—Ritchie Way

Some scholars contend that the seventh-day Sabbath, which was a key part of the Jewish faith, was never adopted by the Gentile Church, and that it was their practice, instead, to worship on Sunday—the Lord’s day. The purpose of this article is to look at the historical records from the first four hundred years of Christianity to discover, if possible, what the weekly day of worship was for the Jewish and Gentile churches. What we discover about their practice will shed light on their theology.

There is mounting evidence that Jewish Christians continued to observe the Sabbath long after the death of Jesus. Epiphanius (c. 315-403), the Metropolitan bishop of Salamis (Constantia), recorded that the Christians who fled from the siege of Jerusalem to Pella in Trans Jordan in AD 67, still spoke Hebrew and still kept the seventh-day Sabbath some three hundred years later.¹

The question that interests us, however, is not what day the Jewish Christians observed as Sabbath, but the day of the week that the Gentile Christians worshipped on. Many believe that the apostle Paul taught the Gentile Christians to worship God on Sunday? What is the testimony of Scripture and history?

At the Jerusalem council, held about AD 49-50, James, the presiding officer, reminded the members that both Jewish and Gentile Christians in every city were taught from the writings of Moses ‘in the synagogues on every Sabbath’ (Acts 15:21). Here, a generation after the death of Jesus, there is no question about which day Christians worshipped on. It was the Sabbath.²

About the year AD 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, ‘The seventh day is recognised as sacred, not only by the Hebrews, but also by the Greeks.’³ If this were the only reference to Sabbath observance by Gentile Christians in the early Church, it would be sufficient to significantly shake the prevailing view that the apostles were the ones who introduced the Lord’s Day to the Gentiles. According to Clement of Alexandria, over one hundred and fifty years after Jesus, Gentile churches such as Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens and Corinth, were observing the seventh-day Sabbath.

Another Christian, in the latter part of the Fourth Century, wrote: ‘We are assembled on the day of the Sabbath, not because we are infected with Judaism, for we have never appropriated to ourselves false Sabbaths;⁴ but we approach the Sabbath to adore Christ, the Lord of the Sabbath.’⁵

Prior to this time, however, about four generations after the death of Jesus, a change began to take place, first in Alexandria, then in Rome, two principal cities of the Old World.

Around about AD 130 someone in Alexandria wrote an anti-Jewish theological tract, to which he gave the title, The Epistle of Barnabas. This allegorical treatise, based on questionable logic, attacked the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath and testified, ‘We keep the eighth day for rejoicing, on which Jesus also rose from the dead’ (15:9).

Sabbath observance by Christians had become increasingly difficult throughout the Roman Empire, because of its association with the despised Jews, and especially so after the Jews rose up in revolt against Rome in AD 132-135. Emperor Hadrian, incensed by this second Jewish revolt, which resulted in the only heavy fighting to occur in the whole of his otherwise peaceful reign, retaliated against the Jews by categorically forbidding the practice of circumcision and Sabbath-keeping.⁶ His decree, however, created deep concern among the early Sabbath-keeping Christians, because, in the eyes of the pagans, they were a Jewish sect.⁷

Christians naturally wished to avoid being identified with the hated Jews, and they were also anxious to be seen as being supportive of the government. Subsequent history reveals that the churches in Alexandria and Rome yielded to these social and political pressures, and their yielding initiated a change in the Church’s life and teachings which negatively impacted Christianity for the next two millennia.

Up until this time there had been few problems with Sabbath observance throughout the Roman Empire, as the seventh day of the week had also been the principal day for rest and feasting among the Roman pagans. But, by the time of Hadrian’s decree, the day of Saturn (Saturday) had been overshadowed and replaced by the day of the Sun (Sunday), as the chief holy day among the Romans.⁸ This meant that Christians who observed the seventh-day Sabbath now found themselves off-side and out of step with the majority of Roman citizens.

History reveals that around this time the Christians in Alexandria and Rome began to meet for worship on the first day of the week.⁹ It is unlikely that the church leaders intended, at first, to replace the Sabbath with Sunday worship, but the advantages of doing so soon became apparent. Sunday worship not only distinguished the Christians from the despised Jews, it also provided a more culturally acceptable ‘door’ to Christianity for converts from paganism than did the ‘Jewish’ Sabbath. These converts were not only able to continue observing their pre-conversion holy day, more importantly, they weren’t faced with the almost impossible hurdle by being asked to keep the despised ‘Jewish’ Sabbath contrary to the law of the land.

Church leaders in Alexandria and Rome, anxious to put as much distance between themselves and the Jews as possible, then did something no respectable Jew would ever consider doing—they turned their Sabbath into a fast day.¹⁰ This action further eroded the Sabbath as it made it impossible for the believers to celebrate the Lord’s Supper on that day.

Commenting on this unusual practice, the Fifth Century historian, Socrates Scholasticus, wrote, ‘Almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries [the Lord’s Supper] on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this.’¹¹

As the Sabbath is a celebration of the Age to Come where there is feasting and rejoicing (Matt. 8:11), fasting (going without food) was regarded as contrary to the spirit of the Sabbath. In fact, the Sabbath and fasting go together like fire and water. One sure way to weaken the Sabbath, especially in the eyes of children, would be to make it a compulsory fast day.¹² The Christians in both Rome and Alexandria fasted on the seventh day of the week, with the result that their Sabbath eventually died.

Christians elsewhere, however, strongly opposed fasting on the Sabbath. As late as 692 the Trullan Synod, which met in Constantinople—the new capital for the Roman Empire—soundly condemned the practice of fasting on any Sabbath except the Great Sabbath of Easter.¹³

Over the next two centuries many churches throughout the Empire, recognising the obvious benefits of Sunday worship, followed Rome in adopting the first day of the week as a holy day. Almost all of these, however, with the exception of Rome and Alexandria and their satellites, continued to observe the seventh-day Sabbath, the result being that the two worship days were kept side by side in many countries. ‘Even as late as the Fifth Century almost the entire Christian world observed both Saturday and Sunday for special religious services.’¹⁴ Obviously, therefore, the early Church did not regard Sunday worship as a substitute for the Sabbath. This point cannot be stressed too much.

In c. 362 the synod of Laodicea, dictated to by the anti-Semitic Roman government, issued Canon 29, which not only drove the wedge between the Jews and Christians even deeper, but also contributed towards the extinction of the Sabbath outside of Rome. This canon reads as follows: ‘Christians must not judaise by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord’s Day.’¹⁵

Such a decree was only felt necessary because more than three hundred years after Christ Gentile Christians were still resting on the Sabbath. You don’t command someone to stop doing something they are not doing.
It had been the established custom of many Gentile Christians to refrain from work on the Sabbath, and this synod commanded that they must now work on that day instead. The fact that the synod referred to resting on the Sabbath as judaising exposes the motive behind its command.

The same synod, however, revealed, in its 16th canon, that Christians were still expected to attend church on the seventh day, either before or after work: ‘The Gospels are to be read on the Sabbath [i.e. Saturday], with the other Scriptures.’¹⁶

The Apostolic Constitutions, which were compiled just a few years later (around AD390), provide additional evidence that both Sabbath and Sunday were being kept as holy days: ‘Let the slaves work five days; but on the Sabbath-day and the Lord’s day let them have leisure to go to church for instruction in piety.’¹⁷ And, ‘The Sabbath is a rest in order to meditate on the law …’¹⁸ These Constitutions reveal that while some districts were moving away from resting on the Sabbath because of strong anti-Semitic feelings, others, not under the same pressure, continued to avoid work on the seventh day, as well as on the first.

In Alexandria and Rome, however, the official church no longer observed the Sabbath. Sozomen, a Christian writer of the Fifth Century, observed that the Christians in these two cities no longer met on the Sabbath, as was the custom elsewhere. ‘The people of Constantinople and almost everywhere, assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the first day of the week, which custom is never observed at Rome nor at Alexandria.’¹⁹ Note that Sozomen lived in the four hundreds. At this time, three hundred years after the apostles, the Gentile churches, with the exception of Rome and Alexandria, were still observing the seventh-day Sabbath.

There were church leaders in Rome and Alexandria who, because they had bought into the un-Christian anti-Semitic attitude of the government, were keen to turn the world-wide church away from the ‘Jewish’ Sabbath to the observance of Sunday. Not finding evidence in the Scriptures to support their initiative they added a passage to the end of the greatly esteemed Justin Martyr’s First Apology, making it appear that Justin himself had written it.²⁰ Their purpose in interpolating this passage, was to convince doubters that Sunday was observed as the true day of worship as far back as the middle of the Second Century.

This forged appendix begins like this: ‘On the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country [surrounding Rome] gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read.’²¹

Even as late as the turn of the Seventh Century some church leaders were still openly attacking the Sabbath and Sabbath keepers. Gregory I, bishop of Rome from 590-604, wrote the following: ‘Gregory, servant of the servants of God, to his most beloved sons the Roman citizens. It has come to my ears that certain men of perverse spirit have sown among you some things that are wrong and opposed to the holy faith, so as to forbid any work being done on the Sabbath-day. What else can I call these, but preachers of Antichrist, who, when he comes, will cause the Sabbath-day as well as the Lord’s day to be kept free from all work?’²²

In summary we can see that, for at least one hundred years after Jesus, the Gentile churches observed the seventh-day Sabbath as the only day of worship. Then, about AD 130, Christians in Alexandria, then in Rome, began worshipping on Sunday as well as Saturday. This practice continued for about four or five generations after Jesus at which time they apparently gave up Sabbath worship. Many Gentile churches, however, continued to worship only on Sabbaths during the first four hundred years of Christianity.

