy the Sabbath-Day? (London: Burns and Oates, Ltd.), pp. 3, 4.

      Now, as far as salvation is concerned, the Bible is quite clear that if a person knows and understands the will of God on a certain matter, yet rejects what God has made clear to that person and consistently resists the Holy Spirit, that person is in a state of deliberate rebellion against God. Such a person who continues in such a state of deliberate rebellion cannot be saved. I’m really not sure why you or anyone else would suggest otherwise? Remember, it’s not me who judges you. I don’t know what you honestly know and understand regarding the Sabbath. For all I know you are most likely honestly confused on this issue. And, if you are honestly confused, if you are not deliberately rebelling against something that you know is the truth or the desire of God, then you are in a saving relationship with God.

        (Quote)




      4
      View Comment
  17. To Wes I confess.

    Always observing, though not necessarily commenting.

    Dr. Pitman’s exegesis on matters a sundry on this site are manna for the secular palate as well. What is appalling is the internecine venom with which he is attacked. But he handles it like a trooper and continues to espouse the Royal Law of Love. Admirable.

    Regarding faith and the interpretation of scriptures it is very telling when individuals want to be absolutely right. To do so would be to understand the mystery of the ‘mind’ of a creator, force, First Cause, whatever dude. Humans use faith to give meaning to their existence as they cannot bear to be inconsequential. Legalism begets authoritarianism to control the collection plate. Then charismatics, most often men, EGW being a rare exception, schism off in a new direction and set themselves up as the new authority. Wes, who is indeed right when it comes to interpreting matters of faith? Something to ponder every seven days 🙂

      (Quote)




    0
    View Comment
    • @george: Ah my dear erstwhile cowpoke roaming the range where only is heard an agnostic word, now pontificating Socratic-questioning professor. Glad you came around – to the corral, if not yet to the, er, truth. While our indeed indomitable (If I reviewed all his activities you wouldn’t believe it) sheriff, Sean, seems to have attracted a couple of caviling caballeros (our cow-pasture operational metaphor would have them flies, swat the thought; I know one personally, a great and gifted friend), you and I seem naturally saddled up together, pards, lariats aswinging.

      To leave no stream unpanned, I submit, A., Alas, most of us, whether we’re Trump or the pope, cannot be other than, damnit, resoundingly right. But by the Holy Spirit, a seldom known resource, and on condition of humility, if possible even more seldom known, neither by built-in superiority nor superiority of education, a man may have wisdom and actually be right, beyond postmodernistic correctitude. This comes to mind, a concatenation, probably I’ll be paraphrasing it: “The fear of the Lord, that is wisdom,” in Me only is wisdom, and “I dwell in a high a holy place, and with him who is of a contrite and lowly spirit.” That God should dwell in a person who proclaims from his own stump, “here I stand I’m right! I can be no other!” is an oxymoron – it just can’t happen, Adventist or anybody. Adventists are – I still hold, I can do no other – right in much of their interpretation of the scripture while much of the world is wrong. But they are not right in the eyes of God – nothing else matters – until they start their sermons not with “I’m right! Hear ye me!” but with “May I have a drink of water?”

      B. You say “faith…to give meaning to their existence.” Faith? Meaning? Seems rioting or a pilgrimage to the latest movie requiring the suspension of disbelief and special effects, are more commonly believed to give meaning to life, virtual meaning which is close enough, as close as we want to get. Any closer and we would cry for the rocks and mountains to fall on us. Look, it isn’t just the having of faith that gives meaning, it’s what you have faith IN! And you know to whom I refer – it goes without saying. Backlit clouds and the hills are already saying it, singing it.

      C. Enchanting list of charismatics, but as soon as EGW pops into it, I’ve got to shout across the lowing herd, WHOA THAR! I rather agree, the lady must have been charismatic, an apt adjective. But technically and classifiably a noun, a Charismatic? Horsefeathers! Likewise, that she proclaimed herself the new authority, balderdash! She insisted, shouted, reiterated incessantly, and convincingly, that the Bible is the only authority, not she, never. I take her at her word – she’s no authority. Only as she is consonant with the Bible, the consummate authority, is she authoritative. Likewise Sean, me, the whole SDA evangelizing caboodle.
      d. “Something to ponder every 7 days.” Somehow I’m pondering as we speak – continually, almost continuously.

      Until we swing the doors open again, WK

        (Quote)




      1
      View Comment
  18. Sadly, we remain in utter confusion and darkness, much like the runaway prophet Jonah in the belly of the whale. Jonah refuses to come forth and share with us his special knowledge on the Sabbath truth. We still do not know what the “Sabbath truth” is, and we still do not know how to “keep the Sabbath” or why Jonah does not confirm that the Sabbath is to be kept just like God commanded on Mt. Sinai and as Ellen White directed it should be kept. Jonah and all other Sabbatarians ignore those commands and the people are eager and waiting to hear what change took place that no longer applies to these commandments. We also do not hear why Martin Luther, who understood the Sabbath and the Decalogue, yet ignored “keeping the Sabbath”, is destined to be saved, while Paul, who also understood and ignored the keeping of the Sabbath by teaching that Christians should not be judged on the Sabbath commandment, has an eternal destiny that is in jeopardy for being in “open rebellion against God”. We do not understand the difference. We also do not know who told Jonah “We’re told that Martin Luther will be saved”, as God is the only judge. Did God share something with Jonah that he is not relaying to everybody else, or did he get that information from another prophet or prophetess? Without proper definitions and explanations, how can God’s people know the truth and how to avoid being in “open rebellion against God”?

    Worse yet, you continue to distort and deform the Holy Scriptures. You continue to claim that Mark 2:27, 28 teaches that the Sabbath was made for “all mankind”, which is not at all true. Hopefully, the SDA Bible Commentary will dissuade you of that fallacy, as right after the Decalogue was given, it is clear that it was given only to the Israelites. In vol. I, page 608, we find the following: “Moses pacified the people with the calm assurance that they need have no fear. It was God’s purpose to impress indelibly upon their minds a concept of His majesty and power, as a restraint from sinning. The ISRAELITES were still dull in their comprehension of God, and consequently needed the discipline of fear until such a time as they were ready to be guided by the tender voice of love.” It is clear from the above that only the Israelites were being spoken to. The Egyptians were not there, neither were the Canaanites or any other pagans. The Sabbath commandment, however, did include the servants and strangers within the Jewish gates, as the Jews were not to expect others under their control to violate the Sabbath commandment.

    What Jesus was really trying to teach was in verse 28 where He clearly declares Himself Lord of the Sabbath, thus equal with God, and thus able to change the Sabbath.

    Nowhere does the Talmud teach that Sabbath observance began in the Garden of Eden, or at least I cannot find it. If it is there, I beg you to point it out, but you probably will not. The Torah is silent on the same issue. The Talmud does mention the Seven Laws of Noah, but these have nothing to do with Sabbath observance beginning in the Garden of Eden. The Medrash, however, claims that Abraham kept the Torah (Law), and thus probably the Sabbath. It claims that this occurred prior to the giving of the Law on Mt. Sinai, as Abraham somehow had access to this “body of wisdom”. The Medrash constitutes embellishments of the Torah, written roughly between 200 and 1200 AD by numerous rabbis. This was during a time AFTER the coming of Jesus, and certainly is of no value at all, as it in no way could constitute Scripture.

    You continue to claim that “Jesus personally kept the Sabbath” in spite of John 5:18 clearly saying that He broke the Sabbath. You claim that the disciples kept the Sabbath in spite of Luke 6 describing how the disciples broke the Sabbath by plucking ears of corn. Jesus’ response was again in verse 5, “The Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath”, indicating He was equal to God and able to change the Sabbath commandment. Thus, the Holy Scriptures clearly state that Jesus broke the Sabbath and allowed His disciples to do the same because He was Lord of the Sabbath and much greater than the Sabbath.

    The women who were to prepare Jesus’ body for burial did NOT understand why Jesus died, just like those disciples on the road to Emmaus on Sunday. Yes, they kept the Sabbath as per the commandment. It did indeed take some time for the early Christians to understand that Jesus kept the Law for them and released them from its obligations.

    Contrary to your assertion, the early Christians and disciples met on Sunday and observed communion. You claimed that Paul’s custom was to “worship on Sabbath”. No, he only went to the synagogue to reach the Jews. He taught very clearly in Colossians 2:16 that we are no longer to keep the Sabbath or be judged about Sabbath keeping. Your claim that “There simply is no mention in the Bible of the Apostles teaching that people should no longer observe one of the Ten Commandments” is thus entirely false.

    As for the Roman Catholic Church claiming to have changed Sabbath observance to Sunday observance, the reality is this: The Roman Catholic Church claims apostolic succession. In other words, it claims to have its origin with Peter, then down through the early patristics (church fathers) and on down to the popes, etc. While this is an extravagant claim, they thus trace the fact that the early Christians met on Sunday to be a change that was made by the Early Christians! Well, the truth of the matter is that the early Christians did indeed meet on Sunday, but there is no record of them “keeping Sunday” as a holy day by transferring the 4th commandment to “Sunday keeping” The fact that they “met and had communion on Sunday” does not indicate they “kept it” as the Jews kept the Sabbath. There is NO Biblical command for this, there is no evidence that such occurred in the early church. Furthermore, I am not aware of any Christians even today who observe Sunday in that fashion. They could meet on any day of the week, but that would not constitute keeping such a day holy.

    Now then, since you are utterly silent on how God-fearing Christians today can and should “keep the Sabbath truth” in order to avoid being in rebellion against God, I shall share with you some Biblical facts about the 2 resurrections. I trust and hope that you are not like the Sadducees, who did not believe in the resurrection. There are only 2 resurrections. The first one is NOT marked by any judgment whatsoever. Jesus promised in John 3 that whoever believes in Him will NOT be condemned (judged). This is emphasized by I Thessalonians chapter 4 which refers to saints being raised from the grave WITHOUT any judgment, and those alive will be caught up with them. This is further confirmed in Revelation 20:6 “Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.” They bypass judgment by believing in Jesus as their Savior and by accepting the wedding garment that is freely given. They are NOT using their own garment. Jesus is the ONLY one who can serve as the spotless lamb.

    The 2nd resurrection, on the other hand, is marked by a judgment, and a description of those marked for the 2nd judgment is given in Revelation 20:13-15 “And the sea gave up the dead which were in it: and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them; and they were JUDGED EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO THEIR WORKS. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.” Thus, this second death is permanent, and nobody going through this judgment will escape. These are those who did not accept the invitation to the wedding feast and did not accept Jesus’ wedding garment. Remember the poor chap who tried to get in without the wedding garment? He was cast out into darkness and where there is gnashing of teeth. Those who pretend to keep the Sabbath but are indeed violating any small aspect of it will not be perfect and will not be acceptable, and will be judged by their own works.

    So, there are two choices: 1. Accept Jesus’ perfection to cover us in our sinful condition. 2. Try to be “perfect” on our own and keep the Decalogue on our own, including the Sabbath and all 613 commandments. This is impossible, as Paul and others have repeatedly pointed out. Those who wrongly believe they can earn their own salvation will end up in judgment and be condemned to the lake of fire. I shudder to think of the words of Ellen White, where she describes mere mortals as “co-workers” with Jesus in our salvation. Absolutely not. I am a mere mortal and utterly without hope except for trusting in Jesus, who was the spotless Lamb who died IN MY PLACE. Ellen White also taught that we must be perfect, just like the Pelagian Heresy which taught that Jesus came to show us how to live a sinless life rather than to die in our place! Well, we cannot live a sinless life, even though Ellen White clearly said that there would be a period of time before Jesus returns where He will no longer be serving as our High Priest, and we MUST BE SINLESS!! What? She further taught that we should NEVER say that we are saved! What? Jesus clearly promised our salvation solely by believing in Him, yet countless SDA’s are unsure of their salvation because they don’t know if they are perfect enough! Of course they’re not perfect enough, and they NEVER NEVER will be. Anybody and everybody with the slightest imperfection will be destined to go through judgment.

    So, in the final analysis, you were on the right track by initially claiming that keeping the Sabbath never saved anybody. I was so happy to hear that and commended you for it. Yet, you completely reversed yourself, and now nobody knows where you really are because you will not say. Actually, you were a little bit wrong, because between Mt. Sinai and Jesus’ death there were a lot of people saved by keeping the Sabbath. It carried the death penalty, remember? If I had lived during that time period, I would have kept the Sabbath to the exactness that God required, and would have lived, as He promised. On the other hand, had I violated it, it would have voided eternal life and possibly temporal life as well.

    Jesus and Paul confirmed all other 9 commandments in one form or another, but NOT the Sabbath commandment, as Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath. He clearly said that not one jot or tittle of the Law would be changed until all was fulfilled, thus indicating that there would be a change! When He uttered those words on the cross, “IT IS FINISHED”, He kept the Law for us, and we are released from its impossible requirement simply because we accept Him as Son of God, Redeemer, the Spotless Lamb who fulfilled God’s requirement of perfectionism. This is something we could never do on our own. It is a free gift, and, quite frankly, I do not understand why everybody does not avail themselves of this free gift.

    Does the Law still stand? How do you think those going through the judgment are going to be judged? We know they are going to be judged by their works, but what are the Law Books to be used in judging those poor souls? I cannot believe that there is any other body of Law that God will use other than the Torah. If you have any other idea, please share it. So, that entire body of Law, including the Decalogue, must be what God intends to use to judge all those after the millennium. Those who accepted Christ’s perfection, however, will escape that judgment as they will have reigned with Christ 1,000 years and the 2nd death has no power over them. Sadly, this group will NOT include those who are “co-workers” for their own salvation, or those who are trying to get in with their own garments by “keeping the Sabbath”, or pretending to do so. Remember, those who are trying to get through on their merits must be ABSOLUTELY PERFECT. No exceptions.

