.jpg)
.jpg)
|
Home
Opinion
Z - Archived Bloggers & Columnists
Brown, Nathan
2012
|
The Great Sabbath
Submitted: Mar 30, 2012
By Nathan Brown
Sabbath is a gift—a day for many things—but we miss something of Sabbath when we too often fill it with busy-ness. The poignancy of Sabbath is found when it allows for some emptying and emptiness. While celebrating God’s presence, we should also allow ourselves to feel something of His absence, even if only that as waiting “Adventists” we are at the end of another week in which Jesus has not returned. And there is no Sabbath on which this is a more appropriate way to “keep” Sabbath than that in the midst of Easter, remembering the day on which Jesus Himself rested in death.
There is evidence of an annual Christian memorial of Jesus’ death and resurrection from the first century, most of which we know about because of debates among Christians in the second century as to when this already-established practice should be marked on the calendar. As one of the earliest Christian observances, it is hardly surprising that there is a deep and broad treasury of Christian traditions, practices and meaning that surround the annual remembrance of the Jesus’ submission to and defeat of death. Perhaps least known among these are some of the practices and worship on the Sabbath of Easter, known in various traditions as Holy Saturday, Black Saturday or—in the Eastern Orthodox tradition—the Great Sabbath.
Absence
The Great Sabbath begins with worship on Friday evening styled as a funeral for Jesus and continues to employ funereal elements throughout the day. The enormity of the death of the Son of God should not be skipped over in our anxiousness to get to the good news of His resurrection.
On this Sabbath, perhaps more than any other, we should allow ourselves to feel the absences and silences of God in our lives, church and worship—and to be able to rest in that. Having been through the worst that His world could throw at Him, beat Him with and torture Him by, Jesus rested in the tomb on that Sabbath, the Creator following the pattern He had set at the making of this world.
In His rejection by His own people, His physical suffering and His death, Jesus experienced and identified with so many of the experiences of what it means to be a broken human being in a fallen world in which God seems to be silent and absent too often and too long: “The cross that is a symbol of defeat before it is a symbol of victory speaks also of the absence of God. . . . Jesus shares with us the darkness of what it is to be without God as well as showing forth the glory of what it is to be with God” (Frederick Buechner, Telling the Truth).
Somehow by faith, we can acknowledge and reflect on the darkness in our lives, the pain in our hearts and the questions in our souls. Precisely because of the hope we have, we can mourn what we have lost and how it seems God has let us down. And yet we can also find rest for our hurt, brokenness, burdens and grief in the One who rested on the Great Sabbath (see Matthew 11:28–30).
Expectation
But, while we wait in the darkness of the Great Sabbath, we know how the story ends. The Great Sabbath ends with a vigil in darkness and silence, but anticipating the new morning and expecting the risen Christ. While Jesus’ resurrection seemed to take even His closest followers by surprise, we come to the story with the assurance—even when we can barely bring ourselves to believe it—that something new and remarkable happened that Easter morning, something that changed the world, becoming the pivot point of history and salvation. Death was and is defeated, and a new kind of life is offered to all humanity.
The vigil ends with exchanging the simple but astounding affirmation that “Christ is risen!”—and after 2000 years, He is risen still! Because of that fact, we know how the story ultimately ends, even while we are still living that story.
One of the scripture readings often used in marking the Great Sabbath is Psalms 118, which includes a prophecy employed to describe Jesus in three of the gospels, Acts and 1 Peter: “The stone rejected by the builders has now become the cornerstone. This is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous to see. . . . Give thanks to the Lord, for he is good! His faithful love endures forever” (Psalms 118:22, 23, 29, NLT).
When we commemorate Easter truly as a memorial of the death and resurrection of Jesus—in both its bewildering, tragic darkness and its glorious, overwhelming light—we celebrate and proclaim again that the Lord’s doing is ever marvellous and His love does endure forever. When understood in this way, the Great Sabbath is the most Adventist of seventh days. While memorialising the central event in the salvation story, it begins in disappointment but continues to expect the return of Jesus Himself, together with the resurrection He brings.
Log In to Post a Comment. Log In | Register
On the Great Sabbath, one of the hymns used by the Orthodox is:
He who shut in the depths is beheld dead,
Wrapped in fine linen and spices. The Immortal One is laid in a tomb as a mortal man. The women have come to anoint Him with myrrh, Weeping bitterly and crying: "This is the most blessed Sabbath On which Christ has fallen asleep to rise on the third day!"A recognition of Jesus ultimate Sabbath "rest" prior to his resurrection.
"There is evidence of an annual Christian memorial of Jesus’ death and resurrection from the first century, most of which we know about because of debates among Christians in the second century as to when this already-established practice should be marked on the calendar. As one of the earliest Christian observances"
There is an abundance of historical records of the first and second century Christians celebrating the Resurrection day; the one day that was the raison de'etre of the Christian church: no Resurrection--no Christianity.
