Christians are liberated from a legalistic observance of the Sabbath by the gospel. Why so incredulous that the day of rest is a symbol of works in the mind of some? The contemporaries of Jesus managed to spoil the Sabbath. Modern Adventism has too. Isaiah 58:13, "If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, so as not to do thy {1} pleasure on the holy days, and shalt call the sabbaths delightful, holy to God; if thou shalt not lift up thy foot to work, nor speak a word in anger out of thy mouth, {1) Gr. pleasures}" has been used in contemporary Adventism to proscribe "pleasure" on the Sabbath. People debate the appropriateness of swimming in a lake or visiting the ocean because those activities are pleasurable. When interpreted in context, however, the "pleasure" is explained in verses 3 and 4: 3 "Why have we fasted, and thou regardest not? why have we afflicted our souls, and thou didst not know it? Nay, in the days of your fasts ye find your pleasures, and all them that are under your power ye wound. 4 If ye fast for quarrels and strifes, and smite the lowly with your fists, wherefore do ye fast to me as ye do this day, so that your voice may be heard in crying?" LXX, English translation. The pleasures proscribed in verse 13 are the corrupt ways of the Jews set forth in the previous verses. These are the very things Jesus sought to reform. I also oppose legalistic Sabbath observance and am berated as an antiSabbatarian by Adventist legalists who can not conceive of righteousness apart from [legalistic Sabbath observance]. Too bad for that tribe.

Hansen--

I'm a bit confused by your post. Are you berating the Sabbath-keeping qua Sabbath-keeping, or are you attacking how "that tribe", i.e., SDAs are keeping it. These are two very different things. Please explain.

Cliff

Cliff, it is sad that your are correct as far as you go. Paul teaches that Grace is to teach us to obey God. I wish you would address the real problem between these disaffected people and much of the church. I see the real problem not the argumentative way they speak (what is new there, SDA's are famous for that) but the fact that we have allowed ourselves to be caught up in emotionalism just as they have. Why would I say the problem is emotionalism? Simply because it allows us the privilege of sounding logical while justifying our juvenile approach to others. Mature Christians avoid unnecessary controversy. The SDA churches are lacking in the practical teaching of HOW to live a christian life. As a church we have spent generations arguing over what and when we should do things and often overlooked the weightier matters of the law (mercy and peace). The Elijah message is not a message of fear, but a practical teaching of people how to live and be at peace with their God and each other. This is what drawing fathers to children is really about. We are so in conflict with our own families we can't begin to sensibly discuss doctrines. Richard L. Noel, DMD

OK,Cliff, I'll try again.

1. Dale Ratzlaff and I are virtually unknown to each other.

2. Contemporary Adventism has massacred the Sabbath as much as the contemporaries of Jesus did.

3. The gospel offers rest to those who embrace it.

4. I agree with EGW who said that the NT does not reenact the Sabbath. I disagree that its validity was assumed [by NT Christians.] "In like manner a tithe of our income is "holy unto the Lord." The New Testament does not reenact the law of the tithe, as it does not that of the Sabbath; for the validity of both is assumed, and their deep spiritual import explained. . . . "-- R. & H., May 16, 1882. {CS 66.3}

5. In light of EGW's comment, a stronger case can me made against Sabbath observance in the NT than can be made for it. And no case can be made for a legalistic observance of any commandment, decree, statute, or judgment. Considering the historical context of Romans provided in a good commentary or a book such as "The Romans Debate," it is almost certain that the Romans 14 dispute over "days," at least, includes the Sabbath. The "today" of Hebrews 4 is explained in Hebrews 5:5 as the time since Christ's coronation as high priest.

6.Legalistic Adventists who are intent on binding Christians under any law besides that of faith and love do so without Biblical authority.

Hansen-- I take it then that you are not an Adventist . . .? Cliff

I oppose the legalistic observance of commandments, statutes, judgments, and laws because there is no authority for such in the NT. I also consider literary context of the material, as in Hebrews 4 and 5, as well as historical context, as in Romans 14, when interpreting Scripture. I reject EGW as an authoritative when she flies in the face of sound doctrine deduced by the best methods of Biblical analysis. People sometimes tell me I'm not an Adventist when I interpret Scripture correctly, opposing their erroneous views. Whose problem is that? Whether I'm an Adventist or not doesn't change the meaning of "Today" in Hebrews 4 and 5. And the historical context of Romans 14 is available for all to read. I suppose it's possible that evil, "Babylonian" Christians, controlled by the archdeceiver, falsified history for the purpose of deceiving others regarding the Sabbath. That doesn't change what EGW said: The Sabbath is not reenacted in the NT. Perhaps you reject her on that point as well. You wouldn't be alone. Adventists have, for years, made the case for Sabbath observance in the NT by misapplying Scripture. If you believe EGW, the NT does not reenact the Sabbath doctrine.

