40 QUESTIONS FOR SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS, ANSWERED AND RETRIBUTED
1st. Question: Why do you keep only one of the ceremonial Jewish Sabbath ordered by God? Every seven years, the seventh year, the Sabbatical year, also the year of the Jubilee, was a Sabbath (Lev. 25:1-22). Why do you keep only one Sabbath and leave the others out?
ANSWER: Because they were not all in the tables of stone on which God wrote with His own finger when He uttered the 10 Commandments to the ears of the people, and it was said “and he added no more”. Nothing is said about keeping the other Sabbaths (Deu.5:22). These other belong to that law called by the Christians over the centuries (such as the Baptists, in their Confession of Faith of 1689, the Presbyterians in the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647, and before them the Catholics and Orthodox) ceremonial law. The moral law is known as the Ten Commandments by these same Christians and also is so mentioned in the different denominational confessional documents.
Questions for retribution: Why do you want to add all types of laws to that one that God pronounced audibly, as if they are all equal, when it is clearly said that after uttering the Ten Commandments (which were later written by God on tables of stone), “He added no more” (Deu. 5:22)? Aren’t you going against what God did when seeking to add to the “Moral law” other principles that are not part of the divine code, going beyond what is written (1 Cor. 4:6)?
2nd. Question: Why do you base your religion so much on the Sabbath, when we know that the Lord taught that both the law and the prophets are based on love, not on keeping the law? (Mat. 22:34-40, Rom. 13:8-10)?
ANSWER: The basis of our religion is Christ, and Him crucified. We are justified fully by faith, not by works, as Paul says in Ephesians 2:8, 9. This text is accompanied by another that many “forget” to mention with these two: Ephesians 2:10.
The Sabbath is part of God’s commandments about which Paul, the great champion of the message of salvation only by faith, said: “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God” (1 Cor 7:19). Obedience to the commandments of God does not enter in the field of justification, but in that of sanctification, which the Calvinists call “perseverance of the saints”.
Questions for retribution: How come Paul didn’t reveal any knowledge on the freedom of Christians to disobey the commandments of the Decalogue, as he recommends naturally and objectively the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th commandments to the GENTILES of Ephesus and Rome (Eph. 6:1-3; 4:25-31; Rom. 13:8-10)?
3rd. Question: How do you lit a fire on the seventh day despite that being forbidden in the Levitical law (Exo. 35:3)? As you do that, certainly break the Sabbath.
Note: The breaking of the Sabbath was punished with the death penalty to the transgressor. That is part of the Sabbath law, which cannot be separated. Thus, if you want to keep the law, obey it completely, beginning to stone to death those who break the Sabbath. (Exo. 31:15, Jas. 2:10) (See question 13).
ANSWER: Lighting a fire at that time was a very complicated matter, not to compare to what we have today, when just pressing a button, or rubbing a match stick against a strip of chemical material produces the flame. The custom of that time was to leave a fire constantly lit during the Sabbath hours so that on that day there was no need for all the big task of producing a wood fire. The penalty of breaking the Sabbath commandment was not different from related penalties for breaking other commandments, like blasphemy. Even a very rebel child was supposed to be sent to the elders for condemning him to death (Deu. 21:18-21), which is not attached to the moral law as uttered by God. That was part of a “penal law”.
Now , when Paul recommended the 5th commandment to the Ephesians (Eph. 6:1-3), they were not supposed to follow that rule anymore, why?
Questions for retribution: Why, instead of creating excuses like this to escape from keeping the commandment of the Sabbath, don’t you observe the day without lighting fires in the home? If that is the problem, if it is considered wrong to lit a fire in such a fast and practical way on any day, do not judge those who do so because that does not change the nature of the principle. If you prefer to follow a Sabbath keeping “a la Pharisees”, so be it . . . Keep it without lighting any fires, but observe the day, because, I repeat, this is not a valid excuse to break the validity of the commandment.
4th. Question: Tell me, when and where in the Bible did the Lord Jesus tell His Apostles that they should keep the Ten Commandments? I shall be content with the chapter and verse.
