In part IV of this series, we looked specifically at the fourth commandment–a commandment of special importance to Adventists–and concluded that nobody actually “keeps” this command.  Furthermore, those who believe they are successfully keeping it may miss the Person to whom the shadow of the Sabbath points–Jesus Christ (Colossians 2:16-17).

Some Christians are uncomfortable with using the law to expose our sinful nature and to establish our need for a Savior, believing the law was done away with at the cross.  Adventists, on the other hand, have historically taught that the law is something to be mastered and kept perfectly, using their example of Sabbath-keeping as evidence that, unlike non-Adventists, they “keep” the whole law.

In his first letter to Timothy, Paul addressed the concerns of both groups: “Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners...” (1 Timothy 1:8-9 ESV)

This “lawful” use of the law is found not only in Paul’s epistles, but in the teachings of Jesus, which we will explore in more detail below.

Jesus

Jesus quoted from and expanded upon the ten commandments and other Mosaic laws in his Sermon on the Mount.  He specifically identified the seventh and eighth commandments as the basis for an even higher level of righteousness than that required by the decalogue (Matthew 5:21-28).  Not unlike Adventists, the Jews of Jesus’ day believed they had mastered the law and boiled down its requirements to a formula they were able to live by.  Jesus destroyed this misconception by showing how the ten commandments require a much higher standard of righteousness than a narrow reading of the words implies.  Those listening to Jesus, believing they had “kept” the law by not committing murder must have been shocked to hear that their anger with a brother was just as bad as killing someone in cold blood.  Further on in his sermon, Jesus also referred to the first commandment: “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.” (Matthew 6:24 ESV)

In another example, Jesus harshly condemned the Pharisees’ pollution of the law with their traditions by quoting from the fifth commandment: “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,” he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God.” (Matthew 15:3-6 ESV) Later in this chapter, Jesus contrasted the ceremonial aspects of the law with its moral qualities, driving home the point that foods don’t defile a person, rather, it is what comes out of the heart that defiles him.  In so doing, Jesus appealed to actions prohibited by the third, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth commandments (Matthew 15:18-20).

As yet another example, when the rich young ruler asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus quoted from the commandments to show him that he was not “good.” (Mark 10:17-22) The rich young ruler had addressed Jesus as a “good teacher,” and Jesus replied with “only God is good,” proceeding to walk through several of the commandments.  When the rich young ruler assured Jesus that he had kept these since his youth, Jesus showed that in fact he had not, since money was his god, violating the first commandment.

Most importantly, when Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was, he did not appeal to anything found within the decalogue, instead quoting two commandments found in the Mosaic law (Deuteronomy 6:5, Leviticus 19:18): “And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, ‘Which commandment is the most important of all?’ Jesus answered, ‘The most important is, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.” The second is this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” There is no other commandment greater than these.’” (Mark 12:28-31 ESV)

Paul

When reasoning with the Athenians in the Aeropagus, Paul used the principles of the first and second commandments to exhort them to turn from their sin, even though these Gentile hearers were never bound by the Sinai covenant: “Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” (Acts 17:29-31 ESV) Paul preached a very similar message to the crowds at Lystra (Acts 14:15).

Paul also reasons from his own testimony in his letter to the Romans, which was written “To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints” (Romans 1:7 ESV). Paul’s audience in this letter was the believers in Rome, both Jew and Gentile, again illustrating the function of the law to convict the whole world (not just the Jews), stopping every mouth and holding them acccountable to God (Romans 3:19).

In opening the letter, Paul strikes at the heart of the Jewish self-assured righteousness, asking them directly whether they kept the law which was given to them, in much the same way as Jesus magnified and expanded the law in the Sermon on the Mount: “...you then who teach others, do you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law. For, as it is written, ‘The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.’” (Romans 2:21-24 ESV)

Later, Paul refers directly to the ten commandments when answering the rhetorical question about whether the law is sin: “What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, ‘You shall not covet.’ But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law, sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.” (Romans 7:7-12 ESV)

Later in the letter to the Romans, Paul again appeals to the commandments, summarizing them as Jesus did in the two greatest commandments: “Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,’ and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” (Romans 13:8-10 ESV)

In his epistle to the Corinthian church, Paul gives specific examples of behaviors that would exclude them from heaven, with direct reference to the decalogue: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ESV) Paul gave a similar list to the Galatian church (Galatians 5:19-21).

