LYING FOR GOD: What Adventists Knew And When They Knew It! 11th EDITION By KERRY B. WYNNE
B.A., English & history (1970 & 1972), Pacific Union College M.A., educational administration, Andrews University (1978)
MARTIN H. KLAYMAN
Director of Jewish Studies
WILLIAM H. HOHMANN
B.A., theology, Ambassador College (1976)
ROBERT K. SANDERS
Founder Of Truth Or Fables.Com
LARRY DEAN
Retired Defense Attorney Independent Researcher & Cult Analyst
ELCE “THUNDER” LAURISTON Former SDA Daniel and Revelation Speaker D. M. CANRIGHT (Posthumously) Chief Opposer of Sabbatarianism During Ellen White's Lifetime Unique Portions Copyright by
Kerry B. Wynne - 2017
General Chapter Outline Section 1 Introduction to the 11th Edition - 5 Chapter 1: Adventist Sunday Law Paranoia - 7 Chapter. 2: Is the Weekly Sabbath Established in the Creation Narrative - 18 Chapter. 3: Refutation of Cotto – The Sabbath in Genesis - 66 Chapter. 4: Barriers to Sabbatarian Theology - 102 Chapter. 5: The Exodus Journey - 120 Chapter. 6: Sabbath Not an Issue at the Worldwide Church Councils - 125 Chapter. 7: Ignoring Eastern Christianity for 175 Years - 132 Chapter. 8: Book of Jubilees Annihilates Pet Adventist Sabbath Myths - 167 Chapter. 9: The Realities of Church History - 178 Chapter. 10: More Key Barriers to Sabbatarian Theology - 200 Chapter. 11: Barriers to the Sabbatarian-Friendly Interpretation of the Prophecies of Daniel - 219 Chapter. 12: Biblical Barrier – The Lords Day in Revelation - 240 Chapter. 13: Tertullian – Sabbatarian or Anti-Sabbatarian - 242 Chapter 14: The Lunar Sabbath Wreaks Havoc with Adventism - 247 Chapter 15: An in Depth Examination of Colossians 2.14-17 - 285 Chapter 16: Are There Two Classifications of Annual Sabbaths in Colossians 2.14-17-new - 291 Chapter 17: Logic-Common Sense- The Law-And the Covenants - 315 Chapter 18: Sabbath not a Law for Christians - 325 Chapter 19: Why the Sabbath Cannot be a Moral Law - 336 Chapter 20: What Gods Law Is - 342 Chapter 21: Noahide Law and Israels Dual Court System Deflate Sabbatarianism - 346 Chapter 22: What Did Jesus Say - 361 Chapter 23: History's Greatest Religious Cover-Up - 367 Chapter 24: Hellenized Jews – The Septuagint, and the Passover – Annihilating Bacchiocchis Jewish Persecution Theory - 374 Chapter 25: Examining the Tangled Roots of the Hebrew Roots Movement (new) – Klayman - 386 Chapter 26: Sabbath Keeping in the Early Church (new) – Klayman - 415 Chapter 27: Israel's Restoration: The Key to End-Time Events (new) – Klayman - 425 Chapter 28: The Anti-Christ: Islam or the Papacy? - 431 Chapter 29: Is Israel the Church? (new) – Klayman - 451
Section 2 EGW and Her Enables with Introduction - 459 Chapter 1 The Prophetess from Hell - 462 Chapter 2 Was William Miller a White Collar Criminal - 498 Chapter 3 EGW Falsifies the History of the Reformers - 507 Chapter 4 The Two Faces of Frank M. Wilcox - 513 Chapter 5 The “Genocide Exception” to the Sabbath - 526 Chapter 6 Real History of the Sabbath and Adventism- (Revised 11 th Edition) - 535 Chapter 7 EGW Makes Billions for the Church with her Un-biblical Tithing Doctrine - 597 Chapter 8 The Remnant – A Lexical and Exegetical Analysis. (New,11 th Edition) - 602 Chapter 9 Unparalleled Hypocrisy and Its Fruits - 612
INTRODUCTION TO THE 11TH EDITION OF LYING FOR GOD In 1995 The Worldwide Church of God stunned the Christian world by renouncing Sabbatarianism and walking straight toward the Gospel. Nothing like this had ever happened in the history of the Christian faith. This unparalleled event took place because Church leadership had received a copy of From Sabbath to Lord’s Day, published in 1982 by a team of Evangelical biblical scholars headed by D. A. Carson. Church leadership also studied the anti-Sabbatarian book, Sabbath in Crisis (which was later renamed Sabbath in Christ), by former Adventist, Dale Ratzlaff. This event could not have been more terrifying to Seventh-day Adventist leadership. Why? Because these two denominations had evolved out of a single group of Sabbath-keeping Advent believers who survived the Great Disappointment of 1844 together. They were sister churches with the same Sabbatarian heritage. From Sabbath to Lord’s Day represented the most definitive polemic against Sabbatarian theology ever written. Each chapter addressed a specific error promoted by the late Seventh-day Adventist Sabbath scholar, Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, as presented in his 1977 book, From Sabbath to Sunday. The Carson team demonstrated with both accumulated knowledge of Hebrew linguistics and new research by their own experts in Hebrew linguistics that the Hebrew texts of Genesis 2, Exodus 16, and Exodus 20 prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that Moses specifically excluded the possibility of a Sabbath ordinance at Creation in writing the Pentateuch. No one to date has been able to put together a credible working belief model that supports Sabbatarianism without a Creation origin for the Sabbath ordinance. Additionally, the Carson team examined every available conspiracy-apostasy theory that sought to explain the phenomenon of “Sabbath abandonment” by the early church and refuted each one to the point of over-kill. It would seem that no more books against Sabbatarian theology needed to be written after 1982. But Adventist leadership pretended that From Sabbath to Lord’s Day had never written and refused to follow in the footsteps of its sister denomination. The Lying for God research project began over ten years ago. This book is now directly written by a core team of five or six researchers. As of 2015 certain elements of the team’s research are guided and reviewed by an elite core of top European and Israeli scholars who occupy top positions in academia. Additionally, Lying for God is INDIRECTLY “written” by a “team” of Seventh-day Adventist apologists who challenge our research methods and findings, as well as indirectly by a number of Former Adventist researchers who review, critique, and supplement our project. Why the name? One of the main themes of the book is to demonstrate what Adventist leaders knew and when they knew it about the impossibilities of its Sabbath, Ellen White, and Investigative Judgment doctrines. The entire history of Adventism represents a level of willing deception and cover-up such as there has never been exhibited by any quasi-Christian denomination. Nothing else even comes close. Top Adventist leaders have almost always known that Ellen White was a fraud. Since 1919 Adventist leaders have acknowledged in secret that she is a fraud. By 1915 these leaders knew that its Sabbath doctrine was biblically and historically impossible, and by 1982 they knew that in the original Hebrew text it is clear to the point of over-kill that there was no Sabbath until the Exodus. Lying for God begins where the Carson research project ended. Carson and his associates destroyed the very roots of Sabbatarian theology. Our research team has blasted away the soil that fed those roots with definitive arguments that defy refutation and which Adventists have never encountered before. Like Carson’s 1982 book, each chapter has been written by a different author and targets a specific subject area of the Sabbatarian belief model. Also, like Carson’s book, there is some overlap of topic coverage and even some difference of opinion. All of the more controversial chapters have been peer reviewed by the entire team of co-authors, and some of the chapters have been written with the guidance of a team of expert scholars from Europe and Israel who have taken a special interest in our work. These scholars became interested in our project when they had an opportunity to examine the blatantly dishonest historical information presented in Ellen G. White’s book, The Great Controversy, and Samuele Bacchiocchi’s book, From Sabbath to Sunday. In regard to our co-authors peer review, If the team cannot agree that a new chapter is almost certainly likely to be the best possible truth available, the chapter is not published. In fact one chapter prepared for this 11th Edition was not published
because it failed this standard. The purpose of the book is to deal with issues that relate to Sabbatarian theology in general and to the Seventh-day Adventist version of it in particular. Since Ellen G. White, the church prophetess of Adventism, claimed that God showed her in a vision that Christians should keep the Jewish Sabbath, her false prophetic claims are fair game. And since Adventists are finding that there is no specific biblical or historical support for the idea that Christians must keep the Jewish Sabbath, increasing numbers of them are claiming that the “Church” is “Israel,” and that because of this “replacement,” the fact that the Sabbath was given only to Israel is not a problem for Sabbatarians. Therefore, we have new chapters, authored by our new Jewish Studies director, Martin H. Klayman, which deal with Replacement Theology and its required cognate concept, the Hebrew Roots Movement. Things are not going well for the Seventh-day Adventist Church in areas with readily accessible Internet service. The evidence that the anti-Christ of the End Times is Islam—not the pope of Rome—is almost overwhelming. With its focus on the pope and the Catholic Church, Adventism has remained in ignorance of the fact that Bible prophecy is focused on the role that Israel will play in End Times events. Adventism taught that Jerusalem would never be rebuilt. To the consternation of the followers of Ellen White, the Jews return to their homeland in 1948. As of 2016 the Jewish Sanhedrin has met with a delegation of Erdodan’s Islamic clerics to discuss the rebuilding the “Prophet” Solomon’s Temple as a memorial to world peace. Their common ground is the belief that “God has no Son.” At the same time Erdogan and his Islamic clerics refer the deadly wound Islam suffered in 1923 with the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne, in essence identifying itself as the entity Christians equate with the anti-Christ. Our new 11th Edition covers this topic in depth. If the anti-Christ is Islam, the prophetic foundation of Adventism implodes, since Ellen White taught that the Catholic Church “changed” the Sabbath and that in End Times, Protestants will join Catholics in hunting down and killing those who will not renounce the “Sabbath” and worship with the “beast” on Sunday. New chapters by Martin Klayman and our prophetic analyst, Larry Dean, explain the prophecies that control the events that are unraveling in Israel today. The Year 2016 had not been a good year for Adventism. Bible prophecy about Israel is playing out in a spectacular way. The anti-Christ has been identified, and he is not the pope. Even the Muslims are talking about rebuilding the “Prophet” Solomon’s Temple, and the armies of the world are gathering near the Golan Heights which is close to the Valley of Armageddon. And if the anti-Christ of End Times is not the pope, Ellen White, whose End Times scenarios revolve around the pope’s role in enforcing a Sunday law on the world, is shown, once more and in another way to be a false prophet. Adventists believe that before the end of time, the pope will be chasing them up into the mountains and killing them because they keep the Sabbath. A smart Adventist, then, would have a secret hide-away in the mountains to which he or she could escape. We believe that Adventists on the run are far more likely to die as a result of a nuclear explosion that results from the conflict between the anti-Christ as Israel at the Battle of Armageddon. And right now, the armies of the world are perched across of the Valley of Armageddon, which is adjacent to the Golan Heights, and which contains one of the largest petroleum reserves in the world. Meanwhile, Adventist leaders are asleep at the wheel. The followers of Ellen White, in general, have no clue about what is really going on because their shepherds have directed them to focus their attention on the pope as the center of the End Times events. Lying for God is not an easy read for anyone. Keep in mind that Adventism had had 150 years to perfect the art of putting together an invincible-looking belief model. Adventists have had these 150+ years to do what they do best. By contrast we are asking our readers to spend enough hours to read 600+ pages. Think of it as a college level course on the problems with Adventism. For many Adventists, who have been cognitively conditioned to think that there is no possibility that its Sabbath doctrine could be wrong, there is no easy way to study his or her way out of the heresies of Adventism. The Seventh-day Adventist belief system is highly complex, so please read the entire book through. We cannot address all the issues at one time-- just one at a time. Wait till you have read the entire book from cover to cover and then see if you cannot agree that we have succeeded, together with the D. A. Carson team of decades ago, in dismantling the Adventist belief model one piece at a time.
Chapter One ADVENTIST SUNDAY LAW PARANOIA Roman Catholic Sabbath-keeping Churches in Ethiopia! Pope Establishes Sabbath-keeping Catholic Church in Eritrea in 2015! Catholic Canon Law Makes Sunday Laws Impossible! What Samuele Bacchiocchi Really Learned in Rome! by Larry Dean, J.D. CHRISTIANS KILLING CHRISTIANS OVER SUNDAY KEEPING?
ADVENTIST SUNDAY LAW PARANOIA Larry Dean J.D. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. — Romans 14:5
The Seventh-day Adventist Church has spent billions and billions of dollars on the gamble that Colossians 2:14-17 does not mean what it says. This passage from St. Paul’s writings labels the weekly Sabbath a “shadow,” or symbol, that pointed forward to Christ and which became obsolete at the Cross. Paul warned Christian believers not to enforce Sabbath-keeping on other Christians. On the official website of the Roman Catholic Church, this text is one of several prominent ones used to explain why it abandoned Sabbath-keeping for Sunday observance. Ironically, some of these billions of dollars that Seventh-day Adventists are gambling with are being used to produce media presentations that warn its followers that a Sunday law is about to be passed, just like Ellen White said it would. One presentation predicts that Christ's Second Coming will occur before the Year 2020. These media releases teach what Ellen White taught, and that is that soon their Protestant friends will be joining civil authorities and the Catholics in the hunting down and killing of the Sabbath-keepers who refuse to worship on Sunday. Figuratively speaking, stop for just a moment and put this cult-like theology in your pipe and smoke it! Ellen White’s version of Sabbatarianism takes the Sabbatarian heresy to a new level of complexity that leaves ordinary Sabbath-keeping denominations with their feet firmly planted on Planet Earth and sky-rockets Adventism into another universe where you can make something true just by saying it. Ellen White called the 7 th day Sabbath the “seal of God.” According to her cultic theology, Sabbath-keepers will have the seal of God written on their foreheads whereas Sunday observers will have the Mark of the Beast written across theirs. As of July 2015 Adventists are in a world-wide panic. Why? Because the pope has just issued an encyclical on the topic of world environmentalism. He made the “mistake” of mentioning that Planet Earth needs a rest from the pollution caused by man just like the Jews needed the rest from Egyptian slavery that God gave Israel in the form of its Sabbath system— a system which also included giving fields a rest from planting every seven years. Then the pope “blundered” into upsetting the Adventists by commenting that Planet Earth needs a restoring power from God, similar to the spiritually restoring power of the Eucharist— and pointing out that Catholics partake of this sacrament every Sunday. He might even have implied that Catholics worshiping on Sundays might help to heal the Planet because they corporately partake of the restoring power of the Lord’s Supper on this day. What we have just explained is a bit oversimplified, but it is a fairly reasonable representation of what he said. To get the pope’s exact shades of meaning, please take a few minutes to see how Adventists have taken the pope’s statement out of context, completing their unfortunate twisting job between a set of ellipses. Follow this link: http://advindicate.com/articles/2015/6/28/the-popes-encyclical-and-the-mark-of-the-beast
Then please take a few minutes to see what the pope actually said by following this link: http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html
Scroll down and read paragraphs 236 and 237, both of which EMPHASIZE that Sunday is only important insofar as it is the day of the week when the Eucharist is dispensed. The Adventist commentator above dishonestly eliminated the first sentence of the paragraph #237: "On Sunday, our participation in the Eucharist has special importance." And the Adventist commentator also dishonestly eliminated the last sentence of paragraph 237: "And so the day of rest, centered on the Eucharist, sheds its light on the whole week, and motivates us to greater concern for nature and the poor." Read the entire paragraph, which also lauds the 7 th Day Sabbath. How could anyone hallucinate that this Church wishes to punish Adventists for worshiping on the 7 th Day, when that Day is effusively lauded in its own Papal encyclical?
THE STRANGE CASE OF THE ETHIOPIAN CATHOLIC CHURCH Has the Whore of Babylon gone “soft” on its goal of exterminating Sabbath-Keepers? Roman Catholicism Strongly Opposes Endorses Sabbath-Keeping We already suspected the papacy of going long in the tooth, given the wild popularity of Saturday Catholic masses in North America. The idea of the wily Whore of Babylon seeing the error of its ways, and embracing Sabbatarianism was unthinkable in Ellen’s day and time. Nowadays, “Seventh-Day Catholicism” is routine and popular. But do not jump to the conclusion that this is a recent development. The germane question is not whether “the Pope is Catholic?” It is whether the Pope is a secret closeted Sabbath-keeper. We have discussed at length the strange phenomena of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church in a later chapter. That church claims it has the Ark of the Covenant and historical roots in a torrid romance between King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. Since it has never been in communion with the Pope, Ellen assumed that its long-standing tradition of Saturday Worship was a bitter bone of contention between itself and Rome. What if we were to tell you that Rome has strongly encouraged Saturday worship in Ethiopia? You would think we are kidding, wouldn’t you? We are not kidding. The Ethiopian Catholics have had a long and sometimes stormy relationship with Rome, but lately they have kissed and made up and are enjoying the finest marital bliss: “With Islamic attacks up to 1531 threatening Christian Ethiopia, an appeal from the Emperor to the Portuguese brought support to defeat the Adal Sultanate in the Ethiopian–Adal War. Jesuit missionaries came with the Portuguese to Ethiopia. “The Emperor Susenyos was converted primarily by Father Pedro Páez. In 1622, Susenyos made Catholicism the state religion. The next year, Pope Gregory XV named Afonso Mendes, a Portuguese Jesuit, Patriarch of the Ethiopian Church. A formal union in 1626 was declared when Patriarch Mendes came to the country.” Yep, it turns out the Pope has always LOVED the Sabbatarian Worship tradition of the Ethiopian Catholic Church. It has officially stated that it would be a “tragedy” if that church were to adopt “Latin practices” such as exclusive Sunday worship, and abandon its tradition of 7th day Sabbatarianism. The following quotes are straight from the Catholic Education Resource Center: “The Ge'ez Ethiopian Rite is a variation of the Alexandrian Coptic Rite with Syriac and Jewish influence. Judaism was practiced by some Ethiopians before the arrival of Christianity, and pocket communities of Jewish Ethiopians still exist. The Church there is unique in retaining circumcision, dietary laws, and both Saturday and Sunday Sabbath. “Genuine apostolic tradition is preserved in the Eastern Catholic Churches. Insofar as some have drifted toward Latin practices, they've abandoned the unique traditions passed on to them by their founding apostles. This is a tragedy for all Catholics. Unity, again, is not uniformity. The Catholic Church is universal, and in its God-ordained diversity, there is great strength.” (emphasis added)
The Pope has strongly-denounced the killing of Sabbatarian Ethiopian Christians by the Islamic State: “It makes no difference whether the victims are Catholic, Copt, Orthodox or Protestant,” Pope Francis said in his message. “Their blood is one and the same in their confession of Christ!”
And just when you think the pope has gone completely bananas with his open and enthusiastic support of 7 th Day Sabbatarianism in Ethiopia, he crazily turns around and starts a brand-new 7th-day Sabbatarian church in Eritrea in 2015. Recall that the Catholic Church of Ethiopia is Sabbatarian, so expanding it into Eritrea is the same thing as starting a new Sabbath-keeping Roman Catholic Church in Eritrea: “According to a January 19 announcement from the Holy See Press Office, Pope Francis has separated the four Eritrean eparchies (dioceses) from the Ethiopian Catholic Church and has created a new metropolitan sui iuris church for Eritrea. The Pontiff has named Bishop Menghesteab Tesfamariam of Asmara, Eritrea’s capital, as the church’s first metropolitan archbishop. The metropolitan archbishop of Asmara will henceforth be head of the church.”
There you have it. Straight from the horse’s Pope’s mouth. Not only does the Roman Catholic Church embrace the Ethiopian Catholic Church, but also regards them as being fully in communion with Rome. And not only does it specifically endorse its Sabbatarianism, but it officially believes it would be a “tragedy for all Catholics” if its Ethiopian brethren were to abandon 7th Day Sabbatarianism! Finally, the pope has vehemently-denounced the murder of Sabbatarian Ethiopian Christians. And now, to add insult to injury, he just started a brand-new 7 th-day Sabbatarian church in Eritrea. Yet, Ellen White claimed that the pope had a primitive version of the National Sunday Law in effect 400 years ago under which Sabbatarian Christians were supposedly persecuted. Keep reading, because in a later chapter we will unpack her ludicrous claim as nothing more than elaborate fiction.
THE EUCHARIST: THE ANATHEMA OF SUNDAY LAW PARANOIA Things seldom get crazier than this. Several of the Catholic Church’s official websites explain its abandonment of Sabbathkeeping on biblical grounds, including its compliance with St. Paul’s pronouncement in Colossians 2:14-17 that the Sabbath is an obsolete ordinance that must not be forced on other Christians. In fact, the Catholic websites stand for the proposition that Sunday worship had commenced before Colossians 2:14-17 was written. Adventists teach, amazingly, that the Catholic Church changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, and they offer Sabbath-keeping as a kind of sacrament around which all of their lives must revolve. By contrast, the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican and most Lutheran churches offer the Lord’s Supper, the Eucharist, as the sacrament around which all of their lives revolve. They celebrate the sacrament of the Eucharist every Sunday just like Adventists keep the Jewish Sabbath every Saturday. Seventh-day Adventists, although not entirely alone in doing so, accuse the Catholic Church of blasphemy in regard to the Eucharist, because it teaches that the bread and the wine literally become the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ during the partaking of the Lord’s Supper. This is an interesting accusation because IF there is such a thing as transubstantiation, only Jesus Himself— God Almighty— could possibly do the creating that would make the communion bread and wine into His very own flesh and blood. A deeper-than-usual theological analysis of Colossians 2:14-17 demonstrates that it is probably the Adventists who are the REAL blasphemers. Because it probably takes a bad motive to sin in the full sense of the word, we are not saying that individual Adventists are committing sin by keeping the Sabbath. They have been cognitively conditioned to believe that St. Paul didn't mean what he said. Just like it is possible to tell a white lie without sinning, it is possible to commit a White blasphemy without sinning. Let us consider an example of a benign white lie. Your aunt makes a terrible apple pie and asks you how you like it. It tastes bad. You respond, “You must have used a very special recipe to make this pie. Thanks for going to all this trouble.” Here is an example of a White blasphemy. In Colossians 2:14-17 St. Paul clearly labeled four Jewish ordinances obsolete shadows that represented (pointed forward) to Christ but which vanished with the brightness that burst forth out of the tomb on Resurrection Morning. This concept should not be difficult to understand because animal sacrifices, which also represented Him, ended at the Cross. A forceful point in this theology is that the inspired writer of the Book of Hebrews uses the same word for “shadow” to refer to the obsolescence of animal sacrifices as Paul used to label the Jewish dietary laws and three kinds of Sabbaths as “shadows.” This interesting fact is forcefully made at Catholic Answers.Com: #6 Tim Staples-El Cajon, California-Catholic Answers Blogger In response to an inquiry by “Brian:” Actually, Col. 2:16-17 is very clear. "Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food or drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are only a shadow [Greek: skia] of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ" (Col. 2:16–17). St. Paul calls the Sabbath and dietary laws “only a shadow.” It is interesting to note that the inspired author of Hebrews uses the same Greek word (skia, or “shadow”) for the Old Covenant sacrifices that are no longer binding on Christians either: "For since the law has but a shadow [skian] of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices which are continually offered year after year, make perfect those who draw near" (Heb. 10:1).
All Christians agree that the sacrifices of the Old Covenant were “shadows” of the one and true sacrifice of Christ. But many, like you, Brian, do not make a similar connection and see that the Old Covenant Sabbath is also a shadow of its true fulfillment in the New Covenant.
EVERYTHING that pointed forward to Christ ceased to exist after the Cross. This fact should be a theological no-brainer. These four Jewish ordinances were the Jewish dietary laws, the annual Sabbath feast days, the monthly New Moons, and the weekly Sabbaths of the Decalogue. To pivot their entire worship around something that used to represent the Reality of Christ's sacrifice but which no longer exists is very much like saying that Christ's death was not good enough to fully atone for our sins. Sadly, Sabbath-keeping implies that the believer needs Christ's sacrifice PLUS something else― Sabbath-keeping― to suffice. It is almost like you walk into a room where the real Elvis Presley is waiting to autograph his record album for you. You walk right past him and walk up to a real-life-sized photo prop of his likeness and start weeping at the sight of it because you believe he died years ago in the plane crash that killed rock stars Buddy Holly, the Big Bopper, and Richie Valens. The denial of the sufficiency of Christ's death on the Cross is a serious problem with Adventist theology. Ellen White taught that Christ's atonement for us was not complete until 1844 when He supposedly left the Holy Place to go into the Most Holy Place in the Heavenly Sanctuary. Therefore, Adventists believe that everyone's salvation was hanging in limbo prior to 1844. In a very real sense, Adventists offer the followers of Ellen White a non-existent shadow as the single most important “SACRAMENT” of their lives. The life of an Adventist revolves around the Jewish Sabbath. At the same time they deny the real power of the Eucharist, claiming that the presence of Jesus is not really in the bread and the wine. As a false substitute, Adventists claim that Sabbath-keeping has special restorative powers. In the original churches, which we define as the Roman Catholic, the Eastern Orthodox, and Anglican in particular, the lives of the believers revolve around the TRUE SACRAMENT― the Eucharist, or the Lord's Supper. In the thinking of these historical Christian churches, Jesus is literally present in a profound way in the elements of the bread and wine. As the famous psychologist, Carl Jung, discovered in his research, Christians from churches whose lives revolve around the Eucharist have fewer psychological disorders, are much happier, and have fewer crises of faith than the believers of other churches. Jung said something to the effect that partaking of the Eucharist seemed to perform some kind of good magic in the lives of Christian believers. Continuing our brief lesson in theology, the Greek word Paul used for the term, “shadows,” in Colossians 2:14-17 is exactly the same word the inspired author of the Book of Hebrews used to label animal sacrifices as obsolete ordinances that ceased at the Cross. Since by the Law of Moses there is no valid Sabbath day without double animal sacrifices, ALL of the shadowy Jewish ordinances ceased to exist at the Cross. One can refrain from work on Saturday, but it is not really “keeping the Sabbath” because no Sabbath exists to “keep.” Worse yet, when it comes down the bottom line of biblical analysis, a Christian keeping the Jewish Sabbath is like a Christian sacrificing an animal to offer propitiation for his or her sins. No wonder Seventh-day Adventists will NEVER concede that Paul meant what he said in Colossians 2:14-17! No wonder they cling to their bankrupt claim that the Ten Commandments are the “transcript of God’s character,” so they can never be changed or altered without opening the flood-gate to sins like murder and adultery! Adventists have spent millions of dollars paying their bewildered theologians to find a work-around for this devastating passage. Yet, every SDA attempt to find a work-around has gotten its biblical scholars into deeper and deeper trouble, and the only escape from it, as you will see later, requires that SDA theologians to flatly contradict Ellen White and Judaize Christianity by creating the embarrassing cognate that the Jewish sacred feast days must also be validated into the Christian dispensation. In our discussion of Ellen White's concept of Sunday laws, the Mark of the Beast, and Sunday-keeping believers uniting with civil authorities to kill Sabbath-keepers in the End Times, the contrast between the false sacrament of the Sabbath and the true sacrament of the Eucharist as practiced by the historical Christian churches is one of the keys to understanding why the Catholic Church could not possibly pass a Sunday law that fulfills Ellen White's prophetic requirements.
PUTTING THE SABBATH BACK INTO ITSELF WITH SUNDAY LAW PARANOIA Since Ellen White prophesied that Sunday laws would come into existence “shortly” and within the life-times of the Adventist believers of her day, even if a Sunday law were passed today it would not represent a fulfillment of a prophecy of one of her prophecies. She died in 1915, but she began prophesying the virtually immediate coming of the Sunday laws many decades before her death. The fact that there could never be a real Ellen White-type Sunday law means trouble for Adventists, to say nothing of the fact that her failed predictions prove her to be a false prophet. They need Sunday laws so they can use circular logic to validate its Sabbath doctrine back into itself. As the decades have gone by since Ellen White's death, the theological noose has gotten tighter and tighter around the throat of her Sabbath doctrine. It is now, of course, in a fatal choke-hold. Adventists have never been more in a position to need a Sunday law threat to keep Ellen White's followers believing that there is nothing wrong at all with the Sabbath doctrine. Their reasoning goes like this. If Sunday were not a false substitute for the real “Sabbath,” Satan would have no interest in forcing people to worship on it! Sunday laws were enacted long before the time of Ellen White, but they never had anything to do with a so-called “change” of the day. The first Sunday law enacted by the Roman Emperor, Constantine, in 321 CE, simply guaranteed that all Christians, and especially the slaves, could worship on the day that Christians had observed for the previous 300 years— Sunday, or the Lord’s Day. Furthermore, our research indicates that it is impossible for anyone to “change” the biblical Sabbath from one day to another because the biblical Sabbath was lunar-based. This fact may seem incredible to our target audience at this point, but hold your judgment till you have seen our evidence made to the point of over-kill that this is true. Then take a look at our documented proof that the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists has fought desperately to keep the truth about the lunar Sabbath from its flock for at least the last 100 years. With the biblical Sabbath, the four Sabbaths in every month were synchronized to the first sighting of the new moon. The predecessors of the Adventists, the Millerites, as well as the pioneers of Adventism, knew that the particular Sabbath that Jesus rested in the tomb after His crucifixion did not fall on a Saturday. And they knew exactly why that was the case. The Sabbath wasn’t changed and COULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHANGED, since, like a ping-pong ball, it jumped around from one day to the next according to any fixed calendar scheme. All of this adds up to the fact that a Sunday law passed today is no proof whatsoever that the Sabbath got changed in the past. All it would mean is that some Christians had become terribly misguided and tried to force other Christians to follow their own ideas about how to worship God. Both Catholics and Protestants have done this kind of thing before, but in other ways.
CANON LAW VERSUS THE IDEA OF AN ELLEN WHITE SUNDAY LAW Catholic Canon Law forbids the dispensing of the Eucharist to non-Catholics who have not been baptized into the Church. The Catholic Catechism explicitly states that the Eucharist is the center of "worship" on Sundays. This "worship" occurs seven days a week in most Catholic Churches, including the Saturday mass which is now routine in most of them. We suppose that Catholics who choose to attend mass on Saturdays could be considered Seventh-day Catholics. A key component of the Adventist National Sunday Law conspiracy theory is that Adventists will be forced ― upon penalty of death ― to "worship" on Sunday. In other words, The National Sunday Law will require Catholic Churches to dispense the Eucharist to Adventists (otherwise, how could they "worship" on Sunday?), even though Catholic Canon Law explicitly forbids it. Canon Law dictates that a Catholic Priest be defrocked if he knowingly dispenses the Eucharist to a "heretic" or an unconfirmed baptized Catholic person. (Confirmation is the oiling ritual that one receives after Catholic baptism.) The Catholic Church recognizes Adventist baptisms, but requires Adventists to complete the RCIA course and be confirmed before he or she can partake of the Eucharist: https://www.archbalt.org/evangelization/worship/rcia/upload/Validity-of-Baptisms-and-Confirmation.pdf Additionally, three Popes in a row have explicitly and unequivocally-condemned the Death Penalty as punishment for even the most heinous murders. Recall that Ellen White prophesied that the Death Penalty would be meted out against obstinate
Adventists who refuse to “worship” on Sunday. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops is mulling a proposal to refuse the Eucharist to Catholic Politicians who support the Death Penalty (like they already do for Catholic Politicians who support abortion. The Catholic position on the Death Penalty can be found here: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/death-penalty-capital-punishment/ And here: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/death-penalty-capital-punishment/catholic-campaign-to-endthe-use-of-the-death-penalty.cfm Not only is the present pope, Pope Francis, unequivocally opposed to the Death Penalty, he is opposed to a Life Sentence that precludes any possibility of Parole. http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1404377.htm Why do Adventists refuse to acknowledge such insurmountable barriers to a National Sunday Law as predicted by Ellen White? Sunday "Worship" pursuant to the Canon Laws of both Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy requires partaking of the Eucharist. No Eucharist = no "worship." No Eucharist = No "Sunday Observance." In neither Roman Catholicism nor Eastern Orthodoxy is Sunday― the day, Sunday, itself― viewed as a sacrament in and of itself. It is only the Eucharist that gives the day any meaning that it has. To partake of the Eucharist means undergoing full conversion with a valid Chrismation, since Adventist baptisms are valid baptisms under the Canon Law of both denominations. Thus, Adventists are precluded from "Sunday Worship" or "Sunday Observance," since they are absolutely precluded from the Eucharist. A National Sunday Law would require a Catholic Priest to perform actions which his Church’s Canon Law prohibits! Next, it is anticipated that Adventists will probably argue that Catholicism would simply force them to be baptized as part of the "Mark of the Beast." The Canon law and pronouncements from the Vatican II is flatly unanimous that forced baptisms are invalid, and invalid baptisms preclude one from the Eucharist: https://ronconte.wordpress.com/2011/06/06/can-an-adult-be-validly-baptized-against-his-will/ "The center of this union lies in the reception of the sacrament of the Eucharist during Mass, which is both a con-fession and embodiment of unity with the Roman Catholic Church." - See more at: http://www.uscatholic.org/church/2011/08/can-catholic-receive-communion-protestant-church#sthash.w0DKBsZW.dpuf
See also: http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2007/07/05/can-a-non-catholic-receive-holy-communion-in-a-catholic-church/ Can. 842 §1. A person who has not received baptism cannot be admitted validly to the other sacraments. §2. The sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and the Most Holy Eucharist are interrelated in such a way that they are required for full Christian initiation. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2T.HTM On many different levels, Adventists are precluded from participating in the Catholic Eucharist, which is how "Sunday is observed" by all Roman Catholics. Adventists well-know this problem. This is why the first and last sentences of the cited Advindicate article were removed and replaced with ellipses. Adventists are explicitly precluded from receiving "The Mark of the Beast" under Catholic Canon Law.
ADVENTIST COUNTER ARGUMENT: PAPAL LAWLESSNESS Catholics are real sticklers about following their own canon laws. Catholics have done some bad things in the past, but in doing so they were actually, for the most part, following canon law. In fact as a result of the Catholic Church’s embarrassment about some of its evil deeds, its canon laws have been modified, especially over the last 500 years, to make sure that such abuses will not happen again. For example, new light on the Catholic Church’s conduct during the Spanish Inquisition demonstrates that it followed its own canon law to the letter. This fact is now demonstrable since the
Internet has opened up the court records for each person who went on trial during this time in Spanish history. Adventist apologists will claim that since the pope is the “lawless man of sin,” he will do anything he jolly-well pleases. However, this failed escape route ignores over a thousand years of Catholic church history. Popes who violated canon law were deposed or even assassinated. Remember that canon law has nearly equal status with the Scriptures. Canon law states that only the pope has the authority to authorize the dispensing of the Eucharist. This is why, for example, Rome persecuted the Waldenses. The Waldenses rejected the pope’s authority, and the Eucharist was being dispensed by non-Catholic priests or pastors. There is no evidence that the Waldenses ever kept the Jewish Sabbath according to the results of research conducted over the last 150 years by a variety of scholars.
ADVENTISM'S SAMUELE BACCHIOCCHI “PLAN” BACKFIRES! In the early 1970's it appears that the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists worked with Andrews University to send a promising young scholar, Samuele Bacchiocchi, to a Catholic University in Rome to see if he could find proof in the depths of the Vatican's library that the Roman Catholic Church changed the Sabbath like Ellen White said they did. The problem was that her claim that the Catholic Church changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday strongly disagreed with all the known facts of history as determined by both ecclesiastical and secular historians over the last 1,500 years. When Samuele Bacchiocchi graduated from the Gregorian Pontifical University at the Vatican in 1974 the General Conference installed him as a theologian and professor at Andrews University. He presented himself, and the Church presented him, as the first non-Catholic scholar to graduate from a Catholic University in its history. He and the University implied that the Catholic Church had endorsed what he taught in his doctoral dissertation, which he quickly adapted into a book he entitled, From Sabbath to Sunday, as being fully in line with Catholic thought. When his book was published in 1977, he and Andrews University implied that, thanks to his access to special ancient documents that were only accessible to a very select group of high-level scholars, Bacchiocchi had found the “smoking gun” that proved that Christians abandoned the Sabbath as the result of a complicated conspiracy-apostasy. It wasn't very long until Adventists realized that the Church had made a terrible mistake in appointing him to the University. His book openly took issue with Ellen White's “inspired” authority. She said the Catholic Church changed the Sabbath. Bacchiocchi said the Catholic Church could not have been the entity that changed the Sabbath, and he offered several other theories of how the Sabbath might have gotten changed as the result of a sinister, non-biblical conspiracy. She said the Sabbath in the third position in Colossians 2:14-17 was merely another reference to a “ceremonial” Sabbath. Bacchiocchi said that the Sabbath in this third position was a reference to the weekly Sabbath of the Decalogue, and that it could not possibly refer to anything else. This list goes on. Soon informed Adventists everywhere were expressing astonishment that the Church had not fired Bacchiocchi! Never in the history of Adventism had any scholar challenged Ellen White's prophetic claims and escaped being fired. Never! No wonder Adventists were astonished that he kept teaching at Andrews year after year and nothing happened! Unless you have been a nearly life-long Seventh-day Adventist you may have difficulty comprehending just how incredible this situation was! We sent a private investigator to the Gregorian Pontifical University. Among other things, we found out that Bacchiocchi's claim that he was the first non-Catholic scholar to graduate from the University is an unequivocal falsehood. Non-Catholic scholars of any religious or non-religious persuasion have always been admitted. The “Greg” had a Jewish professor who died in 1959, after an illustrious career of teaching and research. Prior to 1965, Gregorian Pontifical University accepted anyone who had grades good enough to be admitted. After 1965 the University actively sought after and recruited nonCatholic students, including, Muslims. In fact, a look at a list of students who graduated in the years prior to and including the year he graduated; 1974, suggests that it is highly likely that Samuele Bacchiocchi sat in classes beside students who were Muslim women. Actually, the head of the 300 Million Eastern Orthodox Church (Patriarch Bartholomew) graduated from “The Greg” (as it is known in Rome) long before Bacchiocchi did. In addition, in the wake of the Vatican II, Rome “threw open its windows to the world” with its Nostra Aetate Declaration. Nostra Aetate was implemented via a foundation that dispenses lucrative scholarships to thousands of Muslims, Protestants and Jews to study at one of the seven Pontifical universities in Rome. Bacchiocchi's attendance at Pontifical Gregorian was simply the result of changes made by Vatican II in 1965. Bacchiocchi’s attendance at “The Greg” was pursuant to a wellknown Vatican policy change.
BACCHIOCCHI STUDIED CATHOLIC CANON LAW Additionally, Bacchiocchi's doctoral degree mandated substantial coursework in Canon Law, so he was well-aware of the impossibility of Roman Catholicism participating in either the inception or the implementation of a National Sunday Law. The Pontifical Gregorian is not only a top-notch Pontifical University, but it is the Vatican’s top university for the study of Canon Law. It is the only one of seven Pontifical Universities in Rome where one can become a Canonical and practice Canon law before the Vatican’s Ecclesiastical Courts. Bacchiocchi’s degree in Church history could not have been earned without this substantial coursework in Canon Law. He well knew that Catholic Canon Law made a National Sunday Law impossible. He kept his lip zipped about this explosive issue throughout his entire tenure at Andrews University. Seventh-day Adventists have their own “canon” laws, and sometimes following their own canon laws also results in t he doing of evil. For example, SDA “canon” law stipulates that no Adventist can work for the Church who does not believe that Ellen G. White was a true prophet of God and that the Doctrine of the Investigative Judgment is biblical. As a result of following its own canon-like laws, it had no choice but to defrock Desmond Ford at Glacier View in 1980. Dr. Ford openly taught that the Doctrine of the Investigative Judgment was not biblical and even that it was anti-Gospel. When the General Conference fired Dr. Ford, it deprived him not only of his job, but of his pension. It didn’t matter that the 200 some delegates to his hearing at Glacier View agreed with him on six out of eight of his points that that the Doctrine of the Investigative Judgment had serious problems. Church law says an Adventist pastor cannot continue in the employment of the Church unless he accepts this doctrine. It might have been wrong for the Church to fire him, but it was fully within the provisions of Church “canon” law. And in a very real sense of the word, the Adventist Church had every “right” to defrock him.
ADVENTIST WORK-AROUND FOR THE CANON LAW ARGUMENT For the moment, let us turn our focus from the Bacchiocchi fraud and look at how Adventist apologists have attempted to get around the canon law barrier. Typically they would cite a typical Protestant reference, such as the following one, that equates St. Paul’s reference to the “man of sin” with the pope: https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/677-study-of-pauls-man-of-sin-a "The Romish movement has exhibited a disposition of lawlessness throughout its history. Could any citation more clearly illustrate the spirit of lawlessness than this declaration regarding the papacy? “The pope doeth whatsoever he listeth [wills], even things unlawful, and is more than God” (quoted by Newton, p. 456). Attwater, a Catholic writer, has shown that, according to Roman Catholicism, “Tradition,” i.e., the voice of the church, is superior to the Scriptures (pp. 41-42). That is the very essence of lawlessness."