    There are many, many people who have pretended to be perfect . Adam Weisshaupt, the founder of the Illuminati, claimed his group to be “Perfectibilists”. John Humphrey Noyes, the founder of a Utopian Society known as the Oneida Community, claimed the title of “Perfectionists” for himself and his followers. They shared everything, including spouses! Oh, yes, then there were the Albigenses (synonymous with the Cathars), who claimed that after receiving the consolamentum, they became “parfaits”, or perfect ones! These were dualists who actually claimed that Satan created the world. Amazingly, Ellen White mentioned them twice in her landmark book The Great Controversy, actually claimed they were true Christians!! I would challenge you to study them and let me know what part of their beliefs was truly Christian. It would seem that denying that God created the world as is clearly stated in Genesis would IMMEDIATELY disqualify them. Nevertheless, Ellen White herself clearly taught perfectionism, and I can guarantee you that if I should awaken and find myself in that judgment, I know I am not perfect and will never pass, and my most expedient course of action should be to lay down and accept the punishment. I know, however, that I will not be in that category, because I fully trust in Jesus for having covered my imperfection, do not and have never been in open rebellion against God, and will forever trust in Him and the mercy He has shown me in offering me a way out of my hopeless condition.

    So, my prayer for you and all Adventists is that you also will do what you must do to avoid that judgment

      (Quote)




    1
    View Comment
    • Sabbath observance isn’t complicated or mysterious. The Sabbath was and is intended by God to be a special day, every week, free of secular activities and pursuits that is entirely devoted to spending time with and thinking about Him as the creator and redeemer – and doing the works of God which include relieving the suffering of fellow human beings and even animals. That’s what it means to “keep” the Sabbath day holy to God as a day of rest from one’s own secular activities and a way to recharge one’s spiritual batteries.

      As far as your repeated argument that the Sabbath was only made for the Jews, I’ve already covered this in some detail. As already mentioned, not even Martin Luther believed that – arguing that the Sabbath was in fact made in Eden in memorial of creation as cited in the 4th commandment itself and as expressed by Jesus when He said that the Sabbath had been made for mankind (anthropos). Even the Eastern Orthodox Churches continue to recognize the 7th-day Sabbath as a holy day (Link) – that none of the Ten Commandments were done away with at the cross…

      Your argument that Jesus was, in fact, trying to “change the Sabbath” simply isn’t true. Jesus never said that He was trying to either change or do away with the Sabbath. On the contrary, Jesus perfectly kept the Sabbath as God originally intended for it to be kept – and as the Jews themselves had in their own law. As Jesus carefully explained, everything that He did on the Sabbath had always been “lawful” for everyone to do on the Sabbath – according to Jewish law. As “Lord of the Sabbath” Jesus was simply stating that He had personally created the day to be a blessing for everyone – not the curse and burden that the Jews of His day had made of it. Yet, you keep arguing that Jesus “broke the Sabbath” in an effort to change it. Of course Jesus broke the Sabbath – but not in an effort to change it. You continue to ignore Jesus’ own claim that He broke the Sabbath “lawfully” – according to the understanding of the Jews themselves. He broke the Sabbath as anyone else could break it – lawfully. Do you really not understand that it is and always has been “lawful” to do good on the Sabbath? – to save life and relieve suffering rather than to kill or allow suffering to continue on the Sabbath day? That’s always been a valid reason, before God, to “break” the Sabbath – since the Royal Law of Love, the fundamental basis of all law, always trumps everything else. Jesus explained this in detail if you care to read what He actually said. This does not therefore mean that the Sabbath can be “lawfully” broken for any reason whatsoever. It can only “lawfully” be broken for very specific reasons, according to the Royal Law, as Jesus repeatedly explained and as the Jews themselves understood.

      As far as the Talmud, it teaches that Abraham kept the entire Torah before it was given to the Jewish People at Sinai. The Midrash says that Isaac kept the laws of shchitah (kosher slaughtering), and Jacob kept the laws of Shabbat – before the giving of Torah at Sinai. In other words, essentially all of the patriarchs were keeping the Torah before Moses came along – according to Jewish literature anyway.

      Of course, the “Talmud” itself was written after Christ and is not recognized as canonical by Christians – or even some modern Jews for that matter. Yet, the Talmud is still of historical interest when it comes to Jewish thinking and understanding of the Torah.

      The older compilation of the Talmud is called the Jerusalem Talmud or the Talmud Yerushalmi. It was compiled in the 4th century AD in Galilee. The Babylonian Talmud was compiled about the year 500 AD, although it continued to be edited later. The word “Talmud”, when used without qualification, usually refers to the Babylonian Talmud. While the editors of Jerusalem Talmud and Babylonian Talmud each mention the other community, most scholars believe these documents were written independently. In any case, it is the Talmud, not just the Medrash, that argues that Abraham kept the entire Torah:

      Yoma 28b Rab said: Our father Abraham kept the whole Torah, as it is said: Because that Abraham hearkened to My voice [kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws]…

      Raba or R. Ashi said: Abraham, our father, kept even the law concerning the ‘erub of the dishes,’ as it is said: ‘My Torahs’: one being the written Torah, the other the oral Torah.

      http://juchre.org/talmud/yoma/yoma2.htm#28b

      Of course, you argue that the Medrash “is of no value at all” – which would seem to be the case for the Talmud as well? Again, however, the value of the Talmud (and the Medrash) is in understanding the view of the Jews themselves regarding the origin of the Torah. Philo also, who lived during the time of Jesus, wrote that the Sabbath was created for all of mankind, not just the Jews, in memorial of creation. Clearly, then, this was the common understanding of the Jews themselves – particularly during and after the time of Christ.

      You also continue to cite the argument that, “Jesus kept the law to release us from its obligations” and that this concept took a while for the early Christian Church to understand. Of course, what you really mean to say is that Jesus only released us from just one of the obligations of the moral law – just one. The only law you have a problem with in the Decalogue is the Sabbath – the only one that says to “remember.” You cite Colossians 2:16 in support of this conclusion of yours – without addressing the counterarguments I’ve presented regarding Colossians 2:16 (that Paul is speaking about ceremonial Sabbaths and ceremonial observations of the Sabbath which are a “shadow” of things to come). Paul was by no means trying to set aside any of the Ten Commandments, much less the weekly Sabbath Commandment, since these commandments are not “shadows” of a future event, but are eternal in nature – set in place from the very foundations of creation. The weekly Sabbath, in particular, is a memorial of a past event – the creation week. It cannot then be rationally said to be a “shadow of things to come.” Those ceremonial laws and temple services and animal sacrifices that foreshadowed the coming of Christ, His life, and His death, are clearly what Paul is talking about here.

      Still, you claim, with seeming sincerity, that the earliest Christians met on Sunday and observed communion (as opposed to Sabbath), but this was a rarity for the early church recorded in the Bible. The vast majority of worship services mentioned in Acts, dozens and dozens of them, took place on Sabbath – as always. On one occasion when a Sunday service is recorded (Acts 20:7), this event took place on Saturday night and lasted late into the night, till midnight, because Paul had to leave town the next morning (Sunday morning). This was the last time many would get to personally see and hear Paul. So, of course there was a late evening meeting after the Sabbath. The rest of the time, of course, it was Paul’s regular “custom” to worship with fellow believers (both Jews as well as gentiles) on the Sabbath. And, as I’ve clearly shown in my article above, Sabbath observance, along with eventual Sunday observance, continued on for most of the early Christian Church for hundreds and hundreds of years. That would not have happened if the Apostles of Jesus had taught their followers that the Sabbath commandment of the Decalogue was no longer binding…

      As far as Sunday observance, of course, I agree with you that there is absolutely no biblical mandate in this regard. However, it is a historical fact that the Catholic Church did in fact create such a mandate on their own – outside of any biblical mandate.

      As far as your argument of a resurrection “without any judgment”, you can’t be a “saint” without some kind of judgment being made in your favor – since judgment “begins with the house of God” (1 Peter 4:17). Judgment is not always negative. As the Bible points out, “judgment is given in favor of the saints.” (Daniel 7:22). Of course, no one will be negatively judged, or “condemned” who claims Jesus as their savior and takes on the robe of Christ’s righteousness. Anyone who does this receives a positive judgment and will be saved. Of course, those who reject Jesus and who refuse to obey His commands and who not will accept the grace offered to them by God, will be negatively judged and will experience the deeds of their own hands back upon their own heads – followed by the second eternal death.

      Remember now that I’m not suggesting that one keeps any of the commandments of the Decalogue in order to earn one’s own salvation. Salvation is a gift of God that is entirely undeserved and that cannot be earned. It is a free gift that must simply be accepted in order for salvation to be realized. Keeping the Sabbath never saved anyone – as I’ve previously mentioned. Never committing adultery doesn’t save anyone either – or avoiding murder. The Law cannot save you. Only Jesus can save you. However, once you realize that you are saved and that God does love you and wants the best for you, the grateful Christian will naturally want to keep God’s Laws and Commandments – and will receive Divine Power to actually do so. Keeping the Law is only “impossible” by human effort – and that includes all of the Ten Commandments (not just the Sabbath). It simply isn’t possible to actually keep the Royal Law through human effort alone. One cannot self-generate true disinterested love for one’s neighbor. That’s simply beyond human capabilities. However, it is not by any means impossible to keep the Royal Law, along with all of the Ten Commandments, through Divine Power – as Jesus kept the Law. This Power is offered as a free gift to us if we will only accept it.

      The fact is that we are “co-workers” with Jesus in our own salvation – despite your argument to the contrary. Our job, as free moral agents, is to simply accept what Jesus did for us and open the door when we hear Him knocking on listen to that “still small voice” speaking to us. Jesus already did the heavy lifting. Yet, we have a part to play in our own salvation. We can either accept or reject the gift that is freely offered to us – and that is our part to play. Of course, in accepting the gift of salvation, the honest Christian will in fact strive to keep all of the commandments of God through His grace and Power.

      As far as “perfection” is concerned, it wasn’t Ellen White, it was Jesus who said, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48). Jesus wouldn’t have said this if it wasn’t possible for us to be “perfect” (for where we are in our walk with God) if it was in fact “impossible” like you seem to be suggesting. It is only impossible, you see, with our own independent efforts. However, if we let God into our lives, we no longer have to live in sin. It’s a promise and a gift of God that He will Himself give us the ability to break free from our rebellion against the Royal Law and enable us to actually love our neighbors as ourselves and to actually keep all of the commandments of God.

      As far as your claims regarding the teachings of Mrs. White on perfection and salvation, you are simply misreading Mrs. White here. While she recognized the fact that a free moral agent is always free to reject a gift that was once accepted (she didn’t believe in the doctrine of “once saved always saved”), she did teach that the Christian is able to have a “present assurance” of salvation. In this line, she specifically said that we should never say, “I don’t know whether I shall be saved or not.”

      No one can make himself better, but we are to come to Jesus as we are, earnestly desiring to be cleansed from every spot and stain of sin, and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. We are not to doubt his mercy, and say, ‘I do not know whether I shall be saved or not.’ By living faith we must lay hold of his promise, for he has said, ‘Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow, though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool’ (ST, April 4, 1892, par. 3).

      “The message from God to me for you is ‘Him that cometh unto me, I will in no wise cast out’ (John 6:37). If you have nothing else to plead before God but this one promise from your Lord and Saviour, you have the assurance that you will never, never be turned away. It may seem to you that you are hanging upon a single promise, but appropriate that one promise and it will open to you the whole treasure house of the riches of the grace of Christ. Cling to that promise and you are safe. ‘Him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out.’ Present this assurance to Jesus, and you are as safe as though inside the city of God” (10MR 175.1).

      Look not to self, but to Christ. He who healed the sick and cast out demons when He walked among men is the same mighty Redeemer today. Faith comes by the word of God. Then grasp His promise, ‘Him that cometh to Me I will in no wise cast out.’ John 6:37. Cast yourself at His feet with the cry, ‘Lord, I believe; help Thou mine unbelief.’ You can never perish while you do this–never” (DA 429.1).

      Note that it is a present assurance that is open to the Christian. As long as you depend on Him in active faith, you have the assurance of His acceptance (virtually the same promise found in John 6:37).

      Your claim that there were those saved by keeping the letter of the Law “between Sinai and Jesus’ death” is also mistaken. Those people could only receive eternal life as we can receive it – through the unmerited grace of God alone which was made possible by the promise of the sacrifice of Jesus on their behalf. Without the fulfilment of that promise, without the actual cross of Christ, no one could have been saved – period. Everyone’s salvation is and was always dependent upon what Jesus did for everyone on that cross. No one will end up in heaven and say, “I earned this myself because I kept the Law.” No one has ever kept the Law without God’s help… which is how Jesus Himself kept the Law.

        (Quote)




      4
      View Comment
      • Like many SDA scholars you are a good defender of the bible Sabbath but woefully ignorant of the bible definition of sin. Thus, along with the church, you cripple yourself in defining and defending the full meaning of the Sabbath in its broad application and value to humanity. And for this reason, the SDA church will never be instrumental in the last application of the law and gospel after the close of probation. Without a full explanation and application of the Sabbath truth, it is a subtle legalism that better scholars can easily see who understand the doctrine of original sin that the SDA church refuses to acknowledge and deal with. To limit sin to what a person knows is actually inane and childish. But, like other “conservative” forums, you limit discussion to suit your own agenda which is faulty at best and blatant heresy at worst.

        To be born outside Christ makes a person a sinner whether the know it or not. The law first comes to reveal this fact that we are born sinners. And as Paul said, “I had not known sin, except the law said, ‘Thou shalt not covet.'”

        Thus he did not know he was a sinner until the law revealed this fact. The law did not make him a sinner. It only revealed that he already was and now he knows it. To claim he did not become a sinner until he knew he was a sinner is so bogus that no rational understanding of the bible would ever defend this false idea. Yet you cling to it like a drowning man to a straw.