Still another example comes from the epistle to the Ephesians, which like the Roman church, was a mixed population of Christians from Jewish and Gentile backgrounds.  Paul appeals in this case to the fifith commandment: “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. ‘Honor your father and mother’ (this is the first commandment with a promise), ‘that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.’ Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.” (Ephesians 6:1-4 ESV)

Finally, returning to our opening text, in counseling Timothy to “use the law lawfully,” Paul also provided a list of behaviors that are specifically restrained by this use of the law: “...the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.” (1 Timothy 1:8-11 ESV)

Paul also warned Timothy in his second letter of the people who will disregard God’s law, again drawing from the decalogue and elsewhere to identify the marks of those who appear godly, but who deny God’s power by the actions: “For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.” (2 Timothy 3:2-5 ESV)

Conclusion

In reviewing these New Testament references to the decalogue and Mosaic law, we must conclude that it is biblical for Christians to use the law to reveal sin.  But in acknowledging the lawful purpose of the law, we must not conclude that our justification comes from keeping the law.  Nobody is made righteous by their ability to perform righteous works or law-keeping.  “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.” (Romans 3:20 ESV)

No, the purpose of the law is to convict the whole world of sin, causing us to despair of our unrighteousness and driving us to rest in the finished work of Jesus Christ–the only one who is good and the only one who could provide atonement for our sins.  In short, the law was given so that sin would be seen for what it is, “sinful beyond measure” (Romans 7:13).

Read more in part VI.

There are many Adventists who would agree with everything you’ve said here.

Then again, there are some Adventists who take the “higher demands” of the decalogue to heart, or at least openly declare that that is the standard and that that standard can, and has to be, kept.

What do you say to someone who says “I agree completely with everything you said here. I acknowledge my inability to live up to the fullness of God’s character as expressed in His Law and Word.  But conceding that I fall short daily and most often in the hidden recesses of my heart, I still make it a priority to outwardly abstain from that which God explicitly forbids and attempt to comply with that which God has stated we outwardly perform. For example, while I am guilty of adultery in that I lust, I nevertheless endeavor to be outwardly and legally faithful in my marriage or to not engage in sexual relations in the event I’m not married. In the same way, while admitting that the Sabbath cannot be kept fully (or that we can even necessarily know what it would mean in today’s age to keep it completely), I nonetheless choose that day to honor God, by attending church, gathering with fellow believers, studying the bible at greater length, etc.”

Good point glenn..it is unfortunate that those who are so ‘anti-law’ think that every SDA keeps the law to be saved and we make void all of Paul’s teaching on the matter.

Nobody disagrees with Paul on the function of the law, though many formers seem to think we contradict Paul. Because we cannot keep the law completely and perfectly does not negate that as Christians we are not called to live by its standards.

“Do I make void the law through faith? God forbid!”

It is easy to hide behind ‘grace’ and claim, ‘there is NOTHING I can do to be saved’. Though this may be true what it fosters is a ‘laissez-faire’ attitude to be ‘zealous to good works’ or to live a life as a changed Christian even when our sinful nature wants to take precedence.

If not careful, we can basically find ourselves in a place where we think ‘works’ don’t maatter at ALL so it is not a big deal.."Who cares if I do something different then what the Bible says here. I’m not saved by doing it or not doing it anyways” “As long as we have faith in Christ and let him work, all the details of works don’t matter.

To me this can become as dangerous as many SDAs who feel that wading out to deep on the Sabbath is tantamount to denying Christ.

We do good works because we love God, not to find more favor in Him. We observe the commandments because He commanded us to do so. We do it because it is God’s standard of life and relationship. We do it because our lives will be better because of it.

I fail to see how so many anti-nomians have a problem with this or automatically scream ‘Salvation by works!!’ when we choose to keep the Sabbath as was commanded by God and kept by the disciples and Christ Himself. I fail to see how defending it as truth for the Christian (just like every orthodox doctrine is defended from the Bible and reason) makes SDAs ‘legalists’, ‘cultists’ and preaching ‘false gospel’

Surely there must be a happy medium here.

