Ah gee, I vowed I was done with this site but just like Michael Corleone says, “Just when I think I’m out...they pull me back in!”
Whether you agree with the Sabbath or not, the bottom line is that there is no biblical precedent to have church, honor Sunday as the Sabbath or have Sunday established as a ritualistic observance.It isn’t there unless you do desperate proof texting. Going to church on Sunday is simply an ecclesiastical tradition based on the belief that Christ rose on Sunday so if we’re going to get together, it might as be on that day.
If you want to believe the Sabbath was abrogated then I believe one could come to that conclusion biblically (if you stretch it, but that is my opinion).
However, to go and replace the Sabbath with Sunday either as a Sabbath observance or because ‘the disciples met for church on Sunday’, is false.
If you abandon the Sabbath, there is nothing left to replace it. You can go to church on Tuesday if you want. As Bacchiocchi says, Christ’s resurrection was not a liturgical celebration but an existential reality lived out in the life of the Christian.
As for the reference to the ‘Lord’s Day’, more than likely John was speaking of the proverbial ‘day of the Lord’ that He was taken into vision to and neither Sabbath or Sunday.
Guibox,
Thanks for coming back on.
What do you make of Leviticus 23 and the direct reference to the Feast of Firstfruits being on a Sunday? How could this not be speaking of Christ and the firstfruits with regard to the resurrection of the dead?
Also, so far no one has answered why The Sabbath is grouped together with New moons in Isaiah 66, yet New moons are not kept? Also why is it not impressive that in Leviticus 23 the weekly 7th day Sabbath is mentioned right at the first along with all the other feasts.
Leviticus 23 was the most influential chapter to me on why the whole ceremonial system includes the Sabbath, and how there is a direct link to the fulfillment of all these ceremonial laws as stated in Col. 2:16,17.
Based on this, I could not intellectually say that Paul regarded the Sabbath to be binding on all Christians. Then couple that with Romans 14:5.6 “One man considers one day more sacred than another, and another man regards everyday alike”
What is the meaning of this text in plain English? Why would the Holy Spirit inspire Paul to make these statements, but did not inspire him on one word with regarding how Gentile Christians should keep the Sabbath?
And the Sabbath is supposed to be the final test of all time that determines one’s final destiny? Jesus had every opportunity in the dictated letters to the 7 churches of Revelation to at least give one gentle reminder to remember to keep the Sabbath?
Why did he wait to reveal this special truth to Ellen White in 1850 or so? Paul spent individual time communing with Jesus and getting his revelation in the desert of Arabia, and somehow the Lord didn’t tell him to emphasize the Sabbath truth?
The very first use of the word Sabbath in the Bible is in Exodus 16 with regard to the manna and collecting double portion on Friday.
What did the manna prefigure? Christ.
Jesus said that He is the Bread of Life.
The very last use of the word Sabbath is in Colossians 2:16, and the Sabbath is said to now be fulfilled in the substance of Christ.
In Exodus 20, God said to “Remember the Sabbath” The Sabbath was the sign of the Old Covenant. It was a ceremonial sign directly in the heart of the Decalogue which was the Covenant made with Israel.
When was the last time in His earthly ministry that Jesus used the word “remember”?
It was at the Last Supper when Jesus commanded his disciples to take the bread and eat as a symbol pointing to Him, and to do this “In Remembrance of Me”
So we are to remember Christ. And this is why the Sabbath was only a shadow pointing to the true substance of Christ.
The Lord’s Supper is the sign of the New Covenant in His blood.
The evidences just go on and on, and I have just scratched the surface.
The fact is that in Hebrews chaps. 7 through 10 we have a detailed exposition of the meaning of the ceremonial aspects of the law and of the priestly role as it dealt with types pointing forward to the Great Antitype--Jesus Christ. Now, there are three great absences in these discussions--the Sabbath, the food laws and the tithe.
Now, these things belonged to the day-to-day life of the Jewish people, and it is really incredible how the author of Hebrews, so much concerned in explaining the meaning of all these elements of the religious symbols of Israel, would neglect to touch these three specific points that had so much importance to them.
They were not dealt with for a simple reason--they had NO ceremonial character, were NOT prefigurations of Christ’s ministry and atonement.
Rom. 14:5, 6 is no proof of the free selection of any day to dedicate to God, which is something totally illogical. As the Baptists Jamieson, Fausset and Brown pointed out in their Bible commentary:
From this passage about the observance of days, Alford unhappily infers that such language could not have been used if the sabbath law had been in force under the Gospel in any form. Certainly it could not, if the sabbath were merely one of the Jewish festival days; but it will not do to take this for granted merely because it was observed under the Mosaic economy. And certainly, if the sabbath was more ancient than Judaism; if, even under Judaism, it was enshrined among the eternal sanctities of the Decalogue, uttered, as no other parts of Judaism were, amidst the terrors of Sinai; and if the Lawgiver Himself said of it when on earth, “The Son of man is LORD EVEN OF THE SABBATH DAY” (see Mar_2:28) - it will be hard to show that the apostle must have meant it to be ranked by his readers among those vanished Jewish festival days, which only “weakness” could imagine to be still in force - a weakness which those who had more light ought, out of love, merely to bear with.
Some even utilize these texts to advocate an attitude of ‘nodayism’, no more dedication of any day to the Lord. Regarding that, Albert Barnes, Presbyterian commentator, says:
if any man is disposed to plead “this passage” as an excuse for violating the Sabbath, and devoting it to pleasure or gain, let him quote it “just as it is,” that is, let “him neglect the Sabbath from a conscientious desire to honor Jesus Christ.” Unless this is his motive, the passage cannot avail him. But this motive never yet influenced a Sabbath-breaker.
Now, the New Moon in Isa. 66:22, 23 could be originally a reference to the Jewish monthly festival, for the passage refers to the Messianic Age, which didn’t materialize due to the Jewish failure in fulfilling the mission Israel had to be IHWH’s witnesses before the nations, and “light of the Gentiles . . . until the ends of the Earth” (Isa. 43:10 and 49:6).