        If it was only you, it would not be so pathetic in the SDA community. But you sadly represent a large group of influencial leaders and scholars who are deceiving many who agree with your faulty theology. I realize you own the forum, so you will only post what suits yourself. None the less, I will assume you will at least read this comment, even if you won’t post it. You have no viable bible or EGW defense for what you believe and teach on this subject of sin.

          (Quote)




        0
        View Comment
        • How have I “limited discussion”? I’ve just pointed out to you that we’ve repeated the very same discussion now quite a few times – often having nothing to do with the topic at hand. I see no need to repeat it yet again when the main topic at hand is “The 7th-day Sabbath”. But, since you asked, I’ll respond once more regarding your off-topic fixation on “original sin”:

          You continually confuse an inherited propensity for sin with actual sin. They aren’t the same thing. After all, Jesus Himself inherited true human nature after thousands of years of degenerative effects with all of our inherited human propensities for sin. He was made just like us, like me and you, “in every way”. Yet He was without sin… as we can be through Divine power. This is what gives us solid confidence that someone who has a fallen nature can still live a sinless life through the power of God. Otherwise, if He was not made just like me with all of the natural tendencies and propensities that I have inherited, if He didn’t really overcome what I have to overcome, then I have no hope. Fortunately though, the Bible clearly backs up the fact that Jesus did in fact succeed from where I am – which gives me solid confidence that God is able to give me victory in the same way that Jesus gained His victory:

          In the fullness of time: “The SON of man is come to save that which was lost” (Matthew 18:11). “Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Matthew 1:1), “the Word was made flesh” (John 1:14), was “made of a woman” (Galatians 4:4). He was “of the seed of David according to the flesh” (Romans 1:3), “but he took on him the seed of Abraham” (Hebrews 2:16). He also “took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men . . . in fashion as a man” (Philippians 2:7, 8), “in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Romans 8:3); thus, “God was manifest in the flesh” (1 Timothy 3:16). What kind of flesh? Taken simply and as it reads, the Bible gives a clear, unequivocal answer:

          Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver them…for verily He took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren . . . For in that he himself has suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted. (Hebrews 2:14-18)

          “He would take man’s fallen nature and engage to cope with the strong foe who triumphed over Adam. He would overcome Satan, and in thus doing He would open the way for the redemption of those who would believe on Him from the disgrace of Adam’s failure and fall.”

          Ellen White, (1874), Review & Herald, Feb. 24 (Link)

          If Jesus took on the human nature that I was born with, then your concept of “original sin” cannot be valid. Jesus lived a sinless life – even though He was born as I was born with the same nature and the same natural tendencies that I was born with. If I connect myself to the Holy Spirit like He did, I too can be victorious over my natural tendencies toward evil…

            (Quote)




          3
          View Comment
      • @Sean Pitman: Sean, Ken will never see what is right in front of him, until he takes off his blinders and opens himself up to the whole Bible. He sounds like a NT believer only! You have explained it so well and in such great detail that a child could understand it. How can anyone think that of the 10 commandments, only 9 are relevant to us today. Ken needs to read the back of the book (Revelation 22:14). It says “Blessed are those who DO His commandments” will be in heaven. I assume He is speaking of all 10, since there is no where in scripture that says Jesus did away with any of them! Thanks for such a wonderful article! You are spot on.

          (Quote)




        2
        View Comment
  19. “If Jesus took on the human nature that I was born with, then your concept of “original sin” cannot be valid. Jesus lived a sinless life – even though He was born as I was born with the same nature and the same natural tendencies that I was born with. If I connect myself to the Holy Spirit like He did, I too can be victorious over my natural tendencies toward evil…”

    You miss the whole point, Sean. Jesus has our same physical nature, but not our same spiritual nature. and you said, “If I connect myself to the Holy Spirit like He did….” and this shows your misunderstanding. Jesus did not “connect Himself” to anything. He was born of the Holy Spirit which gave Him a sinless nature by birth. Jesus was never “born again” after the incarnation. But we must be “born again” a fact that did not apply to Jesus.

    Jesus did not come to show how a fallen sinful person who has not experience the new birth could keep the law of God. He came to show if we were “born again” like He was in the incarnation, then we could obey the law of God. There are several factors that make Jesus unique. One is He never needed to be “born again.” So one fact is this, He was affected by sin without being infected with sin. We are both affected by sin and infected with sin.

    He had no propensities to sin. “Be careful, exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of Christ. Do not set Him before the people as a man with the propensities of sin. He is the second Adam. The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him; he was in the image of God. He could fall, and he did fall through transgressing. Because of sin his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. He was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden.—The S.D.A. Bible Commentary 5:1128.

    She understood the parallel and contrast that many seem not to comprehend. His conflict with His inherent divinity was a parallel to our inherent sinfulness. As a man, He must remain yielded to His Father’s will to be our example. So He could not use His inherent divinity to free Himself from the temptations of the devil. The devil understood the issue and tempted Him to turn stones into bread. When was the last time you was tempted to turn stones into bread? Basically, we know better than that. But we are tempted as humans to go into a store and steal bread when we are hungry. It is the same principle but from a different perspective. EGW affirms this…..

    “It was a difficult task for the Prince of life to carry out the plan which He had undertaken for the salvation of man, in clothing His divinity with humanity. He had received honor in the heavenly courts, and was familiar with absolute power. It was as difficult for Him to keep the level of humanity as for men to rise above the low level of their depraved natures, and be partakers of the divine nature.
    Christ was put to the closest test, requiring the strength of all His faculties to resist the inclination when in danger, to use His power to deliver Himself from peril, and triumph over the power of the prince of darkness. Satan showed his knowledge of the weak points of the human heart, and put forth his utmost power to take advantage of the weakness of the humanity which Christ had assumed in order to overcome his temptations on man’s account (The Review and Herald, April 1, 1875).

    If we try to make a perfect parallel like you and others do, we either make Jesus a sinner like us, or we try to defend the idea that we are not born sinners and limit sin to something far less than the reality. The SDA church has stumbled and floundered on this issue for decades and have never resolved what the bible really teaches on this subject of sin and the full scope of the atonement that goes beyond willful disobedience.

    Simply put, Jesus was not born a sinner, but we are. Only as we are “born again” spiritually can we view Jesus as our example of how to deal with sin on every level. The Father “imputed” sin to Jesus. But He was not sinful like we are.

      (Quote)




    0
    View Comment
    • I simply don’t agree with you. As far as I can tell, Jesus was made like us in “every way” – not just physically like you claim (Hebrews 2:17). He didn’t just look like a human being; He was a human being – fully human in every way and born with the same propensities that I was born with. After all, if He wasn’t completely human, beyond just the physical appearance, He could not have been tempted by Satan to sin – since God cannot even be tempted by evil (James 1:13). Therefore, Jesus had to have been completely human just to be tempted like we are tempted. Beyond this, He didn’t come in Adam’s original condition, but came as a “son of David” and a “son of Abraham” – taking on humanity in it’s fallen state in order to save us in our fallen state. We therefore have no excuse since Jesus condemned and rejected sin from our position with our natural inherited tendencies and inclinations.

      “It was in the order of God that Christ should take upon himself the form and nature of fallen man, that he might be made perfect through suffering, and himself endure the strength of Satan’s fierce temptations, that he might understand how to succor those who should be tempted.” (EGW, RH December 31, 1872)

      “He would take man’s fallen nature and engage to cope with the strong foe who triumphed over Adam. He would overcome Satan, and in thus doing he would open the way for the redemption of those who would believe on him from the disgrace of Adam’s failure and fall.” (EGW, RH, February 24, 1874)

      He had to overcome just like I have to overcome. He simply had no advantage over me or He could not be my example in all things. Being “born again” doesn’t suddenly remove one’s naturally inherited tendencies or “propensities” in this life. It just gives one power to resist them – as Jesus did.

      It might help to consider the difference between “evil propensities” and “natural propensities”. The distinction may be subtle, but is important.

      “Evil propensities are those leanings toward sin that have been cultivated and strengthened by indulgence in sin. Natural propensities are those leanings that have been inherited. Guilt is involved in one, but not the other. It is not sinful unless one yields to the propensity. (Ministry , December, 1985, pp. 26-27)

      So, Jesus did have an advantage that I don’t have. He knew that He had never sinned, whereas I know that I have deliberately sinned. While Jesus was born as I was born, with the same types of natural propensities, it was an advantage for Him to know that He had never sinned. Yet, being “born again” gives this advantage to me as well… by faith.

      I want to emphasize again, however, that Jesus was born with the same natural desires that I was born with. Otherwise, He could not have been tempted as I am tempted. Just because He was tempted to do things that I cannot do (like turn stones into bread), doesn’t mean that the temptation to go outside of God’s will wasn’t the same as it is for me.

      “The Son of God in His humanity wrestled with the very same fierce, apparently overwhelming temptations that assail man–temptations to indulgence of appetite, to presumptuous venturing where God has not led them, and to the worship of the god of this world, to sacrifice an eternity of bliss for the fascinating pleasures of this life.” ( Selected Messages , vol. 1, p. 95)

      Are we not drawn to these things by our own desires? What makes them fierce and overwhelming is our desire for them, and here we are clearly told that Christ had the same temptations.

      “He knows how strong are the inclinations of the natural heart.” ( Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 177) Just how does He know this? “He knows by experience…where lies the strength of our temptations.” ( Ministry of Healing , p. 71)

      Without question, Jesus has personally experienced the strength of the inclinations of the natural human heart.

      He who took humanity upon Himself knows just how to sympathize with the sufferings of humanity. He had the same nature as the sinner although He knew no sin, in order that He might be able to condemn sin in the flesh and might be able to sympathize with those who were in the difficulties, dangers, and temptations that beset His own path while He walked with men. (EGW, Manuscript Releases, vol. 10, p. 176)

      The difference between Christ and us is not in His being exempt from our inherited natural inclinations to sin. The difference is that He did not cherish these inclinations and incorporate them into His character as we do. The temptations of the natural human heart, mine and yours, were as strong for Christ as they are for us. And, if Christ had no natural inclinations to sin, He could not be tempted like we are tempted – and one of the major links of Christ with the fallen human race would be removed and He would no longer be our true representative or example.

        (Quote)




      3
      View Comment
      • “The difference between Christ and us is not in His being exempt from our inherited natural inclinations to sin. The difference is that He did not cherish these inclinations and incorporate them into His character as we do. The temptations of the natural human heart, mine and yours, were as strong for Christ as they are for us. And, if Christ had no natural inclinations to sin, He could not be tempted like we are tempted – and one of the major links of Christ with the fallen human race would be removed and He would no longer be our true representative or example.” – Sean Pitman

        Well then, Jesus isn’t God after all. He is just another sinful man who is “filled with the Spirit” who came to show us that if we will follow His example, we can be sinless just like Him.

        I reject this false doctrine you and others have formulated that denies the divinity of Christ and the implications of His divinity being united to His humanity. According to you, He is just another sinful man and all the statement of EGW are out the window when she states He had no sinful inclinations or propensities. And when she states that His temptations were based on His divinity and not His sinfulness, we can ignore these comments as bogus and accept the human speculation you and others have formulated so we can be “sinless” without being “in Christ”.

        Now we can join the Muslims who agree with your evaluation that Jesus is not God, but just another “prophet” who has matured to a higher level of victory over sin and is our “perfect example” but does not qualify to be our Savior who merited eternal life for us. We must become “sinless” and merit heaven for ourselves just as Jesus showed us how to do.

        Sarcasm may not be commendable in every situation, but in this case, it is so obvious that you and others are so far outside the bible and even EGW it may deserve a degree of “scorn, ridicule and contempt”. It reminds me of the words of Jesus when He was challenged about His healing power and accused of working miracles by the power of Satan. He said this.

        “If I work miracles by the power of Satan, by what power do you and your children work miracles?”

        He went on the equate their challenge and unbelief to the unpardonable sin. Matt. 12

        So I would say from that perspective, if you keep advancing a theory that denies the divinity of Christ and relegates it to some non-factor in His temptations while He was “in the flesh” you are on the road to the same end. Of course it explains how we can all be “sinless just like Jesus” if we simply stop sinning and keep the law of God.

        You chide those who use bogus arguments to abandon the Sabbath and advocate Sunday. Then use bogus arguments yourself to defend your own bogus theology about the nature of Christ. They call that, “the pot calling the kettle black.”

        I hope you post this comment so others may be challenged in their own understanding of bible truth about sin and the atonement. But, if not, hopefully you will at least read it yourself.

        I wish you the best in your ministry, Dr. Pittman. But like many SDA’s who think they will “straighten out the world” about bible teaching, you are woefully outside the truth of sin and atonement with a faulty view of Christ and His work in His incarnation. And as I stated, you simply reflect the false doctrine of more than a few who think they will “save the church from apostasy” and defend the historic SDA faith and only magnify the obvious reality that Adventism has always been a novice movement that never matured to what God intended in the beginning.

        We look more and more like the Jews who attack Jesus and His teaching when He come to reveal the principles of His Father’s kingdom. The final outcome for them is the final outcome for the SDA church unless there is some real repentance from the top down. If not, God will yet create a small community of true bible believers out of the SDA church, just as Jesus did by way of His disciples after His death and resurrection. The fact is, it don’t look good by the present evidence, but only God knows what will transpire in the ongoing future.
        Bill Sorensen

        (Quote)

          (Quote)




        0
        View Comment
        • You wrote:

          “Well then, Jesus isn’t God after all. He is just another sinful man who is ‘filled with the Spirit’ who came to show us that if we will follow His example, we can be sinless just like Him.”

          Jesus was fully God and fully human. “Christ had two natures, the nature of a man and the nature of God. In Him divinity and humanity were combined.” (EGW, Ms94, July 18, 1899, par. 47). He just didn’t use His own Divinity on His own behalf while He was here. “The divine nature… was not humanized; neither was humanity deified by the blending or union of the two natures; each retained its essential character and properties.” (16MR 182.1).

