Question for All Scholars Concerning Sabbath

[adventistnomore]

With regard to the claim that Scripture nowhere calls the seventh day “the sabbath of the Jews,” I would recommend the following 2pp. essay (PDF):

Sabbath Preparation and the Johannine Community: A Brief Note on John 19:42

 

[6YRSHOME]

i think they do have some sort of gatherings on fridays but I believe it’s once a year things, I was pretty bumed they didn’t have meat, they also say the a seventh Day adventist has a longer life span because they refrain from meat, isn’t that interesting. I’m going to research this but I’m assuming it’s just one of those baseless claims they make to make themselves feel more of a remnant church kinda like how they claim Ellen White’s books are the top three relgious best selling books,

Actually, they do have a healthy lifestyle. But they also endorse healthy eating as a lifestyle. Little or no meat, whole grains, low fat and sugar. It’s funny that this whole grain thing has become the “new big thing” and I grew up eating this way.

 

[Hellisreal]

No coffee though. Sorry count me out.

 

[SDA2RC]

You know why, because I was making a point. So many people say it is the Sabbath of the Jews, then I quote a vers like “But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God” and just add my little comment that it is NOT the Sabbath of the Jews BUT the Sabbath of the Lord.

Pedja,
Just because it is called the Sabbath of the Lord does not mean it was a permanent institution or meant for all of mankind, nor does it mean it was not only intended for the Jews. MANY things in scripture were called the “XYZ of the Lord” and they were still only meant for the Jews. For example: (Num 9:13 NASB) ‘But the man who is clean and is not on a journey, and yet neglects to observe the Passover, that person shall then be cut off from his people, **for he did not present the offering of the LORD at its appointed time. **That man shall bear his sin.
Here we have the “offering of the Lord” as part of the Passover celebration. Using the same logic you are using with the Sabbath, because it was “the Lord’s” and not the Jews’, Christians should still be observing the Passover offerings… however, even SDA’s do not give offerings or Sacrifices.

Again, (Num 9:7 NASB) And those men said to him, “Though we are unclean because of the dead person, why are we restrained from presenting the** offering of the LORD** at its appointed time among the sons of Israel?”
And again,(Lev 5:12 NASB) 'And he shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it as its memorial portion and offer it up in smoke on the altar, with the offerings of the LORD by fire: it is a sin offering.
And Again… (Lev 23:4 NASB) 'These are the appointed times of the LORD,
(Lev 23:5 NASB) 'In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at twilight is the LORD’S Passover. Holy convocations which you shall proclaim at the times appointed for them.
Then we also find… (Lev 17:4 NASB) and has not brought it to the doorway of the tent of meeting to present it as an offering to the LORD before the tabernacle of the LORD, bloodguiltiness is to be reckoned to that man. He has shed blood and that man shall be cut off from among his people.
To my knowledge, Adventists do not have a roaming tabernacle in which they offer sacrifices and employ the sons of Aaron as priests, even though, it was the Tabernacle of the Lord, not of the Jews.

Again, (1 Sam 3:15 NASB) So Samuel lay down until morning. Then he opened the doors of the house of the LORD. But Samuel was afraid to tell the vision to Eli.
(Exo 34:26 NASB) “You shall bring the very first of the first fruits of your soil into the house of the LORD your God. You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.”
Now…the “House of the Lord” was again the Temple or Tabernacle. Although it was the House of the Lord, it was a Jewish institution which is not replicated by Christians, including SDA’s.

Then we also find: (Lev 17:6 NASB) "And the priest shall sprinkle the blood on the altar of the LORD at the doorway of the tent of meeting, and offer up the fat in smoke as a soothing aroma to the LORD.
Again, even though it was the Altar of the Lord, does not mean that it was something that was to be used by gentiles or Christians, it was a Jewish institution that was done away with at the cross. This is why we do not find Christian or Adventist Churches with Altars used for the sacrifice of lambs, oxen, grain etc.

