Posted on 04/19/2002 6:00:46 AM PDT by DouglasKC
by Gary Petty
The Gospel writers record numerous confrontations between Jesus and religious leaders concerning the Sabbath. His healings on the Sabbath and teachings about Sabbath observance stirred frequent controversy in His day-disputes that have continued down to our time.
Did Jesus, through His teachings and actions, abrogate, annul or abolish the Fourth Commandment?
Those who argue against Sabbath observance claim that the Sabbath was a cultic law given under the Sinai covenant that has since been "fulfilled in Christ." Citing Paul's writings to show that the Sabbath is a "shadow" of Jesus Christ (Colossians 2:16, 17), they reason that Christians no longer need to observe the shadow because the reality has come.
On the other hand, Sabbath-keepers see the Sabbath as an aspect of God's will, as expressed to mankind, which transcends the Sinai covenant and has great importance for Christians.
Let's explore the biblical examples showing what Jesus taught about the Sabbath. A brief overview of these passages makes clear which view accurately reflects His actions and teachings.
Sabbatarians believe that Jesus set an example for His followers (1 Peter 2:21-25), and it is clear in Scripture that He was a Sabbath-keeper. While it is true that many aspects of the Sinai covenant are no longer in effect (circumcision, animal sacrifices, civil laws, etc.), Christ's instructions about the Sabbath are explanations of how to observe it, not claims that He was abolishing it. The Gospel accounts were written many years after Christ's death and served as instructions to the New Testament Church on how to observe the Sabbath.
The passage Jesus quotes in Luke 4:16-30 is from Isaiah 61:1 and 2. Most commentators agree that the context is the jubilee year. The Sabbath, annual Holy Days and jubilee year were all types of the messianic age. In Luke's account, on the Sabbath day Jesus declares His Messiahship by using a passage concerning the jubilee. Notice Luke 4:21 where Jesus said, "Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."
Jesus proclaimed Himself as the Messiah, yet the fullness of His kingdom will not be established until His second coming. That is why He omitted the end of the passage when quoting from Isaiah: ". . . And the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn . . ." The rest of Isaiah 61 proclaims the work of the Messiah when He will reign on earth.
From this example, we see that the Sabbath not only points Christians to Jesus as the Savior, but its continual observance gives them the hope of His future reign. The Sabbath is a reminder of the gospel in its past, present and future fulfillment.
In Jesus, the "Lord of the Sabbath" (Mark 2:28), we see the concepts of God as Creator and Redeemer perfectly joined together. Since the Sabbath reflects both of these truths, Christians should observe the Sabbath in celebration of both, faithfully following Jesus as the Lord of the Sabbath.
Jesus' teaching in these verses is capsulated in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Volume 5, "Sabbath," Doubleday, edited by David Noel Freedman, pp. 855, 856:
"At times Jesus is interpreted to have abrogated or suspended the Sabbath commandment on the basis of controversies brought about by Sabbath healings and other acts. Careful analysis of the respective passages does not seem to give credence to this interpretation. The action of plucking ears of grain on the Sabbath by the disciples is particularly important in this matter. Jesus makes a foundational pronouncement . . . `The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath' (Mark 2:27). The disciples' act of plucking grain infringed against the rabbinic halakhah of minute casuistry in which it was forbidden to reap, thresh, winnow, and grind on the Sabbath.
". . . Jesus reforms the Sabbath and restores it to its rightful place as designed in creation, where the Sabbath is made for all mankind and not specifically for Israel, as claimed by normative Judaism . . . It was God's will at creation that the Sabbath have the purpose of serving mankind for rest and [to] bring blessing."
Why did Jesus Christ perform miraculous healings on the Sabbath day, knowing that it conflicted with the narrow, restrictive views of Sabbath observance held by many of His fellow Jews?