Note: The Lord Jesus Christ, instead, broke the Mosaic law of Sabbath keeping. This is categorically stated as one of the reasons why the Jews hated the Lord Jesus Christ (John 5:18).
ANSWER: Jesus told ALL His followers to love God above all things and our neighbors as ourselves when there was NO Gentile present. Did He say that only for Jews? By the reasoning of the opponents, the “golden rule” applies only to Jews, not to Gentiles. . . So with many of his recommendations as the Lord’s Prayer, not to worry about tomorrow, not to hoard treasures on the Earth, not judge by appearances. . .
These are universal principles, as well as ALL of the 10 Commandments, including the Sabbath, which is recognized by the three great heroes of the Protestant Movement--Luther, Calvin and Wesley. They all recognized that the Sabbath principle stems from the creation of the world, and is applicable to all men everywhere, even though interpreting it as applying to Sunday (an error of interpretation, but that does not change the ideological basis of the question). Jesus did not violate the Sabbath as the Jews accused Him of doing. (See Mat 12: 10-12).
Questions for retribution: This type of “argument from silence” is the weakest way to defend or combat an idea. There is no clear, specific, verbatim commandment of Christ to Jews or Gentiles that meets the 3rd commandment (not to take God's name in vain), to not use sculpted images of the Church's saints, and nothing prohibiting communication with the dead. By the reasoning of this 4th question, could a Gentile (or Jew) Christian: a) take God’s name in vain; b) worship sculpted images of the Church's saints; c) communicate with the dead. . .?
5th. Question: Can I get some text in the Bible where it orders Gentiles converted to Christianity in the New Testament, to observe the Sabbath commandment in accordance with the law given to Israel in the Old Testament? Again, just give me the chapter and the verse.
ANSWER: Again, the methodology of that weak “argument from silence.” As already mentioned in the previous question, there are many principles that Christians heed universally, but are not defined in the New Testament so objectively, specifically and clearly. Where is there ever any commandment to the Gentiles not to consult the dead? However, Jesus said that “the Sabbath was established because of man” without defining that it referred only to the Jewish man. It is the same man-anthropos that leaves his father and mother to cling to his wife (Matt. 19:5, 6).
Question for retribution: Since Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man, and it is understood that it applies only to the Jewish man, does that mean that marriage is meant only to the Jews?
6th. Question: You state, without proving it, that the Sabbath was kept before the law was given to Moses at Mount Sinai. The law of circumcision was also given before Moses (Gen. 17:10). Thus, why don’t you practice circumcision, being that one of the clearest commandments of the Levitical law? Remember that the Gentiles only could keep the ceremonial law, which included the Sabbath, as you profess to keep, after being circumcised (Acts 11:2-3; 15:2) Once more I ask: Why do you keep a commandment, but despise the other? (Jas. 2:10).
ANSWER: Because circumcision was a common costume of that time, as well as polygamy, afterwards incorporated in the law for Israel, which took into account many things of cultural character, along with moral principles. What defines the law of MORAL and UNIVERSAL character is what God uttered on Sinai to the ears of the people.
Christians ALWAYS understood that the 10 Commandments are a special law, which deals with these universal principles, and were in force BEFORE Sinai, and keep on being valid and in force AFTER it, such as “thou shalt not kill”, “thou shalt not commit adultery”, “honor thy father and thy mother”. It is not a ceremonial precept.
And the Sabbath stems from the creation of the world (Gen. 2:2, 3), as we already mentioned, which is recognized historically by the Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, as one can read in their confessions of faith, creeds, catechisms and their works of religious instruction, Bible commentaries, etc.
Questions for retribution: Where is it said that the Sabbath WAS NOT observed before Sinai? Where is it said specifically that before Sinai men should not steal, lie, covet other people’s things and to honor father and mother?
