Magazine Editions

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).

THE SCAPEGOAT
Hi Ritchie
We 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.

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.

THE HINGE OF GOD’S GRACE
Dear Editors
I have just finished reading the March 2009 letter from S.W. entitled ‘Investigative Judgement Reworked?’ and my predominant feeling is one of sadness and shock.
As a twenty-five-year-old young person of Adventist heritage I would like to present my view. I did not grow up in the Glacier View era, however, I have read and studied the Investigative Judgement.
S.W., you state that many people, particularly young people, have left the church (I assume you mean the Adventist church) because of Des’ teachings. As a young person, I can inform you with relative accuracy that the young people today are leaving, not because of Des’ theology, but because they can no longer endure being part of an organisation that does not emphasise the Grace of God.
S.W. claims that ‘when you remove the Investigative Judgement the whole plan of salvation falls apart and you have nothing to build on’. On the contrary, Romans 10:9 states very clearly ‘If you confess that Jesus is Lord and believe that God raised him from death, you will be saved’. That is salvation. Salvation has always been simple—it is humans and religious organisations that have made salvation complicated by dumping a whole lot of extra bits on top, claiming that this is what makes a person saved.
I encourage the Adventist Church to heed the warning: when grace is preached, the people will stay. Jesus is Grace, which is why people followed him wherever he went. And they will pursue him still today, wherever Grace is to be found.
S. S
.
Dear S
You write beautifully and cogently. Thank you. May God help us in our ministry to young people.
Grace and peace to you
Ritchie.

THE TWO COVENANTS
Dear Ritchie
Would you please give me your assessment of the enclosed material on the two Covenants?
Kind regards
P. T.

Hi P
While the author is a committed Christian he teaches that there was a radical change-over between the Old and New Covenants at the Last Supper. According to him, before the Last Supper people were saved under the Old Covenant, but after the Last Supper people were saved under the New Covenant. This view creates a serious problem with regard to Jesus’ teachings, because, according to the author, they were all given under the Old Covenant and are therefore not applicable to Christians living under the New Covenant.
The difference between the Covenants, however, isn’t a vertical time line, as the author teaches; it is a horizontal faith line that separates those who believe that the root of their salvation is the Lord (New Covenant), from those who believe that the root of their salvation is their observance of the law and its rituals (Old Covenant).
We know this understanding of the Covenants is correct, because, according to Jeremiah 31:31-34, the New Covenant was to have a fulfilment among the Jews who returned from captivity in Babylon five hundred and thirty years before Christ. This kainos (renewed) Covenant was the Covenant that Jesus ratified by his death and resurrection.
The people under the Old Covenant believed they were God’s people because they had the Law in the heart of their temple; the Lord corrected them by telling them that they would be his people only if they had the Law in the heart of their body temples (Heb. 8:10), which is only possible for those who have ‘the Lord our righteousness’ dwelling within. To underline the importance of this truth, the Lord got rid of the old Law written on stone tablets forever in Jeremiah’s day; it was never seen again.
Ritchie.

PLATO AND JESUS
Dear Ritchie
Sometime back, in the first Good News for Adventists magazine I think, you contrasted Plato’s and Jesus’ way of getting man into heaven. I’ve hunted everywhere for that article, but can’t lay my hands on it. Would you please be so kind as to give me the main points of your thesis?
Kind regards
E. W.

Dear E
Plato understood, as did the Hebrews, that there was a great gulf between man and God. Man lived in a sinful world, but God lived in a sinless world. Plato’s means of bridging that gulf, however, was worlds apart from the Hebrew solution.
For Plato, the separation between man and God was spatial—man lived here on earth and God lived in heaven above. The only way man could enter the presence of a perfect God was through the death of his sinful body, which released his perfect soul to travel to heaven above.
For the Hebrews, the separation between man and God was relational. Man’s soul was sinful; only God was holy. The only way man could enter into the presence of God was to become perfect.
The New Testament reveals how that may be done. Jesus, our atoning sacrifice, opened the way back to God when he died for us on the cross (John 14:6). He not only died to cancel our debt of imperfection, but he also credited his own perfection to us (2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 10:10). That means there is now nothing to prevent us entering into God’s presence—no past sin and no lack of holiness.
N.B. It is not our death that gets us into God’s presence (though many Christians still cling to that Platonic paradigm), but Jesus’ death. When he died the door to God’s throne-room was opened to us (Heb. 10:19-22). ‘Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence’ (Heb. 4:16).
There’s just one more difference between Plato and the New Testament that I should point out. For Plato, heaven was a literal place, but for Christians living between the two advents, (the kingdom of) heaven is a spiritual place (see Heb.12:22-24).
Grace and peace to you
Ritchie.