So. brother, to read you correctly, you're saying that EGW did not believe the Sabbath binding on NT Christians? Is that your position? Thanks Cliff

Cliff, Rather than playing games, why not deal with the text? You made the following remark: "Our weekly rest from our secular, worldly works stands as a symbol of our rest in the completed work of Jesus for us. "For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his" (Hebrews 4:10). We don't just say that we are resting in Christ (anyone can do that); we reveal it by resting on the Sabbath day." What I said is exactly what EGW said, the law of the Sabbath is not reenacted in the NT. Hebrews 4 does not reenact the Sabbath. It's a difficult passage, hardly the kind of passage upon which to base a doctrine so central to Adventism. The idea of weekly Sabbath keeping is most likely not even an issue in the passage. Considering the gist of Hebrews, as well as the explanation in chapter 5 of the meaning of "today," it is more probable that the Day of Atonement or the reign of the antitypical Melchisedec is the Sabbath to which the writer is referring. The "seventh" is referred to in chapter 4:4. Chapter 4:7 says God again fixes a day. Verse 8 introduces "another day." This passage actually points away from the weekly Sabbath to "another day." That is the day defined in Hebrews 5 as the time beginning with Christ's coronation as high priest. It seems obvious to me now, after fumbling around for so many years trying to use Hebrews 4 as a proof text. It doesn't work. 7 He again fixes a certain day, "Today," saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before, "TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE, DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS." 8 For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day after that. 9 So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. 10 For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His. Today is explained in Chapter 5: 5: "So also Christ did not glorify Himself so as to become a high priest, but He who said to Him, "YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU";" Years ago, I read the tract which convinced Joseph Bates about the Sabbath. Even then, as a legalistic traditionalist, I was struck by the legalism apparent in the presentation. Modern Adventism is not the first or only organization to embrace the seventh day Sabbath. Those groups in history are, for the most part, simply history. Some even eventually converted to Judaism, thus emphasizing the centrality of the Sabbath rather than the Cross, to their faith. Unless the Sabbath is given its proper place in the salvation paradigm, it is merely a distraction from the centrality of the Cross. It's unfortunate that the Cross is not enough for many modern Adventists. The problem is not the cross, however.

Would love to jump in on this topic a little more but my gpa of only 2.10 in Religion keeps me from to many wacky comments................. so some where in James it says "Let the man of low degree rejoice" so guess I will be just as though I'd never been to most. Maybe I will get lucky and an angel will carry my "rested" little body into the pearly gates in that great gettin up morning.

So, Hansen, any keeping of the fourth commandment at all . . . is legalism? That's what you seem to be saying. Good folks can argue about the meaning of the text in Hebrews. YOu thought seem to find Sabbath-keeping legalistic on the face of it.

cliff

Yo, Bobby, glad you're here!

"So, Hansen, any keeping of the fourth commandment at all . . . is legalism? That's what you seem to be saying. Good folks can argue about the meaning of the text in Hebrews. YOu thought seem to find Sabbath-keeping legalistic on the face of it. " "Unless the Sabbath is given its proper place in the salvation paradigm, it is merely a distraction from the centrality of the Cross." And you, a maven? Oy! Here is a list of all the appearances of the word "today" in Hebrews: Heb 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day <4594> have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? Heb 3:7 Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day <4594> if ye will hear his voice, Heb 3:13 But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day <4594>; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. Heb 3:15 While it is said, To day <4594> if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation. Heb 4:7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day <4594>, after so long a time; as it is said, To day <4594> if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. Heb 5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day <4594> have I begotten thee. Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day <4594>, and for ever. Do you deny that the today of Hebrews 5:5 is the same as the "today" of Hebrews 3: 7,13, 15, and 4:7? Can you provide a good reason why "today" in Hebrews 5:5 is not the "today" of Hebrews 4? If not, you can understand why I take issue with your mockery of Dale Ratzlaff.

