Yet again, as far as lawfully breaking the Sabbath, you

Comment on Christians and the Sabbath by Sean Pitman.

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.

Table of Contents

1 Sean Pitman Also Commented
- 1.1 Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
2 Related

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Christians and the Sabbath
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

Christians and the Sabbath
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.

Christians and the Sabbath
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…