During this period, as the countries of Europe moved to adopting the seven-day week, we find that the names they chose for the first and seventh days of the week reflected the significance that those days held for them at that time. The name the Italians chose for the seventh day of the week was Sabbath (Sabato), and their word for Sunday is Lord’s Day (Domenica). The Greek word for Saturday is Sabbath (Sabbato) and their word for Sunday is Lord’s Day (Kuriake). The Spanish and Portugese word for Saturday is Sabbath (Sabado), and their word for the first day of the week is also Lord’s Day (Domingo). The Russian word for the seventh day is Sabbath (Subbota), while their word for Sunday was Resurrection (Voskresenye). The Czech word for Saturday is Sabbath (Sobota) and their word for the first day is Don’t-work (Nede’le). The Hungarian word for the seventh day is Sabbath (Szombat), and their word for Sunday is Market Day (Vasarnap). Other countries, also, gave the name of ‘Sabbath’ to the seventh day of the week.

SABBATH THEOLOGY

There are Christian scholars today who claim that the seventh-day Sabbath was not adopted by the Gentile Christians, because it had found its complete fulfilment in Jesus. Others claim that it was nailed to the cross, or that it belonged to the Old Covenant, or was a shadow of Christ, and has, therefore, been done away with or replaced. It is apparent, from early Christian history, however, that none of the above theories was ever taught to the Gentile Christians by Paul or any of the other apostles. The early Church knew nothing of such theology. If we want to know what Paul taught the Gentiles, in regard to Sabbath observance, the best place to look would not be the theology of today, but the practice of the churches he helped establish.

If Paul, who said, ‘I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God’ (Acts 20:27)²³, observed the seventh-day Sabbath himself (Acts 13:42-44; 16:13; 17:2; 18:4), and taught the Gentiles to worship God on the seventh and not the first day of the week, why are we giving an anti-Sabbath bias to his teachings? Besides, can you imagine Paul, who declared that the cross of Jesus had broken down the barrier between Jew and Gentile (Eph. 2:14-19), setting about to erect another obstacle between these two cultures?

Furthermore, the argument that slave owners would never have given their servants a day off to go to church on Saturday loses its force in the light of the fact that, for over one hundred years after Christ, Saturday was the most important day among the Romans for resting and banqueting.

Church history clearly reveals that the seventh-day Sabbath was the only weekly day of worship for the early Christian Gentiles for one hundred years after Jesus.²⁴ Sunday did not become a day of worship in the early Church until about AD 130, and even then it was confined to just Alexandria and Rome.

THE NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY OF THE SABBATH AMONG THE GENTILES

As Paul travelled throughout the Gentile world he preached not only to Gentiles, but also to Jews. If there was a Jewish place of worship in the Gentile city he planned to evangelise, that’s where he made his first thrust for the gospel (Acts 13:14-44; 14:1; 16:13; 17:1-4; 18:4; 28:17-24). As a result, throughout the entire Gentile world many Jews, as well as Gentiles, were brought into the Christian faith.

Consider the confusion, conflict and disunity that Paul would have created had he permitted the Jews to worship on their Sabbath, but taught the Gentiles to worship on the first day of the week instead. Or, alternatively, the animosity he would have generated had he required the Jewish believers to worship with the Gentiles on Sunday.
The seventh-day Sabbath was so central to Judaism that any suggestion from Paul that it was no longer valid, would have provoked an extremely hostile reaction that would have reverberated through the pages of Acts and the Epistles. But while there is ample evidence of the conflict caused by the Gentile Christians not being required to submit in the lesser matter of circumcision, there’s not a hint of opposition of any kind in regard to the change of the Sabbath throughout the whole of the New Testament. And, of course, church history reveals the reason why there was no conflict over the Sabbath in Paul’s day, was because it was the only day the Gentile Christians were taught to keep holy by the apostles.

Furthermore, the absence of any teaching in the New Testament on the change of the Sabbath, by Paul, or any of the other apostles, is also a mystery if the change of the day of worship from the seventh day to the first happened as some claim it did.

There is one other factor that we should enter into this equation: The apostle John ministered in the same area as did Paul—the northern rim of the Mediterranean—but his writings post-date Paul’s by some thirty years. This means that we have a glimpse of the Gentile church a generation further on through his writings. When John mentions the Sabbath, however, it’s always the seventh day, and there’s no hint of a change to another day. While John writes of ‘the Jewish Passover Feast and ‘the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles’ (6:4; 7:2) not once does he call the seventh-day Sabbath, ‘the Jewish Sabbath,’ nor does he even hint that it had been replaced by the first day of the week as the Christian day of worship.

In conclusion, then, church history clearly reveals that, for at least four generations after Jesus, the only day of worship observed by both Gentile and Jewish Christians was the seventh-day Sabbath—a day which began at sunset on Friday and concluded at sunset on Saturday.

*This article is the first chapter of my book, Twenty-four Hours with God: Rediscovering the Sabbath, available for $10.00, postage paid, from Good News Unlimited, PO Box 6788, Sth. Tweed Heads, NSW 2486, Australia, and Good News Unlimited, PO Box 66-010, Beach Haven 0749, New Zealand.

Endnotes:

1. Samuele Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath to Sunday: A Historical Investigation of the Rise of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity (Rome: The Pontifical Gregorian Press, 1977), 156-57.
2. Initially, Jews and Christians worshipped together in the synagogues. While their first separation occurred about AD 53 (Acts 19:8-9), the final separation did not take place until AD 135.
3. Ante-Nicene Fathers 2.469
4. A false Sabbath is a Sabbath that is not Christ-centred.
5. ‘Pseudoathan,’ de semente, tom. 1, page 885.
6. Essai sur l’histoire et la geographie de la Palestine (Paris, 1867), p. 430, cited by Samuele Bacchiocchi, The Sabbath in Scripture and History, ed. Kenneth A. Strand (Washington D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1982), 135.
7. Their leader was a Jew, their apostles were Jews, their Scriptures were Jewish and their Sabbath was Jewish.
8. Samuele Bacchiocchi, The Sabbath in Scripture and History, ed. Kenneth A. Strand (Washington D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1982), 140.
9. The Roman Christians not only chose the day of the sun as their worship day, they later chose the sun’s birthday, dies natalis Solis Invicti (25th December ) as the birthday of Christ. Ibid., p. 141.
10. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, Vol. 2:132.
11. Ibid.
12. When Augustine heard that the Christians in Rome were fasting on the Sabbath he went to Ambrose with his concern. The bishop answered, in a phrase that has since become immortal, ‘When in Rome, do as the Romans do’ (Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations, 15th ed., 127:6).
13. Canons 55 & 66, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, Vol. 14:598
14. Kenneth A. Strand, The Sabbath in Scripture and History, ed. Kenneth A. Strand (Washington D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1982), 324.
15. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, Vol. 14:148.
16. Ibid Vol 14:133.
17. Apostolic Constitutions 8.33
18. Ibid 7.413
19. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, Vol 2, p.390.
20. William H. Shea, ‘Justin Martyr’s Sunday Worship Statement: A Forged Appendix’ (Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 12/2 [Autumn 2001]: 1-15.
21. Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1:186
22. Ibid., 2nd series, Vol. 13, p.92.
23. Scripture quotations taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version. Copyright (1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission.
24. Ignatius’ so-called ‘Lord’s day’ statement, in chapter 9 of his letter to the Magnesians, reads as follows: mhketi sabbatizontes alla kata kuriakhn zwntes (‘No longer sabbatising, but living according to the Lord’s.’) The Greek word for ‘day’ (¢hmeran) is not in the text. The text as found in the earliest extant manuscript, however, reads as follows: mhketi sabbatizontes alla kata kuriakhn zwhn zwntes (‘No longer sabbatising, but living according to the Lord’s life’) Kenneth Strand, The Sabbath in Scripture and History [Washington DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association (1982)], 348-49).

—Ritchie Way

QWe want to know what your understanding of the Scapegoat is? Does it represent Satan or Jesus? What is the significance of the sins being laid on it and it being led out to the wilderness? I would appreciate it if you can lead us to some articles etc. so we can understand this. A friend of ours says it represents Jesus, another says it represents Satan.

Thanks for your help, love to Rosemary
M. S.

A Hi M
The question: Is the scapegoat Jesus or Satan? could be given the same answer that Jesus gave to the Jews who wanted to know whether tribute should be paid to God or Caesar: ‘It’s not a case of either one or the other; it’s both’ (Matt. 22:15-22).

Between the First and Second Advents, Jesus is the Scapegoat for all the sins that God’s people lay on him. As the Lord’s goat, Jesus died to atone for these sins and as Azazel, (the Scapegoat) he was separated from God and his people and was sent into oblivion, to show that all sin was to be removed from the presence of God and his people. When Jesus hung on the cross he died as the atoning sacrifice for our sin, and as our Azazel—cut off from God and his people—he was swallowed up by oblivion. After the Second Advent, Satan and his minions will be the scapegoat for all the sins that were not laid on Jesus. The wages of sin is death and either Jesus dies that death for us, or we do.

Azazel teaches us that the punishment which Jesus accepted on our behalf, was not merely the termination of life, for Azazel was not killed on the Day of Atonement. Instead, he was led away from the presence of God and his people to a fate worse than death by a sacrificial knife. The agonising separation from God and God’s people that Jesus endured on the cross, will be experienced by all who elect not to lay their sins on the Saviour. Azazel represents the second death, the removal of sin from the universe.