We can go on and see the “feasts of the Lord”, the “times of the Lord”, the “Sabbaths of the Lord” (referring to the holy days, not the weekly Sabbath. And we find that although scripture designates that all of these were the Lord’s, not “the Jews’”, they were all done away with at the cross, even in Adventist practice. Just because they were the Lord’s, did not make them universal, for only Jews were allowed to sacrifice on the Altar of the Lord, only circumcised Jews were allowed to take part in the feasts of the Lord, etc…etc…

The same can be seen with the Sabbath, just because it was “the Lord’s” does not mean that it was not just for the Jews… just like all of the Lord’s other Jewish worship practices we have discussed.

God gave the Law (all of it, including the 10 commandments) to only the Jews, he spoke it on the Mt. to only the Jews, he presented it to Moses, who was a representative of the Jews, he never commanded a Gentile or a Christian to celebrate any of these ceremonial aspects of worship. The Sabbath was given to the Jews, who were by the way, God’s chosen people (i.e. they belong to God), but their relationship and worship system was replaced with the Christian Church at the resurrection of Christ.

 

[SDA2RC]

Pedja,
As Catholics, we cannot take the Sabbath issue and separate it from the rest of the scriptures. It must be considered in light of the doctrine of the Church as taught in scripture, the doctrine of authority as taught in scripture, the doctrine of succession as demonstrated in scripture, the New Covenant etc. etc…

One thing that I would ask of you, if you truly want to understand the Catholic point of View is to do a true study of the doctrine of the Church in the New Testament. Answer such questions as:

Was a single church established?
What authority was it given?
What was its job?
How did it decide doctrinal questions?
How was it perpetuated?
Who were the leaders?
How did they become leaders?
Why did Christ establish a Church with specific leadership and a specific method of succession?
What promises were made about the Church?
How can we identify the Church Christ founded today?

These questions must be answered by anyone serious about understanding or witnessing to Catholics about the Sabbath, death, the Investigative Judgment or anything else, because these questions provide the framework of our faith. Let me know what you believe the answers to the above questions are… If you dont believe it will fit within the topic of this thread (although I believe it will come back around full circle, then please feel free to start another thread.)

 

[Protestant101]

With regard to the claim that Scripture nowhere calls the seventh day “the sabbath of the Jews,” I would recommend the following 2pp. essay (PDF):

Sabbath Preparation and the Johannine Community: A Brief Note on John 19:42

Nice try; but this article doesn’t even come close to proving the Sabbath is called “Jewish” and if we want to follow SDA2RC’s advice in this thread, we would not want to make an entire doctrine out of one text. It simply doesn’t make sense that God is here, in Jo.19:42, is calling the Sabbath “Jewish” for in many more places, the Bible calls it “of The Lord thy God.” You are therefore saying that God contradicts Himself in His Word, by twisting Jo.19:42 to your own satisfaction. Jo.19 only calls the day of preparation traditions of the Jews “Jewish.”

Actually, the Jews had many things they would do or not do, in relation to not only the day of preparation; but also to the Sabbath itself - yet the seventh-day sabbath is the one thing out of it all that God never rescinds, or cancels, or calls “Jewish.”

Many in this thread are also repeatedly asserting that the reason Sunday is now kept, is because it is in honor of the resurrection. But this is in defiance of the Bible’s stated position on the purpose of the Sabbath: “a sign between us and God.”

It is true that Jesus rose on the first day of the week, but nowhere is there the slightest intimation in the Bible for anyone to keep that day holy. The basis for Sabbath-keeping is **the direct handwritten command of God. **

Many exciting events occurred on certain days of the week in the Bible, but we have no command to keep them holy. Jesus died for our sins on Friday. That is probably the most significant event in all of recorded history. It marks the moment our death sentence was commuted and our salvation assured. But not one Bible text hints that we should observe this day of such great significance in any special way; and certainly not as a “replacement” for God’s holy Sabbath.

Yes, it was a dramatic moment when Jesus rose from the grave on that Sunday morning, but there is not a speck of biblical evidence that we should observe Sunday now, in honor of the resurrection. Not one instance of commanded by God “Sunday observance” can be found in the recorded Scriptures.