          “But although Christ’s divine glory was for a time veiled and eclipsed by His assuming humanity, yet He did not cease to be God when He became man. The human did not take the place of the divine, nor the divine of the human. This is the mystery of godliness. The two expressions human and divine were, in Christ, closely and inseparably one, and yet they had a distinct individuality. Though Christ humbled Himself to become man, the Godhead was still His own.” (Ellen White, Selected Testimonies, May 10, 1899 par. 11)

          Clearly then, while here, He lived only as a human – not using His own Divinity as an aide to overcome sin in any way. Otherwise, He could not be my perfect example. If He used His own divinity to help Him overcome, even once, Satan would have claimed victory citing this as evidence that it is impossible for fallen humanity to be righteous and live a sinless life. It is for this reason that Satan tried so hard to get Jesus to use His own Divinity rather than to depend upon the Father for help and guidance – as the rest of us must do. It is because Jesus set aside His divinity and lived as a real human being, to include all of the natural tendencies common to fallen humanity, that He disproved Satan’s claims. He showed that if a regular human being chooses to reject his or her own natural human desires through the power of the Spirit, then sin can be overcome and defeated. Otherwise, if He succeeded simply because of His own personal Divinity, something beyond what is inherent to humanity, Satan would have won the day…

          Satan, the fallen angel, had declared that no man could keep the law of God after the disobedience of Adam. He claimed the whole race under his control. (EGW, 6MR 334.1)

          Thankfully, Jesus falsified this claim of Satan by coming as a real human being. Taking on the fallen nature of humanity, He lived a sinless life through the power of God:

          The world’s Redeemer passed over the ground where Adam fell because of his disobeying the expressed law of Jehovah; and the only begotten Son of God came to our world as a man, to reveal to the world that men could keep the law of God. (EGW, 6MR 334.1)

          “Had he not been fully human, Christ could not have been our substitute. He could not have worked out in humanity that perfection of character which it is the privilege of all to reach. He was the light and the life of the world. He came to this earth to work in behalf of men, that they might no longer be under the control of Satanic agencies. But while bearing human nature, he was dependent upon the Omnipotent for his life. In his humanity, he laid hold of the divinity of God; and this every member of the human family has the privilege of doing. Christ did nothing that human nature may not do if it partakes of the divine nature.” (Ellen White, Signs of the Times, June 17, 1897)

          “Bear in mind that Christ’s overcoming and obedience is that of a true human being. In our conclusions, we make many mistakes because of our erroneous views of the human nature of our Lord. When we give to His human nature a power that it is not possible for man to have in his conflicts with Satan, we destroy the completeness of His humanity. His imputed grace and power He gives to all who receive Him by faith. The obedience of Christ to His Father was the same obedience that is required of man.” (Ellen White, Selected Messages, Vol. 3, 139.4)

          So, in short, your view of “original sin” paints God as unjust and makes it appear that Jesus had some kind of advantage that is not open to the rest of us. Such a view undermines the beauty of what Jesus really did for us as our human example in all things. He wasn’t a Divine example (even though He was God). He was a truly human example – and that makes all the difference.

          “He took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature… He was made like unto his brethren, with the same susceptibilities, mental and physical… Christ did in reality unite the offending nature of man with His own sinless nature, because by this act of condescension, He would be enabled to pour out His blood in behalf of the fallen race.” (Ellen White, Manuscript 166, 1898, p. 9, 10 and Manuscript 181.3 and RH February 10, 1885 par. 7)

            (Quote)




          3
          View Comment
  20. Yes, you are absolutely right in saying that “Sabbath observance isn’t complicated or mysterious”. It is a simple matter of reading the Bible, understanding what God commanded, and either following it or not following it. You have complicated the matter by making a variety of different and fluctuating claims regarding the importance of Sabbath observance relative to salvation and an absolute resistance to spelling out what the definition of Sabbath observance is–until now, where you finally serve up your concept of what it means to be in compliance with God’s 4th commandment of the Decalogue. According to you, it is 1. Spending time with and thinking about God as the Creator and Redeemer. 2. Doing the works of God which include relieving the suffering of fellow human beings and even animals. 3. Resting from one’s own secular activities and a way to recharge one’s spiritual batteries.

    Sadly, you have significantly altered the Sabbath commandment as given by God on Mt. Sinai and as reiterated by Ellen White. I spend time thinking about God as Creator on every day of the week, INCLUDING the Sabbath. I also attempt to relieve human suffering and animal suffering on every day of the week, INCLUDING the Sabbath. As for the “works of God”, this is a very general term which lacks specificity, and that is probably your goal–to lack specificity. As for avoiding “secular activities”, this is even more vague, and so totally nonspecific that it totally alters the Sabbath commandment. Recharging one’s spiritual batteries is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible, so that function in Sabbath keeping is way outside the Sabbath commandment.

    As for what God commanded regarding Sabbath observance, He clearly indicated total rest along with strict prohibitions: 1. No work, not even those in the household, servants, etc. 2. No kindling fires. 3. No baking or cooking. 4. No boiling. 5. No buying or selling. 6. No carrying burdens into or out of houses or into and out of Jerusalem. 7. No gathering of food and no harvesting. 8. Not doing thine own ways. 9 Not finding thine own pleasure. 10. Restrictions on how far one could walk on Sabbath.

    You can readily see that your definition of Sabbath observance is radically different from God’s definition and the activities to be prohibited. You do not follow all God’s specific prohibitions and neither do other SDA Sabbatarians. You have altered His commandment, even though it was written by His own finger in stone, which you indicate is permanent. Yet, you have radically altered it, in spite of EGW’s directive that God has not changed and that the 4th commandment MUST be observed in exactly the same way that God mandated from Mt. Sinai. Otherwise, she says it is a transgression against God. Nevertheless, you have boldly come forth and changed the commandment to suit your own purposes so that you can continue observing it any old way that pleases you. This is not acceptable to God or EGW, but you seem selective in following some things but not all things. Even though you are extremely critically of the Roman Catholic Church for changing the Sabbath to Sunday, you have done the same by changing the definition of Sabbath keeping to whatever suits your desires. If, according to God and EGW, and even yourself, nothing has changed from the Sabbath observance requirements from Sinai to the present day, you are in deep trouble, because you know the truth, and yet are refusing to follow it. By your own definition, you are in “open rebellion against God” and not savable. Jesus declared that He was Lord of the Sabbath, indicating that He could change it. Now you have the audacity to change the Sabbath requirements, indicating that you too must think you are Lord of the Sabbath. Otherwise, you would subscribe to God’s definition of Sabbath keeping as is clearly stated in the Bible. If you are presuming to be capable of altering this commandment, are you not being an impostor, or a type of anti-Christ? Altering God’s clear definition of Sabbath keeping is serious stuff, and you are openly violating EGW’s confirmation of it as well.

    As for your continued insistence on the Sabbath being made for the Jews, you obviously could not accept the SDA Bible Commentary, so let’s go back to the Bible, where in Ezekiel 20:18-20, God said, “But I said unto their children in the wilderness, Walk ye not in the statutes of your fathers, neither observe their judgments, nor defile yourselves with their idols: I am the Lord your God; walk in my statutes, d keep my judgments, and do them; An hallow my Sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between ME and YOU, that ye may know that I am the Lord your God”. Here God is clearly indicating that this is a sign between HIM and ISRAEL. If it included everybody else, He would have said so. Hopefully, you can accept the Bible as convincing evidence of this.

    I am glad you recognize that the Talmud does NOT teach that the Sabbath command started in the Garden of Eden. Neither the Torah nor the Medrash. Thank you. As for any continued evidence from non-Christians regarding the merits of Sabbath keeping, please bear in mind that these teachings stem from those who do NOT accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, and obviously will not be granted eternal life. Their opinions should not be listened to, and you would do well to completely ignore them. Many of them are mystics, occultists, etc. Many are Kaballistic Jews whose perspectives involve the New Age, sorcery, occultism, even those like Abraham Heschel and others you quoted from.

    Regarding Jesus “breaking the Sabbath”, as is recorded in John 5:18, you now state that “He broke the Sabbath as anyone else could break it–lawfully”. Do you not realize how absurd this statement really is? Do you realize how contradictory and how impossible such a sentence is? How in the world does one break a law lawfully. The very definition of unlawful is to “break the law”!!

    In spite of the fact that we have previously invoked the dictionary, it does not surprise me that you would continue altering dictionary definitions. While I recognize that dispensing with dictionaries can be helpful in propagating whatever wild speculations an over-imaginative mind can conjure up, dictionaries are absolutely essential to the rational exchange of thoughts and ideas. Let’s see what Webster’s dictionary says about LAWFUL: being in harmony with the law. UNLAWFUL: not lawful! Can you not see how it is IMPOSSIBLE to be in harmony with a law and NOT in harmony with the law simultaneously? We must return to the Bible and return to the dictionary. Sadly, other Sabbatarian defenders of EGW have previously attempted to pull off these tricks. First, they distort the Bible. Then, they distort the dictionary. Then, they distort my own words. Finally, when all else fails, they bring forth their own Bible, something they call the Clear Word, which is actually published by the Review and Herald. It not only distorts the Bible, but actually has additions and subtractions, especially in Daniel and Revelation, in spite of the clear warnings in Revelation about people who add and subtract from that book. Such a publication is abominable, and I mention in only in the hopes of perhaps being able to avoid this final and deadly step. I have seen SDA’s violate not only the English dictionary, but also the Greek dictionary, and these practices should be condemned by all seekers of truth. I did watch the video from the Andrews University seminary professors you provided, and while I recognize that you derived many of your concepts from them, please be aware that their reasoning is consistently faulty. Do NOT depend on them for any definitive truth, even though they sound very erudite. For instance, they claimed that there are something like 86 instances where early Christians kept the Sabbath!. Interestingly, the account for 78 of those as being when Paul was in Corinth for one and a half years and was visiting the synagogue on Sabbaths trying to teach them! Well, the Biblical passage indicates that Paul stopped going to the synagogue WHEN THE JEWS REJECTED HIS MESSAGE, which of course, always centered upon the divinity of Jesus. Thus, even though Paul might have been in Corinth for roughly 78 Sabbaths, he did not even attend the synagogue for all of them. My guess is that the Jews rejected him pretty quickly, but we don’t know. What we do know is that it was not 78. We also know that Paul urged people to not be judged by how they kept the Sabbath. We also know that just because Paul attended the synagogue does NOT mean that he kept all the Sinaitic commands regarding Sabbath observance, because he spoke against them! Oh, well, can you blame Sabbatarians for a little creative accounting?

    At least you recognize that Jesus did break the Sabbath. On one occasion, the disciples were gathering food, which amounted to picking corn, something forbidden by the Sinaitic commandment. On another occasion, he commanded the healed paralytic to pick up his bed and walk, which was again forbidden by the commandment, as Israelites were NOT to carry burdens on the Sabbath day. These were clear violations. Jesus broke the law. He could not have broken it “lawfully”, because there is no such thing in the English language. He clearly broke it, claiming that He had the authority to do so as Lord of the Sabbath. In other words, He was God. You are likewise breaking the Sabbath and serving up a different definition of Sabbath keeping, and you are not God. You are violating the Sinaitic command knowingly and willfully.

    You continue to ignore Colossans 2:16 by introducing the concept that Paul is speaking about “ceremonial Sabbaths and ceremonial observations! Here again you add words to what Paul clearly said. He said nothing about ceremonial things. He simply indicated that we are NOT to be judged on the matter of Sabbath keeping. Period. If you really want to go to judgment, you will go to judgment, but will not fare well at the judgment for violating and changing the 4th commandment as you have done. Please do not introduce words that Paul did not use.

    Your defense of using EGW’s terminology that we are “co-workers with Christ in effecting our salvation” is highly troubling. Imagine that I am drowning in a big lake The waves are high and I’m struggling and about to drown. Suddenly, a kind man in a speed boat comes near and offers me his hand. I’m reach out, but am so weak an exhausted that I cannot even pull myself up. He pulls me up and inside the boat, where he dries me off, warms me up, and talks to me gently and kindly. He expresses concern for me, likes me, and even says he loves me. He actually wants me to come live with him in his mansion on the other side of the lake. Pretty generous of him, considering that I live in a ramshackle of a hut on the opposite side of the lake. I then turn to him and thank him for being a co-worker in my rescue operation! He looks at me with a puzzled look, and I wouldn’t blame him if he tossed me back in the lake while uttering a few expletives and admonishing me to see how that “co-worker stuff” works out this time. Oh, well, some of us recognize our deplorable state in which our salvation is based solely on our willingness to accept a perfect sacrifice that is completely out of our control. I am eternally grateful for the undeserved mercy and free gift and will never use such “co-worker” terminology.

    Yes, you actually found EGW’s quotations that opposed perfectionism. I knew you would, and it greatly helps to prove my point that she consistently contradicted herself. Yes, she contradicted God and herself. When you put all those quotations together, you can’t but be amazed at how contradictory they are–just like your position on salvation and Sabbatarianism, which shifts with virtually every post.

    In the next-to-last paragraph you manage to misquote me by saying, “Your claim that there were those saved by keeping the letter of the Law ‘between Sinai and Jesus’ death is also mistaken” Well, I did not say that, but I am not at all surprised that you would misquote me, as you have already misquoted the Bible, God, Jesus, Paul, the dictionary, and now me. If you will scroll up, you will find that I was trying to agree with your initial proposition that keeping the Sabbath never saved anybody. I said NOTHING about the letter of the law. You seem to be twisting and turning away from that, for some strange reason. Certainly you must recognize that Exodus 31:13 clearly indicates that anybody violating the Sabbath commandment SHALL BE PUT TO DEATH. Certainly you must realize that Numbers 15:32-36 tells that account of a man put to death for gathering sticks on the Sabbath, and that this decree came from God Himself. Well, if people should be put to death for violating the Sabbath commandment, it follows that those who keep it shall LIVE. Right?