Yet for those few Christians who return to the Hebrew Scriptures for doctrine, the Jewish sabbath became their sacred and holy day. There was never a Christian sabbath as it was given to, and for the Jews alone.
It is also extremely odd that for most of Adventist history, the Easter season ending with the Resurrection was largely ignored as being to "Catholic." This, too, is history.
Yes, Sabbath means "rest" but the Resurrection is the only symbol that offers everylasting life. Rest can be a peaceful end, but without the Resurrection, all would stay in their tombs. Jesus gave us the example of what we may expect after a restful sleep of death. The Sabbath holds no such promise; the Jews never believed in an afterlife and sabbath was for them a rest from the servitude of Egyptian slavery and the deliverance God offered them.
The only hope of our physical bodies being restored was demonstrated by the Resurrection, the gift to Christians; which is why the first day of the week should be celebrated as Christ's gift to us of immortality as there were no such promises with sabbath.
Whether the Sabbath is given only to the Jews depends on how you read Scripture. Many have chosen through the centuries not to read it as you do. Many still choose not to read it that way. I believe they are right to do so. How can you say the Jews never believed in the afterlife when one of the main contentions between Pharisees and Sadducees in the days of Jesus was over the resurrection? Observing the Sabbath in no ways negates believing in the resurrection.
Agreed: everything depends on our interpretation of scripture. Those who read the OT as PRESCRIPTIVE believe that what is written therein is for all time and all people as their guide for life. Even that interpretation is selective as not everthing is considered prescriptive.
For the majority of Christians, that belief is dependent upon the NT as PRESCRIPTIVE for life. The principles that Christ and the apostles left us is not always consistent with the Judaic system and much of the Jewish religious practices became obsolete (a term used in the NT to describe the "letters written in stone") and a new way is brought in by Christ "implying that the first one is already old...anything old only gets more antiquated nd in the end it disappears" (Heb 8:13).
Since there is a change in the priesthood, and Christ is now our high priest....this commandment is replaced by something better--the hope that brings us nearer to God." (Heb. 7."
If the same old law and covenant weremeant to still be in place, what was the purpose of Christ's coming? Were there no changes made from Judaism to Christianity? What were they? Paul spends much of time explaining the implications of Christianity and its radical change from Judaism. To continue with the Jewish practices: sabbath, kosher laws is to make Christianity of little difference. Messianic Judaism would be more appropriate.
For most of Jewish history there was no belief in an afterlife. This was a late
addition by a small segment of Judaism and Jesus belonged to neither group.
For Christians, Easter is the most sacred of holy days because it commimerates the cornerstone of the faith--had Christ not risen, Christianity would never have flourished, since the man Jesus would not have been proved to be the Son of God. There would be no Christians, including Adventists were it not for the Resurrection so it is most appropriate that it be the Christians holy day.
Jesus said the "Sabbath was not made for man"--and yet many Sabbatarians argue that it was made for man as a rest day and thus made for man's benefit!
In John's Revelation, the first use of "Lord's Day" is considered by most Christians to be a reference to the first day of the week; otherwise a good Jew would have called it "Sabbath." The Greek term used was the first and only time that this appeared in the NT, and had John meant the sabbath, why did he not use the far more common language in writing as a Jew?
There is no reference in Christian scriptures to sabbath as being a holy day that Gentile Christians should begin observing. Since there is no record of its proper observance, surely, they should have been given the many rules for how to properly avoid the many "work" restrictions that were part of the OT instructions by God. Can a Law be separated from how to properly observe it?
Note: For those who divide the Law into two segments: moral and ceremonial, Sabbath is the ONLY Jewish holiday whose observance is mandated in the Ten Commandments. It cannot be a moral law as morals do not fluctuate by the calendar.
In Talmudic literature is a popular legend: "If you wish to destroy the Jewish people abolish their Sabbath first," and "More than Israel kept the Sabbath, the Sabbath kept Israel." It is the one unique symbol identifying Judaism. It is not a mark of Christianity.
The seventh as well as the first day of the week are regular occurrences. Celebrating the reason for Christianity is very appropriately celebrated on a weekly basis if sabbath is holy based on a one tine only event: creation or delivery from Egypt.
Elaine says "Celebrating the reason for Christianity is very appropriately celebrated on a weekly basis if sabbath is holy based on a one tine only event: creation or delivery from Egypt."
In Genesis 2:3 God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, not for the Jews... The Royal Law is a mirror of His character. Tale a look at Acts 13 written around AD 45. Paul and Barnabas were preaching in the synagogue and the Gentiles besought those things be preached to them. Acts 13:42 And the next sabbath day almost the whole city came... Acts 13:44, Acts 14:1.