The text now refers to ALL those who will be saved, under a new eschatological picture, and the New Moon could simply refer to a monthly meeting in the New Earth, who knows of social character, besides the weekly Sabbath.
As to Col. 2:14-16, I have already covered that in previous posts and even referred to a discussion regarding this very text with former SDA pastor Dale Ratzlaff.
The fact is that in Hebrews chaps. 7 through 10 we have a detailed exposition of the meaning of the ceremonial aspects of the law and of the priestly role as it dealt with types pointing forward to the Great Antitype--Jesus Christ. Now, there are three great absences in these discussions--the Sabbath,
Not true. Hebrews 9:4 says that the Decalogue (including the Sabbath) was part of the old covenant which is now obsolete and has disappeared. Additionally, the Sabbath is dealt with specifically in chapters 3-4.
Azenilto Brito - 09 February 2011 04:34 PM
the food laws
Not true. They are included in chapter 13 and 9:10.
Azenilto Brito - 09 February 2011 04:34 PM
and the tithe.
Not true. 7:5 says that the tithe was only for the Israelites, and was commanded in the Law which is now obsolete (7:11-12, 7:18-19, 8:13).
If the Sabbath is to be the most important final test that determines our destinies as according to EGW, then why do none of the New Testament apostles teach the Gentile Christians about Sabbath observance?
A cult or a sect of Christianity is identified as a group who takes some obscure point and then makes it their most important point. This is what SDAs have done with the Sabbath. By making it a final test of salvation, they have denied the gospel. They have made the Sabbath their Christ, instead of Christ, their Sabbath. Focusing on a day of the week is focusing on the shadow that subtracts from the substance.
Again, why did God wait until 1844 to give EGW a vision on the Sabbath, when He could have reminded one of the 7 churches of Revelation--letters that were dictated by Jesus to John--just one command or reminder about remembering to keep the Sabbath holy?
This is the reason the evangelical church does not by and large keep the 7th day Sabbath. But if God wanted the Sabbath kept, he could have easily inspired Paul to reiterate this important truth to the Gentiles.
If you think that you should keep the Sabbath, then fine, but to impose this on all of Christianity when the apostles did not do so is where the problem lies.
The Sabbath was the heart of worship in the Old Covenant, To compare silence on the Sabbath issue to silence in the New Testament on bestiality in the NT as you did in one post just does not fly.
Not to talk about the most important and longest commandment in the Decalogue and reiterate it to Gentiles, and say something about how to keep the Sabbath in their culture is unthinkable if the Sabbath was to be a final test for salvation.
The fact is that in Hebrews chaps. 7 through 10 we have a detailed exposition of the meaning of the ceremonial aspects of the law and of the priestly role as it dealt with types pointing forward to the Great Antitype--Jesus Christ. Now, there are three great absences in these discussions--the Sabbath,
Not true. Hebrews 9:4 says that the Decalogue (including the Sabbath) was part of the old covenant which is now obsolete and has disappeared. Additionally, the Sabbath is dealt with specifically in chapters 3-4.
Azenilto Brito - 09 February 2011 04:34 PM
the food laws
Not true. They are included in chapter 13 and 9:10.
Azenilto Brito - 09 February 2011 04:34 PM
and the tithe.
Not true. 7:5 says that the tithe was only for the Israelites, and was commanded in the Law which is now obsolete (7:11-12, 7:18-19, 8:13).
Jeremy
Not true—Heb. 9:4 is just a description of what the Sanctuary had as its “furniture” and its different elements. There is no hint, at all, that the intention is to say anything about an abolition of the Decalogue, which, by the way, IS NOT the classical, historical and OFFICIAL understanding of the Protestant churches along history. Lutherans, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Anglicans ALWAYS taught in their confessional documents the validity of the ENTIRE 10 Commandments as the Moral Law of God still in force for the Christian community.
Not true—Hebrews chaps. 3 and 4 just mentions the Sabbath metaforically, meaning either the rest of salvation in Christ, and/or the FINAL REST of God’s people in heavenly Canaan, in contrast to the failure of Israel to attain to this salvation rest.
Now, it’s interesting to notice the commentary by Baptist scholars Jamieson, Fausset and Brown of Heb. 4:9:
Moses, the representative of the law, could not lead Israel into Canaan: the law leads us to Christ, and there its office ceases, as that of Moses on the borders of Canaan: it is Jesus, the antitype of Joshua, who leads us into the heavenly rest. This verse indirectly establishes the obligation of the Sabbath still; for the type continues until the antitype supersedes it: so legal sacrifices continued till the great antitypical Sacrifice superseded it, As then the antitypical heavenly Sabbath-rest will not be till Christ, our Gospel Joshua, comes, to usher us into it, the typical earthly Sabbath must continue till then. The Jews call the future rest “the day which is all Sabbath.”
Not true—Heb. 13 says NOTHING about the abolition of the food laws. We find there just a brief reference to food, remembering that among the many sacrificial rules there were food and drink offerings. There is no proof that the author of Hebrews is concerned in teaching the abolition of the dietary laws, for the entire tenor of discussions regarding that in the NT NEVER shows any hint of this kind of discussion, but the problem related to foods dedicated to idols, as in Romans 14 and 1 Tim. 4:3 or 1 Corinthians chaps. 8 and 10.
At this point it would be good to remind all of our questions that were NEVER answered objectively, in a specific, direct, clear, to the point manner:
On the food laws:
1 – Why did God establish these food restriction laws, to begin with? Did He simply decide arbitrarily that certain types of meat were not to be eaten, without any justifiable reason, and that was it?
2 – In what aspects were these dietary rules abolished on the cross, since they had no ceremonial character? In what ways did they point to the atoning sacrifice of Christ?
Note: Somebody suggested that they would symbolize separation between Jews and Gentiles. But if it is so, would God be including is His law some negative element of man’s idiossincracies, since He is no respecter of people?
3 – How was the shed blood of Christ efficacious to purify the meat of pigs, rats, ravens, snakes, lizards? Could it have accomplished some change in the structural composition of said meats, making them fit for human consumption?
4—Where is it said that God changed His mind from considering “abomination” the eating of these meats (Deut. 14:3), for until the final day, when all “nations and languages” are gathered for their reckoning time, those who eat pork, rat and practice idolatry will be jointly destroyed (Isa. 66:16-18)?