    I would strongly urge you to conform your Sabbath keeping understanding to exactly what God’s requirements were. Do not deviate. Do not allow yourself to be swept away by seminarian sophistries. Back to the Bible, Back to the dictionary. May God bless your study of His word. Don’t deviate from it.

      (Quote)




    0
    View Comment
    • You miss the underlying point for the commands regarding Sabbath observance. The “no work” command was given so that everyone, as far as possible, could have an entire day off to devote to God. That’s the main point here. Otherwise, people would feel obligated to continue their normal secular activities or fail to strive to give everyone else a day off to do the same. You fail to comprehend the spirit or original purpose of the Law… something that Jesus highlighted in His life.

      Yet, you argue that it is impossible to break the law lawfully. That’s because you don’t seem to understand that the fundamental basis of all law, including the Ten Commandments, is the Royal Law of Love. If keeping one of the Ten Commandments would cause you to violate the Royal Law, then that lesser commandment can be lawfully broken. Beyond the fact that the priests regularly “broke” the Sabbath without guilt throughout Jewish history (Matthew 12:5), did you not read where Jesus Himself explained that it was also “lawful to do good on the Sabbath”? (Matthew 12:12) Jesus wasn’t just talking about Himself here. He was speaking for everyone. Why do you think the Jewish leaders kept silent when Jesus specifically asked them if it was lawful to heal or to kill on the Sabbath?

      Then Jesus asked them, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” But they remained silent. (Mark 3:4).

      Why did they “remain silent” here? Because, as you should know, it was part of the law that work could be done on the Sabbath day to save the life or prevent the suffering of man or even beast. Do you not recognize this? Do you really not understand this concept? and how it is consistent with the underlying Royal Law of Love? I think you just don’t want to understand it…

      I’m sorry, but Jesus only “broke the Sabbath” in order to relieve suffering – right in line with the Royal Law and right in line with Jewish law as well. In other words, He broke the Sabbath “lawfully” and anyone else would have been lawfully able to do the very same thing. And, the Jews themselves could say nothing contrary to this. They remained silent because they knew that Jesus was right in line with their own law.

      As far as the Apostles keeping the Sabbath after Jesus was gone, you cite a single Saturday night prayer meeting (held because Paul was leaving the next morning) as evidence that they didn’t continue to observe the Sabbath while you downplay the dozens and dozens of Sabbath worship services that are also mentioned and the fact that they all kept the Sabbath “according to the commandment” when Jesus died. And, you fail to recognize the continuance Sabbath observance by the early Christian Church for hundreds and hundreds of years. You also fail to recognize the qualifying statement of Paul regarding “shadows of things to come”. You quote Colossians 2:16 and argue that this particular passage is all that should be read, “period”. However, the passage doesn’t really end with Colossians 2:16. You fail to read and understand Colossians 2:17 where Paul specifically explains that he is talking here about the laws that were put in place to foreshadow the coming of Christ. There were ceremonial laws, animal sacrifices, and yearly sabbaths that pointed toward the life and death of Jesus. Obviously, these met their reality in Jesus Himself. However, the weekly Sabbath does not point forward, but backward. It is not a “shadow of things to come.” It is for this reason that it was written in stone and placed inside of the Ark of the Covenant with the rest of the eternal moral laws of the Decalogue. You don’t write a temporary “shadow” on stone. And, you don’t place a “shadow” with other eternal moral laws – moral laws that were and are and will forever be binding for all of mankind.

      Again, Jesus specifically pointed out that He created the Sabbath for all of mankind / anthropos (Mark 2:27). The language of the 4th Commandment regarding the Sabbath points back to creation before the Fall of mankind. The language of Genesis also points out that God made the 7th-day holy right at the very beginning of Earth’s history before the Fall of mankind. And, the Jews recognized that the Sabbath existed before Moses came along. Philo specifically argues that the Sabbath was universal – for all of mankind. The Talmud also recognizes that the Sabbath existed before Moses and the Medrash (contrary to your claims) argues that the Sabbath existed at creation – that the Torah was used by God in the creation of our world. Even Martin Luther, a Sunday keeper, argued that the Sabbath was obviously created in Eden before the Fall and that after the Fall Adam and Eve taught their children to observe the Sabbath. You simply ignore all of this…

      I also continue to be amazed at your confidence that those who do not honestly recognize Jesus as Lord and Savior “obviously will not be granted eternal life”. The Bible is very clear that even those who have never heard the name of Jesus can be saved if they lived honestly according to the best light that they had been given (Romans 2:14-15). But what is especially interesting here is that you are so certain that such people will be lost, despite their honest ignorance, yet, at the same time, you claim that humans have no part to play in their own salvation. How then can anyone be lost if no one has any part to play in their own salvation? Is this not an inconsistent position on your part? Is it not clear to you that we are able to reject the gifts that God wants to give to us? Are we able to actually reject the gift of salvation? The man drowning in the lake, in your illustration, is actually able to tell his rescuer to “get lost”… and the rescuer, God in this case, must honor the man’s wishes.

      So, you see, our “part to play” in our own salvation is simply to accept the gift that God freely offers. That’s our part to play. Of course, by accepting God’s gift, our lives are changed and will no longer live the lives we used to live. If we actually love God and gratefully accept His gifts, we will “keep His commandments”. If we deliberately reject God’s commandments, and actively seek to undermine them, once we know the truth of them, we clearly have not accepted God’s gift of salvation nor do we really love God.

      Yet, you argue, “Well, if people should be put to death for violating the Sabbath commandment, it follows that those who keep it shall LIVE. Right?” No, that’s not right. Keeping the Sabbath isn’t what makes a person live or be given salvation. Eternal life is an unmerited gift of God – a gift that we can either accept or reject. It is not earned by keeping the Sabbath. Keeping the commandments of God aren’t what saves a person. Keeping the commandments of God are the result of realizing that one has been given salvation by God and wishing to keep God’s commandments because we love Him – not in order to earn our own salvation.

      As far as Ellen White “contradicting herself”, well, it only seems like that for someone who is quoting what she actually said and taught out of context. You confuse her statements against the concept of “once saved always saved” and deliberately ignore her teachings regarding the concept of “present assurance” of salvation. However, there really is no contradiction here if you take each statement in context.

      As far as your “advice” that I follow the Bible and avoid the sophistries of certain theologians – I fully agree and recommend strongly that you take your own advice. Study these things very carefully and prayerfully for yourself and earnestly ask God to show you the right path. Then, if you honestly follow God’s leading according to the best light that you have been given to understand, even if you don’t get everything right, you will be saved.

        (Quote)




      3
      View Comment
  21. Sean Pitman:
    You wrote:

    Jesus was fully God and fully human. “Christ had two natures, the nature of a man and the nature of God. In Him divinity and humanity were combined.” (EGW, Ms94, July 18, 1899, par. 47).He just didn’t use His own Divinity.He lived on Earth only as a human – not using His own Divinity as an aide to overcome sin in any way.Otherwise, He could not be my perfect example.If He used His own divinity, even once, Satan would have claimed victory citing this as evidence that it is impossible for fallen humanity to be righteous and live a sinless life.It is for this reason that Satan tried so hard to get Jesus to use His own Divinity rather than to depend upon the Father for help and guidance – as the rest of us must do.It is because Jesus set aside His divinity and lived as a real human being, to include all of the natural tendencies common to fallen humanity, that He disproved Satan’s claims.He showed that if a regular human being chooses to reject his or her own natural human desires through the power of the Spirit, then sin can be overcome and defeated.Otherwise, if He succeeded simply because of His own personal Divinity, something beyond what is inherent to humanity, Satan would have won the day…

    So, in short, your view of “original sin” paints God as unjust and makes it appear that Jesus had some kind of advantage that is not open to the rest of us. Such a view undermines the beauty of what Jesus really did for us as our human example in all things.He wasn’t a Divine example (even though He was God).He was a truly human example – and that makes all the difference.

    Well, I see you did not deal with your affirmation that Jesus has sinful inclinations and propensities just like us. But at least you affirm that Jesus is God, even though you convolute the implications of this fact in your explanation of His nature and the element of sin. It may help if you perceive that sin is in the mind, not in the body. And so the “sinful nature of man” is his spiritual perception of who he thinks he is and thus man acts on his false concepts of himself that the devil persuaded him to believe. In which case, a sinful man “naturally” acts out what he falsely believes about himself. This is the “sinful nature” of man.

    Since you and many other apparently don’t know how to understand and describe what the “sinful spiritual nature of man” is, you can’t understand that Jesus has a fallen physical nature but His “spiritual nature is free from any taint of sin.” EGW That is, His mind is not polluted by sin like ours is from birth.

    He knows and thinks He is God and this is no perversion.
    We think we are God and this creates the “sinful mind” that is defined as the “sinful nature of man.”

    Truth is not beyond comprehension if sinful man will simply “listen and learn” and if he will, he then can discern the parallel and contrast to Christ as a human being vs. ourselves who are born sinners and condemned and this is not based on the fact we have chosen to sin, but because Adam sinned and as his children, we are all cursed with the same sinful mind of Adam, our father. Jesus did not “inherit” this sinful mind that we all inherit from Adam. Jesus is the second Adam and He is sinless like the first Adam in paradise.

    Yes, He had an advantage. But He offers us this same advantage and did not start where we do.

    We will either “get over it” and accept the plan of salvation as God has ordained it and explained it in the bible, or like Cain, we will bicker and complain because we are born sinners and then blame God for our sinful condition and refuse to “bring a lamb” as the acknowledgment of this reality and go on justifying ourselves by claiming we are not born sinners. We are born outside of Christ and must be “born again” into Christ or we remain outside, lost, sinful and condemned. But Jesus said, “Whosoever will may come” and be saved.

    You don’t think you need to come unless and until you participate in some willful act of sin and you are not a sinner unless you do. This is inane and childish and any evaluation of the bible teaching will expose such an idea as bogus and far outside the bible definition of sin.
    Your defense of the Sabbath is commendable. But you explanation of sin and atonement is “deplorable” if I might use this word in this situation.

    If and when God sends “light” you best listen for Jesus said about His witnesses, “If they reject you, they reject me.”

    No, this issue is not over, nor will it be until the church clearly defines sin and the atonement in its biblical context. Mass confusion on every level of church doctrine is precisely because of this failure to accept and define original sin just as it is taught in the bible and affirmed by every viable Christian community from Paul to our day, with the exception of the SDA church.

      (Quote)




    0
    View Comment
    • Again, you are mistaken to claim that Jesus only took on the physical aspect of human nature, but not the mental or spiritual. Both the Bible and Ellen White are very clear in this regard – that Jesus was made like us “in every way” (Hebrews 2:17) taking on the physical as well as the mental and spiritual nature of humanity. After all, it is the mental/spiritual aspect of humanity that’s really in trouble here – that really needs to be overcome.

      Since you evidently didn’t read everything I’ve previously quoted for you:

      “He took upon His sinless [Divine] nature our sinful [human] nature… He was made like unto his brethren, with the same susceptibilities, mental and physical… Christ did in reality unite the offending nature of man with His own sinless nature, because by this act of condescension, He would be enabled to pour out His blood in behalf of the fallen race.” (Ellen White, Manuscript 166, 1898, p. 9, 10 and Manuscript 181.3 and RH February 10, 1885 par. 7)

      Again, Jesus had “the same nature as the sinner” – yet without sin. In other words, Jesus overcame our fallen human natural tendencies and did not yield to the temptations that these tendencies presented to Him. If He did not have these natural human tendencies, then He could not have been really tempted to sin at all – much less to the level that I’m tempted to sin.

      He had the same nature as the sinner although He knew no sin, in order that He might be able to condemn sin in the flesh and might be able to sympathize with those who were in the difficulties, dangers, and temptations that beset His own path while He walked with men. (EGW, Manuscript Releases, vol. 10, p. 176)

        (Quote)




      3
      View Comment
      • Sean, we are born legally cut off and morally depraved. If you don’t believe that, then you will formulate some theory that contradicts this bible truth.

        As soon as a baby is born, the Holy Spirit begins to draw them to Christ by every means of grace that God has ordained for their salvation. If their parents are Christian, they have an advantage over those who’s parents are not. None the less, God will use every avenue available to communicate bible truth so they can choose to opt in to the kingdom of grace He has ordained for lost sinners.

        This is bible truth and it is not negotiable or subject to human speculation. We either accept it or reject it. If we reject it, then we are born lost, and remain lost. That’s the long and short of it.

          (Quote)




        0
        View Comment
        • Again, it seems very clear to me that the Bible and Mrs. White present something quite different from what you’re claiming about the nature of sin and the nature of Christ. You seem to confuse a natural attraction for sin with actual sin and you seem to recognize Jesus as fully God yet only partly human rather than fully God and fully human in every way with all of our inherited weaknesses, natural tendencies, and fallen nature – yet without sin. You don’t seem to understand that one can be attracted and tempted to do wrong, to sin, without actually giving in to temptation and actually falling into sin. You don’t seem to understand that being “born again” doesn’t suddenly remove the natural desires or inherited tendencies to be attracted to sin. And, you just don’t seem to want to substantively address or discuss the relevant passages I’ve presented to you along these lines. Also, your arguments seem internally inconsistent to me…

          In any case, what more can I say that I haven’t already tried to explain many many times in this and many other discussions over the years? I think it is best, at this point, if you just stick to the topic at hand (i.e., “The Sabbath” in this particular thread) rather than continually steering any discussion with me back toward your fixation on “original sin”. I’m sorry, but your repetitive arguments here just aren’t convincing to me and you don’t seem to be presenting anything new or interesting that I haven’t already heard and studied many times in some detail before. Repeating the same thing over and over again just isn’t going to do it for me. Now, I’m sure you’ve done your best and all, but I’m not getting any closer to favoring your position.