FORD OUR
GREATEST THEOLOGIAN
Dear Ritchie
Please find enclosed a cheque for $100.00. Thanks for sending the Good News for Adventists magazine. A friend must have put my name in. I appreciate your publication and your writing.
I was saddened to read that Dr. and Sis. Ford are no longer SDAs. As time goes by I am confident that Des will be seen as one of the great heroes of Adventism. It is just tragic that he is allowed to grow old without an apology.
The last time I met Des was in J’s house in Townsville. I cannot forget J’s confident verdict: ‘Burnside is our greatest evangelist and Ford our greatest theologian.’ Amen to that!
We remember the good old days, Ritchie.
E joins me in saying ‘Hello.’
Be of good cheer in the Lord.
J. & E.

Dear J & E
Many thanks for your donation. It is appreciated.
I, too, have fond memories of the past, but I reckon these days are better for proclaiming the gospel. People seem more ready to listen now.
God bless you both
Ritchie.

FORD AND HOLDEN
Dear Ritchie
The Ford and Holden are two iconic vehicles that are hanging in there despite fierce competition and hard times. The same two vehicle names are significant in our theology! We know, of course, that Progressive Adventism is bigger than Ford, being espoused by a significant number of our scholars, aware ministers and laity.
The Holden group, on the other hand, ‘hold on’ fiercely to traditions irrespective of concerns about sandy foundations. After all, ‘This is the approach that gets converts.’ Unfortunately, many converts only stay for a while and some of those who remain have uncharitable attitudes to those who don’t believe as they do.
Rivalry and competition have always been the norm between these two vehicles. Did you watch Bathurst?
Try the Google search words ‘covert control’ on the internet and see if you think such methods apply in our organisation. You might even take time to consider which ones are scripturally justifiable.
Then there was that Hook biography which deals as much with issues as it does with a person. It makes especially good reading if you enjoy deciding who are the ‘goodies’ and who are the ‘baddies’. The challenging part is the suggestion that some fundamental doctrinal changes are needed to move the church from historical traditions to biblical positions.
The battle between the Ford and Holden groups is so determined that it divides churches, causes resignations and blunts evangelistic efforts. Will the competition become so fierce as to have one side challenge the other with a class action based on such things as deception, manipulation, discrimination, denial of religious liberty, the use of dogma and vehemence instead of reason?
Certainly loyalty is needed. One must ask, however, should it be loyalty to the past or to the future, to tradition or scriptural truth?
To be sure both vehicles have much to contribute. Just as surely there are some things for each to surrender as well. However, if equal recognition were given to both vehicles, this would provide stimulating competition, balance and choice. By the way did you see the report that at one time Ford and Holden did consider combining? Maybe we should do this too. However, if we lack the courage, honesty and humility to face these issues we might as well just combine the names and call our vehicle a Folder!
Sincerely
J.B.R.

Dear J
Hmmm.
Ritchie

When Paul says in Colossians 2:13 that Jesus forgave us all our sins, does this include my future sins as well? How can God forgive sins that I haven’t yet committed?
The answer is, God can forgive sins before I commit them in the same way he died for my sins long before I committed them! Let me explain: If sins can’t be forgiven in advance, then based on that same logic, neither could Jesus die for them in advance? If it is not possible for God to forgive sins in advance then neither can he die for sins in advance.
One idea is as illogical as the other. The fact is that the New Testament says that Jesus ‘forgave us all our sins’ (Col. 2:13). That verse doesn’t limit his sacrifice to the sins we have committed in the past—it says he forgave us for all our sins. In fact the Bible says that Jesus took away the sin of the world—not just the sin of the believer or potential believer (John 1:29; 1 John 2:2). He did away with, and put away, all sin at the time he was sacrificed (Heb. 9:26).