As we all know, there is, of course, a memorial of the resurrection commanded in the Bible, but it is not Sunday-keeping. Paul wrote: “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life” (Romans 6:4).

Baptism is the Bible’s only mandated memorial of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection.

Those who believe that Sunday observance honors His resurrection often will cite the upper room meeting of the disciples on the same day He arose from the grave. To them that gathering was to celebrate His resurrection. But when we read the Bible record of the event, we discover that the circumstances were quite different.

Luke tells us that, even though the disciples were confronted with the eyewitness story of Mary Magdalene, they “believed not.”

“After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them. Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen” (Mark 16:12-14).

Obviously, none of those upper room disciples believed that He was raised, so they could not have been joyously celebrating the resurrection.

John explains their reason for being together in these words: “The doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews” (John 20:19).

 

[adventistnomore]

Nice try; but this article doesn’t even come close to proving the Sabbath is called “Jewish”

The article doesn’t claim to prove that the Sabbath was explicitly called “Jewish” in scripture. In fact, it agrees that the sabbath never was called “Jewish.” Pleae accurately represent the thesis of the paper.

The paper does indicate, however, that the Christians who wrote the book of John had come to consider the day of preparation (an essential compliment to sabbathkeeping) a “Jewish” observance.

and if we want to follow SDA2RC’s advice in this thread, we would not want to make an entire doctrine out of one text.

I disagree with SDA2RC on that point. One text is enough to assert a point if the evidence is positively there. God’s word, even if only said once, is true.

It simply doesn’t make sense that God is here, in Jo.19:42, is calling the Sabbath “Jewish” for in many more places, the Bible calls it “of The Lord thy God.”

Lev 23:2,4 calls the annual feasts as “of the Lord” or “the Lord’s”; yet they are no longer valid, being only Jewish days. Therefore, the fact that the Sabbath is also said to be “of the Lord” does not prove its permanence or universality. If one will use the phrase as an indication of permanence, then he must use it consistently.

Jo.19 only calls the day of preparation traditions of the Jews "Jewish."Actually, the Jews had many things they would do or not do, in relation to not only the day of preparation

Actually Jn 19 mentions the “Jewish day of preparation,” not the “Jewish traditions associated with the day of preparation.” It refers to the day itself. Plese refrain from adding to the Biblical text; read it as is.

“the seventh-day sabbath is the one thing out of it all that God never rescinds, or cancels, or calls “Jewish.””

Incidentally, an argument for the permanence of the sabbath grounded upon the fact that the Bible never calls the sabbath “Jewish” is an argument from silence. I recognized it as logically fallacious after leaving Adventism.

 

[Morning_Star15]

Nice try; but this article doesn’t even come close to proving the Sabbath is called “Jewish” and if we want to follow SDA2RC’s advice in this thread, we would not want to make an entire doctrine out of one text. It simply doesn’t make sense that God is here, in Jo.19:42, is calling the Sabbath “Jewish” for in many more places, the Bible calls it “of The Lord thy God.” You are therefore saying that God contradicts Himself in His Word, by twisting Jo.19:42 to your own satisfaction. Jo.19 only calls the day of preparation traditions of the Jews “Jewish.”

Actually, the Jews had many things they would do or not do, in relation to not only the day of preparation; but also to the Sabbath itself - yet the seventh-day sabbath is the one thing out of it all that God never rescinds, or cancels, or calls “Jewish.”

Many in this thread are also repeatedly asserting that the reason Sunday is now kept, is because it is in honor of the resurrection. But this is in defiance of the Bible’s stated position on the purpose of the Sabbath: “a sign between us and God.”

It is true that Jesus rose on the first day of the week, but nowhere is there the slightest intimation in the Bible for anyone to keep that day holy. The basis for Sabbath-keeping is **the direct handwritten command of God. **

Many exciting events occurred on certain days of the week in the Bible, but we have no command to keep them holy. Jesus died for our sins on Friday. That is probably the most significant event in all of recorded history. It marks the moment our death sentence was commuted and our salvation assured. But not one Bible text hints that we should observe this day of such great significance in any special way; and certainly not as a “replacement” for God’s holy Sabbath.