The Sabbath in the New Testament, by Samuele Bacchiocchi (Biblical Perspectives, 1990, p. 68), explains:
"Christ's proclamation of lordship over the Sabbath is followed immediately by a second episode about the healing of the man with the withered hand . . . It is noteworthy that all of the seven Sabbath healings reported in the gospels are performed by Christ on behalf of chronically sick persons. These intentional healing acts by Christ on the Sabbath on behalf of incurable persons serve to demonstrate how Jesus fulfilled Messianic expectations nourished by the celebration of the Sabbath."
It is important to note Jesus' instructions concerning Sabbath observance in Matthew 12:11, 12 and Mark 3:4. The Fourth Commandment instructed that the seventh day was set apart by God and that people were not to do their normal work on that day. The commandment didn't instruct people on what they were to do on that day, just what they were not to do.
Jewish legalism had created a plethora of laws restricting even the very basics of human activity. Yet, even their regulations gave way to emergencies like getting a sheep out of a pit on the Sabbath. Jesus declared that the Sabbath was a day in which good should be done.
Christ is the great Liberator! This verse is important in understanding God's intent for Sabbath observance. Even the strict Jewish regulations allowed for the feeding and watering of animals on the Sabbath. If caring for the basic life needs of animals wasn't breaking the Fourth Commandment, then how much more is "loosing" by healing appropriate on the Sabbath.
Jesus' example reminds us that the Sabbath is an appropriate time to visit the sick and elderly, helping them celebrate the day of renewal.
"Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?" Jesus pointedly asked the lawyers and Pharisees. "Which of you, having a donkey or an ox that has fallen into a pit, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?"
They couldn't answer Him. Questions such as these had been debated among the Jewish teachers for years, and even they recognized that the command to rest didn't include ignoring emergency situations where life and limb were at stake.
For the Sabbath-keeper, every day is to be lived as a Christian. But God has set aside one day when mankind is to renew the relationship of the created with the Creator; the redeemed with the Redeemer.
Those who oppose Sabbath observance view Christ's statement that "it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath" as ending any distinction of days for worship or other religious purposes.
But there is a huge flaw in that reasoning. To conclude that by teaching that it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath we negate its distinctive nature, requires the assumption that it was originally unlawful to do good on that day. The NIV Life Application Bible (Tyndale/Zondervan, 1991, p. 1883) comments on that view regarding these verses:
"If God stopped every kind of work on the Sabbath, nature would fall into chaos, and sin would overrun the world. Genesis 2:2 says that God rested on the seventh day but this can't mean that He stopped doing good. Jesus wanted to teach that when the opportunity to do good presents itself, it should not be ignored, even on the Sabbath."
Some argue that since circumcision, a sign of the old covenant, was permissible on the Sabbath, which was also a sign of the old covenant, then circumcision must have been more important than the Sabbath. Thus, they reason, once the sign of circumcision was "done away in Christ," then the Sabbath was also nullified.
Samuele Bacchiocchi, in his book From Sabbath to Sunday (Pontifical Gregorian University Press, 1977), answers this argument on pages 46 and 47:
"Why was it legitimate to circumcise a child on the Sabbath when the eighth day (Leviticus 12:3) after his birth fell on that day? No explanation was given since it was well understood. The circumcision was regarded as a redemptive act which mediated the salvation of the covenant. It was lawful, therefore, on the Sabbath to mutilate one of the 248 parts of the human body (that was the Jewish reckoning) in order to save the whole person. On the basis of this premise Christ argues that there is no reason to be `angry' with Him for restoring on that day the `whole man' . . .
"His opponents cannot perceive the redemptive nature of Christ's Sabbath ministry because they `judge by appearances' (John 7:24). They regard the pallet which the paralytic carried on the Sabbath as more important than the physical restoration and social reunification which the object symbolized (John 6:10-11), more significant than the restoration of sight to the blind mind (John 9:14-15, 26)."
The context of this passage is Jesus' declaration of His messiahship. As Messiah, He is also Lord of the Sabbath. Here Jesus continues to teach, as He does so many times on the Sabbath, of His redemptive work for mankind.
When asked, "Which is the first commandment of all?" Jesus answered: "The first of all the commandments is: `Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.' This is the first commandment" (Mark 12:28-30).