The death that Jesus died as the Lord’s goat is absolutely unique. It cannot, and need not be repeated, because the atonement that Jesus made is infinite in nature (1 John 2:1-2). On the other hand, Christ’s death as Azazel is not unique. It not only can be repeated, it needs to be repeated. All sin is to be annihilated, either in the person of Christ or in the persons of those who reject him as their substitute. That is why Azazel has two applications—one with the first advent and another with the second.
Ritchie.

—Ricardo Camino

This is the second of four studies on the Beatitudes.

Jesus taught them, saying: ‘Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted’ (Matt. 5:4 NIV). Mourning is what we do when we suffer loss, and there are few of us who have not been through that experience.

In the area where you live there are people who have lost a child, a sibling, a parent, a spouse or a close friend. There are others who have lost their health, and still others who know they are about to lose their lives to some insidious disease. Even others have lost their marriages, their homes, their jobs, their savings or their integrity. There is a great emptiness in their lives and all of them are mourning that loss.

Jesus says to every mourner—particularly to those who are sorrowful for their sins and failings and those who are desperate for meaningful fulfillment in their lives—‘Come to me and I will wipe the tears from your eyes, for I am going to make all things new (Rev. 21:4-5). When I come again everything will be restored (Acts 3:21). In the meantime, let the Comforter be your companion (Matt 5:4; 2 Cor 7:6). He will wipe the tears from your eyes and fill the hole in your life with his love and with hope. In fact, his presence will give you a fullness so great, it will make the “fullness” you had before you experienced loss, seem like emptiness.’

J.R. Miller said, ‘Blessing is never nearer to us than when we are in affliction … some day we shall see that we have gotten our best things from heaven, not in the days of our earthly joy and gladness, but in the times of trial and affliction. Tears are lenses through which our dim eyes see more deeply into heaven and look more fully upon God’s face than in any other way … the days of pain really do far more for us than the days of rejoicing.’

One of God’s best gifts—comfort—is only available to those who experience its need through loss. According to our text, the mourners, not the wealthy or the happy, are the ones who receive comfort. In other words, people who never experience loss, will never know what it is to be comforted by God; there is a dimension of God’s love that they will never experience. By trusting in the things of this world, they miss out on the things of heaven; by depending upon the human, they have no room for the Divine. Luke puts it this way: ‘Woe to you who are rich [in money, in looks, in talents, in influence, etc.], for you have already received your comfort’ (Luke 6:24). According to Jesus, those who say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing,’ are really ‘wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked’ (Rev. 3:17-18). They are wretched etc. because their hope is built on a foundation of sand.

Only Jesus can fill the emptiness of our lives with a comfort that the world cannot take away. The problem is, most of us don’t realise that we are empty until we lose something we value. We must consider ourselves blessed, therefore, when the Lord allows these ‘valuable’ things to be stripped from us so that we will turn to him, who will replace them with the true valuables that can never be taken from us.

Jesus continued: ‘Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth’ (Matt. 5:5 NIV). J.R. Miller says, ‘Meekness is not a popular quality … [It] leads a man to remain quiet under insult, toendure a wrong without resentment, to be treated unkindly and then give kindness in return.’

The spirit of the world is to stand up to those who abuse you and hit back at those who attack you. To do anything else is considered cowardly and unmanly. The problem with such a response, however, is that it makes you the same as your enemy and exacerbates the problem rather than solving it. It is not our duty, as Christians, to punish those who sin against us; our duty is to uphold the gospel which declares that the Lord Jesus took their punishment for them. Peace only comes to those who accept the reality that the punishment for all unjust actions ‘was upon him’ (Isa. 53:5).

Jesus gives us the example by which we should live. When he was spat upon, beaten, mocked, whipped and had a crown of thorns jammed on his head, when he was nailed to a cross and challenged to prove his messiah-ship by coming down, he refused to retaliate. All he had to do—to summon twelve legions of angels to his help—was raise one eyebrow. Faster than it takes to read this they would have freed him and annihilated his opponents. But Jesus practiced the meekness that he preached. A meek person, with the power to smash his opponent into insensibility, refuses to do so because it is not God’s way.

Some further examples of what it means to be meek come from The Message Bible: ‘Here’s another old saying which deserves a second look: “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth.” Is that going to get us anywhere? Here’s what I propose: Don’t hit back at all. If someone drags you into court and sues the shirt off your back, giftwrap your best coat and make a present of it. And if someone takes unfair advantage of you, use the occasion to practice the servant life. No more tit-for-tat stuff. Live generously’ (Matt. 5:38-41).

The gospel teaches us that ‘while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.’ He died for those who condemned him and nailed him to the cross. He didn’t come to condemn them, but to save them. He didn’t retaliate by punishing them, but by accepting their punishment himself. That’s the gospel way. Just as the rose perfumes the foot that tramples upon it, so did Jesus. He returned blessing for cursing and good for evil. And so must we if we are his followers. The only right way to change the world is not to force change upon it, but to change it from the inside out through forgiving love and loving forgiveness.

—By Dr. Milton Hook

Immediate Past President, Sydney Adventist Forum

This article is reprinted, with permission, from Adventist Today (atoday.com).

Twenty-five years ago Dr Desmond Ford was dismissed from his position as a theology lecturer at Pacific Union College (PUC). His ministerial credentials were also revoked. At the time it was predicted it would ‘be recorded in annuls of church history as a day of infamy and shame.¹

Ford had addressed a Forum meeting on the campus of PUC in 1979 in which he outlined some problems with the traditional SDA views on the Sanctuary doctrine. They were well known problems to many SDA scholars and ones that Ford had wrestled with for more than two decades. He suggested some answers in the Forum meeting, but those hearing the enormity of the problems for the first time were so overcome they failed to grasp his solutions.

A storm of protest quickly gathered after the meeting, blowing all the way to Washington, DC. Ford was met with a ‘Please explain’ by church administrators and given six months to write a defense. An evaluation took place at Glacier View Ranch, Colorado, in August 1980, when a large group of church theologians and administrators met together.

There was a general perception, among the theologians, especially, that the Glacier View discussions were helpful. Even Ford himself was reasonably content with the Consensus State ment hammered out in the proceedings. But while the delegates were trundling off with their suitcases a small group of church executives were confronting Ford with ultimatums. ‘Admit your views, as written in your manuscript, are erroneous or lose your position as lecturer, and publicly denounce Robert Brinsmead as a troublemaker and heretic or hand in your credentials.’

Ford’s conscience would not allow him to renounce his manuscript, particularly in view of the fact the Consensus Statement incorporated some of his concepts. And he was well aware his academic peers agreed with the main thrust of his views. Furthermore, Ford was never going to denounce a man like Brinsmead. After years as a perfectionist, Brinsmead was finally converted, publicly admitted his error and was preaching the gospel as vigorously as Ford. To disown a fellow member in the body of Christ would be to disown the Head.

Church theologians expected ongoing discussions. However, church administrators had painted themselves into a corner with their ultimatums. There was no way out. They took steps to dismiss Ford.

These actions brought quiet rejoicing among some ultra-conservatives, a small, but vocal minority. For various reasons, they despised Ford’s gospel ministry, especially those with a perfectionistic orientation. Others who had heard him preach or sat in his classes or read his articles were shattered. Scores of Ford’s peers signed letters of protest about the precipitate decisions regarding his demise. Hundreds of front-line generals in the Adventist army were subsequently fired over the next few years, because they sympathised with his views. Battalions became demoralised and faded away into other employment. Thousands of thoughtful members vacated the pews. The real numbers are much higher than official estimates. One Australian was so upset he dashed off a letter to Neal Wilson, General Conference president, saying:

‘I didn’t go to church today. Yesterday I got the news that you axed Des Ford, and today I am staggering from the blow. I thought that we were tolerant and pluralistic enough to handle Ford. I could tolerate Herbert Douglass’s perfectionism. I could tolerate anything, just so long as we had sermons on the Cross. And now you’ve axed the man who spear-headed the movement that brought Calvary into Seventh-day Adventism.²

The consequences of that era are still evident in the SDA church. The pain, for many, remains real. Why, then, would anyone want to revisit today the genesis of their anger and heartache? Would it be masochistic to look back from the ridge of 2005 and review the glacier of 1980? Would the blizzard that froze so many Christian joys, blow in their nostrils again, almost asphyxiating their spirits? Would the memory of relatives and colleagues who dropped into crevasses, never to be seen at church again, be too painful?

Sydney Adventist Forum thought the risk was worth taking. They chose October 22 as the Sabbath to reflect on, what today, the senior Adventist generation calls ‘Glacier View.’ Fortunately, Ford himself agreed to attend and rehearse some of his memories of that event.

First Presentation

Approximately 250 people attended from the eastern seaboard of Australia. Unfortunately, the first scheduled speaker, Dr Norman Young, could not be present. His fifteen-page manuscript was read to the group. Attention was intense throughout the entire reading.

Young, who had studied at Manchester University at the same time as Ford and taught alongside him at Avondale College, was one of four Glacier View attendees specifically nominated by Ford.

It was clear from Young’s paper that he was disappointed with the outcome of Glacier View.³ He first reiterated the main points Ford thrust forward at the 1979 Forum meeting: (1) No Biblical reason for applying the so-called year-day prin ciple to prophecy; (2) Daniel 8:13,14 refers to the little horn rather than a judgement of the saints; (3) there is no linguistic link between ‘cleanse’ (KJV) of Daniel 8:14 and the Day of Atonement cleansing of Leviticus 16; (4) sacrificial blood always cleansed and accomplished atonement rather than defilement; (5) the book of Hebrews (he could have added Revelation too) clearly depicts Jesus in the very presence of the Father immediately after his ascension rather than entering beyond the inner veil in 1844.