Glen,

Thanks for your comments and question.  I am not offended that many Adventists would agree with everything I’ve said (just to set the record straight ).  I don’t look for opportunities to disagree with Adventists based on my “former” status.

I will be developing the “Law and Gospel” series over time and will be addressing the question you asked, but you are right that some Adventists take the “higher demands” of the law to heart in an attempt to keep the law perfectly.  As you are aware, the historic Adventists thought that if they kept the law perfectly, Jesus would come sooner.  It was also Adventist teaching that true sanctification involved progressing to a point of sinless perfection (defined as perfect law-keeping) so that the individual would be able to stand on their own merit, without Christ as a mediator, after the formal closing of the investigative judgment (since no more atonement for sins could be made at this point).

Anyone who adheres strictly to these beliefs has, in my opinion, fundamentally missed the reason why the law was given–to convict the whole world of sin, stopping every mouth so that we are without excuse (Romans 3:19).  Seeing our unrighteousness standing next to the unassailable demands of the law was designed to show us our need for the Savior.  The law therefore acts as the “schoolteacher” to bring people to Christ (Galatians 3:24-26).  Put more simply, if a pupil thinks he has nothing to learn from the schoolteacher, he won’t see his need for Christ.  This is why the emphasis on the ability to keep the law perfectly is particularly dangerous.  This belief is not only limited to Adventism, but it is especially prominent within the denomination because of the emphasis on the decalogue.

In your last paragraph, you ask a very important question, and it is a question that would divide many former Adventists.  It is a question that many have taken indefensible stands on.

Reformed theology divides the uses of the law into three major components.  The first is to convince the sinner of their sin, which I’ve spent so much time on in these posts.  It’s important to spend time here, because I think one of the major problems in Adventism is trivializing the demands of the law, thinking it is possible to perfectly keep it.

The second use of the law is to protect people from harming each other.  Even a non-Christian will agree that “thou shalt not kill” is a good idea.

The third use of the law guides the Christian in how to live.  This is where we inevitably have the most disagreements, because the dividing line between keeping the law as a moral choice versus keeping it to be saved is razor thin.  My bottom line is this:  if one is truly saved, they will not minimize the law, and will desire to keep the law, not out of wanting to be saved, or even stay saved, but out of gratitude for what Christ has already done (past tense) to save.  The definition of the laws governing the life of a Christian are better left for another time, but this is where the most heated debates arise within Adventism, particularly centering on the fourth commandment.

That said, if an Adventist admitted his utter incapacity to keep the law, yet wanted to “keep” the Sabbath out of gratitude for the finished work of Jesus Christ, I say let him do it for the Lord.  We have biblical precedent for this based on Romans 14:5-6.  These verses cut both ways, undermining the position of both the historic Adventist Sabbath-keeper and those who believe every day is alike.  Many former Adventists don’t seem to remember this and in fact say that Sabbath observance must be abandoned in order to have a relationship with the “true Jesus.”

I’ll leave the rest of this discussion for another time, but you can probably tell where I’m headed.

Greg

Welcome Glennspring to 4TG--Great to have you here.

I think it is refreshing that some of us former SDAs have a lot of common ground with SDAs who are truly saved, and who are our brothers and sisters in Christ.

I am a relatively new convert to Greg’s position on this, as he has been working on me, and I have continued to study Reformed theology further.

The Sabbath issue is very simple however, and I base my position on the Old Testament verses as follows:

Exodus 31:12ff:

12And the LORD said to Moses, 13"You are to speak to the people of Israel and say, ‘Above all you shall keep my Sabbaths, for this is a sign between ME and YOU throughout your generations, that you may know that I, the LORD, sanctify you. 14You shall keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for YOU. Everyone who profanes it shall be put to death. Whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. 15Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any WORK on the Sabbath day shall be put to DEATH. 16Therefore the people of ISRAEL shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant FOREVER. 17It is a sign forever between me and the PEOPLE of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.’”

18And he gave to Moses, when he had finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai, the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God.”
------------------------------------------------------------

The Sabbath was a special sign of the Covenant for Israel.