5 - How could we take seriously someone who claims being God made flesh, who states clearly not having come to abolish the law (Mat. 5:17-19), but then engages Himself in doing exactly that--abolition of the dietary rules and teaching men about that?!
On the New Covenant and the Sabbath question:
Where is it written that in the change from the Old to the New Covenant, when God writes what is called “My laws” in the hearts and minds of those who accept the terms of the New Covenant [New Testament] (Heb. 8:6-10), transferring the contents of the cold tables of stone to the hearts warmed by the divine grace (2 Cor. 3:2-7), He
a – leaves out the 4th commandment of the moral law;
b – includes the 4th commandment, but changing the sanctity of the 7th to the 1st day of the week;
OR
c – includes the 4th commandment, but leaving it as a vague, voluntary and variable principle that can be reinterpreted as any day or time which is most convenient to the believer (or his employer);
ALSO:
d - excludes the dietary laws, which, not being ceremonial, typological, had no reason to be abolished on the cross, as we can see their absence in the discussion of the meaning of the ceremonial and priestly laws of Israel for the Christian, in Hebrews 7 through 10?
The tithe question—no hint at all that it had a typological role, to be abolished in the cross. The reference to the tithe in Hebrews is more easily seen as an approval to the practice, rather than the opposite of it (Abraham’s example of returning the tithe to God).
If the Sabbath is to be the most important final test that determines our destinies as according to EGW, then why do none of the New Testament apostles teach the Gentile Christians about Sabbath observance?
A cult or a sect of Christianity is identified as a group who takes some obscure point and then makes it their most important point. This is what SDAs have done with the Sabbath. By making it a final test of salvation, they have denied the gospel. They have made the Sabbath their Christ, instead of Christ, their Sabbath. Focusing on a day of the week is focusing on the shadow that subtracts from the substance.
Again, why did God wait until 1844 to give EGW a vision on the Sabbath, when He could have reminded one of the 7 churches of Revelation--letters that were dictated by Jesus to John--just one command or reminder about remembering to keep the Sabbath holy?
This is the reason the evangelical church does not by and large keep the 7th day Sabbath. But if God wanted the Sabbath kept, he could have easily inspired Paul to reiterate this important truth to the Gentiles.
If you think that you should keep the Sabbath, then fine, but to impose this on all of Christianity when the apostles did not do so is where the problem lies.
The Sabbath was the heart of worship in the Old Covenant, To compare silence on the Sabbath issue to silence in the New Testament on bestiality in the NT as you did in one post just does not fly.
Not to talk about the most important and longest commandment in the Decalogue and reiterate it to Gentiles, and say something about how to keep the Sabbath in their culture is unthinkable if the Sabbath was to be a final test for salvation.
Stan
Again we have the weakest of all forms of arguing in favor or against a thesis--arguments built on silence. . . That serves as no proof or counterproof of anything. . .
First, God did not have to wait until Ellen White abouth the Sabbath question. She was NOT the first to raise the 7th-day Sabbath issue among Christians. Did you forget the 7th Day Baptists, who from early 17th century had this issue raised among their brethren, and even before them others had done the same?
By the way, to credit Ellen White for SDA’s adoption of the 7th-day Sabbath is a clear distortion of the real history of that fact, for EGW was among the last ones of the SDA pioneers to accept this position.
Now, here in Brazil the sculpted images issue is often raised when Evangelicals confront Roman Catholics. It that important? To utilize this religious means in acts of worship, both private and public, is no big deal to God? If not, why not leave the RC’s alone with their sculpted images when engaging themselves in their religious practices?
If that is important, which even deserved a detailed commandment in God’s moral law (the 2nd commandment, by the way absent in the Roman Catholic Catechism version of the Decalogue), why is there no mention in the ENTIRE New Testament of any rules against the use of these religious symbols? In the NT we just find reference to “idols”, which contextually deals with REPRODUCTIONS OF THE DIVINITY [mostly pagan god’s statues]. That was the point when the Apostle recommends Christians to not utilize this element in their worship acts, for at that time there was no custom of utilizing sculpted image of Church’s saints, something introduced later in the Church.
So, “technically”, there is no way of condemning Roman Catholics for utilizing sculpted image in acts of worship, provided they are not reproductions of God.
Then, the argument about the “absence” of clear rules for the Sabbath in the NT backfires, since there is no rules regarding other clear things condemned by God in the OT. There is no clear rulings against—taking God’s name in vain, not allowing marriage between brother and sister, not allowing the practice of bestiality, not allowing attempts to communicate with the dead ones.
Besides, Jesus confirms in the NT that “the Sabbath was made because of man-anthropós, referring to the UNIVERSAL man, not the Jews (Mark 2:27). The following statement is even more devastating to anti-Sabbatarians. He adds: “And not man {was created} because of the Sabbath”, in which He associates both the creation of man and of the Sabbath, because of man.
By the way, the most representative confessions of faith of Christendom confirm that the Sabbath principle derives from the creation of the world.
Not true—Heb. 9:4 is just a description of what the Sanctuary had as its “furniture” and its different elements. There is no hint, at all, that the intention is to say anything about an abolition of the Decalogue, which, by the way, IS NOT the classical, historical and OFFICIAL understanding of the Protestant churches along history. Lutherans, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Anglicans ALWAYS taught in their confessional documents the validity of the ENTIRE 10 Commandments as the Moral Law of God still in force for the Christian community.
But it is the historical understanding of the ante-Nicene Fathers, which later became corrupted in the middle ages and was unfortunately continued by the Protestant churches after they separated from the Roman Catholic Church. (Also, it is not true of all Protestant confessions.)
You are not reading the context--read the verses before and after.
8:13: “When He said, ‘A new covenant,’ [in Jeremiah 31] He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.”
9:1: “Now even the first covenant had regulations of divine worship and the earthly sanctuary.”