Yes, it was a dramatic moment when Jesus rose from the grave on that Sunday morning, but there is not a speck of biblical evidence that we should observe Sunday now, in honor of the resurrection. Not one instance of commanded by God “Sunday observance” can be found in the recorded Scriptures.

As we all know, there is, of course, a memorial of the resurrection commanded in the Bible, but it is not Sunday-keeping. Paul wrote: “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life” (Romans 6:4).

Baptism is the Bible’s only mandated memorial of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection.

Those who believe that Sunday observance honors His resurrection often will cite the upper room meeting of the disciples on the same day He arose from the grave. To them that gathering was to celebrate His resurrection. But when we read the Bible record of the event, we discover that the circumstances were quite different.

Luke tells us that, even though the disciples were confronted with the eyewitness story of Mary Magdalene, they “believed not.”

Obviously, none of those upper room disciples believed that He was raised, so they could not have been joyously celebrating the resurrection.

John explains their reason for being together in these words: “The doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews” (John 20:19).

Okay, do you have any Scriptural evidence that Christians observed (or were supposed to observe) the Jewish Sabbath on Saturday?

I don’t know of any reference in the NT of the Sabbath being of any importance, but I have found references to the Christians gathering to break bread on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7), and taking up a collection on the first day of the week (1 Corinthians 16:2), two parts of Sunday worship. I think the part of the collection is particularly telling, because it shows that the entire community would have gathered together on Sunday (which would make it possible for a collection to be taken at that point).

Also, I’m pretty sure this passage has already been cited, but Colossians 2:16 shows that observance of the Sabbath was not mandatory for Christians. Thus, when the Jewish Christian churches disappeared for the most part, so did the observance of the Jewish Sabbath, being replaced with the observance of the Lord’s Resurrection.

If you don’t think the Scriptures I’ve provided are conclusive enough, fine, but I don’t think you’ll find anything better to support the opposite argument, that the Christians in the Bible were observing the Jewish Sabbath on Saturday.

 

[SDA2RC]

Nice try; but this article doesn’t even come close to proving the Sabbath is called “Jewish” and if we want to follow SDA2RC’s advice in this thread, we would not want to make an entire doctrine out of one text.

Ha… um… other than to my recollection, I never said that… what I have said though is that you cannot take a bunch of verses out of context, and quote them, and have it be a useful study of a topic.

 

[Protestant101]

Lev 23:2,4 calls the annual feasts as “of the Lord” or “the Lord’s”; yet they are no longer valid, being only Jewish days. Therefore, the fact that the Sabbath is also said to be “of the Lord” does not prove its permanence or universality. If one will use the phrase as an indication of permanence, then he must use it consistently…

“Then he must use it consistently” is your rule, not the Bible’s rule. You exclude the possibility of intended context with this “rule.” It’s a “good” rule; but I think it’s actually kind of “Jewish.”

You definitely have a poor understanding of Adventist doctrines if you think we strive to prove the Sabbath is not “Jewish” just because we think that it would prove “the Sabbath is still valid!!”

Hmmm. Jesus was “Jewish…” Maybe we don’t need Him anymore either!! Instead of your “apologetics” you might want to try some contextual insights and study. it would help you in your “witness” to Adventists.

 

[Protestant101]

Ha… um… other than to my recollection, I never said that… what I have said though is that you cannot take a bunch of verses out of context, and quote them, and have it be a useful study of a topic.

You seem quite enamored with that phrase “out of context” when talking to Adventists about Bible topics.

 

[SDA2RC]

You seem quite enamored with that phrase “out of context” when talking to Adventists about Bible topics.

IF the shoe fits…

 

[SDA2RC]

“Then he must use it consistently” is your rule, not the Bible’s rule. You exclude the possibility of intended context with this “rule.” It’s a “good” rule; but I think it’s actually kind of “Jewish.”

On the other hand we can use your rule which seems to be that the term “of the lords” means “permanent” but only when applied to the SDA pet doctrine of the Jewish Sabbath. But then again that would be what we call “cherry picking”.