The first thousand years we spend with Christ (in which the devil is in "chains" with no one to temp on earth) is a type of Sabbath rest from the 6,000 years of this earth.
There is a problem in the creation story as God rested on the seventh from His work but man had no reason to rest--he had done no work nor did God tell Adam that he should also rest every seventh day on the seventh day (it is not called sabbath).
Not until the Exodus is sabbath ever mentioned and it is given to the Israelites as a day of rest, both in celebrating creation and their delivery from Egyptian bondage. Nor was it ever given to anyone prior to this time: God gave it as a sign between myself and you from generation to generation and "it was not with our fathers" (Deut. 5).
There are three stories of the covenant and Law made with Israel it was not with others unless they wished to become part of the Jewish system and first be circumcised.
When the "whole city came: to the synagogue" it did not infer that the "whole city" had now converted to Judaism but that they were curious to hear more of Paul and Barnabas' teachings. A synagogue was not just a place of worship but where teachings and discussions occurred (Jesus at 12 talked with the rabbis as that was their common meeting place. .
Any sabbath requirement or teaching given to the new Christians was simply not recorded. Not a good method of doctrinal teaching. There are far too many assumption that must be accepted to believe the explanations that sabbath has always been observed by everyone in the Bible until Sinai; that it was given to all the world's inhabitants; or that Christians began observing it as a holy day just as the Jews.
Genesis 26:5 Because Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
Exodus 5:5...and ye make them "rest" from their burdens? and the manna not falling on the sabbath all before the Ten Commandments were given on Sinai Exodus 16:23
The Israelites were at Sinai when manna fell. To accept that everything in the story is in absolute chronological order is a mistake too many make. The stories are told to reveal God's delivery and care for His people, not as a strictly sequential story. In fact, there are duplicate, even contradictory stories in the Torah. Confusing events as literally accurate was never the intent of the writers. God's goodnes is not limited by time.
How is it possible that the giving of the Decalogue is in chronological order when there are three different accounts in the Torah, none exactly duplicate?
In an effort to prove doctrines, why have facts become unnecessary, even making assumptions that cannot be shown? Why not allow the Bible to be read just as it is without trying to suggest what is not there? A close reader of the Bible will not be able to verify such assumptions and what happens to such claims?
The Ten Commandments are a mirror of Gods Character... They were not written stone, but those who walk with God communicated His will to others.
Perfect............ GC= Matthew 5:48 TC= James 1:25, Psalms 19:7
Eternal............ GC=Romans 16:26, Deut. 33:27 TC Psalms 111:7-8, Luke 16:17
Light............... GC=1 John 1:5 TC Proverbs 6:23
Unchanging..... GC=Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 13:8 TC Matthew 5:18, Psalms 111:7-8
Many changes were made after Christ's death: circumcision was given to Adam and his descendants forever, and yet the apostles said it was not necessary for Christians. Who gave them the authority to change God's command?
Yes, God obeyed the Law perfectly, no man has ever done that. Christ demonstrated much more beyond the Law in His command:
"Love your neighbor as yourself and thus fulfill the Law." The Israelites were simply commanded to obey. The Pharisees obeyed the Law most carefully but failed to demonstrate love.
Did Christ come to demonstrate the Father or to demonstrate that the Law was preeminent? Was Paul correct when he wrote that Christ replaced the Law? "Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the Law." What does that mean? We are justified by faith; the Jews were justified by obedience to the Law. Will the Law or Christ be our judge? Matt. 25: 31-46 is Christ's basis for judging our admittance to the kingdom. Not one word of Law is mentioned, only concern for others. Concern for one's obedience to Law distracts attention from others and focuses on self.
Christ came to be our example to show us God's Character and how to live. Rev. 12:17, Rev. 14:12.
"Why didn't Jesus before his deth set forth Sunday as the new sabbath"?
Maybe the same reason he never advised against further temple sacrifices; or that circumcision was no longer necessary, or that the apostles were not to go the Gentiles. Was it the Holy Spirit advising the apostles at Jerusalem that the Jewish customs were not to be mandatory on the Gentiles? Or was it the Devil? Jesus never gave such instructions.
Yes, church tradition was the basis for Sunday worship, as Jesus never instituted a remembrance for His Resurrection, did He? That was the early church's leading out in taking the Gospel to the Gentiles. Had it remained with the Jews there would be no Christian church today.
There are many more traditions that have been introduced by the Christian church and because things "were never done before" is insufficient for condemning them. If there needs to be a "Thus saith the Lord" there is none to Christians as he always associated with and addressed fellow Jews. Christianity is a new religion, not simply a revision of Judaism.
