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 While it is true that many aspects of the Sinai covenant are no longer in effect (circumcision, animal sacrifices, civil laws, etc.), Christ's instructions about the Sabbath are explanations of how to observe it, not claims that He was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.
We are not talking about keeping any law. When a Christian allows the Lord to work in their lives the natural result is that their actions and thoughts will conform more and more closely to the 10 commanndments. That's what Paul said about the law. Paul never said that the law was bad, to the contrary, it should be written in our hearts.
Also, the Sabbath wasn't kept in the Old Testament until the Manna fell in the wilderness. The day the Manna fell, the Sabbath was instituted. I do not believe that you have instances of the patriachs keeping the Sabbath. You don't see Israel in the land of Egypt keeping the Sabbath. It isn't until they are free from Egypt that the Sabbath is instituted, and again only after the Manna fell.
God created the Sabbath at the creation of our world. The keeping of the Sabbath, as you just pointed out, predated the Mosaic covenent.
Not so. Everyone knew the moral law and if they accepted Christ, they keep it naturally: Rom 2:14 For when the nations, who do not have the Law, do by nature the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law unto themselves;
Rom 2:15 who show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and the thoughts between one another accusing or even excusing one another,
This is exactly what Paul is talking about here. The standard of the New Creature is not the Law of Moses. The standard of the New Creature is Jesus. That is why win the churches began to sink back into "base" behaviour... Paul's admonishes them with a simple... "you have not so learned Christ."
Yep, accept Christ, accept God, that means accepting and following the moral laws, the 10 commandments, that are written in our hearts. :-)
My point is what the beggerly things they wanted to turn back to was the Law -- with its forms, and symbols, and days... The verses you used has to be kept with the Chapter Three. To break them out and suddenly have Paul start talking about "pagan holidays" doesn't fit Paul's flow. They, the Galatians, wanted to keep all of it... Paul says don't turn back to that...
What you have put forth here is pure opinion, devoid of any scriptural backup.
Let me go through this and hope that you understand:
1. Sabbath is never mentioned in Galatians. Paul knows the word and the concept because he mentions it in 1 Cor 16:2, Col 2:16 and Hebrews 4:9. The WORD is never used in Galatians, yet you want to say it's there when it's clearly not.
2. Gal 4:10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
A Jewish feast, or holy day, is always referred to by the greek word:
1859 heorte heh-or-tay'
of uncertain affinity; a festival:--feast, holyday.
This word does NOT appear anywhere in galatians.
So using the BIBLE and letting the BIBLE interpet itself, it should be patently obvious that Paul isn't referring to sabbaths or holy days here. Look it up yourself. He's referring to something else. You look back on it and interpet it the way you do because by tradition that is what you believe.
Words mean things, especially in the bible. If Paul truly meant to say what you think he is saying, he would have been guided by the Holy Spirit to put those words down, but he did not.
You got it! Why are you arguing? That is exactly the essence of the new covenent. The moral law (should be) ingrained in us, part of our lives. The Ten commandments are the express written definintion, outward and inward manifestation, the proof, that we allowing and following Christ.
Yep. And there's proof that believers kept the sabbath.
Heb 4:9 So, then, there remains a sabbath rest to the people of God.
There is a sabbath if we are people of God. Not Jews, but people of God.
Luk 23:56 And returning, they prepared spices and ointment. And indeed they rested on the sabbath, according to the commandment.
The book of Luke was written approximately 25 years after the death of Christ. Luke, a gentile, is writing about 2 believers in Christ observing the sabbath per the commandment. If the Sabbath were done away with in biblical times, wouldn't he know that and reference the fact? Wouldn't *somebody*, anybody, say that the sabbath, the one they'd known forever, the day blessed and santified by God, was done away with?
Paul preached every sabbath, Jews AND gentiles were attending services on the sabbath:
Act 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue on every sabbath persuading both Jews and Greeks.
Here we see Paul preaching to gentiles only...on the sabbath:
Act 13:42 But the Jews having gone out of the synagogue, the gentiles begged that these words be spoken to them on the next sabbath.
Well mom, you got 1 out of 3 right.
The church does not keep most of the "levictical" law. It keeps NONE of the levitical law. The levitcal priesthood, and thus the levitical laws, were superceded and replaced by Christ, who is our high priest. The old levitical system was clearly done away and explained in hebrews chapter 10.
We also do not believe in salvation by works. Salvation is by faith and God's grace alone and that is what is taught in the bible and in our church.
For the trinity, the bible teaches that the Godhead in heaven is composed of God the father and christ the son.
The holy spirit is God's spirit working in our lives while we are flesh and blood, but there is no seperate person in heaven called "the Holy spirit".