I've been eagerly watching this post to see where it will go. I'm definitely not a theologian, and so I feel like I'm missing something. As I look at my very young children I can't help but relate my experience to this discussion. If my children looked at me with a glare and spite in their eyes and obeyed me, my heart would be broken. If they looked at me with the love of a child, and continually disobeyed me without regard, my heart would also be broken. I think it's the same with God. If we love Him, and then choose to ignore His laws, we break His heart. If we "keep" His laws, but don't have the love of Christ, we also break His heart. They go hand in hand, and you can't separate the two, no matter how hard you try. Keeping God's laws in order to earn salvation IS legalism. Not keeping God's laws for any reason is the path to destruction. Thank God for the plan of salvation and His grace, which makes up for our mistakes and inability to perfectly keep the Law of God! Keep this great discussion going and the comments coming! Thanks for all the insights, everyone.

Cliff,

I quite agree with your sense of irony about the "legalism" involved in resting, though I definitely understand how some could have experienced the Sabbath they were taught as anything but "resting from their works." It's understandable why Dale Ratzlaff's ongoing barrage would inspire the pointed commentary you have issued, but I think the most convincing counter-salvo overlays the skeleton of Scriptural argument with the flesh of blessed human experience with the living God.

I think we need to understand and present the requirements of God less as prison rules and more as a recipe for the finest brownies known to man. Each element is no less essential, but man what a difference in the feeling of it all!

By the way, the same goes for our teaching of the cross in its absolute centrality. It cannot speak with its full voice, with HIS full voice, when we keep it all legal and impersonal. I believe God is crying out for a people whose propositional proclamations are incidental to their proclamation of the person of God.

Did you understand all that, Bobby? If not, I recommend you get a subscription to Val Micechukl's monthly, "Exclamation!"

Pbobmason-- Fair enough but remember that Ratzlaff isn't going after how we keep the Sabbath; he's going after any kind of Sabbath-keeping at all. These are two different things completely. Knowing how to keep the Sabbath has been a struggle; but the strictest Sabbath-keeper might not be a legalist at all. it all depends upon the reason for keeping it, wouldn't you say?

It is very easy to pull a few words from a larger study and based upon these words-- often taken out of context--condemn the whole study. Perhaps some would wonder why the following scholars say what they do regarding Sabbath in Christ. "I have been engaged in a systematic re-study of your book, Sabbath in Christ. It is an absolutely wonderful work. It is a brilliant masterpiece." Thomas C. Nixon, Ph. D. "I’m impressed with the clarity, precision, and thoroughness of Dale Ratzlaff’s work. This book is a much-needed treatment of the Sabbath controversy, written with intelligent passion and full of insight and wisdom." John MacArthur, Ph.D. Senior Pastor, Grace Community Church, Sun Valley, California "Dale Ratzlaff has done us a real service in providing the best all-around treatment of the Sabbath question to date." Jerry Gladson, Ph.D., Senior Pastor, First Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Marietta, Georgia Why not read the book and make up your own mind?

Jerry Gladson? Are you kidding me? He was booted out of the Southern College theology faculty years ago for his theology and left the church and wrote a book against us. And this is the one you are quoting? Sure, a real unbaised source, that's for sure. Meanwhile you quote two other Sunday keepers and, voila! it's now a good book.

Hi, Clifford--

First, people who choose to worship on Sunday are not "Sunday keepers". Sunday is not a replacement for the Sabbath in which they choose to "keep" Sunday holy. (I just felt the need to clarify that--it's a bit of a pet pieve of mine!).

Second, in regards to this topic about Sabbath-keeping being legalistic or "work-based", I just have one question for you: Do you believe a person who was once upon a time a "Sabbath-keeper" can be saved if they are now not a "Sabbath-keeper"? I no longer keep the Sabbath. But yes, my rest now is in Jesus Christ 24/7 (I know you consider that ironic and oxymoronic, but hey, the Bible teaches it, and the fruit of my life confirms the truth in it--there really is a daily rest in Him that is deeper than any limited "Sabbath-day" rest that I had experienced when I kept the Sabbath).

I'm not sure how you will answer my proposed question, but if my salvation is now in jeopardy because I no longer keep the Sabbath, then the "work" of Sabbath-resting has now become my source of salvation rather than Jesus. If my salvation is not in jeopardy, then why is there such an issue (to the point of hostility, anger, judgment, etc.) to not keeping it?