Nathan has written a very beautiful and spiritual message that is not about doctrine, yet Elaine has chosen to debate it. I see very little in these antiSemitic posts that is biblical. Christian roots are in Judaism even if a majority of Christians refuse to accept it. Ours is the God of Abraham and Moses and Jesus the most important Jew of all. He was raised as a Jew, knew the Jewish scriptures and practiced the faith. Elaine misquoted by stating that "Jesus said the "Sabbath was not made for man". He actually said "the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27), He is"Lord of the Sabbath"(Luke 6:5). Thus comes the term in Revelation "Lord's Day." It would be absurd for John to have called any other day the Lord's Day when he was speaking to audiences who knew the Jewish meanings of all his symbols. Revelation is a Jewish book.
Jesus as the passover Lamb, of course, put an end to sacrifices when the Bible tells us the veil in the temple was torn. This is obvious.
I stand by what I have said before: considering the way circumcision was handled by the early church at a special meeting, there would have been a great upheaval if any of the ten commandments were disregarded. Jewish Christians would have left the church in droves.
BTW there is a ceremony commemorating Christ's death, burial, and resurection. It is called baptism by immersion where one comes up out of the water into a new life.
At the last supper, Jesus also took the wine and told his disciples "to do this in rememberance of me."
It was antiSemiticism that in large part destroyed the Sabbath, and then Constantine made the first Sunday law fulfilling the prophecy about a system that would seek to change times and laws (Dan 7:25). Ever since, Jews have been targetted by executioners and bigots of many stripes including Christians who called them "Christ killers."
We may read many nonAdventist books to augment our debates but to not read those authors who are Adventist scholars is unfair. That is not being an honest debater but choosing to be narrow in one's perspective. It would be like me getting on a Morman site and attacking one of their major doctrines. I would ask a lot of questions first if I were inclined to do this.
Yes, I misquoted Jesus on Sabbath. It was made for man as rest; but the Jews had made Sabbath as a special symbol of their exceptional relation with God and they thought the sabbath was made for them--and according to the Ten Commandments, it was made only for them.
John's reference to the "Lord's Day" was the first time this expression had been used in the Bible which is why it has been called the first reference in literature to the first day of the week as the Christian holy day. The SDA Commentary also confirms that this was the first use of that expression in Greek, found nowhere else. Had he meant Sabbath, it was such a common word, there was no reason not to do so. As it was a Jewish book, "sabbath" had always been used for the seventh day, never the "Lord's Day."
"there would have been a great upheaval if any of the ten commandments were disregarded. Jewish Christians would have left the church in droves."
Jewish Christians had no reason to leave the church. They were never told to "disregard" the commandments but told they could continue their practices, including circumcision. But for the Gentile Christians they had never previously observed sabbath and were not told that they must now begin observing that day. It would have been the Gentiles who would not have accepted Christianity had they been forced to obey the Jewish religious essentials--circumcision and sabbath being the very identification of Judaism. It was only because the Gentiles were not commanded to become Jews first, that the Christian church grew so rapidly. Circumcision always preceded Sabbath observance, a very effective deterrent. Yet, why did the Jewish Christian community fade from history before the end of the first century, as there were no reasons for them to do so as they could continue with both sabbath and circumcision.
Yes, baptism is only one symbol of the Resurrection, but the first day of the week was a celebration for the entire church not limited to a one-time event.
Anti-semitism did not destroy the sabbath; Christians never observed the sabbath. They blamed the Jews for Christ's death, nothing about sabbath. This the Jews brought upon themselves by saying "His blood be upon us." Long before Constantine, early church fathers are on record as being very anti-semitic, but never a mention of sabbath as the reason. Constantine recognized the day that Christians were celebrating and as the ruler of the Roman Empire, his desire was not religious, but temporal power and gave the citizens a day of rest from work on the first day of the week, never for merely religious reasons. Nor did he "change times and laws" as there was no law being observed by anyone but Jews on a rest day, and under Roman rule, Jews had always been exempt from persecution; it was Christians who were persecuted, not Jews, and celebrating on the first day of the week separated Christians from Jews. Christians, not sabbath observers were the persecuted.
For those of us who have been educated through college in SDA schools it is rather odd to assume that Adventist scholars have not been read; on the contrary, reading was limited to them. Only after leaving SDA colleges were other Bible scholars read and studied. This gives a much wider perspective than limiting reading to only SDA books (although this is Ted. Wilson's advice),
Adventist Today is open to all who wish to comment, and appreciates different views, not just pro-SDA. Nor is it an official SDA site, not church sponsored. Nor do Mormons appreciate questions about their religious beliefs. Is there never a place or time to question? Where if not here? If an Adventist avoids questions, how can they expect to convert someone who dares question? A Muslim, JW, or Mormon?