          I wish you all the best…

            (Quote)




          2
          View Comment
  22. Your continued insistence that a commandment (law) “can be lawfully broken” is indeed extraordinary. If you are unable to grasp how you cannot be lawful and unlawful simultaneously, I’m not sure I can be of much more help to you. The statement that “Jesus only ‘broke the Sabbath’ in order to relieve suffering is absolutely false. In Mark 2, his disciples were gathering corn on the Sabbath and there was no suffering. This was contrary to the commandment which prohibited gathering food on Sabbath. In John 5, Jesus healed a paralytic on Sabbath then told him to take up his bed and walk–on the Sabbath, and this was completely contrary to carrying a burden o Sabbath. While he did indeed heal, the Jews were indignant about the carrying the bed on Sabbath.

    You fabricate a statement that I supposedly made, “You cite a single Saturday night prayer meeting as evidence that they didn’t continue to observe the Sabbath. . . ” when I ABSOLUTELY MADE NO SUCH STATEMENT. I DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, AS MOST OF US UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT HAPPENS ON SATURDAY NIGHT AFTER SUNDOWN DOES NOT CONSTITUTE SABBATH OBSERVANCE. I DO NOT KNOW WHY YOU FABRICATE AND TWIST MY STATEMENTS. ARE YOU SURE YOU EVEN READ WHAT I WRITE?

    You continue to focus on the shadow of Colossians 2. Hebrews 10:1 also refers to a shadow–“For the law having a shadow of good things to come. . . ” which simply means that the law was a shadow, and the real substance is Christ which replaces the law.

    For some inexplicable reason, you continue to maintain that the Sabbath is for all mankind, and claim this is what “anthropos” means. Seriously, we MUST get back to the dictionaries again, as you are violating the Greek dictionary now. Get yourself a good Greek dictionary and look it up. You will find that “anthropos” does NOT mean mankind, and certainly does NOT mean ALL MANKIND. The definition is: THE COUNTENANCE, MAN-FACED, i.e. A HUMAN BEING. This is singular, and not plural. Wikipedia says it is Greek for HUMAN. Matthew 19:5, Matthew 19:10 and I Corinthians 7:1 all use the word “anthropos”, and in each case it is singular.

    PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE respect the dictionaries, whether they be English, Greek, or any other. You do great violence to my the Bible, the words of Jesus, the English and Greek dictionaries, and even what I write.

    Your reference to the lake drowning and saying to the rescuer to “get lost” is completely apocryphal. Please restrain yourself from misquoting me.

    I explained to you that the Sabbath carried a capital punishment ant that at least one man in the Old Testament was stoned to death for violating the Sabbath commandment. It therefore follows that those who obeyed and did NOT violate the commandment during that time period avoided death and lived. This is a simple concept, yet you disagreed and said “No, that’s not right”. I’m not sure I can be of much more help to you if you cannot grasp simple inverse relationships. Perhaps I’ll make one final attempt. If Adam and Even had NOT eaten the forbidden fruit, would they have died? They ate it, then died as God told them. On the contrary, if they had not eaten, are you claiming that they would not have lived? If you truly are not able to follow this very simple logic, continue violating Scripture, dictionaries, etc., I suppose I’ll have to leave you where you are, hoping that you will someday appreciate Biblical truths for what God is actually trying to tell us.

    This has been an interesting excursion, and I’ve been dragged all over the landscape. First, you claimed that Sabbath observance never saved anyone. Then, you claimed that it saved some, but not others. Some “ignorant” souls could be saved while other “ignorant” souls presumably not saved. Then, you maintained that those who knew the “Sabbath truth” but ignored you were in open rebellion against God and could not be saved. Now, you seem to have made a full circle, and your last post said “Keeping the commandments of God aren’t what saves a person.”

    Jesus spelled out the process of salvation in John 3. Please read His words closely. He is my Mediator, and He should know.

      (Quote)




    0
    View Comment
    • Yet again, as far as lawfully breaking the Sabbath, you have to admit that Jewish law itself allowed for breaking the Sabbath to relieve suffering – of either man or beast. This is an uncontested fact for which there is really no honest debate. So, clearly, the Sabbath can be “lawfully broken” under certain circumstances – in order to avoid breaking the higher Royal Law of Love. And, the relief of suffering isn’t the only “lawful” circumstance when the Sabbath can be broken. Other circumstances include the activities of those who are directly in the service of God doing God’s work. As previously mentioned, this included the priests who broke the Sabbath day doing the work for the temple services (Matthew 12:5). Again, the Sabbath is “lawfully” broken here – and the Jews already understood this. This is the argument Jesus used to defend his disciples for picking and eating some wheat on the Sabbath when they were working with Jesus serving the people. It’s all part of “doing good” and going on God’s missions on the Sabbath – and all such reasons are valid reasons, before God, for lawfully breaking the Sabbath command. And, importantly, none of this was new. Jesus wasn’t presenting anything really novel here since He Himself argued that everything that He was doing was right in line with the Law that the Jews themselves claimed to follow. The Jews of His day had simply perverted the Sabbath and the original intent of God for Sabbath observance. What the Jews in Christ’s day were doing was, in fact, not “lawful” to do on the Sabbath since they were actually harming people on the Sabbath and hindering the work of God on the Sabbath. Now that is something that is not at all “lawful” to do on the Sabbath – or any other day for that matter.

      As far as the Saturday night prayer meeting, I’m sorry if I misunderstood you, but it seemed to me like you said that the disciples of Jesus worshiped together on Sunday. Well, the one example of this is found in Acts 20:7 – which was a Saturday night meeting that lasted till midnight because Paul had to leave on a trip the next morning. Clearly then, this doesn’t remotely trump the statements regarding regular and even “customary” Sabbath observance by the apostles – including Paul.

      As far as the “shadow laws” mentioned in Colossians 2:17 and Hebrews 10:1, these refer to those laws that specifically foreshadowed the life and death of Jesus. Hebrews 10:1 is very clear in this regard, speaking of “the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year”. The animal-based sacrificial system, and the laws surrounding it, were indeed meant to foreshadow the life and death of Jesus. However, this isn’t true of the commandments of the Decalogue which are eternal moral laws that don’t foreshadow anything. They are their own reality – based on the Royal Law which is, itself, equal in authority and eternal nature with God Himself – since God is Love (1 John 4:16). In fact, you yourself accept that nine of the Commandments of the Decalogue are in fact still binding on the Christian – that these nine were not “shadow” laws. You’re just hung up on one single commandment found within the Decalogue that you claim is the only one included in the Ten that is, somehow, a true “shadow” law. I’m sorry, but that conclusion of yours is simply nonsensical from everything that the Bible has to say about the Ten Commandments and the Sabbath and everything that historical evidence has to say of the views of the apostles and the early Church.

      As far as the term “anthropos”, it can be used in a singular or pleural sense. So, context is important to understand here. As used in Mark 2:27, the meaning is very clear in the original Greek:

      καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς τὸ σάββατον διὰ τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐγένετο οὐχ ὁ ἄνθρωπος διὰ τὸ σάββατον

      The translation is as follows:

      And he said to them, The Sabbath was made for the man, and not the man for the Sabbath:

      Now, look in the very next sentence where Jesus referred to Himself as “the son of man” (Mark 2:28). The word Greek word for “man” here is the same word “ἀνθρώπου” or “anthropos”. Certainly then, you’re not suggesting that Jesus was claiming here to be the Son of the Jews? – right? Rather, Jesus is clearly claiming here to be the Son of mankind – of Adam in particular. He is in fact the “second Adam” (1Co 15:45-48) and is therefore the representative of all of mankind – not just one particular special group of human beings. In fact, other passages also use the term “anthropos” to refer to “mankind” as well. As another example of this, consider the passage in Matthew 4:4 where Jesus says, “Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.” The word for “man” here is “anthropos”. Yet, it is very clear that Jesus is not suggesting that this only applies to Jews or to any one particular “man”. Clearly, in context, Jesus is saying that this applies to all of mankind – to include you and me. The same thing is true for John 2:25 where John writes, “He needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.” Again, the term used here is “anthropos” – clearly extending to all of mankind rather than being limited to the Jews or any one particular individual. Another example is Hebrews 2:6 / Psalms 8:4 which says, “What is man, that you are mindful of him? Or the son of man, that you care for him?” Again, the word for “man” used in Hebrews 2:6 “anthropos”. Yet clearly, in context, the reference here is to all of humankind – not to just a single individual.

      Of course, since you are a fan of dictionary definitions you might ought to actually read the dictionary definition of anthropos:

      Noun:
      ἄνθρωπος • (ánthrōpos)

      1. human being, person (as opposed to gods); man, woman
      2. (philosophical) man, humanity
      3. (sometimes in the plural) all human beings, mankind

      See also: Link

      Again, notice that the term “anthropos” can be either singular or pleural in meaning. The same is true for the English word “man”.

      So, understood in proper context, the Greek used in Mark 2:27 is quite clear. Jesus is obviously saying here that the Sabbath was made, originally, for humanity at large, not just for the Jews. It must, however, be pointed out that another interpretation is very probable – which adds additional emphasis and insight into the creation origin of the Sabbath. As noted above, the literal reading of Mark 2:27 says, “the Sabbath was made for the man, not the man for the Sabbath.” The article “the” is present, preceding the word “man”. The term “The man” is the characteristic designation of Adam in the creation account. These precise words “ho anthropos” occur repeatedly with reference to Adam (Gen 1:27; 2:7-8, 15, 18 in the LXX). Given the cumulative evidence for a reference to creation already noted, it seems clear that Christ was saying, and was clearly understood by His listeners as saying, that the Sabbath was originally made for Adam – and through extension for all of humankind that descended from him. After all, in Genesis 5:2 God referred to both Adam and Eve by the same name – He “called their name Adam.” It is for this reason that the Strong’s (H120) definition of the Hebrew word “adam” is “ruddy”… “that is, a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.). In other words, in this context the term “the man” means “Adam”, which in turn was the term originally used by God for “mankind”.

      As far as salvation is concerned, Sabbath observance doesn’t and never did save anyone. It doesn’t matter if someone observed the Sabbath during Mosaic times and was therefore not executed. This doesn’t mean that that person will therefore be saved in heaven. These are not equivalent situations – as I’ve tried to explain. Avoiding death here on Earth by obeying the letter of the law isn’t the same thing as obeying the Spirit of the Moral Law and gaining eternal life with God. The situation with Adam and Eve was also different, fundamentally different, from our current situation. You see, Adam and Eve were originally created perfect – naturally in line with the Royal Law. This is not true for us today. We are born with a strong natural tendency to act contrary to the Royal Law. So, by not eating the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve naturally remained in a loving relationship with God – since they were originally made to be naturally loving. However, when they did choose to eat of the fruit that God had forbidden, they fell out of the loving relationship with God and into deliberate rebellion against God – i.e., “sin”. At this point, rebellion against, not love for, God became natural for humanity. Mankind gained a natural tendency to be unloving and selfish. It is for this reason that the relationship between God and humanity cannot be healed or reconciled by “keeping” a commandment like the Sabbath, because the problem with humanity and the origin of sin within humanity goes much deeper. That is why the only way the relationship could be restored, the only way mankind could resist the natural tendency to be selfish and unloving, is through the life and death of Jesus which allowed God to step in and re-give us the ability to truly love again. This is the reason why keeping the Law doesn’t save anyone since keeping the letter of the Law, by itself, doesn’t make you loving. That is why salvation from our lethal selfishness only comes through the gift of God that was made possible by the death of Jesus on the cross. Yet, the entirely free gift of salvation can be rejected and a person can choose to be lost – to seek after selfish desires again and exclude him or herself from a relationship with God and choose, instead, to end up in oblivion.

      Regarding your reference to John 3 and how a person can be saved, you do realize that being “born again” doesn’t guarantee that you will not, at some future point in time, choose to reject your new birth and turn against God once more? As already mentioned, this is the reason why Ellen White rejected the popular concept of “once saved always saved” and promoted instead the concept of a “present assurance” of salvation. You can know for sure, right now, if you are or are not in a saving relationship with God. Beyond this, if you want to remain in this saving relationship with God, if you want to maintain your “new birth”, you must die to self on a regular basis, daily or even multiple times a day if necessary, because your old self is always there trying to gain the mastery over you again. Discipline is required, on our part, to maintain our relationship with God so that He can be free to enable us to deny our natural selfish desires. As Paul explains (1 Corinthians 9:27), you, as a free moral agent, must deliberately choose, everyday, to remain in your walk with God and continue to listen to your conscience. This is our part to play in our own salvation. Otherwise, you will fall away from your walk with God and be lost. The same is true for me.

        (Quote)




      4
      View Comment
  23. Well, Sean, you have been more tolerant than most forums and discussion groups. I understand your point, but you miss mine. Some day you will see the point that many SDA teachers either ignore or explain in some way that is not biblical. But one fact remains. The SDA church has never been a mature community of bible believers and thus we have many different views about some basic issues that will never allow the church to be in unity.

    A couple of articles at ADvindicate are classic of the confusion. The book Questions on Doctrine made some good points, but also implied some false ideas and this book seems to be the focal point of the two basic theologies that have created the two major groups in theology in the church today. I don’t agree completely with either side and see the liberals fighting the conservatives and visa versa and both wrong. The only winner in this fiasco has been the devil as he has successfully divided the church for his own benefit.

    At least you let me post. Something neither the liberals or conservatives will do. So Atoday and Spectrum have banned me. But so has Advindicate and Fulcrum 7. I am free to comment in the readers section of the on-line Review. So maybe the church is still more open to discussion than the two major forums. Even though I disagree with many positions in the Review, they are more “Protestant” in spirit than the independent forums who are more like a cult than a real Christian discussion group.