‘Ford’s position paper at Glacier View,’ Young said, ‘was a lengthy elaboration on those points. Ford’s resolution of the problems, lay in his proposal of an inaugural fulfillment of prophecies followed by the consumative fulfillment. Within this concept Ford demonstrated there could be recurring fulfillments, even incomplete fulfillments, culminating in the grand finale at the end of time. Ford considers this to be a legitimate method of interpretation which SDA’s can embrace, without abandoning everything that traditional Adventism has to offer.’

Young also spoke of his reluctant role at Glacier View, his assignment as one of six who formulated the Ten Point Summary. The document explained the more obvious differences between traditional Adventism and Ford’s answers to the problems presented by those positions. Young initially understood the six men were to write something ‘for the non-academic participants’ at Glacier View.⁴ Dismayed, he now realises the document was used to axe his closest colleague. It is the stuff of nightmares.

In hindsight, Young objects to the short time given to the writing of both the Ten Point Summary and the Consensus Statement. And very few attendees were involved in writing and reviewing them. All participants, Ford included, would no doubt have benefited from further discussion and prayerful reflection.

Young confessed that his abiding difficulty with SDA prophetic interpretation ‘is the increasing chronological gap between 1844 and the return of Jesus.’⁵ SDA pioneers originally forecast the gap would be a very short period. Both the date 1844 and SDA credibility become increasingly isolated as time lengthens.

Church Service

Ford was invited to lead the Forum group in worship. He chose to speak on his area of expertise, apocalyptic prophecy. He suggested that Daniel 8:14 was central to the book of Daniel. That is, the historical chapters depict Daniel and his companions persecuted because of their continuing loyalty to the Sanctuary. And each of the prophetic visions portrays the upcoming vicissitudes surrounding the Sanctuary. Some critics would say it is nothing more than a homiletic concept. Nevertheless, he displays his SDA heritage with such an emphasis on Daniel 8:14 and in so doing he demonstrates to another group of critics that he is more Adventist than they would care to admit.

His sermon also highlighted the inspired re-interpretations of Old Testament prophecy. He noted that in the Olivet discourse, Jesus extracted pieces of Daniel’s prophecies (e.g., ‘the abomination of desolation’) and applied them to his own era or immediate future. John, in Revelation, he said, draws much from OT prophecy, too, and re-interprets it in the light of a general Jewish rejection of Calvary and the Resurrection. Much of Daniel’s prophecies can be left behind, as fulfilled, by the First Century AD. A truly Christian approach to prophecy should therefore be grounded in the New Testament.

The inspired NT writers repeatedly appealed to OT passages to prove Jesus was the Messiah. Is it not a curious fact they never applied the year-day principle to Daniel 9:24-27—or any other prophecy for that matter? If they had thought the principle was valid and applied it to Daniel 9, it would undoubtedly have precipitated a Jewish conversion to Christianity en masse. Instead, the nation rejected Jesus, and the OT prophecies which heralded such a glorious future for Israel were recast.

When Ford spoke of the Heavenly Sanctuary—Heaven itself—our hearts were lifted up. Hebrews 9 is crystal clear, he said, that since Jesus’ ascension there is no dividing curtain, so to speak, between himself and his Father. (A chorus of ‘Amens’). Jesus has been judged worthy. We do not wait for some investigative process to determine our eternal fate. Rest assured, Ford con cluded, those who are in Christ are also judged worthy. Heaven, in a sense, has already begun. (I felt an adrenaline surge as the room erupted in sustained applause). It was vintage Ford.

Afternoon Meeting

Ford spoke again after lunch, as always without notes, loading memory after memory into his rapid-fire presentation. He recalled the committee that was supposed to assist him in the preparation of his manuscript for Glacier View. Almost to a man, he said, they wrote little and said less. Only one, fellow Australian, Dr William Johnsson, wrote a critique of each chapter. Was it because they had nothing significant to contribute? Did they feel it was futile to offer suggestions? Were they already silenced by fear of reprisals? Since that day a miasma of distrust has wafted through SDA academia. Scholars have learned to be extremely circumspect.

Ford also recalled the moment Raymond Cottrell came to him at Glacier View and with some foreboding said, ‘Des, the administrators have not read your manuscript.’ Cottrell may have overstated the case, but it was a disturbing observation. It is a sad commentary on church leadership of the era, that many were Bible dilettantes.

One of the most revealing bursts of the day was when Ford disclosed the subterfuge that apparently drove Keith Parmenter, the incumbent Australasian Division president, to insist on his dismissal. The revelation may partly explain why Ford was dismissed and other scholars who held similar views were retained.

John Brinsmead, brother of Robert, had evidently spun Parmenter the allegation that Ford and Robert Brinsmead were in cahoots and determined to bring the SDA church down.

Added to this travesty, Ford said, was the intense pressure brought to bear on Parmenter by a group of ultra-conservative members in Australia, who, for two decades, had criticised Ford’s theology. Laurence Naden and Robert Frame, previous Division presidents, had stood their ground in de fense of Ford, but Parmenter had a different spine.

The critics were a group of mossbacks, who insisted the KJV was the only reliable Scripture, reading all kinds of Roman Catholic conspiracy theories into modern versions. Some still advocated a literal Armageddon. Most believed the Heavenly Sanctuary was a real building with furnishings and drapes and rooms, with God confined to the Most Holy Room. More importantly, their understanding of biblical sanctification was essentially Roman Catholic. It was a lifetime of becoming more righteous, not by an impartation of grace through the sacraments, but by an impartation of righteousness through an indwelling Holy Spirit. For this reason, they fought against Ford’s gospel preaching that was so anti-perfectionism. Parmenter capitulated to the critics and apparently accepted John Brinsmead’s allegation without verification. All indications suggest Parmenter went to Glacier View, dagger in hand.

Throughout the two decades of criticism, Ford treated his enemies graciously, hoping for their conversion. If someone tried to stab him in the back he would most likely say he tripped backwards and fell on the point, then shake the would-be assassin’s hand, such is his Christian disposition.

Today, Ford is content. He regards his dismissal merely as an open door to a wider audience. The SDA church officially rejected him, but after 1980 thousands of souls around the globe found Christ as a direct result of his preaching. One response to Glacier View spoke for many a Christian:

‘We praise God for your firm stand. Your messages have brought hope and encouragement to us. We rejoice in the gospel and the forgiveness of sin. May God bless and encourage you at this time and always.’⁶

Final Paper

Dr Arthur Patrick did not attend Glacier View, but was asked to address our Forum because of his expertise in SDA church history. At the time of Glacier View Patrick was director of the Ellen G White Research Centre at Avondale College.

Patrick’s extensive footnotes in his paper are just as important as his interpretation of Glacier View. They provide documentation from much of the significant SDA press responses to the landmark event, both popular and academic.⁷ Parmenter is portrayed correctly by Patrick as one of the key figures in Ford’s dismissal.

He makes the observation that during Parmenter’s entire eight-year presidency, he never used the facilities of the Ellen White Research Centre at Avondale College and did not attend any Ellen White seminars conducted in his Division, despite the fact they were initiated by the White Estate at Division Headquarters. Parmenter, he said, also gagged the dissemination of updated views about White. He was evidently content with the traditional view of White—one of near infallibility. In other words, if she said the Investigative Judgement started in 1844, then it did, in his opinion, start in 1844. That mindset sat comfortably with Ford’s critics and explains why Parmenter was putty in their fingers.

Patrick’s assessment of his church today is condensed in his words, ‘While there is absolutely no room for triumphalism, there is a realistic glow on the Adventist horizon that presages a brighter day.’⁸

He makes his optimistic forecast amid some anomalies. First he asked the questions, Did the small cluster of administrators who met on 15 August 1980 [to dismiss Ford] perceive their decision meant that tradition would increasingly take precedence over the quest for the truth of Scripture? Were they aware that informed convictions of the church’s scholars were being sacrificed?⁹

Switching from these negatives of the past, Patrick argued for optimism, by listing some recent SDA scholars who have contributed to a better understanding of the issues canvassed at Glacier View: Men such as Rolf Poehler, Fritz Guy, Alden Thompson, Kai Arasola and Ray Roenfeldt.

However, it is important to ask; are the scholars only talking among themselves? Posed in a slightly different way; are the scholars talking a language only they understand? Patrick is well aware there is a potent ultra-conservative voice in Adventism, which is educating the masses in the pew with a syllabus akin to the 1930’s. Patrick noted a recent example of this phenomenon, cit ing in a footnote the Sabbath School lesson quarterly, October-December 2004. It was a series on Daniel from the Biblical Research Institute perpetuating false assumptions made in exegesis, arbitrary historical dates and disingenuous arguments using the biblical languages.

These facts raise further questions: Is the church serious about re-educating its rank and file, by translating for the masses the arguments put forward by the modern scholars in the church? Or is it going to keep on popularising material that makes it a laughing stock in academia?

In view of the anomalous situation we should ask, Is Patrick’s optimism just whistling in the dark? Only time will tell. The real problem is that the SDA church does not have much time left before it becomes obsolete. The exterior of an old car can be repainted but it won’t run far if the engine is held together with rubber bands and chewing gum.

Conclusion

As Forum was dispersing for the day, one fine Christian gentleman admitted to me, ‘Since Glacier View I’ve attended an SDA church on one occasion only.’

A former SDA minister, who was so troubled over the treatment given to Ford, that it destroyed his ministry and marriage, said to me, ‘It took me twenty years to get back to an SDA church, with remarriage and a different career path along the way.’