I understand the point of keeping the Sabbath "out of love" rather than a "have-to" to secure our salvation. But the real issue isn't about bringing honor and love to God through the Law, but by being willing to submit our lives to His Spirit and trust Him fully. This may make you cringe, but I frequently pray for you. I believe you are a gifted writer and have a desire to know Truth. There comes a point, though, where we have to be willing to set aside our own rationalizations and preconceived thoughts of "how it should be" and trust in what God's Word REALLY says. There is an awesome freedom in Christ. Not freedom to sin, or to disobey, but a freedom in knowing Jesus is all we need.

Cliff, Your bio says that you are the editor of the Adult Bible Study Guide. Did you ever meet Erwin Gane? He was the editor at one time. Did you dismiss him as a crackpot in the same way you dismiss Jerry Gladson? He was also kicked out of an Adventist college over theological issues, PUC. He was such a pariah that, rather than allow him, a qualified former professor with a doctorate in church history, to teach, the school employed a librarian with a year of undergraduate church history, as a church history teacher. He became the editor after that experience. Speaking of church history, EGW described the day of the Augsburg Confession as the greatest day of the Reformation and one of the greatest days in the history of Christianity and mankind. Seems odd, considering the opprobrium you heap upon others, that the Augsburg Confession, written by a "Sundaykeeper" was more important than the recovery of the Sabbath doctrine during those times, at least to EGW. Either you're goofing on us or (and I want to be as sensitive as I can in saying this) you are a bigot.

2008 freedom I certainly am not going to judge you or your heart. I guess my only question is, you say you love the Lord and I take you at your word. But isn't love for God manifested in obeying His commandments, and isn't the seventh-day Sabbath one of them? I mean, I am always at a loss to understand how the fourth commandment is the only one that somehow gets thrown out while all the others are still in place. Is that not a reasonable question to ask?

Hi Freedom: I think you make a good point that people who choose to worship on Sunday are not "Sundaykeepers." Most don't view themselves that way. Besides, there's a difference between worshipping (which we should do every day) and resting, which is the focus of the Sabbath commandment. I also agree that Sabbathkeeping doesn't save anyone (I wrote recently about this--see March issue), and I think the key for you is not to pay attention to those who say otherwise. I know that's hard to do because there are extremes in this church, like any church. LIke you, I went through a period of deep study on this, and at the end, I believe that Sabbath rest is absolutely part of the Christian's life of faith, like prayer and Bible study. What I had to do was find better answers than the ones I'd been given. For example, the oppositive of Sabbath keeping is not Sunday keeping (as we seem to be taught sometimes); the opposite of Sabbath keeping is overworking and putting too much focus on the works of our own hands. Andy Nash Editor, Adventist Today

Ella M This comment (Hanson) seems to be talking about something different than Cliff had in mind. Actually Sunday-keepers had all the same rules for Sunday a century ago or less--some still have them. To me you are discussing cultural issues that change with time and place and the people involved--personal preferences. As in all churches and groups some people tend to infer that others should do as they do or think. That's just human nature under the guise of religion. Those who really feel a spiritual concern about what they do or don't do on Sabbath keep it to themselves and act accordingly. If they talk about it at all it is done in a manner that is nonjudgmental that just says they find what they do a blessing that enriches their lives.

Folks--

The issue for me isn't whether Sabbath-keeping can be legalistic; we all know that it can be.  Rather, is the very idea of Sabbath-keeping legalistic, regardless of how one keeps it?

Obvioulsy, we as Adventists don't think that way, and despite Dale Ratzlaff's proclamations to the contrary, I don't see it anywhere in the NT that our because of our rest in Christ the fourth commandment is somehow superceded.  Most of us who keep the Sabbath find it a blessing, a real-time tangible expression of the full rest in we have what Christ has done for us on the cross.

Cliff

 

 

Elad: Most of us have read the book or part of it. I have a copy. And are you not surprised that such scholars would love it? This is what has been said since the subject came up. If they were to not agree their whole lives and study about it would be of no use. They would have to admit to being wrong. There is more here than a doctrine. No matter how educated in science or anything else, scholars are constantly surrounded by people who agree with them on major issues. It is rare that any human changes their perspective especially on something they have invested a lifetime in. If they should, it is mostly because they have been hurt and/or rebelling against a system or individual in that system. This has been my observation. And the more emotion the more outspoken they are. We are just subjective humans with a lot of baggage.