Adventists believe that since the Papacy is truly "lawless," canon law would not stop Rome from implementing a National Sunday Law. Adventists will argue the absurdly-dishonest "history" found in The Great Controversy to demonstrate that the Papacy indeed has been "lawless," and therefore their own canon law will be no barrier to the enactment of a national Sunday law. This unfortunate approach ignores the guiding principles of the concept of legal realism. Undoubtedly, the Roman Church has behaved heinously, sinfully and despicably at many junctures in its history. Catholics will readily admit that there have been some truly evil Popes, and Pope Francis has made it clear lately that the Church has a lot to apologize for, and he has been apologizing a lot. But whether the Church has had a long history behaving despicably and sinfully is not the correct question. The question should be: Has the Papacy behaved "lawlessly?" In other words, has the Papacy bound itself to follow its own set of Canon laws, and punished violators of those laws? Undoubtedly the answer to that question is a resounding YES. Right or wrong, a fundamental principle of Roman Catholicism that has been affirmed over and over again throughout history has been to enforce its own laws. Some cases in point: Its retaliation against the Protestant Reformation (and the sacking of Constantinople in 1204 to "punish" Orthodox Christianity; and the excommunication order of 1054 against the Orthodox Patriarch. Catholics have acknowledged that these were truly dark and evil times in the Church History, and I would agree. But that is not the relevant
question. Did the Church behave lawlessly? And the answer, unfortunately is a resounding NO. They were punishing Protestants and Orthodox for their perceived violations of canon law! And because the behavior was so obviously despicable and evil, canon law was eventually modified to prohibit further behavior of the sort. Next we turn to two other infamous and sordid episodes in its history: The Inquisition and the Crusades. The evidence is so overwhelming that Canon Law was applied strictly and followed to the letter during the Inquisitions, that any counterargument is just absurd and comical. The evidence that Canon Law was followed strictly and to the letter during the Inquisitions is simply voluminous and unanimous. Many of the court documents from the Inquisition are now readily available on-line and demonstrate a fundamentally fair court system, especially for its time. You can hate the result and find that it was appalling and evil (and I do, even though I also believe that The Great Controversy's depiction of it is a colossal fraud, complete with gross exaggeration and out-right lies.) But you cannot argue that the Inquisitions were an example of lawlessness, because they most assuredly weren't. They were sticklers for a careful and exacting application of canon law. The Crusades have undergone much revisionist historical analysis lately, using modern theories of Just War, and modern notions of appropriate conduct of war. The Crusades are widely-viewed by historians as credible cases of clear-cut selfdefense by a Europe that perceived itself under siege by Islamic armies. The actions taken by the Crusaders comport with Just War theories AND appropriate battlefield conduct that was in play at the time. The Crusades again were horrifying and despicable to modern sensibilities, but they adhered to the larval concepts of International law that were predominant at the time. War has never been a day on the beach. Compared to the behavior of many other medieval armies (particularly the sack of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453), the Crusades were mild. Newton, in the above quote, was simply wrong about Rome behaving lawlessly, and in violation of its own Canon Law. The quotes are fundamentally dishonest about Rome's position of "tradition" versus the "Bible." Rome does NOT think that "tradition" is superior to the Bible, let alone in opposition to the Scriptures. That assertion is simply dishonest and ridiculous: Rome teaches that the Bible IS part of tradition! Like it or not, the Catholic position on tradition simply cannot be reduced to a simplistic one-line argument. If anything, Catholicism's emphasis on "tradition" powerfully demonstrates their adherence to "law." Tradition both constrains and guides its behavior. Furthermore, when Catholics discuss "tradition," Canon Law and its development is emphatically part of that tradition. For a good example of Catholic arguments about Scripture versus tradition, read this: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/scripture-and-tradition So far as we know this kind of critical thinking has never been applied to the Adventist concept of Sunday laws. To our Adventist readers, especially, we point out that Seventh-day Adventists have been taught a history of Sabbath abandonment which is nothing more than a highly imaginative fairy tale. Again, the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox position on the “change” of the Sabbath is that the Church did so on biblical grounds and that this “change” was immediate. The official position of Eastern Orthodoxy is that Sunday Worship commenced on Resurrection Morning, and the first Easter (“Pascha” for Eastern Christians) took place exactly one year later. This is reflected in Acts 12:4, which references “Easter” in the King James Version and the Catholic Bible; and “Pascha” in the Orthodox study Bible. The position of ecclesiastical and secular historians is also that Sabbath abandonment was immediate. The hostile witness of Adventist historians, J. N. Andrews, Samuele Bacchiocchi, and others, testifies to the fact that Seventh-day Adventists have always known that Sabbath abandonment was immediate; that the early Christians claimed biblical principles; and that there was never any controversy over the Jewish Sabbath during the entire history of the early church. Furthermore, Adventists have always known that when the first Sunday law was passed by the Roman emperor, Constantine in 321 CE, it was not enacted to CHANGE Christianity's day of worship, but to protect the ability of Christians to worship on the day upon which they had always worshiped― the Lord's Day, or Sunday.
WHAT BACCHIOCCHI LEARNED AT THE GREGORIAN PONTIFICAL UNIVERSITY Previously we explained that Bacchiocchi discovered, during his doctoral studies, that the Roman Catholic Church could not possibly have changed the Sabbath. The first pope was seated around 600 CE and he learned that Sunday observance was wide-spread by 100 AD and virtually universal by 140 CE. His book, From Saturday to Sunday, offered several other theories to suggest that even if the Catholic Church did not do it, the Sabbath did get changed and that it got changed as the result of a sinister conspiracy/apostasy. He specifically stated that in this he disagreed with Ellen White.
Previously we explained that Bacchiocchi was required to take a substantial amount of course work in Catholic canon law. Therefore, he would have to have known that the Catholic Church would never ― and could never― enact a Sunday law that would represent a direct fulfillment of a prophecy of Ellen G. White. Next, Bacchiocchi had to have known that the official position of the Catholic Church has long been that it abandoned the keeping of the Jewish Sabbath on biblical grounds. What would be the first place a student would consult if he were to write a dissertation on the Sabbath as it relates to Catholicism? The Catholic Encyclopedia, of course! The original Catholic Encyclopedia was published in 1912, three years before Ellen White died in 1915. Here is what it says about the biblical basis for the Catholic Church's Sabbath abandonment: The Sabbath in the New Testament.—Christ, while observing the Sabbath, set Himself in word and act against this absurd rigorism which made man a slave of the day. He reproved the scribes and Pharisees for putting an intolerable burden on men's shoulders (Matt., xxiii, 4), and proclaimed the principle that "the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath" (Mark, ii, 27). He cured on the Sabbath, and defended His disciples for plucking ears of corn on that day. In His arguments with the Pharisees on this account He showed that the Sabbath is not broken in cases of necessity or by acts of charity (Matt., xii, 3 sqq.; Mark, ii, 25 sqq.; Luke, vi, 3 sqq.; xiv, 5). St. Paul enumerates the Sabbath among the Jewish observances which are not obligatory on Christians (Col., ii, 16; Gal., iv, 9-10; Rom., xiv, 5). The gentile converts held their religious meetings on Sunday (Acts, xx, 7; I Cor., xvi, 2), and with the disappearance of the Jewish Christian churches this day was exclusively observed as the Lord's Day.
So! Dr. Bacchiocchi goes to Rome and finds out that there is no support for anything Adventism had taught about Catholics and the so-called “change” of the day. His doctoral dissertation has to be reviewed by a committee comprised of some of the best scholars in the world. How is he going to get something through the University's dissertation committee which appears, at the same time, to support the Seventh-day Adventist historical fairy tale? The result was his 1977 book, From Sabbath to Sunday. It Judaized Christianity to the point of absurdity by claiming that although the Sabbath of Colossians 2:14-17 was a reference to the weekly Sabbath of the Decalogue, Paul validated its observance into the Christian dispensation by merely condemning the extra rules and regulations that the Judaizers had supposedly heaped on top of these ordinances rather than the ordinances themselves.
A THEORY: WHY DR. BACCHIOCCHI DID NOT GET FIRED The SDA Church sent Bacchiocchi to Rome to find support for its theory that the Catholic Church “changed” the Sabbath. He found out just the opposite― that the Catholic Church cited biblical reasons for its immediate abandonment of the practice. He also knew that the SDA Church had collaborated with him in perpetrating the deception that he was the first non-Catholic scholar to graduate from the Gregorian Pontifical University. As Bacchiocchi's controversial career began to unfold, and he directly and indirectly challenged the prophetic claims of Ellen G. White, Church leaders probably came to him and said something like, “Dr. Bacchiocchi, you have to stop providing our flock with facts that prove that Ellen White is a false prophet. If you don't stop it, you know what has happened to every other scholar in the Church who has ever challenged Ellen White's authority as a prophet of God.” To which Bacchiocchi might have countered with something like this: “If you fire me, I will not have any reason not to “talk.” Am I am certainly capable of spilling the beans that NOTHING that Ellen White said about the Catholic Church and the Sabbath is in any way or shape the TRUTH. Furthermore, I might even tell everyone about the whopper we cooked up about me being the first non-Catholic to graduate from the University.” If something like this little discussion ever did take place― and we do not know that it ever did for sure― the Church's representative probably said something like, “OK. You win.”
CHAPTER TWO Is the Weekly Sabbath Established in the Genesis Creation Narrative?
Is the Weekly Sabbath Established in the Genesis Creation Narrative? Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments: And madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant: — Nehemiah 9:13-14
Jewish linguists have always understood that there is no Sabbath ordinance expressed or implied in the Genesis Creation story. This fact is demonstrated the point of over-kill by the text of the Mishnah. Recently this key Hebrew document was translated into English by the world-renowned Israeli Hebrew linguist, Dr. Reuven Brauner. Now its content is readily available to English researchers and the news is fatal to Sabbatarian theories of belief. It proves, for example, that since before the time of the Judges, the Hebrews did not see a Sabbath ordinance in Genesis, did believe that the Sabbath was given to Israel alone, and that since the foundation of the Jewish nation, the penalty for Gentiles within its borders who presumed to adopt the Sabbath without converting fully to Judaism were to be stoned to death. Furthermore, the facts surrounding the preservation of this oral tradition (finally written down around 200 CE) proves that these three beliefs had been unchanged for thousands of years. To top it all off, with the help of a number of European and Israeli scholars, we have put together a set of facts that demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that Jesus made a statement to His disciples that both validated the truth of the Mishnah's teachings and the view of the Pharisees that the Mishnah was divinely inspired nearly to the same degree of the Torah itself! Here is how Jesus did this. The Pharisees were the only Jewish sect that believed God inspired the decisions of the judges of Israel's Dual Court System on a day-to-day basis. At the same time the Pharisees rejected the idea that the other oral traditions, such as the Talmud, were “inspired.” Jesus told His disciples to obey the teachings of the Pharisees, although at the same time he warned them not to exemplify their actual behavior 1. The Mishnah was a big deal to the Pharisees. They believed that it was nearly impossible to implement the laws of the Torah without utilizing its inspired companion, the Mishnah. They believed what is written in the Pentateuch and that God directed the establishment of Israel's court system and promised that He would guide the legal decisions of the judges on a daily basis. The Mishnah is a record of Jewish legal precedence that goes back beyond the time of Samuel to the time of Joshua and the Exodus. For example, the laws that God inspired the judges of Israel to write were so strict about warfare against Heathen nations― even very wicked nations (of which there is no record after the time of the conquest) where Israel went into such a nation and killed every man, woman, child, and animal, and so on. The judges in Israel's court system would never consider implementing the provisions of the Torah without referring to the legal precedence established by its sacred companion, the Mishnah. There is abundant evidence that God never intended the Torah to stand alone and that He guided the decision-making of Israel's judges down through the thousands of years of the existence of the Jewish nation. For example, the Torah had a provision that Israel could destroy every man, woman, child, and animal of morally rotten societies that might threaten Israel. However, the rules of the Mishnah for engaging a Heathen nation were so strict and benevolent that after the period of the Conquest chapters in Israel's history, there is no record that Israel ever did such a thing. We cannot emphasize more strongly that once all the facts are known, Jesus clearly validated the truths of the teachings of the Mishnah. Unfortunately for Sabbatarians, its teachings are fatal to the Sabbatarian doctrine that the Sabbath is a universal moral requirement. Israel, from the very beginning, established a dual court system. When a Gentile citizen of Israel came before a judge, that judge used only the seven laws of Noah (explained elsewhere in this book), or the Noahide laws, to determine innocence or guilt. When a Hebrew citizen of Israel came before a judge, that judge used the full 613 rules and regulations of the Torah. There was no Sabbath commandment in the Noahide laws. The legal precedence in the Mishnah specified that a Gentile who embraced the Sabbath without fully converting to Judaism (which would have required submitting to the Ordinance of Circumcision) to be stoned to death. Why? Because the Jewish nation took Moses at his word when explaining that God had established the Sabbath to be a barrier that kept Jews and Gentiles as socially isolated as possible. The Sabbath was a symbol of the unique relationship between God and the Nation of Israel. 1 Matthew 23:13-32
This remarkable coming together of information simply must represent the single most powerful blow against the idea that Christians must observe the ISRAELITE/JEWISH Sabbath. It is time that the leaders of Sabbatarian groups like the Seventh-day Adventists, the remnants of Armstrongism, as well as the less cultic Sabbatarian groups like the Seventh-day Baptists to raise the white flag of surrender and face the fact that, like Paul said, no day is any more sacred than any other day. (See Romans 14.5.) By this point in time, we no longer are limited to providing evidence against Sabbatarianism. We have as close a thing to absolute proof against it as is humanly possible to devise. The idea that Christians must keep the Jewish Sabbath no longer has even an ounce of respect. We have only been able to bring you this astonishing and definitive turn of the Sabbath-Sunday Question with the help of a handful of European and Israeli scholars who have taken a keen interest in the research that we have been doing to update the Lying for God project. It all seemed to begin with our co-author, Larry Dean, who ended up submitting two books to some European and Israeli scholars: Ellen White's, Great Controversy, and Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi's From Sabbath to Sunday. These highly respected academics were incensed by the blatant twisting of the plainest facts about the history of the early church, which they knew a great deal about. One Ph.D., an expert in church history and who fluently speaks and writes something like eight different languages, took an intense interest in helping us when she determined that the research represented by Dr. Bacchiocchi's book, which he claimed was based on his doctoral dissertation from the Pontifical Gregorian University at the Vatican, was so poor that it never would have passed the scrutiny of his dissertation committee. Your four co-authors would probably not have had the resources to put these things all together without the help of these noted historians, linguists, and Israeli experts in Jewish language and culture. In particular, the astonishing historical fraud perpetrated by the late Seventh-day Adventist prophetess, Ellen G. White, is both daring and blatant. She fraudulently ignored the mountain of evidence that has always been available to any interested person that the early church abandoned Sabbath-keeping on purely biblical grounds. From the days of the early church the fact of no Sabbath in Genesis was one of the key arguments used by the early fathers to explain why the first Christians did not observe the Jewish Sabbath. The last of the early fathers, the Venerable Bede, explained how the Hebrew linguistics of Genesis forbid the placement of the origin of the Sabbath ordinance at the time of Creation. Down through the REAL history of the Christian Faith, Christians rejected the keeping of the Jewish Sabbath on biblical grounds. The first Protestant church, the Lutherans, spelled out its biblical basis for its rejection of Sabbath-keeping in the Augsburg Confession. The great reformers looked at Sabbath-keeping, rejected it on a multi-faceted biblical basis, and wrote about the FACT of no Sabbath in Genesis. In the post King James Era of Charles I of England, intense pressure from two very different Sabbatarian factions forced the Sabbath Question on the king and the entire Nation of England. King Charles I turned to his court chaplain, Peter Heylyn, and ordered him to conduct an exhaustive study of every written, relevant thing that touched on the issue of Sabbathkeeping for Christians. Heylyn's colossal work, The History of the Sabbath, objectively reported the evidence both for and against the Sabbath, and the evidence against it was overwhelmingly clear. There was virtually no evidence that the first Christians abandoned Sabbath-keeping for anything other than a large number of biblical facts and principles, and no evidence that this Sabbath abandonment represented a turning away from biblical truths. The Crown rejected Sabbathkeeping for the Church of England, and the idea that it was required was rejected solely on definitive biblical and historical grounds. Ellen White condemns herself as a deceiver by failing to report to her followers these things when she wrote her falsified history of the Sabbath in The Great Controversy. There is, now, no way for anyone to deny this fact since this information is readily available. Thanks to entities like Google Books, these works have been digitized and posted on the Internet for everyone who has an interest to study. Even a contemporary of Ellen White, Robert M. Cox who compiled the largest inventory of Sabbath-related research assembled to that date and is vastly larger than Heylyn's work, reported virtually everything available from both camps from the beginning of the Christian Faith through the mid-1800's. His final two page assessment of his two-volume encyclopedic work summarized by stating his inventory of Sabbatarian ideas had not turned up any real evidence that the early church abandoned Sabbath-keeping for anything other than biblical reasons and that there was no evidence that the Sabbath had ever been changed. We must censure Ellen White for her historical lying. Prophets of God do not do such things. For a long time opponents of Ellen White, such as D. M. Canright, have known that her historical theories were nothing but fairy tales and the intense research on this subject that has been conducted since 1977 proves that her book, The Great Controversy, represents intellectual fraud on multiple levels. In fact, the only “competition” for the most warped revisionist religious history ever written is Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon. Other researchers have identified significant portions of his
writings that Ellen White copied but said came directly to her from the throne of God. In the past the followers of Ellen White had little access to legitimate historical sources. Although the Age of the Internet has changed all this, her claim to be a Messenger of God― His Hand-maiden― combined with stories of the unprecedented manifestations of supernatural power by those that attended her public visions, has caused most Adventists to down-play any evidence against the legitimacy of her prophetic claims. The record of the witnesses who testified regarding the supernatural element of her ministry― both her supporters and opponents― continues to give Seventh-day Adventists a dangerous sense of well-being in the midst of a storm of evidence that she was a fraud. Also remember that Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light2. It was this limited access of the common person to accurate historical information during Ellen White's day and age that enabled her pull off such a deception. She twisted the facts to make it look like Christians abandoned Sabbath-keeping as a result of a sinister apostasy-conspiracy, when nothing could be further from the truth. Adventists have been reading her signature book, The Great Controversy, for the last 150 years, just like the Mormons have been reading Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon ever since he supposedly discovered the Golden Plates under a tree. Both these books seek to create false histories that supposedly show that Christianity apostatized very early. To the Mormons, Mormonism was God's replacement for Christianity, and one that restored the true worship of God. Similarly, to the Adventists, Adventism was God's replacement for Christianity that restored the true worship of God. The combination of the fact there is no Sabbath in Genesis and Moses' clear teaching in the Pentateuch that the Sabbath was given to Israel and Israel alone makes the whole question of Sabbath-keeping irrelevant for Christians. If Adam, Eve, Seth, Enoch, and Abraham were eternally saved without keeping the Sabbath, it seems odd that Seventh-day Adventists and Armstrongites would dare teach that Sabbath-keeping is a critical component of Christian belief and practice. It seems even stranger that they would teach, as they do, that the United States of America will enact Sunday laws that will soon force everyone to worship on Sunday. This teaching is beyond bizarre. According to Ellen White, the United States would soon become the world leader of a program to hunt down and kill Sabbath-keepers who will not join everyone else in worshiping on Sunday. Moving back to the significance of Dr. Reuven Brauner's translation of the Mishnah, recall that this book of Jewish legal precedence proves that from the very beginning of the Jewish legal system― one which was established by God and guided by Him― Israel utilized dual courts, one for Jewish citizens of Israel and one for Gentile citizens of Israel. Israel's Gentile citizens were held accountable only to the Seven Laws of Noah, whereas the Jewish citizens of Israel were held accountable to the full 613 laws of the Torah. The Seven Laws of Noah did not include a Sabbath commandment. In fact, going back to the earliest recorded laws of Israel― at least as far as the time of the Judges― Gentiles who presumed to keep the Jewish Sabbath were to be stoned. Adventist apologists claim that this idea of stoning Gentiles was invented and added to the Mishnah around 200 AD as a result of a Jewish backlash against the damage Christianity had inflicted on Judaism― but the facts of how the Mishnah was maintained intact as a sacred oral tradition over thousands of years and then finally written down around 200 AD, blocks this Sabbatarian escape route. As a result of a set of remarkable connections, Dr. Brauner agreed to work with our new co-author, Larry Dean, to know with certainty whether the “original” Hebrew text of Genesis 2 contains a Sabbath ordinance that is either expressed or implied. His response was that there is no Sabbath ordinance to be found within the account of the days of Creation, and he has helped us understand how the characteristics of the Hebrew language do not allow it. Here is that exchange in e-mail responses between Dr. Brauner and Larry Dean dated between November 13 and November 15, 2015. They have been edited slightly but only to present the exchange of questions and answers in an easy-to-read format without repetition. To almost everyone else in the world but Sabbatarians, Dr. Brauner's expert testimony would settle the Question forever: DEAN: One chapter in our book deals with the question: Does the wording of the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis regarding the events of the seventh day, establish a weekly Sabbath ordinance at the time of Creation? The larger theme of our book is whether or not Christians are required to keep the Jewish Sabbath. In light of your spectacular treatment of the issue in your translation of the Mishnah, it seems clear that Gentiles were forbidden to keep the Sabbath. This is a position we strongly agree with. 2 2 Corinthians 11:14
BRAUNER: Our Jewish Sages learned the commandment to observe the Sabbath from Exodus 23:12 where the language is, “You shall rest on the Seventh Day,” and Exodus 20:8, with “Remember the Sabbath in its holiness.” The verses in Genesis are considered the historical basis for the later-stated commandments, merely setting the stage for its rationale, as it were. In Jewish law, the typical learning of when a statement in the Torah is understood to represent a “commandment” follows certain principles which include (A) verses which provide the historical/religious basis, and then (B) a direct positive or negative commandment. Regarding non-Jews observing the 613 Commandments, it is explicit in Jewish law that the Commandments were given specifically to the Jewish people. Non-Jews are not obligated to observe but seven key Commandments, and non-Jewish observance of any of the others is a serious violation. As strange as this may seem, the reason that the 613 Commandments were directed only to Jews is that they are not universal and they underscore the special bond God has with the Jewish people and the special responsibilities Jews have to God. This is not to say that non-Jews cannot become close to God, enjoy His blessings, etc., but merely it states the unique role the Jewish people have with God. It is not negative in any way. Judaism encourages non-Jews to do what THEY have to do, and what they are commanded, i.e. the Seven Commandments of Noah, and not usurp the Jewish role. For this reason, non-Jewish observance of uniquely Jewish Commandments is technically forbidden by Jewish Law, and this includes detailed observance of the Sabbath as would a Jew. If a non-Jew feels the need to observe the Sabbath “properly,” he has to convert to Judaism― something which he, ironically, is not encouraged to do, but may do so if he really feels compelled. DEAN: Biblical scholars going back as far as the Venerable Bede, who wrote around 700 CE, have noticed that there is no “evening and morning” suffix following the biblical account of what happened on the 7 th day of Creation, but there is after the account of what happened on each of the previous six days of Creation. This fact seems to represent an indicator that signals the reader the rest is unbound, beginning on that day and lasting forever, which would suggest that only this one seventh-day, and not subsequent multiples of it, was set aside as a memorial to God's finishing of the creation of Planet Earth. BRAUNER: In Ancient Hebrew, EVERY word or absence thereof, is significant. However, I do not see how the absence of the evening/morning language has anything to do with Sabbath observance. You will have to explain as to how you derive this. But, as I said, those particular verses in Genesis are not composed with any directive or command embedded in the text. They are just stating facts. As to why the evening/morning language is absent, there are many possible reasons. One reason could be that that the Hebrew words “Erev” (evening) and “Boker” (morning) can also mean “mixture” and “examination”, the latter term implying ‘clarification of a circumstance’ as one who sees something which appears to be confused will see the distinct elements which comprise it when looking closely examining it (See my work on Shoroshim at www.halakhah.com for the roots of these words.) In effect, the Creation process was that at the beginning of each of the Six days, substances were all mixed up and confused. The component elements were not as yet refined and defined so as to be distinguishable and unique beings unto themselves. For example, we see that it says, at the beginning of the Second Day, that the firmament was “within” the water, and then God separated it out. He then separated the waters from the waters and the water above the firmament from the water below it. Or on the Fourth Day, God separates the Day from the Night, and so forth. In effect, what we see is that God first creates jumbled, confused, mixed components which He then separates into pieces and gives distinct functioning. This can be seen for each of the Six Days if you carefully read the text. Thus, although it says Evening and then Morning, the text is really saying that “there was mixture, there was separation.” – i.e. first there was mixture (evening when the day and night “mix”, and then morning when the sunlight shines and things which were murky and hard to see suddenly become vivid and clear).
This is why it first says evening and then morning. First situations are confused for the observer, he is uncertain as to what he is actually looking at, and it may even become impossible for him to see it as the night falls and it gets darker. But then, as morning and sunrise approaches, he begins to see things as they really are!) Such can be implied from the Hebrew text. (Incidentally, the Hebrew word “Erev” is more precisely “twilight”). Now, this analysis is not applicable for the Seventh Day as no such creative creating was done. The Day exists as an independent entity, and there was no mixture at its beginning, so there is no separation process. As such, the Seventh Day stands unique as it was complete from the beginning and no processing took place thereon. For that reason, it is worthy of being sanctified as a special and holy Day, and no need for an “evening” and a “morning.” However, as I have explained, no Commandment to sanctify the Day can be in any way implied from the Genesis text. At this point in the “evolvement,” if you will, of God’s directives to mankind and later the Israelites, there is no requirement for Man to sanctify the day. This God did on His own. Here we have it from a leading Israeli Hebrew language scholar. There is no higher authority to turn to for expertise in understanding the Hebrew linguistics of the Book of Genesis. There is no Sabbath ordinance explicit or implied in Genesis. The Sabbath is exactly what Moses taught Israel that the Sabbath was― a sign between God and Israel that would set them apart from every other nation on the face of the Earth. One of the themes of this book is to demonstrate how dangerous it is for Sabbatarians to build an entire Bible doctrine on one single Hebrew text that is packed with meaning that defies translation into other languages. (Ultimately, for nearly selfevident reasons, the heretical doctrine that the Sabbath has universal jurisdiction over all nations, tongues, and peoples is fully dependent on a Creation origin for the Sabbath ordinance.) It has been said that Hebrew is the language of God, and while the Hebrew language evolved out of the Canaanite family of languages into Ancient Hebrew at some time after the reign of King David, it seems that God must have lead in its evolution. Why? Because Ancient Hebrew has a nearly miraculous ability to communicate complex ideas, despite the fact that it is, by its very structure, a very primitive language. Hebrew is one giant paradox in this respect. Hebrew has become a key language for the sciences within just the last decade or so because it seems to have more in common with mathematics than it does with other languages. It even communicates ideas by words that are left out but could have been present, which is not characteristic of English. In fact, in English one of the poorest arguments, judged by standards of logic, is one made from silence. Not so in Hebrew. An example of how full of meaning Ancient Hebrew can be as a result of its linguistic attributes is the origin and development of the Hebrew myth of Lilith. According to this myth, Adam had two wives. The first one was named Lilith. She refused to take a submissive role, rebelled, and tempted Adam's second wife― the wife who replaced her― by appearing to her as the Serpent. All of this seems crazy to Christians, and this story is virtually incompatible with Christian thinking. Keep in mind that we are reporting this Jewish myth to illustrate a point about the amazing ability of the Hebrew language to communicate ideas through cues that are invisible to a non-native reader. Hebrew scholars see that there are three distinctively different Creation stories within the first few chapters of Genesis and that these accounts of Creation differ significantly in describing the circumstances of the creation of Adam's wife. In the Creation account that talks about what happened when God introduced Eve to Adam, what Adam said compared Eve to a previous, similar experience. Interestingly, there is a clear reference to Lilith in the Book of Isaiah. This reference is to one of her other names. These facts, including the reference to her in Isaiah, do not validate the truth of the Lilith myth, but they do demon-strate that it was sufficiently regarded that it had become an integral part of Hebrew thought and culture by the time of Isaiah. Our point is that Adventist scholars seem to know only enough about Hebrew linguistics to get themselves into a lot of trouble. By contrast, Israeli scholars, like Dr. Brauner, are Jews who speak Hebrew every day. While the Hebrew language used in Israel now has a larger vocabulary and has evolved rapidly since it became the official language of the new Nation of Israel, it is still close enough to the Ancient Hebrew that the Jews of today can read the old language with a reasonable degree of success. (Recall that Hebrew was resurrected by the Jewish people and declared to be its national language around the time the Nation of Israel was founded in 1948.) The Hebrew language is laden with meaning that is invisible when translated into any other language. It's characteristics
suggest a nearly supernatural ability to pack a lot of meaning into a few words, or even into a lack of words. It is worth saying it a second time that we are not teaching that Adam had two wives. (For more information on the linguistics of Genesis that have helped the Hebrews create this myth, do an Internet search for the Legend of Lilith.) The obvious lesson, here, is that non-Jewish scholars who think they know enough about Ancient Hebrew to conjure up a Sabbath presence in Genesis 2:1-2 first need to spend a decade in Israel studying the language from competent Jewish instructors and to learn to speak the language fluently themselves. As we document elsewhere in this book, the word, “rested” should have been translated “ceased.” The open-ended nature of the “rest” of Genesis 2:2-3 is widely acknowledged by biblical scholars. As we point out elsewhere, the word should have been translated as “ceased.” See G.C.D. Howley, gen. ed., A Bible Commentary for Today: Based on the Revised Standard Version (London: Pickering & Inglis, 1979), p. 136. See also D. Guthrie and J. A. Motyer, eds., The New Bible Commentary Revised (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970), p. 83. As we will point out shortly, even the Venerable Bede understood this concept as early as 700 CE. As it turns out, the absence of the evening and morning suffix does not function as a special Hebrew literary device to limit or unlimit the events of the 7 th day as we have claimed in several previous editions. In this particular matter we owe Sabbatarian apologist, Brenden Knudson, a huge apology. In the past he has been forced to expend a lot of effort debunking this claim, and now we find out that he was right and we were wrong. However, since the rest discussed in Moses' description of the events of the 7 th day of Creation refers only to the cessation of God's creative activities, the absence of the evening and morning suffix after the description of the events of the 7 th day does seem to function like something more akin to symbolism that enhances something that is already self-evident. Furthermore, Bede helps us understand that it is probably only the missing evening that is significant in this case. Recall that Dr. Brauner says that the absence of the evening and morning suffix clause likely serves to differentiate this day of Creation from all the previous ones. We apply this principle like this. After each day that God actually created something, he ceased, or “rested,” over-night. He didn't create anything on the 7 th day, so when He ceased, or “rested” on that entire day to celebrate the completion of Planet Earth, that rest was permanent since He did not create anything the next day or on any subsequent day. There was no “evening” on His rest because “the sun never went down on that “rest.” He never stopped stopping. Additionally we now have the definitive word from Dr. Brauner that there is no Sabbath ordinance expressed or implied in Genesis 2 and proof from the Mishnah that the Hebrews understood this fact and additionally believed that the Sabbath, not given till the Exodus, was given to Israel and to Israel alone. The Venerable Bede (672-735 CE), the most respected of the fathers of the early church and the last scholar considered to be a father of the early church, called attention to that missing evening and morning clause and focused on the symbolic absence of the evening part: Source: Bede: On Genesis, by Calvin B. Kendall; Google Book, pp. 95, 97: [2.3a] And he blessed the seventh day and sanctified it. He did this namely with that blessing and sanctification which he revealed more fully to his people in the Law, saying, Remember that you keep holy the Sabbath day. Six days shall you labour, and shall do all your works. But on the seventh of the Sabbath of the Lord your God, you shall do no work. And a little further on, For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all things that are in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day and sanctified it. Truly this blessing and sanctification of the seventh day was done as a type of a greater blessing and sanctification. For just as the blood of the Lord's passion, which had to be poured out once for the salvation of the world, was signified by the frequent, indeed, daily sacrifices under the Law, so also by the rest of the seventh day, which always used to be celebrated after the works of the six days, was prefigured [by] that great day of the Sabbath, on which the Lord was to rest once in the grave, after having completed and perfected on the sixth day all his works, by which he restored the world, long since lost, which he had completed on the sixth day. On that day [ed. Note: The Great Sabbath observed once a year by most of the early churches, and especially the Eastern church] also, being mindful, as it were, of the old work, he declared in clear language that he now completed the salvation of the world. For when he had taken the vinegar, he said, It is consummated. And bowing his head, he gave up the ghost. But also this sanctification and blessing of the seventh day, and the rest of God on that day after his works, signified that they were
exceedingly good, because each of us after good works, which he himself works in us both will and to accomplish, struggles toward the rest of heavenly life in which we may enjoy his eternal sanctification and blessing. Hence it is proper that this seventh day is not described as having had an evening.
The above passage is packed with significance, especially since SDA Sabbath scholar, Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, released his iconoclastic defense of the Sabbath in 1977, From Sabbath to Sunday. Researchers have poured over vast numbers of historical sources to see if they could find any evidence that the early Christians ever kept the Jewish Sabbath in significant numbers. As we will explain later, once the terminology of the language they used when they used the word “Sabbath” is understood, it always seemed to mean, in one way or another, Sunday. Some early Christian writers began referring to Sunday as the Sabbath. When they talked about the Lord's Day, it always referred to Sunday. Then, in other cases, reference was made to the Sabbath Festival, which was celebrated once or twice a year in one form or another, especially by the Eastern churches. In the case of this passage from Bede's work, he is referring to the Great Sabbath, which was celebrated once a year around Passover-Easter. This “Sabbath” celebrated the last Sabbath ever (truly) observed in the world― the Sabbath night Jesus spent in the tomb― as well as the fact that Jesus, that very night, went down into Hades and preached the Gospel to the people who perished at the time of the Flood. (This “Great Sabbath” of the Eastern Orthodox Churches is presented elsewhere in this book, and you can study it in depth a Wikipedia, article, “Holy Saturday.” Also, you may wish to study the definition of the Greek work, Hades, which referred to the underworld where the dead existed.) As noted earlier, various other scholars have recognized the significance of the absence of the evening and morning from the 7th day. In the article, “From Sabbath to Lord's Day: A Biblical and Theological Perspective,” authored by A.T. Lincoln– Chapter 12 in D.A. Carson's book, From Sabbath to Lord's Day, 1982– we find this observation on page 348: Elsewhere in Genesis 1 and 2 there are explicit commands for the first pair to follow. Not only is there no explicit command and no use of the term “Sabbath” there is also no mention of humanity. The depiction of the seventh day in the schema is solely in terms of God. The climax of God's creative activity is not the creation of male and female so much as His own triumphant rest. It is true that His blessing and hallowing of the seventh day are not meant to be considered simply in a vacuum but have some relation to the created word. What is critical, however, is the nature of that relation. The seventh day is to be seen as representing the completion of the whole creation, and therefore in its blessing the whole creation is blessed. This day is related in this way to the other six, and yet at the same time is different, for it has no boundaries. The six days have their goal in a day that is different from the others and this is the force of the hallowing or sanctifying of the seventh day. Creation, therefore, is blessed with special reference to its goal, God's rest, which is set apart in some sense for all His creation including man and woman; but the precise sense awaits further unfolding. This is the relation of God's seventh day to humans; anything further must be read into the text and is often read back into it from Exodus 20:11. Claus Westermann, however, in his commentary on Genesis remarks judiciously that one can find here neither an institution of nor a preparation for the Sabbath but that its later establishment is reflected.
The Seventh day of Creation was simply a boundary between the days that God created Planet Earth and the one day that He stopped working on the Planet Earth project. Note that after all, the rest of the 7 th day of Creation turns out to have no boundaries on it, and that this fact is clearly established, not by Hebrew linguistics, but by logic and common sense.
THE CONCEPT OF PROLEPSIS Some scholars have proposed the idea that since Moses wrote about both the events of Creation and the Exodus, that in his mind, he was thinking about the events of the 7 th day of Creation as a flash-forward to the giving of the Sabbath commandment at the time of the Exodus, and that his view of the whole story is why he worded things in such a way that could even tempt a few people to think they saw a Sabbath ordinance in the Creation story. While this concept, called prolepsis, makes a lot of sense, Sabbatarian apologists do not like it. An example of literary prolepsis would be something like, “I was a dead man as soon as the murderer walked into the room with an assault weapon.” In a prolepsis, the event is said to have taken place before it actually does. Here are the objections of Brandon Knudson, who is a controversial Adventist and does not in any way represent the official Seventh-day Adventist denomination, and who has some degree of knowledge about Hebrew linguistics. In fact Knudson has been brave enough to dialog with us at length about Hebrew linguistics, so our readers will find his point-of-view
mentioned and reviewed frequently in the pages to come: KNUDSON: Wynne’s claim that the author of Genesis could still be thinking of the blessing and hallowing of the 7th day of Creation as a flash-forward to the giving of the Sabbath Commandment at Mt. Sinai is ridiculous in view of the book-end restrictions of the author of Genesis' use of the restrictive literary devices of merismus and inclusio. The use of these twin literary devices is mutually exclusive of prolepsis. His arguments side-step the real issue, which is the barrier to prolepsis imposed by merismus and inclusio. Wynne has ignored it completely by merely insisting on prolepsis as if these “excluding” literary devices do not exist. Again, he appeals to expert opinion to support his conclusions rather than the evidence itself. The chiastic [often saying the same thing twice but in somewhat different ways] structure of the account of the 7th day of Creation within the inclusion between its book-ends gives emphasis to the main point that the 7 th day is blessed and set aside [made holy], which proves that this blessing and hallowing of the 7 th day of Creation was equivalent to making it into a Sabbath concept because these things happened within the time-frame of the narrative. This represents a fatal blow to the desperate need of the authors of Lying for God to project this blessing and hallowing far into the future at Mt. Sinai. The chiastic structure of the last verses of this inclusion looks like this: A1 ―- Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. A2 -------- And on the seventh day God finished His work that He had done, B -------------- and He rested on the seventh day from all His work that He had done. X ------------------ So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, B ------------- because on it God rested from all His work that He had done in creation. A1` -- These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, A2` ------- in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens. AUTHORS: We don't NEED to project the blessing and hollowing of the 7 th day of Creation far into the future. We are not denying that the blessing and hollowing of it took place at Creation. However, what got blessed and hallowed was only ONE SINGLE DAY in the history of Planet Earth― the 7 th day of Creation. It is Knudson who is ignoring the real evidence, which is expert scholarly opinion from multiple sources, which point to the possibility of the use of prolepsis. It is the strength of this scholarly opinion that has contributed to shaping our point of view. Both the concepts of book-ending and prolepsis are literary devices common to many languages. (Book-ending, according to Knudson, as discussed elsewhere, the concept that it is a characteristic of Hebrew writing to enclose an account of something with a phrase at its beginning and then again at its end which creates a unified, self-contained account with boundaries.) If the author of Genesis 2:2-3 actually did use prolepsis here, he did so because writers have the creative power to write things any way they please. We acknowledge that book-ending exists in literature. However, our position is that book-ending does not have the magical powers of exclusion that Knudson ascribes to it. In fact if it did, Knudson has hog-tied himself into a huge blunder of logic, as we will explain shortly. Any events can be placed between the two ends of a book. Furthermore, we do not insist that prolepsis is necessarily present in this case. We present prolepsis only as a possibility― perhaps even a likely possibility― that is compatible with the fact that the blessing and hallowing of that one, single day cannot repeat itself at recurring intervals when only one day in the history of Planet Earth was blessed and there is no command, expressed or implied, to do such a thing. Only the 7 th day of Creation week was memorialized, and the memory of that one single day would last forever. Once genuinely and permanently blessed, that one day is always blessed. Once set aside, that one day remains set aside forever. Furthermore, if we follow Knudson's logic to the furthest possible extent, his book-ending theory means that the passage could not provide for a recurring Sabbath day because such a thing would fall outside the boundary established by the book-ends! Since neither Knudson nor the authors of this paper are experts in Ancient Hebrew, both parties are dependent on expert testimony when it comes to Hebrew linguistics. The experts have spoken and what they have said is not acceptable to
Sabbatarians. Knudson's reaction is to deny the evidence of experts he cannot refute, along with a thinly veiled ad hominem. The 7th day of Creation lasted only 24 hours, but the memory of it will last forever. The day a person graduates from college is a very blessed day, and the day for the graduation ceremony is set aside by college leadership. A college graduate will always remember that day without the need for any weekly, monthly, or annual rituals. KNUDSON: The Hebrew language in setting apart or sanctifying of the Seventh day testifies to an immediate and cyclical "part of the whole" which God claimed ownership over at the climax of His creative works. AUTHORS: The question is whether God set aside one day in the history of Planet Earth to memorialize His creation of Planet Earth, or whether He set aside, on a cyclical basis, every 7 th day thereafter. Since the passage is telling us only what God did, the idea that God would initiate His own personal resting every seventh-day thereafter is not hardly even possible. And since God's rest from creating Planet Earth began on that 7 th day and never ended, that resting, by the very nature of things, could not occur on a cyclical basis as Knudson has claimed and we have documented elsewhere. As contributor Bill Shirley, points out, Cessation from creating Planet Earth does not mean that God was idle: In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” — John 5:17:
KNUDSON: The fact that the Hebrew word for day, ( יב םyom), has been categorically established as including "evening and morning" over the preceding six ordinal references rules out any attempts to protract the seventh yom into an indefinite, unending eternity. An ordinal day has already been defined six previous times as "evening and morning". By the time we get to the seventh, the word is pregnant with this undeniable meaning. A study of the literary features of the Genesis 1:1-2:4 inclusio demonstrates the internal reasons for breaking with the pattern on the seventh day. WYNNE: Again, as we have said many times, and will continue to point out even more times, anti-Sabbatarians are not trying to stretch the day out forever. By the very nature of things, the MEMORY of that day lasts forever in the mind of humanity, and GOD'S REST extends from that day forward since he never stopped stopping His work of creating Planet Earth. One does not need any inclusio to see this fact. HOHMANN: Brendan Knudson’s conclusion appears to dismiss Hebrews 4. Indeed the “day” began and ended, but there is a bit more to the story, for there is a spiritual aspect to this day also, hinting at the nature of the “day” of God's rest, entered into by the faithful, while it is still called “To day” as related in Hebrews 4. God's rest then is not limited to any one day, or multiple of days. Some will enter into God's rest “To day”. Some will enter into God's rest “tomorrow” when it then becomes “To day”. The weekly Sabbath that Sabbatarians so desperately need to find in Genesis 2, which was to be a shadow of God's rest, is not there. What is there is tripped over and unrecognizable due to its association with faith, whereas points of law are not of faith, according to Paul. The Sabbatarian's distinctive is, after all, the Sabbath, and without it, they have no distinctive, and the obvious becomes painfully clear and unavoidable; their whole theology is built on lies, and they have been partakers of those lies. Knudson also insists that that seventh day cannot extend out to an indefinite, unending "day" but then turns around and insists it does so, as a weekly Sabbath. Hmmm. KNUDSON: Some say that since the Seventh day in the Genesis account is not explicitly called the Sabbath by Moses, that the Sabbath did not exist at that time. This argument fails to acknowledge something very important in the Hebrew. There is some debate as to whether the noun šabbāṯ ( )שב בתderives from the verb šaḇaṯ ( )ש(תבבתor vice versa. However, Moses clearly sees that the meaning of the Sabbath derives from the act of God's resting on the Seventh day of Creation. Therefore whether the noun or verb came first, in the mind of Moses, it is clear that the action precedes that name. Therefore it is not imperative that the noun be present in the Genesis account because it is represented there by the verb. AUTHORS: Even if you grant Knudson that this word is actually best translated as “rest,” it does not help his claim that it represents a reference to a cultic, ritual requirement. Recall that Dr. Brauner says that in the Hebrew language, Hebrew laws are virtually always accompanied by a direct command to do a particular thing, and that almost always those commands are accompanied by a statement of the rationale for the implementation of that requirement. However, experts agree, as noted
elsewhere, that the word translated “rest” in Genesis 2 more accurately means “cessation” or “stopping.” God STOPPED creating on the 7th day. (Note that a variation of this assertion by Knudson will appear later in this book and will be addressed by a response that is very similar to this one.) Again, Knudson is fighting the wrong battle. No one questions the fact that the 4th Commandment of Exodus 20 is based on the concept of “rest.” God CEASED creating on the 7 th day. The RESULT was an eternal REST from creating Planet Earth. The real battle is over whether that one single day in the history of Planet Earth, the 7th day of Creation, is indicated in Genesis 2 to be a formal institution that repeats itself through eternity every 7th multiple day of that one 7th day of Creation. However, if we are going to use word definitions to determine whether or not Moses labeled the 7th day of Creation a formal institution, the true meaning of the word “rest” is critical, and that meaning is more akin to “stopping.” Even preferred translations of the text in Exodus 20 render the word as “stopping.” Furthermore, we demonstrate elsewhere that this Hebrew word cannot mean “rest” in the sense of “repose.” Again, it is more accurately translated “ceased.” This fact is an important distinction for the real battle, because if the word really means “ceased,” and it does mean “ceased,” then the 7 th day is seen merely as a boundary day between the days God created Planet Earth and the days to follow when He did not. Once it is seen that the 7 th day is merely a boundary marker to separate the days of Creating from the days of not creating, it is easier to understand that this boundary day—this ONE AND ONLY DAY IN THE HISTORY OF PLANET EARTH—is what got blessed and set aside to be remembered forever, just like God’s ceasing from creating Planet Earth never ceased. It was a BOUNDARY DAY that got blessed and set aside to be remembered forever, and this boundary between the days spent creating and the one day spent by God resting may be indicated by the absence of the evening and morning clause, according to Dr. Brauner. (Note that this is a very different thing than claiming that the absence of the evening and morning clause removes a boundary for the resting that took place on the 7th day.) KNUDSON: This is confirmed in a very powerful way by a choice between the two accounts which not only reveals that it was understood the verbal action of God's šaḇaṯ to be sufficient in Genesis 2 to represent the noun šabbāṯ, but confirms that the meaning of the verb šaḇaṯ in Genesis 2 means "Rested" and not "Stopped" or "Ceased". AUTHORS: Not so. The experts do not agree with Knudson. No one without the absolute compelling necessity of a favorable assumption would conclude that the verbal action represented by the action verb form “ceased” in Genesis 2 is sufficient to represent the noun form of the word in Exodus 20, which stands for a formal religious ceremony that is incorporated into an official treaty between God and Israel. It is one such assumption after another that is necessary to imagine a formal Sabbath institution in Genesis. By expert definition of the word in Genesis 2, the word translated “rest” cannot mean repose. Once gain, we cannot seem to repeat it enough times. It simply means “ceased.” What rule of linguistics, English or Ancient Hebrew, enables a verb to “stand” in the place of a noun and mean exactly the same thing? Think of the sentence, “I will gun you down.” The assailant might not have a gun at all. He might be using a water pistol or water cannon. A verb cannot reliably stand in the place of its associated noun. Along the same line, the process of making a gun can never be the gun itself. Recall from our Hebrew definitions from Brown-Driver-Briggs that REST is an alternate reading of a “secondary” meaning of this word. It is labeled “God’s rest” through context—not from its root meaning—since the context of the statement is labeled as being an action of God. The Qal primary meaning is CEASED: Qal 27 Perfect 3 masculine singular ׳שGenesis 2:3 +; 3 plural ת שב וL amentations 5:14, etc.; Imperfect 3 masculine singular ישבותHosea 7:4; ישבתתProverbs 22:10 2t.; 3 feminine singular תשבתתLeviticus 26:35; תשב תתLeviticus 26:34; Nehemiah 6:3 +, etc.; — 1 cease: (absolute 13 t.) of seasons Genesis 8:22 (J); manna Joshua 5:12 (P), etc., Isaiah 14:4 (twice in verse); Nehemiah 6:3 +; with מןHosea 7:4 3t. [Ed. Note: First, original meaning of the Qal form.] 2 desist from labour, rest: [Ed. Note: Second meaning of the Qal form.] with ( מןof God) Genesis 2:2,3(P). [Ed. Note: The ceasing of God.] The noun, "Sabbath," is the word that stands for a cultic ritual (ceremony) characterized by a cycle of six days of work followed by one day of rest that functions to set Israel aside from every other nation on Earth and to remind Israel of the moralistic obligations represented in the nine other commandments in the treaty that God made with Israel at Mt. Sinai.