7th. Question: The apostle Paul writes in Galatians 3:19 that the law was given because of the transgressions. You teach that the part of the law that refers to the Sabbath commandment was given to man immediately after his creation, however the Scriptures say that it was after the Fall. Can’t you see that the Adventist theory that the law was given in two occasions doesn’t agree with the facts?
ANSWER: The problem is the tremendous ignorance that prevails among modern Evangelicals, especially among those who follow this line of false teachings of the neo-antinomians dispensationalists. NOT ONLY THE ADVENTISTS teach that God granted men His law at creation, which was written in their hearts. How about reproducing the 1689 Baptist Confession of faith, which indicates the sentiments and teachings of Christendom since past centuries?:
The Law of God
1. God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience which was written in his heart, and He gave him very specific instruction about not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. By this Adam and all his descendants were bound to personal, total, exact, and perpetual obedience, being promised life upon the fulfilling of the law, and threatened with death upon the breach of it. At the same time Adam was endued with power and ability to keep it.
2. The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the Fall, and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai in the ten commandments, and written in two tables, the first four containing our duty towards God, and the other six, our duty to man.
Question for retribution: Why is there such a profound ignorance about these historical data on the official doctrines taught for centuries by Evangelicals/Protestants, and even before them, by the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, regarding the nature of the original law given to man since his creation?
8th. Question: Why is it that in the commandments given to our first parents in Eden, and in those given to the patriarchs Noah, Abraham and others, there is not a single reference on the duty to keep the Sabbath? Why the word Sabbath is not mentioned but after two thousand years had elapsed since man’s creation? If the Adventists theories were right—shouldn’t references to Sabbath keeping occur many times before Exodus 16?
Note: Not even Abraham received any order to keep the Sabbath, which was given only to Moses. Could the Adventists show us any text that proves that the patriarchs kept the Sabbath as they advocate?
ANSWER: Again, the weakest “argument from silence”. But besides what we said in the previous question, how about this important commentary of a scholar from the Moody Bible Institute, which is not an Adventist institution?:
“As presented to us in Scriptures the Sabbath was not the invention of any religious founder. It was not at first part of any system of religion, but an entirely independent institution. Very definitely it is presented in Genesis as the very first institution, inaugurated by the Creator himself. It was purely religious, wholly moral, wholly spiritual. It had no prescribed ceremonies, no sacramentarian significance. It required no priest, no liturgy. It was for man as God’s creature, steward and friend”. -- W. O. Carver, Sabbath Observance, p. 41, Produced by the Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention.
“The week, with its Sabbath, is an artificial device. The reason for it is found only in the Old Testament Scriptures. Here it is always associated with revelation from God. . . .
“Religious ideas and practices among all peoples, in varying degrees have been associated with all the time divisions which men have adopted. But in connection only with the week is religion obviously the explanation of its origin, and the week only is uniformly attributed to command of God. The week exists because of the Sabbath. It is historically and scientifically true that the Sabbath was made by God”. Idem, pp. 34, 35.—Highlight Added.
Question for retribution: Since nothing is said that BEFORE Sinai there were specific commandments against stealing, lying, coveting the things and wife of the neighbor, not to take God’s name in vain, not to worship sculpted images, would that lead one to conclude that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob could lie, steal, take God’s name in vain and worship sculpted images, etc.? If not, why not?
9th. Question: Where do we find in the Scriptures that God had given any commandment on Sabbath keeping before the people of Israel was delivered from the Egyptian bondage? Remember to mention the chapter and verse in each case, without making any reference to Genesis 2:1-3, for there is no commandment there on that either.
Note: The seventh day was sanctified only in God’s mind. We see that the Bible mentions only that which God communicated verbally to man; there appears only the words “. . . and He said to them. . .
ANSWER: Again, the poor resource of the “argument from silence”. In Exodus 16, when the Sabbath is mentioned all indications are that it was a pre-existent institution. In vs. 4 it is indicated that the mannah would be granted in six days, with the exception of the seventh day, so that it served as a test on the people’s obedience to the divine law WHICH ALREADY EXISTED. As additionally says the Bible Commentary:
“Contrary to what some think, there is nothing in the text or its context that indicate that the Sabbath was given then to the Israelites by the first time. Actually, it is implied that they knew the Sabbath already, however had become negligent as to its observance (chap. 16: 4). Thus, the Sabbath commandment was renewed, and its observance reinforced as the day of worship”.
