You are not logged in.
Sirje,
Let’s not get hung on what the SDA claim to actually “keep” as Sabbath. The fact that they do not have a firm grasp in the fundamentals of the gospel disqualifies them as any standard or measure of what real Sabbath observance is all about.
Moreover, why do you insist on making the NC Sabbath a matter of rules? This again indicates that your fixation against what you think to be the purpose of the OC and of the Sabbath specifically is misguided. That the Sabbath stands as a day blessed of God and given special application as a memorial and commemorates God as Creator and Savior, even as it also shadows our eternal rest does not mean it has to carry with it any “rules”. Arguing against some supposed “rules” as it relates to the Sabbath is to still see it through a “veil”.
Hence what “constitutes” Sabbath observance is first of all, Jesus, as Lord or the Sabbath setting the example of true Sabbath observance for his followers. As such it is truly a day of joy and celebration, even a day to gather as believers and “encourage one another as we see the day approaching”, and one on which good works are to be done. But what sets it apart from other days and the reason we are not at liberty to make any day a “Sabbath” has nothing to do with "rules", and everything to do with God setting it so and Jesus, as Lord of the day, setting the proper example of its observance. That this day is “holy” and set apart of God for the sake of man does not mean that we must seek some “rules” simply because they were “rules” given under the OC application of its observance. It stands as holy and blessed because so God established it and it is the Lord’s day.
Let every lamp be burning bright, the darkest hour is nearing...
Offline
OK, Dexter. So your Sabbath keeping has nothing to do with keeping a commandment as it was included in the TEN? It's just something Christians do, imitating Jesus, along with healing and helping others?
The thing is, when Jesus said, "the Sabbath was made for man..." he was talking to the Jews, who were keeping the Sabbath as part of their covenant relationship with God. You have to do a whole lot of manipulation of scripture to come up with what you and Tom are saying.
Paul, who established churches all over the Mediterranean, never explained to the gentile converts that they should keep a Sabbath like Jesus did. It never came up except when he said if you esteem one day above another then go ahead and do that according to conscience.
Offline
Bob_2,
Your insistence that Jesus “fulfilled” the Sabbath (so that believes are no longer obliged to recognize and uphold it) by giving us “rest” lacks basic biblical support. You speak as though spiritual rest is somehow a NT/NC phenomenon. Am I to understand that you don’t think the folks in the OC had this rest? Did “TODAY” for someone under the OC not afford them rest also? Such an idea is not only self serving and reckless, but also egregious against what the bible says. I suggest you take some time and do a word search on "rest" in the OT and take time to study.
Please tell us what it was that Jesus fulfilled.
Moreover, your infatuation with insisting that the Sabbath only represents some spiritual rest in Christ has also corrupted your view of the Gospel. The ultimate “goal of the Gospel” is not “REST IN JESUS CHRIST” as nice sounding as that is. The “ultimate goal of the Gospel” as Paul describes it is the message of the sinner’s Justification by faith via forgiveness of sins. This is the matter of “first importance” (I Cor. 15:1-4) as it relates to the Gospel. The blessing of spiritual rest is truly a blessing and benefit of this “ultimate goal”, but not to be confused with that goal itself.
Rest in Jesus is part of the New Covenant. When we accept His sacrifice one of the blessings we receive is Rest in Jesus. The problem with SDAs is that they place the 7Th day rest of the Old retired Covenant first before most everything.
What you fail to realize is that the Sabbath is both a shadow or type AND a memorial. While the anti type of this shadow may well include the first fruit of the spiritual “rest” we enjoy while we sojourn in this life, it is only truly fulfilled or met in our rest in Heaven. This is the “ultimate” goal of the shadow in the Sabbath.
We don't realize it because it isn't a requirement. It served its purpose and now we have Jesus the Creator, redeemer and teacher. We don't need to go back to Adam or to Sinai, we have the real Thing. Sabbath was truly a memorial for the Jews. Each week they could reflect on creation Creator and redeemer from bondage in Egypt.
Personally, I have never been ask by my Creator to observe being redeemed from Egypt by observing the Sabbath. I have been ask to love my Redeemer and serve Him everyday. Our Rest doesnt have to wait until Heaven. When we come unto Him He gives us His Rest
Is the spiritual rest we now enjoy complete, perfect or eternal? Hardly
Yes, it is God's rest and He gives us the joy of entering into His rest, today. We don't have to wait until next Sabbath to enter the same rest that the Jews entered. They never did enter His Rest. Heb 4: 6It still remains that some will enter that rest, and those who formerly had the gospel preached to them did not go in, because of their disobedience. 7Therefore God again set a certain day, calling it Today, when a long time later he spoke through David, as was said before: "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts." 8For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day. 9There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; 10for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his. 11Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience.
Daily we are beset on every side with trials and tests of faith as a result of our weakened sinful nature, even as we are admonished to a constant “work out your salvation”. How then can you purport that this rest could be the meaning and purpose of the rest for which Christ has paid for with his sacrifice? Do you see or understand the implication of this flawed interpretation? All of Christ's work is complete, perfect and eternal. It cannot be subjective such as any spiritual rest which you or I can now experience since such is dependent on the believer's appropriation of it in his or her personal experience. Only in our heavenly home can the true fulfillment of the rest that the Sabbath shadows can be realized.
The key is to cast all your burdens on Jesus. We don't do that. We think we can work out our own plan, so we worry and fret and only go to Jesus as a last resort. Trials we will have, but the promise is still there. Oh us of little faith.
Furthermore, when Paul (in speaking about the religious festival, New Moon celebrations or a Sabbath) say that these “are a shadow of things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ,” this does not mean that Christ fulfilled the Sabbath in his person. Rather, he fulfills it by virtue of his work. So that as a result of His sacrifice for us “in bringing many sons to glory” he has opened the doors to Heaven for fallen sons of Adam. But until the end of all things when we are in heaven at last, the Sabbath continues as a shadow of that eternal rest.
I would like you to explain all this with scripture. Maybe after I get your explanation of your first paragraph on what was fulfilled I will better understand this paragraph.
Offline
Sirje,
Let’s not get hung on what the SDA claim to actually “keep” as Sabbath. The fact that they do not have a firm grasp in the fundamentals of the gospel disqualifies them as any standard or measure of what real Sabbath observance is all about.
I guess you are admitting that there is "real Sabbath observance" Is observance like standing in awe for 24 hours looking at the Statue of Liberty? Is it like when the clock shows the second the sun sets you think about and maybe give lip service to the Creator and Savior and when the clock shows the second the sun goes down ending the sabbath you thank Him for giving you the Sabbath so that you can do anything you please after you give the initial lip service, thus you have observed the day?
Moreover, why do you insist on making the NC Sabbath a matter of rules? This again indicates that your fixation against what you think to be the purpose of the OC and of the Sabbath specifically is misguided. That the Sabbath stands as a day blessed of God and given special application as a memorial and commemorates God as Creator and Savior, even as it also shadows our eternal rest does not mean it has to carry with it any “rules”. Arguing against some supposed “rules” as it relates to the Sabbath is to still see it through a “veil”.
Observe: to conform one's action or practice to (as a law, rite, or condition) : comply with
: to celebrate or solemnize (as a ceremony or festival) in a customary or accepted way
To observe Sabbath would mean to have the above from Webster's otherwise you wouldn't be observing.
Hence what “constitutes” Sabbath observance is first of all, Jesus, as Lord or the Sabbath setting the example of true Sabbath observance for his followers. As such it is truly a day of joy and celebration, even a day to gather as believers and “encourage one another as we see the day approaching”, and one on which good works are to be done. But what sets it apart from other days and the reason we are not at liberty to make any day a “Sabbath” has nothing to do with "rules", and everything to do with God setting it so and Jesus, as Lord of the day, setting the proper example of its observance. That this day is “holy” and set apart of God for the sake of man does not mean that we must seek some “rules” simply because they were “rules” given under the OC application of its observance. It stands as holy and blessed because so God established it and it is the Lord’s day.
Scripture please. There has to be NC rules or you can't say you "observe" it. Can you break the NC Sabbath?
Offline
Sirje said: OK, Dexter. So your Sabbath keeping has nothing to do with keeping a commandment as it was included in the TEN? It's just something Christians do, imitating Jesus, along with healing and helping others?
I say: So you want to make Dexter a standard for Sabbath keeping and not Jesus who is the Lord of the Sabbath? This is interesting. However, Dexter is neither the Lord of the Sabbath nor a NT Apostle and as such my words are not what you need to look to for your mandate.
Moreover, the need for commandments such as “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy” as well as all the other nine are still necessary and instructional for us in our fallen condition. Many, such as yourself and both Bobs, are so hung on the misreading of the OC that you still can’t see through the veil to realize that while Jesus did fulfill the law’s requirement for perfect holiness (such as is needed to “live” [Lev. 18:5, Gal. 3:12]), he has NOT, in that fulfillment, removed it (either its governing principle of LOVE or its adaptation to fallen humanity in the 10 commandments) as a standard of righteousness and a definer of sin both for the Christian’s life here and finally in the Judgment.
Furthermore, the real issue here is that those who claim that the 10 commandments are “done away with” and replaced by its governing principle of love are all pretenders! They pretend that somehow human nature has so matured under the NC we no longer need structure and form for the spirit of the law (love) in the 10 commandments. They pretend and suppose that God’s appointment of the Jews as His people under OC times and His dealing with them is somehow not to be understood as how He would deal with all of fallen sons of Adam. Hence, they also pretend that because the Jews missed the object lessons in most of what God intended in His dealings with them (specifically in the giving of the OC) that somehow we are any better that them; all the while missing the importance of the object lesson for ALL humanity in God’s interactions with the Jews.