Another still had questions. ‘Why don’t a group of church members,’ he asked, ‘initiate the likes of a Senate Inquiry and redress the wrong that was perpetrated?’ Red-hot magma still bubbles beneath his skin. However, he must accept the fact that a perfectionistic culture is disinclined to admit error. Furthermore, it finds it very hard to say, ‘Sorry.’

One lesson from Glacier View is certain: Theology questions are not answered by shooting the questioner. Theology aside, such conduct evokes revulsion, because it pierces the heart of any Christian. For that reason, those of us who looked back from the ridge in 2005, hope the dagger men of 1980 sought forgiveness.

End notes

1. Mailgram, Mr and Mrs Watson to Neal Wilson, 8 Sept. 1980.
2. Lowell Tarling to Neal Wilson, 6 Sept 1980.
3. Norman Young, ‘A Reluctant Participant Looks Back at Glacier View’ paper presented at Sydney Adventist Forum, 22 October, 2005.
4. Ibid., p.13.
5. Ibid., p.11.
6. Mailgram, Irwin and Hazel Wagner to Desmond Ford, 29 Aug 1980.
7. Arthur Patrick, ‘Twenty-five Years After Glacier View: Using the Lantern of History, Anticipating a Brighter Future’ paper presented at Sydney Adventist Forum, 22 Oct 2005.
8. Ibid., p.18.
9. Ibid., p.14.
]]> http://www.goodnewsforadventists.com/report-on-the-2005-sydney-adventist-forum-by-dr-milton-hook-june-2006/feed/ 0 http://www.goodnewsforadventists.com/the-two-faces-of-the-sabbath-ritchie-way-march-2006/ http://www.goodnewsforadventists.com/the-two-faces-of-the-sabbath-ritchie-way-march-2006/#comments Sat, 04 Jul 2009 19:12:35 +0000 Admin http://203.88.117.97/~goodnews/?p=160 Continue reading →]]> The Two Faces of the Sabbath

—Ritchie Way

The Hebrew word ‘Sabbath’ means ‘to cease,’ which is why the principle element of the Sabbath is the cessation of work—rest from both physical labour (Exod. 20:9-10) and spiritual labour (Matt. 11:28-29). Some passages on the Sabbath, like Deuteronomy 5:15 and Hebrews 4:9-10, cover both types of rest as a celebration of the rest of God’s kingdom.

The Sabbath, like a coin, has two faces, rest from physical labour and rest from spiritual labour. The function of each of these two faces is understood more clearly when presented as a graph. In this graph the horizontal line represents the physical side, while the vertical line represents the spiritual side of the Sabbath.

Resting on the Sabbath can range all the way from A—B to A—F. The A—B Sabbath-keeper is a person who refuses to work for an income on the Sabbath—as a sign that he is resting in the finished work of Jesus—but who, for various reasons, spends most of the day resting physically or sleeping. While this may not be the ideal way to observe the Sabbath, it is perfectly legitimate. In countries where a person has to work eighteen hours a day, six days a week, in order to survive, who would begrudge such person a full day of physical rest on the Sabbath. After all, the basic requirement of the fourth commandment is that ‘you shall not do any work.’

The A—F Sabbath-keeper is a person who, like Jesus, worked very hard on the Sabbath—not earning an income, but in bringing people and God together, for it is only in God that we may experience true rest. Jesus’ Sabbath miracles were designed to break down barriers which the religionists had erected between God and the people, such as when he healed a man with a shrivelled hand on the Sabbath (Matt. 12:9-13), or gave sight to the man who had been born blind (John 9). One Sabbath Jesus healed a man who had been confined to bed for so long his muscles had atrophied. And he healed him to teach the religionists—for whom the weight of two dried figs was greater than the weight of thirty-eight years of chronic illness—about the true rest that God freely offers to those who seek it (John 5:1-14).

The Physical Rest of the Sabbath

Work should always be balanced by rest, for the good shepherd of the sheep not only leads his flock beside quiet waters, and guides them through the valley of the shadow of death, he also makes them lie down in green pastures (Psa. 23).

Bob Gass says:

‘Of the ten commandments God gave to Moses, which one do you think required the most words? Adultery? five words. Murder? four words. Taking a day off? ninety-six words (Ex. 20:8-11). God knows us so well: He knew the storeowner would say, ‘Somebody’s got to work that day. If I can’t my son will.’ So God says, ‘Nor thy son.’ ‘Then my daughter will.’ ‘Nor thy daughter.’ ‘Then an employee.’ ‘Nor thy manservant.’ God says, ‘One day a week you’ll say ‘no’ to work and ‘yes’ to worship. You’ll slow down, sit down, lie down and rest. After all, I rested on the seventh day and the world didn’t crash. So my child, repeat after me, “It’s not my job to run the world.”’

‘Stop seeing rest and recreation as a loss of productivity and stop feeling guilty about it. Today Jesus is telling you what he told his disciples, ‘Come ye yourselves apart and rest awhile’ (Mark 6:31). Why? Because rest time is repair time; rest time is renewing time; rest time is receiving time and rest time releases your potential to do ever greater things in the future. Stop your frantic push for success and take time to taste the present.’

Each seventh day of the week gives us the opportunity to celebrate the freedom the Sabbath offers us; freedom from being enslaved by work; freedom to rest and sleep; freedom to worship; freedom to enjoy and celebrate God’s blessings; freedom to fellowship with one another; freedom to breathe deeply and the freedom to laugh and sing.

We all need a place of escape, a little space to ourselves in the busy week. That time has been given to us, not forced upon us. It comes to us as a precious gift from God, wrapped in two glorious sunsets and tied with a ribbon of birdsong. And when you look inside the wrapping you find there twenty-four hours of rest, refreshment, peace, joy and happiness.

A closer look at this gift, however, will reveal that it is the very day that you have given him. You gave it to him as the seventh-day, but he has transformed it and returned it to you as Sabbath. You gave it to him as an empty vessel; he has returned it full of the oil of gladness. You gave him twenty-four hours of your time; he gave it back as quality time—a time of fellowship with him and the family of God; a time to relax and reflect upon God’s Word; time to enjoy the fragrance of the flowers and scented trees; time to be surrounded by beautiful music; time to savour serene conversation and companionship with an intimate friend; time to sit on the top of a hill and just watch the sky; time to do all the beautiful things that time doesn’t permit—but God does.

This rest day is God’s holy gift to us, protected by divine fiat—the fourth commandment. There is not another person in the universe with enough authority to overrule God and take that rest time from us. The only person who can rob you of Sabbath rest is yourself.

If you accept the day as God has given it to you, you can lay aside, with a clear conscience, all your pressing duties. The Sabbath is your day, a day when you don’t have to clean the house, go to work, or study for an exam. That work will always be there, even after you die. This is your day, a gift of twenty-four hours given you by God for the better things in life. Don’t squander it by working for a living on it. Be a ‘Mary’ and set aside the seventh-day of each week for ‘what is better,’ because if you do it will ‘not be taken away’ from you (Luke 10:42). In other words, what you gain by observing the Sabbath the way God intended is eternal, whereas the work that you could do on the Sabbath certainly isn’t.

God gave us the first six days of the week to work with the things he created on those days. This is the time given to us to improve our standard of living. And he has set aside the seventh-day of every week for relationships with him, our immediate family and the larger family of God. This is the time to improve our standard of life.

The Spiritual Rest of the Sabbath

The book of Revelation reveals that there will be two classes of people in our time, those who ‘have no rest day or night’ (Rev. 14:11) because they are in bondage to the Antichrist¹ and those who ‘rest from their labour’ because they have died in Christ (Rev. 14:13-14).² The New Testament reveals that only believers in Jesus enter into God’s true rest. That’s what the Bible says: ‘We who have believed enter that rest’ (Heb. 4:3). Sabbath keepers who don’t have faith in Jesus are not resting, but in bondage.

Adam’s first day in Eden was a rest day, not a work day. And it was a ‘rest’ that should have lasted forever. Every other day in Genesis 1 had a beginning and an ending. The Sabbath, however, only had a beginning, because Adam’s unveiled relationship with God should have been eternal. Unfortunately, it wasn’t. Jesus, however, came to restore our broken relationship with God, and in so doing, he put the heart back into our Sabbaths. He made every Sabbath an occasion for an I / Thou experience—a sacred time when man and God could come together in a ‘place’ where the relationship would not be interrupted by the distractions of the world.

One Sabbath, Jesus met a man who was burdened by the fact that his parents were supporting him when he should have been supporting them, but was unable to because he had been blind from birth (John 9). Jesus knelt before him, spat on the ground, made some paste with the saliva and spread it over the man’s eyelids. He then told him to go and wash it off in the pool of Siloam. The man got up, and, tapping the ground in front of him with his stick, set off for the pool. He had never seen the streets of Jerusalem but they were etched in his mind like a road map. Turn left at the spice stall where the aromatic and pungent smells of spices leaked out through the locked shutters, take forty paces straight ahead, go down a flight of seven steps, and then count twenty-one paces in the same direction. At the stall of the seller of pigeons, where there would be lots of cooing coming from inside, put a hand on the left wall and follow the winding path down to the pool of Siloam.

On his way to the pool, he passed people standing around in groups chatting or on their way to the temple for worship. They stepped to one side as this strange young man, with mud packs on his eyes came tap-tapping toward them. The blind man was a familiar sight to many, but what on earth was he doing walking around with mud on his face. Was this some kind of advertising gimmick? (Yes!). The people he passed on his way to the pool looked at each other with queries on their faces and shrugged their shoulders. The world was getting madder every day! But when the young man came running back, enthusiastically pointing to his eyes and shouting, ‘Look! I can see!’ they were all amazed. Later they were shocked to the core when they learned that Jesus, on the Sabbath, had ‘made the mud and opened the man’s eyes.’