The Jews themselves always believed the Sabbath was a ceremonial law, and not a moral law. That is why it was under penalty of DEATH for breaking it--Think about the man that was caught gathering firewood on the Sabbath in the book of Numbers, and he was stoned to death. Does not that imply that the Sabbath was a ceremonial sign pointing to our salvation, and that this was a shadow pointing towards Christ?

Now look at Leviticus 23:

Feasts of the LORD
1The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 2"Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, These are the appointed FEASTS of the LORD that you shall proclaim as holy convocations; they are my appointed FEASTS:

The SABBATH
3"Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day is a SABBATH of solemn rest, a holy convocation. You shall do no work. It is a SABBATH to the LORD in all your dwelling places. (see where it is the seventh day Sabbath that is at the VERY TOP of the list of all the ceremonial FEASTS)

The Passover
4"These are the appointed feasts of the LORD, the holy convocations, which you shall proclaim at the time appointed for them. 5In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at twilight,[a] is the LORD’s Passover. 6And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the Feast of Unleavened bread to the LORD; for seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. 7On the first day you shall have a holy convocation; you shall not do any ordinary work. 8But you shall present a food offering to the LORD for seven days. On the seventh day is a holy convocation; you shall not do any ordinary work.”

The Feast of Firstfruits
9And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 10"Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, When you come into the land that I give you and reap its harvest, you shall bring the sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest to the priest, 11and he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, so that you may be accepted. On the day after the Sabbath the priest shall wave it. 12And on the day when you wave the sheaf, you shall offer a male lamb a year old without blemish as a burnt offering to the LORD. 13And the grain offering with it shall be two tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil, a food offering to the LORD with a pleasing aroma, and the drink offering with it shall be of wine, a fourth of a hin.[c] 14And you shall eat neither bread nor grain parched or fresh until this same day, until you have brought the offering of your God: it is a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.(AND PLEASE NOTICE that this feast of Firstfruits actually occurs as a day of worship on Sunday?--this clearly typifies Christ as the Firstfruits of Resurrection--Sunday AM!)
-------------------------------------------------------

Stan, thanks for putting together that very informative post and for bringing the focus back to Jesus Christ–to whom the entire law and prophets point–including his shadow, the Sabbath.

I would just like to add a little bit to what I wrote in somewhat of a hurry earlier today.

In no way am I advocating a “saved by the law” approach, nor am I advocating a “saved to keep the law” approach.  Rather, I am advocating a “saved from the condemnation of the law by Jesus Christ” approach.

As one saved by the unmerited grace of Jesus Christ, I live a life of gratitude for the One who, while I was yet a sinner, died for my sins (Romans 5:8 ).

I view the moral qualities of God’s law found inside and outside of the decalogue and in the teachings of Jesus to be in complete harmony with the Christian life.  Christians who are truly saved will naturally want to do these things, even though they will never do them with perfection on this side of heaven (Romans 7:13-25).

I am in full agreement with the apostle Paul, who said “For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God.” (1 Corinthians 7:19 ESV)

I also strongly believe that Adventists have historically missed the purpose of the law by making the fourth commandment the focal point of their eschatology and the motivation for converting Christians to their denominational beliefs.  I support the view of the Sabbath that Stan has outlined above–that the Sabbath was a sign of the Mosaic covenant given specifically to the Jews–and that those living on this side of the cross in the new covenant of Christ’s blood are not bound by the Mosaic covenant sign in the same way that Christians are not required to circumcise their male children (the sign of the Abrahamic covenant).

In strongly opposing historic Adventists’ use of the fourth commandment as both a proof that others are not in the faith and as a tool to divide Christians from Christ’s body, I must also submit to Paul’s counsel in Romans 14:5-6 and extend the hand of fellowship to any Christian who keeps the day, not to be or stay saved, but out of love for our Lord.

We can learn much from the apostle Paul, who no doubt faced many controversies concerning the law in his interactions with both Jews and Gentiles.  In addition to rebuking those who were misusing the law to add works as a requirement for salvation (see the book of Galatians), Paul’s over-arching concern was about winning all to Christ, whether born under the law or not, noticeably sidestepping any discussion of how to keep the law perfectly:

“For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.” (1 Corinthians 7:19-23 ESV)

Anyone who has reduced the gospel commission to the keeping of a day has sadly missed the point.