Because Adventists know most of the beliefs, they are able to ask more penetrating questions and do not accept the "proof texts" that are so readily given. Digging beyond the texts may be a real learning experience to those who have believed that Adventism could withstand all the questions with a "text here, and a text there but no context."
TruthWave,
The first day of the week was never intended to replace sabbath, nor did I ever suggest that. It was a gradual change over many decades in the first Christian church. Partially, because the Roman authorities which had given the Jews freedom to worship and practice their beliefs where sabbath was one of the most visible. To separate theselves from the Jews, Christians who were meeting on the first day of the week confused the Romans as they were neither Jew or pagan. They were expected, as good Roman citizens, to worship the Roman gods. Because they refused, they were persecuted.
The early church adopted many new doctrines which became tradition:
Worship on Sunday
The Trinity
Divinity/humanity of Jesus
Virgin Birth
Easter
Many, even more, were adopted and accepted as SDA doctrines; none were originally taught in the first Christian church.
Truthwave,
You said "If Sunday worship was to be the "New Sabbath" in the NT, then pray tell, why didn't Jesus before his death on the cross, set forth the Sunday as the new sabbath?" Well for one thing he was busy with other things, impending crucifixion comes to mind. Besides what is wrong with celebration and worship on Sunday as done by most of Christianity? It was the resurrection day and that is the day of hope. Not sabbath.
Questions that all Christians of every denomination should ask themselves:
Would you be a Christian if there were no Resurrection? What is the most important doctrine in all Christianity? What doctrine does your church emphasize above all others?
addition by a small segment of Judaism and Jesus belonged to neither group."
Please see Isaiah 25:8; Daniel 7:13,14; (I am sure there is more.) Jesus taught a resurrection as did the Pharisees (Matt. 22).
I do thank Elaine for keeping us on our toes! That is how she blesses us.
Have you kept up to date with the work of Adventist scholars who have, BTW, attended other unversities from Cambridge to Fuller? The great majority have a very broad educational background.
Elaine, I really feel you are living in the past concerning the Adventist religion based on your unique educational experience. Unfortnately our current president also seems to live in the past. Administrators are usually more concerned (even unconsciously) about perpetuating an institution (they call it "unity") than learning "new light." New light and progressive truth rarely come through administrators; I think they lack the theological depth that true scholars or even those of simple, practical faith have.
I say this not to brag, but to let you know that I am very familiar with the church's scholars from the late 60s on. I studied with and worked as a secretary to the best for a number of years and had four years of theology. I worked for the church for 25 years, and most of the people I knew were open-minded, flexible and caring--not like the caricatures seen here. If you could just say a few civil words about the people and ideas you attack that would make you more credible to me. That is certianly what I would do on a Mormon site. Actually I am not out to "convert" anyone. Real Christians don't need it, and only the Holy Spirit can convict the heart of a seeker.
Rereading this the next day, I don't think you have ever "attacked" any one on these blogs. Please forgive the hyperbole.
As to where I get my information: for the past 6-7 years I have spent intensive time in studying, completing a M.A. in early Christian history and compiled a large library with all sorts of sources. The old saying: "When you are quite certain on a subject and are introduced to new information, what do you do?" Dismiss it because it is not in agreement with your position? Study to determine why this is new and whether or not it makes sense? Isn't this the sole reason one attends school or reads lots of different subjects and different views? I hope so.
We should remember: The Muslims have their sacred scriptures; the Buddhists have their sacred writings; the Jews have their sacred writings, the Mormons have their sacred writings. Each are prepared to defend their beliefs based on those books. Can one discuss Mormon beliefs if only the Bible is used? Or, if each claims their books are sacred and hold the truth, what is the best way to evalute if not reading many different viewpoints? Doing so would reveal that there are more common and mutual beliefs than not.
In the past I have studied the major world churches; their pros and cons. Their sacred writings cannot all be true--they are a mixture. It is puzzling that a Catholic scholar can adhere to the belief that Peter was the first pope while Protestants find nothing to substantiate it. In all fields of study, humans are subjective and this becomes entrenched as they associate with their like-minded colleagues. There is more psychology involved in learning than we want to admit.
Your study leads you in a more liberal direction than mine. I am impressed with your accomplishment of an MA. I like theology and perhaps, if time allows, I shall do something like that. I am retired but there is hardly time beyond keeping up exercise to stay healthy and all the other things my husband and I need to do here in a rural area.
Thanks for the conversation.
Christianity has been the great influence in most of western Europe and the Americas which is why Christianity is the larges beliefs. It is easy to believe that because we have been taught and read much about the religion of our heritage, that it is, of course, the one true religion; just as my fmily is the finest in the world. What we individually believe is because we "know" it is true--but true compared to what?