KNUDSON: There is a word in the Exodus Sabbath commandment which is foreign to the Genesis Sabbath account. God (the speaker of the Ten Commandments) uses a different word for "rested" in Exodus which is nûaḥ ()נו(תבח. This word does not have a semantic range which extends to mean "stop" or "cease", but it's meanings when in the Qal stem are "to rest", "to repose", "to remain", "to settle down", "to be quiet.” This gives a final blow to those who would deny that šaḇaṯ in Genesis 2:2-3 means simply "stopped" or "ceased". Had God wished to convey this, there were other synonyms which would have retained that semantic overlap, yet nûaḥ excludes this meaning altogether. AUTHORS: A significant number of authorities disagree with Knudson. We have touched on this subject a little so far. Note that The Hebrew-Interlinear Bible at Scripture 4 All translates Exodus 20:11 word equivalent as follows: That six of days he-made Yahweh the heavens and the earth the sea and all of which in them he-isstopping in the day of the seventh on so he blessed Yahweh.
One possible reason why the secondary reading of CEASE is to be preferred in this case is that this word is of Late Hebrew derivation. The “original” text of Exodus 20 is in Ancient Hebrew. While this question can only be settled 2.11 22 by a scholar who is truly an expert in Ancient Hebrew, we present this possibility for your consideration. Notice this entry from Brown-Driver-Briggs for Strong’s Hebrew word #5117, which can be located at: http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/5117.htm: נו (תבחverb rest (Late Hebrew id.; Aramaic נוח(תב, ; Phoenician נחתnoun rest; possibly also verb ינח (Iph. Perfect), compare Levy cited CISi. 118 Lzb322; Assyrian nâhu, rest (inûh), and derivatives; Ethiopic: be extended, long, rarely rest; Arabic IV. is make camel lie down on his breast; restingplace of camel, compare Doughty Arab. Des. i, 397, ii, 63, 486, 642); Elsewhere we provided two other sources which prefer the stopping/ceasing meaning to the repose meaning. The fact that several expert sources prefer the stopping/ceasing meaning suggests that there may be textual indicators that have led them to prefer the secondary meaning over the primary meaning in this context. Again whether God actually rested on the 7th day of Creation is not a pivotal issue because the Genesis passage in question tells us about what God did. The account does not even tell us that Adam and Eve rested with God or that they were supposed to do so on subsequent multiples of 7 days. Furthermore, God gave the sun and moon to help humans keep track of time. If there had been a Sabbath for them to keep, it would most likely have been kept according to the lunar calendar. All Sabbatarians except for Lunar Sabbatarians would be keeping the wrong day by now, and would have no clue which day was an exact multiple of seven days to the 7th day of Creation. Note that whether Knudson is right, the whole issue is relevant ONLY to the naming relationship between the two similar words as spelled out in Genesis 2 and Exodus 20. As far as the logic of determining whether the 7 th day in Genesis 2 is a formal institution characterized by subsequent eternal pattern of exact multiples of the number seven, this issue tells us nothing. KNUDSON: The real question, though, is WHY, with all the identical terms used in both Genesis 2:1-4 and Exodus 20:8-11, did God not choose to break the pattern by exchanging nûaḥ for šaḇaṯ. The reason is simple and seals the fact that the Sabbath existed from Creation. The noun šabbāṯ in Exodus was already the equivalent of the verb šaḇaṯ and it appears a deliberate choice to have these two words be linked up. Had the verb šaḇaṯ been used, it would have more naturally been linked through comparison to the šaḇaṯ in Genesis 2, however by using nûaḥ it is made certain that the proper name for the day in Exodus would be linked to the action of God in Genesis. AUTHORS: Knudson is trying to tell us that by simply using the “nuah” form of the Hebrew word for resting, rather than the form of the word that usually means simply “ceased,” Moses effectively placed the proper noun, “Sabbath,” into Genesis 2. This assertion represents a whopping assumption. Not only does this claim not interface properly with the fact that the word in Genesis translated “rest” actually means “ceased,” but it conflicts with the naturally occurring result of God stopping His creating and never creating again, which self-evidently means that His rest from creating Planet Earth could not possibly repeat itself on a cyclical basis. This is a complicated way to say that God's rest was unbounded and therefore would last
forever in this context. Parallel to this unlimited concept is the one that the memory of this ONE SINGLE DAY IN THE HISTORY OF PLANET EARTH is also ordered by God to last forever. In no way does the use of the word “nuah” seal the fact that the Sabbath existed from Creation. The real issue never has been, and never will be, whether or not God “rested” after He ceased Creation on the Ceasing Day. No one questions whether the basis for the Jewish Sabbath is or is not based on the concept of God’s ceasing or resting. Of course the end result of ceasing was REST. The story is about what God did—not what man was supposed to do. And if man was to follow God’s example, he would never work another day in his life after the 7 th day of Creation. KNUDSON : Those who say that the Seventh day of Creation was not the same as the Sabbath do so in ignorance of the deliberate association of the name of the day by the time of Moses to the original action of God. The Hebrew makes it clear that the Seventh day of Creation was the first Sabbath by the presence of the verb from which the name takes its meaning. AUTHORS: If it is a verb, it means that God rested. Again, there is no indication that humans are supposed to follow His example. Even if He did rest on the 7 th day in the literal way Sabbatarians hope for, His act of resting would not create a cultic ordinance for people to practice without a direct command and without a rationale for the requirement. Furthermore, there is no literary convention or device in any language that enables a verb to fully function as a noun. Let someone provide even one legitimate example of such a thing in the language of his or her choice, and we will likely be able to demonstrate that the claim is false. KNUDSON: As an added note, the choice not to use the noun Sabbath in Genesis 2 is a further argument against alleged prolepsis, for it would be more natural in prefiguring the Sabbath commandment to use the proper name at the later time, rather than leave out the name in its original setting before it had become an established moniker for the day.
AUTHORS: While not necessarily creating a situation that could actually be labeled a prolepsis, the word translated as “therefore,” in Exodus 20 is a Hebrew literary device which appears to be included in the Sabbath commandment to indicate that the object at hand, the Sabbath ordinance, is MODELED after something that took place in the past. A model of something cannot concurrently be both the object and the model of itself. It would seem that since God exists in the past, the present, and the future all at the same time, He would have chosen to direct Moses to use the noun form of the “rest” word for the world’s first religious ordinance if He had intended to make Sabbath-keepers out of Adam and Eve. And, again, as we have said before, acknowledging a “nounically” expressed reference to God's rest does not create an example for man to follow without an express command to do so and a rationale for the giving of that command. Later, in our treatment of the Hebrew linguistics of Exodus 20, we will explain how the word “therefore” in this context indicates that something is modeled after a prior event. The word “therefore” in Hebrew apparently does not have exactly the same meaning it does in English. After all, the word “therefore” is simply a translation of a Hebrew word in the first place, which opens up the possibility for an inexact or incomplete meaning. KNUDSON: One of the last things that can be drawn out of the Exodus Sabbath Commandment is that the same word for the "work" of God during Creation Week is used for the "work" of man. Thus the Sabbath Commandment also sees man as the image of God in terms of work, further strengthening the idea that God's resting on the Seventh day of Creation was as an example for Adam and Eve.
AUTHORS: For this argument to have any semblance of validity, there would have to be different Hebrew words for work done by God and work done by human beings. Is not “work” work whether God does it or man does it? KNUDSON: The second reading of the 10 Commandments in Deuteronomy admonishes Israel to keep the Sabbath in order to help them remember that it was God who rescued them from Egyptian slavery. There are good reasons why the anti-Sabbatarian argument that the Sabbath commandment does not apply to Christians because they had never been slaves in Egypt is not a valid argument. (1) Moses is simply adding some social commentary of his own. (2) The social context of Moses' sermon was different. In the case of Exodus 20, God’s law is being proclaimed as a statement of His character and which apply to everyone who will ever live on Planet Earth. In Deuteronomy, Moses is addressing a Hebrew audience alone, and his remarks are specifically targeted at that special group of people.
AUTHORS: Apparently it is supposedly an invalid argument because Knudson doesn't like it. Call it social commentary if it doesn't agree with the Sabbatarian point-of-view, but call it truth from God if, on the surface, a text seems to support your
personal agenda. Moses has been on the mountain with God. Therefore he understood the mind of God in regard to His rationale for giving Israel the Sabbath ordinance. A different social content for Moses' discourse to the people would not change the basic reasons why God gave the Sabbath to Israel. God seems to have compensated the Hebrews for their 400 years without rest with a special provision for getting all the rest for labor they need. Christians have not, as a group, particularly been denied the physical rest that they need under comparable conditions. What is good for the goose may not be good for the gander. The Ten Commandments represented a political treaty between God and the nation of Israel― not a dedicated code of moral laws. Israel, like all other nations, had the Noahide laws― laws which were little more than expressions of moral cause and effect. The Ten Commandments were modeled exactly after the treaties being drawn up by Israel's neighbors. (Full explanation of this will be documented later.) If the Ten Commandments are a transcript of God's character, as Ellen White foolishly said, then His character can accommodate fornication, polygamy, and homosexual activity because these sins are not proscribed by the Ten Commandments. Yes, Moses, in his discourse about the Ten Commandments, was addressing Israel alone. According to Jewish thought, as exemplified in the teachings of the Mishnah, Gentiles will be eternally saved if they keep the basic laws that God had given to the world by the time of Noah. HOHMANN: Note also that Knudson offers a premise without evidence (again), treating the Ten Commandments as “a statement of God's character” without providing any supportive evidence for this premise. A faulty premise often is followed by a faulty conclusion. This premise serves only as an attempt to circumvent the context and the first rule of proper biblical scholarship: Who is speaking, and who is being addressed? Furthermore, God's “character” or better stated, His attributes, cannot possibly be contained in or restrained by this Ten Commandment “box”. Knudson's statement does help to expose the paradigm of the Sabbatarian regarding the importance of the Ten Commandments, taking it way beyond what it was intended and represented in relation to the Hebrews to whom they were given. To put this in a proper context, Jesus credits Moses, and not God, as having given the Law to the Hebrews. There is a reasonable expectation that if the Ten Commandments, and the rest of the Law possessed near the importance the Sabbatarians give it, Jesus would have related this in His teachings as recorded in the Gospel accounts.
COTTO’S RESPONSE TO THE CHALLENGE: A SERVING OF BALONEY Amidst this background of ecclesiastical knowledge and a mountain of biblical evidence to the contrary, Sabbatarian apologists, Edwin M. Cotto and Brendan Knudson, have sought to convince us that the Sabbath is found in Genesis 2. In subsequent pages we will continue to provide both evidence and proof that no Sabbath ordinance exists in Genesis and that it is impossible to legitimately proof-text it backwards into Genesis. Even Catholic scholars understand the biblical reasons for Sabbath abandonment. While a number of unauthorized spokespersons for the Catholic Church have claimed that the Mother Church changed the Sabbath by arbitrary ecclesiastical authority alone, their official position, expounded on the official website of the Catholic Church, is that the Sabbath was abandoned for the same biblical reasons cited by Protestant and Orthodox scholars.
OTHER ASPECTS OF HEBREW LINGUISTICS: ROOT STRUCTURES Moses not only used important Hebrew literary conventions in Genesis 2, but also in Exodus 16, and Exodus 20 to clarify that the Sabbath did not exist until the time of the giving of the Manna. Since these Hebrew literary devices convey their meanings through ways that are uniquely characteristic of Ancient Hebrew, they are invisible to those who lack advanced training in it. There is no better example of this than the evidence for the Jewish Lilith Myth which is uniquely Hebrew in its origin and development. At this advanced level of linguistics, one must possess a native command of the language. Although Ancient Hebrew utilized idioms, most of the linguistic devices that preclude a Sabbath ordinance prior to the Exodus are NOT idioms. Also word usage is critically important, one example being that in Ancient Hebrew the simple phrase, “Sons of God” always referred to the “Watchers,” or fallen angels. This phrase, in fact, was ubiquitous in Hebrew writing and culture. As much as it is theologically uncomfortable, Moses, the presumed author of Genesis, stated that fallen
angels― not descendants from Adam's good sons― mated with human women and produced giants― the Nephilim. If the student of the Bible does not understand this simple fact of Hebrew word usage, one might be able to interpret Genesis 6 as telling a story about the sons of Adam's good son looking on the daughters of Adam's bad sons, mating with them as they chose, resulting in amazingly large human offspring. Ask yourself for a moment, how would humans mating with humans produce such a thing? Again we catch Ellen White demonstrating her ignorance when she commented on Scripture while claiming that the information came from God in vision. A guidebook to Ancient Hebrew idioms is useless to identify the many other kinds of literary devices that Moses used in Genesis 2, Exodus 16, and Exodus 20 to clarify that the Sabbath commandment given at Mt. Sinai was merely modeled after Creation Week. One example of a non-idiomatic indicator is that in Ancient Hebrew, the lack of a definite article before a noun signifies that the whole idea is new. This particular indicator has critical implications for determining what Moses conveyed about the Sabbath in the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament), but it is neither an idiom or an aspect of Hebrew syntax. You can’t argue with the way people use their own language. When Moses, the assumed author of Genesis, assembled oral traditions and/or cuneiform tablets that had been passed down to him, and authored the remaining books of the Pentateuch, he was so successful in wording the Sabbath-related passages in Genesis 2, Exodus 16, and Exodus 20 that those who have possessed a native-like understanding of Ancient Hebrew have not been able to find any trace of a weekly Sabbath in Genesis. This fact is validated by reviewing thousands of years of rabbinical writings and oral tradition, including one oral tradition Jesus recommended that people follow its teachings― the Mishnah.
THE EVER-CHANGING NATURE OF LANGUAGE The Canaanite-based language spoken by the Children of Israel during the time of the Judges seems not to have fully evolved into the Ancient Hebrew until sometime after the kingdoms of Judah and Israel had become established. Over the hundreds and hundreds of years that transpired between the early kingdoms and the various periods of captivity, Ancient Hebrew evolved into “Modern” Hebrew. These Hebrew languages were very different from one another, including some of their written characters. Dr. Reuven Brauner says that many non-Hebrew linguists looking at the history of the development of the Hebrew language make too much of these differences. In fact he says that if you can read Modern Hebrew, you can usually read Ancient Hebrew with some difficulty. Modern Hebrew had a long life-span, but by the time of Christ, the Jews, with the exception of specially trained rabbinical scholars, did not know Hebrew. They were speaking Aramaic. Both the ancient and modern forms of Hebrew were known only to the rabbis. The Old Testament, whether written in Ancient Hebrew or Modern Hebrew, had to be translated again into Aramaic. Recall that Jesus read Scriptures about Himself from Aramaic scrolls in the synagogue. Some rabbinical scholars were responsible for keeping the knowledge of Ancient Hebrew alive, and they used it for specialized work such as studying the Pentateuch in its “original” language. Unfortunately, many Christian scholars have attempted to study the Ancient Hebrew text of the Pentateuch without sufficient training. The results have been disastrous. The wording of Genesis 2 is unfavorable to the Sabbatarian belief model, especially in view of the fact that Exodus 16 utilizes a full set of specific indicators to clarify that the Sabbath commandment was being introduced for the first time. This fact is not surprising, since, as we recall, the Israelites under the direct leadership of God did not keep their first Sabbath until the 31 st day of the Exodus. Additionally, Exodus 20 contains four Hebrew usage indicators which clarify that the Sabbath ordinance was a new concept that was merely modeled after Creation week. We will explore these things in detail later. Scholars are also faced with the challenge that God spoke to the Hebrews in anthropomorphic and cultural terms they could understand. For example, when God talked with Moses, He expressed human-like emotions such as jealousy or anger. Let us not think for a moment that the purity and selflessness of God’s “jealousy” or “anger” could be fully represented by the use of these human terms. In the Creation story, Moses described God’s Creative work in terms of the action-based language that his readers would understand. However, since the record of the Pentateuch may have evolved from Egyptian (or something else) through the Canaanite family of languages into the Ancient Hebrew language, we should not assume that the anthropomorphic explanations of His activities in Genesis 1 & 2 can be taken with the degree of literalization that would provide a solid basis for
the formulation of a universally applicable Christian doctrine that requires Sabbath-keeping. The literalness of God’s “resting” is essential to the concept of Sabbatarianism, yet it collapses unless these anthropomorphic representations can be taken to represent the full reality of His actions. The nature of the Ancient Hebrew language does not give us license to do so. We will be taking a look at these limitations of Genesis 2 shortly. THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE PENTATEUCH? Recent archaeological discoveries silence the skeptics by validating the Bible story of King David. However, these findings also indicate that the language during the time of the Judges had not yet evolved into Ancient Hebrew. In fact, Ancient Hebrew did not evolve from its precursor languages until some time after the time of King David and King Solomon. Inscriptions dug up in cities dated to near the time of King David are currently undecipherable, even though there are some rough similarities between the characters they used and those of Ancient Hebrew. The language in which the Pentateuch was originally recorded was almost certainly not Ancient Hebrew. This evidence gives us plenty of reasons to make us even more reluctant to construct a major Christian doctrine on two isolated verses from the Pentateuch. Reflecting on Judaism.Com is a Jewish website that focuses on the theological issues within Judaism. The question of the original language of the Pentateuch is a sensitive one among Jewish scholars. In his essay on the question of the original language of the Torah, lay scholar, Woolf Abrahams, reports that he submitted this question to a variety of Jewish scholars and found no consensus. One professor he consulted, an anonymous orthodox Jewish professor of Jewish History at an Israeli University, provided these comments regarding the question: The question has some merit but is problematic because you do not define what you mean by Torah. The Torah (as in the Pentateuch) informs us that what was given at Sinai (and this presumes that the events described in the Torah are historical – a rather difficult presumption) was the 10 commandments only. It is pretty clear that the Torah (as we have it now) was written down in stages at a much later period (probably after the setting up of the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah) when Hebrew would have been the spoken language, hence it is written in Hebrew. The stories about Abraham and co [Company?] were told and written down in Hebrew without anyone questioning what languages were spoken at that time. The authors had a few other things on their minds when they compiled the Pentateuch… Hence, even the 10 commandments as they appear in the Pentateuch reflect different oral traditions and transmission; hence, it is impossible to know in what language they originally appeared. They were clearly translated at some stage into Hebrew in two similar but slightly different versions as can be seen in Exodus and Deuteronomy. I hope that is helpful.
http://www.reflectingonjudaism.com/content/was-torah-written-hebrew
RESEARCH BARRIER: OSTRICH THEOLOGY: THE DIMINUTION OF D. A. CARSON In 1982 a group of biblical scholars under the leadership of D.A. Carson published research that demonstrated conclusively that the linguistics of the Ancient Hebrew text of Genesis 2, Exodus 16, and Exodus 20 unequivocally prove the Sabbath did not exist until the time of the Exodus. Additionally, we have other evidence from the Pentateuch that this is so, including the chronology of the Exodus journey. Without a Creation origin for the Sabbath, the idea that Christians must keep the Jewish Sabbath implodes. If Adam, Eve, Enoch, and Abraham were saved without keeping it, it becomes a very difficult matter to construct a theological model that requires Christians to keep it in order to be saved. Around 2013 we noticed a new paper at the Adventist Defense League's website entitled, "The Sabbath in Genesis." It was authored by Edwin M. Cotto. In a subsequent chapter we will examine each of his arguments in detail. For now we will continue to present some concepts that are essential to this evaluation. Another Sabbatarian apologist, Brendan Knudson, has contacted us with information that he hopes will refute our rebuttal of Cotto's work. We have expanded our coverage to include our responses to his rebuttals. Cotto released his defense of the Sabbath-in-Genesis theory over thirty years after a team of biblical scholars, working under the leadership of Evangelical scholar, D.A. Carson, published their definitive findings in regard to the Sabbath-
Sunday Question in the 1982 book, From Sabbath to Lord's Day. Carson published this research as a rebuttal to the 1977 book published by SDA Sabbath scholar, Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath to Sunday. Carson and his associates laid out a formidable case against Bacchiocchi’s research methods and conclusions, each chapter having been researched and written by outstanding scholars with expertise in each area impacted by Dr. Bacchiocchi’s claims. Cotto writes as if he is unaware of their work. While Bacchiocchi explored a variety of Sabbath-Sunday issues in From Sabbath to Sunday, his main focus was to reestablish the credibility of the idea that the so-called “change” of the Sabbath was the result of sinister forces conspiring to destroy the true worship of God. In his doctoral studies at the Gregorian University at the Vatican, he discovered that the Seventh-day Adventist teaching that the Catholic Church “changed” the Sabbath was wrong. He was forced to concede that this “change” happened hundreds of years earlier. One of his theories was that the Church at Rome “changed it” between 100-140 CE because it feared that the Roman Empire’s persecution of Jews would be extended to Christians because of the SUPPOSED common link of the Sabbath. (The first pope was seated about the year 600 CE.) Another of his theories was that Mithraism– or sun worship– had become popular by this time and had influenced Christians to adopt the same day of worship for utilitarian purposes. These and his other theories had been thoroughly debunked by the Carson team and a variety of other scholars. Bacchiocchi’s book, From Sabbath to Sunday, was published in 1977. Virtually all of these conspiracy theories are outlined and refuted in Lying for God. SDA leaders have known for a long time that Ellen White was dreadfully wrong about the Catholic Church changing the Sabbath. Subsequent to the release of Bacchiocchi’s 1977 book, From Sabbath to Sunday, SDA Sabbath scholars began developing their own alternate conspiracy theories. Even the General Conference developed one with a team approach. A plausible Sabbatarian-friendly theory was desperately needed for two reasons. First, Carson and his associates had thoroughly discredited Bacchiocchi’s ideas, leaving in disrepute the entire concept that sinister forces had worked together to change the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. Second, Bacchiocchi’s theories conflicted with what Ellen White claimed God told her. Any new theory would have to solve both issues for Adventists, but such was never achieved. Most Seventhday Adventists, including the majority of the clergy, are unaware of this unsavory history because the source for Sabbathrelated things is sifted through the restrictive knowledge filter of the Seventh-day Adventist Church (note that information control is a practice of cults). The Carson scholars drew from the greatly improved understanding of the diversity of the early church to demonstrate that these conspiracy theories were historically impossible and that the scholars of the Early Church had been articulate in spelling out the biblical reasons for Sabbath abandonment. Unfortunately, Seventh-day Adventist apologists have never acknowledged the existence of Carson’s comprehensive research or made any effort to refute it, despite the passage of over 30 years. This is the epitome of Ostrich Theology. Some years ago, two prominent SDA apologists, confronted with our summary of Carson’s work in Lying for God, challenged the validity of our position on the Hebrew linguistics of Genesis 2, Exodus 16, and Exodus 20. We asked them to find a Hebrew scholar to refute Carson, but no one came forward until Brendan Knudson, who, professing a working knowledge of biblical languages, reviewed our work. One of the two apologists who challenged us prior to Knudson had told us that the only Hebrew scholar he knew was a former Hebrew professor of his, Dr. A. Jerry Gladson, who very soon afterward abandoned Adventism. (We note that Dr. Gladson was fired by Southern Adventist University for his views on the Doctrine of the Investigative Judgment.) He was awarded a Ph.D. in Old Testament Studies from Vanderbilt University and served there as Adjunct Professor of Old Testament Language and Literature upon the completion of his studies. In light of Carson's unchallenged and definitive work, Cotto has been obligated to uncover hidden content, unknown to or misunderstood by the Carson scholars, and found strictly within Genesis 2:2-3, that would cause an expert in Ancient Hebrew to “see” in Moses' account of what God did on this one day an example of what man should do at every interval of seven days thereafter. As of the 10 th Edition, Cotto and other Sabbatarian apologists are faced with the finality of the statement of one of the world's most respected Israeli linguists, Dr. Reuven Brauner, that there is no Sabbath expressed or implied in the Genesis record. At the same time, the intense research that has been done on Colossians 2:14-16 since 1977 is definitive in its results. There is no respectable way to evade the fact that St. Paul commanded the apostolic church not to impose Sabbath-keeping on the Gentiles coming into the Faith. To all of this, the latest research our team of co-authors has completed since the publication of the 8 th Edition has turned up the fact that double animal sacrifices were required to validate the Sabbath ordinance, which, together with the fact that the Sabbath in Colossians 2:14-17 was a symbol
(shadow) of Christ, just like the animal sacrifices; so Christians observing the Sabbath are unwittingly practicing a type of blasphemy that severely diminishes the power of Christ's sacrifice on the Cross. We will have more to say about this later.
HEBREW LINGUISTICS BARRIER: A Study Of Three Key Words In Genesis 2:2-3 Before launching into a further study of the Hebrew linguistics of Genesis 2, Exodus 16, and Exodus 20, the meanings of a certain number of Hebrew words must be clear. Without the knowledge of what these words mean when used within the text of Genesis 2:2-3, it is difficult to comprehend just how weak a case there is for a Sabbath in Genesis. Our own study of Hebrew linguistics clashes sharply with what Sabbatarian apologists have historically claimed regarding their meanings. This information is now widely available on the Internet, so there is no reason why Sabbatarians and anti-Sabbatarians should differ on these definitions. Let us make one thing perfectly clear. The absolute proof that there is no Sabbath in Genesis is found within the text of Exodus 16. While we believe there is powerful evidence within Genesis 2 itself that there is no Sabbath presence, it might fall short of absolute “proof.” Neither Sabbatarians nor anti-Sabbatarians can prove their case from Genesis 2 alone. On the other hand, we can, and will, demonstrate conclusively that the proof is in Exodus 16 and that the content of Genesis 2 and Exodus 20 provide irrefutable proof that there is no Sabbath in Genesis 2. We begin with an analysis of a literal translation of Genesis 2:2-3 from the Ancient Hebrew by Jeff Benner of www.ancient-hebrew.org: GENESIS 2:2 AND 2:3 And He will much-FINISH (verb) Elohiym in the Day the SEVENTH BUSINESS-him WHICH he did DO (verb) and he will CEASE (verb) in the DAY the SEVENTH from ALL BUSINESS-him WHICH he did DO (verb). And he will much KNEEL (verb) Elohiym AT DAY the SEVENTH and he will much SET APART (verb) AT him GIVEN THAT in-him he did CEASE (verb) from-ALL BUSINESS-him WHICH he did-FATTEN (verb—in the sense of “to fill up”) Elohiym to DO (verb).
Note that the story we find here has no information useful for developing Christian doctrine. In Exodus 20 and other passages of the Pentateuch, Moses presented the Sabbath as an institution designed to set Israel apart from everyone else. Additionally, the Law of Moses specified that neither Jew nor proselyte could keep the Sabbath without first complying with the Ordinance of Circumcision, an ordinance God gave to His Chosen People at the time of Abraham. In the case of Genesis 2, he simply tells the story of what God did on this one day in the history of Planet Earth. As we point out elsewhere, the account doesn’t even say that Adam and Eve rested in celebration with God, or that the celebration was to be repeated every seven days thereafter. These following three things tend to indicate Genesis 2:2-3’s lack of support for Sabbatarianism: (1) The Ancient Hebrew verb for “set apart” cannot mean “set aside for religious services.” (2) The Ancient Hebrew verb translated “cease” likely does not mean “rest” in the English sense of “repose.” (3) The lack of the evening and morning suffix, in effect, LIMITS the blessing and setting aside to this one day because it EXTENDS its MEMORY from this one point in time on a continuum which projects into the future with no boundaries. Since this one day has been blessed forever, it is impossible to bless it or set it aside ever again. The story of the seventh day of Creation tells us only what GOD did on it. But let us pretend for a moment that man is supposed to follow God's example. If they were to do what He did, they would never work another day on Planet Earth. Such a conclusion follows the principles of logic and common sense. The 7th day’s status of being blessed and set aside to be remembered forever resulted from direct assignment by God. By contrast, His eternal resting/ceasing merely resulted from the fact that He didn’t do any more creating. No special linguistic indicator is needed to communicate the fact that God’s cessation from creating Planet Earth was finished forever.
THE WORD “BLESSED” The meaning of the word translated “blessed” is clear in both Hebrew and English. Sabbatarians want the fact that the 7 th day of Creation was blessed to mean that every subsequent recurring interval of it was also “blessed.” How would anyone come to this conclusion based on the passage itself if they had not heard about the Sabbath commandment that came into
existence thousands of years later? The reality of the situation is that one day in the history of Planet Earth got blessed and set aside to be remembered. By the very nature of things, that memory can last forever, or at least as long as there are any people left to read about it in the Book of Genesis. Logic suggests that God would want His human creatures to remember that He created the world every day of the history of the World. It was God Who was doing the resting, and His rest from creating Planet Earth, by the very nature of it, could not stop and start every seven days. It is always important, as we have said before, to keep in mind that Moses was telling a story about what God did—not what Adam and Eve did, or what they were supposed to do in the future.
BRENDAN KNUDSON'S OBJECTIONS: THE WORD “BLESSED” KNUDSON: The word “blessed” is parsed as Piel Imperfect 3 rd Person Masculine Singular. If the author of Genesis had used the perfect tense of this word, it would have implied a completed action. However, the imperfect refers to an on-going action that was not completed. This implies that every 7th day thereafter was specially blessed. The Piel verbal form intensifies the verb so that in this instance, the full force would be represented in the phrase, “He caused to be blessed," rather than simply “He blessed.” AUTHORS: Simply intensifying the recognition of one single day in the history of Planet Earth does not turn it into a recurring cultic ritual. There is no logic to this assertion at all and no magic to explain how simply making one day stronger than the other ones could cause it to replicate itself after intervals of a certain integer. There is no textual support for a recurring re-blessing and re-setting aside of subsequent seventh days. Furthermore, the assumption that God intended to establish the length of a “week” at seven fixed days appears to be contrary to God’s explanation of how man was to keep track of time. The minimum measurement of time specified by God was to be marked by the Moon, or roughly 30 days. Before the Great Flood, one orbit of the moon might have equaled 1/12 of a solar year. The only other time marker God specified was the Earth's orbit around the Sun, which seems to have been, in the very early days of Earth's history, or roughly 360 days. There is no indication that God cared about how man divided up the approximately 30 days of the lunar month except that He gave the moon four phases in which it appears to look the same for seven days at a time. It is not safe to make assumptions about things for which we have no proof when it comes to establishing Bible doctrine. We only know one thing for certain, and that is that at Mt. Sinai, the Mountain of the Moon, a mountain which sat at the edge of the Wilderness of the Moon, God did specify a seven day length week with a recurring Sabbath. We do know another thing, and that is that the lunar calendar was ubiquitous in the ancient world. There was simply no other way to keep track of time. Therefore, it is difficult to go against the logic that suggests that God would specify the time-table for the keeping of the Sabbaths in any other way but His world clocks. Since virtually every ancient civilization in the world utilized lunar calendars, why would we expect still earlier, nomadic clans and small cities had developed a fixed calendar? Recall the implications of the fact that when God called Abraham, He called him out of a Heathen culture that had almost completely forgotten the worship of the True God. KNUDSON: The imperfect tense of the verb, blessed, IMPLIES an on-going action that was not completed, and this fact IMPLIES that every 7th day thereafter was specially blessed. WYNNE: This suggestion is little better than linguistic fantasy. It most certainly does not do that. If you submitted this idea to a jury of 12 disinterested persons, the majority of them would say that there was insufficient evidence to prove such a thing. A more reasonable explanation of its implications would be that since that one day in the history of Planet Earth would remain blessed forever, the memory of its blessing would never be completed, since the memory of it would never end. Exodus 16 does not merely imply that the Sabbath is being given for the very first time. It states this fact unequivocally when you combine the description of the events that took place with the defining clarity of Hebrew linguistics. The faint suggestion of a Sabbath presence that might possibly be assumed back into Genesis 2:2-3 holds no water against the absolutes of Exodus 16 and the strong evidence that the Sabbath was MODELED after Creation Week found in Exodus 20. Add that to a host of biblical impossibilities that in themselves would contraindicate the idea that Christians must keep the Sabbath, and there is no justification for reading a Sabbath into Genesis. Even Jesus excluded the application of the Sabbath to the Gentile "dogs" when He clarified through the cultural terminology of His day that the Sabbath was given
only to "man"– or to the Jews only. Recall that to the Jew, all the other people on Earth were subhuman. To meet Knudson on his own ground, however, recall that his concept of the book-ended inclusio of Genesis 2:2-3 requires that the events told about therein must be interpreted as having completely taken place within the 24-hour boundaries of that inclusio. Which of his perceived principles of Hebrew linguistics is stronger? The inclusio, or the tense of the verb? If it is the inclusio, the possibility that the passage could discuss repetitive rituals that extend beyond the bookend is excluded. The practical way of looking at the question of whether the Piel verbal form suggests a 7 th day ceremony that must be observed at every 7th day thereafter for eternity is like this. The author of Genesis 2:2-3 is telling us the story of what God did on this day of Creation. We are only assuming that God must have spent some special time with Adam and Eve on the 7th day to celebrate His creative achievement. No matter HOW INTENSE the blessing of this one and only special celebration the tense of the verb makes it, it does not turn a picnic lunch that He might have celebrated with Adam and Eve into a cultic institution that requires everyone in the world to stop working on the 7 th day of a seven-day week or face death by stoning. The Heathen around Israel did not keep the Sabbath. Israel was never sent to rebuke all the heathen people around them because they broke the Sabbath. On the other hand, Israel’s prophets were sent to Israel to rebuke the Hebrews for Sabbath-breaking.
THE WORD “REST” ( “CEASED”) The word for “rest” used in Genesis 2 means “to cease” or “to stop.” In Genesis 2, it is the “Qal” form, which has its own specific variant definitions. Note that it is only the alternate reading of the second definition of the “Qal” form that actually means “rest” in the sense of repose. The word simply means to “cease” or “stop.” In Exodus 20, the word commonly translated as “rested” CAN mean “repose,” but some authorities point out that its meaning is more precisely rendered as ceasing or stopping. (We will have more to say about this in our section on Exodus 20.) With Creation's 7 th day, the ceasing, or stopping—or even the resting—took place on one single day. There is no suggestion here that man is supposed to stop doing anything. The story tells us about what God did. The passage doesn’t even tell us that Adam and Eve rested that day because this part of the story was not about them. God’s rest from that Creation lasts forever. The memory of this ceasing was to last forever. The day itself, however, was 24 hours in duration, like all the other days of Creation. Informed Sabbatarians do not teach that the 7th day of Creation was unending. STRONG'S CONCORDANCE WORD #7672 – SHABATH shabath: to Original Word: שב ב(תב ת Part of Speech: Verb Transliteration: shabath Phonetic Spelling: (shaw-bath') Short Definition: to BROWN-DRIVER-BRIGGS - SHABATH shabath: to Original Word: שב ב(תב ת Part of Speech: Verb Transliteration: shabath Phonetic Spelling: (shaw-bath') Short Definition: to 71 שבב(תבתverb cease, desist, rest (As šabâtu, probably cease, be completed DlWB ZimKAT 3. 593 (JenZA iv (1889), 277 f. is skeptical); Arabic: cut off, interrupt; Late Hebrew has ש תב תתneglect, etc., Aramaic בשבת תב אcost of
neglect); — Qal 27 Perfect 3 masculine singular ׳שGenesis 2:3 +; 3 plural שב בבתתוLamentations 5:14, etc.; Imperfect 3 masculine singular יב תשבות תHosea 7:4; יבשתבתתProverbs 22:10 2t.; 3 feminine singular תבשתבתתLeviticus 26:35; תבשתב(תבת Leviticus 26:34; Nehemiah 6:3 +, etc.; — 1 cease: (absolute 13 t.) of seasons Genesis 8:22 (J); manna Joshua 5:12 (P), etc., Isaiah 14:4 (twice in verse); Nehemiah 6:3 +; with מבןHosea 7:4 3t. [Ed. Note: First, original meaning of the Qal form.] 2 desist from labour, rest: [Ed. Note: Second meaning of the Qal form.] a. with ( מבןof God) Genesis 2:2,3(P). [Ed. Note: The ceasing of God.] b. מבןomitted, בtemporal Exodus 23:12 (E), Exodus 16:30; Exodus 34:21 (J), Exodus 31:17 (P); ׳ב ת חב בריש וב(תב קב צב יר ש Exodus 34:21 (J; i.e., even in these busy seasons). Above Credit: www.BibleSuite.Com The Encyclopedia Biblica provides a somewhat different perspective on the meaning of the words that are translated "rest" and "Sabbath." Its article on the origin of the Sabbath references Marcus Jastrow, a Hebrew linguist, who believed that the root word for this family of words was associated with the concept of propitiation. Jastrow notes that the Hebrew language is part of the Canaanite language family. The Canaanites, a Semitic people, seem to have utilized a pagan Sabbath system based on the four phases of the Moon and a day between each of those four phases that separated them which was reserved for cessation of various kinds of activity based on superstition: It is also mentioned, in the Encyclopedia Biblica, that "the Hebrew Sabbathon conveys the idea of propitiation or appeasement of divine anger and [it] is...the opinion [of Professor Jastrow] that the Hebrew Sabbath (i.e. CREATION Sabbath) was originally a Sabbathon― i.e. a day of propitiation and appeasement; marked by atoning rites...it was celebrated at intervals of seven days, CORRESPONDING WITH CHANGES IN THE MOON'S PHASES, and was identical in character with the four days in each month, i.e. 7th, 14th, 21st, and 28th! (The MacMillan Company, 1899. P. 4180).