9:4: “having a golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden jar holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod which budded, and the tables of the covenant;”
The tables of what? The “tables of the covenant”! Which covenant? The “first covenant.” The “tables of the covenant” (the Decalogue, which is also called “the words of the covenant” and the “covenant” itself in the OT--see, for example Deuteronomy 4:13) belonged to the “first covenant” which is now “obsolete” and has “disappeared.”
Azenilto Brito - 10 February 2011 04:36 AM
Not true—Hebrews chaps. 3 and 4 just mentions the Sabbath metaforically, meaning either the rest of salvation in Christ, and/or the FINAL REST of God’s people in heavenly Canaan, in contrast to the failure of Israel to attain to this salvation rest.
Now, it’s interesting to notice the commentary by Baptist scholars Jamieson, Fausset and Brown of Heb. 4:9:
Moses, the representative of the law, could not lead Israel into Canaan: the law leads us to Christ, and there its office ceases, as that of Moses on the borders of Canaan: it is Jesus, the antitype of Joshua, who leads us into the heavenly rest. This verse indirectly establishes the obligation of the Sabbath still; for the type continues until the antitype supersedes it: so legal sacrifices continued till the great antitypical Sacrifice superseded it, As then the antitypical heavenly Sabbath-rest will not be till Christ, our Gospel Joshua, comes, to usher us into it, the typical earthly Sabbath must continue till then. The Jews call the future rest “the day which is all Sabbath.”
So if what you mentioned above as a possibility is indeed true, that it means “the rest of salvation in Christ,” then according to the above commentary, the type is no longer in force. But Adventism teaches that the Sabbath type will still be in force even in heaven, using Isaiah 66 as their proof text!
Verse 10 of Hebrews 4 shows that the “Sabbath rest” which “remains...for the people of God” (verse 9--present tense, not a “future” rest) is indeed talking about the current rest in Christ, because it says that one can already enter it: “For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His.”
Azenilto Brito - 10 February 2011 04:36 AM
Not true—Heb. 13 says NOTHING about the abolition of the food laws. We find there just a brief reference to food, remembering that among the many sacrificial rules there were food and drink offerings. There is no proof that the author of Hebrews is concerned in teaching the abolition of the dietary laws, for the entire tenor of discussions regarding that in the NT NEVER shows any hint of this kind of discussion, but the problem related to foods dedicated to idols, as in Romans 14 and 1 Tim. 4:3 or 1 Corinthians chaps. 8 and 10.
Hebrews 13:9 says not to worry about foods. Also, I notice that you ignored Hebrews 9:10. And those other passages you mention most certainly do, directly and indirectly, address unclean foods.
Azenilto Brito - 10 February 2011 04:36 AM
The tithe question—no hint at all that it had a typological role, to be abolished in the cross. The reference to the tithe in Hebrews is more easily seen as an approval to the practice, rather than the opposite of it (Abraham’s example of returning the tithe to God).
You’re ignoring the context of Hebrews 7 which I pointed out in my previous post: “7:5 says that the tithe was only for the Israelites, and was commanded in the Law which is now obsolete (7:11-12, 7:18-19, 8:13).”
Could you mention to us WHICH HISTORICAL PROTESTANT CHURCH has in its official confessional document any indication that the 10 Commandments are no longer binding to the Christian community, and that the New Covenant means a NEW MORAL LAW to the Christian community? I don’t find that examining the Lutherans’, Baptists’, Presbyterians’, Methodists’, Anglicans’ confessional documents.
Now, you are mistaking COVENANT with LAW. They are not the same thing. Like a real estate rental contract, if a tenant fails to fulfill the stipulations of the contract, the landlord has the right to evict this person, and the real estate will be ready for another tenant, WITH THE SAME STIPULATIONS for its rental. A new contract will be signed by the parties, but the stipulations will be kept intact.
The same occurs with God’s “contract”. The change of covenants doesn’t mean a change in their basic laws. Heb. 6:8-10 is very clear that God is not interested in changing laws, but in CHANGING HEARTS.
Now, how about having you clear, specific, to the point answer to our question in blue, a few threads above? That questions
really put things in its due perspective, believe me. . .
Let’s see a very significant commentary by John Calvin in which he connects aptly 2 Cor. 3:3 with Heb. 8:10:
. . . the Law is ruinous and fatal to us as long as it remains written only on tables of stone, as Paul also teaches us. (2 Corinthians 3:3.) In short, we then only obediently embrace what God commands, when by his Spirit he changes and corrects the natural pravity of our hearts; otherwise he finds nothing in us but corrupt affections and a heart wholly given up to evil. The declaration indeed is clear, that a new covenant is made according to which God engraves his laws on our hearts, for otherwise it would be in vain and of no effect.
For enriching this discussion, how about these 10 points showing how the Sabbath commandment is the most important in the Decalogue?
10 Reasons Why the Sabbath Is the Most Important Commandment of the Decalogue
1st. – Because it was originated before sin entered this world:
If we analyze human history, we realize that there are only two institutions that come from before sin entered our planet: the Sabbath and marriage. It’s no wonder that Satan engages himself so much in corrupting both institutions which he hates particularly: the Sabbath through false theologies that discard it completely or alter its significance, and marriage, through an avalanche of separations, divorce, negative innuendos in the show biz (radio, TV, songs, movies), and more recently, same-sex marriages.
2nd. – Because it was “made holy” by God and to be commanded to be “made holy” by man:
God Himself gave the example of resting, blessing and sanctifying the first Sabbath day (Gen. 2:2, 3). He is already completely holy and need not sanctify any day to Himself. If He did it, that was “because of man” (Mar. 2:27). Besides making the connection with the Creation of the world, the commandment begins ordering, “remember the Sabbath day to make it holy”. Rest comes after the order to make the day holy. The reason that it must be the seventh day, and not any other according to human expediency, is made clear in Exo. 20:11: “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it”.
3th. – Because it is located in the heart of the law and highlights both its vertical and horizontal aspects:
The Sabbath commandment is located right in center of the law, even as it was solemnly uttered by God to His people before Sinai (“and He added no more”—Deu. 5:22), later written on the two tables of stone. It is practically the only of the commandments dealing with the two basic perspectives of man’s relationships: the vertical and the horizontal.
