davidbu@loowit.wr.tek.com (David E. Buxton) (02/08/91)
I am finding that it is popular to site Col 2:14-17 to show that God now prefers another day: "having wiped out the handwriting of ordinances that were against us, which were contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it. Therefore let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the sub- stance is of Christ. " (Col 2:14-17) I think that anyone familiar with the OT will agree that this passage of scripture nails the ceremonial sabbaths and ceremonial new moons to the cross. Annual sabbaths example - "Speak to the children of Israel, saying: 'In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, you shall have a sabbath-rest, a memorial of blowing of trumpets, a holy convocation. "-- Lev 23:24 (NKJ) New Moons example - " 'besides the burnt offering with its grain offering for the New Moon, the regular burnt offering with its grain offering, and their drink offerings, according to their ordinance, as a sweet aroma, an offering made by fire to the LORD. "-- Num 29:6 (NKJ) The question is this - does this passage of scripture also do away with the weekly 7th day Sabbath. That is the question that we must ponder. Here are the reasons why I believe that the 7th day Sabbath was not nailed to the cross and that God clearly still much prefers the same 7th day of the week: 1) The Bible was written by holy men inspired of God. There are enough exam- ples to prove that while the Bible is indeed inspired, that God did not hold man's pen in His hand. God did not dictate the Bible word for word. The only exception to this, where the Bible tells us that God actually wrote the words, is the Ten Commandments. This gives those Ten Commandments some profound sig- nificance that must not be too quickly disposed of. Also consider Jesus' statements that He did not come to change even the punctuation of the law. 2) Ordinances? Now that is quite another matter. Moses, inspired of God, wrote a lot of ceremonial ordinances. These are quite apart from the decalo- gue, not having the claim to be written by the finger of God. In modern times, for example, the Jews place the Torah scroll (books of Moses) in the cabinet that they call the 'ark'. The Ten Commandments they place as Ten Com- mandments on the wall near by. While the Decalogue can indeed be found among the books of the Torah, it still holds a distinction that makes it profoundly distinct from all other passages contained in the Torah - it is the only por- tion of the Torah and of the entire Bible that is written by God Himself. God makes it clear that it is He who wrote the decalogue by stating in the 4th commandment that the author of the decalogue is the creator of this earth. That is no small claim and not even Moses would dare to claim it. This is what stamps the Decalogue as being clearly God's law and not Hammurabi's, for example. Without the 4th commandment it could be said that Moses simply bor- rowed from, perhaps Hammurabi. Or we could say that it is the law of Moses. But only someone with creative power could have authored the Decalogue, else we make Moses a liar. And so it is the seal, God's mark, God's stamp of ownership and authorship. While found chaptered among the laws of Moses, it stands out high above and separate from the laws of Moses. 3) "ordinances that were against us" -- "And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone. And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgements, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to posses it" (Deut. 4:13, 14) "After Moses finished writing in a book the words of this law from beginning to end, he gave this command to the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord: Take this Book of the Law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God. There it will remain as a WITNESS AGAINST YOU. For I know how rebellious and stiff-necked you are. If you have been rebellious against the Lord while I am still alive and with you, how much more will you rebell after I die!" (Deut 31:24-27) "What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator." (Gal 3:19) From these texts we see that the statutes and judgements are in addi- tion to the Decalogue and are the "ordinances that were against us". The Decalogue is like the Declaration of Independence - it does not mete out pun- ishments. There are other laws and ordinances that prescribe the punishments and God commissioned Moses to write such ordinances. Just in case you wish to propose that the Decalogue is just as much a part of these things that are against us - consider that the Sabbath was established in Eden before the fall of Adam. So, if per chance you propose 9 of the com- mandments are against us, how can the Sabbath be when it was established by God at creation? See also section 7), which shows that the Sabbath existed before Sinaii. 