You definitely have a poor understanding of Adventist doctrines if you think we strive to prove the Sabbath is not “Jewish” just because we think that it would prove “the Sabbath is still valid!!”

huh??

“Then he must use it consistently” is your rule, not the Bible’s rule. You exclude the possibility of intended context with this “rule.” It’s a “good” rule; but I think it’s actually kind of "Jewish.Hmmm. Jesus was "Jewish… Maybe we don’t need Him anymore either!! Instead of your “apologetics” you might want to try some contextual insights and study. it would help you in your “witness” to Adventists.

Jeesh, you sure seem overly enamored with the idea of context when speaking of the Jewish Sabbath… (Smile Protestant its just a joke)

 

[SDA2RC]

Protestant 101,

You said:It simply doesn’t make sense that God is here, in Jo.19:42, is calling the Sabbath “Jewish” for in many more places, the Bible calls it “of The Lord thy God.”
Protestant, the two are not mutually exclusive, the Jews were Gods Chosen people, the Sabbath was the Sabbath of the Lord, however, that age ended ((Heb 9.26) and we are now in a Christian era, where the Jewish religion has been replaced with Christianity as the heirs to the Abrahamic promise, and the Lord’s Day is our celebration of the new Creation made possible through the resurrection.

You said:You are therefore saying that God contradicts Himself in His Word, by twisting Jo.19:42 to your own satisfaction. Jo.19 only calls the day of preparation traditions of the Jews “Jewish.”
That is not what AdventistNoMore is saying at all, he is saying that the Sabbath was both the “Sabbath of the Lord” and meant for the Jewish religion exclusively in order to prepare a people for the coming of the Messiah. Now that Christ has come, we are no longer under that “tutor”.

You said:Many in this thread are also repeatedly asserting that the reason Sunday is now kept, is because it is in honor of the resurrection. But this is in defiance of the Bible’s stated position on the purpose of the Sabbath: “a sign between us and God.”
You quoted the passage of the Old Testament, where the Sabbath is said to be a sign between “US and God” which I am assuming is out of Exodus 31, but the interesting thing is that God goes on to explain who the “us” is in this passage…

“(Exo 31:13 NASB) "But as for you, **speak to the sons of **Israel, saying, 'You shall surely observe My sabbaths; for this is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the LORD who sanctifies you.”

And again:

(Exo 31:17 NASB) “It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He ceased from labor, and was refreshed.”

Protestant, I am not a Jew, a Son of Israel, I am a Christian, the Jewish Sabbath is not a sign between God and I.

You said:The basis for Sabbath-keeping is **the direct handwritten command of God. **
I don’t understand this… where does scripture tell us that the mode of transmission of the message indicates the permanence of the message? Does this mean that everything that was not written by His hand is somehow less authoritative?

You Said:Not one instance of commanded by God “Sunday observance” can be found in the recorded Scriptures.
Likewise, not one Christian was ever commanded to keep the Sabbath after the Resurrection. But we were obliged to obey our church leaders.

 

[adventistnomore]

You definitely have a poor understanding of Adventist doctrines if you think we strive to prove the Sabbath is not “Jewish” just because we think that it would prove “the Sabbath is still valid!!”

Alright, let me ask you: what does the fact that the Sabbath is never called “Jewish” prove? As an Adventist, I used it to support the sabbath’s universality (and by extension, permanence). Ellen White did the same in ST, Jan. 8, 1894 (read par. 2-3).

“Then he must use it consistently” is your rule, not the Bible’s rule. You exclude the possibility of intended context with this “rule.”

What is “intended context”? Apparently, “intended context” means that “of the Lord” can arbitrarily signify one thing when referring to the seventh day (i.e., permanence and universality), and nothing at all when referring to the annual feasts. This is inconsistent, and quite frankly, “begging the question.”

 

[pedja]

Okay, do you have any Scriptural evidence that Christians observed (or were supposed to observe) the Jewish Sabbath on Saturday?