Question for retribution: Can you prove that when it is said that Abraham obeyed God’s commandments, statutes and laws, in Genesis 26:5, that applied only to those principles corresponding to NINE out of TEN commandments, the principle of Sabbath keeping being excluded, but not any other of the nine?
10th. Question: If the commandment was given to Adam on the creation day, how could God have mistaken the date? Adam was created on the sixth day, and the seventh day, to which Genesis makes reference, was the second of Adam’s existence. If Adam had to work six day, then rest on the seventh, he would be mistaken for five days in his calculation. The Sabbath would not be the seventh day because he would have worked only one day. Adam’s Sabbath would have been a Sabbath of the second day.
Note: It’s interesting that the Adventists also make a great confusion in the calculation of days, caused by their Pharisaical zeal in attempting to keep the Levitical law given to the people of Israel, and not to us, Christians among the Gentiles. In Exo. 20:9 we read clearly that one should work six days. It is an order and part of the law to be fulfilled. But the Adventists work only five days, for they take advantage of the “Sabbath” of the Gentile Christians, observed on the 1st day of the week (Revelation 1:10) and have an extra day off, generally going to the beach or strolls. So, they break the law they so much attempt to fulfill, being reproved even before the end of the first sentence in the commandment.
ANSWER: There is no problem, at all. This is pure sophistry as one more excuse of those who want to escape from a Bible precept that seems quite “inconvenient” to them. When God invited the foreigners to accept the pact He had set with Israel, in Isa. 56:2-7, it is not said that they should do it at sunset of the Sabbath day so that they could fulfill the “quota” of six days of work before observing their first Sabbath. If a Christian is baptized on a Wednesday, he or she certainly will have a shorter first week as a believer, which makes no difference before God.
Also the commandment says that in six day, “all your work” should be executed, which involves any other secular activities, such as business, sports practice, home tasks, recreation. The working six days doesn’t apply exclusively to a job in a factory, office, shop or farm.
Questions for retribution: Can you prove that Adam worked as a gardener in the garden of Eden (Gen. 2:15) during ALL the seven days of the week, just pausing at night to rest, without dedicating any day to God? Also, can you prove that the first Sabbath was a holiday only to the Creator, not to the creature?
11th. Question: Haven’t you read Nehemiah 9:12-14 where it is clearly said that the Sabbath was given to Israel at the Sinai mount? Since the Sabbath was given only to Israel, why do you insist to have others observing it?
ANSWER: Anti-Sabbatarians wish that Nehemiah have adopted their same agenda to denigrate the Sabbath, when there was no climate for that at his time. Even after that, God indicated the importance of the Sabbath through Ezekiel and Isaiah (Eze. 20:12, 20 and Isa. 58:13, 14). Nehemiah is presenting a historical review of how God was favorable to the people, and among the different episodes of Israel’s history he recalls them their privilege of having the Sabbath, which is the only one of the commandments mentioned.
This is no indication that the origin of the Sabbath was at Sinai. If that was so we would have a contradiction to many other data that indicate the origin of the Sabbath from Eden. As the SDA Bible Commentary puts it:
edited at poster's request
Questions for retribution: Why do you resort to the Church Fathers as “proof” that Christians adopted Sunday keeping since ancient times, without first presenting evidence that this has biblical support? If that were true, it would be clearly reflected in the Holy Writ. Are you not acting exactly as the Roman Catholics, who for lack of biblical evidence for many of theirs teachings, also go after such evidence in their “holy tradition”?
If there are documents that mention Sunday as practiced by the Christians, this indicates the fulfillment of prophecies recorded in Acts 20:29, 30, 2 Peter 2:1-3 and Revelation, chapters 2 and 3, which indicate a deviation from the original Christian teachings through false ideas, what was confirmed later on along the Middle Ages, when apostasy was prevalent throughout Christendom.