4) "shadow of things to come" - These are the annual ceremonial sabbaths of which I have already mentioned. Again, the Sabbath was established at crea- tion, before Adam fell, before Adam sacrificed the first lamb. The annual Sabbaths and the New Moon sacrifices were a system of things that pointed for- ward to the coming sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross of calvary. There is nothing about the 7th day Sabbath that has anything to do with sacrifices and a coming Savior to die on the cross. There certainly are "shadows" of a cross to come in the annual sabbaths. 5) Lord of the Sabbath - In the New Testament there are the texts that say that Jesus is really the one who created the world. With this in mind, now let me read from Gen 2:2,3 - "And on the seventh day Jesus ended His work which He had done, and Jesus rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then Jesus blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which Jesus had created and made." -- Now it makes sense what Jesus meant, saying -- "For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath." (Matt. 12:8; Also Mark 2:27,28 & Luke 6:5) Jesus was Lord and creator of the Sabbath. Note that He also rested in the tomb on the Sabbath. Jesus had little patience with how the Mishna said the Sabbath should be kept, showing us how the creator of the Sabbath would have it kept, and clearly doing good on the Sabbath met His approval and example. The Bible says the Sabbath should be a delight. It was Rome who gradually converted from the 7th day to Lord Caesar's day - the "venerable day of the sun", as it was called in the very early hundreds. The scheme was to gradu- ally convert a secular fun day into a sacred fun day while heaping more and more formality and pain in the neck structure upon the Sabbath. And so today the Sabbath comes across to many as a burdensome day that can be nothing at all but sheer miserable legalism. But so many of the Jews can tell you that is wrong. Many Jews, for example, refuse to fast on the Sabbath considering that it should be a delight as the scriptures teach us. Many Jews refer to the Sabbath as the "Sabbath Bride" - a day of the week to be anticipated and enjoyed. But of course that is not the picture of the Sabbath presented by the "doctors of the law", the Rabbis of the Mishna and the Targum, nor those in the early hundreds who set out to make the Sabbath increasingly un-popular. 6) How can anyone say that Jesus disposed of the Sabbath when He said "Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath." (Matt. 24:20) Jesus was speaking of the coming destruction of the Temple. He was perhaps also speaking of when the Crusaders of Rome pursued God's true church into the wilderness. It turns out that these were Sabbatarians, such as the Waldenses. "Then the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there one thousand two hundred and sixty days. " -- Rev 12:6 (NKJ) God's true church was the pursued and not the pursuer. Those in pursuit kept Sunday and those they sought to kill were 7th day Sabbath keepers. These were peoples so thoroughly desimated that most of what we know about them is from their tormenters. 7) In the story of the manna in the wilderness we can see that the Sabbath was established before Sinaii. "Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the sabbath, in it there shall be none. And it came to pass, that there went out some of the people on the seventh day for to gather, and they found none. And the Lord said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?" (Ex. 16:26-28) The Sabbath was clearly one of God's commandments before Sinaii and before Egypt. So when it says that Abra- ham kept God's commandments (Gen 26:4,5) it is very likely indeed that the Sabbath was one of them. Also, I have quite a large chart of how a couple hundred languages call out their days of the week. There are many languages of very ancient vintage that call out the 7th day as a Shabat, a day of rest. These languages coined their days of the week well before Abraham. I'd be glad to USmail a copy of the charts. 8) Some Jews see the Sabbath as being for all mankind. But perhaps most of them say that it is only for Jews. That is what one Jew I was writing to sub- scribed to. So I sent him several OT texts. He wrote back and agreed that I was indeed right, that the Sabbath was also for those who were not Jews - the alien, etc. I'd be glad to re-compile that list of texts for you. 9) The only texts that I can find that offer a template for observing His death and resurrection are - Lord's Supper, "I die daily" and baptism. The Bible does not propose another day. 10) I think you would agree that the Bible is clear that God's preference is for the 7th day Sabbath. Nowhere is there even a hint that God has changed His mind or the sort to be changing His mind. In fact there are a lot of texts that say clearly that God does not change - fairly long list. To say that the ceremonial Sabbaths, so full of sacrifices, were shadows of the cross and ended at the cross does no violence at all to God's plan of salvation. It does not suggest a God of change to say that the cross was part of the whole plan such that the annual sabbaths and their sacrifices ended and now we can talk