On the standpoint of the vertical perspective (“love God above all things”), if the seventh-day Sabbath is to be sanctified, this means to dedicate that day to God for a more intimate relationship with Him, without encumberments and distractions of secular preoccupations.
In the horizontal perspective (“love your neighbor as yourself”), the 4th commandment grants physical rest to those who serve a believer—“nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant. . . ”. Even the animals are benefited in a blessed act of mercy towards them—“nor thy cattle. . .”
4th. – Because it was selected as God’s sign between Him and His people:
Out of all the Decalogue rules, God chose the Sabbath to serve as His sign between Him and His children, both during the Exodus event and millenia afterwards, confirming the fact through Ezekiel, the prophet (see Exo. 31:17 and Eze. 20:12, 20). There is no indication that this sign has been discarded in the passage of the Old to the New Covenant (see Heb. 8:6-10, acc./ Jer. 31:31-33).
5th. – Because Jesus highlighted it as established “because of man”:
The Sabbath was made to serve the best interest of physical and mental rest, and spiritual refreshment to all men (Mar. 2:27). Besides, Christ had so much preoccupation in preserving the Sabbath as it was intended that he faced several clashes with the Jewish leadership, not about IF it should be kept, nor WHEN it should be kept, but about HOW to observe the “day of the Lord” in its due spirit. He engaged Himself in correcting the distortions caused by those leaders to the commandment because He was zealous of God’s things. He identified Himself as “Lord of the Sabbath” (Mat. 12:8).
6th. – Because Jesus declared Himself “Lord of the Sabbath”, not to disqualify the commandment:
In Matthew 12:8 Christ declares Himself “Lord of the Sabbath” in debates with the Jewish leaders. He does it, not to disqualify the commandment, despite some teaching the theological aberration that Jesus engaged Himself in a sort of anti-Sabbath campaign, while He was its Creator (John 1:3; Heb. 1:2). It makes no sense for Him to try to reduce the importance of that which He established “because of man”. If He in any measure violated the Sabbath or taught anything in that sense He Himself would have to be considered “the least in the kingdom of heaven”, on the light of His own words in Matthew 5:19. Jesus wouldn’t ever reduce the value of any commandment of God’s law, “even the least of them”. And the Sabbath commandment is actually the most important in God’s law.
Christ was “the Lord of the Sabbath” because He had authority to define the manner of observing it, in the face of the distortions of the Jewish leaders and their constant question to Him: “. . . by what authority doest thou these things? Or who is he that gave thee this authority?” – Luke 20:2. They didn’t corrupt only the meaning of the 4th commandment, as also did that with the 5th and the practice of tithing (see Mar. 7:9-11 and Mat. 23:23).
One can say that as Jesus expelled the vendors from the Temple, He expelled from the Sabbath all the false conceptions from human rules with which the Jewish leaders had encumbered the commandment.
7th. – Because of receiving special treatment in the epistle to the Hebrews and being indicated as still necessary:
In the epistle to the Hebrews, while the ceremonies and their prefigurations of Christ’s sacrifice are discussed in detail in chapters 7 to 10, the Sabbath receives a very special treatment in chapters 3 and 4, taken as symbol of the spiritual rest that one obtains in Christ. And despite the people of Israel having failed collectively to obtain such rest, there were within Israel those heroes, mentioned in chapter 11, who found that spiritual rest, and because of that they didn’t put the Sabbath commandment aside.
It is interesting that in chapters 3 and 4, while the Greek word for rest is katapausin, in vs. 4:9 the author employs a special term, used only once in the Bible, sabbatismos, remembering, as indicated in the footnotes of many Bible versions: “There is yet a Sabbath rest for God’s people”. Or, as G. Lamsa translated from original Aramaic sources, “there is still a Sabbath keeping for the people of God”.
Clearly, the Bible author wished to demonstrate that, in spite of utilizing the Sabbath metaphor to illustrate the spiritual rest, he wanted to avoid any ambiguity, making it clear that the weekly Sabbath didn’t cease, despite the systematic failure of the people of Israel in attaining the spiritual rest that God proposed to them. God’s people proceeded having the Sabbath rest as a little model of that rest in Christ.
8th. – Because of having been indicated as also a memorial of the redemption:
As he repeated the terms of the divine law to the people, Moses highlighted that the Sabbath, having the character of memorial of Creation in the original of the law given at Sinai, was also a memorial of redemption. It remembered the people of their deliverance from the Egyptian slavery, when they didn’t have the privilege of dedicating such a day to the Lord (Deu. 5:15). Thus, the Sabbath is both a memorial of Creation and Redemption. It symbolizes perfectly that those who were delivered from the Egypt of sin now have the privilege of observing the Sabbath to dedicate it to the Lord and to obtain physical and mental rest, besides spiritual refreshment, something that they didn’t experience under the bondage of sin, defined in the Scripture as “transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4).
9th. – Because of being indicative of the willingness to serve the “Lord of the Sabbath” faithfully:
The fact is that whoever is willing to observe faithfully the Sabbath denotes a spirit of submission to all that the Lord determines in His law. Hardly an assassin, robber, customary adulterer would be willing to follow such a principle. These individuals mostly do not reveal any consideration towards other Bible rules even easier to follow, let alone would they voluntarily be subjected to a rule that means a restriction, seen as inconvenient and burdensome—to dedicate time for God regularly, on a day contrary to the social custom, in association with other worshippers of same vision in a church weekly.
10th. – Because it will continue in the New Earth as a perpetual principle:
Finally, of all the commandments, the Sabbath is the only mentioned specifically as being respected plainly by the saved ones in the New Earth “wherein dwelleth righteousness” (2 Pet. 3:13). There the redeemed ones will have two regular meetings—one monthly, on the new moon days, (possibly of social character), and one weekly, on the seventh-day Sabbaths, to worship the Lord (Isa. 66:22, 23).
Now, if the Sabbath is an institution that is confirmed from the newly created world and extends itself to the eternal eons of the recreated world, why shouldn’t we observe it now also, since Paul made it clear that faith doesn’t come to annul the law, but to confirm it (Rom. 3:31)?