Moreover, there are documents that confirm that Christians observed the seventh-day Sabbath, as the testimony by Epiphanius by the middle of the 4th Century AD, commenting on those who belonged to the mother church of Jerusalem and fled the city before its destruction in 70 AD, taking refuge in the region of Pela. They settled there and were known as the “Nazarenes”. Epiphanius says that these Christians had still “Jewish” practices as the Sabbath keeping, and criticizes them for that, arguing that they should not be considered Christians. However, they were called “Nazarenes” not “Mosesenes”.
23rd. Question: Why do you say that one of the popes changed the day of rest from the seventh day to the first? There is sufficient historical evidence that Christians observed the first day for centuries before there was a pope! How do you explain this?
ANSWER: We have a wonderful book that discusses in detail and was highly praised by Catholic and Protestant scholars, where all these theories are clarified. It shows clearly the pagan origins of the Sunday practice. The book is From Sabbath to Sunday, by Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi. To ignore this book and pretend that this matter has been proved on the line of what interest your views only demonstrates an intention to maintain untouched the “myths” of always. . .
Questions for retribution: Have you read the book by Dr. Bacchiocchi? If you have, what do you have to say about it? Are there errors in his research? If yes, what are they?
24th. Question: If you must keep the seventh day, how come the apostles and early Christians celebrated the most important meetings, such as the Lord’s Supper, on the first day instead of the seventh?
ANSWER: There is no proof of this, and the proofs submitted on that respect are more interpretative “shots” that backfire. The text of Acts 20:7, for example, does not say anything that it was a Lord’s Supper, but that one Saturday night Paul bid farewell to the believers in Troas, who gathered to “break bread”, which is only a common meal they practiced every day (Acts 2:46) from house to house. . . Would they hold the Lord’s Supper every day in the homes?
Additionally it is said that Paul, at a certain point (after resolving an emergency situation), went back to the hall where they met (vs. 11). There isn’t the least hint of a Lord’s Supper celebration there. The type of language used doesn’t confirm it, but to the contrary—it indicates a common meal. In the sequence it is described a long journey that Paul took ON FOOT to another city, still on the “first day of the week”, for it was just the part of the day that completed the 24-hour period, since the day began at sunset (the time count is Jewish, as can be seen by the name of the day in the Greek, mia twn sabbatwn-the first day since the Sabbath).
So, instead of remaining with the Troas brethren for the Sunday School, or equivalent, the Apostle left in that long journey, which shows that he had no special scruples as to sanctifying the day. So, to employ that text to counter Sabbath keeping is one more interpretive “shot” that backfires.
Questions for retribution: Did you know that in the original Greek the expression for “break bread” is klasai arton-a generic language applied to any food on any day of the week (Acts 2:46)? However, what is NOT mentioned in Acts 20:7 is the kind of specific language in Greek that Christians use for the Lord’s Supper: “Kuriakon Deipnon”(see 1 Cor 11:20)? Can you also explain how, if Paul participated and even conducted Lord’s Supper in Acts 20, there is no mention of wine, which is an integral part of such ceremonies?
25th. Question: How do you know that you really keep the seventh day? Can you be sure that there were no errors in the reckoning of time since the day when God rested? You have to take into account changes made in the calendar in the year 46 BC, when it was agreed that the year would have only 345 days, to correct errors that had accumulated. You should also think about the law in the year 1751, when to “correct the calendar,” which stipulated the removal of 11 days in September. With these and other changes how can you be sure that you know to count the days since the creation in an absolutely correct manner?
ANSWER: First, God is not incompetent as a legislator, establishing a “memorial of creation” in the first Sabbath (Gen. 2:2, 3) and when He restores it to His chosen people, later on, He establishes a seventh day that had nothing to do with the original, of which the Sabbath in the Decalogue is the memorial (Exo. 20:8-11). Jesus observed the Sabbath (Luc. 4:16) not only for being a Jew, but for being the author of the principle, as creator that He is (John 1:3,14; Heb. 1:2). He called Himself “Lord of the Sabbath” and it would be amazing that he kept the wrong day, supposedly lost along history, disconnected from its historical significance, as the “memorial of creation.”