Here Jesus restated the greatest commandment of the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 6:4, 5). Those who observe the biblical Sabbath strive to put God first in their lives and follow Jesus' instruction: "He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me" (John 14:21).
Sabbath-keepers see Jesus as their Lord and Master. And, since Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath, they follow His example in observing the Sabbath in the way that He taught and lived.
You're right, I didn't go there. It's not germane to the United Church of God. Here, let me quote the website you referenced everyone to once again:
The UCG has a system of checks and balances in its management which, however imperfect, seems light years ahead of the hierarchical junta-type system still used in the parent body. The UCG presidency has clear lines of accountability.
Because it is less open to abuse by ambitious ministers, The Missing Dimension is reluctant to group the UCG (United Church of God) along with such one-man-bands as Flurry (PCG), Meredith (LCG) and Garner Ted Armstrong (ICG).
Again, it doesn't sound like the people you are referring everyone to thinks that the United Church of God is a cult.
That's fine, because I'm not spending my time on this thread trying to change your mind, so relax. I'm just making sure you aren't able to influence some of the unwary lurkers into your Armstrong-spin-off cult if I can do it. If not, it's no skin off my teeth.
Okay Matchett. You're doing a fine job. Never mind that nobody is going to come to Christ through my efforts or yours, but only by God.
Joh 6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who has sent Me draw him, and I will raise him up at the last day.
All we can try to do is through Christ is set an example, educate and help those who God has already sent.
You wrote: "Here we see that United, while respecting much of Armstrongs doctrinal approach, made sure that they weeded out Armstrongs personal opinion from what is biblically AND scholarly tenable."
Interpretation: "We are embarrassed that his prophecies didn't come to pass, so we want to distance ourselves from them".
Thank you for your opinion on this matter.
You wrote: "Of course there are lies, or at least distortions, on the links you posted, such as this one: There's just an underlying culture that says we don't want things to be open, and we don't want it to be something that everybody can be involved in." "Or how about this one: When is it appropriate to invite someone to church or a Bible study? ... it's inappropriate for someone to invite United Church of God members to Bible studies or church services that are not approved by UCG. These type of invitations are divisive and lead to confusion."
You respond: "...What's it talking about? It's talking about when it's appropriate to "evangelize". ... you should only bible study with those who share your view." What the website sees as sinister and controlling most people would see as good manners."
"Good manners"!! LOL!!!!!! You're a riot! In reality, in varying degrees, the spin-offs are just continuing the cultic practices of the Armstrongism.
I'm running out of ways to tell you you're wrong about United. But that hasn't stopped you from offering your opinion before. :-)
In the old WCG (Armstrong's church), a person usually had to request a visit in his home from a "minister" who interrogated him to see if he understood the basic doctrines of Armstrongism (false god and false gospel) and agreed with them, before he was even permitted to attend WCG "services".
Call up a United Church of God minister and tell them you're interested in attending a service and see what happens. I would try to disguise your vitriol though, that wouldn't really be a fair test. :-)
At a later date, if he requested to be baptised into Armstrong's "one true church", he was interrogated quite throughly over a period of days, weeks or months, to make sure he was in agreement with the cult's doctrines, before they would (according to their false doctrine) "lay hands on him so that he could receive the Holy Spirit".
I did hear that baptism counseling used to be quite a lengthy process in Worldwide. I had two meetings with the United Church of God minister and assure you that I wasn't "interrogated", in fact, we spend a large part of the time discussing our wives, kids, pets, and life in general.
What about "people"? Don't Christians have their "roots in paganism"??? LOL!!! Aren't people themselves known as "pagans" before God makes them regenerate?
Guess what that means. God took what was "pagan" and made it "holy". He converted what was pagan to a holy use. LOL!!!
Could you show me in the bible where God took Easter and Christmas and pronounced them holy? Or lacking that, by what process is this dictated in the bible?
I hope you can hear my exasperated sigh. Tell me how on earth I am supposed to find out what every piece of doctrine from the old Worldwide Church of God was? And even if I could find it, you're certainly not being patient enough to allow enough time for that to happen. It would probably take weeks.