The same encyclopedia adds (p. 4173) that: The word "Sabbath" is a feminine form/word. The ROOT (of Sabbath) has NOTHING to do with resting in the sense of enjoying repose; in transitive forms and applications, it means: "to sever"; "to put an end to"; intransitively, it means "to desist" ― "to come to an end." In a transitive sense ― "the divider" ― indicates the Sabbath as dividing the month. It certainly cannot be translated 'The Day of Rest.'"
There is an on-line version of the Encyclopedia Biblica. Our readers would find its section on the origin of the Sabbath to be very informative. Interested readers may find it by doing an Internet search for “Encyclopedia Biblica On-line.” Note that not only does the word translated “rest” in Genesis 2 suggest “stopping” or “dividing,” rather than reposing, but the division it accomplishes is MONTHLY rather than daily. It is an interesting finding because the concept does not seem to fit with dividing the week, which would seem to be its most likely meaning in its immediate context. It would seem a big stretch to say that it divides the month, although the Sabbath concept is based on a monthly set of events, including the four phases of the moon, divided by the four phases of the moon into a month. Also, while the root of this family of words is feminine, suggesting its connection with the moon, the form of the word used in this Genesis passage is, as Knudson points out, a masculine form. At the same time we cannot help but find it very interesting that the pagan Sabbath system was utilized by various societies from which Hebrew culture and language developed and that their Sabbaths were on exactly the same days, and even the high Sabbath of the month– the 15th day– was the same; and that God gave the Hebrews their Sabbath on the same day as the pagan high Sabbath. This is all more than enough for all of us to swallow, whether we are Sabbatarian or anti-Sabbatarian.
KNUDSON’S OBJECTIONS: THE WORD “REST” KNUDSON: Not only does the word translated REST mean “repose,” but the fact that this word is parsed
entirely as Qal Perfect 3rd Person Masculine Singular causes it to represent a completed action. That is, the "rest" was begun and finished on the day in question. Because of this fact, anti-Sabbatarians are wrong to teach that the 7th day of Creation was unending and that God’s rest, therefore, lasted forever. The Hebrew does not say that God rested from the Seventh day onwards—only at a time within the Seventh day period of time between the book-ends. So we have several indicators which point to the idea that the rest of the Seventh day was limited to that day alone. WYNNE: Perhaps the reason why it is a completed action is that the word should be more accurately translated “ceased,” as we have pointed out so many times. If God ceased on the 7 th day, the act of ceasing might better be understood in that perhaps it takes only a moment for someone to stop what he or she is doing, whereas the rest that results can last indefinitely. Perhaps God ceased, which took only a moment― an action which could be construed as arriving quickly at a state of completion. However, there is no possible way to say that the ceasing from labor, or the “resting” from it, ever got completed, since God never went back to work on creating Planet Earth. If your rest is complete, that means you had to have gotten back to work. I don't know of any well-informed anti-Sabbatarians who teach that the 7 th day of Creation is a day that lasts forever. The ceasing, or the stopping, of work could have been limited to that day alone. In keeping with the concept that the best rendering of this word is “ceased,” anti-Sabbatarians are happy with the understanding that this action was completed within this 24-hour period of time. Here is an illustration. A man is chopping wood. His wife calls him in for supper. There is an actual moment when he stops using the ax, lays it down on the ground, and heads toward the house. The act of ceasing took place in a moment― the moment he laid the ax down on the ground. However, the resting from the work of chopping wood was still in effect when he walked into the kitchen. As always, what anti-Sabbatarians are trying to get across is that this account tells what God did—not what man is supposed to do. Even if God’s action was taken as an example for Adam and Eve, they would have been required to stop what they were doing and never work again. Remember the example of Jesus cursing the fig tree. Just because his ceasing/resting is mentioned in a narrative that also mentions that Adam and Eve were made in God’s image does not mean that they must repeat His action at every 7th interval thereafter—book-ends or no book-ends. One way to check one’s logic is to follow an argument to its greatest possible extent. Note that if Knudson’s book-end theory is correct, it would seem that the blessing and hallowing of the 7 th day could not apply to any time after the terminal bookend. HOHMANN: So, we are to believe that God is not resting/ceasing forever in relation to that Creation, but the seventh day, as a Sabbath, which is not even addressed here, mysteriously does last forever, all from the narrative here in Genesis 2? Pull the other leg. Again, Knudson is appealing to his own authority in matters where he claims that an appeal to any other authority is to avail ones-self of a logical fallacy. There is a disjoint in logic with Knudson. God ended His work of Creation on or by that seventh day. He did not pick up where He left off on the next day, whether we want to call it day “8” or a new day “one”. That Creation was finished; over with, and duly noted and memorialized for all eternity. KNUDSON: The Hebrew word translated “rested” in Genesis 2:2-3 does not simply mean “ceased.” Since it implies a formal period of rest, anti-Sabbatarians are wrong to teach that the 7th day of Creation simply represents a boundary day between God’s creative activities and His non-creating activity. There are linguistic indicators that it is an extended ceasing that is spread out over the 24-hour period of the “yom” day, which, again, is book-ended to form an inclusio. This special resting makes it a good candidate for being the first Sabbath ever observed, and it precludes the anti-Sabbatarian claim that this passage could be used to teach that the rest that man is required to “observe” is merely an eternal spiritual rest. WYNNE: The trouble, here, is that the act of ceasing only takes a moment but the rest from it can last foreve r. Informed anti-Sabbatarians do not teach that man is required to observe some kind of eternal spiritual rest to honor the 7th day. No resting is required of man at this point. The discussion is about God's rest― not man's. Again, for multiple times, the rest of Genesis 2 is God's rest― not man's rest. In any case, how could simply extending the special resting to cover 24 hours of this one day make it a good "candidate" for the first Sabbath? This argument simply doesn't follow. Anti-Sabbatarians do not have to demonstrate that God's resting was less than 24 hours to muster a solid defense. What He did is not indicated to be a pattern for man to follow. God stopped “working” and never worked again at creating Earth. The Seventh day of Creation
was never a candidate for the first Sabbath, much less a good one. The story is about what God did. Genesis 2:2-3 doesn’t even say that Adam and Eve rested on the 7 th day. Adam and Eve did not even qualify to keep the 7 th day of Creation as a Sabbath ordinance, had one even existed at the time, because they had not worked for the previous six days. There can be no Sabbath without six days of prior work according to the details of the Sabbath commandment found in Exodus 20. Not only is the form of the word translated “rest” better translated “ceased,” but the context, content, and structure of the passage support the concept that the 7 th day WAS a boundary day between God’s creating activity and his cessation from that creating activity. God did not indicate that man was to rest on the 7 th day of Creation or on any subsequent multiple of it. Nor did He specify that man must conduct some kind of spiritual rest from that day on in order to memorialize the day upon which He ceased creating Planet Earth. HOHMANN: Again, Knudson resorts to himself as his own authority, which when applied to anyone else is a logical fallacy. Regardless, it would appear that Knudson attempts to redefine his opponent's position (again) by saying we claim this is about “observing” an eternal spiritual rest, when in fact what is believed and taught is that this represents a rest one enters into through faith, as contrasted to the weekly Sabbath that was not entered into through faith, and was indeed a shadow of this rest we call “God's rest,” which the author of Hebrews points out is entered into while it is still called “To day”. Is this too cryptic for Sabbatarians? That seventh day shows having an open end through the lack of the phraseology found at the end of the other days, so that we understand that God is still in that rest, and we can enter into His rest while it is still called “To day” regardless of which day of the week it presently is. “To day” God is still in His rest. In an allegorical sense, He is still in that “day” of rest. The Sabbath, like so many other symbols found in Scripture, serves as a type or “shadow” of something spiritual; in this case it typifies a rest or ceasing that is pe rmanent, as compared to the temporary rest or cessation from labor such as the Hebrew (Jew) enjoyed, and which came about, not every day, but once every seventh-day after 6 days of working. Faith had nothing to do with whether they entered into the weekly Sabbath. It came about, regardless. When the day was over, the Israelite had to resume a work that was vain in nature, eventually leading to death, despite their best efforts! Our assurance through faith is that we have passed from death to life. We no longer live and toil in a vain existence, seeing as our lives are now hidden in Christ. Our lives have meaning and purpose, where God is at the center of our existence. Can those who blindly kept the shadow weekly Sabbath, whose works God called “. . . evil even from their youth” have any true spiritual value? No more so than one who refrains from murdering another who still possesses that heart of stone in which one harbors hatred for another. Lastly, I cannot help but wonder, if a Genesis weekly Sabbath was indeed established for mankind, why was God so cryptic about it that it requires such linguistic gymnastics to flesh it out of the narrative? With all the importance Sabbatarians attach to a Genesis Sabbath, there is an expectation it would be plainly so stated. God could hardly have been more explicit in the instructions given to the children of Israel. But here, in Genesis, the narrative requires contortions of interpretation by the Sabbatarian. It all begs the logical question, “How would one go about establishing a false belief held to be true when there is no plain statement to that effect? Answer? Pretty much the way we see Sabbatarians make the case for a weekly Sabbath instituted at Creation week! KNUDSON: The close proximity of the account of God resting on the 7 th day the fact that the newly created mankind were created in God’s “image” shows that what God does at this point is exemplary for what mankind must do. Furthermore, the word translated REST—does not merely mean “ceased." Therefore, this passage teaches that all people must rest like God did on every 7th interval from the 7th day of Creation. WYNNE: It does nothing of the sort! If I should bump into a bank robber, we are in close proximity with each other. However, the fact that we are in close proximity with each other does not mean that I am supposed to follow his example and rob a bank. Again, if Adam and Eve did what God did, they would have ceased all activity and never worked again. There is no known literary convention in English that establishes that the mention of two such things close together in a written work creates the requirement that an action by the former must be performed by the latter, much less at recurring intervals. What's with this fantastic claim? I suspect that there is no such literary convention in Ancient Hebrew either. Two writers of the Gospels tell about how Jesus cursed a fig tree. Jesus’ disciples were in very close proximity to Him when He performed this surprising action. If we apply Knudson’s principle to the cursing of the fig tree, all followers of Jesus would have to curse a fig tree. HOHMANN: Another logical fallacy is a “Non Sequitur." This is where a conclusion is drawn that is not supported by the context. Knudson claims that because Moses mentions two things close together in the narrative—that God rested on the
7th day and that God created man in His image—it was Moses’ intent to indicate that man was to follow God’s example. This non-following il-logic is exactly the sort of wishful thinking you would expect from someone who is trying to make a case for a belief for which there is no “Thus saith the Lord." Do we see any evidence from Scripture this was the case then? Do we see Adam and Eve resting every Sabbath thereafter? Do we see any examples of anyone else prior to Exodus 16 getting the message that God needs be emulated in this regard? The straight facts without extrapolation state that God quit working on that seventh day and that He blessed and sanctified the day on which He quit His work of creating. Anything concluded beyond the scope of this is merely speculative and assumptive. These are methods commonly employed in deceptions. If we were to follow this kind of twisted logic we would be obligated to sacrifice one of our sons because God sacrificed His son and instructed Abraham to do the same!
THE WORD “SANCTIFIED” [HALLOWED] Using the dictionary definitions below as a reference, observe that the form of the word translated “sanctify,” means “consecrated” or “dedicated.” The author of Genesis in this passage states that this one single day has been dedicated, or “set aside.” The meaning that it is “set aside for a holy purpose” is permitted by this form of the word. In Exodus 20:8 however, the form of this word used is different, and it can mean something akin to being “set aside to be observed.” We maintain that the word, “qadash,” in Genesis 2:2-3 indicates that this one, single day in the history of Planet Earth was set aside for the holy use of “memorializing” God’s completion and cessation of creative activity. Please study the following Hebrew dictionary definitions from two authoritative sources: Gen 2:3 (KJV) 3And GodH430 blessedH1288 the seventhH7637 dayH3117, and sanctifiedH6942 it: becauseH3588 that in it he had restedH7673 from allH3605 his workH4399 whichH834 GodH430 createdH1254 and madeH6213.
STRONG’S #6942 – QADASH qadash: to be set apart or consecrated Original Word: קבד(תבש Part of Speech: Verb Transliteration: qadash Phonetic Spelling: (kaw-dash') Short Definition: consecrate Word Origin denominative verb from qodesh Definition: to be set apart or consecrated NASB Translation (1) become consecrated (2), become defiled (1), become holy (1), consecrate (43), consecrated (35), consecrates (7), consecration (2), declare holy (1), dedicate (2), dedicated (8), dedicating (1), holier (1), holy (5), keep (1), keep it holy (2), keep the holy (3), made it holy (1), manifest my holiness (2), prepare (2), prove myself holy (2), proved himself holy (1), purified (1), regard as holy (1), sanctified (9), sanctifies (10), sanctify (12), set them apart (1), set apart (4), set apart the consecrated (2), show himself holy (1), transmit holiness (2), treat me as holy (3), treated as holy (1), vindicate the holiness (1), wholly dedicate (1).
Credit: BibleSuite.Com BROWN-DRIVER-BRIGGS – QADASH-STRONG’S HEBREW WORD #6942 Another source, Brown-Driver-Briggs, gives the following definitions. Note that a secondary use of this word can mean “to set aside for religious services,” but this definition is EXCLUDED from Genesis 2:2-3 but is accepted in Exodus 20 and other later texts. The first meaning of the exact form of the word as used in Genesis 2 is “to set apart.” Editor’s notes are in red type and separated from the sources by brackets. Note that this word has at least three forms and that sometimes the different forms have variants with their respective definitions. The following entry, for example, lists two variants of the Pi’el form with their different meanings and the texts in which those variants are found: verb denominative be set apart, consecrated (Gerber238ff.); —
Qal Perfect3masculine singular ׳קExodus 29:21; suffix קת ד(תב תש בתיךIsaiah 65:5; 3masculine plural קב ש תדשוNumbers 17:2; Imperfect3masculine singular 1 יב קת ד(תב שSamuel 21:6; יבקתדבתשExodus 29:37 +, etc.; —
1. be set apart, consecrated, hallowed, of shew-bread 1 Samuel 21:6 (dubious Passage, but compare especially RSSemitic i. 436; 2nd ed. 455 [also Drsm.293], who proposes ;)יתקַדד(תבשAaron and his sons by blood Exodus 29:21 (P); other persons Isaiah 65:5 (Di; but
Pi`el Gei RSSemitic i. 431; 2nd ed. 451 Che Du Buhl). 2. be hallowed, by contact with sacred things, and so tabooed from profane use, of forfeited to sanctuary Exodus 29:37; Exodus 30:29; Leviticus 6:11; Leviticus 6:20 Numbers 17:2; Numbers 17:3 (P), Haggai 2:12.
3. consecrated, tabooed (above) Deuteronomy 22:9 (law against mixtures). Niph`al Perfect. 3 masculine singular נבקתד(תבשIsaiah 5:16; Exodus 29:43, etc.; Imperfect3masculine singular ו(תביב קב דש ש Numbers 20:13; 1singular א תקבדששLeviticus 10:3; Infinitive construct. suffix הבקבדדתשביEzekiel 36:23; Ezekiel 38:16;
1. shew oneself sacred, majestic: c. בתperson, + לתעשינשיEzekiel 20:41; Ezekiel 28:25; Ezekiel 36:23; Ezekiel 38:16; Ezekiel 39:27; with בתIsaiah 5:16; Ezekiel 28:22, compare Numbers 20:13 (P).
2. be honoured or treated as sacred "" נכבדLeviticus 10:3 (P); opposed to חללש םLeviticus 22:32 (P). 3. be consecrated, dedicated, by ׳כבוד יExodus 29:43 (P). Pi`el Perfect3masculine singular קב ד(תב שNumbers 6:11; 1 Kings 8:64, etc.; Imperfect3masculine singular ית ק(תב דש ש Genesis 2:3 +, etc.; Imperative masculine singular ק(תבדששJoshua 7:13; ק(תב ד ת שExodus 13:2, etc.; Infinitive construct ק(תב דש שExodus 29:1 +, etc.; Participle מתק(תבדששExodus 37:28; suffix מתק(תבדבשתכ ת םExodus 31:13 +, etc.; — [Note Genesis 2:3 uses this variant of the Pi’el form, which means, “be consecrated, dedicated, by]
1. set apart as sacred, consecrate, dedicate: a. places: Sinai Exodus 19:23 (J), alter, etc., Exodus 29:36,37; Exodus 30:29 (P), tabernacle, etc. Exodus 40:9,10,11; Leviticus 8:10,11,15; Numbers 7:1 (twice in verse) (P); tent of meeting Exodus 29:44 (P); place of sacrifice 1 Kings 8:64 2Chronicles 7:7; gate Nehemiah 3:1 (twice in verse); — Ezekiel 7:24 see במקת דב שbelow
b. wave-offering Exodus 29:27 (P). c. persons: priests Exodus 28:3,41; Exodus 29:1,33,44; Exodus 30:30; Exodus 40:13; Leviticus 8:12,30; firstborn Exodus 13:2 (P); keepers of ark 1 Samuel 7:1.
d. 7th day (by God) Genesis 2:3; Exodus 20:11 (P). [Ed. Note: Gen. 2:3 simply means “set apart—not set apart for sacred services.]
2. observe as holy, keep sacred: feasts, Sabbath Exodus 20:8 = Deuteronomy 5:12 (Decal.), Jeremiah 17:22,24,27; Ezekiel 20:20; Ezekiel 44:24; Nehemiah 13:22; fast Joel 1:14; Joel 2:15; year of Jubilee Leviticus HYPERLINK "http://interlinearbible.org/leviticus/25-10.htm"25:10 (P); so 2 עצרה לבעלKings 10:20. [Editor’s Note: this is not the variant of the pi’el form used in Genesis 2:2-3. Therefore, it cannot mean observe as holy, or keep sacred; so it is not a responsible interpretation to try to make it mean that the day was set aside for sacred services.]
3. honour as sacred, hallow: a. God Deuteronomy 32:51, his name Exodus 36:23. b priest Leviticus 21:8 (H).
4. consecrate by purification: Credit: BibleSuite.Com
KNUDSON'S OBJECTIONS KNUDSON: The word translated as “HALLOWED” is parsed as Piel Imperfect 3rd Person Masculine Singular. If the author of Genesis has used the perfect tense of this word, it would imply a completed action. However, the imperfect refers to an on-going action that was not completed. This word, properly understood, implies that every 7th day thereafter was specially set aside. The implications of the tense of the verb—a grammatical consideration—trumps everything else. Again, the Piel form of the verb intensifies it so that it is most fully represented by the translation, “He caused to be set apart.” AUTHORS: Of course the day was set apart! No one is arguing that the 7 th day did not get set apart. But the on-going action that was not completed sounds perfectly natural in the context that when a day is set aside from all the other days, the action has continuous results that CANNOT be completed because that set-aside day is suspended in the action of being set aside. But the claim that the use of a tense that means the action was not completed possesses no such magic to transform one day into an endless number of days, much less days that can figure out the neat trick of jumping over six days at a time and landing on the 7 th interval of the initial one. How could Knudson explain the logic of this claim? There is no explanation— just a wish and a hope. If the writer’s intent was not to indicate that this one day was set aside by God, no day would have been set aside to later tempt someone into thinking that the writer’s intent was that this one day and every multiple of it thereafter was to be set aside. In Genesis 2:2-3 the writer does not seem to be trying to say anything profound. He reported what God did on that day. It was set aside as a day that was to be remembered. It was set aside for this express purpose before there was a Jewish Sabbath, and it is still set aside to be remembered after the Sabbath perished at the cross. There is nothing to stop it from being remembered. Christians still remember it even though they don’t keep the Jewish Sabbath. Creation Week was a member of a set of things God could have chosen to use as a model to design and implement a cultic ritual to remind the Hebrews that He had rescued them from Egyptian slavery. For example, He could have made a five day week based on the four sides of a pyramid for working with the pinnacle point at the top representing the day when their labor stopped as a model for the Sabbath. Also, the four phases of the Moon are approximately seven days in length, and God indicated in Genesis 1 that He gave Planet Earth, the moon, and the sun to mark the times for sacred days. Also, our research suggests that it is highly likely that the Hebrews were familiar with a seven-day sabbath concept because there is evidence that the Egyptians utilized a pagan lunar sabbath system while the Hebrews were there. As always, we are back to a key point of contention. Knudson is a linguist with an impressive knowledge of the Hebrew language. The problem is that he has just enough knowledge to get himself into trouble. Few rabbis in Israel today have an expert knowledge of Ancient Hebrew, and Knudson would like us to think that he knows enough about this language to act as his own authority in translating its special shades of meaning to us? As a general rule, informed rabbis throughout the history of Judaism have not taught that the Sabbath existed before the giving of the Manna. Again, the translation of the Mishnah by Dr. Reuven Brauner into English now provides English-speaking scholars with proof that the Jews have always held that Gentiles who lived within the borders of Israel were accountable to the Seven Laws of Noah, which did not include a Sabbath commandment. Recall that Israel, from the very beginning of its history, believed that Gentiles who attempted to keep the Sabbath were to be stoned. Why should Knudson expect to be able to win, on his own steam, against a long and distinguished history of Jewish opinion to the contrary? We have referenced these authorities and others who testify that there is no Sabbath in Genesis. We have also reported the views of other scholars who have explained the significance of the naturally occurring, unbounded rest of God discussed in regard to the seventh day of Creation. KNUDSON: In his paper, “The Sabbath and Genesis 2:2-3,” H. Ross Coe, a Seventh-day Adventist writer, defends the presence of a Sabbath in Genesis very well, using arguments from Hebrew structure and grammar. You need to read his paper. His arguments from Hebrew grammar and structure are strong. WYNNE: Understanding this next quote from Coe’s paper, some knowledge of Hebrew's fine shades of meaning inherent within the tense of Hebrew verbs is needed. I adopted the following explanation from an authority on Hebrew grammar,
Ronald J. Williams of the University of Toronto in his Williams’ Hebrew Syntax, Third Edition, by Ronald J. Williams, University Of Toronto Press, Inc., 2007, which is available on Google Books: FACTITIVE PIEL FORM – If a verb has a factitive meaning in the Piel, then the subject of the verb in the Piel causes its direct object to enter a state that can be described by the same verb in the Qal. For example, the subject of the Piel in “he glorified” causes the direct object to enter the state described by that verb in the Qal, as in “he was glorious”. CAUSATIVE PIEL- Whereas “factitive” refers to causing a state, ‘causative’ refers to causing an action. Causative verbs are rare in the Piel and Pual. The subject of a causative verb causes the direct object to do some action. For example, in “They made him sing,” the subject “they” causes the direct object “him” to do the action “to sing,” so the verb “to make” has a causative meaning in that sentence. Coe, our SDA apologist, argues that the tense of the verb chosen by the writer of Genesis 2:2-3 indicates a degree of immediacy plus an element of a declarative announcement which, to him, conclusively demonstrates that the 7 th day was made into a Sabbath ordinance on that very day. Note that we are not able to print the Hebrew characters in this extensive quote from Cole, so Cole’s quote is modified for best understanding without them. We are talking about the Hebrew word for “set aside” in both cases: The clearest evidence in favor of the Sabbath as a Creation ordinance comes from a close study of the statement, “and he sanctified it” in Genesis 2:3. Some interpreters have attempted to separate the divine sanctification of the seventh day from the institution of the Sabbath. For example, R.J. Griffith has suggested that at Creation “God blessed and set apart the day for its future use as a day of rest and worship for Israel under the Law . . . In like manner He set apart Jeremiah while in the womb (Jer. 1:5), though his ministry as a prophet did not commence until years later [Richard James Griffith, “The Eschatological Significance of the Sabbath” (Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1999), 32, 43-49).] The difference between Jeremiah and the seventh day is that Jeremiah had to be born, grow, and mature before he could assume the prophetic office, whereas the seventh day is an impersonal abstract object that does not require growth or maturity. However, the most basic problem with this proposal is that it automatically equates the use of the Piel stem [of the Hebrew word to sanctify in Genesis 2:3] with the use of the Hiphil stem of the same verb in Jeremiah 1:5. Stative Qal verbs . . . form factitives in the Piel and causatives in the Hiphil [Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 400,437.] It is true that factitives and causatives lie so close together in meaning that often “the English tends to blur the distinction [Ibid., p. 438]. However, a good case has been made that there is a real distinction, consisting primarily in the notion that Piel factitives “direct attention to the results of the situation apart from the event,” while Hiphil causatives refer to “the process” involved [Ibid.]. The use of the Hiphil stem [of this verb] in Jeremiah 1:5 would thus stress the process by which YHWH set Jeremiah apart as a prophet even before birth, irrespective of when he might actually assume the prophetic office. However, the use of the Piel stem of [the word for sanctified]_in Genesis 2:3 would stress that here is an action whose results are evident immediately, and the canonical picture of the Creation origin of the Sabbath would be clearly affirmed. (H. Ross Coe, “The Sabbath in Genesis 2:2-3, Andrews University Seminary Studies, Vol. 41, No. 1,5-12. Copyright Andrews University Press, 2003.)
It was immediately evident that this one day—the 7 th day of Creation—was considered by God to be such a special day that it was to be set aside to be remembered forever, but what kind of magic is present that turns one day into unlimited multiples of itself that go on forever? Perhaps Coe has presented a good case for the 7 th day of Creation receiving special recognition at the very time of Creation, but he has not provided any evidence that would explain how the blessing and memory bestowed upon this one day would magically travel six more days down the line and jump on the next 7 th day and continue to do that forever—even after this world’s sun grows cold and the eternally saved are living on a new planet going around a new sun in another dimension in another universe. What would happen to the memory of this day on the six days in between? Coe continues: It is possible to specify the significance of the use of the Piel stem of [the word “sanctified”] in Genesis 2:3 even further. “The factitive Piel can be the result of a sensory causation, causation, a mental change or a speech act that reflects a mental change [Waltke and O’Connor, p. 401]. In cases of psychological causation, the Piel is designated as estimative, while in cases of linguistic causation, it is designated as
declarative/delocutive [Ibid., p. 402]. Apart from Gen 2:3 and the reference of Exodus 20:11, the Piel stem of is used, with a period of time as its object, a total of thirteen times in the OT. There is no instance of a "real" factitive Piel in this list, as is to be expected, given the abstract nature of time. However, it is used as an estimative Piel eight times and as a declarative Piel five times. In Genesis 2:3 and Exodus 20:11, the estimative use of the Piel can be ruled out since these texts do not state that God sanctified the seventh day by stopping all activity on it. Instead, they state that he sanctified it because he then ceased his work. Accordingly, the Piel in these instances must be declarative, with an emphasis on the public proclamation of the sanctity of the seventh day right at the time of Creation." A grammatical analysis of the statement, "and he sanctified it [the seventh day]”; Gen 2:3) thus provides persuasive evidence in favor of the Sabbath being presented here as a Creation ordinance. (H. Ross Coe, “The Sabbath in Genesis 2:2-3,” Andrews University Seminary Studies, Vol. 41, No. 1,5-12. Copyright Andrews University Press, 2003.)
No matter how loud you shout something—no matter how magnificently you proclaim something from the top of a mountain―it cannot transform ONE day of resting in the history of Planet Earth into an unlimited number of days of resting in the future. If the memory and blessing of this ONE day is to be remembered forever, the blessing and memory of it have to sit on top of every single day thereafter. This understanding dove-tails nicely in relation to Psalms 95 and Hebrews 4, which teach that Israel never achieved the rest that God had planned for them, Sabbath or no Sabbath. If the Bible story took us only as far as the crossing of the Red Sea, it would never occur to anyone that multiples of the 7 th day of Creation were intended in Genesis 2:2-3. Where is the “Thus saith the Lord” content in Genesis 2:2-3 to establish a doctrine that would affect Jews and non-Jews beyond the known Universe for eternity? It just isn’t there! The story of the Exodus so clearly excludes the possibility of a Creation origin for the Sabbath that any attempt to read one into it suggests that Sabbatarianism is a wishful doctrine in search of support. HOHMANN: What we have witnessed so far in this dialog is a case where very specific recent linguistic studies of Hebrew and the precursors of Ancient Hebrew by both rabbinical and Christian scholars with expert backgrounds are summarily dismissed and replaced by extremely general linguistic concepts theorized by non-expert Sabbatarian apologists. What is lacking by the pro-Sabbatarian crowd is any scholarly rebuttal of the linguistic findings by these experts that point out the impossibility of a Creation content in Genesis that would establish a weekly Sabbath. Instead, they offer up a parallel examination of Genesis 2, drawing opposite conclusions. This approach does not demonstrate proper biblical scholarship and hermeneutics. It does demonstrate what is commonly practiced as a form of indoctrination. Proper scholarship demands that one examine ALL the evidence to the contrary, and explain, convincingly, using the proper methods of scholarship, why and how the evidence to the contrary does not actually contradict one's position. This has not been done by these Sabbatarian apologists. The linguistic studies of Carson, et. al. were simply dismissed out of hand. They are treated as though they do not exist. The unspoken claim that results is that all the other Hebrew scholars― admittedly with a greater background and understanding regarding Hebrew and the linguistics of Hebrew― got it wrong! It is a fiat declaration, pulled out of thin air. Again, Sabbatarians have provided nothing of substance to demonstrate why and how the greater experts down through history are wrong. All they have done is offer up an alternative linguistic interpretation that contradicts the findings of both Jewish and Christian scholars throughout history. Sabbatarians have a vested interest in the outcome, and judging by the other doctrines they hold true, and the scholarship behind them, we would do well to take what they say and teach with the proverbial grain of salt. We need to ask though a fairly logical question, availing ourselves of our critical thinking skills. If the weekly Sabbath was indeed established on that seventh day of the Creation Week, why not a simple declaration to that effect? Why would God disguise something as “important” as the Sabbath, and force us to reject the simple sense of the text in question for a more convoluted interpretation? Of those seven days of this “Creation Week”, God blessed and sanctified the seventh or last day of this progression of days. God “set apart” that seventh day. But the SDA interpretation redefines what it means to be “set apart” by claiming it now “includes” every seventh day thereafter! Once you start redefining how words are defined, making exceptions to them; compromising with them, you will in turn compromise with more, and this is how some deceptions take root and grow. God sanctified that seventh day. He set it apart. He made it unique. The bottom line fact here is that these SDA apologists are negating what God has declared. They are adding the weekly Sabbath to a day that God set apart, claiming the two are in “fact” the same thing. You have to reject what God did in order to accept what the SDA apologists are trying to do. Who then are you going to believe? If the seventh day was "sanctified" then it was set apart as unique in and of
itself. It cannot be a part of a recurring day or event and remain sanctified. KNUDSON: Thus the sum of the evidence is that the inclusio serves as a pattern for the continuation of the blessing that began on the initial Seventh day of Creation. The Seventh day of Creation was set aside from the week as holy and the imperfect form of the verb shows that this incomplete action continues in every subsequent week. The Hebrew grammar and literary techniques used by Moses are unequivocal on this point. Without an anti-Sabbatarian bias, it is clear that God intended to continue to spend time with humanity on every Seventh-day after the first one. All the features of this passage come together to show that the Sabbath was an institution God instituted for his imago dei to repeat after Him. AUTHORS: It does no such thing. The pattern of recurring Sabbath days you want to see here would fall outside of the bookends. You can't have your cake at eat it too. What continues is God's rest, since we are not talking about any rest of any kind for man. No verb tense is capable of empowering the word “sanctify” to first set aside this one seventh-day and then cause that same sanctification to leap over six more days, land on the next 7th day multiple of itself, and then follow this pattern forever after. This is not even a new trick for a new dog to learn. And how could all of the verb tenses and structures Knudson talks about add up to demonstrate, unequivocally, that God intended to spend special time with the human race every seventh-day thereafter? This assumption is as imaginative as it gets. Unfortunately the Hebrew grammar and literary techniques used in Genesis 2:2-3 do not produce an unequivocal statement useful to either side based on this one word alone. Following this method of Bible study, one could prove anything from the Bible. If it isn’t there, just put it there! Putting a halt to all this speculation is Jesus’ own statement that the Sabbath was made for man ―thus powerfully communicating to His hearers via the cultural “language” of His time that the Heathen “dogs” were excluded. If Jesus had not done so with this statement, confining the application of the Sabbath to Jews only by excluding the Gentile “dogs,” the Jews would have attempted to stone Him for blasphemy. The Jews of His day knew that the Sabbath was for Jews only and that a Gentile must become a proselytized convert to keep the Law of Moses, including the Sabbath. The penalty for Gentiles who kept the Sabbath without being circumcised was to be stoned to death. Colossians 2:14-17 forbids the church to require Sabbath observance of its new Gentile converts. Furthermore, in all the lists of sins spelled out in the New Testament, Sabbath-breaking is not even mentioned once. God rescued the Israelites from the slavery of Egypt. Deductive exegesis readily demonstrates that the Ten Commandments are equivalent to the Old Covenant, the work of Robert K. Sanders being particularly definitive in this case. Sabbath keepers “forget” to “remember” the command that God gave in the Ten Commandments to "remember that they were slaves in Egypt as the reason for “observing” the Sabbath. Deut. 5:15 (NIV) 15Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.)
(See http://www.truthorfables.com/Sabbath_Not_A_Law.htm) God said that the Old Covenant was to be replaced with a new covenant that would be very different. Only the Old Covenant included the Sabbath. Furthermore, Sabbath-keeping was permitted only for those who were circumcised whether they were Hebrews or proselytes. The Council of Jerusalem decided against circumcision for the Gentiles, thus settling the Sabbath question forever. You would expect that if the Sabbath were an eternally binding requirement for the people of God, the apostles would have noted it as such when it came to teaching the Gentiles. The Sabbath ordinance is NOT in Genesis 2:2-3. If there was a Sabbath commandment given during Creation Week, the passage does not tell us so. It doesn’t specify that Adam and Eve rested on it, much less what they were supposed to do thereafter. God accomplished the memorialization of this one day by indicating that the blessing of it was to be remembered without boundaries. This one day was to be remembered as long as there would be people to hear about it. Scripture is full of both evidence as well as proof, that the Sabbath did not exist until the Exodus and that it represented a temporary cultic ritual imposed on Israel between Sinai and the Cross. At the Cross all 613 requirements of the Law of Moses as a codified law perished for Israel.
Claiming one must keep the Sabbath in order to be saved or to maintain one's salvation is to falsify the Gospel, no matter how well-intended that belief might be. Salvation is by Grace alone 3. Even the act of mustering up the Faith to obtain that Grace has no merit since without the work of the Holy Spirit, a person would not even be interested in mustering it. If you were to ask a Sabbatarian within the SDA Church if believers are saved by faith, the answer will be “yes” until you ask them what happens to their salvation if they should quit keeping the Sabbath. They will avoid answering the question because there is no answer. If you get an answer, it won’t make sense. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either you have to DO something to be saved or you DON’T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING to be saved. The Sabbath is something you must DO. It is not like the other nine of the Ten Commandments will tell us what we are NOT TO DO. If you try to make the case that all mankind is obligated to keep the Sabbath, you open up at least two more theological problems. First, Christians are dead to sin. The Christian covenant declares that God no longer remembers one's sins. A Sabbath requirement resurrects a Christian back to sin, and makes God out to be a liar, where He does remember sin after all. There is much, much more involved than the Sabbatarian wishes to address regarding the consequences of a Sabbatarian theology. John 3:16 - 21 (NIV) 16“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.” Acts 16:29 - 34 (NIV) 29The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” 32Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. 33At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole family. Rom 5:9 - 11 (NIV) - 9Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! 10For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
The second problem is that under the terms of the New Covenant, it is the Holy Spirit—not the “Law”—that guides the Christian in all things. Those who are living in Christ and saved by Grace are those who follow the leading of the Holy Spirit. If Christians are supposed to keep the Sabbath, then the expectation would be that the Holy Spirit would be guiding them to keep it in the manner established in Scripture. However, the Sabbatarians of today do not keep the Sabbath in the manner prescribed by Scripture. They “keep” the Sabbath according to the dictates of men, or more specifically, Ellen G. White, and ignore both the Old Covenant requirements and what Jesus, the “Lord” of the Sabbath, had to say in regards to keeping the Sabbath. Jesus healed on the Sabbath. Larry Dean points out that none of the healing miracles Christ performed would be allowed on the Sabbath at Seventh-day Adventist Hospitals, according to the Church’s own written policy. This greatly flawed Sabbath-keeping is certainly no evidence that they are being led by the Spirit! Sabbath-keepers are supposed to stay in their own dwellings, yet Sabbath-keepers drive to church on Saturday. Also, no fires were to be lit on the Sabbath. Every time the furnace comes on in an Adventist Church during the winter, a fire has been lit. (May the pilot light have been started on a week-day!) If the furnace is one of those new gas types with automatic ignition and no pilot light, the Sabbath is broken every time the furnace kicks on! The list goes on and on! SHIRLEY - Keeping a Sabbath requires that no one should work for you, not even the menservants or maidservants. So to 3 Ephesians 2:8-9 – (Note: through faith which is the gift of God. Pray for faith.)
keep a Sabbath would require a Sabbatarian to flip the electric circuit breaker on Friday evening because people are working to keep that electricity flowing! Turn off the gas, water, and Internet. All these services employ people to keep them running on Saturday. HOHMANN: Reiterating what Knudson wrote here: "Without an anti-Sabbatarian bias, it is clear that God intended to continue to spend time with humanity on every Seventh-day after the first one. Adam and Eve were in the presence of God as long as they were there in the Garden of Eden. The setting there is before man's fall. There was no need to wait for the Sabbath for God to spend time with "humanity." What we are seeing here is Knudson's pro-Sabbatarian bias coming through in his accusative language against the anti-Sabbatarian position, where the believer is always now in the presence of God, God now dwelling in the believer.
THE ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT OF ANCIENT HEBREW Rabbinical Judaism gives 1391 to 1271 BCE as a likely life-span for Moses, and Christian tradition has assumed a much earlier date (www.crystalinks.com, article, "Moses"). A primitive form of what might possibly be a precursor to Ancient Hebrew appears to have begun to emerge from the Canaanite family of languages not long before the time of King David. This proto-Hebrew language developed into its final Ancient Hebrew form sometime after the reign of King David. Looking at things from the perspective of this time in Israel’s early history, the evolution of the language would have been slow. Each generation of scribes might have had to up-date the language in increments, but they would have no trouble understanding the current version they were working with and up-dating it to a somewhat more “modern” usage, much like the Bible was up-dated from something like the King James Version to The New International Version that many use today. The concept that the Hebrew language had not fully evolved into Ancient Hebrew by the time of King David is verified by recent archaeological discoveries of artifacts with inscriptions that date back to the 10 th Century BCE, including one found at a dig in a village believed to have been built near the time of the early Kingdom of Judah. While these discoveries have helped establish the authenticity of the biblical stories of the first kings of Judah, they reveal that the written form of the language was only remotely similar to Ancient Hebrew. In fact these inscriptions are currently undecipherable as of July 2015. The Canaanite group of languages formed a branch of the Northwest Semitic family of languages ( Wikipedia article, "Hebrew Language"). From Moses through the period of the Judges, the descendants of Abraham spoke a precursor to Ancient Hebrew. The original language that Moses used to compile Genesis from a collection of cuneiform tablets and oral tradition might have been a form of Egyptian or a still earlier form of one of the Canaanitish family of languages. It may have been translated and re-translated many times as the language spoken by Israel evolved during the period of the Judges up through and beyond the time of King David when it finally got into the Ancient Hebrew language that we think of as its “original” language. The scribes responsible for safe-guarding the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible credited to Moses' authorship) over the centuries between the Exodus and the Captivity undoubtedly confronted significant challenges. This fact should make us more reluctant than ever to formulate a globally applicable Christian doctrine on parts of the Pentateuch that are just telling a story. It is one thing to base a Christian doctrine on a statement credited to God that reads with perfect clarity, such as “Thou shalt not steal,” but it is another thing to base the doctrine that all people must keep the Sabbath for now and eternity on a passage that tells the story of what God did on a certain day in the history of Planet Earth. All other facets of Scripture teach that the Sabbath was for no one else but the children of Israel. Even Jesus excluded the Heathen "dogs" from the Sabbath. The only possible hope Sabbatarians have to make the Sabbath a universal requirement is to prove there is a Sabbath at Creation. This simply cannot be done without violating proper methods of interpretation and scholarship. The fact that Moses’ books probably went through additional steps of translation prior to settling into its Ancient Hebrew form does not provide any support for the skeptical point of view that the events he described were not real. Even if all of the Book of Genesis came to Moses in oral form, this would be an inadequate excuse to disbelieve the truth of what he wrote. Scholars understand that in many primitive societies, important histories have been memorized word-for-word and passed down from one generation to the next. This process was considered to be sacred. One of the world’s greatest guitarists has an amazing photographic memory. It is not unreasonable to assume that in the early generations of human history, a high percentage of the population had photographic memories that would facilitate the
maintenance of highly accurate oral histories. Furthermore, it is far more likely that Moses assembled the Book of Genesis from cuneiform tablets that were handed down to the patriarchs, then to Joseph in Egypt, and were preserved by the Hebrews during their captivity. The astonishing thing is that modern archaeology has known since no later than 1936 that writing on cuneiform tablets was a normal every-day thing 1,000 years prior to the birth of Moses. For example, wives would write letters to their businessmen husbands across the country, sending it via the postal service. A typical letter might read something like, “My dear husband, the kids are doing fine and all is well here at home. I hope you are making lots of money for us wherever you are. And. By the way. Could you stop at the bazaar on the way home and get me a swath of purple so I can make me and the girls matching dresses? May the gods be with you, and may I see your face soon. Sincerely, your loving wife, Zeldessa.” In 1936 an archaeologist by the name of P. J. Wiseman published a book entitled New Discoveries in Babylonia about Genesis. He had been digging up cuneiform tablets for years in Babylonia and surrounding areas. He noted that the Book of Genesis appeared to have been assembled from a set of cuneiform tablets that were likely passed down to him through time and that Moses put them together in chronological order. He pointed out that just like the cuneiform tablets place the title announcement at the end of side two, so the various sections of Genesis that are so obvious upon analysis always place the title notice at the end, rather than the beginning, of the section. For example, if the text of Genesis says something like, “These are the generations of Noah,” this notice describes what comes before it rather than what comes after it. All in all, Wiseman’s findings should have silenced the higher critics who complained that it looked like Genesis was written by multiple authors– because the evidence points strongly to the idea that it indeed was written by many different writers on cuneiform tablets and that Moses was simply the compiler. What is exciting about all of this, however, is that the evidence suggests that Moses had written records as well as oral tradition to provide him with the basis for the Book of Genesis. For the purpose of this book, the implication is this: Moses got at least some of his information from human sources—not from a direct revelation from God—for the Book of Genesis. While Christians believe that God had His hand in this process, it is even more dangerous than we may have realized to base key Christian doctrines on isolated, obscure passages from the Pentateuch. We had better take Moses for his word. He clearly identifies what information came directly from God in his writings. We must now assume, thanks to Wiseman's work, that anything else came from a long heritage of cuneiform tablets that began to be written by the patriarchs for at least 1,000 years prior to Moses. As the Pentateuch was up-dated from one of the Canaanite languages over time into Ancient Hebrew, nothing was placed in the text of Genesis 2:2-3 to suggest that the seventh day was more than 24 hours in length. Nothing was said about either God or man “kneeling down” on every interval of the 7 th day of Creation. This day was to be set aside forever to be remembered as the day the creating of Planet Earth was completed. Moses was telling a story, choosing his words carefully to prevent his future readers from seeing things in his account that weren’t there. In the translation up-dates between the Exodus and the time when the Pentateuch took its final shape in Ancient Hebrew, the translators were successful in preserving these key distinctions. Because Moses wrote both the account of Creation and the giving of the Law from Mt. Sinai, he likely recognized the need to make these critical clarifications with the appropriate language “tools” he had at his disposal. If these tools were not characteristic of the original language Moses used, the translators who brought the books of Moses into the Ancient Hebrew used the tools they had to make clear what they understood Moses to mean. Note that if this is the case, they were closer in time to the earlier languages that it might have been written in– perhaps like the translators of the New International Version are in relationship to the translators of the King James Version. Thanks to the inspiration of God through Moses and/or the translators between Moses’ original language and the Ancient Hebrew, Israel and its Levitical and rabbinical scholars never generally believed the Sabbath was intended for anyone else but them, and they generally always believed the Sabbath was introduced for the first time in the history of the world with the giving of the Manna. If you want to understand the perspective of Bible writers on the Sabbath, you must understand the perspective of the Jews on the Sabbath. Why? Because those who preserved the Bible were JEWS.