about the real Christ who died. God is not a God of shifting rules and requirements. Certainly, the Judaisers insisted these systems of sacrifice must go on and on. But the NT makes it clear that these systems that pointed forward to the cross came to an end at the cross - not because God changed His mind, but because that was the plan outlined to Adam and Eve. To end the Sab- bath at the cross would say that God's highly esteemed 7th Day Sabbath is no longer His day of choice - it would say that God has changed and is a God of change. But God does not change and has not changed. There is not a single text in the Bible that proposes a sin offering type sacrifice to be offered on the 7th day Sabbath. I know there is nothing that offers even a shadowy hint of 7th day Sabbath sacrifices pointing forward to the cross. 11) The NT is clear - lots of texts - keep my commands because you love Me and not for salvations sake. I know without a shadow of a doubt that God would eagerly like me to keep His Sabbath Day - the day of the week that Jesus created at the end of a week of busy creation. So why should I do otherwise? Nowhere does the Bible propose that God now prefers another day - nowhere. Friend, Dave
kbowman@eng.auburn.edu (Kevin Bowman) (02/12/91)
Hey Dave! You made a valuable point concerning the distinction between sacrificies that were fulfilled at the cross as opposed to the pre-Law Sabbath. But how would you respond to the passage in Romans 14:5-8 "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 he gives thanks to God. 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." It would seem to me that he is implying the Sabbath with the "one sacred day". I would therefore conclude that upholding the Sabbath is a point of personal freedom not as an eternal commandment. Forgive me if you have already addressed this passage. I would be interested in your input. Kevin Bowman(kbowman@eng.auburn.edu) Two Foundational Facts of Human Enlightenment 1. There is a God 2. You are not Him
tja@mungunni.cs.mu.oz.au (Tim ARNOLD) (02/16/91)
In soc.religion.christian David writes: >I am finding that it is popular to site Col 2:14-17 to show that God now >prefers another day: > "having wiped out the handwriting of ordinances that were against us, > which were contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having > nailed it to the cross. Having disarmed principalities and powers, He > made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it. Therefore > let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a > new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the sub- > stance is of Christ. " (Col 2:14-17) >I think that anyone familiar with the OT will agree that this passage of >scripture nails the ceremonial sabbaths and ceremonial new moons to the cross. >Annual sabbaths example - "Speak to the children of Israel, saying: 'In the >seventh month, on the first day of the month, you shall have a sabbath-rest, a >memorial of blowing of trumpets, a holy convocation. "-- Lev 23:24 (NKJ) >New Moons example - " 'besides the burnt offering with its grain offering for >the New Moon, the regular burnt offering with its grain offering, and their >drink offerings, according to their ordinance, as a sweet aroma, an offering >made by fire to the LORD. "-- Num 29:6 (NKJ) >The question is this - does this passage of scripture also do away with the >weekly 7th day Sabbath. That is the question that we must ponder. Is that the question Paul has in mind? >Here are >the reasons why I believe that the 7th day Sabbath was not nailed to the cross >and that God clearly still much prefers the same 7th day of the week: [ statements supporting continued observance of the Sabbath deleted ] >2) Ordinances? Now that is quite another matter. Moses, inspired of God, >wrote a lot of ceremonial ordinances. These are quite apart from the decalo- >gue, not having the claim to be written by the finger of God. In modern >times, for example, the Jews place the Torah scroll (books of Moses) in the >cabinet that they call the 'ark'. The Ten Commandments they place as Ten Com- >mandments on the wall near by. While the Decalogue can indeed be found among >the books of the Torah, it still holds a distinction that makes it profoundly >distinct from all other passages contained in the Torah - it is the only por- >tion of the Torah and of the entire Bible that is written by God Himself. This sounds like a legalistic distinction between Law and ordinances. Is this rather technical interpretation of the Greek justified? Are we really getting to the crux of what Paul is trying to say here or are we just trying to lay down a set of boundaries which are less restrictive than those in Torah but apply them in the same way as the Jews did before Christ? Jesus came not to distinguish between ordinances, which need not be followed, and 'real Law' which must be followed. He came to reconcile us to God through his death on the cross (Col 1:19-20). This is achieved as a result of the hope we have in the gracious act of God (Col 1:5-6). Paul prays for