The Atonement for Sin in the Book of Hebrews
Hebrews 9:12 reveals that the blood of Jesus, shed two thousand years ago, ‘obtained eternal redemption’ for us. Did you get that? This means that at the time Jesus shed his blood, sin—all sin, past, present and future—was forgiven. Jesus did not need to be sacrificed again and again, as animals were, to atone for sins. His ‘once for all’ sacrifice was sufficient for all people, for all time (Heb. 9:25-28).
This means that all my sins—past, present and future—were atoned for by Christ’s ‘once for all’ sacrifice on the cross. He does not need to be crucified again for my future sins. Once was enough to atone for every sin that I, and everyone else, will commit.
We must conclude, therefore, that either ‘all’ our sins were forgiven at the cross, just as Colossians 2:13 so clearly says, or else none of our sins were forgiven at the cross, and that would make God a liar, because the Scripture says ‘he forgave us all our sins.’
The conclusion is simple: When the blood of Jesus was shed, forgiveness was made for every sin. When Jesus proclaimed, from the cross, ‘It is finished’ the atonement for all sin was finished. When Jesus declared, ‘It is finished’, the curtain of the Temple which separated the worshipper from the presence of God, was torn in two from top to bottom by the hand of God, thus indicating that the Lamb of God had taken away the sin of the world that separated us from God (John 19:30; Matt. 27:50-51; John 1:29). By his death Jesus opened a door that not even future sin could shut (Rev. 3:7-8).
It is interesting to note the tenses of the verbs in John 1:29 and compare them with what is said in Hebrews 9:26. Prior to the cross, the Lamb of God ‘takes away the sin of the world’. The word ‘takes’ is in the present tense, indicating continuous action in progress. After the sacrifice, however, the book of Hebrews changes the tense from continuous to past. The Amplified Bible of Hebrews 9:26 highlights the tenses when it says, ‘He has once for all at the consummation and close of the ages appeared to put away and abolish sin by his sacrifice [of himself].’
Dear reader, can you see the fullness of the truth of the gospel? When the blood of Jesus was shed, all sin was totally put away and abolished. Past tense! In God’s eyes, if you are in Christ, you have no sin, nor ever will.
In the verses that follow, the writer of Hebrews tells us what this means for the worshipper on a practical level. Hebrews 10:1 states that the blood of animal sacrifices was not able to make the worshipers perfect. But the writer goes on to say that ‘We have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all’ (Heb. 10:10). Do you understand the significance of what he has said here? He is saying that the blood of Jesus makes you holy once for all time. Even though you may sin again, your sin is covered by the blood, and as long as you are covered by the blood you are holy, ‘because by one sacrifice he has made perfect for ever those who are being made holy’ (Heb. 10:14).
We are told in Hebrews 9:9-10 that ‘the gifts and sacrifices’ in the old Sanctuary service ‘were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper,’ because they were mere ‘external regulations’ that applied until Jesus came. However, when Jesus came and shed his blood for us, he cleansed us of sins once for all—past, present and future. The result is that worshippers can come before God without feeling guilty for their sins because they know that Jesus abolished sin in God’s sight two thousand years ago, and as a result, the worshipper’s conscience was legally cleared.
The writer to the Hebrews then brings us to his climactic statement: No-one can enter God’s presence with a guilty conscience, but Jesus’ blood was shed ‘to cleanse us from a guilty conscience’ thus opening the way for us to boldly enter the presence of God (Heb. 10:19-22). What a marvelous truth. We have total cleansing. This means that we can enter into the very presence of God because of that shed blood, which has already cleansed us from a guilty conscience! It is a done deal. Oh what joy unspeakable that causes the heart to sing and the feet to dance!
What a blessing to live under the New Covenant. Will you be able to come into the presence of God boldly the next time you really blow it? If you can’t and if you sense a barrier, and if you feel guilty then you need to internalise this truth.
The secret to experiencing this truth at a heart level is found in the phrase ‘in full assurance of faith.’ The full assurance of this blessed experience can only be entered into on the basis of faith. Our assurance and confidence is not based on our emotions or human logic; our assurance is based on faith in Jesus. This is critical to understand. Too many people allow their relationship with God to be dictated by how they think and feel. No! This truth is to be lived out on the basis of the assurance of faith—not feelings or logic. Faith is trusting in Jesus, rather than my feelings or logic.
Most of us battle with guilt feelings and guilty consciences. Do not let your conscience be your guide on this matter; God’s Word is your guide. When you approach the throne and your neural pathways, mind-sets, thought patterns and Satan make you feel guilty without any specific cause, then respond with the following: ‘I have already been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb. All my sins—past, present and future have been taken away. Be my feelings what they will Jesus is my Saviour still!’ Then ignore your guilt feelings. Yes ignore them. We are told in 1 John 3:20 that even if our hearts condemn us God is greater than our hearts! So enter into his presence thanking him for his goodness in blotting out all your sins on the cross two thousand years ago.