Anyone who would consider Ratzlaff's book the "best all-around treatment of the Sabbath question to date" is certainly in another world. And "full of passion" for sure, but hardly "wisdom and insight." Here I have to point to Cliff. He seems a rare exception to being able in his youth to change his belief system.

Ella M

Ella M--

 I didn't change my belief system: I got zapped by the Lord, who radically changed it for me.  I just had to agree to it, that's all, and believe me it wasn't easy coming to grips with the fact that almost the entire foundation of all my beliefs were flat-out wrong.  I was simply a victim of the times I had been born in, that's all.  But the Lord changed all that for me.

 

Cliff

 

Cliff, you set up a “straw man” that you gleefully destroy for your own amusement, presumably. Logically, your argument can’t be taken seriously. “Dale Ratzlaff and his ilk” are simply making the point that “Sabbath” is a reminder that “If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord”. Romans 14:8 In the context of the New Testament, no commandment could be more important! “Legalism” as it is defined and used in the context of Ratzlaff’s argument refers to how the fourth commandment is kept, not the commandment itself! I offer your own words as evidence of your use of the “straw man”. “But I do find one argument amusingly and oxymoronically ironic: the idea that the rest we have in Jesus "liberates" us from the fourth commandment. This means, basically, that the seventh-day Sabbath, a symbol from the old covenant, has been abolished and Christians are "freed" from keeping it.” “Maybe I'm letting logic get in the way of my thinking here, but it would seem that by firmly adhering to the commandments against adultery, or against stealing, or covetousness, or idolatry, we could be accused of legalism, of salvation by works.” Cliff, I wonder what Paul would say if he read your words? Would he consider you to be a believer whose faith is “weak” or a believer whose faith is “strong”? Romans 14 The Weak and the Strong Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. . . For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. . . You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. It is written: As surely as I live,' says the Lord, every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God. So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God. Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. . . For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men. Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. . . So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

Hey Andy:

If you look at the parallel structure of Romans 14, it's actually the strong in faith who can eat all foods and observe a day to the Lord. These are likely references to eating meat sacrificed to idols and particular fast days, both of which were issues to Gentile Christians, especially. 

A pretty good indicator that Jewish laws aren't in play is the fact that Jews were never told to eat vegetables only.  The text makes much more sense when applied to Christians being able to eat all foods in good conscience, even meat that had been sacrificed to idols.   The same with particular fast days, which perhaps had astral overtones.  They could still be observed to the Lord, just as we can still observe Christmas to the Lord.

Andy Nash

Editor, Adventist Today

 

"...I don't see it anywhere in the NT that our because of our rest in Christ the fourth commandment is somehow superceded." Here we agree. Whatever hapens in the NT, the seventh day was still blessed and sanctified in Creation. I'm unaware of anything which changes that. The problem is that Sabbathkeeping has become a code word for legalism. The church has been so zealous to protect the Sabbath that it has resorted to an assortment of unscriptural arguments to make its case. And because the Sabbath is most obviously articulated in the context of the Decalogue, a theological edifice which supports the Decalogue, including the Sabbath, has been constructed. The terms "law" and "commandment" are often misused and abused to support this edifice. It is very difficult to prove that John is ever referring to the Decalogue when he uses the term "commandment." He is usually referring to the teachings of Christ in the gospel, epistles, and Revelation. Paul's burden in Romans and Galatians is to direct the mind of believers to Abraham's time. In those days, prior to the giving of the law, is salvation by faith best revealed in the life of Abraham. Justification is a central theme of the book of Job; however, terms such as law, commandment, statute, and judgment are nearly entirely absent from the book. This is the best context in which to understand justification by faith-- apart from the law. Paul emphasizes the timing of circumcision, pointing out that it took place after Abraham was justified by faith. Modern Adventism has somehow managed to place the Sabbath in the middle of all this. It doesn't belong there. Salvation in the NT is about grace, faith, and the Holy Spirit. Right and wrong are defined, not by the law, but as the works of the spirit or the flesh. Even people sympathetic to Adventism are repulsed by the absurdity of certain interpretations which are intended to put the Decalogue in proper relation to the cross. Often, those interpretations eclipse the cross, thereby turning the "convert" either off or into a cultic legalist. Truth deserves better company.