an increase in the knowledge and understanding of God's will after he heard of their faith - that they might bear the fruit of knowing God (Col 1:9-10). So what does this mean with regard to the Law. In chapter 2, Paul goes on to develop this idea. Our fulness is given to us by Christ, (vv9-10) not earned by observing the law. We are 'circumcised' by Christ (vv11-12) while we were sinners (v13). The role of the law is described by Paul elsewhere: "Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather through the law we become conscious of sin." (Rom 3:19-20 NIV) [NIV often takes an interpretive license in translating Romans but it is quite faithful in this passage and it is all I have with me at the moment] As Paul goes on to describe a righteousness apart from law in Romans, he does so here in a similar (but not quite as verbose) way. The effect of the law condemns us, BUT the opposition which it represents dies with Christ, nailed to the cross. The freedom this passage pronounces is amazing! To then quibble over the exact things from which we are released is to miss the entire meaning of the passage. Reality is found in Christ! Reality is ONLY found in Christ! Paul takes it a step further in his first letter to the church at Corinth addressing problems of diet but with similar principles. "Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible ... To those under the law I become like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law." (1 Cor 9:19-20 NIV) "`Everything is permissible' - but not everything is beneficial. `Everything is permissible' - but not everything is constructive. Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others. ... So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God [not just on Saturday or Sunday]. Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks, or the church of God - even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved." (1 Cor 10:23-24, 31-33) Are people saved through observing the Sabbath or by grasping the saving death of Jesus? If strict Sabbath observance leads others to focus on what I do for God not what he does for me, out the window it goes. Godliness and holiness serves to focus me and those around me on God not me. We are free to worship God anywhere and everywhere, and anytime. We do not worship in the temple, we worship in spirit and truth. Jesus' death means not to abolish the role of the Sabbath but to make every day a celebration of what God has done for us sinners. >Friend, >Dave Friend (still I hope) Tim ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Arnold Law/Science (Computer Science Hons) Undergrad tja@cs.mu.oz.AU The University of Melbourne =============================================================================
davidbu@loowit.wr.tek.com (David E. Buxton) (02/18/91)
{Kevin offers his text and then writes} {Romans 14:5-8} >"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 he gives thanks to >God. 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." #It would seem to me that he is implying the Sabbath with the "one sacred day". #I would therefore conclude that upholding the Sabbath is a point of personal #freedom not as an eternal commandment. Forgive me if you have already addressed #this passage. I would be interested in your input. Hi Kevin, I do not have my Bible in front of me so as to go further at this time. But I think that the key to this text is in what I underlined for you. I believe that it is better for people to have their own personal understanding of the scriptures than to subscribe to the dogma of any particular church. It is better for people to be their own students of the Bible and see things a little different here and there than to hold to some dogma for the sake of unity. And I think that is one of Paul's themes. Just because Paul urges the Bereans and others to search the scriptures for themselves to see if these things are true does not mean that Paul is pre-ordaining what you will discover when you do your study. All too often I have a Bible study with someone and we agree that the Bible teaches 'A'. Then I gently point out that their church teaches position 'B' and to my amazement they instantly come back subscribing to position 'B'. We can dissagree about whether Paul is just talking about arguments about which feast days must be observed vs including the 7th day Sabbath, and that is fine, let us each study personally for ourselves. But I think the greater point that Paul is trying to make here, that dwarfs the Sabbath question in the context of the text, is this - that churches should not be places where members must conform to dogma. Let the scriptues be the final authority. That was the stand that Luther made when ordered to recant. Friend, Dave
rvp@softserver.canberra.edu.au (Rey Paulo) (02/19/91)