Part of the legacy passed on to us by Desmond Ford is a knowledge and understanding of the apotelesmatic principle. The word, apo-teles-matic, is a compound Greek word referring to any prophecy that has expanding multiple fulfilments.
DANIEL 2
Perhaps the clearest and most impressive demonstration of the apotelesmatic principle at work is seen in the historical fulfilments of the prophecy of Daniel 2. Daniel 2, as we all know, is a prophecy presented as an image of a man made of four different metals plus a combination of metal with earth. The first metal is gold, the second silver, the third bronze, the fourth iron and the fifth a combination of iron and clay.
A rock sent from heaven strikes this human image with such force that it is pulverised into dust. The dust is then blown away by the wind and the heaven-sent rock grows into a mountain that fills the whole earth.

The First Fulfilment
The first fulfilment of this prophecy was a local fulfilment in which the whole image, from head to toe, represented the kingdom of Babylon, and the rock that destroyed the image became a mountain that we know as the kingdom of Persia.
The first king of neo-Babylonia was Nebuchadnezzar II; he was the head of gold. The second king was Nebuchadnezzar’s son, Evil-Merodach; he was the breast and arms of silver. The third king was Neriglissar; he was symbolised by the belly and thighs of bronze. The fourth king was Labashi-marduk and he was the legs of iron. The fifth king of Babylon was Nabonidus, who ruled Babylon as co-regent with his son, Belshazzar. Nabonidus was the iron in the feet, while his son, Belshazzar, was the clay.
The prophecy of Daniel 2 foretold that, in the latter days of the neo-Babylonian empire, the feet of the image would be struck by a stone from heaven which would bring the whole image crashing down. This judgement (mene, mene, tekel upharsin) was enacted against the viceroy, Belshazzar, by Cyrus, God’s divinely appointed stone (Jer. 29:10; Isa. 45:1). He was the one who brought the Babylonian kingdom to an end and released the Hebrews slaves. And that stone grew into a mountain called Persia which filled the whole of the then-known world.

The Second Fulfilment
The second fulfilment of Daniel 2 applied to the spiritual kingdom (the kingdom of grace) that Jesus established at his first advent.
The head of gold represented Babylon; the breast and arms of silver represented Medo-Persia; the belly and thighs of bronze represented the nation of Greece and the legs of iron represented Rome. The feet of iron and clay represented the unholy alliance of Rome (iron) and Jewry (clay) which united to destroy Christ (John 18:35). However, while they came together, they could not stay together and war broke out between the two, with the result, that Palestine was emptied of Jews.
What Rome and Jewry did not foresee, was that their crucifixion of Christ helped to create the kingdom of the stone, which will eventually crush them. It was Christ’s death that opened the door to his kingdom to every person who chooses to enter by that sacrifice. This kingdom is in the process of growing into a mighty mountain that will eventually fill the whole earth.

The Third Fulfilment
The third fulfilment of Daniel 2 will apply to the literal kingdom (the kingdom of glory) that Jesus will establish at his second coming.
Once again the head of gold represents Babylon; the breast and arms of silver represent Medo-Persia; the belly and thighs of bronze represent the nation of Greece and the legs of iron represent Rome. As in the spiritual application, the feet of iron and clay represent the unholy alliance of the ten-horned beast (iron) and the prostitute (clay) which will unite to destroy the followers of Christ (Rev. 17:1-6).1 This future union of world-wide religious power and world-wide secular power, which will seek to destroy Christ in the person of his representatives, will, however, last only for a short time, for while the secular beast and apostate religion will come together, they will not stay together.2 Scripture says ‘The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute. They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire’ (Rev. 17:16). Thus the iron and the clay lose their cohesion as Daniel prophesied.
Upon this falling-out of his enemies Christ will descend as a mighty stone from heaven. This stone will completely annihilate all the rejecters of God’s free grace through Jesus and they will be blown away, so that not a mote remains. Christ’s kingdom will then occupy the whole earth for ever and ever.

Endnotes:
1. This union of church and state is the apotelesmatic part of the vision.
2. France, which gave its power to the Papacy, turned upon the Papacy and took the Pope into captivity in 1798.