The Apostle cautions such puffed up pretenders who would shake their heads at the misguided Jews as though God’s dealing with them has nothing to offer NC believers.
Rom. 3:1 What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision?
Rom. 3:2 Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.
Rom. 3:3 What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness?
Rom. 3:4 Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: "So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge.
What these haughty pretenders ignore or fail to grasp is that while the Jews may have failed, God didn’t. His “words” (v2) given to the Jews is as much important and beneficial to any fallen sons of Adam as it was to the Jews. Therefore, if anyone is to ask, ‘has God ever given a law suited to fallen humanity intended to represent the loftier spirit of Love?’ they MUST look to God’s dealing with the Jew and answer: YES, the 10 commandments. Sadly, these pretenders also fail to realize that while the method of communication in giving this law has changed from the “tablets of stone” under the OC to “tablets of human hearts” (2 Cor. 3:2) in the NC, the contents of that law (as necessary now for sinners as it was for them under the OC) hasn’t. The pretenders try to say otherwise. But neither is that what the text says nor what the Apostle mean in 2 Cor. 3:2
Sirje said: The thing is, when Jesus said, "the Sabbath was made for man..." he was talking to the Jews, who were keeping the Sabbath as part of their covenant relationship with God. You have to do a whole lot of manipulation of scripture to come up with what you and Tom are saying.
I say: The more you type the more you reveal a disconcerting lack of understanding the Scriptures. So Jesus’ words to the Jews were only meant for them and not for the rest of his Church? This would almost be funny if it wasn’t so desperately shortsighted and erroneous. The clear and authoritative mandate of Jesus to his Church includes “…teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” (Matt. 28:20) Jesus’ teaching is universal and instructive for all of his church, even as it is the word of God for our generation (Heb 1:1,2; 2:1-4).
So the Sabbath was only made for the Jews? This is so funny. Why didn’t Jesus say that outright? He could have easily said, “the Sabbath was made for the Jew and not the Jew for the Sabbath.” How silly a notion!
No manipulation is Scripture, Sirje, only a humble and teachable spirit as you ask the Lord for wisdom (James 1:5).
Sirje said: Paul, who established churches all over the Mediterranean, never explained to the gentile converts that they should keep a Sabbath like Jesus did. It never came up except when he said if you esteem one day above another then go ahead and do that according to conscience.
I say: So Paul is now the head of the church and its leading Apostle? Where have I seen this argument before? That’s right, the Corinthians! I suggest you go back there and have a look at what Paul had to say about those “infants” who try to make his work in spreading the Gospel of Christ their mandate over the words and teachings of Christ. In fact here it is:
I Cor. 1:10 I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.
I Cor. 1:11 My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you.
I Cor. 1:12 What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ."
I Cor. 1:13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?
I Cor. 3:1 Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly—mere infants in Christ
I Cor. 3:2 I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready.
I Cor. 3:3 You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men?
I Cor. 3:4 For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere men?
I Cor. 3:5 What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task.
I Cor. 3:6 I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow.
I Cor. 3:7 So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow.
Imagine Paul blasting these believers for such an “infant” approach to their Christianity when they didn’t even have the benefit of the words of Christ in the four gospels as we do. I wonder what words he would have someone like you?
Moreover, the “example” of Paul as he followed Christ (I Cor. 11:1) was to gather with believers on the Sabbath for worship, teaching, breaking of bread and celebration. The fact that you ignore his example (as he followed Christ) while a clearly obstinate, is not nearly as bad as your rebellion against the teaching and example of Christ. Why? Because Christ is the Lord of the Sabbath and the final authority of doctrine and practice for the Church (Heb 2:1-3, 3:1).
Bob said: Please tell us what it was that Jesus fulfilled.
I say: Look over my response to Sirje, not much difference between both of your opinions.
Bob said: Rest in Jesus is part of the New Covenant. When we accept His sacrifice one of the blessings we receive is Rest in Jesus.
I say: I agree, now what? What is the purpose of this point? If you have nothing meaningful to contribute but more “fluff” I suggest you simply say nothing.
Bob said: The problem with SDAs is that they place the 7Th day rest of the Old retired Covenant first before most everything.
I say: I also agree. Your point to ME is what exactly? I suggest if you intend to address ME in any meaningful way, you do better at your posts.
Bob said: We don't realize it because it isn't a requirement. It served its purpose and now we have Jesus the Creator, redeemer and teacher.
I say: This is interesting. Let me make sure I understand.
1. “You shall have no other gods before me”
2. “You shall not make for yourself an idol in any form…”
3. “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God…”
4. “Jesus”
5. “Honor your father and your mother…”
6. “You shall not murder.”
7. “You shall not commit adultery”
8. “You shall not steal.”
9. “You shall not give false testimony…”
10. “You shall not covet…”
Is this what you mean? Not only is this foolishness, it is more pretending
Bob said: We don't need to go back to Adam or to Sinai, we have the real Thing.
I say: Please clear this up. Unless of course, you like the other Bob and sirje, assume that the OC was an end in itself, in which case you need to pay attention to what I have said previously.
Bob said: Sabbath was truly a memorial for the Jews. Each week they could reflect on creation Creator and redeemer from bondage in Egypt.
I say: It is truly a marvel that you can see this and yet not see that their experience was intended to symbolize ours and that of the true redemption from sin’s captivity. So what they got it wrong? Does that dismiss the object lesson God intended to teach with the institution of the OC? How do you understand the bible? Is this ignorance intentional or are you really that “veiled” in your heart?
Bob said: Personally, I have never been ask by my Creator to observe being redeemed from Egypt by observing the Sabbath. I have been ask to love my Redeemer and serve Him everyday.
I say: More pretentious talk. Nothing sound in it whatsoever. You need to be reminded of the caution to not think of yourself more highly that you ought (Rom. 12:3). Heaven has a much better assessment of your condition and its prescription for you and all of fallen humanity is no different that was given to the Israelites. Sorry, these are not my words but the bible’s.
Rom 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.
Rom. 3:20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
So while in your pretense you may think that you have so evolved spiritually (by your confused understanding of the NC) as to no longer require the 10 commandment adaptation of law to make you aware of sin and declare you accountable to God, heaven sees it differently.
Bob said: Yes, it is God's rest and He gives us the joy of entering into His rest, today. We don't have to wait until next Sabbath to enter the same rest that the Jews entered. They never did enter His Rest
I say: You are not paying attention. This “rest’ that we experience here on earth is NOT complete, perfect, or eternal. Period! It is subjective and relative. None of the true purpose of Christ fulfillment of the law can have anything other than a complete, perfect and eternal application. Why? Because his sacrifice was complete, perfect and eternal; even all-sufficient. Why do you not see this? While it is truly a wonderful blessing to experience spiritual rest here in this world of sin, this can NOT be the complete picture or the intended purpose of the rest of which the Sabbath shadows. The Jews never entered the “rest” because of their unbelief. And so too will you if you persist in such blatant disregard to the teachings of Christ.
Bob said: The key is to cast all your burdens on Jesus. We don't do that. We think we can work out our own plan, so we worry and fret and only go to Jesus as a last resort. Trials we will have, but the promise is still there. Oh us of little faith.
I say: So by your own submission you agree that we our rest here is a very imperfect and subjective experience. Why then are you insisting that it can be otherwise?
Bob said: I would like you to explain all this with scripture. Maybe after I get your explanation of your first paragraph on what was fulfilled I will better understand this paragraph.
I say: Now that you’ve seen, I await your thought-out response.
Last edited by Dexter (02-21-10 12:12 pm)
Let every lamp be burning bright, the darkest hour is nearing...
Offline
Dexter,
If you have the time and inclination check out http://www.spectrummagazine.org/Ryan+Bell and my response to Ryan Bell's article. That should take care of my response to you.
Offline
Dexter, ole buddy, not only do you need to read contextually but with discernment. Tell me that this is your true emphasis what Paul is instructing after your 1 Cor 11:1 reference. :
1 Corinthians 11
1Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.
Propriety in Worship
2I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you.
3Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. 6If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7.A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.
11In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. 13Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.
Last edited by bob_2 (02-21-10 9:01 pm)
Offline
Also, Dexter, the OT is clear who the OC was with:
Deuteronomy 5: 1 Moses summoned all Israel and said:
Hear, O Israel, the decrees and laws I declare in your hearing today. Learn them and be sure to follow them. 2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. 3 It was not with our fathers that the LORD made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today.
Offline
Bob, commenting on my post to sirje said: I guess you are admitting that there is "real Sabbath observance" Is observance like standing in awe for 24 hours looking at the Statue of Liberty? Is it like when the clock shows the second the sun sets you think about and maybe give lip service to the Creator and Savior and when the clock shows the second the sun goes down ending the sabbath you thank Him for giving you the Sabbath so that you can do anything you please after you give the initial lip service, thus you have observed the day?
I say: There is no guessing game here, only an advocating the Gospel of Christ and its featured Sabbath. The fact that you have nothing better to contribute than to take cheap shots about what one does or does not do on the Sabbath is both revealing and sad. You want to make the Lord’s Day a day to watch statues, offer lip service and time keeping, be my guest. Just don’t be surprised when you are brought to account for it. You’ve been warned.
Bob said: Observe: to conform one's action or practice to (as a law, rite, or condition) : comply with
: to celebrate or solemnize (as a ceremony or festival) in a customary or accepted way
To observe Sabbath would mean to have the above from Webster's otherwise you wouldn't be observing.
I say: I agree. Your point? Are you even listening? While God’s command to remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy hasn’t changed under the NC, the rules governing its observance has. It was reformed by the life and teachings of Jesus, who is the Lord of the Sabbath and one truest observer. His example and teachings has never been that the Sabbath is done away or that Sunday is the new Lord’s Day. This is absurd and wrong.