CONCLUSION: Undoubtedly, the Sabbath is the most important commandment of the Decalogue. Whoever disagrees prove, please, that it’s not, then answer: Which one, then, would it be?
NOTE: One common objection to this study is that Jesus indicated that the most important commandment of God’s law would be any of the two “golden rules”—love God above all else, and love the neighbor as oneself.
But these commandments are merely a summary of the 10 Commandments, not a different rule. We could say that these principles are the Decalogue itself in its double core—that of the God-man vertical relationship, and that of man-man, horizontal relationship. Both the Westminster and the 1689 Baptist confessions of faith, as well as Luther’s Minor Catechism and an Anglican faith confession, confirm that the first four commandments deal with our responsibility towards God, and the last six, do the same regarding our responsibility towards our neighbors.
Could you mention to us WHICH HISTORICAL PROTESTANT CHURCH has in its official confessional document any indication that the 10 Commandments are no longer binding to the Christian community, and that the New Covenant means a NEW MORAL LAW to the Christian community? I don’t find that examining the Lutherans’, Baptists’, Presbyterians’, Methodists’, Anglicans’ confessional documents.
The following is from the Lutherans’ Augsburg Confession of 1530, and “is the primary confession of faith of the Lutheran Church and one of the most important documents of the Lutheran reformation” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augsburg_Confession):
53] What, then, are we to think of the Sunday and like rites in the house of God? To this we answer that it is lawful for bishops or pastors to make ordinances that things be done orderly in the Church, not that thereby we should merit grace or make satisfaction for sins, or that consciences be bound to judge them necessary services, and to think that it is a sin to break them 54] without offense to others. So Paul ordains, 1 Cor. 11:5, that women should cover their heads in the congregation, 1 Cor. 14:30, that interpreters be heard in order in the church, etc.
55] It is proper that the churches should keep such ordinances for the sake of love and tranquillity, so far that one do not offend another, that all things be done in the churches in order, and without confusion, 1 Cor. 14:40; comp. Phil. 2:14 . 56] but so that consciences be not burdened to think that they are necessary to salvation, or to judge that they sin when they break them without offense to others; as no one will say that a woman sins who goes out in public with her head uncovered provided only that no offense be given.
57] Of this kind is the observance of the Lord’s Day, Easter, Pentecost, and like holy-days and 58] rites. For those who judge that by the authority of the Church the observance of the Lord’s Day instead of the Sabbath-day was ordained as a thing necessary, 59] do greatly err. Scripture has abrogated the Sabbath-day; for it teaches that, since the Gospel has been revealed, all the ceremonies of Moses can be omitted. And 60] yet, because it was necessary to appoint a certain day, that the people might know when they ought to come together, it appears that the Church designated the Lord’s Day for this purpose; and this day seems to have been chosen all the more for this additional reason, that men might have an example of Christian liberty, and might know that the keeping neither of the Sabbath nor of any other day is necessary.
61] There are monstrous disputations concerning the changing of the law, the ceremonies of the new law, the changing of the Sabbath-day, which all have sprung from the false belief that there must needs be in the Church a service like to the Levitical, and that Christ had given commission to the Apostles and bishops to devise new ceremonies as necessary to 62] salvation. These errors crept into the Church when the righteousness of faith was not taught clearly enough. 63] Some dispute that the keeping of the Lord’s Day is not indeed of divine right, but in a manner so. They prescribe concerning holy-days, how far it is lawful to work. What else 64] are such disputations than snares of consciences? For although they endeavor to modify the traditions, yet the mitigation can never be perceived as long as the opinion remains that they are necessary, which must needs remain where the righteousness of faith and Christian liberty are not known.
Therefore, the following statement of yours is false: “Lutherans, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Anglicans ALWAYS taught in their confessional documents the validity of the ENTIRE 10 Commandments as the Moral Law of God still in force for the Christian community.”
Azenilto Brito - 12 February 2011 03:02 AM
Now, you are mistaking COVENANT with LAW. They are not the same thing. Like a real estate rental contract, if a tenant fails to fulfill the stipulations of the contract, the landlord has the right to evict this person, and the real estate will be ready for another tenant, WITH THE SAME STIPULATIONS for its rental. A new contract will be signed by the parties, but the stipulations will be kept intact.
You are ignoring the fact that the new covenant/"contract" is not the same as the old one and, in fact, is not even “like” the old one, according to Hebrews 8:9. Also, I’ve found it interesting what the The Discovery Bible: New American Standard New Testament says about the Greek words for “new.” For “34a” kainos (Strong’s #2537), it says:
new in quality; new and different; 34a usually involves bringing in a superior innovation or advance and corresponds to 8b (heteros), another of a different kind
For “34b” neos (Strongs #3501b), it says:
new in time; recent; young; unlike 34a, 34b may have exactly the same ingredients as that which it replaces; corresponds to 8a (allos), “another of the same kind”
And the summary says:
“[34a] is new in reference to quality; [34b] is new in reference to time, having recently come into existence” (Green).
For the phrase “New Covenant,” the word kainos ("34a") is used throughout the NT in the following passages: Luke 22:20, 1 Corinthians 11:25, 2 Corinthians 3:6, Hebrews 8:8 (quoting Jeremiah 31:31), Hebrews 8:13, and Hebrews 9:15. The word neos ("34b") is used in Hebrews 12:24.
This means that the New Covenant is put forward multiple times in the NT as something which does NOT have the same ingredients or the same substance as the Old Covenant! It is completely new and different.
Azenilto Brito - 12 February 2011 03:02 AM
The same occurs with God’s “contract”. The change of covenants doesn’t mean a change in their basic laws. Heb. 6:8-10 is very clear that God is not interested in changing laws, but in CHANGING HEARTS.
Of course it means a change of Law. Once again, I refer you to Hebrews 7:11-12 and Hebrews 7:18-19, among other passages.
I notice that you ignored my comments in my above post on Hebrews 4, and Hebrews 13 and 9:10, and Hebrews 7.
NOTE: One common objection to this study is that Jesus indicated that the most important commandment of God’s law would be any of the two “golden rules”—love God above all else, and love the neighbor as oneself.
But these commandments are merely a summary of the 10 Commandments, not a different rule.