I challenge you to find one reference to another entity in heaven called the holy spirit...and 1 John 5:7 in the King James doesn't count. It ONLY appears in the King James and it's nearly universally acknowledged to be a later addition to scripture.
I guess I am because i keep reading the bible and coming up with the same results.
Ephesians 4:30 "The Holy Spirit by whom (masculine) you were sealed." Paul uses a masculine pronoun here when normal grammar would expect neuter since pneuma (Spirit)is neuter. Makes sense if the Holy Spirit is a person.
Matthew 28:19-20 "baptizing them into the name (singluar) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Three viewed as one name. Very interesting. How can this be two persons and something else and then be one name?
Why do insist on a verse that shows the Holy Spirit as a person in heaven? Why is that a verse that specifies that location a necessary credential?
It is interesting that the current World Wide Church of God affirms the Trinity. I have a number of friends that grew up in the WWCOG that now understand grace and have the joy of the new birth!
The holy spirit is the spirit of God. Correct.
Ephesians 4:30 "The Holy Spirit by whom (masculine) you were sealed." Paul uses a masculine pronoun here when normal grammar would expect neuter since pneuma (Spirit)is neuter. Makes sense if the Holy Spirit is a person.
The Holy Spirit is spoken of in many ways that demonstrate that it is not a divine person. For example, it is referred to as a gift (Acts 10:45; 1 Timothy 4:14). We are told that the Holy Spirit can be quenched (1 Thessalonians 5:19), that it can be poured out (Acts 2:17, 33), and that we are baptized with it (Matthew 3:11).
People can drink of it (John 7:37-39), partake of it (Hebrews 6:4), and be filled with it (Acts 2:4; Ephesians 5:18). The Holy Spirit also renews us (Titus 3:5) and must be stirred up within us (2 Timothy 1:6). These impersonal characteristics are certainly not attributes of a person.
It is also called “the Holy Spirit of promise,” “the guarantee of our inheritance” and “the spirit of wisdom and revelation . . .” (Ephesians 1:13-14, 17).
This Spirit is not only the Spirit of God the Father, for the Bible also calls it the “Spirit of Christ” (Romans 8:9; Philippians 1:19). By either name, it is the same Spirit, as there is only one Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 4:4). The Father imparts the same Spirit to true Christians through Christ (John 14:26; 15:26; Titus 3:5-6), leading and enabling them to be His children and “partakers of the divine nature” (Romans 8:14; 2 Peter 1:4).
In contrast to God the Father and Jesus Christ, who are consistently compared to human beings in Their form and shape, the Holy Spirit is consistently represented, by various symbols and manifestations, in a completely different manner—such as wind (Acts 2:2), fire (verse 3), water (John 4:14; 7:37-39), oil (Psalm 45:7; compare Acts 10:38; Matthew 25:1-10), a dove (Matthew 3:16) and an “earnest,” or down payment, on eternal life (2 Corinthians 1:22; 5:5; Ephesians 1:13-14, KJV). These depictions are difficult to understand, to say the least, if the Holy Spirit is a person.
In Matthew 1:20 we find further evidence that the Holy Spirit is not a distinct entity, but God’s divine power. Here we read that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. However, Jesus continually prayed to and addressed God the Father as His Father and not the Holy Spirit (Matthew 10:32-33; 11:25-27; 12:50). He never represented the Holy Spirit as His Father. Clearly, the Holy Spirit was the agency or power through which the Father begot Jesus as His Son.
Matthew 28:19-20 "baptizing them into the name (singluar) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Three viewed as one name. Very interesting. How can this be two persons and something else and then be one name?
This verse isn't attempting to describe the nature of God, it's attempting to show the formula used for baptism. Matthew 28:19 presumes that, before being baptized, believers will learn of God the Father, His Son and the Holy Spirit. At baptism, they enter into a personal relationship with God the Father and the Son through the Holy Spirit.
Why do insist on a verse that shows the Holy Spirit as a person in heaven? Why is that a verse that specifies that location a necessary credential?
Because I want biblical proof, not tradition. If tradition says that there's a third "person" known as the holy spirit in heaven, I want to see it.
No Holy Spirit in heaven here:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Or here:
Act 7:55 But being full of the Holy Spirit, looking up intently into Heaven, he saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.
Act 7:56 And he said, Behold, I see Heaven opened and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God.
Or here:
Dan 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and behold, One like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him.
Dan 7:14 And dominion and glory was given Him, and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations and languages, should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion which shall not pass away, and His kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
Or here:
Rev 7:10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God sitting on the throne, and to the Lamb.
In Revelation chapters 4 and 5 we have vivid visions of heaven. In both those chapters there is no mention of a person called the Holy Spirit being up there.