Even after his crucifixion and resurrection, the Lord continued to teach and instruct his disciples; the road to Emmaus being a very good example. Yet even here, there is no hint of a suggestion that the Sabbath was somehow “fulfilled away” by him and no longer to be observed by his followers. Do you really think they came away from that encounter with the impression that the Sabbath was done away with or its importance abrogated by the risen Christ? I suggest you go and read the book of Acts again and see how real and normative Sabbath observance was for the early church.
Bob said: Scripture please.
I say: Stop the charade and pretence. You are well aware of such passages of Scripture that shows the customs of both Jesus and Paul in their Sabbath observance. Your problem is not lack of Scripture, but lack of understanding and proper interpretation.
Bob said: There has to be NC rules or you can't say you "observe" it. Can you break the NC Sabbath?
I say: Here lies the heart of your problem, even a clear indicator of your misunderstanding in the purpose of the giving of the OC – rules. Until you address this fundamental flaw in your interpretation you will never be able to see clearly what you try desperately to refute – the Gospel Sabbath. All is not lost however. The apostle did prescribe the solution.
2 Cor. 3:12 Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold.
2 Cor. 3:13 We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away.
2 Cor. 3:14 But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away.
2 Cor. 3:15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts.
2 Cor. 3:16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.
The solution? Turn to the Lord for true understanding of His glorious Gospel and its featured Sabbath. And stop trying to twist some other passages of Scripture to say what you want them to say.
Moreover there is a direct command (reformed and suited for the Gospel by Jesus) to remember the Sabbath, so why look for some rules as though you are still under an OC tutor? Can you break the NC Sabbath? Sure. You are doing so right now with you obstinate neglect and failure to acknowledge it as holy or “set apart” from other days, even as you downtrod the clear example of Christ and those he ordained as apostles for his Church. Your willful ignorance will not be an excuse on the day of reckoning.
Sirje said: Dexter,
If you have the time and inclination check out http://www.spectrummagazine.org/Ryan+Bell and my response to Ryan Bell's article. That should take care of my response to you.
I say: I was able to look through your “private interpretation” of what you imagine Peter to be thinking on that mountain top experience and see your claim that “the Gospel is above the Law or the Prophets as authoritative from this point on.” While I see your point and agree with its intent, I do not agree with your approach in getting it. Neither do I see its relation to my posts to you. Care to elaborate?
Bob_2 said: Dexter, ole buddy, not only do you need to read contextually but with discernment. Tell me that this is your true emphasis what Paul is instructing after your 1 Cor 11:1 reference.
I say: This is too funny! So you think that what Paul meant by his statement is that the Corinthians were to follow his example of head covering? Listen and learn. Paul was addressing many issues in the Corinthian church in this is first letter to them. From divisions in the church (Chap. 1 & 3) to his right as an apostles of Christ (Chap 4), even with how to deal with an immoral believer (chap. 5) and lawsuits among fellow believers (chap. 6). The fact that he makes this statement in the beginning of Chapter 11 (which stands by itself) is not to be understood as if to mean any specific issue in particular, but of following the example in his manner of life as he followed Christ. His manner of life as a believer included many fine and wonderful things for the young church to emulate as they tried to get a handle on Christianity, and that includes his custom of Sabbath observance. And you say I need to read with discernment?
Bob_2 said: Also, Dexter, the OT is clear who the OC was with:
Deuteronomy 5: 1 Moses summoned all Israel and said:
Hear, O Israel, the decrees and laws I declare in your hearing today. Learn them and be sure to follow them. 2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. 3 It was not with our fathers that the LORD made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today.
I say: Bob, you are NOT paying attention. Are you really this dull or limited? Please tell me you have more to offer than that the OC was made with Israel.
Last edited by Dexter (02-22-10 12:22 pm)
Let every lamp be burning bright, the darkest hour is nearing...
Offline
Dexter,
All Scripture is not of equal value. Remember, the Jews messed up. Do you suppose we are more clever or better then the Jews? Humanity suffers the same disease en total. We don't keep any commandments better than the Jews. The cure for being human is Christ; not more commandment keeping.
Most SDA theology wants to place the OT side by side with the NT. While Jesus didn't come to do away with anything, he did come to place things in their proper perspective. We can keep the commandments (including the Sabbath) until the cows come home, but we will not have done a better job of it than did the Jews. In the end we still need to go to the cross.
The Sabbath that "still remains for the people of God" is the rest Christ gives us; a rest from trying to be saved by being perfect. While the "Law and the Prophets" stand as history and a lesson in "how not to do it", God invites us to "listen to Him".
Offline
Gal 3:19 sort of tells you the period the Law/OC was good for, eh:
Gal 3:19What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed [Jesus] to whom the promise [Abraham's Promise] referred had come.
That's not being dull but reading pertinent texts that have the answer. Paul stated he was now under Christ's Law. There lies your answer.
Last edited by bob_2 (02-22-10 1:25 pm)
Offline
Sirje said: Dexter,
All Scripture is not of equal value. Remember, the Jews messed up. Do you suppose we are more clever or better then the Jews? Humanity suffers the same disease en total. We don't keep any commandments better than the Jews. The cure for being human is Christ; not more commandment keeping.
I say: Have you not read my response to Bob? I basically said the same thing. The issue here has nothing to do with who keeps commandments better – NC believers vs OC Hebrews; Christian vs Jews. The quality of our commandment keeping is not the subject of debate here. Why do you pretend it is? And why are you so timid or apprehensive of addressing any dialog that has to do with law? Those that are afraid or timid of open dialog on law (in its proper context) supposing that any such dialog puts the NC believer in bondage under its authority as it was in the OC do not yet have a true handle on the Gospel and therefore will have a hard time understanding the reformed Sabbath of Christ.
But guess what? This debate is neither about the 10 commandments nor about who can “keep” them better, but about the NC Sabbath as it was reformed by Christ and suited for the Gospel. So I agree, we do not keep any commandments better than the Jews as the confused SDAs think themselves to do. They imagine that somehow the giving of the Holy Spirit is intended to affect such “better law keeping” and makes them more favorable before heaven. But such a confused position is both impossible and self-deceiving.
Sirje said: Most SDA theology wants to place the OT side by side with the NT. While Jesus didn't come to do away with anything, he did come to place things in their proper perspective. We can keep the commandments (including the Sabbath) until the cows come home, but we will not have done a better job of it than did the Jews. In the end we still need to go to the cross.
I say: I agree. The SDAs need much correcting and reform of the very the fundamentals of the Gospel. They need to understand that the words of Christ are not to be clumped with the rest of the bible as they assume the apostle is saying in 2 Tim. 3:16. Such confusion and self deception is the hallmark of their downfall as it was for the spiritual leaders of Jesus’ day. They need to pay closer attention to John’s introduction to his Gospel in John chapter 1 as well as the apostle’s words in Hebrews 1:1-3; 2:1-4.
Sirje said: The Sabbath that "still remains for the people of God" is the rest Christ gives us; a rest from trying to be saved by being perfect. While the "Law and the Prophets" stand as history and a lesson in "how not to do it", God invites us to "listen to Him".
I say: Sorry, Scriptures disagree. And again, let us not pretend that this dialog has anything to do with “trying to be saved by being perfect.” No one here is making such a confused and impossible claim.
Moreover, your claim that the ““Law and the Prophets” stand as a history and lesson in “how not to do it”” exposes your lack of basic interpretation of both the Law and the Prophets. How is it you choose to look at them from such a humanistic point of view as to only see the failure of the Jews and not God’s intended purpose in them? So what the Jews missed the point, does that mean that God’s words and dealings with them didn’t accomplish its intended purpose and was returned to Him void? (Is. 55:10-12) The Jews missed many things even as they claimed to believe and understand the purpose in the giving of “Moses”. Jesus didn’t agree. He proved they neither understood God’s purpose in the giving of “Moses” nor that they really believed what he wrote, even as he shocked them by showing the very Moses on whom they place such humanistic and legalistic hope would be the one who condemns them. Perhaps you should pay attention to what he had to say to them?
John 5:39 “You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me,
John 5:40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life.”
John 5:41 "I do not accept praise from men,
John 5:42 but I know you. I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts
John 5:43 I have come in my Father's name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him.
John 5:44 How can you believe if you accept praise from one another, yet make no effort to obtain the praise that comes from the only God?
John 5:45 "But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set.
John 5:46 “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.”
John 5:47 “But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"
God’s message and purpose in the giving of the “Law and the Prophets” is what you should be paying attention to, not the failure or misapprehension of it by the Jews.
Last edited by Dexter (02-22-10 3:06 pm)
Let every lamp be burning bright, the darkest hour is nearing...
Offline
Dexter,
Paul tells us the law is mirror which points out the fact that we are sinners, unable to keep the law as it's supposed to be kept. That is its purpose. The Prophets have not place in the NC. Hebrews tells us "in time past God spoke through prophets, now He speaks through His Son". Heb.1:1,2
I have no problem talking about the law. Jesus tells us the ENTIRE LAW is summed up in the Two Great Commandments. He also tells us He was sending us the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth. That includes discerning how we keep the Two Great Commandments of love in any particular situation - no need for lists of dos and don'ts. The HS tells me to keep the Sabbath every day as a memorial to His re-creation of humanity. On the seventh-day I tend to spend time reading, spending time outside in nature, but if the situation demands, I will do work that's needed, not planned. This is the legacy left to me by my SDA sojourn.
Offline
Dexter,
If you use this verse:
John 5:46 “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.”
to say Moses is as important as Jesus, and the Commandments, then you have to accept all the festival days also along with sacrifices. They all pointed to Jesus, Moses spoke of Christ, and that is what that means not that Moses words were currently as important as His.