This should lead to more tolerance of other religious believers who are equally convinced that their religion is right. How, then, can we be so certain that our religion is the only true one? On what basis is that determination made and can it ever be divorced from our birth place and teaching?
This is often why atheists or agnostics are far better informed on religion that are believers: doubt comes before faith; if one has never doubted he cannot have faith.
From my reading, I think the secular world knows little about religion. Some agnostic/atheist scholars, educators, etc. may be informed as you say (reference?), but it would seem the ordinary secular individual has not given it a lot of thought and certianly not taken the Bible seriously. They say they are agnostic or atheist because it is the popular trend right now. I found this even among Hindus who have been my friends and all the Jewish friends I had in my younger years. My husband is Jewish by birth but not religion; his family were forced into Catholicism in Poland to save their lives. He follows Adventism in most beliefs but has never joined a church because he considers them man-made organizations.
Like you, I try to respect all religions, but have trouble with Fundmentalists who simply parrot what they were taught, never engaging their mind.
"The Bible is the sacred scriptures of our holy religion, as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based."
Before you consider anyone's answer to your question, perhaps you ought to ask yourself: How large of a role am I allowing God to play in my life? Not allowing God to be first and foremost in a person's life opens the door to such questions about that and other demands God makes on us. Allowing God to be superior and above all resolves all those questions.
"Forget the Church--Follow Jesus"
You can find oil at Safeway and a candy bar at Auto Zone true
The Bible never mentions "going to church"? Acts 14:23, I guess the seven churches mentioned in the Bible were not synonymous with following Jesus....
About the subject, there will always be some argument to refute a previous one. It is important to discuss and to test the roots of our beliefs to strengthen our relatioship with God but not to find who has the the monopoly of reason. For our relationship with God to be alive there will always be a point where faith is required - and many times that proof of faith is concerning to doctrine. We have to make a daily decision of faith: we learn everyday and have new doubts everyday. God can not be explained by a single point of view since He is the Creator of diversity as we know it.
But He makes a difference in our lives. Jesus told the disciples to testify about what they had seen and lived, not about doctrine - that comes after and that is the work for the Holy Spirit. Not man's. We are told to speak about this God we know, the real God, the God who is alive and transforms millions of lives everyday and everywhere. We have to tell the world this experience, our personal experience.
I enjoyed very much reading these comments, by the way. And yes, this is the right place to discuss. I'm afraid, though, that there is no valid conclusion from here for we can not cover every arguments that exist to find the true. Nevertheless, we must do our best and take our own conclusions because God made us intelligent for a purpose. The importance of the Sabbath is its connection to the word of God, specifically to the prophecy. The prophecy is relevant because of its information about the trials each christian has to deal with. And it is even most important because it shows an ending for our history: the way it ends and why it ends. That is relevant. That must be studied. That must be lived. That then must be told.
Let's not give the false idea of a complicated and unreachable God. He is profound, He is everything our words cannot describe. But Jesus came to Earth to present to us the Father as He is: the reachable Father, the caring Father, the Father who is willing to do everything needed (and already did the most important) to get to our hearts.
And this I would have never known if there were no christians and no church. No Pathfinders, specifically. I'm grateful that there was a moment when I met God and when I started to think, to have doubts and to strengthen my faith with the obstacles that came into my life.
May the Holy Spirit enlighten us!
We all want to follow Jesus. But in order to achieve that, we need to keep all of His commandments. Why do people agree with nine of the ten commandments but do not agree with the fourth commandment in which should be remembered? Please enlighthen me... We all want to follow Jesus. But to achieve that,we need to know more about Him, what He has done, and what He has observed, right?
And lastly, "Whatever religion you are into right now, i suggest, please, do not forget your church." Unless that church is a false church.
I admit, i am not an adventist, but i do follow the adventist way... It is because there are alot of good people in there. And, they follow God's way, Jesus' way...
God gave the ten commandments along with all the 613 rules for the Israelites. They were never given to Gentiles, but only to the Israelites, so how and when were Christians given the Jewish rules to observe? In fact, when the Jews, after the resurrection were trying to enforce Judaism on the Gentile Christians, the apostles rebuked them and gave them only this: to avoid meat served to idols are blood, and fornication.
There is not a single NT text giving a special day of worship for Christians: zilch, nada, nothing. While the Jewish Christians may have continued observing the sabbath it was never given to the Gentile Christians. "Going to the synagogue on sabbath to hear someone preach does not imply they were observing it as a holy day with its multiple rules and restrictions, all outline in the Hebrew Bible.
"Jesus kept the sabbath until his death." Well, he was born, circumcised, lived under the Judaic system, and died an obedient Jew. Where does that imply that we should practice Judaism because he did? Is there no difference between Judaism and Christianity?