Jesus gave priority to bringing spiritual rest to people, even if it meant violating man-made laws about the Sabbath. The Sabbath is essentially about setting aside time in life’s hectic schedule for people to enjoy and enhance their relationship with the Lord. Its purpose is to give people a time, free of work, when they can receive life by connecting with God. But the Sabbath laws of the Pharisees did just the opposite. They focused people’s attention, not on what God had done, or was doing for them, but upon what they were doing for God. Their restrictive laws kept man and God apart, so when God came and touched this blind man and gave him new life they were highly offended.

‘Working’ on the Sabbath

Two thousand years later we must ask the same questions of our own Sabbath observance. Why do we refuse to do certain things on the Sabbath? Why don’t we do others? Do our ‘rules’ bring people into a closer relationship with God, or do they come between God and us? For the last three and a half years, the church which I care for has conducted a Sabbath programme for primary-age kids in the neighbourhood. We catered for as many as sixty non-churched children each week, gently bringing them into a relationship with the Lord. But to do this we had to shelve our old concepts of Sabbath observance, because, in order to attract these children to Jesus we realised that, besides our spiritual input into their lives, we would need to have crafts and games and a sausage roll to eat on the way home.

It was exciting, but hard work. We would arrive at the school hall at 7am on Sabbath mornings, set up for the day, have ninety minutes of adult worship, followed by ninety minutes of spiritual input, games, competitions and crafts etc for the children who came along. We did not get away from the hall until 1.30pm at the earliest. We ‘worked’ hard on the Sabbath to show these children the face of God. And although, at the beginning, some expressed reservations about our intended Sabbath ‘activities,’ these reservations quickly evaporated when it became obvious that we were having an impact for good on the lives of those kids.

The spiritual face of the Sabbath is not seen in busyness on the Sabbath, but in activity that builds life-giving relationships with the Lord. Busyness on the Sabbath can be found in board and business meetings, but very few of them would qualify as ‘spiritual.’ We don’t have the spiritual gifts to go around performing signs and miracles on the Sabbath in order to get people praising God, but there are many other things we can do for the needy, that will move many of them to get down on their knees and thank God for us—things that may appear to be ‘work’ to the Pharisees among us.

Come With Me … and Get Some Rest

The secret of Sabbath rest is found in Jesus’ words: ‘Come with me by yourselves to a quiet place and get some rest’ (Mark 6:31). You can say and believe what you like about the Sabbath, but the fact remains, in our frenetic life today, if we don’t come apart, we will ‘come apart.’ We need to make a deliberate choice to set aside the Sabbath as a special time to come apart with Christ and then act on that choice. And please don’t give me that tired line, ‘I don’t have to set aside any particular day; I can come apart with Christ any time I like.’ That might be true if you are on the dole, retired, or have so much money you don’t have to put in the hours that the rest of us do. The fact is, most people in the Western world don’t even have time to be Marthas, let alone Marys. Our lives are controlled by ‘the preparations that have to be made’ (Luke 10:40). If we don’t set aside a specific time to worship the Lord each week and religiously protect it, we will end up with shrivelled souls.

Mark 6:31 tells us that we not only need to come apart, we need to come apart with Jesus. If our rest is to minister to the whole person, it must minister to our souls as well as to our bodies, for our souls, as well as our bodies, are in bondage. And only Jesus can lift our weariness and burdens and give us ‘rest for our souls’ (Matt. 11:28-30). He has nailed all our sins to his cross and when we, like Christian in Pilgrim’s Progress, come to the cross on Friday afternoon and look upon the One who was ‘pierced for our transgressions,’ the burden of our sins falls from our shoulders and we enter into true Sabbath rest.

The Sabbath begins at Calvary and Calvary is the only place where it can begin. Those who haven’t been to Calvary don’t know true Sabbath rest. Unfortunately, there are many observers of the seventh-day who don’t know true Sabbath rest, and many people who don’t keep the seventh- day Sabbath who do.

Why then keep the seventh-day Sabbath? Firstly, as a sign of my obedience to God, and secondly, so I can have ‘a quiet place’ where I can ‘get some rest’ (Mark 6:31). No one is saved by being baptised in water, yet baptism in water is a sign that they have entered into the death and resurrection experience with Jesus. No one is saved by partaking of Holy Communion, yet eating the ordinance bread and drinking the communion wine is a sign of the fact that we have life only through receiving Christ into our lives. And no one is saved by keeping the Sabbath, yet Sabbath observance is a sign of the fact that we are resting in the finished work of Jesus’ redemption on the cross, as surely as Adam in Eden rested in the finished work of the Lord’s creation.

Having said all that, I have a final word for you if you are dying spiritually in a church that observes the Sabbath: If you can’t change the church for the better, leave it for another, for it is better to live in a ‘Sunday’ church than die in a ‘Sabbath’ church.

---

Endnotes

1. The Antichrist is always the current substitute for Christ (see 1 John 2:18; 4:1-3). That substitute can be a philosophy as well as a person or institution. Millions of people in the Western world have replaced Christ with the materialistic antichrist of secular consumerism.
2. In this Present Age of the Spirit the application is spiritual; in the Age to Come the application will be literal.
]]> http://www.goodnewsforadventists.com/the-two-faces-of-the-sabbath-ritchie-way-march-2006/feed/ 0 http://www.goodnewsforadventists.com/the-daffodil-principle-jaroldeen-asplund-edwards-march-2006/ http://www.goodnewsforadventists.com/the-daffodil-principle-jaroldeen-asplund-edwards-march-2006/#comments Sat, 04 Jul 2009 19:11:44 +0000 Admin http://203.88.117.97/~goodnews/?p=158 Continue reading →]]> The Daffodil Principle

—Jaroldeen Asplund Edwards

Several times my daughter had telephoned to say, ‘Mother, you must come see the daffodils before they are over.’ I wanted to go, but it was a two hour drive from Laguna to Lake Arrowhead. ‘I will come next Tuesday,’ I promised, a little reluctantly, on her third call.

Next Tuesday dawned cold and rainy. Still, I had promised, and so I drove there. When I finally walked into Carolyn’s house and hugged and greeted my grandchildren, I said, ‘Forget the daffodils, Carolyn! The road is invisible in the clouds and fog and there is nothing in the world except you and these children that I want to see bad enough to drive another inch!’

My daughter smiled calmly, ‘We drive in this all the time, Mother.’

‘Well, you won’t get me back on the road until it clears and then I’m heading for home!’ I assured her.

‘I was hoping you’d take me over to the garage to pick up my car.’

‘How far will we have to drive?’

‘Just a few blocks,’ Carolyn said, ‘I’ll drive, I’m used to this.’

After several minutes I had to ask, ‘Where are we going? This isn’t the way to the garage!’

‘We’re going to my garage the long way,’ Carolyn smiled, ‘by way of the daffodils.’

‘Carolyn,’ I said sternly, ‘please turn around.’

‘It’s all right, Mother. I promise you will never forgive yourself if you miss this experience.’

After about twenty minutes we turned onto a small gravel road and I saw a small church. On the far side of the church I saw a hand lettered sign ‘Daffodil Garden.’ We got out of the car and each took a child’s hand and I followed Carolyn down the path. Then we turned a corner of the path and I looked up and gasped. Before me lay the most glorious sight. It looked as though someone had taken a great vat of gold and poured it down over the mountain peak and slopes. The flowers were planted in majestic, swirling patterns; great ribbons and swaths of deep orange, white, lemon yellow, salmon pink, saffron, and butter yellow. Each different coloured variety was planted as a group so that it swirled and flowed like its own river with its own unique hue. Five acres of flowers.

‘But who has done this?’ I asked Carolyn.

‘It’s just one woman,’ Carolyn answered. ‘She lives on the property. That’s her home.’ Carolyn pointed to a well kept A-frame house that looked small and modest in the midst of all that glory. We walked up to the house. On the patio we saw a poster ‘Answers to the Questions I Know You Are Asking’ was the headline.

The first answer was a simple one: ‘50,000 bulbs,’ it read. The second answer was, ‘One at a time, by one woman. Two hands, two feet and very little brain.’ The third answer was, ‘Began in 1958.’

There it was: the Daffodil Principle. For me, that moment was a life changing experience. I thought of this woman whom I had never met, who, more than forty years before, had begun, one bulb at a time, to bring her vision of beauty and joy to an obscure mountain top. Still, just planting one bulb at a time, year after year, had changed the world.

This unknown woman had forever changed the world in which she lived. She had created something of ineffable magnificence, beauty and inspiration. The principle her daffodil garden taught, is one of the greatest principles of celebration—learning to move toward our goals and desires one step at a time, often just one baby step at a time, learning to love the doing, learning to use the accumulation of time.

When we multiply tiny pieces of time with small increments of daily effort, we too will find we can accomplish magnificent things. We can change the world.

‘It makes me sad in a way,’ I admitted to Carolyn, ‘what might I have accomplished if I had thought of a wonderful goal thirty-five years ago and had worked away at it one bulb at a time through all those years. Just think what I might have been able to achieve!’

My daughter summed up the message of the day in her direct way. ‘Start now,’ she said.

]]> http://www.goodnewsforadventists.com/the-daffodil-principle-jaroldeen-asplund-edwards-march-2006/feed/ 0 http://www.goodnewsforadventists.com/2006s-forth-commandment-des-ford-march-2006/ http://www.goodnewsforadventists.com/2006s-forth-commandment-des-ford-march-2006/#comments Sat, 04 Jul 2009 19:10:33 +0000 Admin http://203.88.117.97/~goodnews/?p=156 Continue reading →]]> Sinai’s Fourth Commandment and Eden’s Sabbath—Are They for Christians?