Hansen-

Just curious.  Do you celebrate the 7-day Sabbath?

 Thanks

Cliff

Andy Nash, I'm really unclear how you see the sacred days mentioned in Romans 14:7 to be referring to sacred days with possibly pagan overtones. I understand your point about parallel structure, but the context of Romans 14 is not comparing pagan observances with pagan non-observances. It is clearly discussing the Jewish prohibitions and requirements in light of the mandates set down for Gentile believers (see Acts 15 and 1 Cor 8). Paul is not here giving approval for new Christians to continue to observe pagan holidays. The Gentiles were clearly asked to give up their allegiance to honoring pagan gods. Thus the prohibition against meat offered to idols (Acts 5, 1 Cor 8), and the instruction that Jews were to honor that prohibition when eating with the "weak" new Gentile Christians. Similarly, the Jewish Christians were not to expect the Gentiles to observe any sacred days as part of their mandated worship of the One True God. Paul is addressing all Christians, strong and weak, and he is saying that honoring the Lord Jesus is not a matter of days or of food. It is a matter of not causing the weak to stumble. Observances (see Col 2) might have the appearance of merit, but they lack any power to restrain sensual indulgence. Christianity was something completely new: it is about living by the Spirit (see Romans 8), not about honoring God with days and special lifestyles/foods. The Spirit can be trusted to teach those He indwells if a day is to be considered holy. The NT gives only two observances for Christians: the Lord's Table and baptism. Baptism replaces circumcision as the external rite of passage into the body of Christ. The Lord's Table is the only thing Christians are asked to "remember" in anticipation of their future consummated union with the Lord Jesus. In short, I'm mystified how you arrive at the conclusion that the days in Romans 14:7 refer to religious observances that quite possibly had pagan overtones. Lynric

Hi Lynric, just finished a full day and will reply more fully tomorrow.  Just to clarify your line of thought, is it correct that you understand both the food and days references in this passage as referring to Jewish prohibitions?  If so, what would Jewish prohibitions have to do with eating vegetables only?  Wouldn't it make more sense that meat (sacrificed to idols) would better fit the context here, especially given the largely Gentile audience and Paul's other specific references to this issue?  I just wanted to clarify your understanding on this first.  All the best.   

Andy 

Dear Cliff, Last year I made about 3x more in the stock market than my job paid me. As for my salary, when I first moved here about 5 years ago, I could make more in a day in the States than I was making in a month here. Nevertheless, the "bubble" was nice. It was fairly easy for even a novice (not this one) to triple their investment in two years; but the key to profitting from a bubble is getting out, getting out, getting out, in time. Unfortunately, the bubble started to burst on a Thursday night here. That would be Thursday morning NY time. But I watched to be sure. Friday, I planned to sell with stop losses, over the internet, but the LAN was not working. By the time the LAN was repaired, it was after sunset on Friday evening. I don't trade stock on Sabbath. I absorbed about a 12.5% hit on my positions. Was I "celebrating" the Sabbath?

The “Sabbath” referred to in Romans 14 is the seventh-day Sabbath. I have it from THE authority, Sakae Kubo. Andy