Greg

Stan and Greg,

Thank you for your informative posts on this matter. First things first…

1) Stan, though one could use the festival of the first fruits to show Sabbath abrogation (and some even for Sunday worship), I believe that this festival is ultimately about the resurrection and not a fulfillment of a day. It was a festival to show Christ’s redemptive mission, not establish or abolish a day of worship.

2) Even if one does believe as you both do concerning Sabbath, I think to try and derive a nonchalant approach to observing it from Romans 14 lacks merit. It is highly unlikely that Paul would sweep aside such important ‘days’ as Pentacost, Passover and the Seventh Day Sabbath as a matter of preference in two verses without any explanation whatsoever and absolutely no hint of squawking from the Pharisees on this matter. Especially considering the amount of material put forth on the strong arguments Paul had to defend himself on concerning circumcision!

The cultural context of this chapter is not about days at all but about food and feast days. He devotes the rest of the chapter to ‘fleshing out’ (every pun intended) meat and drink offerings. In this context, eating and drinking would be much more important to Paul and the Pharisees then holy days such as the Sabbath.

When one understands the myriad of feast, fast and holy days both from a Judaic perspective and a Pagan Roman perspective as well as the controversy of eating foods sacrificed to idols and ritual purification, this seems to be the immediate context and not the validity or personal opinion of whether the Sabbath should be followed.

I believe this is a weak argument many use to try and make the Sabbath a matter of choice and is not based on sound exegesis or study of the context and culture at all.

Frankly, Sabbath-abrogators should stick with their interpretation of Hebrews 4 if they really want to use something tangible to prove their point because Romans 14 is fairly weak.

The current day application of Romans 14 to me is vegetarians getting all in a squabble because somebody brought meat to the potluck or milk chocolate to a vegan party or a pastor getting the third degree from somebody because they drink coffee.

Guibox,

Forgive me for asking a simple question, but do you believe that Christians who make the conscious choice not to “keep” the seventh-day Sabbath are putting their salvation in jeopardy?

Greg

Greg,

I guess I am still sorting out the place of works in my life. If in fact I believe that nothing I can do can make me lose my salvation then no, it doesn’t matter what day I worship on. It seems that you and Stan believe that God has chosen whom He is going to save and draws us to Him. Once we have accepted Him then, it is all signed, sealed and delivered. If God has chosen me and all I needed to do is believe, then it doesn’t matter a hoot if I eat pork, worship on Sunday or dance in the aisles at church.

If however,I believe that salvation is offered to all and we must come to Him to receive it and then live the CHristian life that HE calls us to, then works are important. If God says, ‘honor the Sabbath day’ and I believe that it has not been abolished and is still valid, then I must believe that disobedience doesn’t sit well with a Supreme and Holy God who doesn’t wink at rebellion in sin.

I personally don’t believe in any sort of Calvinism and that just as one chooses to follow God one (by their actions and by their choice) can also choose to disobey and walk away from Him.

No, ultimately I don’t believe that Sunday worshippers are all going straight to hell. However, I must believe the Bible when it calls us to be different, holy, set apart and obedient to His word and commands.

If I don’t obey His words, why am I even a Christian and if I basically tell God through my actions that He is not worthy to be served and obeyed, why should He save me?

Posted anonymously by: Randy

I would like to thank-you all for this interesting discussion on the Law and the Gospel.

In effect it all boils down to whether “keeping” the Sabbath as interpreted by the SDA church is critical to ones salvation.

I think we all agree on the appropriateness of following the morality of the other nine commandments of the decalogue, but the real crux of the discussion is how to interpret the Sabbath.

For many of us, our Sabbath rest in Christ is an ongoing 7 day a week relationship. We try not to do anything that would interfere with that ongoing relationship in all our actions and activities throughout the week.

For others “keeping” the Sabbath is defined not by the Old Testament definition of Sabbath keeping, or even how Christ and the Disciples kept the Sabbath, but rather by how the SDA church has traditionally kept it as defined by the study papers on Sabbath keeping on the GC website. And yes there are papers that list appropriate Sabbath activities, and also those things that are frowned upon, along with all the appropriate exceptions.

I am quite surprised to see the antiquated term Sunday Keeper come up in this discussion.