—Desmond Ford

Paul’s letter to the Colossians contains the only Bible statement that appears to be ‘against’ the Sabbath. What about the Bible’s hundreds of statements in favour of the Sabbath? The biblical context reveals what Paul is really saying. Paul writes against those who teach that certain regulations temporarily attached to the Sabbath are necessary for salvation. The vast majority of Christians are not Sabbath-keepers. But, then, neither have the vast majority of Christians been baptised by immersion—though clearly it is the only biblical mode of baptism. (And is so acknowledged by all exegetes of note.) Does the Sabbath matter?

Importance of Worship

For most of us, the Sabbath issue concerns ten years of our life. To keep every seventh day of our life distinct from secular affairs and to spend it in communion with our Maker and Redeemer means a seventh of our earthly existence. Most Christians observe one or two hours a week at church services. But this is not Sabbath keeping. The first table of the moral law indicates that worship is our pre-eminent duty. Commandment One of the Decalogue tells us whom to worship (Exodus 20:2,3). Commandment Two tells us how to worship—not with idols but in spirit and in truth (20:4-6)Commandment Three tells us the approach of worship—reverence (20:7). Commandment Four tells us the time for worship—the seventh day (20:8-11). If the first table of the moral law is correct and worship is our preeminent duty, then the Sabbath issue is no slight one, but pivotal.

God’s Provision for Worship

De Quervain is quoted by Karl Barth as saying: ‘When the holy day becomes the day of man, society and humanity wither away and the demons rule.’ Calvin said about the fourth commandment: ‘If it were abolished, the Church would be in imminent danger of convulsion and ruin.’ (Institutes Book 11, Chapter 8). Calvin said this because clearly the day of God leads to the house of God to hear the word of God and, thus, to meet the Son of God. One thing is undeniable. People do nothing regularly unless they have a regular time for it.Has God made no provision for our need to worship? Has God neglected the appointment of a tryst to be kept with unceasing regularity all through life? Is it not true that a day of rest is no more capable of abolition than the six days of work? Is it not true that rest is at its best when it includes the rest of the Spirit, which comes through worshipping God and hearing the Gospel of Peace?

The Sabbath Is for All

The fourth commandment—the Sabbath commandment—is the longest and most elaborate precept of the Decalogue (Exodus 20:8-11). It is also the first positive commandment of the Ten. It is not just a Jewish commandment, because it commemorates the creation of the world (see Genesis 2:1-3). The world was not created just for Jews. The ‘stranger’ mentioned in the fourth commandment is not a Jew but a Gentile. Isaiah makes it clear that the Sabbath is also for Gentiles (Isaiah 56:3-7). Mark also affirms (Mark 2:27) that the Sabbath was ‘made for man’ (that is, for the good of people CEV). The Sabbath is not the only institution that comes down to us from Eden. The other is marriage. God created Adam and said, ‘It is not good for man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him’ (Genesis 2:18 NIV). We could say, woman was made for man in the institution of marriage (see 1 Corinthians 11:9). No one says marriage is just for Jews. Neither is worship and Sabbath-keeping.

Paul, Christ and the Sabbath

The Apostle Paul nowhere sets out any discussion of the duty of Sabbath-keeping. However, this same Paul recognises the duty of baptism while simultaneously affirming that God sent him to preach the gospel, not to baptise (see 1 Corinthians 1:14-17). This same Paul points us to Christ, and not himself, for the summation of duty (see 1 Corinthians 3:11; 7:10; 22:23). Christ risked his life and ministry to show how truly to keep the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1-14; Mark 3:1-6 and observed it himself in life and in death (Luke 4:16; 24:50-56). Jesus reformed the observance of the fourth commandment as he did that of the third, fifth, and seventh. (He reformed the observance of the others as well, but preeminently the ones listed). Did Christ declare the Sabbath to be a gift made for man (Mark 2:27) and then rescind it? Let all note this well: Most of today’s New Testament exegetes state that Christ never, by a syllable, lessened the claims of the fourth commandment anywhere in the Gospels. Jesus opposed the Sabbath-keeping of the Pharisees, which was rule-laden and legalistic, but never the Sabbath of Eden. In contrast, he never spent any time teaching in detail about temporary, ceremonial observances.

The Sabbath Law Abolished?

Is there not a clear and distinct word from Paul in Colossians 2:16 abolishing the Sabbath? When you really think about it, this would be strange. A law should be rescinded with the same solemnity with which it was originally proclaimed. Could an incidental, accidental comment in a letter undo a word spoken by God himself and written by the Almighty on imperishable tables of stone? Why would Paul want to negate one of the Ten Commandments and yet affirm the other nine? Christ’s rule about marriage should be observed consistently for it applies to many things (including the Ten Commandments). ‘What God has joined together, let man not separate’ (Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9). The early Christian communities began, in each case, with Jewish Sabbath-keeping converts. They met regularly every seventh day. Can you imagine the bewilderment and consternation among them should they hear suddenly that Paul has told one group they need no longer meet as they had been doing on the Sabbath? Consider how strong the reverberations in Paul’s letters are about circumcision. He states clearly that circumcision is no longer necessary. Surely, if the Sabbath were now suddenly abolished, that momentous change would permeate Paul’s epistles, just as does the circumcision debate.

One Text Not Enough

It is a risky business to determine ten years of your life—and more importantly your duty to God—on the basis of an isolated single verse. (And there is only one verse in the whole Bible that is negative regarding the Sabbath.) Can we not create all sorts of theological monstrosities by following such a procedure? For example, women could never be allowed to teach—not even teach children in Sabbath School (see 1 Timothy 2:12). It would be a necessity for women to wear hats in church (1 Corinthians 11:1-16). We could practice proxy-baptism for the dead (1 Corinthians 15:29), et cetera. No, the Bible principle remains true: ‘Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses’ (2 Corinthians 13:1 NIV; also Deuteronomy 17:6, 19:15; Matthew 18:16; 1 Timothy 5:19; Hebrews 10:28). Any theology based on a single text is not scriptural.

Christ Alone

If you read closely the letter to the Colossians, you find all the commandments of the Decalogue alluded too as obligatory for Christians. As for the fourth commandment, see Paul’s recognition in Colossians 4:16 that the Church met regularly for worship and study of the word. Never does any passage in the epistles suggest that one of the six working days be used for the regular worship services of Christians. Church historians tell us that Christians met on the seventh day for worship until well in to the fourth and fifth centuries (see the references in the appendix of my book The Forgotten Day). Before we exegete Colossians 2:16, let it be said with all definiteness: No one is saved by the keeping of a day. We are saved by Christ alone, plus nothing. A Christ without the Sabbath is infinitely to be preferred to a Sabbath without Christ. Nevertheless, as Scripture says, there are things which, though not saving, ‘accompany salvation’ (Hebrews 6:9). These include the Lord’s Supper, baptism, and Sabbath-keeping.

The Sabbath a Symbol

But isn’t Sabbath-keeping just a symbol of the rest we have in Christ? Yes, the Sabbath is an emblem of the blessed rest of conscience, mind, and heart that faith in the Gospel brings. But that does not abolish the privilege and duty of regular worship or physical rest. Marriage is a symbol of the relationship between believers and Christ (see Ephesians 5:32). That does not abolish marriage. Bending the knees in prayer is a symbol of bending the will to God, but that does not abolish kneeling for certain times of prayer. The Lord’s Supper is a symbol of feeding on the merits of Christ but that does not abolish the Supper.

Does Colossians Cancel the Sabbath?

Let us now ask: Does Colossians 2:16-23 cancel the fourth commandment? The passage reads as follows: ‘Therefore, do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules? Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch! These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence’ (Colossians 2:16-23 NIV).

Three Undeniable Things

Three things are undeniable to those who exhaustively research this passage. Here they are: 1. Paul is forbidding Christians to judge their fellows on the ground of their habits of eating, drinking, or observance of Jewish holy days. 2. The formula, ‘a religious festival, a New Moon celebration, or a Sabbath day,’ is found often in the Old Testament. The phrase has to do with the yearly, monthly, and weekly sacred times of the Mosaic Law. 3. Paul’s admonition is one of a series of warnings in this epistle against a pre-Gnostic heresy. This heresy required its followers to abstain from food and drink on holy days in order to worship angels. Verses 14-23 have repeated warnings against the inadequacy of asceticism for overcoming sinful tendencies. ‘Human commands and teachings’ are described as lacking in any value (see verses 20-23). Compare verse 8 and 18 with verse 16, as follows:‘See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of the world, rather than on Christ’ (Verse 8). ‘Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you’ (Verse 18). ‘ … do not let anyone judge you’ (Verse 16). It is clear that the warning of verse 16, like that of verses 8 and 18, has to do with a perverted Judaism based on a pre-Gnostic philosophy. This produced asceticism. Human regulations were being imposed in the hope of providing visions of angels.

Normal Not Condemned

It is important to understand that Paul is not condemning normal Old Testament observances. There were no rules against drinking for the Jewish people (except admonitions against drunkenness). Neither did Judaism countenance asceticism. Nor did Judaism, as found in the Old Testament, permit the worship of angels.In view of the first part of Colossians 2:16 ‘Don’t let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink,’ it is obvious that Paul is not condemning all Sabbath-keeping any more that he is condemning all eating and drinking. Those who wish to make Colossians 2:16 forbid any form of Sabbath-keeping should give up eating and drinking in order to be consistent.