Hi Clifford, Sorry I'm late in responding. You said, "But isn't love for God manifested in obeying His commandments, and isn't the seventh-day Sabbath one of them? I mean, I am always at a loss to understand how the fourth commandment is the only one that somehow gets thrown out while all the others are still in place." I think you ask a fair question, especially from a commandment-keeping perspective. First, I don't manifest my love for God by obeying His commandments. My love for Him is through being in a "covenant relationship" with God. I'm assuming that since you have been reading Proclamation, and have read Dale's writings that you understand the New Covenant perspective on issues such as commandment keeping. To very briefly sum it up just for reference sake, this is how I come to see I am under a New Covenant where the Ten Commandments are no longer binding: 1. The Ten Commandments are described as a "covenant": Exodus 34:27, 28; Deut. 4:13; 1 Kings 8:9, 21 2. Jeremiah 31:31-33 talks about a "new covenant", not the covenant that was made with their fathers for they broke; a new covenant will be given which the law will be put in their minds and written on their hearts 3. The Old Covenant is replaced by the New Covenant: Heb. 8:6-13; Heb. 9:15; Heb. 10:9, 10; 2 Cor. 3:2,3,6 *The timing of this happened when Jesus died on the cross--He fulfilled the law and the new covenant was instilled (Matt 5:17,18) Now, I guess the question is "what exactly is the New Covenant?" Is it just keeping the commandments now as an act of love, in the correct "spirit" and not being legalistic about it? If that's the case, then what did Jesus actually fulfill at the cross? And what was the point of having to usher in an entirely New Covenant, if the only thing that changed was our attitude of the Law? As a Christ-follower, I believe I am no longer under the Law. I am no longer bound by it, and I'm no longer a slave to it. I believe Jesus fulfilled the Law for me, so that I can be freed from it (and all that entails including the penalty of it!). Now, this does not mean the same thing as being free to now do whatever. In fact, quite the contrary. Since I've given up the restrictions of the Law, I feel that I am even more convicted than I ever used to be by the greatness of Jesus Himself. And I realize that obedience has nothing to do with taking an "active" role, but rather submitting myself to His Spirit. Let me try to explain using "Sabbath rest" as an example. You don't really know me, but I am a total control freak. I love to be in control. I have a hard time giving up the reigns of my life. But the truth is that Sabbath rest isn't about not working for a 24 hour period. It isn't about giving our bodies a physical rest (which is not a bad thing in itself). But real Sabbath is about resting in God, and letting Him have control of my life everyday. It's about surrendering my anxiety, my fears, my racing emotions, the things in my life that consume me and suck out energy, etc. This is what resting in Jesus is. Just like Matthew 5 talks about anger as murder, or looking at someone lustfully as adultery, Sabbath rest is not a day. It's a Person. And it's not about physical rest, but about spiritual confidence that the one we are in a "covenant relationship" with has our life, and we can confidently "rest" in that. As a Sabbath-keeper, I LOVED the Sabbath. I was actually a good Adventist. I loved being able to set aside a day to have an excuse to rest. This in itself is not a bad thing. But, it is SO incomplete, and doesn't even come close to what God offers us. It wasn't until I gave up on making rest dependent on what I could do (keeping Sabbath holy), and surrendered everything I know and everything I loved to Him, that I was able to truly experience Sabbath for the first time. That is what true Sabbath is about. So in summary, and in answer to your question of how does the Sabbath commandment get thrown out while all the others are still in place--well, in a sense it doesn't. But "Sabbath" doesn't look anything like it did when it was a part of the Law, just like anger looks nothing like murder. Sabbath is a Person. If it is anything else, then it's nothing more than a distraction. Freedom3

Hey, I got married so I could REALLY keep it holy...........................................

Andy, I do see the prohibitions and permission in Romans 14 as referring to the disjunct-ness between Jewish believers and Gentile believers. You're right--the Jews didn't have prohibitions about not eating meat. The point, as I understand it, was not judging one another on the basis of observances which had, under specific circumstances, merit before God. I don't read the chapter as Paul saying it would be OK for people to keep religious holidays that had ties to pagan gods if they felt convicted of it. Neither do I see him saying that Gentiles just coming out of paganism should eat meat. Rather, I see him saying that observance of holy days that the Torah would have designated as holy is no longer mandatory, and similarly he is saying that Gentiles should not be judged inferior for refusing to eat meat from the meat market--and I also see him possibly saying—since he was writing to believers in Rome and not Jerusalem—that Jewish believers who had compunctions about eating the meats offered to Gentile gods should likewise not be judged inferior. I see the entire passage being addressed to those who had a Jewish background; they're being told not only not to judge the weak brother who still is tied to holy days (Jewish) and to avoiding meat-market meat (probably Gentile but could be either) but to accommodate each other in their weakness. In other words, this passage is addressing practices which derive from honoring God, not from honoring gods. Paul is allowing the weak in faith to keep their practices which, for them, are part of their worship of God. He's not allowing people to keep pagan practices while rationalizing that they're "for God". He's not encouraging syncretism--unless it's the "syncretism" of blending Jewish tradition, in the case of the weak brother, with the tradition's fulfillment: worship of Jesus. Lynric