Hey! I have an idea. Since you seem to be the resident expert on the Worldwide Church of God, why don't you compare the doctrine to the information on the links I've given you to the United Church of God.
Okay, you're trying to be comical now right? :-)
You avoided a question in order to ask this question and you're telling me I'm avoiding a question?
Okay, what I SAID was that I figured out that Christmas and Easter aren't in the bible and had their roots in paganism 20 years ago. That's hardly a religious question. That's a fact that anybody can look up regardless of whether they're religious or not. Was there ever a time that you thought Christmas and Easter were in the bible or didn't have their roots in paganism?
Unless of course the evil is to turn people away from the bible...
Hi Johnny, nice to see you.
I agree with you to an extent with the sabbath, but it hasn't been fulfilled completely yet. They ARE shadows of things to come, as Paul said. Not were, but ARE.
And you also never answered this question. I am very curious about the church you attend. It's beliefs, it's doctrinal statement, etc. I've openly supplied you with my church's. Now how about returning the favor?
Hi Douglas,the point is that your group regards anything taught besides what your group teaches as heresy. This was typical armstrong and his one true church attitude. Know what? You keep saying your group is different, but go to watchmen fellowship, a cult watching group and type in Philadelphia, Global or United and it brings up Armstrong and the worldwide church..Thats the ironic part of cultic religion-everyone thinks it's someone else that's wrong. Matchett gave you many references that were found in orthodox christianity.Bopper said:(snipped) First, many of the ministers who are in your group were solidly preaching Armstrong and his heresies,lock stock and barrel.*****Bopper says:First of all, these ministers were from Armstrongs group, the ones who taught 3 tithes, one true church theology, and everything that Herbert ordered taught. If they were so resolute and so sure what they taught was correct, why now are they distancing themselves from Armstrong? That's cognitive dissonance. Think about it.. where they teaching things they didn't believe in, or did they want too keep some of Armstrongs teachings as the new covenant was being issued into the worldwide group, and your president at that time had a hissy fit! By the way, I know people in your group.And , ah, yes!!! The Christmas arguments. The pagan aspect-if this isn't atypical of all those groups, then I don't know what is! I know where Christmas and Easter are originated from. But, the same arguments you use against those 2 holidays must be consistent with all other claims and suppositions that anything pagan can't be used to worship God. I don't know if you realize you go to church on Saturnsday and others go on SUNday. Yet, God allows worship of him on all the days of the week, all named for pagan deities. If its wrong to worship anything on a pagan day then logically, we can't worship on any days of the week. And, did you know pagans prayed to their false gods, long before the law was issued to Moses. Yet, god took something pagan again and used it for his own pupose and commanded us to pray. There is a lot more of this.
Douglas said(snipped)... Some, but not all doctrine has been kept as it is biblically sound. Bopper says:Really, what is so biblically sound about Anglo Israelism. Nothing, it's all a theory. The United States is not Manasseh, and England is not Ephraim. The booklet that they offer, edited according to you was plagiarized by Armstrong in his Radio Church of God days.
Bopper said: Are you aware that some of your ministers left the worldwide group and kept worldwides money claiming God had moved his lampstand and they were keeping the true gospel message going because the worldwide group had gone into "heresy?"I admit I haven't heard this one... Well, if you go to the worldwide church site and they have it online, you can read Tkach's Sr. commenting on this! It wasn't only those in your group, also Flurry and Meredith as well. What a fine example!
May I also make another request? When discussing things with me, could you please leave out denigrating remarks about me and the people I fellowship with? I have made a number of good friends within the church and it pains me to see you characterize them, me, and my wife and kids in the way that you have. Thank you. Bopper replies: I am sorry, I don't recall anything negative said about you, so please drop the defensive tactic. What I state has happened and nothing more. And of all things, I am characterizing your kids in a negative way? Hardly! I think you know better. If you are going too post this stuff, we are going to comment on it. And do yourself a favor-type in dispensationalism and do a study on this. Your church teaches this phiosophical theology. Bopper
Good morning Big Bopper! Just wanted to post the above again because I thinks it's a high compliment that I and my church are *accused* of always wanting to argue scripture.