I don’t know of any reference in the NT of the Sabbath being of any importance, but I have found references to the Christians gathering to break bread on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7), and taking up a collection on the first day of the week (1 Corinthians 16:2), two parts of Sunday worship. I think the part of the collection is particularly telling, because it shows that the entire community would have gathered together on Sunday (which would make it possible for a collection to be taken at that point).

Also, I’m pretty sure this passage has already been cited, but Colossians 2:16 shows that observance of the Sabbath was not mandatory for Christians. Thus, when the Jewish Christian churches disappeared for the most part, so did the observance of the Jewish Sabbath, being replaced with the observance of the Lord’s Resurrection.

If you don’t think the Scriptures I’ve provided are conclusive enough, fine, but I don’t think you’ll find anything better to support the opposite argument, that the Christians in the Bible were observing the Jewish Sabbath on Saturday.

1. Cor. 16,2. On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come.

This was the **reason **for the collections! How does that prove Sunday worship?? Also it says that “each of you” should lay aside- where? In the church or maybe at home?

 

[Morning_Star15]

1. Cor. 16,2. On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come.

This was the **reason **for the collections! How does that prove Sunday worship?? Also it says that “each of you” should lay aside- where? In the church or maybe at home?

Like I said, it means that they would all be together to pool their collections - which means that they would all be gathered together on the first day of the week.

And like I also said, if you have better Scriptures to prove Christian observance of the Jewish Sabbath on Saturday, please provide them, and we can compare who has better evidence for their claim.

 

[pedja]

Like I said, it means that they would all be together to pool their collections - which means that they would all be gathered together on the first day of the week.

I dont have a problem with this, In my local church we have meetings every Sunday at 10, it`s just a good convenient time where we can discuss and organize things, and we meet regularly yet this is not Sunday worship! These are like board meeting etc. etc. We also meet every Wednesday for prayer groups and other things, so it doesnt matter actually what day in the week people come together but all this is different to the change of the Sabbath observance day!

 

[pedja]

And like I also said, if you have better Scriptures to prove Christian observance of the Jewish Sabbath on Saturday, please provide them, and we can compare who has better evidence for their claim.

We know that the Jews were observing the 7th day Sabbath, that’s clear. You know how much Paul is talking about the circumcision etc., do you know why? Well my guess is that it was a big problem for some of the Jews to accept the fact that from now on Christians don’t have to be circumcised (yet if they want to do it, they can). Just imagine how much more discussion Paul would have with his Jewish brothers and sisters if from now on the Sabbath would have been replaced by the Sunday! I can imagine they would completely freak out if Paul would have suggested something like this. Yet there is absolutely nothing which even indicates that that was a topic for discussion. Certainly there would have been so much to talk about; so much theology involved to explain everything, but there is nothing!

Did you ever wonder about that absence of any theological discussions while at the same time some minor issues like circumcision have been widely discussed?? Could it not have been the case that nothing has been changed?

 

[Morning_Star15]

We know that the Jews were observing the 7th day Sabbath, that’s clear. You know how much Paul is talking about the circumcision etc., do you know why? Well my guess is that it was a big problem for some of the Jews to accept the fact that from now on Christians don’t have to be circumcised (yet if they want to do it, they can). Just imagine how much more discussion Paul would have with his Jewish brothers and sisters if from now on the Sabbath would have been replaced by the Sunday! I can imagine they would completely freak out if Paul would have suggested something like this. Yet there is absolutely nothing which even indicates that that was a topic for discussion. Certainly there would have been so much to talk about; so much theology involved to explain everything, but there is nothing!

Did you ever wonder about that absence of any theological discussions while at the same time some minor issues like circumcision have been widely discussed?? Could it not have been the case that nothing has been changed?

Speculation, plain and simple. I provided you with a Scripture where St. Paul says people don’t need to concern themselves with Sabbath observance, as well as evidence that Christians came together on Sundays.

Once again, you have not provided any hard evidence that Saturday Sabbath observance was happening in the Christian Church.

Face it, you can’t provide any Scriptural evidence of Saturday being the Sabbath for Early Christians (especially the Gentile ones) - you can only speculate as to why this isn’t mentioned. So what evidence do you have that Christians are supposed to observe the Saturday Sabbath?