Offline
Sirje said: Dexter,
Paul tells us the law is mirror which points out the fact that we are sinners, unable to keep the law as it's supposed to be kept. That is its purpose. The Prophets have not place in the NC. Hebrews tells us "in time past God spoke through prophets, now He speaks through His Son". Heb.1:1,2
I say: Sirje, if you want to relegate the purpose of the law (albeit only 9 of the 10 commandments) as just a mirror and definer of sin and not rather realize that the very 10 commandments, reformed by Christ and interpreted by the NT as yet being an expression of the will of God for his people, be my guest. But such a shallow and dismissive approach is neither fair nor a proper handling of the word of life, even as it underscores a gross neglect of an appreciation for the purpose of Christ in raising high the righteous standards found in the principles of the 10 commandments. What then? Christ reforms the law, shows its true and deep spiritual meaning in its application, even taught how believers ought to relate to its lofty call to holiness only to abolish it?
However, in as much as this discussion is not about the 10 commandments in proper or its place in the experience of the NC believer, I will limit my comments to what I say in this post.
Sirje said: I have no problem talking about the law. Jesus tells us the ENTIRE LAW is summed up in the Two Great Commandments. He also tells us He was sending us the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth. That includes discerning how we keep the Two Great Commandments of love in any particular situation - no need for lists of dos and don'ts. The HS tells me to keep the Sabbath every day as a memorial to His re-creation of humanity. On the seventh-day I tend to spend time reading, spending time outside in nature, but if the situation demands, I will do work that's needed, not planned. This is the legacy left to me by my SDA sojourn.
I say: Once again, this is a very shallow and misleading interpretation of the teachings of Christ. Neither the “Two Great Commandments” nor the work of the Holy Spirit to affect its application on the heart of the believer is a NT/NC phenomenon. Why do you espouse such a perverted view of Scripture? Do you really imagine this to be the Apostle’s meaning in 2 Cor. 3: 7-18? Did not the OC Jew have the same “Two Great” governing principle of the 10? And do you really suppose the use of the law in “reviving of soul” (in whatever measure) David speaks of in Ps. 19:6-8 was somehow a best effort approach and not rather to be affected by the work of the Holy Spirit on the heart? Folly!
Ez. 36:22 "Therefore say to the house of Israel, 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am going to do these things, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you have gone.
Ez. 36:23 I will show the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, the name you have profaned among them. Then the nations will know that I am the LORD, declares the Sovereign LORD, when I show myself holy through you before their eyes.
Ez. 36:24 " 'For I will take you out of the nations; I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land.
Ez. 36:25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols.
Ez. 36:26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.
Ez. 36:27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.
Ez. 36:28 You will live in the land I gave your forefathers; you will be my people, and I will be your God.
As for your statement that the Holy Spirit tells you to “keep the Sabbath every day” I simply offer this warning: be careful what you cling to as the Holy Spirit. The HS is indeed bestowed to uplift Christ and lead us into truth, but that truth was lived and taught by Christ himself and those he ordained as NT apostles. Nowhere did Christ live, teach or even suggest an “every day” Sabbath. Sorry to disappoint you.
Let every lamp be burning bright, the darkest hour is nearing...
Offline
So Dexter, how do you keep the 10th commandment? - With the same diligence as the4th?
Offline
Dexter,
Romans 13:8-9
Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.
(It does not say, he who keeps the law loves his neighbor.)
For this, 'You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not covet", and if there is any other commandment it is summed up in this saying "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
Offline
Dexter said:
Nowhere did Christ live, teach or even suggest an “every day” Sabbath. Sorry to disappoint you.
Here's where you definitely are wrong:
Matthew 11:28"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."
Jesus, as Sirje and I have been saying, fulfilled the Sabbath, and became the ultimate rest, and the above, I believe, Christ wanted each of to do daily.
Last edited by bob_2 (02-23-10 12:19 pm)
Offline
Anything said about a meeting day, or day of rest in this text:
Matthew 18: 20For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."
Offline
Sirje said: So Dexter, how do you keep the 10th commandment? - With the same diligence as the4th?
I say: This is truly remarkable. So now you want to turn this discussion into a matter of Dexter’s sanctification? What do you expect to find there? Is this really the best you can come up with? This discussion is neither about Dexter’s 10th commandment keeping nor the diligence with which he observes the 4th. Or have you not been paying attention either? Why are you waiting and watching to catch me in my words relating to my Christian experience as if Dexter’s sanctification if the point of discussion here? While it is a normal strategy for those exposed for their error as deceivers even as they themselves are self deceived, it is not a position to be proud of.
This was the same shameful plotting of the Pharisees and the experts of the law when Jesus exposed them as wretched and destitute of truth. They too, chose to ignore the weightier matter of listening to what Christ had to say or pay attention to his example (because their pride was offended by his constant and unyielding denunciation of their ignorance and hypocrisy) and chose rather to try and catch him in something he said.
Luke 11:45 One of the experts in the law answered him, "Teacher, when you say these things, you insult us also."
Luke 11:52 "Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering."
Luke 11:53 When Jesus left there, the Pharisees and the teachers of the law began to oppose him fiercely and to besiege him with questions,
Luke 11:54 waiting to catch him in something he might say.
Such is the case with all who run roughshod over the teaching and example of Christ on his Sabbath reform for the NC Gospel. The “have taken away the key to knowledge” because of this gross negligence and replaced it with trickery and crafty maneuvers, even as they mistakenly suppose they may seize upon other passages of Scripture over the words and example of Christ. Such confused and self deceived wolves can never hope to find heaven’s approval. Notwithstanding this enamored blaspheme, they also claim to be lead of the Spirit of Christ. How tragic! Is it any wonder that they invent theories and imagine themselves to have insights into the thoughts of Peter on his mountain top experience with Christ, Moses and Elijah. Blind guides are they! They are incapable of seeing the true nature of their wretched condition so that they may repent. Well did the Apostle warn against all such in these words:
Col. 2:18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions.
Col. 2:19 He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.
Bob_2 said: Dexter said:
Nowhere did Christ live, teach or even suggest an “every day” Sabbath. Sorry to disappoint you.
Here's where you definitely are wrong:
Matthew 11:28"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."
I say: You are WRONG, sorry. Why didn’t you do the word study I prescribed? You are confusing the Lord promise to give rest to the sin-weary soul (which is found both in OC and NC) with the promise of entering God’s rest (also found in both OC and NC). Is it the word “rest” that confuses you so? Let us be clear on this: OUR rest, the one that we enter into here and now as we cast all our care on the Lord and allow him to soothe away our troubles and bring “rest” to our sin-burdened souls, is relative, imperfect, incomplete, and subjective; GOD’s rest, the one OUR rest here only begins to taste, but that ultimately comes at the end at the ages when Christ is seen coming in power and great glory is perfect, complete, and eternal. It can be NO other way. Was not Christ’s work perfect, complete, and eternal? Why then do you insist on pretending otherwise?
Moreover, the Lord’s promise to give spiritual rest to the weary soul is NOT a NC only experience as you heedlessly claim it to be. Even Hebrews 4, which both you and Sirje choose to exalt over the words and example of Christ, does not support this view. Notice that God’s displeasure and promise that they will never enter His rest was with those who didn’t believe. But what of those who did? Did they not enter or experience God’s rest, which, at the time, only symbolized our final and true rest? In fact, were you not so blinded by your impossible reasoning and “every day Sabbath” infatuation, you would also realize that some of them did enter God’s rest. However, that was only but a symbol and analogy of the rest God has for us in Heaven. Thus the writer says:
Heb. 4:8 “For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day.
Heb. 4:9 There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God;
Bob_2 said: Jesus, as Sirje and I have been saying, fulfilled the Sabbath, and became the ultimate rest, and the above, I believe, Christ wanted each of to do daily.
I say: Your impertinent insistence in this false claim has blinded you to any objective reading of the same Hebrews 4 you and Sirje pretend to understand. Consider this. Don’t you find it at least a little interesting that all throughout the passage the writer refers to this rest as “God’s rest”? That is no mere aimless usage. The writer means to distinguish this rest from any other. This is why he qualifies his meaning in the following words:
Heb. 4:3 Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said, "So I declared on oath in my anger, 'They shall never enter my rest.' "And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world.
Heb. 4:4 For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: "And on the seventh day God rested from all his work."
Heb. 4:5 And again in the passage above he says, "They shall never enter my rest."
While the writer’s meaning here escapes you, it is very clear. He is both setting God’s rest apart as different from our own present experience (v3) and showing the complete nature of it (v4). Hence the Sabbath that commemorated God’s work at Creator and Savior (or re-Creator) also shadows God’s rest at the end of the age.
Furthermore, God’s “work” in saving man, commemorated by the Sabbath at its orchestration at the creation of the world, and wrought in Christ (forever affixed in his glorious Gospel) will only be completed for us at the “day of Christ Jesus.” So your misguided assertion that Jesus “became the ultimate rest” is as much spiritual mumbo jumbo as your “every day Sabbath”.
John 5:16 So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him.
John 5:17 Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working."
John 5:18 For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
John 14:8 Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."
John 14: 9 Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?
John 14:10 Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.
Phil. 1:4 In all my prayers for all of you, I always pray with joy
Phil. 1:5 because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now,
Phil. 1:6 being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.
Tom said need to study more and post less, more and more I see why and agree.
Let every lamp be burning bright, the darkest hour is nearing...
Offline
Dexter, we'll have to agree to disagree. I refuse to repeat my position over and over for you. Read this thread from the old ATomorrow.com and you have my position, it hasn't changed:
http://www.atomorrow.com/discus/message … 1105168209
After the first page, you have to return to the top and push next to get the whole study. Sirje gets involved also.