Then how dare you separate out the 4th commandment and say that it is the most important commandment, when that clearly contradicts what Jesus Himself stated?
28One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, “What commandment is the foremost of all?”
29Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD;
30AND 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.’
31"The second is this, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” (Mark 12:28-31 NASB.)
35One of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him,
36"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?”
37And He said to him, “ ‘YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.’
38"This is the great and foremost commandment.
39"The second is like it, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’
40"On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:35-40 NASB.)
Also, notice that these two greatest commandments in the Law are not even found in the Decalogue but are in fact quoted from the so-called “ceremonial law” which Adventism says has been abolished! Notice also that Jesus says that the whole Law and Prophets depend on these two “ceremonial” commandments--meaning, even the Sabbath commandment depends on these two greatest commandments and therefore must, in fact, be lesser than these commandments and certainly cannot be separated out as “the most important commandment” in direct defiance of these clear words of Jesus Christ, simply because your wicked false prophetess declared it to be so and claimed she saw a “halo” around it! What blasphemous garbage.
But if God wanted the Sabbath kept, he could have easily inspired Paul to reiterate this important truth to the Gentiles.
Forgive what might be considered by some as me on my soap box again trying to change the direction of the conversation, but there is a point here that is relevant to Stan’s comment...Bear with me, please. : )
Stan, the same could be said for Christ abolishing death so our souls go to heaven at death. Peter and Paul had ample enough opportunity to disparage the belief of resurrection to life for promotion of the immortality of the soul. They had many opportunities to show that Christ’s death abolished death and now we can go to heaven straight at our death and that the resurrection at the end is simply to unite our body with our soul. Where is the evidence for this? Where are the pages and pages of scripture that such an important change of thinking should be documented? Yet, this hasn’t stopped the vast majority of Christendom from believing in the immortality of the soul based on 3 ambiguous texts, one of which is blatantly misinterpreted (2 Corinthians 5:8). Here are prime places in the scripture where such a doctrine begs to be taught, where the meaning of Christ’s sacrifice and what it means from every perspective of our lives is put forth to the people, but yet such an important doctrine of ‘my soul goes to heaven or hell straight at my physical death’ is completely absent in these dialogues. In fact, the exact opposite is reiterated.
Acts 2:22-36
Romans 5:6-18
1 Thessalonians 4:13-18
1 Corinthians 15
2 Corinthians 4 and 5 together and taken in context
Both Paul and Peter emphasis over and over again, clearly and distinctly that without the end time resurrection of the righteous dead, there is no eternal life. When one dies, they are dead forever. Instead of immortality of the soul, we see that resurrection to life is constantly promoted at every opportunity. Acts, Romans, Colossians, Corinthians, Timothy, Revelation. The message that if you don’t resurrect, you have no life at all is trumpeted at every opportunity. When one dies, they are dead forever. Yet, SDAs and other Christians from other denominations who adhere to this are ridiculed for believing this, called “heretics” for believing in what is derisively called ‘soul sleep’.
Just like those who believe the Sabbath is still binding despite no clear directive for continuing observance, so there is no directive for change of belief in the nature of man and immortality at our physical death, yet this is still accepted as truth despite the evidence.
This sounds like a bit of a double standard to me.
Back to the Sabbath…
No there isn’t a clear cut demand or law to observe the Sabbath in the NT, but the same goes for many things the Christian faith follows. Yet we see that just as there may not have been any clear cut directive, neither is there any clear cut judgment to NOT observe the Sabbath. Hebrews 4 and Colossians 2 have been shown by both SDA and non-SDA scholars to not be as clear cut as Sabbath abrogators make it. So where is the clear proof? We don’t see it in the scriptures.
What do we see?
- We see the example of Christ changing the rules of Sabbath observance but making no mention of its abrogation.
- We see no mention from Peter in all his dialoguing with the Pharisees about Sabbath abrogation
- We see Paul preaching to a Gentile woman alone on the Sabbath by the river
- We not only not see a clear cut directive of Sabbath abrogation to the common people as the message was going out in Acts and Romans, but we see Paul preaching the good news of salvation and Christ as the fulfillment of many OT types to the Gentiles alone and on the Sabbath! The Gentiles were there on Sabbath and begged Paul to preach to them the next Sabbath! Perfect time for Paul to insist to these Gentiles that the Sabbath doesn’t really matter. Yet we don’t see it. The literary silence is deafening. We have no reason to not believe that Paul didn’t meet on the next Sabbath (obviously something he did all the time..strange for someone who believed the Sabbath was no longer binding) with these non-Jewish, Gentile converts.
Forgive what might be considered by some as me on my soap box again trying to change the direction of the conversation, but there is a point here that is relevant to Stan’s comment...Bear with me, please. : )
Stan, the same could be said for Christ abolishing death so our souls go to heaven at death. Peter and Paul had ample enough opportunity to disparage the belief of resurrection to life for promotion of the immortality of the soul. They had many opportunities to show that Christ’s death abolished death and now we can go to heaven straight at our death and that the resurrection at the end is simply to unite our body with our soul. Where is the evidence for this? Where are the pages and pages of scripture that such an important change of thinking should be documented?
I don’t have much time right now to engage in an in-depth analysis of what JeremyG alleges, but would just point out some few things:
He didn’t bring up any other “proof” of confessional document (like that of the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Anglicans) discarding the Sabbath principle, but for this article 28 of the Augsburg Confession, written by Melancthon, in which he clearly contradicts Martin Luther’s ‘Small Catechism’ article on the Ten Commandments.
He also “forgot” to bring up the interesting comment at the beginning of this Art. 28 of the Augsburg Confession, which begins stressing how the Roman Catholic Church claims to have the right to impose religious festivals based on the fact that it changed Sabbath to Sunday. So, the Lutherans recognize this point--the RCC claims to have that right based on its change of the Lord’s Day.
Melanchton, who wrote that document, somehow ignores what Martin Luther defines as the 3rd commandment of the Decalogue, which he so much exalts in his ‘Small Catechism’. He defines as this 3rd commandment (should be 4th, but he follows the Roman Catolics ennumeration of the Decalogue)--"Sanctify the day of rest”. It’s important to notice this detail--he employs the verb “sanctify”.