On the change of calendars, from the Julian to the Gregorian, the date when that occurred was 1582, and we have good data on what happened then--10 days were taken off in the reckoning of days, without affecting the sequence of the days of the week. Thus, October 4, 1582, Thursday, was followed by October 15, Friday.
Moreover, the Jews have their calendar of nearly 6,000 years, independent from the Christian calendars, and the seventh day of their calendar is exactly the same as that of the Christians! The day that the religious Jews go to their synagogues is the same on which the Seventh-day Adventist, Messianic Jews, Seventh-day Baptists meet in their congregations.
Questions for retribution: How can you engage in such attacks against the Sabbath observers, when ignoring facts so easy to check, being sufficient to simply carry out a not too complex research on the change of calendars and their relationship with the sequence of days, or simply ask a Jew on what day he goes to worship in the synagogue? Doesn’t that show that you didn’t accomplish your “home work” before launching this kind of silly criticism, which only reveals incompetence on your part, not only in biblical matters but also in historical ones?
26th. Question: Have you by any chance read Colossians 2:14-17, which shows that the “handwritten of ordinances” was cancelled and taken “out of the way”, meaning that the ceremonial rituals of the Mosaic law (including Sabbath keeping, which you advocate) were nailed to the cross?
ANSWER: The text of Colossians 2:14-17 seems like an “one-note anti-Sabbatarian samba” for the enemies of the Sabbath commandment. Unfortunately many do not know how to interpret the Bible as it is, taking only one or two texts that have a language seemingly “favorable” to some idea, neglecting to read the entire context and other texts that address the same subject. So the Catholics are set on Matthew 16:18, 19 to “prove” the primacy of Peter, the Mormons utilize 1 Corinthians 15:29 to “prove” the baptism for the dead and the “Jehovah’s Witnesses” use John 14:19 to deny that Christ will come again visibly.
The fact is that in the entire epistle of Paul to the Colossians the word “law” never appears. The theme of the epistle is NOT abolition of laws. It is now well known that the cheirographon, was the written document that recorded the accusations attributed to a culprit in a court. What Paul says is that those who were forgiven by Christ have their guilt eliminated. After speaking of baptism and death to sin (vs. 12) in the vs. 13 he says: “having forgiving you all trespasses”. Then he refers to the elimination of the decrees, which is not the manner for forgiving sins. These are not eliminated through the abolition of the law that point to them (see Rom. 7:7, 8). Thus, what was nailed to the cross was not the law, but the record of guilt.
The entire tenor of the chapter shows that Paul, beside these reflections, discusses a local problem. He has no intention to establish rules of universal character. There were extremists in Colossae who wished to impose their understanding, full of ideas of how to practice religion. In vs. 18 Paul clearly indicates what was his real preoccupation, as he says: “Let no man beguile you of your reward” (KJV), but with many international translations having it as, “Let no man act as an arbiter against you” (Portuguese Ferreira de Almeida’s translation), or “Let no man disqualify you” (Revised Standard Version, American Bible Society).
Questions for retribution: If in Colossians 2:14-17 Paul is teaching the end of the Sabbath commandment, what did he leave in its place? Nothing is indicated that he thinks in terms of Sunday replacing the seventh-day. So, would Paul be contradicting Jesus, who said that “the Sabbath was made because of man”, acting on his own to end the principle of a day of rest to be dedicated to the Lord?
27th. Question: In verses 16 and 17 of the same chapter, we see that certain things required under the law of Moses, including the observance of the Sabbath, are not but mere shadow of the future--the spiritual body of Christ. To keep the Sabbath is clinging to a shadow.