Offline
Question for Tom Norris:
In his text, From Sabbath to Sunday (page 359), Samuele Bacchiocchi writes: "The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary interprets the “sabbatōn—Sabbath days” [of Colossians 2:16] as a reference to the annual ceremonial sabbaths and not to the weekly Sabbath (Lev. 23:6-8, 15, 16, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 37, 38).
It is a fact that both the [weekly] Sabbath and the Day of Atonement in Hebrew are designated by the compound expression shabbath shabbāthôn, meaning “a Sabbath of solemn rest” (Ex. 31: 15; 35:2; Lev. 23:3, 32; 16:31."
Some questions:
1. Where in the SDA Bible Commentary is this matter explained? - I can't find it.
2. What is the logic of the authors of the SDA Bible commentary? Are they simply saying that because the Hebrew in the OT is indefinite regarding sabbata sabbaton vs. sabbata, that Paul used the same ambiguity when he wrote Colossians 2:16?
3. What is your response to this logic?
PS: I've been writing a Catholic response to Adventism on the topic of the Sabbath for the alst 15 years. Can we talk some time?
James
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Norris Answers:
The SDA’s are an enigma to many. They are a very difficult denomination to understand, unless one knows the details of their checkered history, which they have worked hard to mischaracterize, manipulate, and hide.
So let me try and help you better understand how the SDA’s view Colossians 2:16, and why there has been a recent but unofficial change.
The SDA’s featured the 7th day Sabbath. This was their most unique and important doctrine. For them, this theological correction would be the final reform before the 2nd Coming. Consequently, they would promote this different practice to a skeptical, Sunday keeping culture, who were not afraid to refute what the SDA’s taught.
One of the texts used against the SDA’s was Colossians 2:16. Here Paul referred to the Sabbath as being a shadow, or a “type.” Over the years, such language has been interpreted by many, including the great Luther, as abolishing the 7th day Sabbath.
However, the SDA’s responded by claiming Paul’s reference only meant the ceremonial Sabbaths, not the weekly 7th day of the 4th Commandment. This was in line with their interpretation about the law in Galatians, which they also incorrectly claimed was only about the ceremonial law.
So early on, the SDA’s developed a response to their critics use of Colossians and Galatians in order to defended their pro-Sabbath position.
Little did the Adventists know that these two passages, especially the law in Galatians, would cause so much internal debate and division that it would almost destroy them, twice. Even today, the SDA’s are self-destructing because they have failed to honestly and correctly deal with these key passages about the Law and the Gospel.
Why People Leave the SDA Church
D. M. Canright, a prominent and talented Adventist leader, left the church in 1887. Why? Because he could no longer defend the SDA view of the Law in Galatians or the Sabbath in Colossians. Listen to Canright speak about Colossians after he left the SDA church in 1887:
"But it is argued that as 'the sabbath days' of Col.2: 16 'are a shadow of things to come' (verse 17), and the weekly Sabbath is a memorial of creation, pointing back to the beginning, therefore they cannot be the same; for the Sabbath could not point both ways.
But is not this a mere assertion without any proof?
How do we know that it cannot point both ways?
The Passover was a memorial of their deliverance from Egypt, and always pointed back to that event. Ex.12: 11-17. Yet it was also a shadow of Christ. Col.2:16,17. ' Even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us.' 1Cor.5:7.
So all those annual feasts were types of Christ in some way, and yet all were memorials also of past events, as all know.... Paul says plainly that Sabbath days are a shadow of things to come; and one plain statement of Inspiration is worth a thousand of our vain reasonings. This is in harmony with Paul's argument in Heb.4: 1-11, that the seventh day is a type.
For forty years we have tried to explain away this text, and to show that it really cannot mean what it says; but there it stands, and mocks all our theories.
The Sabbath is a type, for Inspiration says so.
D. M. Canright; Advocate of Oct. 1, 1887.
-----------------------------------------------
See also:
The Sabbath in Colossians 2:16, 17
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … s-2-16.htm
The 20th Century SDA’s
The failure of the Battle Creek Adventists to properly interpret both Galatians and Colossians almost destroyed them. Fifteen years after Canright’s repudiation of the 7th day Sabbath, the SDA’s self-destructed as a bitter schism drove them out of Battle Creek to resettle in Takoma Park, Md. Here they continued to embrace the same legalistic errors that had previously ruined them.
This resulted in another period of Gospel debate in the 1970’s, which was followed by another bitter schism as Dr. Ford and the Protestant Gospel were exiled from the church in 1980.
See:
Dr. Ford and Glacier View
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … r-View.htm
Ford and 1888, Jones and Waggoner, etc
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … ggoner.htm
Dr. Ford; Glacier View; Sabbath
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … View-1.htm
1888 Hidden Documents
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … uments.htm
It was during this decade of the 1970’s, when the debate was focused on Righteousness by Faith, the Investigative Judgment, and on Ellen White’s role and teaching in the church, that the topic of the Sabbath in Colossians was being quietly pushed forward by an Andrews University Professor by the name of Dr. Bacchiocchi. But few were paying much attention as Adventism was undergoing another doctrinal schism.
WHO IS DR. SAMUELE BACCHIOCCHI?
http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/ind … &Itemid=27
Before introducing this new view, let’s first see how the 20th century SDA’s were dealing with the Sabbath in Colossians. Listen to Kenneth Wood, a great legalist, try to defend the Traditional SDA use of Colossians:
The "Sabbath Days" of Colossians 2:16, 17
The historic position of the Seventh-day Adventist Church on Colossians 2:16 is that the "Sabbath days" mentioned in this verse are festival sabbaths prescribed by the laws of Moses (Lev 23:32, 37-39), not the seventh-day Sabbath of the fourth commandment of the Decalogue.
Individuals here and there have recognized that the arguments used to support this position are not coercive, but the position has seldom been challenged. A review of church publications reveals that writers have set forth and defended the historic view using one or more of the following four arguments.
1. The Colossian believers, being confused by a heresy that sought to impose on them various requirements of the Jewish ceremonial law, needed to distinguish between the moral and ceremonial aspects of the Torah, or law. The heresy very likely included some pagan and Gnostic elements, but the heart of it, as at Galatia, seems to have been legalistic, Jewish ceremonialism.
Logically, then Paul would have set forth the truth that to perform ceremonial rites as a means of salvation was not only futile but an implicit denial of the fact that Jesus was the Messiah, the One who, by fulfilling the types, made them meaningless. And, to help the Colossians identify the parts of the Torah that no longer were binding, he mentioned several rituals and festivals prescribed in the ceremonial law…
The most defensible position seems to be to regard the genitive plural sabbaton in Colossians 2:16 as a singular. Not only from a linguistic point of view is this logical, but from the context.
Apparently the apostle Paul used sabbath generically in the singular, to correspond with the four other words in the series-meats, drink, holy day, and new moon, each of which is singular. Inasmuch as some ritual observances commanded by the laws of Moses were held on the weekly Sabbath-for example, the daily burnt offering was doubled on that day-perhaps Paul used sabbath generically, intending to include these ceremonies along with those that specifically involved annual sabbaths, as part of the "shadow" that was done away in Christ.
These ritual ceremonies, of course, did not make the seventh day a Sabbath; it was a Sabbath already, established at Creation and commanded by the moral law, and abolition of the ceremonial observances that fell on that day would abolish neither the Sabbath nor God's command to keep it holy.
Among the references in Seventh-day Adventist literature that discuss Colossians 2:16 the following are typical:
Bible Readings for the Home (Washington, DC, 1958). William Henry Branson,
Drama of the Ages (Nashville, TN, 1950).
Earle Hilgert, "'Sabbath Days' in Colossians 2:16," Ministry, February 1952, 42, 43.
W. E. Howell, "'Sabbath' in Colossians 2:16," Ministry, September 1934, 10; id., "Ancient Colossians 2:16," Ministry, April 1936, 18.
Arthur E. Lickey, God Speaks to Modern Man (Washington, DC, 1952).
Francis David Nichol, Answers to Objections (Washington, DC, 1932); id., Problems in Bible Translation (Washington, D.C., 1954); id.,
The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Washington, DC, 1957), 7:205-6.
Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets (Mountain View, CA, 1913); id.,
Selected Messages (Washington, DC, 1958), Book. 1.
Milton Charles Wilcox, Questions and Answers (Mountain View, CA, 1911); id.,
Questions Answered (Mountain View, CA, 1938).
"Appendix D," The Sabbath in Scripture and History, ed. Kenneth A. Strand (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Assoc., 1982), 338-42.
http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.or … ssians.htm
SDA Leaders Are Legalists
Kenneth Woods pathetic apologetic for the “Schoolmaster Sabbath” ( a Galatian Term) shows that the SDA’s are willing to say almost anything to defend their dubious version of the Sabbath.
While their critics point to the actual words of the passage to better understand its meaning, it is comical to watch as Woods runs the other way; avoiding the use of linguistics, or any hermeneutical tool that will condemn his view.
Listen to Woods double-talk:
“Adventists acknowledge that of the approximately sixty times the word sabbath is used in the New Testament, fifty-nine are references to the weekly Sabbath. But they hold that in Colossians 2 it means "ceremonial sabbath." They defend this view not on the basis of linguistics but on the basis of context. They argue that the number of times a word is used in a certain way does not determine its meaning in all situations. Context is decisive.”
In other words, because the SDA view of the Sabbath cannot be questioned, Paul cannot be referencing the Sabbath of the Moral law. This is what they mean when they plead for “context” over “linguistics.”
Kenneth Woods should be ashamed for embracing such a dishonest hermeneutic. No wonder so many SDA’s have left the church in the last 40 years. It is because the Adventist leaders are so dishonest and incompetent with the Word. It has become obvious to millions, and the problem seems to get worse every year. The SDA’s are full of false doctrine. Who needs such nonsense?