    Thanks again for your tolerance. People will have to consider both positions and compare with the bible to make a decision. And as I said, your defense of the Sabbath is flawless and the opposition is so far outside the bible we could wonder how they could even claim to believe scripture. I still believe any flaw in our thinking about salvation will be an avenue Satan can and will use to destroy our faith. We see it reflected in those who butcher up the bible to attack the Sabbath. They obviously have a false theology that leads them to their faulty spirituality. It is always a misunderstanding of the covenants in parallel and contrast that leaves them confused. No one is more misunderstood than Paul and his basic foundation for all his exhortations. But then, as Peter said, the same people wrest the whole bible and not just Paul.
    Take care.
    Sorensen

      (Quote)




    0
    View Comment
  24. Howdy Pard

    A lot of commotion goin’ on in the ole corral. Just wonderin’ if the ole creator had all this hair splitin’ in mind when it came to humans trying to understand the splendour of it all and the basic notion of the Golden Rule. When religious folks start sayin’ they is right in their interpretation of things and everybody else is obviously wrong seems to me they may be tryin’ to take on the role of creator. Those are pretty big boots to fill Pard!

    Well Pard, I know we ride different horses but I think about you a lot and hope the yer ole brush and letters continue to dazzle canvas and cyber page alike.

    Ya’ all take care now on the celestial range.

    Campside

      (Quote)




    0
    View Comment
  25. For some inexplicable reason, you seem to be intent on continuing this Sabbath discussion. For me, however, I conclude that I have labored for you in vain, and not only is this discussion nonproductive, but there is no indication that it ever will be in the future. There seems to be absolutely no desire to accurately interpret Scripture on the basis of common dictionaries, which, I must admit can be restrictive to over-active imaginations. You have severely misquoted even my own posts. You have even altered your own posts! I know because I copied your last post last night, and then, when I read it again on your website, there were additions! Whether or not you have altered my previous posts, I do not know. At this point, I must conclude that this type of intellectual integrity does not lend itself to a rational discussion of things of eternal value. Your sole purpose seems to be winning an argument, while my sole purpose is to understand God’s will for my life.

    Your constantly shifting positions on the Sabbath and salvation are sufficient for me to understand that there is great confusion. I am saddened that your definition of Sabbath keeping differs from God’s definition. If, as you maintain, the Roman Catholic Church altered the time definition of Sabbath keeping and you yourself obviously altered God’s definition of the manner of Sabbath keeping, are you any different? You invalidate your arguments by being selective in following the clear commands of both God and Ellen White. These arguments are even more problematic because you claim that those who know the truth about Sabbath observance but reject them are in “open rebellion against God”? Perhaps it is because you forget your own words that you find it necessary to go back and “doctor” your previous posts.

    At any rate, I wish you the best, and must leave you to your own devices. While I applaud your efforts in teaching and preaching God’s Creationism in 6 literal days, I hope your style is not a distraction, especially when you claim that something can be both “lawful” and “unlawful” simultaneously.

    May God bless you.

      (Quote)




    0
    View Comment
    • Well, you can only lead a horse to water…

      Still, your time need not be wasted here. You can always refer your friends to this discussion as a clear demonstration of the “absolute nonsense” of Sabbatarian thinking! 😉

      Honestly, however, I do think I’ve presented things as clearly as I know how and I’ve carefully considered your arguments as well. You’ve been a good foil. I must admit, though, that it remains a mystery to me how anyone with a candid intelligent mind could come to the conclusions that you’ve come to? I’m sure this must be due to the extreme limitations of my own mental powers. However, one can only work with what God has given… however limited it may be.

      In any case, I do wish you all the best as you grow in your relationship and walk with God.

      P.S. I often review a comment that I have recently posted to correct typos and other errors or to clarify a thought more effectively (as I have with this particular comment), but I don’t go back and modify a comment once there has been a response to that comment. And, I don’t modify the comments of others. Also, I honestly don’t understand where I have “misquoted” you? I’m quite sure that I’ve misunderstood you one more than one occasion, but I don’t recall ever misquoting you…

        (Quote)




      6
      View Comment
  26. Thank you for your admission that you indeed did alter the record. But, as we both know, these were not mere typos, but rather, clear changes in content. The usual method of altering content is to issue an erratum or addendum, as you must certainly be aware. This is accomplished by simply creating another post! Intellectual integrity is important. Please continue to focus your energy on Creationism, but let us all resolve to keep Creationism above reproach.

      (Quote)




    0
    View Comment
    • I see no issue in modifying or adding to a comment before any additional comments have been made in response to that comment. It makes things more clear and organized vs. simply issuing additional separate comments when a simple modification, correction, or addition to an existing new comment would do. In fact, upon request, I’ve often combined multiple comments into a single comment for other people in this forum. I also delete comments upon request – so that people can post a new comment with what they consider to be important updates or modifications. It just makes things easier to read is all – and more reflective of what a person was really trying to say. There’s nothing dishonest about it – especially in the comment section for new unread or unresponded comments. Of course, once someone responds to a comment, that comment can no longer be changed.

      And, I’m sure that those reading our discussion in this thread can easily recognize the consistency here. I’ve been very open and honest with you. I’ve not blocked you or limited what you’ve posted. If you wished to modify or better clarify something you’ve said in a comment, I’d be more than willing to oblige you as well. I’m sure that most of those reading what I’ve written in response to your strained arguments will be able see that I’m not trying to hide anything here or prevent those who disagree with me from presenting their very best arguments against me. In fact, I welcome this because it only serves as a foil to highlight the truth of what I’ve been saying.

      Of course, if you don’t like this, you don’t have to post comments here. It’s entirely up to you…

        (Quote)




      6
      View Comment
  27. For those of you who are interested in a point-by-point, researched evaluation of Dr. Pitman’s analysis of the Sabbath Question, here is a Google Docs link you can go to. The rebuttal of Dr. Pitman’s paper is point-by-point, and it takes over 100 pages. The link will give you read-only access. Thanks!

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/139-Mxp-ocvTcqv4PeSCT6ChxuJ__O4w8WMxzPTFGg-M/edit?usp=sharing

    Kerry Wynne
    Primary Author
    LYING FOR GOD: What Adventists Knew and When They Knew It!

      (Quote)




    1
    View Comment
    • @Kerry Wynne: Reader Wynne’s contribution is not at all unwelcome, for it is timely, providing a cogent precisely obverse support for the validity of God’s great gift to mankind, the 7th day. As Mr. Wynne says, “for those of you who are interested” in who Wynne is, the following is how he introduces himself, http://www.bible.ca/7-sabbathgate-1888ad-Kerry-Wynne.htm “I am a third generation Seventh-day Adventist of over 50 years of sabbath Keeping … [but] no longer believe in Ellen White. After a review of what was available on the Internet regarding the Sabbath versus Sunday question… I began attending a Bible-only, full Gospel, non-denominational church on Sunday morning. That was about four years ago. Fear of God and His judgment has been replaced with ever-increasing love for Him … Adventism is a more dangerous cult than ever.”

      Now then, Wynne’s and my journey are rather similar, though in altogether opposite directions. I, like him, am a third generation Seventh-day Adventist of over 50 years (more like over 80 years) of sabbath keeping, and after reviewing the Bible, not the internet, and my own inner self, in communion with Jesus who Himself gave us the Sabbath, having rested on it at Creation and during it for our redemption, I am convinced that Seventh-day Adventism is a more pivotal message than ever.

        (Quote)




      4
      View Comment
      • “. Fear of God and His judgment has been replaced with ever-increasing love for Him … Adventism is a more dangerous cult than ever.”

        This certainly reflects the spirituality of Spectrum and Atoday. And it is gendered by a false understanding of law and gospel in its true biblical context even in the SDA church. The church has opted for a doctrine of law and gospel that is outside the biblical norm. Many still keep the Sabbath in spite of this false teaching that genders the result stated in this quote. Thus, it is only a matter of time before thousands abandon the Sabbath for the same reason stated here.

        When you tell people they don’t have to keep the law to be saved, it may take awhile before they put 2 and 2 together, but when they do, they embrace this statement above. It is the only logical and viable conclusion. Namely this, “if I don’t have to keep the law to be saved, neither do I have to keep the law to remain saved.” Thus, the law has no salvation function on any level. And it is only one short step to abandon the Sabbath.

        What we must understand is this. There is a sense in which we must keep the law to be saved. And in another context, there is a sense in which we don’t. We only articulate the context in which we don’t, and never affirm the context in which we do. And thus the church has lost its dynamic in evangelism especially here in the USA.

        So we don’t keep the law to merit and earn heaven and/or pay for our sins to be saved. But we do keep the law as a moral imperative to obtain a fitness for heaven and thus we “keep the law to be saved.” Saved from what? The curse and wrath of God against all ungodliness and sin. No one is “saved” unless they are “saved from sin”. And “sin is transgression of the law”.

        Neither will God “force” anyone to abandon sin and keep His law. It is the believing sinner who repents and obeys and keeps the law and thus avoids the wrath of God. He does not “pay” for his sins by this activity. Jesus did that. So there are two factors in salvation. A divine factor whereby the Father and Son covenanted together to “pay” the penalty of sin, and now the sinner who accepts this atonement, repents and obeys the law, the human factor, is saved.

        The devil’s goal is to negate the human factor on any level in our relationship with God, that keeps us free from condemnation. And he persuaded Adam and Eve there was no human factor that maintained a “saved” relationship with God. He was a liar then and still is today. Adam and Eve did not need to repent because they were created in a right relationship with God in the garden. All they had to do was retain that relationship by obedience and loyalty to God.

        We, on the other hand, are not Adam and Eve in the garden. We are lost sinners who must repent and accept the atonement as the first step, and then continue to maintain that relationship as Adam and Eve should have done in the garden by continual obedience to the will of God. Faith and repentance are just as much a part of obedience as the ongoing submission to God’s will. So we are saved by faith, repentance and obedience to the law of God. And the human factor in salvation has not be negated as the false gospel stated in the sentence above.

        He may think he is “free from the law” but in fact, is in total bondage to sin and the principle of sin that Satan sold Adam and Eve in the garden. The same delusion Satan sold Adam and Eve is the one the world embraces today, and not a few SDA’s embrace this same false spirituality that will abandon the Sabbath just like this false confession of faith. He may be free from guilt in his own delusional mind, but he is not free from guilt as defined by the law and the mind of God.

          (Quote)




        2
        View Comment
    • Kerry,

      Your main argument against the historical observance of the Sabbath by the early Christian Church appears to be over the idea that the Sabbath was celebrated as a “festival”? – in a different manner compared to the Jews? – and therefore doesn’t qualify as true Sabbath observance as a holy day?

      That’s your main argument? You discount the testimony of Michael Cerularius and many church leaders and historians regarding Sabbath observance by the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the early church in general, entirely over this idea that the Sabbath was just a weekly “festival”? – even though the reason given for observing the Sabbath “festival” was specifically cited, in the Apostolic Constitutions, as being in honor of God’s rest at the end of the creation week? Of course, you claim that the Constitutions are not canonical, and I agree, but what does that have to do with the fact that the writer(s) of the Constitutions continued to view the Sabbath as day to be observed in memorial of creation week?

      Beyond this, Jesus Himself observed the Sabbath as a festive day – a day made for the benefit and joy of mankind – not some gloomy day of “propitiation” as you claim. Jesus also worked on the Sabbath, regularly breaking the Sabbath, but in a lawful manner. As noted, doing work for the relief of the suffering of man or even of beast has always been a lawful reason to break the Sabbath. In fact, it would have been contrary to the underlying Royal Law of Love to allow anyone to continue to suffer or die on the Sabbath if it was within one’s power to prevent suffering or death. It is quite clear, then, that God originally intended the Sabbath to be kept as Jesus kept it – and this is still how God wants us to keep the Sabbath.

      As an aside, you wrote:

      “PITMAN IS LYING THAT JULY 16, 1054 WAS A SABBATH. IT WAS CLEARLY ON SUNDAY AND A GOOGLE SEARCH WILL INSTANTLY VERIFY THIS.”

      Well, I just plugged in July 16, 1054 into some online weekday calculators (Link; Link) which returned “Saturday” as the day of the week for this particular date… not “Sunday”. Maybe I picked the wrong calculators? Which one did you use? 😉

      You may have used the calculator from this website: Link

      For this particular calculator, if you plug in the date of July 16, 1054 you get “Sunday”. The problem, you see, is that the math is in error here since the days of the week did not change when the Gregorian Calendar replaced the Julian Calendar (introduced in 45 BC) when the switch happened in 1582. The original Julian date of July 16, 1054 (a Saturday) would, therefore, be equivalent to the Gregorian date of July 22, 1054 (Link) – which is a Saturday.

      In short, the “Great Schism” between the Eastern and Western Churches did, in fact, take place on “Saturday” – a Sabbath day. And, this is the same position during the weekly cycle as modern Saturdays or Sabbaths.

      I’ll post additional comments and questions regarding your most interesting review as I find the time…

        (Quote)




      7
      View Comment
    • @Kerry Wynne:

      You also argue that:

      “ANOTHER PROBLEM FOR DR. PITMAN IS THAT THE NAZARENES WERE KNOWN TO HAVE KEPT THE SABBATH ACCORDING TO THE LUNAR CALENDAR. THEIR SABBATHS WERE VARIABLE/ADJUSTABLE.

      And, what evidence do you give for this claim? – in your latest LFG book? As far as I can tell, it is based largely on John Keyser’s book, “From Sabbath to Saturday” where a statement from Clement of Alexandria is referenced as follows:

      “Neither worship as the Jews; for they, thinking that they only know God, do not know Him, adoring as they do angels and archangels, the month and the moon. And if the moon be not visible, they do not hold the Sabbath, which is called the first; nor do they hold the new moon, nor the feast of unleavened bread, nor the feast, nor the great day.” (Stromata, Chap. 5)

      In your latest edition of LFG, you interpret this statement as follows:

      This clearly indicates that at this time the weekly Sabbath was still dictated by the moon’s course.