Milton Hook has written the first full biography of Desmond Ford—and it is a great read! It provides some timely insights into the man, his message and the denomination he served for so many years.
Hook writes passionately about his subject and disclaims any idea that history can be written absolutely objectively. Despite that, Desmond Ford is superbly documented with detailed endnotes. And for those of us who know some of the history, it resonates as truth. As Hook points out in his introduction to the reader, many of the people he refers to as he tells Ford’s story intersected with Hook’s own life, giving him a direct perspective on the events. But the primary source for the story comes from Des Ford himself.
I can remember, as a young boy, sitting in my country church listening to a much younger Des Ford answering question after question on the Bible. I was impressed with the breadth and depth of his knowledge and the passion with which he spoke. Since then I have met Des Ford quite a few times and heard him speak. One thing that always shines through is his consistent focus on the gospel of justification by grace alone through faith alone. And this focus remains to this day.
Des Ford’s life has been inextricably entwined with the Seventh-day Adventist denomination. Because of this, Hook’s book is much more than a biography of Ford. It is also the story of what must be seen as one of the worst periods of Adventist history, when it comes to the way that theology has been done and people have been treated.
Hook begins his book by describing the event that occurred on Saturday afternoon, August 23, 1980 when an enormous crowd heard that Des Ford’s thesis was rejected at Glacier View and was probably to face disciplinary action. Hook asks: Why would a Christian church, in the enlightened and progressive Twentieth Century, deliberately deprive itself of one of its best theologians, who at the same time was loyal, industrious and arguably their most dynamic preacher of Christ’s gospel?
Why, indeed? Hook returns to Ford’s childhood in Queensland, Australia to begin to find an answer to that question. From that point the story is a compelling one of a man who is passionate for God and the gospel, coming into conflict with a church administration that is more concerned about preserving tradition and power, than it is about pursuing greater understanding of theological truth.
The subtitle of the book is Reformist Theologian, Gospel Revivalist. This subtitle perfectly describes the life of Des Ford.

Reformist Theologian
Des Ford was one of the best theologians that the SDA denomination has ever had. From a very early point in his thinking he had questions about the Adventist doctrine of the Investigative Judgement. For much of his career he struggled to find biblical ways to support the doctrine, until eventually, he came to acknowledge that it had no biblical basis. Once he began to publicly share his views, the denominational administration responded by using political machinations to ultimately defrock him. Sadly, the church decided to make decisions on the basis of tradition, rather than Scripture.
Des Ford has always remained loyal to the church despite the disgraceful way it treated him. His recent decision to withdraw his membership was also more about his respect for the denomination than his own personal interest. It has also allowed him to carry out his calling to be a gospel preacher without the hindrances of a denomination that constantly instructs its members to have nothing to do with him. His first desire to reform the theology of the church from within was not to be—although for many church members their theology has been reformed!

Gospel Revivalist
The traditional SDA doctrine of the Investigative Judgement is a doctrine that leads to uncertainty of salvation, guilt and frustration and heightened anxiety around behaviour. In essence, it obscures the true gospel. Keenly aware of the way that perfectionist tendencies in the church were constantly obscuring the beauty of the gospel of justification by grace through faith, Des Ford made it his life mission to preach that gospel.
Ford was in constant battle with those who wished to impose their perfectionistic theology onto the church, claiming that theirs was the true Adventism. Ford, one of the denominations clearest articulators of the gospel, found himself constantly battling to keep the message of Jesus Christ’s imputed righteousness for sinners, alive and shining as a beacon, calling church members out of the bondage of a legalistic righteousness that could never save. Thousands of people have found liberation from the burden of guilt and frustration as a result of Des Ford’s gospel preaching, which still goes on today.
Milton Hook has provided an invaluable resource with Desmond Ford: Reformist Theologian, Gospel Revivalist. Not only do we learn about the man; we also learn about the SDA Church. At times, we tend to lose sight of Ford, as Hook provides detailed discussions of theology and SDA church history.
This, in my view, is probably one of the weaknesses of the book as a biography. It is completely understandable that the story of Ford is also, to a large extent, the story of a denomination. But these two stories seem to struggle for dominance in the book. Hook’s passion for Ford and the way he was treated by the church comes through strongly. But I would like to read more about what was going on in Ford’s mind and how he understands it all.
Desmond Ford tends to be more of a chronicle of events, discussion of theology, and criticism of the denomination. One day I would really like to see an autobiography written by Ford or a biography that truly delves into the mind and heart of the man. Having said that, enough of the mind and heart of the man is present in Hooks book to lead us to admire Des Ford’s courage, determination, patience and passion as he sought, and continues to seek to bring the good news of salvation through grace alone by faith in Jesus Christ alone.
Despite the sadness of a story of a church that rejects its own ‘children’, it’s a celebration of the power of the gospel to reassure us that we are children of God and that it matters naught what humans think. Des Ford’s life is a powerful illustration of that fact.
—This review, taken from Steve Parker’s website: ‘Thinking Christian’ (http://thinking-christian.blogspot.com) September 4, 2008, is printed here with permission.
The biography of Desmond Ford can be purchased either from Milton Hook, or Good News Unlimited.