HEBREW LINGUISTICS BARRIER: Cultural Factors And Word Usage Influences On Translation Other than a misreading of Genesis 2:2-3, the only other Bible text that appears on the surface to teach a universal Sabbath
requirement is Mark 2:27. All other Sabbath-related passages band together to form a sturdy chain of concepts which work together to teach that the Sabbath was a distinguishing identifier for Israel between Mt. Sinai and the Cross. In Mark 2:27, Jesus said that the Sabbath was “made for man.” Later we will demonstrate that by indicating that the Sabbath was intended for the Jewish “humans,” versus the Heathen “dogs,” Jesus restricted the application of the Sabbath ordinance to the Jews. In doing so, Jesus validated the principle that the Sabbath is subordinate to the Ordinance of Circumcision. He also most likely prevented Himself from an attempted stoning, since the slightest suggestion that the Gentiles were included in the ordinance of the Sabbath would have incited the crowd like almost nothing else. Recall that elsewhere Jesus illustrated the principle that the Sabbath is subordinate to the Ordinance of Circumcision when He called attention to the fact that the Jews circumcised a male child on the 8 th day of his life even if that eighth day fell on the Sabbath. It is Jeff Benner of the Ancient Hebrew Research Center, who says that it is not possible to understand Ancient Hebrew without knowing its cultural context. His definition of some Hebrew or Greek words differ in some cases from those of other scholars because he has applied cultural studies to understand the various influences which affected what the Old Testament writers wrote. Language changes significantly even over a few centuries. In the King James Era the word "let" meant to hinder or prevent. Now, less than 500 years later it means the opposite– to allow or permit. Imagine a language that changed like this for thousands of years, and you will understand how language’s constant change creates problems for translators working millennia later! Take the epic poem, Beowulf, which is believed to have been composed between the 8 th and 11th centuries. Most of its content was written in Old English. Although the language is “English,” it is mostly unintelligible to the modern English reader. Today, even a person who speaks English as his or her native language will have to read an English to English translation of it to get very much out of the story.
BENNER ON TRANSLATING ANCIENT HEBREW Until the early 1980’s Sabbatarians never had to face the findings of advanced Hebrew linguistic studies to any significant degree. Benner teaches that Ancient Hebrew communicates meaning through structural patterns and usage conventions that transcend word translation accuracy or the understanding of idioms. Readers with a strong interest in understanding these principles should study his work at the Ancient Hebrew Research Center: http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/1_about.html Sabbatarians, including Cotto, Knudson, and other Sabbatarian apologists, failing to understand these key principles, cannot accept the fact that their compelling need to read a recurring blessing and hollowing of the 7 th day every seventh day is negated by a non-idiomatic meaning indicator that is not spelled out concretely in Hebrew characters. The more one reads Benner’s explanations of the difficulties involved in translating Ancient Hebrew into Modern English, the greater the linguistic barriers to finding any real substance in Genesis 2:2-3 appear. According to Benner, Ancient Hebrew is put together using “root” structures. English and other modern languages are more expressively flexible, but not necessarily more “poetic.” Languages based on root structures approach the communication of ideas differently than languages that have different operational principles. Benner says that in many cases accurate translation of Ancient Hebrew into modern languages is not even possible. And, as we mentioned before, Ancient Hebrew is very different than the Modern Hebrew language that evolved from it, including its written characters. Even a modern Jewish scholar may or may not have expertise in Ancient Hebrew. If a significant number of Jewish rabbinical scholars have not completed advanced studies in Ancient Hebrew, it is unreasonable to suppose that more than a tiny fraction of Christian scholars would have this degree of Hebrew expertise. By the time of Jesus even Modern Hebrew was no longer spoken. Jesus read to the people in a synagogue from a scroll written in Aramaic. Only specially trained rabbis understood the Hebrew and used it for religious studies. Israel as a nation wrote and spoke Aramaic during the time of Jesus. The scrolls were written in Aramaic, and the rabbis read the Scriptures to the people in Aramaic. Benner clearly does not say that a mechanical translation such as his can communicate all the meaning intended by the writer. At his website he says: Because the meaning of a Hebrew word cannot be conveyed completely through one or two English words, each word found in the MT [Mechanical Translation] will be included in the dictionary. This dictionary will
more accurately define each word within the context of Ancient Hebrew language and culture."
Benner also has this to say about translating Ancient Hebrew into modern languages: The Hebrew language, as is the case with every language, is closely tied to the culture the speakers and writers belong to. When reading the Bible, whether in Hebrew, English or any other language, it is essential that it be read through the eyes and mind of the Hebrew culture and not one's own culture.
With this new understanding of ancient biblical languages it is easy to see that much that goes into producing a translation of the Bible is unknown to the typical reader. Most Christians assume modern translations represent a close equivalent of the author’s original intent. A good example of this fallacy, as I mentioned before, is that once the Jewish culture during the time of Jesus is understood, we see that when He told the Jews that the Sabbath was made for man, speaking in Aramaic, of course, He was excluding the Gentile "dogs".4 In this particular case an understanding of what Jesus really said is fully dependent on knowing the language’s cultural context. Jesus spoke these words in Aramaic and His words were recorded in the original language of the Gospel writer who recorded the story. Note that in this case, the importance of the culture in which His words were formulated transcends the importance of the language in which it was spoken, or even the language in which it was recorded. However, the solution is not to modify the translation process. The student of the Bible must make up the difference by striving to understand the influences that produced what the writer penned. The fact that SDA scholars could conclude that “man” in this passage means “all mankind” is the result of examining the passage without examining the cultural influences that shaped it’s wording. It is only one example of their tendency to use shoddy methods of textual analysis whenever doctrines critical to their theology are at stake. The SDA have had a culture of biblical interpretation from its inception that is so poor that even similar sounding words were grounds for a particular interpretation, with no proper examination of the etymology of the words. For example, Easter in the SDA theology is associated with Eostre which they define as the goddess of spring, of pagan origination. Yet Webster’s Dictionary provides this etymology of the word: Middle English estre, from Old English ēastre; akin to Old High German ōstarun (plural) Easter, Old English ēast east. The true connection is in regards to the association of sunrise in the east with the resurrection or rising of Christ. There is no other legitimate association of the “Easter” in the Christian faith. What this demonstrates for our readers is the proclivity in the SDA culture to use whatever association or interpretation they desire, despite the reputability of the method, in order to achieve the desired outcome; in this case the “poisoning of the well” when it comes to the observance of the resurrection of Christ with the associative word/term, Easter. Is it any wonder or surprise then, given the culture of the SDA, that they would also use whatever means possible to find a Sabbath instituted at Creation when their theology demands it? Because of the significant differences between Ancient Hebrew, Modern Hebrew, English, and the cultures they represent, a mechanical translation of one isolated passage of Genesis is insufficient to support the doctrine that God requires all Earthlings to keep the Sabbath for eternity.
SCHOLARS ARE NOT INFLUENCED BY GREEK CULTURE IN THEIR HEBREW TRANSLATIONS The Sabbatarian allegation is that the Jews do not believe the Sabbath was a Creation ordinance because they were influenced by Greek culture and that this interference has biased the thinking of rabbinical scholars from classical times onward. They allege the following: There are two broadly different Jews living today both biased in perspective viewpoint on Ancient Hebrew. Modern Jews are broadly influenced by Greek thinking. Ancient Hebrew thinking is based on Eastern values which original Hebrew was. Modern scholars doing any Bible study think in terms of Greek culture, not the ancient Hebrew culture.
To the contrary, it is the more mature knowledge of ancient Hebrew culture and linguistics among Christian scholars that has 4
Matthew 15:22-28 – an example of the Hebrew attitude toward Gentiles
sealed the doom for Sabbatarian theology. Our Adventist apologist has the “Veil of Moses” over his eyes (See II Cor. 3). Rabbinical scholars did not conclude that the Sabbath was given only to Israel as a result of Greek cultural influences. They studied the Old Testament and arrived at conclusions based on their knowledge of the historical development of their own cultural, linguistic, and scriptural heritage. So far as we can tell, Rabbinical scholars have always understood, in general, that there is no Sabbath in Genesis. Genesis 2 indicates this fact right in the passage itself. They did not need any help from Greek influences to see the following principles that are fatal to Sabbatarian theology: (1) No Creation origin for the Sabbath. (2) Sabbath as a sign to set Israel apart from all the other nations of the world. (3) No Sabbath-keeping for Jews or proselytes without circumcision. To the contrary, Cotto demonstrates the Sabbatarian tendency, based on SDA internal “cultural” influences, to produce a claim that is couched in an accusation. The proper tools of biblical investigation are thus circumvented. The accusation, however, backfires on its accuser. Additionally, Christians understand that the Old Covenant was represented by and is essentially equivalent to the Ten Commandments, and the Scriptures teach that the Old Covenant would be done away and replaced with something radically different—in other words, a New Covenant would replace the Ten Commandments. (This concept is another entire study in itself.) Many of the fathers of the early church understood these things. The vast majority of the reformers understood these things, and some of them wrote about the obsolescence of the Sabbath, including Martin Luther and the Lutherans who drafted the Augsburg Confession. Biblical scholars from the era of Charles I of England on down through the contemporaries of Ellen White in the mid 1800’s understood and wrote about these principles. Unfortunately, a largely uneducated band of people during the mid-1800's who knew nothing about biblical languages or the real principles of Bible study and interpretation read the Ten Commandments and failed to understand who God was speaking to and under what circumstances. These people were the pioneers of Adventism.
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE CONCEPT OF SOLA SCRIPTURA The allegation by poorly informed Sabbatarian apologists is that the Jews view the Sabbath as a law for Jews only because they see the Talmud as more important than the Torah, and the Talmud promotes this view. Cotto believes, therefore, that this view is not based on the principle of "Sola Scriptura," i.e. “the Torah and the Torah alone.” He adds, "The Bible must be its own interpreter!" The Sabbatarian argument from the Talmud is unfortunate and results from a lack of knowledge. Elsewhere we explain how Jesus' directive that His followers were to do what Pharisees taught but not do what they actually did indicates that Jesus taught that the Mishnah― not the Talmud― was the inspired oral tradition. This, as we explain, is because the Pharisees were the only sect of Judaism which believed that the Mishnah was inspired. While they exhibited a certain amount of respect for the other sacred oral traditions, they tended to reject the idea that the other works were similarly inspired. The Mishnah clearly records the fact that this record of the legal precedence of the dual court system of Israel, established at the command of God Himself with the promise that He would guide the decisions of the judges who enforced the laws of the Nation of Israel, teaches that there was no Sabbath at Creation and that it was given only to the Jews. “The Bible and the Bible alone” is a dangerous idea if Benner's precautions are not observed. The Bible cannot be properly understood without a comprehensive knowledge of the culture that produced it and a native-like under-standing of the language. One must also consider to whom God was speaking and under what circumstances. Again, there is no better example than the “Dogs versus Jews” cultural understanding that shows us that Jesus did define the Sabbath as strictly for Jews in Mark 2:27, as contrasted to the SDA cultural interpretation of “man” that is based solely on their need. Recall that even the Canaanite woman who came to Jesus for help for her demon-possessed daughter understood that Jews regarded them a "dogs" in Matt. 15:22-28. The Sabbatarian dodge regarding the interpretation of “man” (Gr. Anthropos) actually supports the “Dogs versus Jews” interpretation as anthropos does not always translate as “all men” but rather can and does refer to just one man or to any subset of men, such as the Jews. The fact that the Greek word chosen here being anthropos only supports the Aramaic/Hebrew concept of “dogs” being exclusionary regarding the rest of mankind. Sabbatarian apologists ignore the cultural and linguistic considerations in favor of their desired preconceived agenda.
Properly understood, the books of Moses alone provided all the proof necessary to see that neither Jews nor converts to Judaism were permitted to keep the Sabbath without first meeting the requirements for circumcision. This principle is part of the Law of Moses and is illustrated by both the record of Old Testament Scripture and the rabbinical writings. Recall, once again, that Jesus commented on the subordination of the Sabbath to the ordinance of circumcision when He called attention to the fact that according to the Law of Moses, a male child is to be circumcised on the 8 th day of his life even if that 8th day falls on the Sabbath. When the Council of Jerusalem decided that the Gentiles should not be subjected to the Ordinance of Circumcision, the entry sign to the old covenant law, Sabbath-keeping was declared officially closed for the Gentiles in the early church as a result. In reality it was finished for all when Christ died on the cross. Some scholars find evidence that the part of the Didache which documents Christians meeting for worship on Sunday was written as early as 53 AD. Paul’s last epistle was authored around 63 AD. It was St. Paul who commanded the early church not to enforce Sabbath-keeping on Christian believers in Colossians 2:14-17. The Jews are correct, therefore, in believing that the Sabbath was only for them. Only the Jews observe circumcision as a religious rite.
THE INFLUENCE OF PRECONCEIVED IDEAS & BELIEFS Often, beliefs and ideas personally held by someone studying Ancient Hebrew or its translations affect his or her reading of key passages. One Sabbatarian apologist declares that the Sabbath is a moral law because he thinks he has found evidence that our bodies are designed to rest every 7 days in order to maintain good health. He says, "The 7 day bio-rhythm clock is genetically wired into man." Then he references an article in Discover Magazine, entitled "Reading Your Body Clock with a Molecular Timetable Inspired by Flowers." We studied this article and found that it says nothing about a weekly body rhythm. Instead it discusses a daily body rhythm and provides evidence that trying to work against this daily rhythm is detrimental to one’s health. As an example, the author mentions lack of sleep– a 24-hour rhythm controlled by an astronomical pattern. Interestingly, there is a body "rhythm" of approximately 28 days with women of child-bearing age. There is no such thing as a 7-day body cycle so far as we know. If any of our readers can provide proof of a 7-day body rhythm, I invite them to submit the research. Even if there was, a good scientist would ask if that rhythm was not induced by the body constantly following a seven-day pattern of activity and would theorize that if a person operating in a culture with a 10-day week would not also create a 10-day rhythm for the self. Moses explained God’s two reasons for giving the Sabbath ordinance to the Hebrews: (1) To help them remember that He created them. (2) To keep the memory of the fact that He rescued them from slavery in Egypt. The Sabbath rest was given to them as a form of restitution for the 400 years their slave masters did not let them rest. Christians were never slaves in Egypt and they do not need compensation for prior suffering. No person raised in a Heathen land wakes up to the conclusion that he or she needed to rest one day out of seven, much less determines which one of those days was the "right" one– unless he or she gets a little help from a Seventh-day Adventist missionary. A desire to believe a certain doctrine, as well as one's personal belief about various related things, can dangerously affect how a person reads a passage of Scripture whether that Scripture is studied in Ancient Hebrew or its translation.
CORRELATION WITH OTHER ANCIENT SOURCES Many extra-biblical sources, including Jewish and non-Jewish, can help with an understanding of biblical languages including Ancient Hebrew, Modern Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The Christian Bible, the Canon, came about as a result of decisions made by human beings during the first few centuries of the Christian Faith. While Christians believe that God led the process of selection, some inclusions and exclusions suggest that this selection was not perfect. For example, Martin Luther objected to the inclusion of the Book of Revelation. The Book of Enoch has some key relevance to the question of whether or not Christians should keep the Jewish Sabbath. It was rejected by Western Christianity but is included in the canon of one of the Eastern Orthodox Churches― The Coptic Church of Egypt. After the resurrection of Christ the Jews rejected the Book of Enoch because some of its prophecies seemed to foretell events related to the life of Christ. It's content provides compelling evidence that the patriarchs and the predecessors of the Hebrew people utilized a lunar calendar― not surprising because the world seems to have known no other way to track time back then. More importantly, it provides compelling evidence that there was no Sabbath
prior to the Exodus. The Book of Enoch includes an extensive discussion of the importance of the four phases of the moon and the lunar calendar. The implication of its content is that the affinity for the 7-day week came not from the dim memory of a Genesis Sabbath but from the observation of the four phases of the moon– that the concept of a seven-day week likely developed for astronomical reasons. Your authors observe that the journey of the moon seems to have little movement for seven days at a time, or, as we would say, it goes through four “phases.” Quoted in the canonical Book of Jude and purportedly written by Enoch, the 7th from Adam, most scholars believe it was put together from a number of sources about 200 BCE. It makes no reference to the Sabbath or the Mosaic Covenant. Fragments of The Book of Enoch, were featured in a recent national exhibit of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and one of those fragments included a discussion of lunar-related topics. The Book of Enoch paints a picture of a pre-Exodus world that is fully devoid of the concept of a Creation-based Sabbath. The absence of any reference to the ordinance of the Sabbath is remarkable regardless of when The Book of Enoch was written. If it was written during the pre-Flood time of Enoch, it provides additional evidence– not proof– that the Sabbath was completely unknown to the descendants of Adam and Eve, Noah, and Abraham. If the story was fabricated by some wellmeaning rabbis a few hundred years before the birth of Christ, those who put it together were careful to make their work appear to be credible by avoiding any mention of things that did not exist at the time of Enoch– no Sabbath, no Decalogue. At the same time this book focuses on the theme of righteousness, discusses the importance of keeping the moralistic laws of God, and delineates what those laws include. The moralistic laws discussed in The Book of Enoch seem to parallel those of the Noachian laws– laws that the Jews believed applied to non-Jews and the observance of which would assure a non-Jew eternal life in Paradise. Either scenario provides additional evidence that the Jews did not believe the Sabbath originated at Creation and that this belief was a part of Jewish thinking no later than 200 BCE. And what about the prophecies of Christ? Jewish scholars suggested that portions of the Book of Enoch were written after the life of Christ until fragments of the book were found along with the Dead Sea Scrolls, which effectively dated the writing of it to no later than 200 BCE. Such information from these other perspectives should make those who study the books of Moses either in Ancient Hebrew or a translation in his or her own language want to be very careful not to read his or her own preconceived ideas into the text.
THE HEBREW LINGUISTICS OF GENESIS 2, EXODUS 16, AND EXODUS 20 This section enables our readers to participate in a real theological exercise. They are now familiar with some of the key principles of Hebrew linguistics. More elements of Hebrew linguistics will be provided along the way as needed to address each pro-Sabbatarian assertion articulated by Edwin M. Cotto in his paper, “The Sabbath in Genesis,” which is posted on the Adventist Defense League's website. Another Sabbatarian apologist, Brendan Knudson― a biblical scholar with credentials that suggest competency in biblical languages― has challenged us along the way, so we are responding to his pro-Sabbatarian contributions as well. More recently, Knudson seems to be working in close association with the Adventist Defense League and Edwin M. Cotto. Brendan Knudson is a controversial figure in Adventism. Your present authors hasten to mention that we are aware that neither Cotto nor Knudson officially represent the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Their pro-Sabbatarian views may or may not reflect the official Adventist position on these issues. We have a great deal of respect for the quality of their scholarship, especially in view of their choice to defend an extremely difficult theological position. You can read Knudson's refutation of our book by going to the Adventist Defense League's website. Visitors to their website are invited to return for additional updates which are already being readied for posting. However, some years later, such have not been posted. Note that there will be some repetition of some of the information we have already provided to fit everything into this chosen format. This repetition, which we have tried to keep to a minimum, will help to cross-reference concepts that may initially seem unrelated but which are, indeed, very much interlocked. COTTO: The Hebrew word, “Shabbath,” that Moses used in Exodus 20:8 is not found in Genesis 2. Although Anti-Sabbatarians use this as proof that the first appearance of the Sabbath ordinance is found in Exodus 16, the existence of the Sabbath in Genesis 2 has been acknowledged by both Seventh-Day Adventists and Sundayobserving scholars.
AUTHORS: Cotto hasn’t been reading the right books. The quality of one’s sources is important. As a claim of evidence, it stands on very shaky ground when you realize you can make a similar claim regarding “experts” who believe the earth is flat, or that of some scientists and others who insist man never walked on the moon. Since few biblical scholars have the expertise in Ancient Hebrew to evaluate what is and what is not in Genesis 2:2-3, the opinion of scholars without this advanced Hebrew training can vary widely. The Sabbatarian knowledge filter has not allowed him to find out, for example, that the Sabbath-Sunday Question was completely resolved back in the 1600’s when there was a huge crisis which nearly turned England into a Sabbath-keeping nation. One large faction wanted King Charles I, the successor to King James, to require the Church of England to impose the observance of the Jewish Sabbath on the entire country. At the same time the large population of Puritans was pressuring him to require Sunday to be kept in much the same way the Jews kept Saturday. King Charles I turned to his court chaplain, Peter Heylyn, a well-respected biblical scholar, and demanded that he research the subject. Heylyn investigated and reported on every significant historical and biblical fact relating to the Sabbath-Sunday Question that was available up to that time. By the time Peter Heylyn's exhaustive Sabbath research was published in 1636 (History of the Sabbath), he had a vast amount of information to report, including conclusive arguments in favor of an Exodus origin for the Sabbath and proof that the Hebrews did not keep their first Sabbath until over a month after they left Egypt. Thanks to Heylyn's definitive work, the Sabbath-Sunday issue remained largely dormant for the next 200 years. Of course there have always been small enclaves of Sabbath-keeping Christians; this 200 year period of church history was no exception. Note that Sabbatarians often quote Heylyn out of context to support Sabbatarian ideas; a further example of Sabbatarian “culture” when it comes to evidence. Heylyn reported on all three sides of the issue, so isolated passages from his book can be irresponsibly used to support the Sabbatarianism which he wrote to refute. The Sabbath-Sunday Question did not come to the forefront of Christian controversy again until the late Seventh-day Adventist Sabbath scholar, Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, began to confront the clergy of the world with his iconoclastic views through the mass marketing of his 1977 book, From Sabbath to Sunday. Bacchiocchi’s work was thoroughly refuted by D.A. Carson, who headed a group of some of the finest biblical scholars in a top priority project to evaluate Bacchiocchi’s theological ideas and twisted view of the status of the Sabbath during the first thousand years of the Christian Faith. They published their findings in their 1982 book, From Sabbath to Lord’s Day, which included a comprehensive debunking of the idea that there is Sabbath content in Genesis 2:2-3. Much background information is needed to grasp the water-tight case for the Exodus 16 origin of the Sabbath. As we mentioned earlier, under God's direct leadership the Children of Israel treated Friday nights and Saturdays like any other days of the week until the 31 st day of their journey out of Egypt. They left Egypt on a Thursday night and traveled for several days into the wilderness at the onset of their journey, marching and working on Friday nights and Saturday. It is inconceivable that God would lead His people to transgress a so-called “eternal, moral law” just because it wasn't convenient for Him to stop the action so His people could “keep” the Sabbath. Weeks later the Hebrews arrived at the Wilderness of the Moon [Sin] on a Saturday night about 5 pm, having marched across the desert on Friday and Saturday, and didn’t keep the Sabbath until a week later. The biblical account of the first Sabbath reports that some of the people behaved as if they had never heard of it before, even collecting firewood on it after God specifically told them not to. (There is no indication that these people were put to death by stoning, which would be in keeping with our expectations of how we might think God would deal with first-time offenders). Recall, also, that God explained the Manna collection laws on the Saturday evening they arrived at the Wilderness of Sin, but He did not introduce the Sabbath Obedience Test until the following Friday— the day before they actually kept their first Sabbath. See: http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-exodus-route-travel-times-distances-days.htm
THE HEBREW LINGUISTICS OF EXODUS 16: Evidence From Definite Versus Indefinite Articles A Hebrew keeper of the written records who lived in ancient Israel would instantly recognize that the text of the Pentateuch was carefully worded to clarify that the Sabbath was introduced for the first time in Exodus 16. A biblical scholar who wrote during the time of Ellen White, Robert Cox, F.S.A. (Scotland), published a comprehensive two-volume report on the Sabbath-
Sunday Question in 1865. The Seventh-day Adventist Church was organized in 1863. While Cox was reporting on the fatal-toSabbatarianism implications of Hebrew linguistics and the chronology of the Exodus on the Sabbath-Sunday Question, Ellen White was spinning her scripturally unsupportable, imaginative tales about Adam and Eve, Enoch, and Abraham keeping the Sabbath. Sabbatarians sometimes quote Cox out of context because like Heylyn, he reported on all sides of the Sabbath controversy. I quote Cox from his 1865 edition of the Literature of the Sabbath Question, published that year in Edinburgh by MacLachlan and Stewart, and in London by Simkin, Marshal, and Company– available to all readers as a Google Book: In the Hebrew phrase here (Exodus 16 verse 23] translated, “the rest of the holy Sabbath,” and in that translated “a Sabbath” in verse 25, and “the Sabbath” in verse 26, the article is wanting; and consequently, instead of using the definite English article in the first and third instances, our translators [probably referring to the King James Version] ought to have used the indefinite, as they have done in the second instance. The words in verse 23 mean literally, “A resting of a holy Sabbath to Jehovah is tomorrow.” In verse 29, where the article is prefixed in the original, we have a correct translation in the phrase “the Sabbath,” the institution thus being now spoken of as known to the hearers. This distinction between the 29th and the previous verses in regard to the article, is preserved in the Septuagint, and also in De Wette's translation. Geddes inconsistently gives “a Sabbath” in verse 25 and 29, and “the Sabbath” in verse 26. The true rendering of these verses ought to be kept in mind while judging whether or not the Sabbath is in this chapter spoken of as an institution previously known to the Israelites. In reference to that question, see Gen. ii. 3 (p. 3); Exod. xx.8-11 (p. 11); Deut. v. 12-15 (p. 25; Neh. ix.14 (p. 35); Ezek. xx. 12 (p. 44).
Here is an explanation that will help us understand why a proper translation of the definite versus indefinite article was so important to Cox. In the English language an ARTICLE modifies a noun (the name of a person, place, or thing), making it either indefinite (“a” or “an”) or definite (“the”). Unlike English, Hebrew does not have an indefinite article― just a definite article. Credit to: www.hebrew4christians.com/grammar/grammatical_terms The linguistic term ANARTHROUS means, in reference to a noun, that it does not have an article, definite or indefinite, before it (e.g. the Sabbath or a Sabbath). Nouns that do not have an article before them in Hebrew are generally translated into English with the indefinite article (e.g. “a” or “an”). However, in the case where the anarthrous nouns are qualitative, the Hebrew noun is often translated without any article. Credit to: www.hebrew4christians.com/Grammar/Grammatical_terms In Hebrew, the occurrence of an anarthrous noun (one without any kind of an article associated with it) carries the significance that the whole idea is new. It is of great significance, then, that the Hebrew word for “Sabbath” in Exodus 16:23, Exodus 20:10, and Exodus 35:2-3 is articular in construction. There are only four places in the Pentateuch where this particular form of the Hebrew word for Sabbath is found, again indicating that the noun is a new thing. In the three latter instances this anarthrous construction occurs within a formula (= Work six days, but on the seventh there is a rest.) The combination of the anarthrous construction within a specified formula gives even more support for the likelihood that the intention of Moses was to emphasize that the concept of the Sabbath was new. There is significant academic recognition of this important characteristic of the Hebrew language. It was researched in depth by Harold H.P. Dressler as part of the Carson project. In 1982, he was teaching Old Testament as Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Northwest Baptist Theological College in Vancouver, BC, Canada. His paper, “The Sabbath in the Old Testament,” is one of the chapters in the book, From Sabbath to the Lord's Day (1982), edited by D.A. Carson. Dressler provided these scholarly references in footnote number 39, p. 37 in From Sabbath to Lord's Day: 39
The anarthrous construction carries significance (i.e. “The whole idea was new”) as pointed out by G. Rawlinson, Exodus (London: Kegan, Paul, Trench & Co., 1906), p.52; A. Dillman, Die Bucher Exodus und Leviticus (Leipzig: S. Hitzel, 1897), p. 175; P Heinisch, Das Buch Exodus (Bonn: Hanstein, 1934), p. 133; G. Henton Davies, Exodus (London: SCM, 1967), p. 140. This construction of the word [Hebrew characters not renderable in our word processing program, the particular form of the word Sabbath found in this passage] occurs only four times in the Pentateuch, Exodus 16:23; 20:10 (followed in v. 11 with an articular construction) and Exodus 35:2 (followed in v. 3 by an articular
construction). In the latter three instances this construction occurs within a formula: “six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a Sabbath . . .” The anarthrous construction in Exodus 16:23, 25 is unique and may, therefore, well signify the newness of an idea.
The www.Bible.Ca staff completed an exhaustive linguistics study that provides even further evidence that the Sabbath was introduced for the first time in Exodus 16. Combined with our understanding of the significance of the anarthrous construction of nouns in Hebrew, it is clear that the majority of the scholars who translated the Hebrew texts of the Old Testament into English have recognized the existence of this usage indicator for a long time. The first time any Jewish holy day is mentioned in Scripture, it always lacks the definite article, as in “a sabbath.” After the holy day is introduced and established, the definite article is used, as in “the Sabbath.” Thereafter, the the Jewish holy days are never introduced the first time in Scripture with the definite article “the” but with the indefinite “a” or “an.” This powerful argument provides more than ample evidence that the weekly Sabbath did not exist before Exodus 16:23. What makes it irrefutable is the fact that every Jewish Holy Day follows this same pattern! FIRST TIME: tomorrow is a Sabbath: Ex 16:23 SUBSEQUENT MENTION: the Lord has given you the Sabbath: Ex 16:29 FIRST TIME: A solemn rest “a” holy Sabbath: Ex. 16:25 SUBSEQUENT MENTION: “the” Sabbath: Ex 20:11 SUBSEQUENT MENTION: “the” Sabbath: Deuteronomy 5:12 FIRST TIME: “a” memorial: Exodus 12:14 SUBSEQUENT MENTION: afterward, “the” Lord’s Passover FIRST TIME; “an” holy convocation: SUBSEQUENT MENTION: “the” day of Pentecost: Acts 2:1 FIRST TIME; Unleavened bread: “a” feast: Ex 12:40 SUBSEQUENT MENTION: afterward, “the” feast: Lev. 23:6 FIRST MENTION: “an” altar Gen. 8:20 SUBSEQUENT MENTION: “the” altar: Gen. 8:20 Not all English translations follow this principle with 100% accuracy, however. In Exodus 16 the NIV appears to supply the indefinite article correctly, whereas the King James Version does not. Here is a comparison of the same passage in both translations: NIV translation of Exodus 16:21-26: Each morning everyone gathered as much as he needed, and when the sun grew hot, it melted away. 22 On the sixth day, they gathered twice as much—two omers [b] for each person—and the leaders of the community came and reported this to Moses. 23He said to them, “This is what the LORD commanded: 'Tomorrow is to be a day of rest, a holy Sabbath to the LORD. So bake what you want to bake and boil what you want to boil. Save whatever is left and keep it until morning.'” 24So they saved it until morning, as Moses commanded, and it did not stink or get maggots in it. 25“Eat it today,” Moses said, “because today is a Sabbath to the LORD. You will not find any of it on the ground today. 26Six days you are to gather it, but on the seventh day, the Sabbath, there will not be any.”
King James translation of Exodus 16:21-26: And they gathered it every morning, every man according to his eating: and when the sun waxed hot, it melted. 22And it came to pass, that on the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers for one man: and all the rulers of the congregation came and told Moses. 23And he said unto them, This is that which the LORD hath said, Tomorrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the LORD: bake that which ye will bake to day, and seethe that ye will seethe; and that which remaineth over lay up for you to be kept until the morning. 24And they laid it up till the morning, as Moses bade: and it did not stink, neither was there any worm therein. 25And Moses said, Eat that to day; for to day is a Sabbath unto the LORD: to day ye shall not find it in the field. 26Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the Sabbath, in it there shall be none.
KNUDSON'S OBJECTIONS KNUDSON: The argument from anarthrous construction, which in Hebrew suggests that the whole idea is new, is highly questionable. Even Wynne’s expert witness, Harold H.P. Dressler, quoted in D.A. Carson’s (editor) book, From Sabbath to Lord’s Day, is tentative in his mention of this idea, stating only that “The anarthrous construction in Exodus 16:23-25 is unique and may, therefore, well signify the newness of an idea.” He even delegated the mention of this to a footnote, suggesting that it wasn’t particularly important. WYNNE: Did Knudson not see the list of respected scholars who have noticed the existence of the anarthrous construction argument? I will list them for emphasis: as pointed out by G. Rawlinson, Exodus (London: Kegan, Paul, Trench & Co., 1906), p.52; A. Dillman, Die Bucher Exodus und Leviticus (Leipzig: S. Hitzel, 1897), p. 175; P Heinisch, Das Buch Exodus (Bonn: Hanstein, 1934), p. 133; G. Henton Davies, Exodus (London: SCM, 1967), p. 140.
The arguments available to support the concept of no Sabbath before the giving of the manna are so strong that these other arguments were the focus of Dressler’s work. The complete quote of Dressler’s footnote lists support for his idea from four prominent biblical scholars who wrote between 1897 and 1967 on two different continents. Dressler appears to be utilizing scholarly restraint—a trait that both Knudson and the four of us could strive better to emulate. Dressler is also correct. This argument is not conclusive in itself. Combine it with all the other elements of Hebrew linguistics that factor into an analysis of the question at hand, and there is complete agreement between all of them. A consistent pattern of evidence in favor of the fact that the anarthrous concept is valid emerges from the total view. HOHMANN: Taking one argument of many, and one piece of evidence from among much, and disparaging this one item does not in turn discredit all the evidence and proofs available. You will find this approach to be a common ploy whenever people are defending a weaker position. In turn, they demand that every point of “evidence” that they produce be addressed. They never admit to being wrong, no matter how persuasive and airtight the evidence. Knudson offers no explanation as to why Dressler is wrong. He sees no reason to truly address the evidence. He merely dismisses it based on the perception of it all being of minor importance and lacking credibility. If we were to treat the Sabbatarian's arguments in such a manner, they would be screaming foul. Knudson offers no evidence from any credible sources that would disparage the significance of the anarthrous construction in these key texts. What is self-evident to anyone, willing to look at all the available examples, is summarily dismissed by Knudson based solely on his own bias. KNUDSON: Two important books about Hebrew linguistics do not say anything about the significance of anarthrous construction, including A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew by Paul Joüon and Takamitsu Muraoka and An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax by Bruce K. Waltke and M. O'Connor. WYNNE: This concept of anarthrous construction is not an attribute of grammar. Nor is it related to “syntax” if syntax is defined to be “the way sentences are put together.” More properly it is to be understood as a meaning indicator or a “writing convention.” Knudson is not comparing apples to apples. Elsewhere we have supplied a list of scholars who observed that in Hebrew, the first mention of a sacred day or feast is virtually always introduced with a definite, anarthrous article. Here is a list of scholars we list elsewhere who observe that this characteristic of Moses' writing means that Moses indicated that
there was no Sabbath prior to Exodus 16. We are listing it for the third time with the following entry: as pointed out by G. Rawlinson, Exodus (London: Kegan, Paul, Trench & Co., 1906), p.52; A. Dillman, Die Bucher Exodus und Leviticus (Leipzig: S. Hitzel, 1897), p. 175; P Heinisch, Das Buch Exodus (Bonn: Hanstein, 1934), p. 133; G. Henton Davies, Exodus (London: SCM, 1967), p. 140.
HOHMANN: For someone who at first was intent on making an accusation regarding the alleged use of a logical fallacy; “an appeal to authority”, Knudson has now availed himself of a number of true logical fallacies. Here, we see an attempt to provide evidence based on a negative― an argument based from silence. Can we ask a few logical questions? Does the omission of evidence in one book negate the evidence of another? Is Knudson offering us a reasonable explanation regarding the actual evidence, or is he seeking ways to disparage the evidence through association or the lack of association with other scholars in the field? This comes across more like a dodge rather than a scholarly response. KNUDSON: There is a logical reason for the anarthrous use of šabbāṯ in these texts - that the word šabbāṯ was an intrinsically definite noun! Divine names, Human names, Place names, most pronouns, unique appellatives, certain cosmological elements and human institutions, unique titles are all intrinsically determinate – not needing the article! The anarthrous use of šabbāṯ in its first literary reference by that name in Exodus 16 (and many places thereafter) shows that it was already an established institution recognizable by the Hebrews! The use of the article with šabbāṯ after it has been mentioned in the context without the article is not uncommon in Hebrew. In such cases it acts as a weak demonstrative. AUTHORS: By the time of the release of the 9 th Edition, Knudson and his associates have had at least three years to provide us with an affidavit from a qualified expert in Hebrew with expertise in Ancient Hebrew that anarthrous indicators in Hebrew do not exist. If in every case self-evidently important Hebrew nouns do not need to be introduced by an article, why do subsequent mentions of Jewish holy days ALWAYS have the definite article before it and the introduction of a new ones do not? It would appear Knudson is attempting to utilize a general principle of Hebrew linguistics to challenge a specific Hebrew literary convention—a convention that can be easily validated by checking out how the mention of Jewish holy days is handled in the original Ancient Hebrew text or a Hebrew-English interlinear translation. Since the OT Scriptures are fairly clear about the order in which the Jewish holy days feast weeks were given, we can validate the principle of anarthrous indication with a high degree of consistency. In fact, if Knudson is correct in that well-established proper nouns do not need to be introduced by an article, he bestows an ever higher degree of credibility to our theory of anarthrous construction. It would mean that in every instance Old Testament writers went out of their way to make an exception to a general grammatical rule to comply with a special rule that regulates how the mention of Jewish holy days is to be handled in Hebrew. To the contrary, it appears that the SPECIAL principle in each verifiable case trumps the GENERAL principle. If a Jewish holy day, such as the Sabbath, is self-evidently important and needs no article before it, we should never find a mention of it that has an article before it. Would not the presence of such an article suggest, in this case, that the holy day was not self-evidently important, at least at the time of its introduction? The only claim we have really made is that in every case, when a Jewish holy or feast day is mentioned in the Old Testament for the very first time, it is preceded by an indefinite article and that every subsequent mention of it features a definite article in front of it. (Actually, you may recall that in Hebrew there is no such thing as an indefinite article, but rather in the case where an indefinite article would precede it in English, no article precedes it at all. In a proper English translation, the presence of the equivalent of an indefinite article is indicated by the article “a,” as in “a Sabbath.”) Before incorporating the argument from anarthrous construction, we took the time to work through a Hebrew-English Interlinear Bible to see if we could find even one instance where a Jewish holy or feast day did not follow this principle, and we could not find one as long as common sense linguistic principles of context were considered. We cannot speak for Hebrew nouns in general. Knudson comments about the example of the word, altar, mentioned in the early chapters of Genesis. The rule is followed even there, but he argues that the concept of an altar was probably in place before the altar was mentioned in the story. Whatever, the best way to refute Knudson’s argument is to find an example of where a Jewish holiday, feast, or holy day is mentioned for the very first time in the original Hebrew that is preceded by a definite article. We make no claims for ordinary nouns. To do so would seem to present an unreasonable task for any Hebrew writer, who would have to look at every noun he used to make sure that if he had never mentioned it before, he
could not put an article (“the”) before it. HOHMANN: A question arises after all this banter with Knudson and Cotto regarding these issues surrounding the Sabbath and whether or not it was instituted at the time of the Creation Week. Did the founders of the SDA movement, when they adopted the belief they should keep the Sabbath, understand and use these arguments put forward by Knudson and Cotto, to support their claims and beliefs? No. The organization and leadership adopted the Sabbath, without all this "advanced" knowledge of Hebrew semantics and linguistics, and despite all the research on the subject done up to that point. And now that even more evidence has been uncovered since the inception of the SDA, is it any surprise that “experts” would arise, using “evidence” that did not exist at the advent of Adventism to combat the increase of knowledge surrounding Hebrew? To any disinterested third party, what is going on should be obvious. A questionable belief was adopted, and now, as more and more evidence arises refuting the validity of the belief, “defenders of the faith” find ways to invalidate the mounting evidence. Their assertion: Experts outside Adventism are not really experts. Those who were educated by the SDA and were greatly respected at one time suddenly lose credibility when they leave the organization. Truth only comes from within, and nothing derived from the outside, even by ex-members, ministers, and theologians, is to be trusted. This is nothing but a veiled attempt to control the information on the subject, which is typical of a cult.