Here is more double talk from Woods about why Paul can’t be talking about the Sabbath of the 4th Commandment. Rather then study the actual text, (linguistics); he speaks about the meaning of frogs and logic, even as he quotes others who support his general view about the Sabbath. However, at the end of his apologetic, he returns to linguistics and concludes that there has been an error in translation.
Listen to more of this SDA confusion:
“The word frog, for example, has a wide variety of meanings. It may mean a small, leaping, tailless amphibian; it may mean a swollen, sore throat; it may mean the triangular horny pad in the middle of the sole of a horse's hoof; it may mean a device on one rail of a train track that can be switched to permit wheels to cross an intersecting rail. Clearly, to argue that because fifty-nine times the word means a four-legged creature it must mean the same in the statement "I have a frog in my throat" is nonsense. Meaning must always be decided by context.
This principal is so obvious that it hardly needs elaboration; yet because some seek to show from Colossians 2 that the seventh-day Sabbath was abolished at the cross, we wish to add two further illustrations.
The Hebrew word torah, for example, has many meanings, all of which must be determined by context. Sometimes torah refers to the Pentateuch, sometimes to the Ten Commandments, sometimes to the entire expressed will of God, sometimes to the instruction given by a king, a teacher, a mother, a father, wise people, a wise wife, or a poet.[2]
Likewise, the word day may mean a twenty-four-hour period; or it may mean only the light part of the twenty-four-hour period; or it may mean an extended but indefinite period of time (for example, "The day in which we live is one of international tensions" or "The antitypical day of atonement began in 1844"). Clearly, even if the word day is used fifty-nine times to mean a twenty-four-hour period, this does not require that it mean twenty-four hours the sixtieth time it is used.
While many commentators hold otherwise, several of the most respected Bible commentators have declared that Paul was referring to ceremonial sabbaths, not the seventh-day Sabbath, in Colossians 2:16.
Adam Clarke, a Methodist, said: "There is no intimation here that the Sabbath was done away, or that its moral use was superseded, by the introduction of Christianity.
. . . Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, is a command of perpetual obligation, and can never be superseded but by the final termination of time."[3]
Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown noted that the annual sabbaths "of the day of atonement and feast of tabernacles have come to an end with the Jewish services to which they belonged (Lev 23:32, 37-39)," but "the weekly sabbath rests on a more permanent foundation, having been instituted in Paradise to commemorate the completion of creation in six days."[4]
Albert Barnes, a Presbyterian, observed, "There is no evidence from this passage that he [Paul] would teach that there was no obligation to observe any holy time, for there is not the slightest reason to believe that he meant to teach that one of the ten commandments had ceased to be binding on mankind. . . . He had his eye on the great number of days, which were observed by the Hebrews as festivals, as a part of their ceremonial and typical law, and not to the moral law, or the Ten Commandments.
No part of the moral law-no one of the ten commandments-could be spoken of as 'a shadow of good things to come.' These commandments are, from the nature of moral law, of perpetual and universal application."[5]
Adventists feel that A. T. Robertson, the well-respected New Testament scholar, has offered the best explanation as to why sabbata and sabbaton, though plural in form, often stand for the singular. The Aramaic word for Sabbath is shabbetha, transliterated into Greek as sabbata. But sabbata, although representing the singular shabbetha, happens to be spelled as a plural in Greek and has been misunderstood to represent the plural of the Greek sabbaton, "Sabbath."
Therefore in any occurrence of sabbata (or its other case forms such as sabbaton) one must inquire if it represents the Aramaic shabbetha, in which case it is singular, or whether it is genuinely the plural of sabbaton, in which case it is a plural.[6]
The most defensible position seems to be to regard the genitive plural sabbaton in Colossians 2:16 as a singular. Not only from a linguistic point of view is this logical, but from the context.
http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.or … ssians.htm
SDA Double-talk
This is why the modern SDA’s are self-destructing. They have removed their best scholars, like Dr. Ford, leaving them full of “yes men” who have become expert at double-talk and dishonest theological spin. There is no search for Gospel truth.
Since 1980, when Dr. Ford was exiled, the SDA’s have lost much credibility, as well as millions of members in North America. They have confused myths for facts, and thus they have turned off the critical thinkers and those honestly seeking for Gospel truth.
Rather than confess their many doctrinal errors and correct them, they deny having any error, even as they promote pluralistic teaching, where there are many different and opposing ways to view doctrine and church history. Such a course in not sustainable, much less honest.
In fact, even now, on the GC website, the SDA’s promote two very different and mutually exclusive views of the Sabbath in Colossians. And at no point do they teach is wrong and which is correct. Why? Because SDA’s are no longer know the difference! They are not able to make such choices about doctrine or truth, much less admit any errors or repent. They are controlled by a corrupt, anti-Gospel system that dictates all doctrine, thinking, and policy.
Here is the Traditional View of the SDA Old Covenant Sabbath:
The "Sabbath Days" of Colossians 2:16, 17
By Kenneth H. Wood
http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.or … ssians.htm
Here is the NEW VIEW of Colossians 2: 16, 17:
The Biblical Sabbath: The Adventist Perspective
Ángel Manuel Rodríguez
http://biblicalresearch.gc.adventist.or … ic2002.htm
When you compare these two Sabbath views, only one is hermeneutically sound and linguistically valid. And it is not the Traditional SDA view.
Although the SDA’s are obviously allowing the new view to enter their Biblical thought, the leaders still refuse to stand up and admit their old views of Colossians (or anything) is dead wrong. This is their great problem. The SDA’s hate to admit any errors and thus they have pushed their false doctrines so far that they have become a laughing stock to anyone researching the issues.
There can be no doubt that the Advent Movement is disoriented, confused, and self-destructing for all to see, and they have no one to blame but themselves. They are no longer honestly looking for Gospel truth, but only to defend their past errors and maintain hierarchical control over their crumbling Empire.
A New View of the Sabbath in Colossians
During the Righteousness by Faith debates of the 1970’s, a new view of Colossians was put forward by Dr. Bacchiocchi as well as a better history of how the Sunday Sabbath developed. It is too bad that this development received little debate or attention. Here is an early, 1983 analysis of this new position:
AN EXEGETICAL OVERVIEW OF COL 2:13-17: WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR SDA UNDERSTANDING
An Unpublished Paper Written for a Doctoral Seminar Guided by Ivan Blazen in August, 1983
THREE ADVENTIST PERSPECTIVES
The interpretation of Co. 2:13-17 has had a long and checkered history within Adventism. A brief review of some recent efforts will highlight the crucial issues in the interpretation of this passage.
The SDA Bible Commentary
The SDA Bible Commentary interprets the ceirografon (2:14--"handwritten document") in the light of Eph. 2:15 as the Mosaic Law.(1)
The dogmata (14--"ordinances" or "decrees") are seen as the various laws of the Jewish system, which were terminated at the cross (called "ceremonial laws").
Eph.2 and Acts 15:10 are called on as examples of how the ceremonial laws could be "against us."
The food and drink of verse 16 is seen in relation to the food and drink offerings of the ceremonial system.
Verse 17 is understood as the key to verse 16.
Verse 16 consists in the shadows of the cross (cf Heb. 8:5; 10:1).
Thus the sabbatwn (16--"sabbaths") are the ceremonial Sabbaths not the seventh-day Sabbath.
Samuele Bacchiocchi
Some 20 years after the publication of the SDA Bible commentary, Bacchiocchi contradicted the Commentary position at numerous points.(2)
He argues that the term law is absent from Colossians, thus a better identification for the ceirografon is its usual meaning; a certificate of indebtedness or record of sin.
The cross is to be seen as destroying the record of sin so that the Christian cannot be accused anymore (Col 2:15 cf Rev 12:10). Thus the accusers-the principalities and powers-are disarmed.
To Bacchiocchi Col 2:14 is a restatement of the essence of the Pauline Gospel.
Following Lohse, Bacchiocchi argues that the food and drink of verse 16 is better seen in a Gentile context than as Judaistic. Thus the Sabbath-keeping of Col 2:16 is an abuse of the fourth commandment.
The Sabbath is not nullified by the condemnation of its abuse.
The issue for Bacchiocchi is that the Colossians had a perverted sense of priorities. Their Sabbath-keeping was in relation to the elements of the universe, which order the calendar by directing the course of the stars.
Thus obedience to the fourth commandment is not at issue here. What is at issue is the all-sufficiency of Christ. The observances of the Colossians were not worthless, but were not to be used as a "protection system" against the elements, which had already been overcome in full by Christ.
Robert Brinsmead
In 1979 Robert Brinsmead did a flip-flop on the question of the Sabbath and thus changed radically in his viewpoint on Col 2.(3)
He sees the heresy at Colossae as much more Jewish than Bacchiocchi, probably Essene in origin.
He argues that ceirografon means simply "written document" and thus must have its meaning determined solely by the context in which it is found. Since its content consists of "regulations" it likely means the whole Mosaic Law as in Eph 2:15.
For Brinsmead, 2:16 portrays the Jewish traditions and sacred calendar, which are capped by the seventh-day Sabbath.
He sums up Paul's argument as "if God has canceled His own regulations you certainly don't need to submit to those that are imposed by mere angels."
In conclusion, Brinsmead feels the passage's main message is that the conscience of adult Christians is not ruled by a calendar.
A careful study of the three positions above yields some most interesting conclusions. Although Brinsmead disagrees with both Bacchiocchi and the SDA Bible Commentary in his conclusion that the seventh-day Sabbath is done away with, his interpretations agree quite often with the Commentary and present something of a middle road between the other two positions exegetically.