ANSWER: As it would be expected, anti-Sabbatarian invest heavily on a text whose language seems favorable to them, ignoring its logic context. The weekly Sabbath is not a ceremonial precept, and regarding this we have the study “10 Reasons Why the Sabbath IS NOT a Ceremonial Precept”, which anti-Sabbatarian never refuted point by point. To facilitate the search of said study, this is the link that leads directly to it:
http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=96903&page=1
Even though the Sabbath is in a sense a symbol of the future eternal rest of salvation, as the scholarly commentary by the Baptists Jamieson, Fausset and Brown exposes, the symbol disappears only when the reality it anticipates is met. Since we haven’t reached the eternal Sabbath, the weekly Sabbath that points typologically to it remains in full force. And these scholars says more specifically on the text of Colossians 2:16:
“SABBATHS” of the day of atonement and feast of tabernacles have come to an end with the Jewish services to which they belonged (Lev. 23:32, Lev. 23:37-39). (not “the sabbaths”) The weekly sabbath rests on a more permanent foundation, having been instituted in Paradise to commemorate the completion of creation in six days. Lev. 23:38 expressly distinguished “the sabbath of the Lord” from the other sabbaths. A positive precept is right because it is commanded, and ceases to be obligatory when abrogated; a moral precept is commanded eternally, because it is eternally right. If we could keep a perpetual sabbath, as we shall hereafter, the positive precept of the sabbath, one in each week, would not be needed. Heb. 4:9, “rests,” Greek, “keeping of sabbath” (Isa. 6:23). But we cannot, since even Adam, in innocence, needed one amidst his earthly employments; therefore the sabbath is still needed and is therefore still linked with the other nine commandments, as obligatory in the spirit, though the letter of the law has been superseded by that higher spirit of love which is the essence of law and Gospel alike (Rom.13:8-10). – Commentary by Jamieson, Fausset and Brown.
Questions for retribution: How would Jesus refer to the Sabbath as “made because of man” if it was only a shadow amidst others from the Jewish religion, which would cease at some time, without further serving man to grant him physical, mental and spiritual benefits?
28th. Question: Have you ever read Romans 14:5, 6 that show that some make a difference between day and day, but others judge all days the same? It is said: “Each one is safe in your own mind.” Why didn’t the Apostle Paul insist that those who think all days are equal should estimate the seventh day as superior to all the other days and “sanctify” it, as advocated by the Adventists?
ANSWER: Again the opponents of the Sabbath commandment don’t take into account the full context and complete tenor of the biblical teaching. Paul only discusses another local problem regarding those who still thought it was necessary to celebrate special dates in Israel, as the Feast of Trumpets, the Feast of the Tabernacle, the Purim Feast, etc. As they were Christians ethnically and nationally Jews, they imagined that they were still under such obligation, but Paul tells them that even though they had freedom to celebrate them (and for the Jews these were national holidays) they should not impose such rules on all.
Questions for retribution: Since it is clear that the Christian community had not decided that the Sabbath should be replaced either by Sunday, or by the nodayism/anydayism/everydayism notion soon after the death of Christ on the cross, what day did they observe in the meantime--the Sabbath, Sunday or no day at all? What Biblical evidence is there, be it for one thing or the other?
29th. Question: The main theme in Adventism is the keeping of the law, especially the Sabbath law. Now, in the New Testament we find 50 times mention to preach the gospel, 17 times to preach the Word, 23 times to preach Christ, and 8 times to preach the Kingdom. Not one single time anything is said about preaching the Sabbath law, as you folks so much defend. How do you explain that?
ANSWER: Here again the fallacious “argument from silence” which is worth a zero on the left side. It doesn’t prove anything on nothing. There is no order to preach against taking the name of God in vain, or about not manufacturing sculpted images, or the prohibition of communicating with the dead, while Jesus recommended Sabbath keeping: in Mat. 23:1-3 He recommended His hearers, disciples and the multitude, that they obeyed ALL that their religious chiefs taught in harmony with the divine law, only not being hypocrites as they were, in their do-what-I-say-but-not-what-I-do attitude.