A NEW TESTAMENT EXAMPLE OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF DEFINITE VERSUS INDEFINITE ARTICLES Thomas Preble was the first Millerite to write in favor of keeping the Jewish Sabbath. It was his pro-Sabbath tract entitled, “Tract, Showing That the Seventh Day Should Be Observed As the Sabbath,” reprinted from an article he had published in the early Advent publication, Hope of Israel in the Feb. 28, 1845 issue, that influenced the parents of J. N. Andrews, the future wife of Uriah Smith, and Joseph Bates to become Sabbath-keepers. It was Joseph Bates who introduced the Sabbath to Ellen White. However, he kept the Sabbath only until mid-1847, at which time he repudiated his own work. (Credit to http://www.imsmedia.org/adventist-pioneers/thomas-m-preble.) In 1867 he published an expose of the cult of Adventism entitled The First Day Sabbath Clearly Proved. You can find it in Google Books. While he incorporated many of the same anti-Sabbatarian concepts that are used against the 7th day Sabbath doctrine today, his main thesis was that at the Cross, the Jewish Sabbath of the 7 th day of the week ended, and the Christian “Sabbath” began. He called attention, among other things, to the fact that in Genesis the only principle for Sabbath-keeping is that the human race should work six days and rest one day. His argument is difficult to follow, but fighting to understand it is worthwhile for many reasons: Did the Lord Jesus keep the seventh-day Sabbath? He evidently did, as he was "made under the law" (Gal. 4 : 4), and was "circumcised;" He no doubt observed the Sabbath, as it ought to have been observed at that time; although his manner of keeping it, however, was such that the Pharisees accused him of breaking it, because he did not observe their traditions, which they had connected with the observance of that day. There is no doubt but the women mentioned in Luke 23:55, after they had "prepared spices and ointments" for the body of Jesus, returned and rested the Sabbath-day according to the "commandment ;" yea, the "fourth commandment." Good, says the Sabbatarian. And I too say, Good; because I have no doubt of its truth. But when this matter shall be critically examined, I think all candid minds will acknowledge that this was the last seventh-day Sabbath ever kept according to the commandment: as I believe the following facts will abundantly prove. The original Greek words for Sabbath, as found in the New Testament, in their singular and plural form, are Sabbaton, and Sabbata. The number of times these words occur in the New Testament is sixty-eight. They are found in different books, as follows : in Matthew, eleven times ; in Mark, twelve times; in Luke, twenty times; in John, thirteen times; in Acts, ten times; in 1 Corinthians, once; and in Colossians, once. These words are transferred (not translated) into our English version, in all, fifty-nine times; and thus called Sabbath, or Sabbath-days, etc. But the translators saw fit to render the word Sabbaton, by the word "week," in nine cases out of the whole number sixty-eight, and these nine cases are found in the following places: in Matthew 28: 1; Mark 16: 2, 9; Luke 18: 12; 24: 1; John 20:1, 19; Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2. In Matthew it reads, "In the end of the Sabbath [Sabbaton], as it began to dawn toward the first [day, is a word supplied by the translators] of the week [Sabbaton], came Mary," etc. In Mark: "And very early in the morning, the first of the week [ Sabbaton], they came," etc. "Now when Jesus was risen early the first of the week [Sabbaton], he appeared," etc. In Luke: "I fast twice in
the week [Sabbaton], I give tithes," etc. Now upon the first of the week [Sabbaton], very early in the morning," etc. In John: "The first of the week [Sabbaton] cometh Mary Magdalene early," etc. "Then the same day, at evening, being the first of the week [Sabbaton], when the doors were shut," etc. In Acts: "And upon the first of the week [Sabbaton], when the disciples came together to break bread," etc. In 1 Corinthians: "Upon the first of the week [Sabbaton] let every one of you lay by him in store," etc. Now let us turn back to Matthew 28:1, and see if we can ascertain the true import of this word "week," as it has been thus found in the cases above referred to. It appears that the word Sabbaton, as found in this verse, occurs twice, and in both instances it is in the plural, form ; and this being the case, the true rendering of the passage requires us to read it, in substance, like this: At the end of Sabbaths, in the beginning of the first of Sabbaths, etc. Or as Mark has it: And very early in the first of Sabbaths (lit. of one of Sabbaths), etc. But Luke and John appear to have it still stronger: And in the first of the Sabbaths, etc; the definite article the being placed before the noun Sabbaton. Now it is evident that if the translators had transferred the word Sabbaton, in these nine cases just examined, as they did in the other fifty-nine instances above referred to, then we should have had less difficulty than we now have, and we should see that at the end of the seventh-day Sabbaths (or at the end of the Jewish Sabbath — which was given to the "children of Israel" to be a "sign" unto them "throughout their generations"― there would be the beginning of the Lord Jesus Christ's day, or “Sabbath.” Or in other words, where one series of days ended, there another series of days began. And this change of days was marked by the most important events that ever transpired in the history of man. "The veil of the temple was rent in twain," "the middle wall of partition" between Jews and Gentiles, was "broken down," and thus they were "made both one."
Here are our observations: 1. This theory deserves some consideration, but it needs to be evaluated by linguists who have special training that gives them a near-native understanding of biblical languages. 2. Biblical scholars are interested in the significance of definite versus indefinite articles even in different languages. It is not safe to ignore the implications of these articles, but arguments based on them are probably insufficient to prove a point without support from other textual evidence. 3. Literal translation of words and phrases from one language into another is often impossible. Notice that the King James translators had to make decisions about how the words for Sabbath in Greek were to be TRANSFERRED into English. It is not safe to build key Bible doctrines on just one, or even just a few, texts that are not definitive when taken in themselves and in their context.
DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE MANNA AND SABBATH OBEDIENCE TESTS J. N. Andrews, the first Advent Movement Sabbath scholar, theorized that some aspects of the “Manna Test” given to the Hebrews in the early verses of Exodus 16 suggest that the Israelites were already familiar with the Sabbath. He pointed out that God didn't seem to feel the need to explain His reason for the six days of work followed by one day of rest at that time. Our analysis of his manna argument resulted in these findings that are not favorable to this claim: 1. There is no indication in the Exodus 16 verses to specifically suggest that the people were familiar with the Sabbath concept. If the Israelites were familiar with the Sabbath, they would not need to have been told not to gather manna on the 7th day, since that would represent work. 2. The Hebrews had just come out of Egypt, which utilized a 10-day week. This is probably the reason why the first mention of the Sabbath in Exodus 16 is the full form of the word, meaning: “a sabbatical celebration, a holy Sabbath” (Dressler, “The Sabbath in the Old Testament,” Chapter 2 in D.A. Carson (ed .), From Sabbath to Lord's Day). Note that we also have to consider the possibility that the Egyptians may have utilized a pagan sabbath system of four sets of seven days each tied to the lunar month. 3. In Exodus 12, when God explained His instructions for the ordinance of the Passover, He did not mention the Sabbath Day when one would expect Him to have done so. He instructed them to continue
preparing food on the seventh day of the Passover Week― a task forbidden by the Sabbath-keeping laws He gave them later: “This is a day you are to commemorate; for the generations to come you shall celebrate it as a festival to the LORD - a lasting ordinance. For seven days you are to eat bread made without yeast. On the first day remove the yeast from your houses, for whoever eats anything with yeast in it from the first day through the seventh must be cut off from Israel. On the first day hold a sacred assembly, and another one on the seventh day. Do no work at all on these days, except to prepare food for everyone to eat—that is all you may do. Exodus XII, 14-16 (NIV)
4. The Manna obedience test stands on its own without any dependence on the Sabbath because during the week the Hebrew people were instructed to gather no more than an omer for each person. A significant number of the people broke this new law right away, gathered more than they needed for the next day, and found that the extra portions rotted. Then said the LORD unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or not. – Exodus 16:4
5. Andrews says this chapter suggests that the Israelites were familiar with the work-six-days/rest-on-theseventh-day pattern because they did not agitate for an explanation regarding it. Arguments from silence are among the weakest ones. Note that God seems to have chosen the 7 days of Creation because it was an easy formula to remember. It would seem that if God spoke something to any of us out of a cloud and it was readily understandable, we would not agitate for an explanation of it. God is a good communicator— the best ever. (Again, we must consider the possibility that a seven-day lunar week of a pagan sabbath system was in use in Egypt during the time of their bondage. In this case they would not need an explanation of the work-six-days-and-rest-the-7 th-day principle either.) 6. The wording of the passage identifies the Sabbath requirement as an obedience test. If the Israelites were keeping the Sabbath up to that point, they would have had their obedience tested continually along the way. Perhaps a different kind of obedience test would have been appropriate in that case. 7. Recall one more time that expert sources see evidence that the Egyptians, like many of the civilizations of the time, observed a pagan “Sabbath” that was based on the four phases of the moon and elements of fertility rites. It is entirely possible that when God gave the Sabbath to Israel on Mt. Sinai, He took a cultural concept that they were already familiar with, cleansed it of its pagan and fertility connotations, and presented it to Israel in a newly redeemed and holy form.
BRENDAN KNUDSON’S OBJECTIONS KNUDSON: Perhaps the clearest evidence that the Sabbath preceded the giving of the manna is the conversation God has with Moses at the start of the chapter which gives the reason for the giving of the manna. Exodus 16:4 - "Then the LORD said to Moses, 'Behold, I am about to rain bread from heaven for you, and the people shall go out and gather a day's portion every day, that I may test them, whether they will walk in My Law or not.'"
AUTHORS: Because Knudson assumes that there was a Sabbath prior to the Exodus, he views Moses’ instructions regarding the Manna as primarily a Sabbath obedience test. Observe that at the beginning of the week, shortly after the Children of Israel arrived at the edge of the Wilderness of Sin and complained that God had called them out of Egypt to starve them to death in the desert, God gave Israel Manna, along with collecting and keeping instructions which included acquiring a double portion on the 6 th day of the week. At this point God said nothing about the double portion having to do with a Sabbath that would occur on the 7 th day. All week long the Israelites tested God by deviating from His Mannacollecting instructions, finding that if they collected more than an omer per person, and kept it overnight, the excess spoiled. It was not until the 6 th day of that first “Manna week” that God explained that this double portion was in preparation for a
new special day He called the “Sabbath.” The Sabbath concept focused on the cessation of labor whereas the Manna collection instructions regulated a work process. Some of the Israelites collected excess Manna in defiance of God’s special instructions. 5 Then, some of them gathered firewood on the Sabbath in defiance of God’s special instructions. 6 There were two obedience tests, and Israel failed them both. Combining both the Manna and Sabbath regulations, there were a number of rules, or “laws” that Israel could break and did break. He had commanded them to collect the manna and keep the Sabbath. Knudson’s claim that God was chiding them for breaking a Sabbath commandment that existed prior to the Exodus is completely unnecessary and adds things to this passage of Scripture that are not there. The plain sense of the use of the term “law” here would indicate that whatever God commanded of them or instructed them to do was “law.” It could also easily connote that which was to follow; a codified law to govern them. If, from the perspective of God, they could not follow the simple commands and instructions being given them regarding the manna and the Sabbath, He could hardly expect them to keep any other commands and instructions that were to follow. The example here revolving around the Sabbath and the manna “test” indicates that they were not going to walk in His law. It should be noted that Christians are called to walk in faith and that the Christian law is a law of faith (Rom. 3:27). The Old Covenant law is described by the apostle Paul to not be of faith. Romans 3:27 covers another relevant issue: Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. – Romans 3:27 (KJV)
In the law of faith, there is no boasting. In the law of works (do this, don't do that; keep this) one could conceivably boast, such as a boast in keeping the Sabbath. Do Sabbatarians boast in the Sabbath? Most assuredly. It is their distinctive. It is what they claim provides the basis to separate a real Christian from a false one. One of the real issues here is whether Sabbath-keeping relates to faith, or a practice that has the potential for boasting. KNUDSON: Some rabbinical writers think they see evidence that the Sabbath pre-dated Exodus 16 in Moses' account of his observations of the cruelty of the Egyptian slave masters and his intervention in one particular case. Here is what Knudson says, which can be found in his rebuttal of Lying for God posted at the Adventist Defense League's website: In my recent research I've come across two further hints, recognized by Jewish commentators, to Sabbath Reform instituted by Moses among the Hebrews prior to the giving of manna. Exodus 2:11 - "One day, when Moses had grown up, he went out to his people and looked on their burdens (seḇālāh), and he saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his people." Hebrew scholars discern two different occasions in this verse. That is, they see that it speaks on one occasion of Moses going out to his people when he "looked upon their burdens", and a later occasion where "he saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his people." The syntax tends to confirm this, as evidenced by the repetition in the final clause "one of his people" which would be unnecessary if it were part of the former thought. The Shemot Rabbah, a midrash on Exodus dating to the 10th to 12th centuries, offers this comment for when Moses "looked upon their burdens", while he was considered a naturalized Egyptian: "And he saw his brothers, with their burdens. He saw that they had no rest, so he went to Pharaoh and said: 'If one has a slave and he does not give him rest one day a week he dies; similarly, if you will not give your slaves rest one day a week, they will die'. Pharaoh replied: 'Go and do with them as you wish'. And Moses ordained for them the Sabbath for rest." (Shemot Rabbah, 1:28) In this Hebrew commentary, the Sabbath is seen as early as predating the Exodus. The Sabbath becomes 5 6
Exodus 16:19-20 Numbers 15:32-36
an issue of contention while in slavery in Egypt. The conflict comes to a head when Moses returns to deliver Israel. Exodus 5:5, 9 - "And Pharaoh said, 'Behold, the people of the land are now many, and you make them rest (šaḇaṯ) from their burdens (seḇālāh)!' ... 'Let heavier work be laid on the men that they may labor at it and pay no regard to lying words.'" "This is to teach us that the Israelites possessed scrolls with the contents of which they would expect deliverance, every Sabbat, assuring them that the Holy One Blessed be He would redeem them. Thus, because they rested on the Sabbath, Pharaoh said to them: 'Let heavier work be laid upon the men and let them not expect deliverance from false words. Let them not expect deliverance, or be refreshed on the Sabbath day.’" (Shemot Rabbah, 5:18) Here we can see that the issue of the burdens (seḇālāh) of the Israelites has been resumed and Moses has been teaching that they should rest (šaḇaṯ) from their labours. Thus we have another example that in the Hebrew teachings, the Sabbath predated the giving of the Manna.
AUTHORS: The only sacred work Jesus validated was the Mishnah. He gave no such approval to the midrashes, the Talmud, or any other body of Jewish knowledge, whether written or in the form of a sacred oral tradition. A logical conclusion is that Jesus knew that there was erroneous information in these other Jewish sources, so He did not validate them. KNUDSON: It can be seen here that God already considered the Sabbath His law which He intended to test/train them in by the giving of the Manna. Combined with the fact that the first reference to šabbāṯ is without the article and therefore considered an established proper name, it is evident that the Sabbath pre-existed the Manna as God's Law and as we have seen, that ordinance was established during Creation week. The first references by name to šabbāṯ in Exodus 16:23-26 lack the article not because something new is being introduced, but because even at this stage it was already considered a proper noun. In looking at the example given of the first explicit mention of an altar in Genesis 8:20 in light of the sacrifices implied in Genesis 3 and 4 and the mention of 7 of every clean animal being taken onto the ark, we can see that altars were implied to have existed from the fall of man. Indeed, the context of the passage, with the introductory reference by God that He was to "test them" according to His "Law". All of this fits with what we learned by studying the Hebrew of Genesis 1-2 in Creation week where God instituted the Sabbath as an example for His "Image" in Adam and Eve to keep to.
AUTHORS: We addressed Knudson’s theory earlier. To our rebuttal, we add the fact that all the other holy days given to Israel subsequent to the giving of the Sabbath reflect the fact that their first mention has anarthrous construction and every subsequent mention of it is preceded by a definite article. It is wrong to add words to Scripture. Where is the “Thus saith the Lord” for the idea that merely mentioning the Sabbath in the same story that discusses the fact that Adam and Eve were made in God’s image requires that man follow God’s example of resting? With this assumed license to add words to Scripture, Knudson can make God’s Word teach anything he wants. Here is an example of this kind of thinking taken to the level of the absurd. In the same New Testament story about how Jesus was taken prisoner in the Garden of Gethsemane, it states that Judas went out and hanged himself. Therefore, we illogically “conclude” that if a Christian leader is ever taken captive in the presence of his followers, they are to go out and hang themselves also. SHIRLEY - There is nothing in the text of Genesis 2:1-2 to indicate that man was to follow God's example in regard to the resting that He did on the the 7 th day. One of the ways Ellen White and her enabling theologians like to insert this idea is based on the principle that since man was created in God's image, man is expected to follow God's example in every possible way. Based on Psalm 104:2, Ellen White, for example, taught that Adam and Eve were clothed in robes of light before they sinned, but this claim is contrary to the plain explanation given in Genesis 2:25. This is nice wishful thinking in regard to the SDA view of the Sabbath, but one way to test a principle is to take it to the ultimate extent to see if the end result can be considered to be logical. In this case, it does not seem so. Should man follow God's example to create a Universe, forgive sins, or make the sun's shadow go back ten steps, as God did in Isaiah 38:8? Of course not! Assumptions, as we have noted elsewhere, lead to wrong systems of belief. HOHMANN - Knudson's function here is to serve as a representative of the SDA in the capacity of defending the SDA. His “client” is a church corporation. In this portion of the “trial” expert testimony has been presented which Knudson has attempted to refute. But unlike a trial, Knudson is not only defending the SDA, he is defending himself. We could ask whether Knudson is defending a church corporate or truth, and whether there is a conflict of interest in this regard. His
opponents at this point in this trial of sorts are not defending any particular church corporation. What then are they defending? Ultimately, the truth of the Gospel message – salvation through faith ONLY in Christ and the attendant grace of God that follows. A belief that Christians must keep and observe the Sabbath is incompatible with the Gospel. It is in conflict with the Gospel, and the evidence of Scripture bears this all out, for the Scriptures do not conflict with the Gospel; they are in harmony with it, and the evidence uncovered and presented by the “anti-Sabbatarians” demonstrates this again and again. Anything added to the Gospel, claimed to be necessary for salvation, falsifies the Gospel. E.G. White declared in her writings the necessity of keeping the Sabbath in order to be saved. This is the same thing as the SDA making the declaration. And yet, there is duplicity within the organization, for they also teach, or give lip service, to the Gospel message while elsewhere offering up caveats regarding the necessity of keeping the Sabbath for the same purpose; salvation. It comes down to “who are you going to believe?” The message of Christ or the SDA?
Chapter Three A Point-By-Point Refutation OF Edward M. Cotto's Paper, “The Sabbath in Genesis”
A Point-By-Point Refutation OF Edward M. Cotto's Paper, “The Sabbath in Genesis” COTTO: The 4th commandment points us back to Creation Week. The question, “Is the Sabbath in Genesis?” Is fully Answered right here in the Fourth commandment itself. He quotes Genesis 2:3, “and God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.” Then he quotes Exodus 20:10, “But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD thy God.”
He says that the definite article, "the," indicates that the Sabbath has been present since Creation. AUTHORS: Wrong! The definite article “takes us back” only as far as Exodus 16. We thank Cotto for acknowledging that a definite article before a Hebrew holy day indicates that it was introduced previously and the reciprocal that the lack of an article (anarthrous construction) before it indicates that it had not existed previously. The use of the definite article here does indicate the previous existence of the Sabbath, but only back to the events of Exodus 16 where it was introduced for the very first time in the history of the world WITHOUT an article before it . Furthermore, Cotto seems unaware of the possibility that Moses might have been speaking about the blessing and hallowing of the 7th day in Genesis 2:2-3 in terms of prolepsis. A few weeks later, Israel kept the Sabbath at the foot of Mt. Sinai. At this time the Sabbath ordinance was given formal status and codified into covenant law. It is no surprise after reviewing the chronology of the Exodus that Carson’s linguistic work would conclusively demonstrate that Moses, in his wording of Exodus 20, used a set of indicators to clarify that the Sabbath ordinance was merely MODELED after Creation week. The MODELING of the Sabbath commandment after the seven days of Creation is a key point in comprehending why one cannot proof-text a Sabbath back into Genesis. A model is not the thing itself. The object used as a model and the model itself can have significant differences, just like a plastic model of a 1957 Chevrolet might not have a working motor. Since we are discussing a comparison between the real thing, (the Sabbath commandment) and a model for it (the structure of the days of Creation), whether God actually reposed on the 7th day of Creation is not a deal breaker. Recall that in Exodus 20 Moses used a word that is closer to meaning "ceased" than "reposed." Some scholars do not accept the “reposed” reading. In either case the comparison does not have to be exact. On the 7 th day of Creation, God “knelt down” on it. Perhaps, like an attorney, God might have been said to have “rested” [set down] His case after He summed up the events of His work in creating Planet Earth. The Bible tells us that God sits on His throne, and some day He may appear to us sitting on a throne so we can relate to His presence in a way that we can comprehend. But does God, Who created gravity, need that gravity to hold down the throne that He presents Himself sitting on to His created beings? All we really are told about the seventh day of Creation is that God stopped creating. The 4th Commandment required the Israelites not only to stop their worldly activities, but to fully rest (in the sense of repose) for the entire day. Also, they must work in the previous six days. Also, they were not supposed to leave their dwelling places. If Sabbatarians kept the Sabbath according to its requirements, they would stay in their homes from sundown on Friday night to sundown on Saturday night. One Adventist apologist argues that some historical sources suggest that Egypt utilized a seven-day week during the Egyptian captivity. He suggests that we are picking the source that is most convenient to our point of view when we argue that the Hebrew people were accustomed to a 10-day week in Egypt. Chapter Two of Carson’s book, “The Sabbath in the Old Testament,” written by Harold H.P. Dressler, says, “Their sojourn in Egypt had taught them the ten-day week,” and quotes Egyptologist, Richard A. Parker, “The Calendars and Chronology, Legacy of Egypt (Oxford University Press, 1971, p. 17) where Parker adds, “The seventh-day was called “part day.” If Parker has identified the names given to each of the 10 days of the Egyptian week, he would appear to be knowledgeable. At the same time we recognize that the Hebrews may have kept track of a 7-day week while in slavery, whether the
knowledge of it came from oral history, astronomy, or both. We simply do not know. These various Hebrew literary conventions are detailed by Carson and his associates in their 1982 book, From Sabbath to Lord's Day. We also must mention that there is evidence that the Egyptians utilized a sabbath system based on the four phases of the moon. Later we will present the evidence for a pagan lunar sabbath system in Egypt during the captivity. COTTO: The fact that God blessed the 7th day is evidence that He gave every 7 th day thereafter a special status. Not only did He bless it, but he hallowed it. How could blessing one single day bless multiple days thereafter? This idea makes no sense. Before every meal Christians ask God to bless their food. There is no doubt that He blesses it. But blessing the food for one meal does not bless every meal thereafter. Only by taking what we know about the model of the days of Creation (the Sabbath commandment of Exodus 20) and reading its characteristics back into what it was modeled after (the seven days of Creation) can we read a special status for every 7th day after the 7th day of Creation. This approach seems to put the cart before the horse. The Hebrew language is known for its poetic qualities– particularly for its use of parallelism, or the saying of the same thing in two somewhat different ways. There are some differences between the meaning of “blessing” and “hallowing,” but in view of the fact that Moses is telling the story of what God did, and not what man was supposed to do, it is only speculation that Moses intended two separate theological distinctions in regard to sacredness of this one day. It is difficult to imagine how Cotto might think that the blessing of the day plus the hallowing of it adds up to something that means the same thing as adding the phrase suffix about the "evening and the morning." The significance of the absence of the evening and morning suffix after the account of the events of the 7 th day is that it applies the blessing and hallowing only to one 24-hour period of time and memorializes that one day for eternity. Every day that comes after it has this memory resting on top of it. There is no place to “put” any additional memorialization on top of any subsequent day because there is no room for it. Again, this fact is nothing profound in view of the fact that we are reading a story about what God did on one single day in the history of Planet Earth. Why is this so difficult to comprehend? HOHMANN: Cognitive Dissonance can be defined in part as believing in two (or more) things at the same time that are mutually exclusive. That is, both cannot be true at the same time. Cotto chooses to state the seventh day of creation week was “hallowed”. He does not state what is recorded in the KJV in that this seventh day was “sanctified”. The seventh day of Creation Week was “set apart” as a special day, unique and contrasted to the other six days. Yet, Cotto and other SDA also insist on violating this sanctity of that seventh day by coupling it with the weekly Sabbath! How can this day be sanctified; set apart, and yet be a part of a weekly recurring Sabbath? Logically, it cannot. The SDA apologists continually “play it both ways” depending on the issue at the moment. It was shown that this seventh day, being devoid of the suffix phrase regarding the evening and the morning causes the day to have no end, remaining set apart for all eternity, and the SDA cries foul. Then they insist it, as the weekly Sabbath day, it remains separate and unique for all eternity. COTTO: The Sabbath day is present in Genesis 2 because God used a similar form of word in Exodus 20 for the Sabbath (Shabbath) that Moses used for “rest” in Genesis 2. This proves that the seventh-day of Creation is the Sabbath of the Moral Law. HOHMANN: First, Nowhere in Scripture are the Ten Commandments referred to as “Moral Law”. Taking that Law and chopping it up into categories is a man-made convention. It was a covenant law, where transgressing any one point of law, despite any artificial category, resulted in being guilty of the entirety. See James Chapter 2. By claiming the Ten Commandments to be “Moral Law” the Sabbath slips in under the radar as a moral law based solely on its proximity to the other nine. The Ten Commandments are not “Moral Law”. They are points of law that deal with man's immorality. Keeping the Ten Commandments never made anyone moral, or proved anyone to be moral. This is a fundamental error of the SDA and other similar groups; the belief that merely "keeping" points of law, such as the Sabbath, imputes moral status. One could comply with the command not to murder, yet harbor hatred in their heart, which is the spirit of murder, making one guilty before God as though they had committed murder. Likewise the balance of the Law of Moses is not "ceremonial" Law exclusively, for there
are points of law that continue to address moral issues in the rest of the Law. WYNNE: Yes, Moses used a different form of the same word in these places. However, Hebrew usage conventions give different meanings to these different forms of this word, so it is more like Moses used different words. The Hebrew word translated into English as “rest” is in the verb form of that word. It means TO CEASE. The verb form of the Hebrew word is not used here to mean REST. Moses said that God STOPPED on that day. It is far from accurate to say that the verb form of a Hebrew word and the noun form of it have the same exact meaning. By contrast the form of the same word that is used in Exodus 20 is a noun, which can mean REST. Chapter Two in From Sabbath to Lord’s Day, pages 22-23, “The Sabbath in the Old Testament,” authored by Harold H.P. Dressler, observes the following. (Footnote #30 is typed afterward because it provides additional clarification.) Also please observe that some sources appear to render the Hebrew characters from right to left as they would appear in a Hebrew manuscript, whereas other sources show them from left to right as they would be if they were written in English: A question that must be discussed in connection with the origin of the Sabbath is the etymology and meaning of the word ( שב בת תHebrew word translated “rest”). Lexicographers group it with the verb ( שת בב תto cease, stop; to stop working, celebrate, to rest). Hehn emphasizes that the meaning “to rest” is foreign to this verb; the nature of sbt is “to cease, to be finished (J. Hehn, Siebenzahl und Sabbat, p. 101. Schmidt sees no original interdependence between the verb שתבבתand the noun “Sabbath”; there is only a very early connection (W. H. Schmidt, Die Schopfungsgeschichte der Priesterschrift (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1964), p. 156. From the etymology, Beer and Mahler understand the action of “being com plete” (G. Beer, Schabbath-der Mischnatractat “Sabbath”, p. 13; E. Mahler, Der Sabbath, p. 239.) De Vaux points out that the noun formation from the verb שתבבתis irregular; “the regular form would be shebeth.” In its grammatical form it “ought to have an active meaning, signifying ‘the’ day which stops something, which marks a limit or division…” (R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel, p. 476). The Sabbath would thus be a day that marks the end of the week or the ceasing of the week’s work. 30 30
(R. North, Derivation, p. 186, especially note 3: “sbt” has nothing to do with resting in the sense of enjoying repose . . . It certainly cannot be translated as “the day of rest.” This latter statement can be questioned [however] since it is based on the etymology rather than the usage of the word.
There is insufficient support for the idea that Moses meant that God indicated that He wanted the Hebrews to rest on the Sabbath because He had reposed on the 7th day of Creation. Most likely, in Exodus 20, Moses indicated that Israel was to repose on the Sabbath because God CEASED, or STOPPED creating Planet Earth on the 7 th day of Creation. Once more, this distinction is not pivotal because Genesis 2:2-3 tells the story about what God did and says nothing about what man is to do– not even that Adam and Eve rested on it. Furthermore, God's cursory acknowledgment of the boundary characteristics of the 7th day of Creation, indicated by His kneeling down on it for a moment, does not favor the suggestion of a grandiose purpose for it. The day had minimal significance in itself, only becoming an icon when it became part of what God used as a model for the Sabbath commandment later. In an action language, as Ancient Hebrew is, it would seem that if God had wanted to elevate the 7 th day of Creation to a momentous event that would affect the universe for eternity, He would have said something like, “God threw the 7 th day up to the top of a mountain that reached above the clouds and touched the stars.” Since there is no evidence that God reposed on the 7 th day of Creation, the suggestion that God would be bound by His own law to keep His own Sabbath appears doubly incredible. We are talking about the I AM, the Great Creator God Who is all powerful and omniscient. Christians have no trouble believing that God can meet privately with each one of us when we arrive in Heaven. If we worship a God Who can be everywhere at once and answer everyone's prayers at the same time, what sense is it to talk anthropomorphically about God as if He were chained to the time constraints of a day on Planet Earth? For all we know, God was creating ten billion universes at the same “time” He was creating Earth. We are not told that part of the story. Jesus tells the Jewish Sabbath keepers that He and the Father work on the Sabbath. Jesus called what he was doing "work." John 5:17-18 - In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” 18For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
Notice that John observes that Jesus did, in fact, break the Sabbath. Clearly the Sabbath can't be a “moral” law if God Himself violated it. Kerry Wynne tells the following story about God’s ability to be everywhere: Some years ago my step son, Kevin, began to attend the independent Bible church my wife and I had joined after leaving Adventism. After attending several Sunday services he gave his heart to Jesus. After a few more months, the sermon on a particular Sunday morning was about healing. It was not a healing service. After the pastor finished his sermon, he suddenly paused and said, “I seem to be impressed that there is a person in this room who has a problem with his arm– perhaps his wrist or shoulder. Let us raise our arms to Jesus and ask Him to heal that person.” Years earlier Kevin had broken his right elbow in five places, having one of the most severe fractures his doctor had ever seen, but Kevin had no money for surgery. The result was his arm had only 30% of its normal range of motion. It was pitiful to see him bowling or playing any kind of sports, and hundreds of people were daily witnesses to his severe handicap. Kevin, seated beside me, raised his crooked arm and prayed that the person the speaker was referring to would be healed. Since the pastor had suggested a problem with the wrist or shoulder, Kevin wasn’t thinking that his elbow was included. He remembered praying something like, “Lord, please heal that person, and if You aren’t too busy, You might think about healing my elbow also. My life would be so much easier if you did.” Nothing seemed to happen in the sanctuary, but when we got out to the coffee bar in the lobby, Kevin came running up to me, shouting excitedly, “Kerry, Kerry, I’ve been healed! Look at my arm! I can touch my shoulder now!” To my utter astonishment he reached up and put his hand on his shoulder—something that was impossible only moments earlier! This miracle required the creation of new bone, sinews, and ligaments out of nothing—ex nihlo. As a result of this undeniable miracle, many individuals came to Christ, including a number of people who were about as un-churched as a non-believer could be. If God could not be everywhere at once and could not do everything at once, it is too incredible to believe that the only thing in the Universe He was doing at that moment was healing Kevin’s elbow?
One of the unfortunate effects of the development of the Sabbatarian heresy is the harboring of a highly anthropomorphic concept of God. God spoke to humans in ways that they could understand Him. It is profitable for God to speak of Himself in terms that his human creatures can understand, but it is dangerous for humans to limit God by ascribing human attributes to Him that He does not possess. Not only do we have the problem of translating Ancient Hebrew into our modern languages, but we have the challenge of avoiding the error of finding anthropomorphic statements in Scripture and throwing them back at Him under conditions that do not apply. God can CEASE but He cannot REST because He never becomes weary. Therefore, there are limitations to how far one can take God’s analogy between the ceasing on the 7 th day of Creation and the Sabbath rest of the 4th commandment. Kerry Wynne provides the following illustration of the limitations of anthropomorphic analogies: My wife and I have a little Cockatiel. When Sunny the Cockatiel gets on top of a chair, he thinks he’s king of the roost. If anyone walks by him, he spreads out his wings and flaps them at the “challenger.” Sometimes I show him that I am the alpha bird by putting my arms at my side and flapping my elbows at him. He acknowledges my challenge by flapping his wings at me with even greater force. I have gotten down to the bird’s level of communication, but I am not an “Alpha Bird”, and I don’t have real wings any more than God needed to repose after creating Planet Earth.
The arguments for translating this key word, “ceased,” rather than “rested” are strong, but they are not beyond question, as noted by the scholar, R. North (Derivation, p. 186) above. However, when the special elements of the Hebrew linguistics in Genesis 2, Exodus 16, and Exodus 20 are viewed as a whole, it is clear that Moses deliberately worded his writing to make sure his readers would not think they could see a Sabbath ordinance in Genesis 2. COTTO: The fact that God gave the Sabbath from Mt. Sinai with thunderings and lightnings should be enough evidence for anyone that Christians must keep the Sabbath. This is so easy to understand that even a child can grasp it. He quotes Psalm 119:89: “For Ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.” HOHMANN: Ergo, if you cannot grasp this, you are dumber than a child. Or rather, this line of reasoning would be typical of a child. WYNNE: Cotto again resorts to a logical fallacy; a “Non Sequitur” if you will. It is quite a leap here to conclude from the thunderings and lightenings of this event in turn signaled God’s requirement of these commandments as binding on all
mankind, but it is common for falsehoods to be propagated in this fashion. As William Hohmann observes, Cotto’s conclusion also ignores the context leading up to this momentous event, where God said it was all for the purpose of insuring the people believed and followed Moses! Do we believe God, or Cotto? God's children, the Jews, have always understood that the Sabbath was given as a sign to set them apart from every other nation. They were a very stubborn, idolatrous people devoid of the spirit of God and had been immersed in a heathen culture for hundreds of years. As a people, the Children of Israel came directly out of heathenism even as when God directly intervened and called Abraham out of the abject Heathenism of Ur of the Chaldees. A good show of power and fireworks was just what they needed. Down through time our Jewish brethren deserve credit, however, for being able to take into account not only what God said, but to whom He said it– as well as to consider the context of time, place, and circumstances of the occasion—to figure out that the Gentiles were not a party to Sabbath observance. The other nations of the world were accountable to the Law of the spirit; intent of heart or conscience: Romans 2:14-15 - For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.
Once an expert in the law wanted Jesus to tell him what he must do to have eternal life. Jesus questioned him as to what was written in the law and how he read it. He responded saying to love the Lord with all your heart, strength, and soul, and mind and love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus then told him to "do this and live." Luke 10:25 - 28 (NIV) 25On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 26“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?” 27He answered: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” 28“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
If the Jews had been willing to obey these two commands God would not have needed to give them even the Ten Commandments. Even having the Ten Commandments, the Old Covenant Jews broke all Ten throughout their history. They did not have the “heart” to follow God. O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children forever! – Deuteronomy 5:29
COTTO: Proof that the Sabbath is in Genesis is found in the Fact that God both Blessed and Sanctified the 7th day of Creation Week. In fact, God kept the 7 th day of Creation Week as the first Sabbath because He stopped the secular work of creating the world and performed spiritual work on the First 7 th day in the history of the world.Take note that after “the heavens and the earth were finished” –verse 1, God still had one more work to get done on the seventh day. The beginning of verse 2 reads, “And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made…” One may ask, “What other work did God do on the seventh day and does this not violate it as a day of rest?” We answer, no, because the work he did on the seventh day was not secular work, for verse one already tells us that the heavens and the earth were already “finished.” The work he did on the seventh day is answered in verse 3. AUTHORS: God is a Spirit, so everything He does can be considered to be "spiritual." Cotto's insistence that God actually rested on the 7th day of Creation is embarrassingly anthropomorphic. Cotto implies that God was forced by His own new “rule” to keep His own Sabbath. We may say that God rested, but He doesn't need to take physical rest because He doesn't get tired or weary. In a sense, God can do "anything," but only in a sense. For example, He can't turn East into West because West would become East and only the name would change. C.S. Lewis once said that nonsense is nonsense even when you are talking about God. If you follow what we have learned about the meaning of the Hebrew word translated “rest” in Genesis 2, you will recall that the word in its verb form means “ceased.” We believe that God is fully capable to ceasing one kind of activity and beginning another. Moses identified the 7th day as the day when God stopped. We must keep in mind two key points about what Moses said in reference to this 7 th day of Creation week: (1) He is telling
his readers about what God did– not what Man should do. It was His celebration. (2) He had Moses leave off the suffix phrase, "and the evening and the morning were the 7 th day," after his account of the events of the 7 th day. Cotto says that this omission is compensated for in other ways, but his argument is invalid. We Anti-Sabbatarians thank him for admitting that the non-inclusion of this meaning suffix is a serious danger to his position, but we can’t “compensate” him in this regard. The blessing and hallowing does not substitute for the absence of the “evening and morning” suffix. As we have discussed a number of times previously, the absence or presence of this after-clause (suffix) is a specific Hebrew literary modifier, and its absence or presence after a day, or yom, is designed to indicate whether its attributes are restricted to its boundaries or whether license exists to extend the implications of those events beyond it. There is no comparable meaning indicator in the English language because the two languages have fundamentally different structures. The blessing and hallowing (sanctification) of this one 24-hour period of time has, by the use of this literary device, been indicated to have no boundaries. The memory of these attributes—not the day itself– continues forever. Because these attributes are already there, and will always be there, they cannot be specially placed or transferred to a 7-day interval thereafter, or to any other interval, or at ANY other time thereafter without violating the sanctification of that day. The blessing and hallowing of that particular day is a “done deal.” In no way does this concept imply that God did not cease his creative activities on the literal 24-hour period of the 7th day of Creation, or the possibility that he rested in a literal way by celebrating the completion of His work with Adam and Eve. The author of Genesis knew that his readers would not question the idea that God spent less than 24 literal hours refraining from creative activity, but he seemed to have “worried” that some of them might try to turn his story of one celebration day into an unlimited number of them. The Holy Spirit led the writer of Genesis to go out of his way to clarify this point. Sabbatarians represent a small minority of Christians who have chosen not to get this point. We also reiterate that this seventh day was indeed "sanctified" and as such, cannot be a recurring event and remain sanctified contextually. COTTO: The fact that God blessed the Sabbath day in Genesis 2 proves that the Sabbath lasts forever because the Bible teaches that whatever the Lord blesses is blessed forever. AUTHORS: He then quotes a number of proof-texts to support this concept, including I Chronicles 17:27. God blessed Judas Iscariot in many ways when he was in the presence of Jesus. Just getting to be with Jesus—the Creator of the Universe—was a blessing, but the blessing did not last very long. Adventists should be especially familiar with the fact that Bible writers often used the term “forever” in relative ways. For example, they seem to understand this fact when it comes to how they handle what they want the Bible to say about Hell fire lasting “forever.” They teach that the Hebrew word in these cases translated "forever" means something like “to keep going until the process reaches its completion.” Adventists do not want to believe that the wicked spend eternity in an unpleasant place because their critically important Doctrine of the Investigative Judgment would not work. There are a number of examples of the relativity of “forever” in Hebrew usage. Meredith G. Kline discovered that the Mosaic Covenant was modeled after the covenant treaties of Israel’s neighbors. The language of these covenants featured pronouncements that their provisions would last “forever”, but these "forever" provisions were subject to revision as future circumstances would dictate. Quoting Kline, A.T. Lincoln, cited in the D.A. Carson (editor), From Sabbath to Lord’s Day, in his chapter entitled, “From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: a Biblical Perspective,” pp. 352-353: Kline has pointed out similarities in this aspect of permanence between ancient near eastern treaties and the biblical covenants. Such treaties often spoke of their term as being valid down through following generations “forever,” and yet these treaties were subject to the revision of the suzerain because of changing circumstances. Kline points out that the biblical covenants and these various aspects can similarly be said to be “forever” and yet subject to change according to God’s sovereign purposes in accomplishing redemption in the midst of the historical process. In later Judaism, with the increasing emphasis on Torah, any such notion of change was lost sight of and the law was held to be permanent and eternal, continuing into the age to come. But as part of the Mosaic covenant, and like the elements of the tabernacle, the priesthood, and the offerings, the Sabbath itself can be seen to be eternal and to have continuing validity through the fulfillment of the type. In particular, in Hebrews 4, the resting place of the land and the physical rest of the Sabbath are seen to be types of God’s eternal rest from the beginning.
HOHMANN: There are a number of issues to be addressed in relation to Cotto's claim here. First, he refers to the seventh day of creation as the Sabbath. It is not “the” Sabbath. It is the seventh day of Creation Week. Next, He states God blessed and sanctified that seventh day of Creation Week. Next, he makes the claim that whatever God blesses stays blessed. He offers evidence to support his claim citing I Chronicles 17:27: Now therefore let it please thee to bless the house of thy servant, that it may be before thee for ever: for thou blessest, O LORD, and it shall be blessed for ever.