      Well, not quite. Certainly, this passage does not trump the numerous statements from many authors concerning the regular weekly cycle of 7 fixed days followed by the early Christians (including the Nazarenes) – along with a fixed Sabbath day every 7th day. Therefore, what Clement is most likely talking about here is one of the annual sabbaths – like the “Feast of Trumpets” (which happens to fall on “the first” day of the month of Tishrei).

      Again, the evidence against the whole “Lunar Sabbath” concept for the Jews and early Christians is so strong that your continued promotion of it further undermines your overall credibility.

        (Quote)




      5
      View Comment
  28. For those of you who wish to study a game-changing refutation of Adventism and Sabbatarian that strikes not only its roots, but the very soil that those roots used to grow in, you can study our book, LYING FOR GOD, 11th EDITION. It has been authored over a period of eleven years, and the team of co-authors and consulting scholars had recently gone world-wide. For example, Dr. Reuven Brauner, the world’s most respected Ancient Hebrew scholar, explains that there is no Sabbath until the time of the Exodus. As the translator of the MISHNAH from the Hebrew into the English, he has provided additional evidence that when the Torah was being studied by the Judges of Israel who, at the time, spoke and read the same language in which the Torah was written, interpreted it to clearly teach that the Sabbath did not exist until the Exodus and that it was for Israel alone. Here is a read-only link to the document at Google Docs. It is over 600 pages. I do not check this website for comments. If wish to contact me about the book, you must read the book completely through and indicate that you have done so in the first sentence of your e-mail to this address: LyingForGod@yahoo.comhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-1tLiODfTDqVkdIb0RxN19YbGs/view?usp=sharing

      (Quote)




    1
    View Comment
    • The Mishnah is indeed very exclusive and narrow in its view of the Sabbath as being made only for the Jews. However, as already discussed in my article above, this view is countered by numerous sources – to include the Talmud, Philo, Jesus, the Apostles, the Bible, and the early Church itself where the Sabbath was observed in honor of creation according to the command of God for hundreds and hundreds of years. The claim that the Sabbath was not observed in the same manner as the Jews observed the day is completely irrelevant to the fact that the early Christians throughout the Christian world continued to honor the Sabbath day and observe it as Jesus “the Lord of the Sabbath” observed it and taught His own disciples to observe it – as it was originally intended by God as a gift, a festival even in celebration of God and His creation, for all of humanity.

        (Quote)




      6
      View Comment
      • The Mishnah Superior to the rest of the Talmud?
        According to the authors of “Lying for God” (Kerry Wynne and Larry Dean), the Mishnah was considered superior to the rest of the Talmud:

        Recall that the Pharisees rejected the Talmud as merely the production of Human opinion, although the stewards of the oral law had, in their minds, placed the Mishnah within the body of Jewish oral law call the Talmud.  When Jesus told His followers to obey the teachings of the Pharisees, by the process of elimination we have no other possibility left than that Jesus instructed His followers to obey the teachings of the Mishnah and to reject all ther parts of the oral law.

        The Mishnah rejects the idea that the Torah existed before Moses. (Link)

        This argument seems a bit strange for several reasons.  First off, the Mishnah was collected and committed to writing about 200 AD and forms the first part of the Talmud. Orthodox Judaism believes that Moses received the Torah (the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) from God and that he wrote down everything God spoke to him. However, they also believe that God gave Moses explanations and examples of how to interpret the Law that Moses did not write down. These unwritten explanations are known in Judaism as the Oral Torah. The Oral Torah was supposedly passed down from Moses to Joshua and then to the rabbis until the advent of Christianity when it was finally written down as the legal authority called Halakha (“the walk”). The two main sections of the Oral Torah are the Mishnah and the Gemara.

        The Mishnah (משנה, “repetition”) essentially records the debates of the post-temple sages from AD 70—200 (called the Tannaim) and is considered the first major work of “Rabbinical Judaism.” It is composed of six orders (sedarim), arranged topically…

        After the Mishnah was published, it was studied exhaustively by generations of rabbis in both Babylonia and Israel. From AD 200—500, additional commentaries on the Mishnah were compiled and put together as the Gemara. Actually, there are two different versions of the Gemara, one compiled by scholars in Israel (c. 400 AD) and the other by the scholars of Babylonia (c. 500 AD). Together, the Mishnah and the Gemara form the Talmud (Link).

        Clearly, then, the Mishnah was not in written existence until after the time of Jesus. The claim, then, that Jesus recognized the Mishnah as authoritative, but not the rest of the Talmud, isn’t entirely accurate.  Beyond this, Jesus rejected many of the traditions of the Pharisees in His own day as being inconsistent with the Law of Love and the original intent of God for His own Laws. This is the reason that Jesus was in constant conflict with the Pharisees and their burdensome laws.

        The fact of the matter is that the Gemaric part of the Talmud does, in fact, recognize the existence of the Torah, including the Sabbath, before the time of Moses. And, there is no reason to selectively reject certain views proposed by the Talmud. Beyond this, the Mishnah itself also directly claims that Abraham, despite having lived many generations before Moses, had already been a follower of the laws that were eventually delivered on Sinai – in their entirety:

        We find that Father Avraham observed the Torah [hatorah] in its entirety before it was given, as it is said: “Since Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my observances, commandments, statutes and my teachings [toratai]. (Gen. 26:5).

        M Qiddushin (Kiddushin) 4:14 (Link – starting at 9:00 of 9:25)

        This, of course, directly undermines the above-cited claim that, “The Mishnah rejects the idea that the Torah existed before Moses.”  Rather, the Mishnah specifically argues that Abraham observed the entire Torah before it was given to Moses – including the Sabbath.

          (Quote)




        2
        View Comment
  29. Note that the 12th Edition of LYING FOR GOD will be available in a couple of months or less. Our chapter on the lunar Sabbath has some errors that needed to be corrected, and additional research has been done. Also, additional research was needed to evaluate Dr. Pitman’s challenges to it. This chapter is under construction, and you may wish to watch its progress as a rough draft. I will provide a view-only link to it in Google Docs. If you are lucky, you will get to see one of us working on the document in real time. Most of Dr. Pitman’s arguments have already been researched and evaluated by our team. Here is the link:

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pjPyH-WLoVGW4ejbwOqzbncEFXy3GsAIk_6NMt4iymo/edit?usp=sharing

    Thanks!

    KERRY WYNNE
    PRIMARY AUTHOR
    LYING FOR GOD
    11TH EDITION
    LyingForGod@yahoo.com

      (Quote)




    1
    View Comment
    • The best action you could possibly take is to simply drop this “lunar Sabbath” nonsense from your book altogether. Putting more and more lipstick on it is only going to make things worse for your position. I mean, for anyone looking into it in any detail, the “lunar Sabbath” hypothesis simply has no reasonable credibility. It was originated by an antisemitic record producer with a criminal record and is now championed by Biblical critics who believe that the Bible is nothing more than legends put together by regular humans without any kind of Divine inspiration whatsoever. These critics usually wish to promote evolutionary Darwinian ideas as to the origin and diversity of life on this planet and completely discount the Biblical claims to a literal creation week of just 7 days.

      Yet, in your LFG book and in your rebuttal to my article you present similar arguments against any empirical basis for a literal 7-day creation week – even going so far as to question the validity of the science behind the circaseptan (7-day) biorhythms that exist as the primary biorhythm within all living things on this planet. You offer no empirical evidence to the contrary, yet you refuse to accept the validity of the scientific evidence presented in numerous papers along these lines. Why? Simply because it flies in the face of your “lunar week” assertions? That’s all you have? You see no possible way that God would have actually produced a consistent unchanging week of 7 days from the very beginning of time – and imprinted this cycle within the biology of every living thing? Why not? Why do you think that even the animals were given the Sabbath off as a command of God? – a Sabbath festival for both man and beast?

      It couldn’t be because that is how God made both man and beast? – to function best according to a literal 7-day biorhythm? You’d rather attribute the original concept of a week, and the Sabbath, to the ancient pagan worship of Assyrians and Babylonians? – rather than to the God who originally created this planet and everything in it? – and set aside a special period of time for worship that was not to be confused with the pagan practices of worshiping the Sun, moon, stars, or any other natural phenomenon? You really think that is how the Christian God described in the Bible operates?

      I think not…

        (Quote)




      6
      View Comment
  30. If we understand that the real problem in the human mind is guilt, we can better analyse the various ideas people come up with to deal with this problem that afflicts and plagues humanity since the fall of Adam.

    It is really quit simple. We can either accept the bible solution that God has ordained and articulated in scripture, or we can make up some idea of our own that releases us from the affliction of guilt. The sinful mind don’t really like God’s solution and prefers one of its own. God’s solution requires affliction, temptation, suffering and cross bearing to deal with the sin problem in ourselves as we comprehend the true meaning of the cross where Jesus “paid it all” to merit salvation and now we must go through a parallel experience to understand and learn the lesson that cures the sin issue once and for all in the end. This is the bible way and God’s way that we can deal with guilt and have the law remain in full effect while we appropriate grace in the ongoing restoration.

    But the delusion of Satan is simpler and more appealing to the carnal mind. That is, do away with the law and now no guilt is possible. This is the system Kerry Wynne and his theological buddies prefer and most of the world will opt for in the end. It is the mother of “The Mark of the Beast” which is simply the mind of Satan the world embraces that is demonstrated in the Sabbath/Sunday controversy that will intensify and culminate to its final end just before Jesus comes.

    We would do well to carefully evaluate the various ideas Satan is advocating in the SDA community to see if they really fit God’s agenda according to scripture, or, if they parallel and emulate the theory that Kerry Wynne advocates in his on going delusion to escape guilt and condemnation. While Sean is correctly showing how they misuse the bible and other writing to support their false delusion, when we see the foundation of the delusion itself and the principle that stimulates it, and why they advocate this false idea to avoid guilt, we can more easily reject the whole theory of the matter and re-affirm the God ordained system to deal with guilt and still keep the law in full force while offering us grace by way of the cross.

    Kerry Wynne advocates a crossless religion with no law of God. The Sabbath is simply the issue they use to attack the principle of God’s kingdom and establish the kingdom of darkness. They see themselves as the “highly spiritually enlightened community” and scorn true bible faith and obedience as legalism and accuse the SDA message given by EGW as some cult that attacks the gospel. The “cult” is themselves who represent this world wide movement that is embracing every religion in the world, and opting to eliminate any and all controversy by removing any specific details to define true faith. Sad to say, much of modern Adventism is “all in” for this agenda and we see it in the spirituality of Atoday and Spectrum. They remove guilt by taking away the law, the true believer deals with guilt by upholding the law and fleeing to the cross.

    If they advocate Christ on any level, it is this, Christ died and did away with the law. It may seem subtle to some who have not carefully evaluated what is being taught. But surely the fruit of their ministries should be enough evidence to expose their false spirituality as they embrace sin without guilt and advocate blatant evil like the Gay agenda as an acceptable norm in the Christian community. Thus, Atoday and Spectrum are “all in” for Kerry Wynne’s theology and doctrine, even if they don’t necessarily use the same format Kerry uses.

      (Quote)




    1
    View Comment
    • @Bill Sorensen: Bill, You hit the nail on the head. People forget to realize that if the law of God could have been done away with, it did not need for Jesus to come and die for that law! God knowing the end from the beginning could have just put man on earth and told him that he could do anything he wanted and that there would be no penalty for sin. What nonsense!!! As a matter of fact, if there was no law from the foundation of the world, Satan would not have sinned in heaven! I marvel at how man thinks he is so smart. He tries to outsmart God. Very sad.

        (Quote)




      0
      View Comment
  31. To Wes

    ” I, like him, am a third generation Seventh-day Adventist of over 50 years (more like over 80 years) of sabbath keeping, and after reviewing the Bible, not the internet, and my own inner self, in communion with Jesus who Himself gave us the Sabbath, having rested on it at Creation and during it for our redemption, I am convinced that Seventh-day Adventism is a more pivotal message than ever. ”

    Well said Pard. I hadn’t realized you and yours had been in the corral for that long. A child’s upbringing is likely to factor into his Big Tent moment at a tender age.

    No offence Pard. Just sittin’ on the fence pondering why folks “inner selves” believe the things they do and what they are prepared to do to corroborate it. Guess that might be what those scientific city slickers call confirmation bias, or the devoted call faith. Doggone it Pard, which tail should be waggin’ that ole Canine Truth: faith or scientific method?

      (Quote)




    1
    View Comment
    • @george: Howdy, ole pard, ole sidekick. Yup, long ‘o tooth, that’s me. ‘N how long you’n me been out hee-are on sheriff Sean’s ole badlands, a-palaverin’ with our city-slicker Beverly hillbilly-li’l Abner -Wyatt Earp-Rick O’Shay aykscents? ‘Bout hey-uff a decade, ah reckon. Ah may be gettin’ so old ah’m a-losin’ me marbles, but by cracky if ah ain’t purty sure we been goin’ roun-‘n-roun in these here same egg-nostic ruts more’n a hunnerd times now, same tumblin’ tumble weeds, same ole egg-nostic prickly pears, same ole mirages, all dried up by now. Wall, whadeva ‘t takes, ‘cause you’n me’ll we’ll be a-strummin’ ‘n a-pickin’ ‘n a-circlin’ on into the sunset, sho-nuff hope so.

        (Quote)




      0
      View Comment
  32. Hello Pard

    More like 8 years or so and I’ve enjoyed the ride. You paint elliptical prose on this cyber board like Dali on canvas, which renderings this ole cowpoke surely does enjoy. Others of a legalistic mind set don’t see the art in that but I’m sure your Creator does and smiles….

    And every time I see the noble Dr. Pitman espouse the Royal Law of Love I know he is ridin’ down the right moral trail, even though I think that trail is a tad older than 8000 years (:

    Now trail mates don’t have to agree on much at all to enjoy each other’s company and discourse. Maybe that’s what the Creator had in mind after all as opposed to a lot of hair splitin’ and folks thinkin’ they know the divine mind .

      (Quote)




    1
    View Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *