Question for All Scholars Concerning Sabbath

[SDA2RC]

That is a good question. The problem I have with sources which do not come from the Bible is simply the authority. Who is ever going to determine who is right in interpreting the Bible and who is wrong?

You as Catholic believe that your church is the only right one and that the interpretation given by Catholic theologians is the best. However at the same time there are a high number of scholars and theologians from other denominations who also believe that **their **interpretation is the only correct one. You as a Catholic would now have to claim that all of those people are wrong or that they at last only posses some minor elements of the truth. But that is exactly what those other theologians think of you (Catholics) and this is why we can debate forever and never come to a final conclusion. You know what I mean?

This is why I heavily rely only on the Bible, because I believe that God personally took care in inspiring the authors and putting it all together so that today all Christians can use one and the same Bible all over the world.

Of course I am not able to interpret every single verse of the Bible all alone, so that is why I need to check commentaries, what other people have written on some subjects, what their opinion is, especially when it comes down to the original language etc. But still, the definite decision of what to believe is based on the best possible understanding of the scripture alone.

Pedja,
I appreciate the straightforward answer… in my opinion, the frusteration of that position is that we can never know for certain if the interpretation we finally accept is indeed the true interpretation… we can give it our best shot, but I believe God gave us truth in order to know it certainly, not just in a best educated guess. Let me take it a bit further… in America we have courts to give a final interpretation of the Constitution. In the UK (where I think your from) you do too… Do you not believe that if man could see the need for finality in interpretation that God would have too? If so, what authority would he have placed on earth in order to insure order? I want to submit one verse for your consideration… I am sure you have heard it before… but I think it speaks volumes as far as where we can turn to compare our interpretations with God’s intent.

(1 Tim 3:15 NASB) but in case I am delayed, I write so that you may know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.

Here the author of Timothy presents the Church as the pillar and support of truth. We also find in scripture that God left us the offices of the Church in order to protect us from false doctrine. IF we accept that there is something larger than ourselves to turn to for truth, then the matter simply becomes identifying that source. Let me know your thoughts…

 

[SDA2RC]

That is a good question. The problem I have with sources which do not come from the Bible is simply the authority. Who is ever going to determine who is right in interpreting the Bible and who is wrong?

You as Catholic believe that your church is the only right one and that the interpretation given by Catholic theologians is the best. However at the same time there are a high number of scholars and theologians from other denominations who also believe that **their **interpretation is the only correct one. You as a Catholic would now have to claim that all of those people are wrong or that they at last only posses some minor elements of the truth. But that is exactly what those other theologians think of you (Catholics) and this is why we can debate forever and never come to a final conclusion. You know what I mean?

This is why I heavily rely only on the Bible, because I believe that God personally took care in inspiring the authors and putting it all together so that today all Christians can use one and the same Bible all over the world.

Of course I am not able to interpret every single verse of the Bible all alone, so that is why I need to check commentaries, what other people have written on some subjects, what their opinion is, especially when it comes down to the original language etc. But still, the definite decision of what to believe is based on the best possible understanding of the scripture alone.

One more point… you are right in asserting that non scriptural sources do not have the same authority as scripture. Very correct… however, we can use them to get a good understanding and more in depth evidence as to the way that the early Christians understood the gospel truth that they were preached, and compare that to our current beliefs 2000 years later. I would not say they are authoritative, but certainly are very valuable evidence. What do you think?

 

[SDA2RC]

How can there be no collections when St. Paul comes, if they are not gathering together on the first day of the week and putting all of their contributions in the same place? Wouldn’t he still have to go from house to house, if they are keeping them at home? (Why would he not mention which day of the week to bring them to the Church, if he meant for them to bring them to the Church on a different day? And why would they gather up their contributions the day after the meeting in the Church, instead of the same day? )

JMcrae,
The common interpretation of this verse among Sabbath keepers is that the donations were to be set aside, i.e. placed aside at home at the beginning of each week. Therefore when Paul came back, whether it was a thursday or a Monday etc… the money would already be in store and they could simply give it to him. I am not sure I buy into that verse completely, but I do agree that the purpose of the verse is to avoid the time for taking up a collection when he returned, instead having everyone saving during his absence. There would still be a need to collect the money by someone, but I think the point is that Paul was trying to avoid having to contact everyone when he was back in town. That is just my speculation.

I believe that the largest indicator of the acceptance of Sunday as a special day is in Rev where John refers to it as the “Lord’s Day”. Sabbatarians often explain that since the Sabbath was called the Sabbath of the Lord, that the “Lords Day” must have been a reference to the Sabbath. That makes a decent argument now, 2000 years later, however, we find in the writings of the early Christians, that they considered the Lord’s Day was the day of the resurrection, therefore it makes much more sense that John would have used the term in a way that it was already being used… i.e. Sunday.

 

[pedja]

How can there be no collections when St. Paul comes, if they are not gathering together on the first day of the week and putting all of their contributions in the same place? Wouldn’t he still have to go from house to house, if they are keeping them at home?

First of all in verse 1 it says: “*Now concerning the collection for the saints… *” The whole concern here are some specific financial issues. This is actually the background of the whole action.

Then in verse 2. everyone was supposed to gather something at their homes, privately, and then, **eventually **it will all be collected when Paul comes and he is then going to take care of it etc.

Vers 3. And when I come, whomever you approve by your letters I will send to bear your gift to Jerusalem.

Why would he not mention which day of the week to bring them to the Church, if he meant for them to bring them to the Church on a different day?

Because it would depend on Pauls coming to the church and that was most probably unpredictable. So for example they could have been gathering something for a couple of weeks and then Paul would let them know, ok, Im coming on that and that day, make sure the collections are ready.

And why would they gather up their contributions the day after the meeting in the Church, instead of the same day? )

It sounds reasonable that on the first day of the week, which means you still have the whole week in front of you, it would be the best to put something aside and not to wait to see how much money you will have left at the end of the week, so in that sense it was a commitment. But still the whole context is purely organizing the collections, and even the logistics (verse 3).

 

[pedja]

One more point… you are right in asserting that non scriptural sources do not have the same authority as scripture. Very correct… however, we can use them to get a good understanding and more in depth evidence as to the way that the early Christians understood the gospel truth that they were preached, and compare that to our current beliefs 2000 years later. I would not say they are authoritative, but certainly are very valuable evidence. What do you think?

I absolutely agree with this, but where I see the problem is when the non-scriptural sources are

1.contradicting the scripture or
2.not supported by the the scripture

In this case with the Sabbath/Sunday issue, I think the non-scriptural sources both contradict and are not supported by the scripture.

So I would say if there is a contradiction, then I would not want to accept it. If there is something which is not supported by the scripture and better explained by non-criptural sources, then I would be open minded to see what it really is, or what it could be (I cant think of an example right now but I have the feeling it would be possible).

 

[SDA2RC]

I absolutely agree with this, but where I see the problem is when the non-scriptural sources are

1.contradicting the scripture or
2.not supported by the the scripture

In this case with the Sabbath/Sunday issue, I think the non-scriptural sources both contradict and are not supported by the scripture.

So I would say if there is a contradiction, then I would not want to accept it. If there is something which is not supported by the scripture and better explained by non-criptural sources, then I would be open minded to see what it really is, or what it could be (I cant think of an example right now but I have the feeling it would be possible).

Pedja,
They can only contradict our interpretation of scripture. IF they do, maybe it is our understanding or interpretation that is flawed? Maybe not… but it needs to be considered as a possibility. There is no way to say that one contradicts scripture, since scripture is only contradicted by interpretation. I am not sure if I am being very clear about what I am trying to say here… but we need to take in all the evidence (including non scriptural evidence) in forming our interpretation… not disregard evidence because it conflicts with our private interpretation. Does that make any sense?

 

[SDA2RC]

First of all in verse 1 it says: “*Now concerning the collection for the saints… *” The whole concern here are some specific financial issues. This is actually the background of the whole action.

Then in verse 2. everyone was supposed to gather something at their homes, privately, and then, **eventually **it will all be collected when Paul comes and he is then going to take care of it etc.

Vers 3. And when I come, whomever you approve by your letters I will send to bear your gift to Jerusalem.

Because it would depend on Pauls coming to the church and that was most probably unpredictable. So for example they could have been gathering something for a couple of weeks and then Paul would let them know, ok, Im coming on that and that day, make sure the collections are ready.

It sounds reasonable that on the first day of the week, which means you still have the whole week in front of you, it would be the best to put something aside and not to wait to see how much money you will have left at the end of the week, so in that sense it was a commitment. But still the whole context is purely organizing the collections, and even the logistics (verse 3).

One thing to keep in mind… is that there were no churches at this time, the Christians just met in their homes, so when Paul came he probably went to several homes. Just a thought…

 

[SDA2RC]

Pedja,
What part do you believe that the decision to not require circumcision had on Sabbath Keeping?

 

[pedja]

I believe that the largest indicator of the acceptance of Sunday as a special day is in Rev where John refers to it as the “Lord’s Day”. Sabbatarians often explain that since the Sabbath was called the Sabbath of the Lord, that the “Lords Day” must have been a reference to the Sabbath. That makes a decent argument now, 2000 years later, however, we find in the writings of the early Christians, that they considered the Lord’s Day was the day of the resurrection, therefore it makes much more sense that John would have used the term in a way that it was already being used… i.e. Sunday.

Matthew, Mark and Luke they all mention that the Sabbath is the day of the Lord, and they were all Johns contemporaries. So you could also argue that way, what is most likely that John would have meant with the Lords day, Sunday or Sabbath?

If I am not mistaken the first time the Lord`s day is mentioned is connection with Sunday is by Clement of Alexandria and that was 190AD and that is almost a century after Revelation has been written!

 

[jmcrae]

First of all in verse 1 it says: “*Now concerning the collection for the saints… *” The whole concern here are some specific financial issues. This is actually the background of the whole action.

Then in verse 2. everyone was supposed to gather something at their homes, privately, and then, **eventually **it will all be collected when Paul comes and he is then going to take care of it etc.

But he says he doesn’t want to do any collections (he doesn’t want to go to their houses), which means that the whole sum of money is to be set aside and waiting for him when he comes. Doesn’t that mean that they would take it to the Church? Why take it to the Church on Sunday, if they are having their meetings on Saturday?

It sounds reasonable that on the first day of the week, which means you still have the whole week in front of you, it would be the best to put something aside and not to wait to see how much money you will have left at the end of the week, so in that sense it was a commitment. But still the whole context is purely organizing the collections, and even the logistics (verse 3).

Why not gather it up on payday? Weren’t they paid every Friday? Why wait until Sunday?

 

[jmcrae]

Matthew, Mark and Luke they all mention that the Sabbath is the day of the Lord, and they were all Johns contemporaries. So you could also argue that way, what is most likely that John would have meant with the Lords day, Sunday or Sabbath?

If I am not mistaken the first time the Lord`s day is mentioned is connection with Sunday is by Clement of Alexandria and that was 190AD and that is almost a century after Revelation has been written!

St. Justin Martyr mentioned it in the Apologia in 148 AD. He also said that Sunday worship was in accord with the custom of the Apostles. (It’s also worth mentioning that his description of the Mass is very Catholic.)

 

[pedja]

Pedja,
They can only contradict our interpretation of scripture. IF they do, maybe it is our understanding or interpretation that is flawed? Maybe not… but it needs to be considered as a possibility. There is no way to say that one contradicts scripture, since scripture is only contradicted by interpretation. I am not sure if I am being very clear about what I am trying to say here… but we need to take in all the evidence (including non scriptural evidence) in forming our interpretation… not disregard evidence because it conflicts with our private interpretation. Does that make any sense?

Oh yea I know what you mean, I agree with that. But lets say in the context of what we were talking before, the collections on the first day of the week, it seems that it is actually possible to get a clear (well of course, as clear as it can get) picture of what is meant by it. For example it clearly does not mention worshiporresurrection`, nothing which one could connect to a certain significance of the first day of the week.

So it would be kinda weird that after reading the whole chapter and understanding it, somebody would come up with a non-scriptural piece and claim “1 Corinthians 16 is proof that the early Christians kept Sunday”! You know what I mean?

 

[SDA2RC]

Matthew, Mark and Luke they all mention that the Sabbath is the day of the Lord, and they were all Johns contemporaries. So you could also argue that way, what is most likely that John would have meant with the Lords day, Sunday or Sabbath?

If I am not mistaken the first time the Lord`s day is mentioned is connection with Sunday is by Clement of Alexandria and that was 190AD and that is almost a century after Revelation has been written!

Pedja,
The Lords Day being Sunday, and the Sabbath being the Sabbath of the Lord are not exclusive. Therefore, it is a weak argument in my opinion. Here are some quotes referring to the Lord’s Day.

• 74 AD The Letter of Barnabas "We keep the eighth day [Sunday] with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead" (Letter of Barnabas 15:6-8).
• 90AD DIDACHE: But every Lord’s day, do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord… [Matt. 5:23-24] (The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, , Chap. 14:1, Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 7, page 381)
• 90AD DIDACHE: …every Lord’s day, hold your solemn assemblies, and rejoice: for he will be guilty of sin who fasts on the Lord’s day, being the day of the resurrection… (Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 7, pg. 449)
• 90AD DIDACHE: And on the day of our Lord’s resurrection, which is the Lord’s day, meet more diligently, sending praise to God that made the universe by Jesus, and sent Him to us, and condescended to let Him suffer, and raised Him from the dead. Otherwise what apology will he make to God who does not assemble on that day to hear the saving word concerning the resurrection…? (Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 7, pg. 423)
• 90AD DIDACHE: On the day of the resurrection of the Lord, that is, the Lord’s day, assemble yourselves together, without fail, giving thanks to God, and praising Him for those mercies God has bestowed upon you through Christ, and has delivered you from ignorance, error, and bondage, that your sacrifice may be unspotted, and acceptable to God, who has said concerning His universal Church: "In every place shall incense and a pure sacrifice be offered unto me; for I am a great King, saith the Lord Almighty, and my name is wonderful among the heathen, [Malachi 1:11, 14] (Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 7, pg. 471)
• 107AD IGNATIUS: Be not deceived with strange doctrines, nor with old fables, which are unprofitable. For if we still live according to the Jewish law, we acknowledge that we have not received grace… If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death (which some deny), through which mystery we received faith, and on account of which we suffer in order that we may be found disciples of Jesus Christ our only teacher, how shall we be able to live apart from him for whom even the prophets were looking as their teacher since they were his disciples in the spirit**?.. let every friend of Christ keep the Lord’s Day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days of the week**. It is absurd to speak of Jesus Christ with the tongue, and to cherish in the mind a Judaism which has now come to an end. for where there is Christianity there cannot be Judaism… (Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians, chp 9. Ante-Nicene Fathers , vol. 1, pg. 62-63.)
  One other thing to consider is that while Sunday is referred to with the term “Lord’s Day” much from the first century on… Saturday never is… even once… called by that specific term in early Christian writings. If it had been understood to mean the Jewish Sabbath, then we should expect to find some reference of it meaning that… I know it is an argument from silence, but it still needs to be considered.

 

[SDA2RC]

Oh yea I know what you mean, I agree with that. But lets say in the context of what we were talking before, the collections on the first day of the week, it seems that it is actually possible to get a clear (well of course, as clear as it can get) picture of what is meant by it. For example it clearly does not mention worshiporresurrection`, nothing which one could connect to a certain significance of the first day of the week.

So it would be kinda weird that after reading the whole chapter and understanding it, somebody would come up with a non-scriptural piece and claim “1 Corinthians 16 is proof that the early Christians kept Sunday”! You know what I mean?

Pedja,
But what if an early Church document said that it was common for Paul to ask people to set aside money at an elders house each week during worship services.

Do you ignore the evidence because it goes against your understanding of the verse, or do you say… well… that sheds new light on this issue?

I chose, in my journey from Sabbatarianism to Catholicism, to try to take in all the evidence I could find and make it fit. Here is a quick summary of what I found.

1. I could not find a single instance in scripture where any Gentile or Christian group was told to keep the Sabbath
2. I found that in Judaism, only circumcised males and their families were bound to keep the Sabbath. Therefore when the apostles decided against circumcision, they in effect, stopped the the question of Sabbath observance for Christians, which is why we never have a record of a church dispute about this issue, and why we have no record of any persecutions or disagreements between apostolic churches about this issue.
3. I found that both in the OT and in the NT, only Jewish individuals and groups were told to keep the Sabbath, as Christians we need to know and understand the lessons of this group, but we are not required to worship under the same laws.
4. I found that scripture records the establishment of a church with the authority to decide doctrine.
5. I found that I was commanded in scripture to obey and SUBMIT to these leaders, even if I didnt understand.
6. I found that there was not an instance in Christian history where the churches founded by the Apostles rejected the celebration of the Lord’s Day.
7. I found that the 10 commandments is directly called the Covenant… I found that the Old Covenant was done away with.
8. I found that we are still under a law… some of the precepts are the same… ie. do not murder… but some of the precepts are different, ie. Sabbath observance and making of pictures, statues, etc.
9. I found that God did in fact leave a final source of authority in which he gave the promise of protection and also the weight of responsibility.
10. I found that this church, with all of her problems and humanity, is the Roman Catholic Church. It was hard for me to accept, but I believe strongly that when the entireness of scripture is followed completely, there is no way for any other conclusion.

 

[Protestant101]

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”…

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

Well, atleast I know what you guys mean by “cherry-picking” now. Something has been gained - finally.

“Of the Lords” may or may not mean “permanence” in a given instance; but it does mean that trying to say the Sabbath is “Jewish” is wrong. When one considers the reasons that are given for labelling the Sabbath as “Jewish” it would have to be conceded as unabashed “cherry-picking” to be sure.

 

[SDA2RC]

Well, atleast I know what you guys mean by “cherry-picking” now. Something has been gained - finally.

“Of the Lords” may or may not mean “permanence” in a given instance; but it does mean that trying to say the Sabbath is “Jewish” is wrong. When one considers the reasons that are given for labelling the Sabbath as “Jewish” it would have to be conceded as unabashed “cherry-picking” to be sure.

David,
I am not sure I understand… how is saying that an institution that was given exclusively to the Jews is a Jewish institution, Cherry Picking? I don’t see any inconsistency here. The command was never given to Christians by either the Apostles or the Church… it has remained a Jewish Institution. It seems simple to me… help me understand what you find inconsistent about that??

 

[Protestant101]

I always thought the Bible and History goes hand in hand, infact I think History even Helped Bible teachers to explain scripture better. Kinda like how Ellen White relied History inaccuracies to prove that the sabbath is still binding. The Catholic Church doesn’t require anyone to keep the sabbath because our early church fathers asked us not to, I always thought that our early church fathers had better understanding of scripture, because some of them were students of Jesus’s disciples like again I bring up Ignatius of Antioch, he asked us to no longer keep the sabbath.

and out of curiousity aren’t your responses influence from your SDA doctrines? because you are using typical typical SDA arguments , interpretation and responses.

The Bible is “HIS-STORY.”

 

[Protestant101]

David,
I am not sure I understand… how is saying that an institution that was given exclusively to the Jews is a Jewish institution, Cherry Picking? I don’t see any inconsistency here. The command was never given to Christians by either the Apostles or the Church… it has remained a Jewish Institution. It seems simple to me… help me understand what you find inconsistent about that??

It is cherry-picking because, as I have pointed out in the Bible; the Bible doesn’t call the Sabbath “Jewish” in the context of only being for “Jews.”

Your statement about Christians not being commanded in the NT to keep the 7th day Sabbath, is actually a separate question which I will gladly address soon; but first, lets sort this out. The Bible does not make the claim that the Sabbath was just for “Jews.” Anything that was “given to the Jews” was not meant for them to keep to themselves, or for themselves. Christians today are also not to “keep the faith” but to give it away. The whole reason that the Jews, as a nation, failed in their gospel commission was because of what you are preaching here - that the truths they learned was just for them.

You and others appear to be saying that anything in the Bible that was “Jewish” or “given to the Jews” is not for today’s Christians. The Bible states many reasons why this is not so - even with the things which we call “shadows.”

Most who object to the seventh-day Sabbath are “famous” for calling it a “shadow” anything that they deem as “Jewish” is to them something not applicable to Christians today. I wonder, are you aware of what the Bible has to say about the great need for these “shadows” is for today’s Christian? I am sure you will try to say how they were “done away with on the cross” but do you know what else the Bible says about why they are essential, and not optional?

HINT: If you try to guffaw at me and say how ludicrous it is for me to “say that we need the shadows” then I know you are likely unaware of what else the Bible says, and that you have totally missed my point, and misunderstood the Adventist position on this.

Stretched to it’s furthest, your sentiments about all the “Jewish” things in the Bible would also tell us that we don’t need Jesus; for He was a JEW.

 

[Protestant101]

Pedja,
They can only contradict our interpretation of scripture. IF they do, maybe it is our understanding or interpretation that is flawed? Maybe not… but it needs to be considered as a possibility. There is no way to say that one contradicts scripture, since scripture is only contradicted by interpretation. I am not sure if I am being very clear about what I am trying to say here… but we need to take in all the evidence (including non scriptural evidence) in forming our interpretation… not disregard evidence because it conflicts with our private interpretation. Does that make any sense?

True; it should ALWAYS be considered a possibility that there is something we have not/do not understand from the Bible.

However; I would disagree that

“there is no way to say that one contradicts Scripture, since scripture is only contradicted by interpretation.”

The “non-Scriptural evidence” you refer to is actually more at risk to “interpretation.” For the simple reason that it is “non-Scriptural.”

 

[St_Violet]

The Bible is “HIS-STORY.”

I agree, the bible has proven to be a historical book, but it even took more then the bible to understand biblical times.

so Protestant101, out of curiosity, do you disregard all that our early church fathers ( after the deaths of Jesus’s apostles) has taught?