Hi Douglas,the point is that your group regards anything taught besides what your group teaches as heresy.
Of course United believes what it teaches...why teach it otherwise? I believe as does most of the church in United that much of modern Christianity is in error and no longer follows God or scripture. Many Christian groups hold this same belief. Is that heresy?
This was typical armstrong and his one true church attitude. Know what? You keep saying your group is different, but go to watchmen fellowship, a cult watching group and type in Philadelphia, Global or United and it brings up Armstrong and the worldwide church.
Okay, I found this "Watchmen Fellowship" and looked up United. It linked me to what they think describes all splinters from WWCOG. Here is what they say:
Armstrongism: The doctrines and religious movement originating with Herbert W. Armstrong (1892-1986), who founded the Worldwide Church of God (WCG). Armstrong rejected such essential doctrines of evangelical Christianity as the Trinity, the full deity of Jesus Christ, and the personality of the Holy Spirit. Armstrong taught British Israelism and believed that worthy humans could eventually “become God as God is tithing (20-30%), and keeping the Old Testament feast days and dietary laws. Under the leadership of Armstrong’s successors, Joseph W. Tkach and his son Joe Tkach, the WCG has undergone a radical doctrinal transformation. Scores of splinter groups, such as the Global Church of God and the United Church of God, continue to teach various forms of Armstrongism
Here is where they are in error:
1. United does not deny the full deity of Jesus Christ. From the statement of beliefs:
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, who is the Word and who has eternally existed. We believe that He is the Messiah, the Christ, the divine Son of the living God, conceived of the Holy Spirit, born in human flesh of the virgin Mary. We believe that it is by Him that God created all things, and that without Him was not anything made that was made.
2. "Teaches salvation by works predicated on Sabbatarianism." Absolutely wrong. From United's statement of belief:
We believe that all who truly repent of their sins in full surrender and willing obedience to God, and who by faith accept Jesus Christ as their personal Savior, have their sins forgiven by an act of divine grace. Such individuals are justified, pardoned from the penalty of sin and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, which literally abides within them and supplies the divine love that alone can fulfill the law and produce righteousness.
3. "believed that worthy humans could eventually become God as God". Semi-misleading. The bible teaches that we are all to be children of God, part of God's family. Heirs with Christ and all that entails. I can show you in the bible if you like.
The rest is essentially true, but it's amazing how they try to make it sound like it's a bad thing to follow the bible.
.Thats the ironic part of cultic religion-everyone thinks it's someone else that's wrong. Matchett gave you many references that were found in orthodox christianity.Bopper said:(snipped) First, many of the ministers who are in your group were solidly preaching Armstrong and his heresies,lock stock and barrel.*****Bopper says:First of all, these ministers were from Armstrongs group, the ones who taught 3 tithes, one true church theology, and everything that Herbert ordered taught. If they were so resolute and so sure what they taught was correct, why now are they distancing themselves from Armstrong?
Do you realize that Herbert Armstrong is dead? Do you realize that Herbert Armstrong is not an object of worship? You are accusing United Church of God, a church not founded by Herbert Armstrong, of distancing itself from Herbert Armstrong? What do you want United to do? Setup a shrine and worship Armstong? It's a no win situation, either United worships Armstrong, or United is distancing itself from Armstrong.
That's cognitive dissonance. Think about it.. where they teaching things they didn't believe in, or did they want too keep some of Armstrongs teachings as the new covenant was being issued into the worldwide group, and your president at that time had a hissy fit! By the way, I know people in your group.
Thanks for sharing that.
And , ah, yes!!! The Christmas arguments. The pagan aspect-if this isn't atypical of all those groups, then I don't know what is! I know where Christmas and Easter are originated from.