Edenic Code Left Intact

Paul is clearly telling us that the holy days of Judaism with their accompanying rituals of sacrifice, temple and synagogue attendance, etc., were but a shadow of the good things to come in Christ. Paul is not dealing here with the Sabbath as a creation ordinance that contained no shadowy elements of sacrifice. He is considering only the Sabbath of Judaism, which was encrusted with temporary rules and regulations which ceased at the coming of Christ. The fourth commandment was not the only commandment of the Decalogue associated with temporary regulations in Judaism, all of them were. For example, there were multiple Jewish laws associated with marriage. However, in the Decalogue we find only the forbidding of adultery. When Christ came to reveal his way, all the typical and temporary rules in their Jewish form fell away. The Edenic code was left intact in the purity of its original intention.

Law as Standard

Pauline epistles such as Romans and Galatians have the Greek word for ‘law,’ nomos, scores of times. Yet nomos does not occur once in Colossians. Paul’s chief purpose here in Colossians is quite different to that of those other books of his. He is decrying the following of pre-Gnostic philosophy, which had attached its ascetic rules to the outdated shadows of Judaism. This is the conclusion of most modern exegetes. Paul everywhere favours the Decalogue as a moral standard, but never as a method (see, for example, Ephesians 6:1-3). Colossians chapters 3 and 4 apply at least nine of the Ten Commandments to Christians. Perhaps he mentions all ten if 4:16 applies, as is likely, to the weekly Sabbath meeting of the Colossian believers.

Sabbath First-class

The idea that an isolated statement in one of his epistles was intended to revoke any part of the divinely proclaimed law from Sinai, would have astonished Paul. I personally believe that the majority of those saved for eternity will never have been Sabbath-keepers. I also believe that those who embrace this priceless privilege of a weekly day-long tryst with their Redeemer, will find their lives transfigured and enriched. Why travel through life third class if you can go first-class?

]]> http://www.goodnewsforadventists.com/2006s-forth-commandment-des-ford-march-2006/feed/ 0 http://www.goodnewsforadventists.com/questions-answers-on-the-sabbath/ http://www.goodnewsforadventists.com/questions-answers-on-the-sabbath/#comments Sat, 04 Jul 2009 19:09:04 +0000 Admin http://203.88.117.97/~goodnews/?p=154 Continue reading →]]> Questions & Answers on the Sabbath

—A compilation from Des Ford’s and Ritchie Way’s books on the Sabbath

Q How is it possible to know which day is the Sabbath on a round world?

A The same way that it’s possible to know which day is Friday or Sunday.

Q How can the Sabbath be kept at the South Pole?

A People at the Pole have no problem keeping diaries.

Q Hasn’t the calendar been changed since the time of Jesus?

A Yes, the calendar was changed, but the order of the days of the week has not been changed. The Sabbath today is the same day of the week that it was in Jesus’ time.

Q Doesn’t Romans 14:5 suggest that we should not be dogmatic about what day we hold sacred?

A Romans 14:5 is not about the Sabbath but about special fast days.

Q If the gentiles were to keep the Sabbath why doesn’t the Jerusalem council refer to it?

A The Jerusalem council (Acts 15) made laws only in those areas where gentile Christians had the greatest problems, e.g. sexual immorality, promoted by the religious fertility rites at pagan temples; and where their freedom in Christ might offend their Jewish brethren, e.g. eating blood products and meat from animals that had been strangled to death and not bled properly, as well as eating the meat of animals that had been sacrificed to idols. The fact that the seventh-day Sabbath wasn’t mentioned by the council indicates that there was no problem in this area.

Q Isn’t it true that the New Testament makes no difference between moral and ceremonial laws?

A No! Both Jesus and Paul taught on the moral law, but never on ceremonial laws.

Q Why should I keep the Sabbath when it only symbolises my rest in Christ?

A Baptism symbolises our faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus for us, but we still practice it. The Lord’s Supper, likewise, symbolises our faith in the broken body and spilt blood of Jesus, but we still celebrate that. Similarly, our observance of the seventh- day Sabbath is a celebration of our perfect rest in Jesus.

Q Is not every day now a Sabbath to the Lord?

A In essence, yes. But we still observe the Lord’s Supper on special occasions even though we ‘feast’ upon the crucified Jesus every day. The essence of Sabbath observance is a weekly celebration of the perpetual rest that Jesus gave us through his death on the cross.

Q Hasn’t Jesus fulfilled the Sabbath for us, making Sabbath-keeping unnecessary?

A No more than he has fulfilled the fifth commandment for us, thus making the honouring of our parents unnecessary.

Q Colossians 2 says, “Do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard … to a Sabbath day [because it is] a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.” What do you have to say about that?

A Paul is not debating whether Christians should eat or drink or keep the Sabbath, but why Christians should eat or drink or keep the Sabbath. He is not condemning eating or drinking or Sabbath keeping, but those who believe that they will attain perfection by doing these things. Anyone who keeps the Sabbath in order to be saved understands neither the gospel nor the Sabbath.

Q In 1 Corinthians 16:2 the church was told to take up a collection for God’s needy people on Sunday. Isn’t that evidence for Sunday observance in the early church?

A Bible commentators agree that there is no mention, anywhere in this passage, of either an assembly for worship or a public collection. Rather, Paul is here recommending that each Christian in Corinth set aside at home, every week, some money for him to take to Jerusalem to help the needy saints there. There is some evidence that Sunday was pay day in Corinth at that time, which would explain why Paul recommended this as the day to set aside their offering.

Q In 2 Corinthians 3:6 Paul tells us that Christians should be living under “a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” Aren’t those who observe the Sabbath living according to the letter of the law rather than living by the Spirit?

A The person who cares for his aged parents just because the law requires it, is living under the old covenant; while the person who, led by the Spirit, lovingly cares for his aged parents, is living under the new covenant. In the same way, there are both new and old covenant ways of observing the Sabbath.

Q Doesn’t Revelation 1:10 say that John received the Revelation on “the Lord’s day,” which is Sunday.

A Inasmuch as there is no evidence that Sunday became a worship day until a generation after John wrote the Revelation, the “Lord’s day” of Revelation 1:10 is probably either the seventh-day Sabbath (Mark 2:28), or “the Day of the Lord” (Rev 16:14), or both.

Q In what way would my observance of the seventh-day Sabbath make me a better Christian than I am as a Sunday keeper?

A Can you think of anything that would improve your relationship with your Lord and family more than twenty-four hours of unbroken fellowship? ]]> http://www.goodnewsforadventists.com/questions-answers-on-the-sabbath/feed/ 0 http://www.goodnewsforadventists.com/poem-by-malcolm-ford-march-2006/ http://www.goodnewsforadventists.com/poem-by-malcolm-ford-march-2006/#comments Sat, 04 Jul 2009 19:08:21 +0000 Admin http://203.88.117.97/~goodnews/?p=152 Continue reading →]]> Poem: “Glaciew View”

(View 1)

—Malcolm Ford

Is this the new Ice Age
When thoughts freeze in the mind?
Did the softly falling snows of Truth
Ice Euphrates solid through
And freeze to Glacier View?

Did we bathe too long
In the warm Laodicean pools,
When the mind was drugged
By dreams of an endless Summer,
While the harvest waited
Before the ice came?

Will it not snow gently again
And robe our muddied fields of labour
White, and blossom leafless trees
Before the flowers of Advent Spring
Bloom fair in sunny Minneapolis?

Are we to be carried down, down
With the grinding moraine
To the Beast erupting sea;
In a frozen mass of dogma
That will not yield under the Gleaming Son?

Is this the new Ice Age?
Is Babylon in deep freeze
And Jerusalem twenty-five below
And Greece and Rome in blinding blizzards
That nothing can be moved an inch?

Why did the avalanche not roar down
When years of days froze to the End of Time?
The glad alarm that rang
Through that Loud Cry Day
Must still be rung till this age
Melts away.

]]> http://www.goodnewsforadventists.com/poem-by-malcolm-ford-march-2006/feed/ 0 http://www.goodnewsforadventists.com/c-a-letter-to-the-editor-june-2006/ http://www.goodnewsforadventists.com/c-a-letter-to-the-editor-june-2006/#comments Sat, 04 Jul 2009 19:06:24 +0000 Admin http://203.88.117.97/~goodnews/?p=148 Continue reading →]]> Question: “The Covenants”

Q Why do you still keep the Old Covenant Sabbath when the sign of the New Covenant is now the Lord’s Supper? (C.A.)

A Dear C
Whenever a covenant was made it was confirmed with a meal, usually the eating of a part of the sacrifice that made the covenant possible, such as the Passover meal that the Hebrews ate before they left Egypt. When Jesus confirmed his covenant relationship with his disciples, he did so with a meal, the Lord’s Supper, in which they ate his flesh and drank his blood—‘the blood of the new covenant.’ At this meal Jesus said, ‘I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom’ (Matt. 26:29).

As you know, there are two phases to Christ’s kingdom: the concealed phase, which he established by his death and resurrection and the revealed phase, which he will establish at his return. After his resurrection Jesus ‘took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to those seated with him at the table’ (Luke 24:30; see also Acts 10:41). But, at this point, he concealed himself from them because this phase of his kingdom was a concealed phase. At ‘the wedding supper of the Lamb’ (Rev. 19:9) the covenant relationship between the Lord and his people will be confirmed and celebrated by a ‘feast in the kingdom of God’ (Luke 14:15). At that time the kingdom will be revealed.

]]> http://www.goodnewsforadventists.com/c-a-letter-to-the-editor-june-2006/feed/ 0