What we see here is the inconsistencies of Protestantism many times when dealing with this “embarassing” question of the day of rest. They OFFICIALLY recognize the 10 COMMANDMENTS as God’s Moral Law, but when it comes to the discussion of the 4th, then ambiguity takes over in a way that it, in practical terms, becomes somehow a very convenient “Rule of NINE Obligatory Commandments and ONE Optional”.
Besides, in a later document by Luther--his “A Treatise Against the Antinomians. . .” of 1539--the 10 Commandments (not NINE, as Melanchton ends up leaving the Moral Law with) are again restressed as a fundamental aspect of the Christian conduct. I transcribe below part of it, which can be found completely through this link: http://www.truecovenanter.com/truelutheran/luther_against_the_antinomians.html
And truly, I wonder exceedingly, how it came to be imputed to me, that I should reject the Law or ten Commandments, there being extant so many of my own expositions (and those of several sorts) upon the Commandments, which also are daily expounded, and used in our Churches, to say nothing of the Confession and Apology, and other books of ours. Add hereunto the custom we have to sing the Commandments in two different tunes; besides the painting, printing, carving, and rehearsing them by children, both morning, noon, and evening; So that I know no other way than what we have used, but that we do not (alas!) as we ought, really express and delineate them in our lives and conversations. And I myself as old as I am, use to [have it for my custom to] recite them daily, as a child, Word for Word; so that if any should have mistaken, what I had written, he might (seeing and feeling as it were, how vehemently I use to urge these Catechetical exercises) in reason have been persuaded to call upon me, and demand these or the like questions.
What? Good Doctor Luther, dost thou press so eagerly the ten Commandments, and yet teachest withal, that they must be rejected? Thus they ought to have dealt with me; and not secretly undermine me behind my back, and then to wait for my death, that so they might afterwards make of me what themselves pleased. Well, I forgive them, if they leave these courses. Verily, I have taught and still teach, that sinners must be moved to Repentance by the preaching & pondering of the sufferings of Christ, that they may see how great the wrath of God is against sin: and that it cannot be otherwise expiated but by the death of the son of God: Which is not mine, but Bernard’s doctrine. But why doe I mention Bernard? It is the doctrine of the whole Christian world, and which all the Prophets and Apostles have delivered. But how doth it hence follow, that therefore the law must be taken away? I find no such inference in my Logick; and I would gladly see or hear that Logician, that would demonstrate the truth of this conclusion. When Isaias saith, chapter 53, I have smitten him for the sins of my people; I pray tell me; here Christ’s sufferings are preached, that he was smitten for our sins: Is the Law hereby rejected? what is the meaning of these words: For the sins of my people? Is not this the sense of them: Because my people have sinned against my law, and not kept the same? Or can it be imaginable, that there should be any sin, where there is no law? Whosoever abrogates the law, must of necessity abrogate sin also. If he must suffer sin to be, he must much more suffer the being of the law. For the Apostle saith: Rom. 5: Where no law is, there is no sin. If there be no sin, then Christ is nothing. For why died he, if there were no law nor sin, for which he ought to die? Hence you may see, that the Devil intends, by this Ghostly Gambold to take away, not so much the law, as Christ, the fulfiller of the law.
For he knows too well, that Christ may quickly & lightly be forgotten: but the law being engraven in the bottom of the heart, it is impossible to raze it out, as you may observe in the complaints, which are uttered by the blessed Saints of God in the Psalms, that are not able to undergo the wrath of God: which can be nothing else by the lively preaching of the law in their consciences. And the Devil also is not ignorant of this that it is impossible the law should be taken out of the hearts of men, as the Apostle proves in his second chapter to the Romans, verses 14, 15. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law (In the German Copy: which received not the law by Moses) do by nature the things contained in the Law, they having not the Law, are a Law to themselves: which shew the work of the Law written in their hearts &c;. His main plot therefore is, to make people secure, and to teach them, to slight both law & sin, that when they are once suddenly overtaken, either by death, or in an evil conscience, they might without any remedy sink into hell; as having been accustomed to all manner of sensuality, and taught nothing else in Christ but a sweet security; so that when terrors of conscience seize on them, they take it for a certain sign, that Christ (who can be nothing but sweetness itself) had reprobated and forsaken them. This the Devil seeks and would fain compass.
Some extra detail: kainós is contrasted with néos in the ‘new’ creature, ‘new’ heavens and ‘new’ earth, ‘new’ commandments (new in quality, not in substance). So, the ‘new’ wineskins bring néos, meaning completely new material.
Thus, the New Covenant is basically THE SAME, but having a new quality--that of the understanding of the gospel. There isn’t the least hint in Heb. 8:6-10 that NEW COVENANT = NEW LAW. . .
How about answering now our blue question that puts things in due perspective regarding this question of the transfer of Old to New Covenant?
Forgive what might be considered by some as me on my soap box again trying to change the direction of the conversation, but there is a point here that is relevant to Stan’s comment...Bear with me, please. : )
Stan, the same could be said for Christ abolishing death so our souls go to heaven at death. Peter and Paul had ample enough opportunity to disparage the belief of resurrection to life for promotion of the immortality of the soul. They had many opportunities to show that Christ’s death abolished death and now we can go to heaven straight at our death and that the resurrection at the end is simply to unite our body with our soul. Where is the evidence for this? Where are the pages and pages of scripture that such an important change of thinking should be documented?
Jeremy, I could make up just as many texts for Sabbath validity. Unlike yours though, my texts would mean what they say instead of having preconceived notions read into them. You’d disparage everyone of them under the convenient new covenant blanket claiming that context is everything. Well, the same goes for your eisegesis of all your texts.
To properly discuss the above mentioned topic, one must come to an agreement as to what is believed. Is it inherent immortality for the soul for all men from creation (as you seem to believe)? Is it inherent immortality for the soul for all men only after the cross (as I believe is the stance Gabriel takes)? Is it only given immortality for the soul after the cross to the righteous but not the wicked (as I believe is Stan’s stance)?
Only can one approach this topic logically and scripturally when this is determined.