I have asked many of my Adventist friends and family if it is wrong to worship God on Sunday. I have asked this question of my former Adventist Pastor, my friend the Canadian Union President, my friend, a former Adventist Review Editor, and a friend who is a current Adventist Review Editor.  Not one of them has said it is wrong to worship God on Sunday.

Of all the churches I have attended on a Sunday, I have never heard the term Sunday Keeper used. Sunday has never been worshipped, only God has been worshipped. The fact that that worship happens corporately on Saturday or Sunday has never been a concern as those worshipping.They are just happy for the opportunity to praise God regardless of what day it is.

Is an understanding of a seven day a week Sabbath rest in Christ less acceptable to God than the traditional SDA interpretation of Sabbath keeping? Only God knows, and I will let Him be the judge. I for one, accept my brothers and sisters in Christ regardless of how they interpret this question, and how they choose to live their understanding of Christ’s Sabbath Rest.

Guibox, its good to see you on board.

Randy

Hey Randy, thanks!

I guess my biggest issue is that people are inconsistent on how they apply the law. Just as the Bible says ‘He who breaks one is guilty of breaking all’, so one cannot separate the commands and say that 9 are valid but 1 is completely changed around in function and purpose.

Either the whole law stands or falls. You cannot say that 9 commandments are still valid (in some form, though this hasn’t been established by law abrogators either)but the one is now an ontological reality, metaphorically symbolized from typ-to anti-type, re-established in a new covenant allegory, etc, etc, however you want to say it.

Christ being our ‘rest’ in no way negates or abolishes the purpose, function and biblical scope of the weekly Sabbath.

I don’t believe that we can take the literal commands and claim that even though they are now under the ‘new covenant’ that they are still kept in their literal fashion,but the Sabbath is now not a literal day. I just don’t see the biblical basis for doing so,especially when the Sabbath is still mentioned and followed post-Christ in it’s literal form and not one iota of protest from Paul, Peter or even Christ (current interpretation of Romans 14 and Colossians 2 not-withstanding).

I don’t think anybody is having a problem with ‘worshipping’ on Sunday. I guess Sunday worshippers was a wrong word to use..old habits die hard. : )

The issue is setting aside the seventh day for fellowship made holy and set apart outside of man’s existence and commanded by God. I don’t believe it is a matter of worship, I believe it is a matter of obedience. Some people like Michael Card and I believe Steve Green (though I could be wrong on that) do both. The recognize the difference between a ‘holy day’ and worship. They fellowship on Sunday but observe the Sabbath. I have great respect for this for it finds the healthy difference in understanding the function of both. Though one can worship on the Sabbath, worship is not exclusive to one day...but a holy day’s meaning IS exclusive to one day..the seventh day.

It is nice to say ‘I rest in Christ every day of the week’ but not only is that really undefined and irrelevant to the purpose and function of the Sabbath, but I would say that every Christian including SDAs try to ‘rest’ in Christ according to the dictates of ‘My burden is easy and my yoke is light...come unto me and I will give you rest.” I just don’t see this as a valid substitute for the literal Sabbath.

God bless.

Hey Guibox,

Thanks for your insights.  I hope we can all agree to extend each other a bit of grace in this discussion.  Even if we don’t see eye to eye on the Sabbath issue, I think we can agree that the record of the apostolic teaching in the New Testament–teaching that was given to both Jews and Gentiles–never focused on the mechanics of how best to “keep” the law.  In fact, we are given a command to specifically avoid this because it is “unprofitable and worthless” (Titus 3:8-9).

There is a very real sense that many Adventists cannot accept non-Sabbatarian Christians into fellowship because of this issue.  This is really the same problem you have seen in some former Adventist circles where Adventists are told they must abandon the Sabbath if they are to know the “true Jesus.” Both sides must submit to Paul’s counsel in Romans 14 about not making the observance (or non-observance) of a day a test of fellowship.

Given your response that observing the Sabbath is an obedience issue for you, do you also obey the plain commands of God to observe feast days and festivals?