In other words, God in heaven does not include a person called "the holy spirit". Such a vital detail would surely be included in these visions and descriptions if it were true. Instead, what we find is that the Holy Spirit is only on earth. It literally IS God's Holy Spirit.
It is interesting that the current World Wide Church of God affirms the Trinity. I have a number of friends that grew up in the WWCOG that now understand grace and have the joy of the new birth!
Yes very interesting indeed. I have heard a few horror stories about the WWCOG. From what I understand Armstrong was a powerful figure who ran the church with a strong hand. He said a lot of things and a lot of people mixed up what he said with what was scripturally sound. United Church of God, of which I'm a member, is run by a commitee of 12 elders. All doctrine has to be bibilically supported and agreed upon by the elders, who in turn are voted to be on the commitee by a general conference of elders.
What I think has happened with your friends is that they have traded sound biblical doctrine to conform to the spirit of ecunemism which is pervading nearly all sects and denominations.
Take care!
BTW the WWCOG became orthodox after Herbert W. Armstrong died and Garner Ted went off to sow his wild oats. The successor Joseph Tkach, Jr. led them in renouncing the errors of Herbert W.
see www.wcg.org click on info then history.
How so?? I spent a long time making that reply...what points did I not address?
======
ME: Acts 5:3-4. Aninias and Sapphira lie to the Holy Spirit (implies personhood)... they have lied to God. The Holy Spirit is a Divine Person.
YOU: The holy spirit is the spirit of God. Correct.
=========
ME: Ephesians 4:30 "The Holy Spirit by whom (masculine) you were sealed." Paul uses a masculine pronoun here when normal grammar would expect neuter since pneuma (Spirit)is neuter. Makes sense if the Holy Spirit is a person.
YOU: Cite other passages, that we can discuss, but never address this significant grammatical issue.
============
ME: Matthew 28:19-20 "baptizing them into the name (singluar) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Three viewed as one name. Very interesting. How can this be two persons and something else and then be one name?
YOU: This verse isn't attempting to describe the nature of God, it's attempting to show the formula used for baptism. Matthew 28:19 presumes that, before being baptized, believers will learn of God the Father, His Son and the Holy Spirit. At baptism, they enter into a personal relationship with God the Father and the Son through the Holy Spirit.
ME: Yet in the paragraph immediately above this reference you say, "the Holy Spirit is not a distinct entity, but God’s divine power." If you believe this my point still remains. Why list the three if the Holy Spirit is not a distinct entity?
I won't get frustrated, I promise. :-)
Rev 1:10 I came to be in the Spirit in the Lord's day and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,(Modern King James Version)
Find me one reference in the bible where any day but the sabbath is referred to as the lords day. Days in the bible are called the first day, second day, etc., the lone exception being the seventh day, which is called the sabbath. Also notice that in the translation above it was "in" the Lord's day. That's more accurate because the greek word "en" used here is translated as "in" 99.9% of the time. In fact, that the same word "en" is used in the phrase "in the spirit".
For you to read it as "Sunday", you have to add into the bible the future notion of the Lord's Day as Sunday, you have to disregard the accepted usage of the greek word "en", and you have to believe that Jesus wasn't the Lord of the Sabbath, as he himself stated he was.
It's much easier to accept it the way it's written. Paul was having a vision. In vision, he was transported to the great day of the coming of the Lord, the day of the Lord:
2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
Now, like I said, my father attends an Amstrong church, so, I know all the arguments that you will list for they have been listed for me countless times. And I don't agree with them. I have tried to make the Bible say those things, but it does not (in my opinion). God bless you!
Our of curiousity, what church does you father attend?
I really have to run for now but if you desire to answer the last post I will respond ASAP, hopefully tomorrow.
You inserted an editorial comment (implies personhood), and the asserted that it's a divine person.
Act 5:3 Peter asked, "Ananias, why did you let Satan fill you with the idea that you could deceive the Holy Spirit? You've held back some of the money you received for the land.
The Holy Spirit is God! It's God's spirit working in flesh and blood people, in this case Ananias. Ananias had God's holy spirit but chose to disregard it and lie.
Act 5:4 While you had the land, it was your own. After it was sold, you could have done as you pleased with the money. So how could you do a thing like this? You didn't lie to people but to God!"
The apostle confirms that he didn't lie to people, he lied to God!
What I said stands, I just don't accept your interpetation that stretches this verse to mean that the Holy Spirit is a seperate person residing in heaven. :-). I'll get to the rest tomorrow night....I've got get up early and then have a looonggg day.
Enjoy!
This sounds just like the Armstrong of old. Herbert W also said that the proof of who God's people are is that they keep the seventh day so they could qualify for salvation. Do you believe this? Are you qualifying for your salvation? Bopper
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.