Cliff wrote: "Now, maybe I'm missing something here, but how is it that the one commandment devoted to rest, the one commandment that specifically expresses rest, the one commandment that gives us a special opportunity to rest, has been turned into the universal "New Covenant" symbol of works." Is it even possible that you could miss something, Cliff? Shouldn't we all admit that we just might miss a part or interpretation of texts in the Bible? Humility is a virtue for humans. If you live under the Old Covenant, then you probably wish to honor the rules and laws given to the Israelites at Sinai. The preamble clearly says they were given to them ONLY, and not to their forefathers, so that should eliminate their universal and timeless application. Religious Jews, especially Orthodox, adhere to all those commands, but there was never a sacred day given to the Christians, according to the NT canon. Please give NT texts showing the new Christian believers were ever instructed on a specific day of rest or worship. Whether you prefer to call this the New Covenant, it is clearly so identified in the NT. That is why the millions of Christians around the world do not, nor ever claimed a rest day.

Andy, how do you interpret Paul's statement that one should not judge another on the days his prefers? They are listed sequentially: "Let no one act as your judge in regared to food or drink or in respect to a festival (yearly) or a new moon (monthly), or a Sabbath day (weekly). This is not the only place where he warns us of judging others, or trying to make the new Christians adopt Jewish ways. Which Jewish ways would he have been referring to? The dispute in Jerusalem, mediated by Peter and James, caused the initial separation between Jewish and Gentile Christians. Attempting to require circumcision for the Gentile Christians, it was settled that they should not first "become Jews" before becoming Christians. According to the OT, no alien or foreigner could partake in Jewish ceremonies unless he was first circumcised and later rabbis would not allow a Gentile, under pain of death, to participate in Jewish practices, laws and rituals. http://wcg.org/lit/law/sabbath/history1.htm The Sabbath was a sign of the covenant given to the Israelites at Sinai; it was never given to Gentiles, ever. Nor is there a single admonition or instruction given to the Gentile Christians about a day that was sacred or to be honored; au contraire: no one should be judged on a day if one abides by the NT as the rule for Christians. Are SDAs hybrids? Part Jewish and part Christians, straddling the fence between the two religions?

Hi Elaine:

This is a hard text and one that I felt like I had to better answers for.

I absolutely agree that the weekly Sabbath is intended here; the progression follows yearly, monthly, weekly. But there's a breakdown in the way ant-Sabbatarians try to argue this. For one thing, new moons were never shadows. They only had meaning because of the sacrifices offered on the new moon. In fact, every time you find the phrase "festivals, new moons, and Sabbath days" in the Old Testament, the context is instructions for burnt offerings. This was fascinating to discover, because burnt offerings are obviously shadows of things to come. Hebrews 10, I believe, refers to sacrifices as being a shadow.

So I think the context is what's done (e.g., sacrifices) on these days; the food and drinking offerings are also possibly in play. You have to remember: the early Jewish Christians were still sacrificing in Jerusalem; letting go of anything was a big, big deal. The sheer silence of any Sabbath controversy should be considered.  And what do you do with Paul's statement about "let us keep Passover"?  Plus, up until the fourth century, you had most Christians still resting on Sabbath--outside of Rome and Alexandria.  It's all quite a strong case.   

I gave these "anti-Sabbath" texts a good hard look a few years ago, but ultimately they broke down. Sure, the Sabbath was a sign for Israel--and now we're all Israel. 

Andy

Andy, Thanks for the opportunity to be part of this Blog. This is one of my favorite subjects. The Sabbath and how it is viewed by Old and New Covenants mentioned in the Bible. First, Heb 8:13, points out the 1st Covenant between God and Israel is obsolete. If your go to certain texts, which I can do if interested parties ask, the Decalogue itself was the 1st Covenant, or at least part of it. The Sabbath given on Sinai was a "shadow" of what God intended as "rest". Why do I say that: John 5:16So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him. 17Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." 18For 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. and Col 2:16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. By calling the first covenant obsolete, is not an antisemetic remark as some have suggested, but THE CHURCH, THE VINE, we are as Gentiles grafted into, is God/Jesus, not Judiasm. Work, as defined by God, must be something different than we SDAs envision, given the above text saying God and Jesus are always working. Maybe in Genesis, it really means completion of a task, creation. So what is the rest that Hebrews is talking about. It is, I propose the very Gospel, that when accepted, gives us that "easy yoke" that Jesus promised. More later, if others are interested. P.S. My solution to the SDA dilemma to this situation is to adopt New Covenant Theology, which I believe puts the Covenants in their proper perspectives. Regards, Douglas