Many other Christian groups are now "distancing" themselves from these holidays. It's not even called "Easter" by many, it's called "resurrection day" or some such name. But the bottom line is that human beings took the days ordained by God in the bible as holy days and replaced them with days devoted to paganism. How weird is that? :-)
But, the same arguments you use against those 2 holidays must be consistent with all other claims and suppositions that anything pagan can't be used to worship God. I don't know if you realize you go to church on Saturnsday and others go on SUNday. Yet, God allows worship of him on all the days of the week, all named for pagan deities. If its wrong to worship anything on a pagan day then logically, we can't worship on any days of the week. And, did you know pagans prayed to their false gods, long before the law was issued to Moses. Yet, god took something pagan again and used it for his own pupose and commanded us to pray. There is a lot more of this.
Sure prayer is okay any day of the week. I prayed on Easter. I prayed on Christmas. But there are days that God specifically set forth as holy and ordained worship on and he never changed them. I keep those days and for some reason it makes people angry. You need to ask yourself why that bothers you so much.
Douglas said(snipped)... Some, but not all doctrine has been kept as it is biblically sound. Bopper says:Really, what is so biblically sound about Anglo Israelism. Nothing, it's all a theory. The United States is not Manasseh, and England is not Ephraim. The booklet that they offer, edited according to you was plagiarized by Armstrong in his Radio Church of God days.
Thanks once again for your opinion. United's booklet is offered free of charge on line. You can read The United States and Britain in Bible Prophecy in html format.
Bopper said: Are you aware that some of your ministers left the worldwide group and kept worldwides money claiming God had moved his lampstand and they were keeping the true gospel message going because the worldwide group had gone into "heresy?"I admit I haven't heard this one... Well, if you go to the worldwide church site and they have it online, you can read Tkach's Sr. commenting on this! It wasn't only those in your group, also Flurry and Meredith as well. What a fine example!
Wait a minute here. You seem to think that Worldwide was the devil incarnate. Now you're ready to accept their word on their website? The bottom line on this is that I don't know the facts and neither do you.
May I also make another request? When discussing things with me, could you please leave out denigrating remarks about me and the people I fellowship with? I have made a number of good friends within the church and it pains me to see you characterize them, me, and my wife and kids in the way that you have. Thank you. Bopper replies: I am sorry, I don't recall anything negative said about you, so please drop the defensive tactic. What I state has happened and nothing more. And of all things, I am characterizing your kids in a negative way? Hardly! I think you know better. If you are going too post this stuff, we are going to comment on it.
I don't care what you say about doctrine. But when you start accusing me, my wife and kids, and the friends in the church of belonging to a cult with all the negative implications that implies, then you've gone beyond the pale. I've posted proof that even United's harshest detractors don't think it should be considered a cult. I've patiently answered each and every assertation no matter how ridiculous from you and others. I've referenced you to information. If your heart is still so hard that you won't grant me as a human being the common courtesy of not insulting me and mine, then I can only pray for you.
And do yourself a favor-type in dispensationalism and do a study on this. Your church teaches this phiosophical theology. Bopper
Thanks, but I believe the church basically holds a dispensational view. I will research it to honor your request though.
from www.watchman.org/cat95.htm#Armstrongism---- Armstrong, Garner Ted: Son of Herbert W. Armstrong who formed his own rival Armstrongism splinter group, the Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association. See Church of God, International. Armstrong, Herbert W.: See Armstrongism, Worldwide Church of God. Armstrongism: The doctrines and religious movement originating with Herbert W. Armstrong (1892-1986), who founded the Worldwide Church of God (WCG). Armstrong rejected such essential doctrines of evangelical Christianity as the Trinity, the full deity of Jesus Christ, and the personality of the Holy Spirit. Armstrong taught British Israelism and believed that worthy humans could eventually “become God as God is God.” Teaches salvation by works predicated on Sabbatarianism, tithing (20-30%), and keeping the Old Testament feast days and dietary laws. Under the leadership of Armstrong’s successors, Joseph W. Tkach and his son Joe Tkach, the WCG has undergone a radical doctrinal transformation. Scores of splinter groups, such as the *****Global Church of God and the *****United Church of God, continue to teach various forms of Armstrongism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.