You know very well that the Sabbath was around long before there were any Jews, as was the commandment against murder--otherwise God wasn't being fair with Cain when he banished him. It seems that prevarication was not acceptable either, as is evidenced by a few incidents in the life of Abraham. The fact that God destroyed the world with a flood because man was evil implies that there had to be an objective standard by which evil was recognized as such. The only objective standard in Scripture that fulfills that purpose is God's law, written down for the first time at Sinai, but known to the Patriarchs.
You've set up a very nice straw man and knocked him down. What will you do for an encore?
Your statements are all based on assumptions. Where is there a record of sabbath observance prior to Sinai? Where is there a record that it was known by the patriarchs. One text is sufficient. There is no place in the Bible where there is a separation of the Law between moral and ceremonial. If so, one text is sufficient.
One doesn't need a law to undertand that killing is wrong; nor lying nor stealing. These rules were in the Code of Hammarubi long before the Law was given at Sinai and in all cultures these are law, whether written or unwritten. What were we given minds for if we must have a law for every action?
Everywhere around the world, it is unlawful to kill, lie, steal and dishonor one's parents. These are often referred to as "natural" laws: innate in humanity. No where would a special day of rest be found in nature. The Fourth commandment only commanded rest, nothing else. The Israelites added many restrictions and prohibitions, as have Adventists.
The Fourth commandment is NOT a moral law. If your neighbor works on Saturday he is not an immoral person. Morals are what affect other people: lying, stealing, killing. But the first four are optional for those who choose to observe them. They were given to a special people for a special time and no one else. They were celebrating their deliverance from Egypt by a gift of a day of rest, something never enjoyed as slaves.
If you can supply one, only one text commanding the new Gentile Christians, former pagans, that they must now observe the seventh day, or any day, please furnish it. Otherwise, it is simply another of the many assumptions that cannot be supported by Scripture.
You're trying to tell me that it is inherent? By what standard have you made that conclusion? What do you mean natural laws? If we all arrived on this planet by random chance by the process of evolution, as you seem to believe, then what makes Hammarabi an authority on law? Cannibals ate each other. From an evolutionary standpoint there is nothing wrong with that because morality is purely subjective. So morals only affect other people? How it affects God is irrelevant and not moral? What a convoluted argument! The first 4 were optional?! I can now bow down to idols and curse God?!! What planet are you from? If the first 4 were optional then why did the gospel lead pagans away from their idols? If the first 4 were optional than the apostles need only have concentrated on the last 6, and let the pagans continue with their idol worship. Apparently that's what the Catholic Church believes because they have no problem with idols.
By the way, your argument from silence is unconvincing, as well.
Jean,
There are other societies who have other religions not related to either of the three Judeo-Christian. I neve I said that I believed in evolution. Hammarubi was the authority over his kingdom when he codified the Law and gave honor to god-although with a different name.
Yes, animals do not have morals, only humans do and God is irrelevant to those who do not worship him, as millions in the world have other gods, so he is irrelevant to them. This earth, the planet we live on, is not all monotheistic and there have always been people who worshiped idols. You have the freedom to choose whether you bow down to idols, so yes, it is optional.
You write as one who lives in a ghetto and assume that everyone has the same beliefs. Everyone on this site does not hold all the same beliefs, although you appear to think they should; so what planet are you from. Did I ever write than you can now bow down to idols? Yes, if you wish, you may do so.
Silence? you have not furnished a single text confirming your former statements, so I will only consider that your assumptions are just that: no scriptural backing.
I commend Elaine for the lonely battle she is waging for honest interpretation of scripture.
As a lifelong SDA I struggled greatly because of the lack of an understanding of grace and the gospel. When the blinders were finally removed and I discovered the gospel I found that much of the way the Bible had been presented to me was warped to fit a legalistic view of God's truth.
At first I was simply surprised at how plainly the scriptures indicated that I could not win God's approval and salvation through good works. I chalked up the distortion of these truths to an over emphasis on pleasing God. But, as the years have gone by I have come to recognize the duplicity and deception that SDAs persistently use to defend their cherished legalistic perspective.
Someone criticized Elaine for attacking Nathan's innocent blog. To tell you the truth I wasn't sure when I finished reading his blog exactly what he meant by the Great Sabbath. So, I was not sure if I agreed or not, but it seems that all those with what sound like legalistic perspective seem to have lined up against Elaine using a lot of the tired old SDA legalistic bending of scripture.
Sorry, to lump you all into the legalistic label, but I think that defending the Sabbath the way it has been done here can only yield legalistic Sabbath keeping no matter how much it is enjoyed. I am sure some you have some very non-legalistic Sabbath experiences, but the fact is you can have those experiences without insisting that Saturday Sabbath observance is a duty of every Christian, but your legalism will not permit that.