Thus Bacchiocchi and the SDA Bible Commentary take opposite exegetical approaches to come to the same conclusions.
http://www.andrews.edu/~jonp/colossians … 0ADVENTIST
Dr. Bacchiocchi on Colossians:
The Sabbath in Colossians 2:16
The regulations advocated by Colossian philosophy had to do not only with "food and drink" but also with sacred times referred to as "a festival or a new moon or a sabbath" (verse 16). Commentators agree that these three words represent a logical and progressive sequence (annual, monthly, and weekly) as well as an exhaustive enumeration of sacred times. These terms occur in similar or reverse sequence five times in the Septuagint and several other times in other literature, validating this interpretation. 12
Some view the "sabbaths" (sabbaton) as a reference to annual ceremonial sabbaths rather than the weekly Sabbath (Lev. 23:6-8, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28,37, 38).
Such a view, however, breaks the logical and progressive sequence. And it ignores the fact that in the Septuagint the annual ceremonial sabbaths are never designated simply as "sabbaths" (sabbaton), but always with the compound expression "sabbath of sabbaths" (sabbata sabbaton).
Does the plural form "sabbaths" (sabbaton) refer exclusively to the seventh-day Sabbath? The fact that the plural is used in the Scriptures to designate not only the seventh-day Sabbath but also the week as a whole (Ps. 23:1; 47:1; 93:1 [Septuagint]; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; Acts 20:7) suggests that the term may refer to weekdays. 13 The latter view harmonizes better with the sequence of the enumeration, which suggests yearly, monthly, and weekly festivals.
A similar sequence, though in a reverse order, is given by Paul in Galatians 4:10. There he opposes a teaching strikingly similar to the one confusing the Colossians. It included the observance of "days, and months, and seasons, and years." The fact that the Galatian list begins with "days" (hemeras; note that it is plural) suggests that the "sabbaths" in Colossians may also refer to weekdays in general rather than to the seventh-day Sabbath in particular.
Assuming for the sake of our inquiry that the "sabbaths" in Colossians do refer to or include the Sabbath day, the question to be considered is what kind of Sabbath observance would the false teachers advocate?
The data provided by Colossians are too meager to answer this question conclusively, yet the nature of the heresy allows us to draw some basic conclusions. The rigoristic emphasis on the observance of dietary rules would undoubtedly be carried over to Sabbathkeeping as well. The veneration of "the elemental spirits of the universe" would also affect the observance of the Sabbath and of sacred times, since it was commonly believed that the astral powers controlled both the calendar and human lives. 14
We know that in the pagan world Saturday was regarded as an unlucky day because of its association with the planet Saturn. 15
Therefore, any Sabbath observance promoted by the Colossians' ascetic teachers—known for their worship of the elements of the world—could only have been of a rigorous, superstitious type. A warning against this type of Sabbathkeeping by Paul would have been not only appropriate but also desirable. In this case Paul would be attacking not the principle of Sabbathkeeping but its perversion.
http://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive … he-sabbath
http://www.ministrymagazine.org/authors … hi-samuele
See also:
Questions About the Sabbath in the New Testament; Answered by Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D., Andrews University
QUESTION: Does not Paul’s statement in Colossians 2:16, as Paul K. Jewett puts it, "come as near to a demonstration as anything could, that he taught his converts that they had no obligation to observe the seventh-day Sabbath of the Old Testament"?1
ANSWER: Historical Interpretation.
Throughout Christian history, Colossians 2:16-17 has been consistently interpreted to mean that Paul regarded the Sabbath as an Old Testament typological institution fulfilled by Christ and therefore no longer binding on Christians. The statement "Therefore, let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath" (Col 2:16) has been historically interpreted as a warning from Paul against the five mentioned practices, the last of which is the sabbath.2
Approbation, not Condemnation. We have shown in chapter VII that this historical interpretation is totally wrong because in this passage Paul is warning the Colossians not against the observances of these practices as such, but against "anyone" (tis) who passes judgment on how to eat, drink, and observe sacred times. In other words, the judge is not Paul but Colossian false teachers who impose "regulations" (2:20) on how to observe these practices in order to achieve "rigor of devotion and self-abasement and severity to the body" (2:23).
By warning against the right of the false teachers to "pass judgment" on how to observe festivals, Paul is challenging not the validity of the festivals as such but the authority of the false teachers to legislate on the manner of their observance. The obvious implication then is that Paul in this text is expressing not a condemnation but an approbation of the mentioned practices, which include Sabbathkeeping.
This is the conclusion that D. R. De Lacey himself draws, in spite of his conviction that Paul did not expect Gentile converts to observe the Sabbath. He writes: "Here again (Col 2:16), then, it seems that Paul could happily countenance Sabbathkeeping . . . However, we interpret the situation, Paul’s statement ‘Let no one pass judgment on you,’ indicates that no stringent regulations are to be laid down over the use of festivals."3 In the light of these observations, we conclude that in Colossians 2:16, Paul expresses not a condemnation but an implicit approbation of practices such as Sabbathkeeping.
See also:
http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/boo … to_sunday/
http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/boo … ent/9.html
http://www.bible.ca/7-Bacchiocchi-lewis-debate.htm
http://www.keithhunt.com/Sunday20.html
http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthrea … 7th_d.html
Today, thanks to Dr. Bacchiocchi, there is a change in how some SDA’s view the Sabbath in Colossians. While the Traditional minded SDA’s may never be able to change their legalistic ways and read the NT honestly, there is hope for others. Faced with the facts of linguistics and context, it is apparent that the old SDA view of Colossians does not hold up.
See also:
The Sabbath in Colossians & Hebrews- By Tom Norris
http://www.atomorrow.net/fluxbb/viewtopic.php?id=242
Listen to the modern SDA’s essentially reject the traditional and incorrect view of Kenneth Woods and embrace what Dr. Bacchiocchi correctly teaches. While they fail to state the obvious and repent for their past error, at least they are promoting the new view, if only half-heartedly.
The Biblical Sabbath: The Adventist Perspective; By Ángel Manuel Rodríguez
…Colossians 2:16-23 is exegetically one of the most difficult passages to interpret in the New Testament. Part of the problem is the difficulties one faces in understanding the terminology used there and the extent to which Paul is quoting from his opponents. The other problem is defining the type of false teaching that was being promoted among church members.
There is no scholarly consensus on those issues.
Those who believe that the polemic is aimed mainly at Judaism find in the passage evidence to argue for the irrelevance of the Sabbath commandment for Christians.[87]
But recent studies have supported the more traditional conviction that in Colossians we are not dealing with traditional Judaism but with a syncretistic movement in which Jewish elements are present.[88] The Jewish elements are usually found particularly in the phrase "in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day."
For our purpose one of the key terms in that sentence is "Sabbath day." Is it referring to the seventh day Sabbath of the Old Testament or is it designating something else?
Some Adventists have argued that the reference is not to the commandment because the Sabbath could not be described as "shadow of what is to come" (2:17); it was instituted before sin came into the world. It has been common to argue that the Greek term for Sabbath used here is plural in form (sabbaton) and that it is better to apply it to the ceremonial Sabbaths associated with the Israelite festivals.[89] They could properly be described as shadows pointing to the work of the Messiah.
More recently Adventist scholars have concluded that the phrase "festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day" seems to describe a yearly, monthly and weekly sequence making it difficult to retain the more common view. This has led to some other interpretational possibilities based on the context and on the use of the phrase "festival, new moon, Sabbath."
For some the term "Sabbath" here is referring to the Jewish halakah, the "teachings of men" mentioned in the context (2:22).[90] Others argue that the list is designating the sacrifices offered during those religious occasions and not to the occasions themselves.[91] The sacrifices were a shadow of the sacrificial death of the Messiah.
The reference to the Sabbath is problematic for all interpreters because of the context in which it is found. Although the common tendency is to find in it a reference to the commandment there are still those who, based on the fact that the sequence is yearly, monthly and weekly, consider it possible and probable that the reference is not to the commandment itself but to the week. In other words, the term sabbaton should be translated "week,"[92] a usage found elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g. Luke 18:11; Mark 16:9).[93] That possibility "cannot be ruled out completely (in which case the phrase would refer to weekly, monthly, and probably annual festivals)."[94]
But even if the term sabbatton designates the seventh day, the Sabbath, as it probably does, we should be extremely careful concerning the significance we attach to that usage. The term is employed in the context of a syncretistic "heresy" and therefore its original biblical significance has been altered. Paul is reacting to syncretistic practices promoted by the false teachers with respect to eating, drinking and festivals.
The use of the verb "to judge" in 2:16 is very important for a correct grasping of the meaning of the passage. When Paul says, "no one is to act as your judge in regard to," he is in fact saying, "Let no one determine or regulate your eating, drinking . . ."[95] In other words the false teachers are not requiring submission to those practices but determining the way they should be performed on the basis of their own teachings. Paul correctly designates those regulations as "commandments and teachings of men" (2:22; cf. 2:8).
Paul is in fact warning "the Colossians not against the observances of these practices as such, but against 'anyone' (tis) who passes judgment on how to eat, to drink, and to observe sacred times. The judge who passed judgment is not Paul but the Colossian false teachers who imposed 'regulations' (Col 2:20) on how to observe these practices in order to achieve 'rigor of devotion and self-abasement and severity to the body' (Col 2:23)."[96]
What Paul is rejecting is not "the teachings of Moses but their perverted use by the Colossian false teachers."[97] He does not have in view "the Jewish observance of these days as an expression of Israel's obedience to God's law and a token of her election . . . What moves him here is the wrong motive involved when the observance of holy festivals is made part of the worship advocated at Colossae in recognition of the 'elements of the universe', the astral powers which direct the course of the stars and regulate the calendar."[98]
We can conclude that Paul is simply condemning "not the principle of Sabbath keeping but its perversion" or "superstitious observance."[99]
We have already indicated that such type of Sabbath observance may have been quite common outside Jewish circles. Therefore, based on Col 2:16 one cannot theorize that Paul was promoting or teaching the abolition of the Sabbath commandment.[100]
He was rejecting the attempt of the false teachers to impose their views on believers concerning how to observe it.[101] They were misusing the commandment but its misuse does not invalidate the commandment itself.[102]
http://biblicalresearch.gc.adventist.or … ic2002.htm
In hindsight, it is clear that Dr. Bacchiocchi’s view of Colossians is correct. The plural use of Sabbath is a clear reference to the 7th day Sabbath of the Moral law and there is no use for anyone to try and deny this hermeneutical fact.