Greg

What I find interesting about the treatment of Sabbath keeping in the N.T. is the general lack of concern expressed about it. One would think, given the importance we SDAs have attributed to it, that Sabbath keeping would have been perhaps THE vital concern when introducing the gospel to gentiles. Much of the decalogue consists of admonitions that probably most people in various cultures would have agree with--murder, stealing, adultery. But the Sabbath, as Adventists point out, is especially unique and rather non-intuitive. If so, why wouldn’t have Paul and the other apostles made this an emphasis? That they did not, combined with the passages already mentioned in Colossians and Romans leads me to think that for whatever reason, Paul and the apostles treated the Sabbath command differently than other commands.

Although the bible does not explicitly differentiate between moral, ceremonial or civil Law, the apostolic era does seem to have been a period when the followers of Jesus tried to sort through what was essential and what was not, particularly as it related to expanding the Kingdom to include gentiles.

I also think there are historical issues that we are not as aware of as we would like to be. For instance, there does seem to be some evidence that sunday fellowship arose prior to the Constantinian, Catholic era, although the evidence is pretty sparse. The SDA line that the Sabbath was changed to Sunday by Constantine and by the Papacy is probably less than a complete telling of how Sunday specialness actually came about. It may have had its origins in the Christian dispute with the Jews over the legacy of Judaism as Christians argued Jesus was the continuance and fullfillment of Judaism while Jews rejected that reasoning.

Anyway, I’m wondering off topic, but I appreciate the discussion here. 

glenn,

I think the SDAs are few and far between who still believes that ‘Constantine changed the Sabbath to Sunday’. Bacchiocchi lays out quite plainly that Justin Martyr and Barnabas were making an issue out of it as early as 135 A.D.

Greg,

As far a the feast days go, to me this is more of what Paul is speaking about in Romans 14. ‘If you want to keep the feast days, go ahead’. I don’t see the seventh day Sabbath as being in the same category as the many festivals and ‘sabbaths’ that the Jews observed.

To me the lack of emphasis on the Sabbath in the NT could also go against the ‘anti-sabbatarian’. Though it is not wise to make an argument by silence, I feel that in the case of the lack of mention of the Sabbath in the NT it is justified to say that the Sabbath was already accepted and didn’t need to be reiterated.

When we see the constant criticism that Paul had to face with the Jews over issues of food and drink, ritual cleanliness and circumcision and the myriads of chapters he devotes to counteract this controversy, it would be highly unlikely that Paul would get away with not thoroughly addressing an abolishment of such an important holy day (never mind other high days such as Pentecost and Passover if one interpretes Romans 14 the traditional way). Instead, we are greeted with absolute silence and no controversy on the matter.

To try and take Romans 14 and Colossians 2 as the only discourse by Paul of anti-Sabbath theology doesn’t ring true at all either contextually and especially culturally. Couple this with the fact that it casually mentions that Paul ‘preached the next Sabbath’ to only the Gentiles as well as outside the synagogue to Gentiles, shows that the Sabbath was not an issue because it was an accepted given and Paul, by every given contextual account, honored it as well.

Guibox,

As I see it, Sabbatarians run into a logical problem when they say that Christians should keep the seventh-day Sabbath holy while ignoring all of the other holy days commanded by God.  It is not enough to get around the issues raised by Romans 14 to assert that Paul was speaking of only the ritual observance of feast days while leaving the Sabbath out of view.

Furthermore, there are more than just two texts from Paul’s epistles where we can learn his teaching regarding the keeping of days, as we haven’t yet mentioned Galatians 4:8-11:

“Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods. But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? You observe days and months and seasons and years! I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain.”

If Paul’s concern was for the Jews and Gentiles to remain steadfast in Sabbath observance, this text would not have been so wide-sweeping or at least would have been qualified with a “however, remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” Those who justify their lack of observing a specific holy day are not doing so from silence when you take these three texts into consideration, and we haven’t even spent too much time yet on Acts 15 (The Jerusalem council’s commands for Gentile Christians) or Hebrews 4.

The overwhelming evidence in the New Testament is that we are not to let ceremonial practices such as what we eat, wear, touch, or the day we go to church get in the way of our relationship with fellow Christ-followers.  This is a real problem with Sabbath observance as promoted by the historic Adventist church, because fellowship between Adventists and non-Adventists is not encouraged, indeed, these non-Sabbatarian Christians are referred to as being part of “Babylon.”

Greg