We could ask, what is the condition of David's house today, right now? We might be hard pressed to say the house of David is blessed at this moment, but the whole concept is rendered moot, for what was blessed here was the seventh day of Creation Week, and we have repeatedly shown that it indeed was blessed AND SANCTIFIED – set aside, separate and distinct from all other days previous to it, and after it. What we witness here is an attempt at “Transference Theology” and rather blatantly at that. That day, in that context, was set aside as unique. Attaching the weekly Sabbath to it removes this contextual uniqueness and separateness. Cotto's use of this reasoning is also reminiscent of similar claims regarding the Sabbath and the Law or Ten Commandments, devoid of any proper hermeneutics. It is claimed by some SDA's that the Ten Commandments are eternally binding on mankind because they were engraved in stone, reflecting the durability and “everlasting” quality of stone as a medium for recording them. It is a convincing argument, but deceptive also. Stone does deteriorate. Do we have the tablets today, or copies written down originally in a book that has been copied down through the ages? Just because an argument sounds reasonable does not mean it is credible evidence. God blessed many things. God sanctified that seventh day. One does not cancel out the other. Nowhere do we see a statement in Scripture that blessing something means the item or person blessed will in turn remain eternally, nor does it follow that the Sabbath being blessed means it applies to all mankind. This is no way to build one's belief system, based on assumptive reasoning. COTTO: Even after the entrance of sin, the Sabbath remained blessed. AUTHORS: This is another logical fallacy– circular reasoning– because it assumes that there was a Sabbath in existence at the time of Creation to be blessed. We have PROOF from Hebrew linguistics that the Sabbath did not exist until the Exodus. We have EVIDENCE from Exodus 20 that this is the case, and we have the suggestion from the text of Genesis 2:2-3 that there is no Sabbath mentioned therein. The Abrahamic Covenant did not include it, and the Sabbath was not kept until the 38 th day of the Exodus journey. The Abrahamic Covenant was limited to circumcision and the promise that if his descendants were faithful to God, they would possess the Land of Canaan forever. Even after the Sabbath ordinance was placed in the Mosaic Covenant, it remained subject to and dependent upon the observance of the Ordinance of Circumcision. The Law of Moses is a fully integrated covenant whole. If you break one of that covenant law, you have broken the covenant. If for no other reason than this, there can be no Sabbath-keeping without circumcision. The Covenant Law of Moses contains 613 laws that many Jewish scholars view as fully equal in importance. Textual studies of both the Old Testament and New Testament prove the subordination of the Sabbath to the ordinance of circumcision– a fact which is one of the three key fatal flaws of the Sabbatarian belief model. Cotto's claim is a Non Sequitur; it is not relevant. COTTO: Another connection between the seventh-day of Genesis and the Sabbath commandment of Exodus 20 is that Moses said it was the 7 th day that the Lord “blessed” because He had rested on that day. How is it that the anti-Sabbatarians continue to say that the Sabbath of the 10 commandments is not the 7 th day “Sabbath” of Creation Week when the word of God itself shows that the blessing of the 7 th day of Creation Week endured till the Sabbath commandment was given? As I have pointed out before, I Chronicles 17:24 [27] says that what the Lord blesses is blessed forever. HOHMANN: The cited passage does not “say” what the Lord blesses is blessed forever. It is an appeal to God to bless David's "house" forever. Even if we take a more liberal view of the passage, one still cannot conclude that everything God blesses remains blessed forever. And, there is still the issue of what this Hebrew word translated “forever” actually means, for olam [owlam] can and does mean; an indeterminate amount of time that does eventually end. WYNNE: Cotto is still working from the false premise that every seventh day from Creation Week was a blessed “Sabbath” day. He now claims, based on this premise, that whatever God blesses remains blessed forever. There is no Bible text that says this. Cotto is implying this from the text:
Let it even be established, that thy name may be magnified forever, saying, The LORD of hosts is the God of Israel, even a God to Israel: and let the house of David thy servant be established before thee. 25 For thou, O my God, hast told thy servant that thou wilt build him an house: therefore thy servant hath found in his heart to pray before thee. 26And now, LORD, thou art God, and hast promised this goodness unto thy servant: 27Now therefore let it please thee to bless the house of thy servant― that it may be before thee forever: for thou blessest, O LORD, and it shall be blessed forever. – 1 Chronicles 17:24-26
Cotto must find a credible biblical principle that indirectly supports his desired view. He goes to an unrelated text to acquire a general principle that he hopes will provide this INDIRECT support. The indirect support he attempts to use is the illogical principle that everything God blesses is blessed forever. For example, after the flood God blessed Noah and his three sons. Ham saw Noah's nakedness while he was sleeping off being drunk with wine. Noah cursed Ham to be the slave to his brothers. Obviously Ham was not blessed by God forever unless being a slave to your brothers is a blessing! Gen. 9:24-27 (NIV) - 24When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25he said, “Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers.” 26He also said, “Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. 27May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japheth live in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be his slave.”
Cotto faces two barriers with his claim. First, as we have noted earlier, Moses’ purposeful non-inclusion of the phrase, “and the evening and the morning” after the 7th day, serves to give this one day attributes that were to be remembered (memorialized) forever. Second, Exodus 20 clarifies that the Sabbath commandment was only a model of Creation week. A model is not the thing itself. Even as a model, the Sabbath ordinance was not a full representation of the days of Creation Week. Genesis 2 says God simply ceased or stopped creating. Man could not create. God had worked/created for six days before the 7th day. Adam and Eve could only “work”, if at all, a small part of the week– perhaps not even a full day– but the 4 th Commandment requires a full six days of work before any resting is permitted. Therefore, Adam and Eve could not have kept the Sabbath even if there had been one to keep. Two different things got blessed between Genesis 2 and Exodus 20: (1) In Genesis 2 a single day to be remembered forever. In this regard, that seventh day was indeed blessed forever. (2) In Exodus 20, a “cultic” ordinance given by God to Israel, modeled after the structure of the days of Creation, designed to set them apart from every other nation on the face of the earth. (The possible use of the literary principle of PROLEPSIS suggests that this seventh day may not even have been blessed until the 10 Commandments were given at Mt. Sinai.) The concept that the Sabbath commandment is a MODEL is the key to understanding the relationship between Creation week and the Sabbath commandment. Moses used several Hebrew literary conventions in Exodus 20 to clarify that the Sabbath ordinance was a MODEL of the days of Creation. A.T. Lincoln, the author of Chapter 12, “From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical and Theological Perspective,” of D.A. Carson’s book, From Sabbath to Lord’s Day, page 349, comments on the linguistic aspects of Moses’ account of the 4th Commandment in Exodus 20: The last clause of Exodus 20:11 gives the reason for the Mosaic institution and takes up the terminology of blessing and hallowing from Genesis 2:2-3, now specifically applying these terms to the “Sabbath” rather than the seventh-day, and is not to be taken as implying that the seventh day of Genesis 2:3 was already the Sabbath set aside by God for humanity. As H.H.P. Dressler points out, the present commandment is based on a previous event, and the significance of the Hebrew construction translated as “therefore,” עבל כןן, is crucial to this interpretation, as it often functions to connect causally an event in the past with a situation some time later. [See first also R. Frankena,“Einige Bemerkungen zum Gebrauch des Adverbs ‘al-ken im Hebraisehen,” Studio Biblica et Semitica (Wageningen, 1966, pp. 94-99)] In fact scholars often speak of an “etiology” when a present name or practice is explained on the basis of a previous event or story, and עבל כןןis one of the markers by which an etiology is recognized. Exodus 20:11 indeed contains in addition to this introductory formula a further feature typical of an etiology—the word play between “the seventh day” and “the Sabbath day.” Such etiological passages, after the introductory “therefore” or “consequently now,” can have the verb in the past tense without implying a strictly past meaning. The presence of the features in Exodus 20:11 suggest that it too is to be seen as providing an explanation of a present institution, the Mosaic Sabbath, by reference to a past event, God’s seventh-day rest after the creation, utilizing the terminology of Genesis 2:3 and a play on words to make its point.
Again, note that one source renders the Hebrew characters from right to left and the other from left to right. You will need to scroll down to the beginning of the next page since the image will not fit on the bottom of this page. It seems that the Hebrew characters are like a combination of two Hebrew words which would be literally translated “ON-SO:” Strong’s #H5921 (used as a preposition (in the singular or plural, often with prefix, or as conjugation with a particle following); above, over, upon, or against (yet always in this last relation with a downward aspect) in a great variety of applications:—above, according to (-ly), after, (as) against, among, and, X as, at, because of, beside (the rest of), between, beyond the time, X both and, by (reason of), X had the charge of, concerning for, in (that), (forth, out) of, (from) (off), (up-) on, over, than, through (-out), to, touching, X with.), and Strong’s #H3651 (From H3559; properly set upright; hence (figuratively as adjective) just; but usually (as adverb or conjugation) rightly or so (in various applications to manner, time and relation; often with other particles):— + after that (this, -ward, -wards), as . . . as, + [for-] asmuch as yet, + be (for which) cause, + following, howbeit, in (the) like (manner, -wise), X the more, right, (even) so, state, straightway, such (thing), surely, + there (where) -fore, this, thus, true, well, X you.) [Emphasis from the author, credit to Strong’s.]:
The Hebrew-English Interlinear Bible posted at www.Scripture4All.org translates Exodus 20:11 literally to indicate that God commanded the Hebrews to rest on the Sabbath because He stopped on the 7 th day of Creation: All of which in them and·he-is-stopping in·the·day the·seventh on so He blessed Yahweh.
Exodus 20, therefore, does not provide any definite support for the claim that God actually reposed on the 7 th day of Creation. God also told Israel to rest on the Sabbath to help them remember that He had rescued them from slavery. The Jews were required to rest every 7th day as much to help them remember their Exodus from Egypt as to remember that God stopped creating on the last day of Creation. Unless we are presumptuous enough to step into God’s place and determine which reason was the most important for keeping the Sabbath, we must regard both reasons as equally important. Christians, therefore, cannot remember the Sabbath for one of these reasons, so Sabbath-keeping cannot possibly apply to them. In summary, Genesis 20 utilizes four aspects of the Ancient Hebrew language to clarify that the Sabbath commandment was merely modeled after Creation Week: (1) the word translated, “therefore," indicates that something in the present is about to be explained by something that happened in the past, (2) the explanation of a present event is accomplished by comparing it with an older event, and; (3) the word play between the “seventh-day of Creation Week and the “Sabbath day” of the 4 th commandment, which gives further evidence that an etiological explanation has just taken place. (4) As discussed in an earlier section, the form of the word translated "rest" is an irregular form of the verb, which is more closely related to the concept of CEASING rather than that of repose. COTTO: If the Sabbath is a temporary institution, why did God bless it [the Sabbath] twice – once at creation and then again at Mt. Sinai?
WYNNE: Again, circular reasoning! He didn’t. There was no Sabbath to bless until the Exodus, and God blessed it then, in relation with the Hebrews and for the duration of the Old Covenant only. AUTHORS: Consideration of the writer’s possible use of the literary device of prolepsis suggests that it might be that the 7 th day of Creation was not even blessed or sanctified on the actual 7 th day of Creation– that the author of Genesis 2:2-3 was looking at it from the perspective of when it was blessed at Mt. Sinai as he recalled his knowledge of both events. In any case, the blessing and hallowing were applied to one single day. By their very nature, these attributes would continue forever without boundaries. Once blessed by God FOREVER, always blessed by God forever. Once set aside to be remembered, always set aside to be remembered. It is impossible to add these qualities to any day subsequent to it any more than a Hebrew birthright can be bestowed on the same eldest son every week by holding a self-invented ritual that Hebrew society had not mandated. At Creation, one single day was blessed and set aside to be remembered forever. At Mt. Sinai, a cultic ritual was established, based on the days of Creation as its model, and multiples of seven days were set aside and blessed. COTTO: The fact that God blessed the Sabbath is sufficient to prove it lasts forever. AUTHORS: We covered this one before. However, it is interesting to note how incomplete the Ten Commandments are. It
does not tell us it is a sin to abuse your wife or children, to own slaves, lose the family money gambling, not caring for the family needs, not helping people in dire need, kidnap people and hold them hostage, lie to others, hate those you do not agree with, drunkenness, gluttony, immodest dress, and the list can go on. Jesus gave a whole set of new “laws” on the Sermon on the Mount, and St. Paul listed 23 sins that would keep someone out of God's kingdom. The 10 Commandments were not complete or flexible enough to meet the needs of His people forever. COTTO: The fact that God sanctified the 7 th day of Creation indicates that it was set aside FOR SACRED SERVICES, which represents still more evidence that the Sabbath ordinance began at creation. “The reason why He blessed the seventh day but did not bless the previous six days was because He had a special purpose for the seventh-day, as will now be seen by His use of the word, “sanctified.” AUTHORS: To follow is a Hebrew word study that demonstrates conclusively that the Hebrew word here for “set aside” cannot mean “set aside for sacred services.” The special purpose is only in a manner of speaking. The day that God created Eve was infinitely more special than the 7 th day by almost any standard, human or divine. The 7 th day of Creation did not become the focus of attention until the giving of the Sabbath commandment at Mt. Sinai which called attention to it as its model. Now is a good time to review the mechanical translation of the passage once more. Notice, again, that the passage merely reports what God did. There is no mention of a Sabbath ordinance, much less any indication that God gave man an institution involving sacred services at this time. When God did give the Sabbath to Israel at the time of the Exodus, the sacred services associated with it included animal sacrifices and circumcision as specified in the Law of Moses. Note also that God never set aside a day for sacred services for his New Covenant believers: GENESIS 2:2 AND 2:3
And He will much-FINISH (verb) Elohiym in the Day the SEVENTH BUSINESS-him WHICH he did DO (verb) and he will CEASE (verb) in the DAY the SEVENTH from ALL BUSINESS-him WHICH he did DO (verb). And he will much KNEEL (verb) Elohiym AT DAY the SEVENTH and he will much SET APART (verb) AT him GIVEN THAT in-him he did CEASE (verb) from-ALL BUSINESS-him WHICH he did-FATTEN (verb—in the sense of “to fill up”) Elohiym to DO (verb).
You may recall that Cotto references the Miriam-Webster’s Dictionary’s definition of the word, “sanctified,” noting that in English it can mean (a) made holy or consecrated, or (b) set apart for sacred services. The word, "sanctified," came into the English language thousands of years after humans began having sacred services. The English meaning of the word, “to set aside for sacred services,” is only a secondary meaning of it, and would only likely have come into English usage as a result of the Judeo-Christian culture that English speaking peoples adopted after the spreading of the Gospel throughout Europe. Therefore, the English definition means nothing to us in our quest for the answer to the meaning of the Ancient Hebrew word used in Genesis 2:3. You may recall that he cites the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Definitions for the Hebrew word, qadash, which is translated as “sanctified,” to mean (a) to consecrate, sanctify, prepare, dedicate, be hallowed, be holy, be sanctified, be separate, to be set apart, be consecrated. We can accept the meaning of “set aside for a holy purpose,” which is what consecration means, as long as we remember that what got consecrated was one single day. When the American astronauts returned safely from their mission to the Moon, there was a ticker-tape parade for them in New York City. That one and only day in the history of the United States was set aside to memorialize the great accomplishments of these brave men. It was likely the only parade ever given for them, and we don’t have parades to memorialize their accomplishments every week, or even every year. Additionally he cites Strong’s Hebrew-Greek Concordance’ definition of the Hebrew word, qadash, as (a) a primitive root; to be (causatively make, pronounce, or observe as) clean. As we mentioned before, Anti-Sabbatarians have no problem with this one day being made holy and set aside to be remembered forever. They do however object to adding things to this day, thereby negating its being set apart and distinct in
and of itself. Finally, recall that neither Brown-Driver-Briggs nor Strong’s reference defines Moses’ Hebrew word, qadash, as “to set apart for sacred services." Brown-Driver-Briggs lists the secondary meaning of one of the forms of the word, qadash, to mean “to observe as holy, keep sacred,” but you can see from a review of this reference that this form of the word was not the one used in Genesis 2. Even if it was, it is only the secondary meaning of this form of the word that can be used in reference to the keeping of other kinds of religious services. observe as holy, keep sacred: feasts, Sabbath Exodus 20:8 = Deuteronomy 5:12 (Decal.), Jeremiah 17:22,24,27; Ezekiel 20:20; Ezekiel 44:24; Nehemiah 13:22; fast Joel 1:14; Joel 2:15; year of Jubilee Leviticus 25:10 (P); so 2 עצרה לבעלKings 10:20. [Ed. Note: Observe once more than Genesis 2:2-3 is not listed for this form of the word, but Exodus 20:8 is.] COTTO: There are several Old Testament texts that support the idea that “sanctify” means to set aside for a holy purpose, or even “set aside for sacred services.” AUTHORS: As we review these texts, keep in mind that the Hebrew definitions of the word qadash allow for “set apart” or even “set aside for a holy purpose.” But not “set aside for religious services.” A linguistic analysis of Genesis 2:2-3 allows for reading the passage that this one, single day was set aside for a holy purpose, but it does not allow for the Sabbatarianfriendly reading that the day was set aside perpetually for recurring sacred services. Sabbatarians like the idea of the sacred services reading because such a reading would make it a little easier to extend the idea of days with intervals of seven from the 7th day of Creation being set aside for sacred services also. TEXT #1: And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, (2) Sanctify [qadash] unto me all the firstborn,
whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine. ― Exodus 13:1-2
Cotto says, “Notice the word here is used in the context of sanctifying, or dedicating "all" the firstborn. It was announced by God that all the children be sanctified unto Him, and this demanded "all" the people to be involved, for they had to obey the Lord and bring in their children for dedication. All were to know that God was the owner of every firstborn, whether of man or beast.”
Unfortunately, qadash is merely used here to mean only to “set apart.” The first born were to be set apart, but they were not set apart for ceremonial use. The first born had a special position in the family, but they were not required to serve in the Tabernacle for the remainder of their lives. They lived ordinary lives except that the first male child got the birthright inheritance– hardly an example of “holy use” or a sacred service. It is acceptable to render the meaning of qadash as set aside for holy use, but not as set aside for sacred services. TEXT #2: And Jehu said, Proclaim [qadash] a solemn assembly for Baal. And they proclaimed it. ― 2 Kings 10:20
Cotto says, “When used here in the context of proclaiming a solemn feast, "all" the Baal worshipers of Israel were to be informed of this event and to attend it.”
This is Cotto’s only observation about this text. What is his point? Both Sabbatarians and Anti-Sabbatarians agree that the 7th day of Creation Week was set apart from the others. By its very nature, it was different than the other days. It is clear, once again, that qadash fits its Hebrew meaning of simply “set aside.” The fact that the sentence conveys the idea that the day was set aside for a religious service is the result of the context in which the word was used and not a function of the specific meaning of the word, qadash, itself. TEXT #3: And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to sanctify [qadash] me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them. ―Numbers 20:12
Cotto comments further: According to this verse, Moses and Aaron were to sanctify God "in the eyes of the children of Israel." So
we see that when the word "qadash" is used, it is to publicly announce or proclaim that something is set apart for holy use. All those involved were to be made aware of this announcement.
Again, it is okay to interpret qadash as to set aside for holy use. The above passage means that Moses and Aaron were to set God apart for receiving the honor and glory that was due to Him. We maintain that this word cannot mean “set aside for sacred services.” TEXT #4: Moses said to the Lord, “The people cannot come up Mount Sinai, because you yourself warned us, 'Put limits around the mountain and set it apart as holy.'” ― Exodus 19:23 A review of the Piel variation of the verb qadash is helpful in this case: Pi`el – Perfect 3 masculine singular קַדד ׁששNumbers 6:11; 1 Kings 8:64, etc.; Imperfect 3 masculine singular י ׁשקק שדשGenesis 2:3 +, etc.; Imperative masculine singular ק ׁשדששJoshua 7:13; Exק ׁשדֿׁששExodus 13:2, etc.; Infinitive construct ׁשק שדשExodus 29:1 +, etc.; Participle מקק ׁשדששExodus 37:28; suffix קמ ׁשק ַדד קשכֿׁשםExodus 31:13 +, etc.; — [Note Genesis 2:3 uses this variant of the Pi’el form, which means, “be consecrated, dedicated, by] 1. set apart as sacred, consecrate, dedicate: a. places: Sinai Exodus 19:23 (J), alter, etc., Exodus 29:36,37; Exodus 30:29 (P), tabernacle, etc. Exodus 40:9,10,11; Leviticus 8:10,11,15; Numbers 7:1 (twice in verse) (P); tent of meeting Exodus 29:44 (P); place of sacrifice 1 Kings 8:64 2 Chronicles 7:7; gate Nehemiah 3:1 (twice in verse); — Ezekiel 7:24 see ַדמ קק שדשbelow. Here, Cotto attempts to draw a parallel between the setting aside of Mt. Sinai and the so-called setting aside of the 7 th day of Creation for the Sabbath ordinance. The comparison works much better between the setting aside of Mt. Sinai for a onetime sacred event and the setting aside of the 7 th day of Creation for a one-time sacred event. In regard to the 7th day of Creation, one and only one day was set aside—not multiples of it. In Exodus 19:23, the word qadash is used only to mean “set aside.” In fact, in the Hebrew sentence, the “setting aside,” represented by the pi’el form of qadash, acquires its specific meaning of, to be SET ASIDE for a holy purpose, by a Hebrew word that follows it, and that modifies it, and conveys the concept of holiness– u•qdshth•u. Therefore, in this case the word qadash is dependent on the CONTEXT of the sentence to acquire any meaning that extends beyond simply “set aside.” Our reference here is available at the following link to this passage in the Hebrew-English Interlinear Bible at Scripture4All: http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/exo19.pdf COTTO: The similarity of the Hebrew words for “rest” in Genesis 2 and Exodus 20 provides evidence that the word translated “rest” in Genesis implies a Sabbath rest. AUTHORS: As we have pointed out previously, in Genesis 2, the word translated “rest” is the verb form of the word, and it likely does not mean “rest” in the form of repose. It simply means “cease” or “stop.” Also, as we have out-lined earlier, the form of the verb translated "rest" in Exodus 20 is the irregular form, which implies CEASING rather than REPOSE. Some authorities reject the idea that this passage in Exodus 20 means that God wanted the Israelites to rest on the Sabbath because He reposed on the 7th day of Creation. What Cotto must do here, but cannot do, is to show that in Genesis 2:2-3, God told Adam and Eve to rest along with Him– impossible since the text does not even say that God Himself rested. Cotto comes up short again because the passage just says what God did. God had worked for six days, whereas Adam and Eve had existed and perhaps worked for one day. The 4th Commandment specifies that humans must work for six days, apparently just as God had worked for six days before He ceased working on the 7th day of Creation Week. Were the Sabbath commandment to have actually existed at the time of Creation, the six day work requirement would still have applied. There is no statement that Adam and Eve rested, ceased, or reposed on the 7th day of Creation as God did. If there had been a Sabbath in Eden, and if God had rested on it, and if His resting had been intended as an example for man, the Hebrews would not have been directed by God to march across the desert without keeping every seventh-day as a Sabbath rest. If this were the case, God would have forced them to break a law that Sabbatarians claim represents an eternal, moral principle established at Creation.
Recall once more that in Exodus 20, the Ancient Hebrew word usually translated “rest” in the sense of repose can mean either to “cease” (as in stopping) OR “rest” (as in the sense of repose). Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible makes this comment about the nature of God’s “rest” in Exodus 20:11, and cites a text in Isaiah that points out that God never becomes weary: and resteth the seventh day: which does not suppose labour, attended with weariness and fatigue; for the Creator of the ends of the earth fainteth not, neither is weary, Isaiah 40:28 nor ease and refreshment from it, but only a cessation from the works of creation, they being finished and completed, though not from the works of Providence, in which he is continually concerned: now this circumstance, before recorded in the history of the creation, is wisely improved to engage an attention to this command, and to the observation of it; there being an analogy between the one and the other, that as God worked six days, and, having done his work completely, ceased from it and rested, so it was fit and proper, that as the Israelites had six days allowed them to labour in, and do all their work, they should rest on the seventh, they and all that belonged to them, or had any connection with them.
God is making an analogy in anthropomorphic terms His people can understand. The reality of the matter is that God never wearies or needs rest. What He could do, as the Great I AM, was to cease creating, and that is exactly what He did. The multiple literary devices Moses used in Exodus 20 to clarify that the Sabbath commandment was merely modeled after the seven days of Creation suggest that Moses was comparing the two events loosely and that the preferred “reading” of the word is “ceased.” The Children of Israel were to cease their daily labors and rest on the Sabbath day. It is okay when God chooses to speak to humans in anthropomorphic terms, but it is not okay for humans to impose anthropomorphic limitations on God. COTTO: The Hebrew word for “sanctify” in Genesis 2 can have the meaning, “To keep or observe the Sabbath.” This is additional evidence that when God sanctified the 7 th day of Creation, He was indicating to Adam and Eve how they were to make use of that holy day. “So while the Hebrew word 'Shabbath' is not found in Genesis, the Hebrew word 'shabath' is, and its close connection and nearly same meaning is but more proof that the 'Sabbath day' rest is what is intended in Genesis 2:1-3.”
AUTHORS: We looked at this issue in a another section. Cotto is attempting to use a secondary meaning of the word, and on top of that he twists it by trying to apply it specifically to Sabbath observance. The Hebrews used their word for “sanctify” in conjunction with other sacred days and events that were “observed.” Secondary meanings evolve within a language as it develops a history. Eventually a word that meant “set aside for sacred use” would come to be associated with the term, Sabbath, but it is pure assumption to think that the word “Sabbath” became associated with this form of the word, “sanctify,” at any time prior to the Exodus. Proof– not just evidence– is found in Exodus 16 that there was no Sabbath prior to the giving of the Manna and the Exodus. The first meaning of a word is always the earliest definition which was created by the earliest common use of the word. Here are the two definitions given for this Hebrew word by Brown-Driver, and Briggs. In this case, the word “shabbath” is in its “pi’el” form: 1) Set apart as sacred, consecrate, dedicate: 2) Observe as holy, keep sacred Note that Strong’s does not list this secondary meaning for “shabbath” at all. Again, we have a problem with reading something back into Genesis 2 from later influences. COTTO: The fact that the linguistic suffix, “the evening and the morning,” is missing from Moses' account of the events of the 7th day does not indicate that seventh day was meant to continue forever without an end. Moses put the meaning of the evening and morning into this passage in two different ways, and this proves that the Sabbath rest talked about in this passage doesn't simply mean only that God's rest would last forever like the anti-Sabbatarians would like to claim: (1) “In other words, the phrase "evening and morning" and the word "sanctified" parallel each other, for both do the same thing. They "set apart." It would have been redundant for Moses to use the phrase, “evening and morning,” when this is already implied by his use of the word "sanctified." (2) The Hebrew word translated "day" is the Hebrew word "yom," and is "defined by evening and
morning in Genesis 1," says Brown-Driver-Briggs’ Hebrew definition. If the combination of the "evening and morning" makes up the "yom" or day, take note, that this same word "yom" is also used in reference to the seventh day.” The lack of the evening and morning suffix memorializes the memory of this one single day forever by giving it the attributes of blessing and hallowing that can have no boundaries. The actions described by the narrative took place within a 24 hour period of time, but the memory of the blessing and setting aside of that one day would last forever. Once this one day has been blessed and set aside, it doesn’t need a weekly cultic ritual to keep it blessed and set aside. We thank Cotto for acknowledging that the problem of the missing “evening and the morning” suffix is dangerous to Sabbatarianism. He must convince us, therefore, that his effort to explain this problem away is credible, or he has lost the case. He has tacitly agreed to meet the Anti-Sabbatarians at this battle field and conceded that this territory is the key to winning the “war” over the question of whether there is a Sabbath in Genesis. As we reviewed earlier, the Hebrew word translated as “sanctify” can mean “set apart,” but not “set apart for sacred services.” Therefore, the recognition that one 24-hour period of time in the history of Planet Earth included the concrete action of God setting down His creative “wand” and walking away from it, and kneeling down briefly on the day, does not imply the imposition of a weekly Sabbath ritual by any stretch of the prudent imagination. God’s assignment of unlimited blessing and the reservation of this one 24-hour period of time in the history of Planet Earth to be memorialized without boundaries prevents the possibility that this blessing and setting aside could be applied to any future date, whether an exact interval of the 7th day of Creation or not. Even if the Hebrew word for “set aside” could have the meaning of “set aside for sacred services,” which would indicate that there was a sacred service on the 7 th day of Creation, no linguistic justification would exist for reading it to mean that there were to be religious services every seventh day thereafter. Cotto emphasizes that the Hebrew word, “yom,” is used in conjunction with a description of all the seven days of Creation since he is focused on demonstrating that the 7 th day did not last forever. However, the word “yom” functions as a separator to differentiate 24 hour periods of time from one another. The non-inclusion of the suffix, “the evening and the morning” after the 7th day, does not function as a separator of 24-hour periods of time. Rather, it specifies that this time period of 24-hours has the abstract attributes of being blessed and set aside to be remembered forever and without boundaries. In doing so, it prevents the specific application of these attributes to any day beyond its 24-hour boundaries, whether recurring or not. COTTO: On the fourth day of Creation; God created the sun; moon; and stars so that man would be able to read “days:” God said in Genesis 1:14, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divine the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years." Quoting Cotto: “After man sinned, these time-telling elements did not cease to exist. If therefore they were established to tell "time" and "days," and their existence continued on through the creation of man until today, then obviously the Bible does not really have to mention "days" after man sinned, for the existence of "days" is already implied through the testimony of these elements. This shows that the seventh day could not possibly have been created to be an unending day of rest, and therefore must have always been a 24-hour day, for these heavenly elements, which were created to read "days," existed even while Adam was in perfect harmony with his Creator.”
Of course this celebration day was limited to 24-hours. It was the memory of its special significance that lasts forever. William Hohmann points out that the author of Genesis explains what a day consists of as an EVENING and a morning, the evening listed first, which suggests that the movement of the moon, best visible at night, was used to indicate the starting boundary for each day. We have examined the subject of the lunar calendar earlier in this book. We will expand on the subject now. Let us review the New International Version's translation of Moses’ account of the events of the fourth day of Creation: And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16God made two great lights—the greater light to 14
govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
The Hebrew word translated “as signs to mark sacred times” is “mow’ed,” Strong’s word #4150, which means an appointed place, time, or meeting. It would seem that if the Sabbath had been given to Adam and Eve, such a “sacred time” would have been synchronized to the Moon. Once again by way of review, God gave the Sabbath to Israel from the Mountain of the Moon which borders the x Wilderness of the Moon. The Semitic word for moon is “sin,” so both the wilderness and the mountain were named after the Moon. Here is the history of the word's derivation from the Wikipedia article on “Sin (Mythology). It is interesting to note that the association between the word “sin” and the moon originated in the Land of Ur, the place where Abraham was dwelling when God called him to be the father of His special people. It is also significant to note that one of the Hebrew words for “moon” is equivalent to the word “sin”: The original meaning of the name Nanna is unknown. The earliest spelling found in Ur and Uruk is DHYPERLINK "file://vhadayclu4/wiki/Liste_der_archaischen_Keilschriftzeichen"LAK-32.NA (where NA is to be understood as a phonetic complement). The name of Ur, spelled LAK32.UNUGKI =URIM2KI, is itself derived from the theonym, and means "the abode (UNUG) of Nanna (LAK-32)". The pre-classical sign LAK-32 later collapses with ŠEŠ (the ideogram for "brother"), and the classical Sumerian spelling is D ŠEŠ.KI, with the phonetic reading na-an-na. The technical term for the crescent moon could also refer to the deity, D U4.SAKAR. Later, the name is spelled logographically as DNANNA. The Semitic moon god Su'en/Sin is in origin a separate deity from Sumerian Nanna, but from the Akkadian Empire period the two undergo syncretization and are identified. The occasional Assyrian spelling of DNANNA-ar DSu'en-e is due to association with Akkadian na-an-na-ru "illuminator, lamp", an epitheton of the moon god. The name of the Assyrian moon god Su'en/Sîn is usually spelled as DEN.ZU, or simply with the numeral 30, DXXX. He is commonly designated as En-zu, which means "lord of wisdom". During the period (c.2600-2400 BC) that Ur exercised a large measure of supremacy over the Euphrates valley, Sin was naturally regarded as the head of the pantheon. It is to this period that we must trace such designations of Sin as "father of the gods", "chief of the gods", "creator of all things", and the like. The "wisdom" personified by the moon-god is likewise an expression of the science of astronomy or the practice of astrology, in which the observation of the moon's phases is an important factor.
Nomadic people, like the Children of Abraham, before migrating to Egypt would have had no other way to keep track of time than the Moon and solar year. It seems unreasonable to think that nomadic people would have the ability over thousands of years to keep track of an exact 7-day interval to the 7 th day of Creation, although this is a remote possibility. Is it possible that God synchronized the Jewish Sabbath to the Moon as a way of giving Israel something they could relate to as part of their culture? Israel’s neighbors kept track of time with lunar calendars, so far as we can tell. It would seem that virtually all ancient cultures did. If this is the case, it was similar to how God modeled the 10 Commandments after the treaties that were common to neighboring countries, by putting a ceremonial law in the middle of the operational laws. Lunar Sabbatarians claim that there are 72 instances in Scripture where it can be reasonably deduced from near-by time indicators that these Sabbaths occurred on one of the fixed days of the lunar month upon which the lunar Sabbath days would fall. The Jewish Encyclopedia (1906), states that the Hebrews used a lunar calendar for the largest part of their early history. The scholarly respect it enjoys adds credibility to its position that Israel most likely determined its weekly Sabbath days by the lunar calendar. A later Jewish encyclopedia, The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia (1943), strongly supports the fact that Israel determined its Sabbaths according to the lunar calendar until sometime after the building of the Second Temple. Additionally, these encyclopedia articles provide a number of Old Testament texts that provide evidence that Israel kept its Sabbaths according to a variable lunar calendar. These texts will be presented as parts of quotes from those encyclopedia articles. At the same time, just like unauthorized Catholic officials have claimed in error that the Mother Church changed the Sabbath by ecclesiastical authority alone, so it is possible the find Jewish authorities who mistakenly
claim that Israel always used a fixed calendar to determine its Sabbath days as a result of a lack of proper research and knowledge. Robert K. Sanders observes that one Catholic apologist he has communicated with had this to say when asked the name of the Pope that changed the Sabbath to Sunday. He said, "If the Sabbath was changed to Sunday it would have had to have been Peter as he is the first pope." Robert Sanders observes that it is impossible for any church or person to alter a covenant made by God. Thus, neither Peter nor a pope changed the Sabbath to Sunday. The Sabbath just ended with the Old Covenant. The first volume of the Jewish Encyclopedia was published in 1901 with the remaining volumes published by 1906. It is an authority of the highest level, so I find it difficult to dismiss the possibility of a movable Sabbath in Israel: The origin of the Sabbath, as well as the true meaning of the name, is uncertain. The earliest Biblical passages which mention it (Ex. xx. 10, xxxiv. 21; Deut. v. 14; Amos viii. 5) presuppose its previous existence and an analysis of all the references to it in the Canon makes it plain that its observance was neither general nor altogether spontaneous in either pre-exilic or post-exilic Israel. It was probably originally connected in some manner with the cult of the moon, as indeed is suggested by the frequent mention of Sabbath and New-Moon festivals in the same sentence (Isa. i. 13; Amos viii. 5; H Kings iv. 23). The old Semites worshiped the moon and the stars (Hommel, "Der Gestirndienst der Alten Araber"). Nomads and shepherds, they regarded the night as benevolent, the day with its withering heat as malevolent. In this way the moon ("Sinai" = "moon ["sin"] mountain") became central in their pantheon. The moon, however, has four phases in approximately 28 days, and it seemingly comes to a standstill every seven days. Days on which the deity rested were considered taboo, or ill-omened. New work could not be begun, nor unfinished work continued, on such days. The original meaning of "Shabbat" conveys this idea (the derivation from "sheba'" is entirely untenable). If, as was done by Prof. Sayce (in his Hibbert Lectures) and by Jastrow (in American Journal of Theology, April, 1898), it can be identified in the form "shabbaton" with the "Shabattum" of the Assyrian list of foreign words, which is defined as "um nuḥ libbi" = "day of propitiation" (Jensen, in "Sabbath-School Times," 1892), it is a synonym for "Aẓeret" and means a day on which one's actions are restricted, because the deity has to be propitiated. If, with Toy (in Journal of Biblical Literature xviii. 194), it is assumed that the signification is "rest," or "season of rest" (from the verb "to rest," "to cease [from labor]"; though "divider" and "division of time" are likewise said to have been the original significations; comp. also Barth, "Nominalbildungen," and Lagarde, "Nominal-bildung"), the day is so designated because, being taboo, it demands abstinence from work and other occupations. The Sabbath depending, in Israel's nomadic period, upon the observation of the phases of the moon, it could not, according to this view, be a fixed day. When the Israelites settled in the land and became farmers, their new life would have made it desirable that the Sabbath should come at regular intervals, and the desired change would have been made all the more easily as they had abandoned the lunar religion.
The following quote from the article, "Festivals," in the Jewish Encyclopedia gives us further insight regarding the concept of the "movable" Sabbath in early Hebrew culture: The moon was the beneficent deity of the shepherds in the region and climate where ancient Israel had its ancestral home. Hence the many traces of lunar institutions in even the latest Israelitish cult and its phraseology; e.g., the "horn" (crescent), the "face" (of YHWH) in the benedictions, etc. The Sabbath, as marking the end of the week, reveals its lunar origin; the phases of the moon having taught the shepherds, whose weal or woe depended so largely upon the benevolence or malevolence of the night season, to divide the period elapsing between two new moons into four equal groups (weeks), the last day of each—in imitation of the moon's coming to rest, as it were—becoming the day of rest. Indications are not wanting that at first the New Moon festival was not counted among the seven days of the week (see Week); but after 7✗ 4 (=28) days had elapsed, one or two days were intercalated as New Moon days, whereupon a new cycle of four weeks began, so that the Sabbath was a movable festival. Later the week and the Sabbath became fixed; and this gradually resulted in taking away from the New Moon festival its popular importance.
As you will note from the emphasized content below, the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia presents some Old Testament texts which appear to allude to the existence of a movable Sabbath. The Jewish Encyclopedia article, “Festivals,” states: Dissociated from the moon, the Sabbath developed into a day of rest for the workers and animals on the farm (Deut. v. 14; Ex. xx. 10). Traces of the old taboo are, however, still found. In Amos viii. 5 it is the fear of evil consequences that keeps the impatient merchants from plying their wicked trade. The multitude of sacrifices (Isa. i. 8; Hosea ii. 11) on Sabbath and New Moon indicates the anxiety on those
particular days to propitiate the deity. Closer contact with Assyrians and Babylonians from the eighth to the sixth century BCE probably revitalized the older idea of taboo. The assumption that the Hebrews borrowed the institution from the Babylonians, which was first suggested by Lotz (Quæstiones de Historia Sabbati), is untenable; but that the Exile strengthened the awe in which the day was held cannot be denied. It having become a purely social institution, a day of rest for the farmers, the taboo element in course of time had lost its emphasis. The Assyrians and Babylonians may have had similar days of abstinence or propitiation (the 7th, 14th, 19th, 21st, and 28th of the month Elul), and contact with them may have served to lend the Jewish Sabbath a more austere character. The Assyrian calendar seems to disclose an effort to get rid of the movable Sabbath in favor of the fixed. If after the twenty-eighth day two days are intercalated as new-moon days, the 19th day becomes the 49th from the beginning of the next preceding month, as in the Feast of Weeks, in connection with which the emphasis on "complete Sabbaths" ("sheba' Shabbot temimot"; Lev. xxiii. 15) is noteworthy. At all events, in the Priestly Code, Sabbath violation is represented as entailing death (Num. xv. 32-36). The prohibition against kindling fire (Ex. xxxv. 3) probably refers to producing fire by the fire-drill or by rubbing two sticks together; this was the crime of the man put to death according to Num. xv. 32-36, the "meḳoshesh" (see also Beẓah iv. 7), the presence of fire being considered, if the analogy with superstitious practices elsewhere is decisive, a very grave sign of disrespect to the deity.
In the article, “Holidays,” from the 1943 The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, the writer stated: 1. Sabbath and New Moon (Rosh Hodesh), both periodically recurring in the course of the year. The New Moon is still, and the Sabbath originally was, dependent upon the lunar cycle. Both date back to the nomadic period of Israel. Originally the New Moon was celebrated in the same way as the Sabbath; gradually it became less important, while the Sabbath became more and more a day of religion and humanity, of religious meditation and instruction, of peace and delight of the soul, and produced powerful and beneficent effects outside of Judaism.
(See The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia ...: an authoritative and popular presentation of Jews and Judaism since the earliest times, Volume 9, page 410, Edited by Isaac Landman, 1943.) In Landman's article, “Week,” (Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, Volume 10, page 482), he says this: With the development of the importance of the Sabbath as a day of consecration and EMPHASIS laid upon the significant NUMBER SEVEN, the week became more and more divorced from its lunar connection, so that by the time of the second Temple it was merely a period of seven days and no longer depended on the new moon.
At the same time your authors concede that some Jewish authorities deny the concept of a lunar Sabbath, as in the following reference. Here, the historian states what is currently true about the way the Jews keep the Sabbath. He fails to tell his audience, however, that this was NOT the case prior to the building of the second temple: “[The] Sabbath day does not depend on any calendar. It occurs every seventh day regardless of the lunar or lunar-solar calendars.”
– לשלמה ה צײטליןSolomon Zeitlin, 1952, Jewish Historian, cited from: http://loudcry.org/sda/worlds-last-chance
Thus, Knudson demonstrates only a partial understanding of the history of the lunar calendar in Jewish history. Our research suggests that the affinity for a 7-day week among various early civilizations does not depend on a “dim” memory of the seven days of Creation as passed down through the earliest ages of human history, although such is possible. Since the Moon seems to come to a standstill for 7 days at a time during its 28-29 day cycle, a seven-day week would be more likely to develop and/or maintain its widespread usage in ancient cultures for astronomical reasons. How else could nomadic people keep track of time? It is extremely unlikely that the nomadic Hebrews had a written calendar to follow prior to being enslaved by the Egyptians. The phases of the moon provided the only way these nomadic people could keep track of time. Quoted in the Book of Jude, The Book of Enoch discusses the four 7-day phases of the moon. Supposedly written by Enoch, the 7th from Adam, most scholars believe it was put together from a number of sources about 200 BCE.