And one of the things they taught in harmony with the law was the faithful observance of the Sabbath (Luke 13:14). Therefore, we have Christ recommending the Sabbath, along with all the other rules of the law! The fact that there were only Jews present in the occasion is no excuse, because there were also only Jews when He preached the principles of the Sermon on the Mountain, and even when He transmitted the “golden rule” of love to God and to the neighbor. These things were said only to Jews. . . So, by the reasoning of these opponents, these principles also would just apply to the Jews!. . .
Questions for retribution: Have you read topics 9, 10 and 18 of the 28 topics of the SDA confessional document? If you did, then you are just giving false witness against your neighbor as you allege: “The main theme in Adventism is the keeping of the law, especially the Sabbath law.” In case you haven’t read it, please, do so that you don’t engage in saying things that are untrue, because that is an act of intellectual dishonesty.
Even the church’s name, “Adventist”, highlights that the Second Advent of Jesus is one of the chief preoccupations of the Adventist preaching, which is an essentially Christ-centered subject. In order to speak about the second coming of Christ it is necessary to explain what happened in His first coming, and the reason why He is supposed to return. Isn’t that the basic theme of the gospel?
30th. Question: In the New Testament the word ‘Sabbath’ is found 70 times. You folks admit that in every case, but for one, reference is made to the Sabbath day according to the Jewish ceremonial principles, with no problem. However, in this sole case, i. e., the Colossians 2:16 verse, where the word is the same in the Greek texts, you try to lead us to believe that is has a different meaning. Why? Wouldn’t it be because you are aware that Colossians 2:16, 17 topples down your doctrinal arguments that we Christians are bound to keep the ceremonial Mosaic law, of which the Sabbath commandment is a part?
ANSWER: We have demonstrated through the answers to questions 26 and 27 how this “one-note anti-Sabbatarian samba”, as the text of Colossians 2:16 is used, only shows the exegetical incapacity of those who capitalize so much on a text that brings a language that seems favorable to their presuppositions, ignoring the context and the whole tenor of the Biblical teaching regarding the theme of God’s law and the rest day. All that has been very well explained in the answers to the questions indicated.
Questions for retribution: If the Sabbath is a ceremonial precept that later would be abolished (which would be reflected in Col. 2:16), why does the author of Hebrews dedicate to the Sabbath a very special treatment in chaps. 3 and 4, instead of dealing with the Sabbath question in chaps. 7 through 10, dedicated to a discussion of the Jewish ceremonies and their meaning? Now, since the Sabbath keeping was so rooted in the religious, even secular, life of the Jews, isn’t strange that, being the Sabbath a Jewish ceremonial institution, it was not the object of a detailed discussion on its typological role, as was the case with so many of the other features of the ritual law?
31st. Question: Haven’t you guys read Galatians 3:22-25 where it says that the law was given as a schoolmaster (mentor) to lead us to Christ, but, with the coming of the faith, we are no more under this schoolmaster? Thus, we aren’t under the law. Shall we disregard the Bible teaching in that part?
ANSWER: The law was and will always continue acting as a schoolmaster to lead sinners to Christ. It acts as a mirror, showing the stain, but has no condition to clean it up, as John Calvin illustrated in his Institutes. Luther used to say that a Christian is simul iustus et peccator--at the same time a sinner and a saint. Paul declared that he learned about sin through the commandment “ye shall not covet” (Rom. 7:7, 8). And that was exactly that same law he said he served with his mind (Rom. 7:25), of which he recommended naturally the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th commandments to the GENTILES of Ephesus and Rome (Eph. 6:1-3; 4:25-31; Rom. 13:8-10). Moreover, the same Paul who said the words highlighted by the opponent in the question, also affirmed that faith DIDN’T CANCEL the law, but, to the contrary, CONFIRMED it (Rom. 3:31).
There are two basic problems among Evangelicals in general regarding their studies on the theme of the law and the Sabbath:
a) they don’t understand the tenor of Christ’s debates on the Sabbath;
Minor edit at request of poster