However, rather than Colossians abolishing the Sabbath, Paul is actually defending the Reformed, NC Sabbath of Christ, even as he warns all to beware of the Judaizers, who want to enforce OC Sabbath keeping on the church. In other words, while the OC Sabbath is indeed abolished, the NC Sabbath of Christ is upheld. But few realize there is such a great distinction between the OC and NC doctrine of the Sabbath.
Today, there is a new and very different doctrine of the Sabbath emerging from within the SDA Community. While the SDA’s were correct to claim that the 7th day Sabbath would become part of Gospel Reform in the last days, they failed to fully comprehend the Gospel and thus they misunderstood the correct, NC doctrine of the Sabbath. For this they must repent, even as they move forward to promote this final Gospel view of the NC Sabbath.
See:
The Reformed Sabbath- By Tom Norris
http://www.atomorrow.net/fluxbb/viewtopic.php?id=228
SDA Sabbath Vs. Gospel Sabbath
http://www.atomorrow.net/fluxbb/viewtopic.php?id=836
Conclusion:
With the passage of time, the knowledge of the scriptures has increased dramatically. What was considered correct doctrine and sound hermeneutics in the 19th or even 20th century, no longer holds up in the 21st century. This is hardly surprising, nor should the universal condemnation of the church by Christ in the Laodicean Message be a shock, as the state of the church is obviously abysmal.
Today, there is no excuse for any organized church, especially the SDA’s, to be so slow and resistant to new truth. All need a better understanding of the Gospel and the Word, and the SDA’s are no exception. They continue to misunderstand and reject the Gospel on a regular basis. This is a problem with every denomination today, not just the SDA’s.
Consequently, no church or denomination in Laodicea today is following the Gospel teachings of Jesus or his Reformed, 7th day, Sabbath. They are all pretending to see, when in fact they are blind to the Word and to the Spirit, for which they must repent.
Rev. 3:14 “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this:
Rev. 3:15 ‘I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot.
Rev. 3:16 ‘So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.
Rev. 3:17 ‘Because you say, “I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,” and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked,
Today, religion is a dishonest industry, a big business that takes advantage of people, controlling them in the name of Jesus with both guilt and fear, and much false doctrine. While there is an illusion, and promise of salvation, there is no Eternal Life in the church. Only a false and worthless Gospel, promoted by self-serving and incompetent clergy.
This present situation is so full of corruption and false doctrine that it makes heaven sick. And it should also make us feel the same way. Many, like the SDA’s, are coming to understand that their particular denomination is not being honest about the Gospel or church history, and this problem is epidemic in all denominations.
Tradition, mind-control, and money seem to be the driving forces of the divided and blind Laodicean church. So let the lambs beware.
2Tim. 3:1 But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come.
2Tim. 3:2 For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy,
2Tim. 3:3 unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good,
2Tim. 3:4 treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,
2Tim. 3:5 holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these.
With so much knowledge of the Word, so easily available to all, it is time for this organized religious scam to be exposed for the fraud it is. It is time for the church, meaning every denomination, and every member to get serious about the written Word of Christ and the Gospel.
It is time for all to go to the Word and hear the voice of Christ directly for themselves, rejecting the many false traditions and errors that have overwhelmed every denomination.
All Christians in the last days are called to repent and return to the genuine Christ of the Gospels, embracing Jesus’ active and reformed, 7th day, Sabbath, as well as the rest of what he teaches.
Rev. 3:18 I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see.
Rev. 3:19 ‘Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent.
John 10:27 “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;
John 10:28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.
I hope this information helps with your studies.
Col. 1:28 We proclaim Him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, so that we may present every man complete in Christ.
Tom Norris for the Reformed, 7th day, Gospel Sabbath of Christ
Offline
Tom, you have to throw out the old and new covenants to get your interpretation.
Hebrews 8:13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.
The heart of the old Covenant is the Law, the heart of the Law is the Sabbath, a symbol given only to the Jews to keep. Rodriguez should see this as not so hermeneutically hard. It is only hard if you don't read Heb 8:13 and see the discontinuity between the two covenants.
Hebrews 10:9 Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second.
Last edited by bob_2 (10-13-11 8:21 pm)
Offline
Question about Tom Norris Gospel Sabbath:
Hello, Bro. Sal
Somehow in my search of wanting to know how SDA's view Hebrews 4:9, I ended up reading an old 2010 post from Mr. Tom Norris that left me very confused.
From what I gathered, according to Tom he believes that the SDA's are right in interpreting Heb. 4:9 to be the weekly 7th day Sabbath. And he gives what seems to me a very complex reason as to why this is so.
However, after I reread Heb. chapter 4, I am in complete disapproval with Tom's conclusion and I feel that he was very misleading.
However, is it any way He could be right?
I guess, what i am asking is what are your views on Heb. 4:9 and how does it differ from SDA's and Tom's view?
p.s: Here is the link to Toms answer: http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … stions.htm
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … brew-4.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sal's Answer:
Dear Ang:
Brother Norris can indeed write long and sometimes complicated answers. However, his answers are worth reading. I know him to be a very honest and courageous SDA. He does not swallow SDA doctrine hook, line, and sinker as is the habit of some.
You are correct that Brother Norris does believe that the SDA Church is right that the rest of Hebrews 4:9 is the 7th day Sabbath.
However, you may not be aware that he also believes that the SDA Church is currently observing the wrong Sabbath rest. SDAs generally observe the obsolete Old Covenant Sabbath of inactivity in accordance with the commandment (see Exodus 20:8-11).
Brother Norris believes in what he calls the “New Covenant Sabbath” or the “Gospel Sabbath” which is a Sabbath marked by activity such as preaching the gospel and doing good works.
Much to his credit he does not fear working or carrying a heavy burden on that day. I once asked an SDA to prove that he wasn’t focusing on the Old Covenant Sabbath by mowing his lawn on the Sabbath, he refused thus proving my point. For Brother Norris it’s all about Jesus while most SDAs focus on Moses.
“Therefore you are to observe the sabbath, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people. For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a sabbath of complete rest, holy to the LORD; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall surely be put to death” (Exodus 31:14-15 NASB).
While I agree with and support the premise behind the “New Covenant Sabbath” I disagree with him that we must still observe the 7th day. I believe that Christians are not obligated to observe any day above another (see Romans 14:5).
I believe that the Christian religion is too vital and gospel oriented to be tied down to one day. The rest that was promised under the Old Covenant Sabbath is fully realized in Christ Jesus.
“Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light” (Matthew 11:28-30 NKJV).
Briefly, the message of Hebrews 4 is that no one has ever found the true rest of God in a day.
Paul gives us two examples of great men who could not lead God's people into that true rest. They are Moses & Joshua. Moses was unable to lead the Israelites to the true rest of God even though he gave them the 7th day Sabbath.
Paul points out that it was Israel's unbelief that kept them from entering God's true rest (vs. 1 & 2). Joshua was likewise unable to lead the people to the true rest of God even though they had and kept the 7th day Sabbath (v. 8). “Therefore a Sabbath rest still remains for the people of God” (v. 9).
What is this “Sabbath rest” since it is not a day? The Sabbath rest that remains for God's people is, as stated above, faith in Jesus. Paul's point is that we must have faith in Jesus today and everyday. It is only in God's only Son that we can find the true rest of God. “Come to me…and I will give you rest”. The message of Hebrews 4 is that we must have faith in the person of Jesus not in a day. “Today, if you should hear his voice, harden not your hearts.”
The Christian’s Sabbath-rest is two-fold. One rest is here on earth in this life. It is the “rest” we experience in Christ when we come to him. Once we accept him a peace comes over our souls.
The second rest is the ultimate Sabbath-rest that awaits all believers in heaven. “Then I heard a voice from heaven saying to me, ‘Write: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.’ ‘Yes,’ says the Spirit, ‘that they may rest from their labors, and their works follow them’” (Revelation 14:13 NKJV).
In conclusion, Moses and Joshua both led the Israelites into keeping the 7th day Sabbath, but that was not the true rest of God.
The Israelites were unfaithful ( Hebrews 3:12; 4:2), disobedient (3:16, 18), and unbelieving (3:19; 4:6). They kept the 7th day Sabbath, but did not enter the rest that God had prepared for them.
We Christians do enter that rest if we have faith and believe the gospel (4:1-3). The Israelites failed to see past the shadow. “So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ” (Colossians 2:16-17 NKJV).
We Christians must see past the 7th day shadow in order to fully embrace the substance that is Christ.
Some final thoughts if Paul wanted to teach that the 7th day Sabbath was still binding on Christians why didn’t he ever mention it in any of his many writings?
If keeping the Sabbath is so important why didn’t Paul ever list Sabbath-breaking as a sin? Would a sabbatarian write a sin list and leave out Sabbath-breaking?
In his writings Paul taught the Gentiles many things, why didn’t he teach them how to keep the 7th day Sabbath? Why did Paul use a different Greek word in 4:9 when “sabbaton” would have made it clear that he meant the 7th day Sabbath was to still be observed?
I pray that this helps you to better understand the Sabbath rest of Hebrews 4.
God Bless You,
Brother Sal
Offline
Sal, I couldn't have said it better. Tom are you finally seeing the truth of NCT????
Offline