In article <Feb.15.18.52.17.1991.442@athos.rutgers.edu> tja@mungunni.cs.mu.oz.au (Tim ARNOLD) writes: > >So what does this mean with regard to the Law. In chapter 2, Paul goes on to >develop this idea. Our fulness is given to us by Christ, (vv9-10) not earned >by observing the law. We are 'circumcised' by Christ (vv11-12) while we were >sinners (v13).... > "Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to > everyone, to win as many as possible ... To those under the law > I become like one under the law (though I myself am not under the > law), so as to win those under the law." (1 Cor 9:19-20 NIV) > "`Everything is permissible' - but not everything is beneficial. >Are people saved through observing the Sabbath or by grasping the saving >death of Jesus? If strict Sabbath observance leads others to focus on what >I do for God not what he does for me, out the window it goes. The question of the sevetnh-day sabbath observance (4th commandment) is undobtedly a topic of potential controversy. This is because Paul seems to uphold the law in some of his writings while in some others, it appears he is preaching against the law. Note that by LAW, I am referring to the ten commandments. This teaching has produced two lines of thinking among christians. Those who believe in justification by observing the law per se, and those who believe in justification by faith per se. The former believes that one can be saved if and only if he observes perfectly the law (which is impossible) and the later believes that law is unnecessary as long as you accept Jesus as your redeemer (which is correct up to the act of acceptance, but understood wrongly after the act of acceptance). I believe both of these disciplines have misunderstood the writings of Apostle Paul. The source of misunderstanding is Paul's word "under the law" as in "Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible ... To those under the law I become like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law." (1 Cor 9:19-20 NIV) There are other passages that mention "under the law" but I don't have my bible here to quote them. Anyway, the point I would like to stress here is that, many christians believe that "under the law" means the law has nothing to do with us anymore after we accept Christ as our personal lord and saviour. In short, they would say forget abouth the law, once you have Christ. This is very, very wrong, I believe. To avoid misunderstanding "under the law", we would better be safe if we ask "When are we under the law?" which gives us the clear answer "We are under the law whenever we transgress the law." When we transgress the law, we become sinners (under the law) and then the law obviously will call us up to answer for the transgressions. The analogy with our day to day living is very clear. If you haven't done any crime, then you are not under the law. But if you commit something like parking violations, stealing, etc., etc., then you are under the law and expect the police to come and file charges against you. In light of this view, try re-reading 1 Cor 9:19-20 or any other verse in which you find "under the law" with the understanding that the word means "transgressing the law". I believe you will arrive at more sensible as well as more consistent understanding of Paul's writings. Now, when we are under the law (sinners), we need some sort of ways to get us out of the punishment that the law requires. If you have parking offences, that way may be to pay the fines, or in other offenses may be some months or years in jail. But if we are under the law of G-d (sinners of the law of G-d), the punishment is the forfeiture of our salvation. There is only one way that G-d provides for us to get out of this punishment, and that is, by accepting Jesus Christ as our personal Lord and Saviour. Jesus Christ paid the fines for our sins with His blood on the cross of calvary. Now the question is, after Christ has paid for your fines, does the law become invalid or does the situation change such that if you continue commiting parking violations the law is no longer applicable. This was asked by Paul in one verse (I cann't remember). The answer is certainly NO. The law still applies so that if you continue transgressing the law, you sin again. This is as simple as this. And since the seventh-day sabbath (4th commandment) is one of those commandments, then I believe that Christians who don't observe it continue to trangress the law and hence continue to commiting sins. Note that there is no difference between the sabbath commandment and the other commandments like, "Thou shalt not kill", "Thou shalt not steal", etc., etc. If you regard the order of their listing in the ten commandments important, then the sabbath is more important than "killing" or "stealing". To sum up my points as regards to the sabbath: (1) The bible is all consistent. Paul does not say something about a topic in one verse and another quite contradictory in another verse. (2) The law (ten commandments) is always binding for if it is not, we wouldn't have any way of knowing whether what we do is a sin or not. -- Rey V. Paulo | Internet : rvp@csc.canberra.edu.au University of Canberra | "One and one and one is three" PO Box 1, Belconnen ACT, AUSTRALIA | -The Beatles --------------------------------------+-----------------------------------