SDAs are always trying to make the Bible say more than it does. There is absolutely no evidence of any Sabbath keeping prior to Israelites leaving Egypt. It doesn't matter how many times anyone repeats what is said in Genesis, it is dishonest to suggest that the words provide a command or expectation of Adam and Eve. And there is certainly no evidence that any of the patriarchs kept Sabbath.
There is no question that the fourth commandment given from Sinai as recorded by Moses is connected to the Creation account. That it is given as an imitation of God's creation work and rest is a logical conclusion, but it is given to the Jews and there are passages that explicitly declare it as sign between God and the Jews. Paul makes it clear in Roman 5 that the law was given at Sinai so it is simply wrong to insist that the law has been the only way that God communicates His expectation for righteousness. Yes, there are plenty of folks who know in their hearts that killing is wrong without the Ten Commandments.
It is certainly true that the Jews were never commanded to stop keeping Sabbath. However, it is absurd, just as Elaine suggests, to believe that Paul expected his gentile converts to keep Sabbath and expected them to observe according to any Jewish tradition. There are plenty of instances of his attending synagogue and preaching the gospel on the Sabbath, but not one word about observing or keeping the Sabbath. It is dishonest to try to suggest that the mere attendance at the synagogue would have passed for Sabbath keeping. In fact, the one mentions the observance of holy days is to say that everyone should follow his own conscience.
I have for most of my life gotten a blessing from the Sabbath. I no longer observe the Sabbath with the same kind of rigidness of my earlier years, but I am still blessed. But, I do not believe it is the obligation of every Christian. I think if it is the great blessing we claim that it is, then we should never present it as an obligation anyway. And as far as I can see there is nothing in Christian teaching to require it.
I wonder at times if the ambiguity of the New Testament on the Sabbath is not God’s way of letting us demonstrate our motive for obedience. The religious leaders of Jesus day were ostensibly conscientious Sabbath keepers, but the real motives of their hearts were eventually exposed when they condemned and crucified God in the flesh. SDAs are great students of the Bible, so how can we blithely ignore the danger of legalistic observance of the law, especially the Sabbath.
Christians are to live by the Spirit. The Spirit’s demand will exceed the law not only in magnitude, but in every nuance. I know a lot of people will start speaking about all the texts in the NT that talk about keeping the commandments. Actually, this reveals another common distortion of the scriptures. The NT usually refers to the OT commandments as the law. It is not that difficult to see with some study that keeping the commandments in the NT almost always refers to obedience to Jesus Christ and His instruction and the Spirit whom Jesus said plainly would continue His instruction.
I know from experience that most SDAs are far past objective consideration of the NT passages they think support the legalistic requirement (obligation) to keep Sabbath. But, it would be wrong to just be quiet about the distortions that are part of the SDA Sabbath apologetics.
Of course, with careful avoidance of Paul's many letters: Romans, Galatians and Ephesians particularly, that over and over again explain that the Law is no longer operational as Christ has replaced the Law and inaugurated a New Covenant, signifying that the Old one is obsolete. He uses several illustrations (wife with will left by husband, now no longer bound) to demonstrate the NT change from Judaism where the Law was their guide. One cannot live simultaneously under both Old and New Covenants.
It seems that Adventists seldom use these NT Epistles as the Law is one of the strongest doctrines, which ignores the letter to the Galatians illustrating the Law as a pedagoge, or school master to lead us to Christ and now that He has come we have no need of a pedagoge.
This was NEVER taught when I took Bible Doctrines, and I have never heard of an SDA evangelist who preaches on this. Wonder why?
Adventists are still tied to the OT where most of their unique doctrines originate. But this forces them to ignore large segments of the NT as it contradicts their teaching and cannot agree with the lack of Sabbath instruction in the NT for Christians. In diet, tithe, sabbath and the Investigative Judgment, Adventists have had to rely on the OT; they are not taught in the New.
"When I was a child I spake as a child..." Children need the rules and after reaching adulthood they no longer need rules, adults now know the rules and have no need of the Law.
Paul wrote his letters to the Christian church; Jesus never addressed any but Jews who lived following Judaism. To imply that there were no changes from Judaism to Christianity is to ignore the entire book of Romans and Galatians and other letters that Paul wrote to Gentile Christians who had never lived under the Law. The Jews were trying to impose Judaism, and the Law, on Gentiles and Paul could not be more clear that they were no longer under the Law.
The Jews were strict about the Law, even scrupulous with the hundreds of exact rules. This was not Christianity; Christ replaced the Law. To return to the Law is to deny Christ's reason for coming to earth. He did not come to simply reinforce Judaism. Otherwise, what was the meaning of his life, death, and resurrection if things were to remain the same? Christianity was not imply adding Jesus to Judaism. That is Messianic Christianity.