Aside from its calendar implications, the Book of Enoch is interesting because it makes no reference to the Sabbath or the Mosaic Covenant. Whether it was recorded in writing from an oral history passed down from pre-Flood times, or whether it was put together around 200 BCE, it demonstrates, in either case, that the Jews did not see a Sabbath or a Decalogue in existence prior to Mt. Sinai. The evidence from the history of the calendars used by ancient civilizations in South America, China, and the Middle East that a major solar system event caused the lunar and solar calendars to get out of sync with each other between the 8 th and 7th century BCE reconciles everything we know about Israel's abandonment of the lunar calendar after the building of the Second Temple. Suddenly the lunar calendar didn't work. Israel's ancient neighbors developed fixed calendars as a result, and after one or another of them took Israel captive, they forced the Jews to use the fixed calendars they had devised. The Jews acquiesced to this imposition because their lunar calendar didn't work right any longer. The lunar Sabbath feast days were out of sync with the weekly Sabbaths whereas in ancient times all the Sabbaths related to each other in 7-day intervals fixed to the new moon. A future section of this book will deal with the subject of the lunar Sabbath in more detail. COTTO: "The most disturbing verse in the Bible for our critics is one they have no choice but to acknowledge. They have tried their very best; everywhere from saying it is all symbolic to saying that it is only applicable to the past. Some have gone to the extreme to, after finding no other way to escape this reality, accuse us of claiming or somehow supporting new moon observance.” AUTHORS: Cotto refers to Isaiah 66:22-23. Just saying the words doesn’t change the reality of this text. Non-scholarly writers would refer to this claim as a “whopper.” To the contrary, this passage is one of the easiest Sabbatarian proof-texts to refute. Anti-Sabbatarians do demonstrate that if this passage is really about the Heaven of the Hereafter, it would unavoidably teach that both the weekly Sabbath and monthly New Moons will be mandatory in Heaven. It would also teach that Levites will serve in the heavenly Temple, and that anyone who doesn’t live to age 100 is an accursed sinner. It would not be Heaven in the sense of an eternal Paradise. Isaiah 65 and 66 transcend chapter boundaries in a discussion of the future of Jerusalem. For an increased understanding of this prophecy, please read both chapters together. The question is, which Jerusalem– the capital city of Israel or the Holy City of Heaven? Among other lapses of logic, Sabbatarians have ignored a key word in this proof-text example– the word -AS-. Something that is COMPARED TO something else cannot be the thing itself. And, would accursed sinners be in Heaven? COTTO: Yet no matter what the claim might be, the following verse is clear even to the eyes of a child, and is piercing through the hearts of the Sabbath’s most valiant opponents. These verses are found in the book of the ancient prophet Isaiah: Isaiah 66:22-23
For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain. 22
And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD. 23
The argument is brought forth, that Isaiah uses common idioms to simply say that in the New Earth there will be constant worship, from week to week, and from month to month. The key word, AS, makes Isaiah's statement into a comparison and signals the reader that the topic is NOT what happens in the New Earth. Let us analyze the passage to find out what Isaiah was talking about. COTTO: "Little do they realize that by such a claim they actually debunk their own reasoning of the seventh day of Genesis 2:2-3. Let me explain. If the "Sabbath to Sabbath" reference in Isaiah 66:23 is merely to show how worship will be "from week to week" one has to admit that a week necessitates the seventh day, for without the seventh day, there could not logically be a "week." A week consists of "seven" days, and as much as there has to be a first day to begin a week, there must also be a seventh day to end it." Now, our opponents tell us that God will restore the "eternal rest" that our first parents experienced in the Garden, which means there will be no "weekly cycle," for, every day will be an eternal day of rest.
HOHMANN: What is happening here is that Cotto is engaging in some obfuscation, which unfortunately we find Sabbatarians doing historically as a matter of habit. Sabbatarians, such as Cotto, cite Isaiah 66 as being situationally, the time frame of the New Heavens and New Earth; a time after all else has happened in relation to physical mankind. Cotto is also saying that the position of the “anti-Sabbatarian” is based on their time frame, which it is not! If the case could be made that “people” even after the culmination of all things are keeping the Sabbath, then what excuse could there possibly be for not keeping it now? But Isaiah 66 is not about the time extant after the establishment of the New Heavens and Earth. The reference here uses the future event as something sure to occur; something well established prophetically that without doubt will come about. What then is sure to occur? First, God's people and their offspring will endure in the same way; their “names” will endure. Now, whether what follows also relates to v. 22 is irrelevant. The statements stand firm as declarations of what God will do, without question. All mankind; all “flesh” will come before God to worship Him. Where? When? The context would indicate this is shortly after the return of Christ and His battle with those nations assembled to oppose Him. Reference is made to “My holy mountain, Jerusalem” in v. 20. Those who opposed Him at his return are there, lying dead for all to see. Finally, Cotto claims the validation of the Sabbath as a result of the weekly cycle being referenced in the passage. In order for there to be a week, there must be a Sabbath at the end of it. Taking this line of logic out to its logical conclusion, Cotto has validated the observance of New Moon observances. Regardless, a seven day week without the seventh day being a sanctified day, and a seven day week with a sanctified seventh day still results in a seven day week. What Cotto apparently cannot fathom is a seven day week where the seventh day is not, and was not, a holy day to be observed by all mankind. His paradigm forces him to see no other possibilities other than his own. WYNNE: The structure of a 7-day week is self-evident. The problem is that the Book of Revelation tells us in relation to the New Heavens and Earth that there will be no night “there.” If there is no night, there are no “days,” because a day consists of both a period of daylight and a period of night time– an “evening” and a “morning.” Isaiah could not be talking about the Heaven of the Hereafter. Back on Earth, in the Jerusalem of Israel, there are real 24-hour days. The “eternal rest” we are told will exist in Heaven is the rest from the nightmare of sin—not from activity, enjoyable labor, and adventure. Cotto is thinking about rest as a cessation of labor. It does not follow that a cosmic rescue from sin through redemption would have anything to do with a weekly cycle. COTTO: However, if Isaiah tells us we will have a week to week worship experience, how can you have an eternal day, while at the same time you have a weekly cycle where one 24 day follows the next? It’s impossible and illogical! You can’t have on the one hand an eternal rest where the rest-day will never end, and in the other hand a "week to week" where by definition you must have each consecutive day end at the same time!" WYNNE: No such conflict exists. The 7 th day of Creation marked the beginning of God’s eternal rest from creating Planet Earth. Since there is no night in Heaven, there can’t be “days” as we think of them; so there can be no “weeks” as we think of them now. For the purpose of analysis, note that God’s rest from creating Planet Earth is eternal whether our perspective is the Jerusalem of Israel or the Heaven of the Hereafter. HOHMANN: The impossible and illogical situation is the creation of the SDA to begin with. It is a classic straw-man argument. It is the Sabbatarian that insists this is a post- New Heavens/ New Earth premise. The temptation here is to chide Cotto for being unable to comprehend something spiritual in nature. The author of Hebrews speaks of God's rest that God entered into on that seventh day of Creation Week, and associates this “day” as “another day” in chapter 4 besides the weekly Sabbath, which day is designated as: “To day”. “To day” (today) one can enter into God's rest. Tomorrow becomes “To day” when we are in that day, and the same condition remains extant regarding God's rest and entering into it. God will still be in His Rest tomorrow. People will still have the opportunity to enter into His Rest, through faith, tomorrow, when it is known then as “To day”. This concept is irrelevant to any association regarding a seven day week and worship of God during that week. Perhaps the problem with Cotto's comprehension is the association his church makes between “rest” and “worship”, having historically blurred the concepts together so much so that they no longer see a distinction, having redefined the Sabbath in this manner. COTTO: “No doubt we will enter into the rest of the true heavenly Canaan, as taught in Hebrews 3 and 24, but the weekly rest, the memorial of God's Creation, will continue from week to week, only this time it will be a
memorial of God's "new" creation of the heavens and earth, for, says the apostle, "I saw a new heaven and a new earth… I make all things new." Revelation 21:1-5. AUTHORS: We are hoping Cotto is not trying to get any support for Sabbatarianism from Hebrews 3 and 4. The author of Hebrews is comparing the rest of the saints from the agony of sin and a vain life to the rest from physical labor the Jews enjoyed on the Sabbath day. Heaven provides a wonderful rest from sin and its consequences, but this passage in the Book of Hebrews has nothing to do with a cultic Sabbath ritual requirement for Christians. Isaiah and St. John are using the term “new heavens and earth” in different ways. Isaiah is using it as a COMPARISON to demonstrate how long the memory of the valiant and faithful Israelites will last—forever. St. John is referring to the thing itself—a REFERENCE. Is Cotto using Revelation 21:1-5 as evidence that the Sabbath, which he refers to as the “weekly rest,” will be observed in the New Earth? If so, this point of view betrays a very primitive view of the cosmos. If God is going to make both a new “heavens” and a new “earth,” He might make them in a different dimension, or in a different galaxy. He might make them in some way that we have no capacity to understand now. Our sun has a limited lifespan, and so does Planet Earth. Our solar system will eventually burn out during our unlimited lifetime in Heaven. Perhaps Heaven is in a dimension that does not have much in common with the way we perceive things now. God is probably chuckling at our own ideas about the cosmos and thinking to Himself what a big surprise we will be in for later. When you read the description of the New Jerusalem, it is difficult to conclude the New Earth it resides upon is an actual physical planet. Additionally, where is the biblical authority to declare that the significance of the Sabbath will be expanded to represent something far beyond its original purpose? The Sabbath was given only to Israel and to distinguish the Jews from all other nations on the face of the earth. It was a “shadow” of Christ which lost its meaning entirely when Christ appeared. Apart from the Nation of Israel, the Sabbath has no meaning. The Sabbath is a sign of the Old Covenant—a contract between God and Israel—which was broken when the Jews rejected Christ and crucified Him. Just like a marriage contract is null and void if a wife murders her husband, so the Old Covenant ceased to exist when Jesus was nailed to the cross. Sabbatarians however must expand and increase the overall concept of the Sabbath in order to continue justifying its observance. They must make it out to be much more than it really is. Imagine the results should the SDA Church, for example, admit the Sabbath was of no consequence in Christianity. No, their collective egos cannot accept the possibility. Therefore, the Sabbath will be defended and promoted at all costs and by any means, including unscrupulous ones. COTTO: Isaiah 66:23 is very difficult for Anti-Sabbatarians to deal with. If Isaiah is depicting an event not too far from his time, but before the time of Christ, then why does he reference the same "new heaven and new earth" that John the Revelator cites? AUTHORS: When you are using something as a COMPARISON, any time or distance works. Both writers mention the same Heaven of the Hereafter, but Isaiah is using this as a COMPARISON, whereas John is referencing the place itself. John does not compare it with anything. Read this passage again and again notice the word, AS. (22) For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.
COTTO: And if that is symbolic, John's must also be symbolic, and there will not really be a new heaven or new earth.” AUTHORS: John makes no claim to be using his reference to the new heavens and the new earth as a comparison. Isaiah warns his readers that a COMPARISON is about to follow by prefacing his phrase with the word “AS”. By contrast, Isaiah used his reference to the New Heaven and the New Earth to compare the length of time that Israel’s faithful heroes would be remembered to how long the new heaven and new earth would exist. A COMPARISON is not like a SYMBOL. If we take the prophecies of Isaiah 65 and 66 and relate them to what things would be like for the Jerusalem of Israel, everything he said makes sense whether the prophecy is symbolic or literal. On the other hand, it we try to apply these chapters to the New Jerusalem in Heaven , nothing seems to work whether the thing is taken symbolically or literally.
The Old Covenant provided for days of rest governed by the appearance of each new moon. However, by the time of Christ the importance of the reckoning of the new moon for Sabbath-keeping had virtually disappeared from mainstream Judaism. There is some evidence that the Jews of Christ's day were keeping the biblical, lunar Sabbath, but there are conflicting sources that suggest they were following a fixed calendar. As we will explain later in this book, it appears that the Sabbath of the Passover Week during which Christ was crucified did not fall on a Saturday. By contrast, the New Covenant provided for no rest days whatsoever, and certainly not ones determined by the movements of the sun and moon. Thus, no reckoning of the movements of the Sun and Moon, no Sabbath-keeping! COTTO: “The accusation is hurled at us, that if it is all literal (and we don't subscribe to the entire chapter being literal), then there will be carcasses in the New Earth according to verse 24. But this does not move us, for the verse says that they "will go forth, and look upon the carcasses…" and we know that this will literally take place, for as New Jerusalem descends from heaven, God destroys the wicked (Revelation 20:9) and those inside the city walls will obviously be able to look outward at the transpiring event. This does not mean that their dead bodies will abide there forever, for the very word "carcasses" implies a "decaying body" that will soon disappear, as Malachi alludes to, "ye shall tread down the wicked, and they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet." Malachi 4:3. Nothing is said about the New Earth other than to use is at a COMPARISON to demonstrate how long the memory of the faithful of Israel would be remembered. It is not obvious that in the Holy City of the Hereafter there would be any dead bodies lying around to observe from the city walls. In Revelation 20 John says that fire comes down and burns the wicked up. Fire destroys things quickly. There would be no dead bodies left to see for more than a few seconds after the destruction of the wicked. The application to the Heaven of the Hereafter doesn’t fit. If we are talking about the Jerusalem of Israel on Earth, it is easy to visualize Israel’s neighbors attacking Jerusalem and losing the battle. In this case it is easy to visualize dead bodies lying around outside the city wall and people looking down on the sordid scene. COTTO: Both the "it is all literal" and the "it is all symbolic" positions are faulty, which is why we take up the "double application" position of this chapter, explained in more detail at another web page at this site titled: Isaiah 66:23: New Moon observance. The primary symbolism of this passage is Isaiah’s use of the enduring qualities of Heaven to represent how long those true to God would be remembered. There is nothing in the text or the context of Isaiah’s statement that requires a double application. There is no possible way to link Isaiah’s statement to Sabbath-keeping in Heaven or a New Earth. There is no harm done in thinking about this passage as a symbol of God’s eternal victory as long as we keep in mind that almost any noble victory can be stretched to be used as a symbol of God’s final victory over sin. Biblical scholars tend to view Isaiah as a Messianic prophet. Many of his prophecies about the life of Christ were amazingly detailed. Theologian James Burton Coffman sums up the work of various biblical scholars in regard to chapters 65 and 66: A summary of this chapter must be especially heeded in the interpretation of it. Adam Clarke declared that, "These last two chapters relate to the calling of the Gentiles, the establishment of the Christian church, the reprobation of the apostate Jews, and their destruction executed by the Romans."( Adam Clarke's Commentary, Vol. IV, p. 244.) Lowth concurred in this analysis. (Robert Lowth's Commentary, p. 402). "This final chapter points to the final days of Judah and the coming glory of Zion in the new dispensation." (Homer Hailey, A Commentary on Isaiah: With Emphasis on the Messianic Hope, p. 521)
http://www.studylight.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=isaHYPERLINK http://www.studylight.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=isa&chapter=066"&HYPERLINK http://www.studylight.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=isa&chapter=066"chapter=066 As we mentioned before, it is entirely possible that all these things would take place somewhere else in the Universe, perhaps in a different dimension, where there is no night. Since it takes both nighttime and daytime to equal a "yom" day, there would be no days there. The idea of having a moon that rotates around Heaven just like the one that revolves around Planet Earth is unlikely. An interpretation like Cotto’s does not follow the accepted principles of literary interpretation. COTTO: Adam and Eve essentially broke the Sabbath commandments. … Let us face the facts and see clearly that when James said that when we break even one of the commandments we have in essence broken them all
(James 2:10), he was not lying. Now the Law of God, says the Psalmist, is "perfect" --Psalm 19:7. It is also "holy" and perfectly "just" --Romans 7:12. Paul also says that where ever there is sin, there must also be a law, for "where no law is, there is no transgression." --Romans 4:15. He clearly said that, "by the law is the knowledge of sin" --Romans 3:20. So, when Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden, how did they know they actually sinned? Paul answer's that we have knowledge of sin by "the law." There must have therefore been a law in place when Adam and Eve sinned, for they clearly acknowledged their sin (Genesis 3:2, 3, 7). AUTHORS: There was only one formal law in the Garden of Eden, and they knew EXACTLY what it was. They were not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. It seems incredible that our first parents could not even “keep” one law. The burden of proof is on Cotto to demonstrate from Genesis 2:2-3 alone that there were other formal laws imposed upon them, including Sabbath-keeping. Adam and Eve were not fallen beings in the beginning. They had no innate tendency toward evil. It is only speculation that pre-Fall beings or angels would need formal laws. No one can escape natural law, however, and it would seem that Adam and Eve would have a native understanding of cause and effect relationships which create the difference between right and wrong. Cotto speaks a certain kind of spiritual truth, but the application of it leads him to circular reasoning and dangerous assumptions. The Adventist understanding of the concept of the LAW is simplistic. It ignores the multifaceted view of the term LAW held by the Jews. Since the Bible was written by Jews, a failure to understand the way its Jewish authors thought about the LAW leads to a comedy of errors. HOHMANN: Cotto has just made a lot of claims, proof-texting his way through his claims. I'm going to break it all down, and address the individual points: “Adam and Eve essentially broke the Sabbath commandments. …Let us face the facts and see clearly that when James said that when we break even one of the commandments we have in essence broken them all (James 2:10), he was not lying.” HOHMANN: James is referring to the Old “Covenant” Law. In a covenant, all conditions/requirements must be complied with or fulfilled, or the covenant is violated. Covenants also have legal parties to them, and the legal parties of that covenant were God and the Israelites. Cotto carelessly (?) slips the “we” in as parties to that covenant. He also implies Adam and Eve were party to that covenant! That covenant law required one not born of Israel to undergo circumcision in order to enter into that covenant with the Israelites and God. Were Gentile converts to Christianity required to undergo circumcision and keep the law? Not according to Acts 15. Was Adam circumcised? These facts of the law do not deter Sabbatarians. They simply redefine what the Law is for Christians, as well as Adam and Eve on the fly, here insisting that this law is the Ten Commandments, they being a separate law of sorts; a second or separate covenant, thereby chopping up the Law into the “Law of Moses” and the “Law of God” being the “Big Ten.” What gets conveniently overlooked is James' statement from James Chapter Two that relates to the “whole” law that Cotto words as “them all” above. “Them all” refers to the entire Law– the 613 laws of Moses, or the Torah. It appears Cotto just violated the biblical admonition against adding to or taking away from Scripture! He has added Christians as well as Adam and Eve to that covenant law, and took away a lot of that law in this process also so as to leave standing the Ten Commandments for all mankind for all eternity. When James was speaking about breaking one point in the law he was not only quoting from the Big Ten but also a point from the rest of the law of the Old Covenant (James 2:8 - “Love your neighbor as yourself.”) James was speaking to Jewish converts who prided themselves for keeping the law while they were actually breaking major portions of it, including the spirit of the Law, in a similar manner to many Seventh-day Adventists and other Sabbatarians. Then there is the matter of what was actually ratified as the Old Covenant. It was the Book of the Law that was sprinkled with blood, along with the people, that made up the Old Covenant. There is nothing in either the Old Testament writings or the New Testament writings that treats the law as being two laws, or the Ten Commandments as a separate law. Again, it demonstrates the carelessness Sabbatarians resort to in order to hold to a false theology and belief system. We do not find God or Moses ratifying the Ten Commandments as a separate law set. How odd is this if the SDA's position were true regarding the Ten Commandments being a moral eternal law binding on all mankind! What an oversight on the part of God! The “whole” Law is just that; the whole law – circumcision to sacrifices – 613 points of law of which only a fraction Sabbatarians attempt to keep. I say “attempt” because even when it comes to just the Ten Commandments, especially the
Sabbath commandment, they do not truly keep or comply with it according to Scripture. Paul wrote – and the SDA's are fond of citing Paul – where he stated that "not the hearers of the law are justified but the doers of the law" and yet they are blind to the FACT that they are not doers of the law, even if we pare it down to just the Ten Commandments. Their hospitals routinely violate the 6th Commandment. They neglect to keep the Sabbath in the manner prescribed in Scripture. They do keep it though in accordance with the commandments of men, that is, the dictates of their church leadership. They have trumped God when it comes to what they call the "Law of God". Cotto cites part of Psalm 19:7 – The law of the Lord is "perfect.”
By omitting the rest of the sentence (an example of “taking away” and proof-texting) a desired interpretation and claim is made other than what the sentence and context actually declares: The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
If one is careless, working from assumptive reasoning, they may well assume this is referring to the Old Covenant law, or perhaps as Sabbatarians would prefer, the Ten Commandments. But it begs a logical question. When did the Old Covenant law, or the Ten Commandments, ever “convert” a soul? Never! Conversion is the process by which one receives the Holy Spirit. They are “converted” into a son or daughter of God. Their minds are converted so as to conform to the will of God. God's Spirit is referred to in Scripture as a “law” which God places within the true believer who believes the true gospel. Sabbatarians, by the very fact they are Sabbatarians, buy into a false gospel of works, and as a result, refuse to acknowledge God's Holy Spirit as possibly being a guiding force and light in their lives, opting instead for the Old Covenant letter of the law, where they try to find justification for “keeping” the Sabbath. The distinctions made between the Old Covenant ministration of death and condemnation are blurred with the New Covenant law of faith; law of Christ; law of liberty; law that leads to life. The Holy Spirit is relegated to being merely a force of God, and not literally God. God in the form of the Holy Spirit must be diminished in order to magnify the Old Covenant law and Sabbath. Their Sabbath is elevated above God. The following text is a favorite of Sabbatarians: Romans 7:12 (NIV) - So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.
I would simply point out that the sacrifices were holy, and the Law indeed was perfectly “just”, justly condemning those who broke the law, to death. If you want justice, the Old Covenant law is for you. Personally, I prefer the grace, mercy and pardon from condemnation available in the “new” law of the Spirit, made possible by the substitutionary death and sacrifice of Christ. The apostle Paul points out another quality of that Old Covenant law in II Corinthians Chapter 3. That law had a glory to it; but its glory was seen as waning; fading away and when contrasted to the New Covenant Law of the Spirit, which has a glory far superior to the glory of the Old Covenant engraven in stones. The glory of the new does not fade away, and when compared to the glory of the Old Covenant Ten Commandments, the glory they possessed is hardly any glory at all. He also says that where ever there is sin, there must also be a law, for "where no law is, there is no transgression" - Romans 4:15.” What accompanies transgression? Condemnation! A remembrance of sin. Paul, in Romans 8, informs us that there is no longer condemnation for the believer. Why? How? Because the believer is removed from the Law that was associated with sin and condemnation! Christians are not under the Law; freed from the law; dead to the Law. Sabbatarians work very hard at resurrecting Christians back to the Law, putting them under the Law; chaining them to the Law, all so that they can justify once more their adherence to their Sabbath. COTTO: “He clearly said that, "by the law is the knowledge of sin" -Romans 3:20. So, when Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden, how did they know they actually sinned? Paul answer's that we have knowledge of sin by "the law." There must have therefore been a law in place when Adam and Eve sinned, for they clearly acknowledged their sin (Genesis 3:2, 3, 7).” AUTHORS: After eating from the forbidden tree Adam and Eve's "eyes were opened". They then knew that they sinned by breaking God's command not to eat from the forbidden tree. Cotto in his haste twists the Scriptures to defend the old covenant law. He attempts to "stuff " it back into the Garden of Eden so as to establish the Sabbath ordinance:
Gen 3:7 (NIV) - 7Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
HOHMANN: Whereas before, Cotto tried to establish the Law as extant and in force after Christ's sacrifice ended it, he now tries to establish it as extant and in force before Moses even gave it, all for the sake of trying to help establish the Sabbath as a Creation ordinance. There indeed was a law to transgress for Adam and Eve, but not the law Cotto desires. It was, and is, the same law that has always existed as the base law to the Old Covenant law; a law of faith and the spirit. Galatians 3:19 (KJV) - Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. – Galatians 3:19
Sabbatarians insist this “law” that was added “couldn't possibly be the Ten Commandments”, so “law” gets redefined on the fly, as need sees fit. Yet, we never see examples of Israel, or Jesus in the New Testament writings make any mention or reference to there being but one Law. This law of faith and the spirit deals with the heart and intent of heart. Here then, as they say in a mystery novel, the plot thickens. Adam was commanded not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and that should he do so, in that day, he would die. He and Eve decided to eat of that fruit anyway, and the rest, as they say, is history. But WHY did they eat of that tree, even after being told it would result in death? The answer is of great importance, and addresses a LAW much greater in every way than the Ten Commandments and Sabbath. That law of FAITH. Adam and Eve, first and foremost, violated the law of faith. They did not believe God. They doubted God regarding what He said about that fruit and that tree. Cotto makes mention of the Law making known good and evil; being a source of knowledge in this regard, but does not put two and two together, due to his Sabbatarian bias. The law of the Old Covenant is representative of that tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Like that tree, the fruit of the law is death. That law was given to faithless Israelites. It was, according to Moses, to be a witness against them, proving them to be faithless. stiff-necked and rebellious. But here's the “rub”. Keeping the Law does not prove one faithful, or righteous. You can refrain from murdering someone, yet still have hatred in the heart, therefore being in violation still of the law of faith and love. It is God's Spirit within the believer that makes all the difference here. Only with God's Spirit are we capable of living a life of love and faith; true faith, in God. All else is a shadow, or a counterfeit, including the Ten Commandments. Why would Christians, with the very Spirit of God in them, need to be told not to have other gods besides God, and be told – commanded – not to worship other gods? Why would they need to be commanded not to murder – an act of hatred? And why, WHY therefore, having this knowledge and understanding, would we need to be told to keep the Sabbath? The Sabbatarian puts the Ten Commandments above all else solely for the purpose of justifying Sabbath observance. But if you understand the above, and understand the “law” of faith and the Spirit, which necessitates love, then you can see why the apostle Paul refers to the law engraved in stone as being obsolete. It was a law for the faithless, and not the faithful (I Tim. 1:9-10). Cotto might as well have gone one step further and claimed the devil sinned by transgressing that law also, which would back the Sabbath commandment up to even before that seventh day of Creation Week, but then he would have to deal with the obvious absurdity of the conflict of having the Law, with the Sabbath extant before that seventh day they claim instituted the Sabbath. Yet the devil did sin. This law is the law of faith― the New Covenant law of faith that is associated directly with Christ, for you see, there were two trees in the Garden of Eden, and not just that tree of the knowledge of good and evil. There was that tree of life, representative of Christ and His law of faith― His law that leads to life; whose fruit is life, and not death. The last few verses of the last book of the Bible forbid us to add or take away words from it. In two places of the old covenant writings, the same prohibition is given regarding God's inspired Word, the Scriptures. One can make the Bible appear to teach anything by adding or taking away words to Scripture. God gave to Adam and Eve at Creation a “do not” command. They were forbidden to eat the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Since there was no sin and no tendency toward evil, it is not productive to read back into the Garden of Eden the same set of rules and regulations that God needed to keep the stubborn and degenerate Hebrews under control. Take the command, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Adam and Eve had only themselves, so there was no one else to tempt them. Also, think of the absurdity of trying to apply the command, “Thou shalt not covet" in relation to the property of others. What about the commandment to honor your father and
mother? God was the Father of Adam and Eve. Did God have a wife, like the Mormons teach? WYNNE: The Ten Commandments, with the exception of the Sabbath commandment, are explanations of natural cause and effect. It would be absurd to say that Adam and Eve were not subject to natural law. If you steal something that belongs to someone else, that person may fight you to get the item back, and one or both of you might die. St. John says that everyone who is born into this world is enlightened by the Holy Spirit. A Heathen born in the middle of the jungles of Africa has an innate sense that killing, stealing are wrong, and may even have a dim sense that sex outside of a committed relationship is wrong. However that same person will never conclude on his own that he or she must rest one day out of seven, much less figure out which one of those seven days is the “right one.” Recall that about a month prior to reaching that camp, the Hebrews had left Egypt on a Thursday night around 5 pm. They traveled on Friday night and Saturday, and then for the next month, marching across the wilderness, camping along the way with no thought of Sabbath observance. About a month into their journey, they marched from a camp at the Red Sea until they arrived, about 5 pm, at the edge of the Wilderness of Sin, on a Saturday evening. They had marched on Friday, Friday night, and most of the daylight hours of Saturday at God’s express command. That Saturday evening, God gave the Israelites the rules and regulations governing the collection of the Manna, but there was no mention of the Sabbath at that time. The manna fell the next morning and every morning. What we would think of as Friday night of the week that followed their arrival at the Wilderness of Sin, God introduced the Sabbath to them. Now the reason for gathering a double portion the day before became apparent. They were to gather an extra supply for the Sabbath, as there would be none found on that day. Unlike the other days of the week, where any that was left overnight rotted and bred worms, this would not happen overnight when the Sabbath was the next day. Among other things that indicate that the Hebrews knew nothing about the Sabbath until that Friday night, if they had been familiar with the Sabbath, they would not need to be told not to gather Manna on the Sabbath day. As we have pointed out several times before, Genesis 2 tells us what God did in regard to resting on the 7 th day of Creation, and the telling of what God did says nothing about what Adam and Eve were to do. Just because God did something doesn't mean He was setting an example for Adam and Eve. For example, we are not instructed to follow the example of Jesus by refraining from marriage. None of us would be here if we did! The people before the flood were guided in their morals by the laws that were a matter of conscience. God told Noah His Spirit would not always strive with man: Genesis 6:3 (NIV) - 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.” (Bible Gateway)
God never sent a prophet to threaten the pouring out of God’s wrath on a Heathen nation or city for Sabbath breaking. And also as we mentioned earlier, the Book of Enoch, which purports to have been written before the Flood, makes no mention of the Sabbath or the Decalogue, and whether it was written before the Flood or just a few hundred years before the birth of Christ, this fact still provides evidence that the Jews understood that there was no Sabbath prior to Exodus 16. The Jews thought about Natural Law versus Torah Law before you can grasp what they meant when they mentioned The Law in their writings. If you want to understand the Bible properly, it is a good idea to understand how the Bible writers thought about things, as well as the culture in which they wrote. The Jews taught that the LAW consisted of 613 equally important commandments, which included the 10 Commandments. It was the book of the law that was ratified as the old covenant, which book contained the Ten Commandments. If the 10 Commandments had been a morally complete set of laws, God would not have given Israel 603 additional laws which included moralistic laws that are not found in the 10 Commandments. If the 10 Commandments had been complete, St. Paul would not have given us several extensive lists of sins that will keep a person out of Heaven without ever mentioning Sabbath-breaking. As we have noted before, in Jewish culture the term “adultery” is very specific and cannot be generalized to be equated with other sexual sins such as fornication and homosexual activity. Evidence that this is true is that God chose to add prohibitions and additional sexual sins in the Law of Moses. Cotto is attempting to apply a meaningful principle to the wrong situation. He demonstrates that Adam and Eve broke law, but he misses the mark in that there was no Sabbath law at the time to break.
COTTO: Jesus' statement in Mark 2:27-28 that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath proves that the Sabbath was given to everyone. So far, we have witnessed Cotto make a number of claims of “proof” for Sabbath keeping that relied on dubious rationalizations and logical fallacies. Here, Cotto avails himself of a classic case of eisegesis [an improper textual study method] and then insists it represents proof. Let us examine his claim critically. We have already discussed the historical and cultural aspects of this passage, that Gentiles were considered to be “dogs” and as such, subhuman as compared to the Jews. If Jesus were indeed claiming the Sabbath was made for all mankind, such a declaration would have elicited an angry response from those present. Along with this, we have the understanding of how “man” is used in regards to the Greek word man translated from: Anthropos. Cotto attempts to assign “all mankind” as the interpretation of the word in that context, when in fact the word anthropos, even elsewhere in the same narrative of Mark, shows how this word can mean anything from one man, as with the man with a withered hand whom Jesus healed, to any subset of men, to all mankind. Sabbatarians opt for all mankind, but they do not base this on any proper examination of the text, the text's context, or the culture that determined the connotative meanings connected with the term's use in the Israel of Jesus' day. They assign it this meaning simply because it dovetails into their theology model. This is a good example of how anyone can treat a passage of Scripture eisegetically instead of using proper methods of textual exegesis. COTTO: The word "made" takes us back to Creation Week. In Exodus 16 the Sabbath was not "made." It was revealed and given as a commandment: This ploy is just playing with semantics. We find some logical problems with this concept: 1.
If Cotto concedes that God waited till Exodus 16 to “reveal” the Sabbath to the Hebrews, he also concedes that under God’s direction His people broke the Sabbath for the first 38 days of their journey. Why didn’t God reveal it to them before they left Egypt and promise to help them keep it faithfully during their travels? If He is right, we have some serious questions about God’s character and the importance of the Sabbath commandment. It appears we don’t have to keep the Sabbath unless it is convenient to do so.
2.
If the Hebrews didn’t know about the Sabbath until Exodus 16, it is unlikely that they ever knew about it. It is unlikely that they would forget completely about the Sabbath evening during 400 years of slavery in Egypt. Moses told the story of the Exodus with the Jewish calendar, and his dates for different events of the Exodus that prove that the Hebrews didn’t keep the Sabbath until several weeks after their journey out of Egypt. This possibility by itself creates doubt about a Creation origin for the Sabbath.
3.
If the Hebrews didn’t know about the Sabbath till Exodus 16, and God gave Adam and Eve the Sabbath, at what point did mankind forget completely about it? Had it been forgotten about by the time of Abraham? Moses makes no mention of Sabbath-keeping by any party from Genesis 1 to Exodus 16.
4.
Pioneer SDA Sabbath scholar, J.N. Andrews, explained what he thought the evidence was that the Hebrew people were familiar with the Sabbath when it was “reinforced” to them in Exodus 16. If Andrews is wrong, questions 1-3 continue to nag at us. (We evaluated his arguments elsewhere)
5. If something has to be REVEALED, by the very way the word is used in the English language, those to whom it is revealed must know nothing about it. If it was revealed to Israel at the time of the Exodus, they could not have known about it before. In the particular case of the Sabbath, even if by some incomprehensible provision the Sabbath had existed previously, and God hadn’t yet told anyone about it, it would be meaningless for the sake of this argument. If they didn’t know about it, regardless of why they didn’t know about it, they couldn’t be expected to keep it and they couldn’t be held responsible for not keeping it. Only important things are generally spoken of in terms of revelation, and the expectation is that when something is revealed to someone, that person will respond with a certain amount of awe and reaction. For example, if I reveal to a friend that his wife has been cheating on him, I would expect him to act with surprise, wonder, and anger– something that would not be genuinely possible if he already knew about her affair.
THE DEFINITE-INDEFINITE ARTICLE PROBLEM We discussed this problem earlier. It is when one gets into the original Hebrew that Cotto runs into a formidable barrier when he tries to make the Sabbath exist prior to Exodus 16. When the Old Testament is read in Hebrew, every time God reveals a new festival or ordinance to Israel, it is introduced with an indefinite article, but each subsequent mention is introduced with a definite article. English translations are not always consistent in maintaining this usage designation, but the original Hebrew is virtually always consistent. I say virtually always because I have not found any report of exceptions in the original Hebrew. Notice that Moses introduces the first mention ever of the Sabbath in the Bible with the indefinite article, "a" Sabbath. The following is from the King James Version: (25) And Moses said, Eat that today; for today is a Sabbath unto the LORD: to day ye shall not find it in the field. (26) Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the Sabbath, in it there shall be none. (27) And it came to pass, that there went out some of the people on the seventh day for to gather, and they found none. (28) And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws? (29) See, for that the LORD hath given you the Sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day. (King James Version)
Notice that in Exodus 20:8-10 in the NIV version, the definite article is used, signaling the reader that the Sabbath has existed previously. There is no textual license in the Pentateuch to take this pre-existence any further back than Exodus 16. The passage is quoted in the NIV: Exodus 20:8-10 (NIV) - Remember THE Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is A Sabbath to the Lord your God.
Notice also that the indefinite article before the second reference to "a Sabbath" is not in the indefinite form to signal the reader that it is a subsequent mention of the Sabbath. Instead, the second word, Sabbath, in this passage is equivalent to the generic word for rest. It means something that could be compared to saying, “The Sabbath is a rest to the Lord your God.” COTTO: In Exodus 20 it [the Sabbath] was not "made" either. There it was also “given,” but this time as part of the Ten Commandments. The only place we are left with is Genesis 2:1-3. AUTHORS: Cotto’s logic, or lack of it, seems to go like this. The Sabbaths mentioned in Exodus 20 and Exodus 16 were “given.”—not MADE. The Sabbath had to have been MADE somewhere, and the only place left for it to have been MADE is Genesis 2. This assumption represents a concession that it is not easy to find a Sabbath in Genesis 2, so the only way you can get one into it is to declare that it is the only place left for it to have originated. The Sabbath is not something that one would talk about in terms of coming into existence through being made. I can see God in the process of sculpturing Eve. However, in thinking of the words to describe how the Sabbath ordinance came into existence, one would tend to think of it in terms that is was “initiated” by Him or “implemented” by Him. It is unreasonable to think that you can get a Sabbath into Genesis 2 by the process of elimination. Regardless, the theological sleight of hand here does not eliminate the fact that the Sabbath indeed was “given”, and it was given to the children of Israel, via a covenant no others being a legal party among men. HOHMANN: In taking this line of logic out a bit further, we wonder about the commands that revolved around sacrifices. Were they “given” and “made” also? Unlike the Sabbath commandment, we find evidence from the beginnings of Genesis up to Exodus 16 of people practicing and partaking of sacrifices, before they were incorporated into the law. God sacrificed animals to provide Adam and Eve with coverings after they sinned, and sacrifices continued as a representation of Christ and His sacrifice for all mankind. Cotto would no doubt insist Christ's sacrifice signaled an end to animal sacrifices, seeing as they pointed to Christ's sacrifice. But, when confronted with the concept of the Sabbath as a shadow of Christ and the rest found in Him, there is a logical disconnect.
COTTO: [In regards to Mark 2:27] Since I have just proved that the Sabbath was made in the garden of Eden, Jesus linked the making of the Sabbath in Genesis two to the present weekly Sabbath of His day by saying that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. The word Jesus used, man, to the great disappointment of our opponents, does not mean "Jew." Thayer's Greek New Testament definition tells us what this word means: anthropos (man): a human being, whether male or female, generically, to include all human individuals, in the plural, people. The word "Jews" or "Israel," are not included in the definition of the word, “man,” translated from the Greek word, anthropos. The word simply means "mankind." This provides more evidence that the Sabbath existed in Genesis. Not only does Jesus direct our minds towards Creation Week, but He tells us that it was made for "man.” Then Cotto waxes eloquently, and we quote: Who was the "man" back then, in Creation Week? You guessed it, Adam and Eve! Jesus was clear enough on this issue. Want to find the Sabbath in the book of Genesis? See what Jesus says! I'm sure our critics won’t disagree with Him. Or would they?
AUTHORS: A study of Jewish culture and thought, gathered from the Four Gospels, rabbinical writings, and Jewish historical sources makes it clear that Jesus went out of His way to clarify to his Jewish audience that the Sabbath was only for Jews by excluding the Gentile "dogs", at the same time he said that the Sabbath was made for the Jewish humans. To the Jew, the Heathen were dogs, and not “men”. The Heathen who lived among the Jews were painfully aware of this attitude. The Jews thought about them as dogs, spoke about them as dogs, and wrote about them as dogs. They never referred to them as “man” or “men”, reflected in the Greek word anthropos. Since Jesus did not wish to start a riot when he sought to explain the true nature of their Sabbath to them, He excluded the Heathen "dogs" from the Sabbath requirement. If Jesus had not excluded the Heathen "dogs" from the Sabbath ordinance, the Jews would have attempted to stone Him for blasphemy. Whether Jew or Gentile proselyte, neither could keep the Sabbath without first being circumcised, joining themselves to Israel. This fact clearly illustrates the subservience of the Sabbath ordinance to the Ordinance of Circumcision. The heathen "dogs" were referred to as the "uncircumcised" by the Jews, which was another way of saying that they were excluded from Sabbath-keeping and other aspects of Torah Law. Please study Matthew’s account of the healing of the Canaanite woman’s daughter in the NIV translation, Chapter 15: 21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.” 23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” 24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” 25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. 26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” 27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” 28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.
Note that Jesus Himself tested her faith by referring to her as a “dog.” Her reply indicates that she understood that the Jews thought of non-Jews as dogs. Further, Cotto claims anthropos means “mankind”. If this were true, then Scripture should reflect it as such, however: Mark 3:1-3 (KJV) - And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand. 2And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the Sabbath day; that they might accuse him. 3And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth.
The Greek word here translated “man” is anthropos. Was all mankind standing there before Christ with withered hands? No? How can this be, when Cotto just claimed above that anthropos means all mankind? COTTO: Abraham also kept the Sabbath. Genesis 26:5: Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws. Let us examine Cotto’s claims to support this notion. COTTO: The covenant God made with Abraham is the same covenant that God made with Israel. He quotes 1 Chronicles 16: 15-17: 1 Chronicles 16:15-17(15) - Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations; (16) Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac; (17) And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant. (King James Version)
First we must ask ourselves the question, is the reference to “Israel” in this passage a reference to the nation of Israel during and after the Exodus, or is it Hebrew parallelism that refers to Jacob’s alternate name of Israel: Genesis 35:10 (NIV) - God said to him, "Your name is Jacob, but you will no longer be called Jacob; your name will be Israel." So he named him Israel. Genesis 35:10 (NIV)
Moses does not need much of an excuse to throw in a poetic parallelism in the passage that Cotto quotes. There are two possible excuses for doing so– (1) general parallelism for the covenant and oath similarity, and (2) God’s blessings to Jacob in the life he had before his name change and God’s blessings to him after his name change. All appearances suggest the author of Chronicles is talking about various laws and covenants God has given to the Children of Abraham over thousands of years. The parallelism between the LAW for Jacob and the COVENANT for Israel is unmistakable; even a covenant with Isaac gets honorable mention. Again, we have the parallelism of the COVENANT with Abraham and the OATH with Isaac. What a hodgepodge of information here! But let us say for both the sake of argument that the reference is, indeed, to the Nation of Israel which came out of Egypt. We concede that such is a likely reading. However, the Abrahamic Covenant and the Mosaic Covenant SHARED only two components– (1) the promise that if His people were faithful to Him, He would give them and their descendants the Land of Canaan to dwell in forever, and (2) the Ordinance of Circumcision. Cotto quotes Genesis 17:7-11, but the simple meaning of the passage seems to have evaded him: And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. 8And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. 9And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. 10This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. 11And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
There is no license within this text or its context to see the Sabbath as a component of the Abrahamic Covenant. The Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants share the promise that their faithfulness will give them the land of Canaan forever, but not the Sabbath ordinance. Abraham had natural law. He had the Law of the Spirit, but he did not have the 10 Commandments. Nor did he have the sign of the Mosaic Covenant—the Sabbath. There is one other item that Cotto's declaration forces as a conclusion if he were correct, and that is we would also, as a result of them having the same covenant sharing the Sabbath, be required to share in circumcision. The witness of the Islamic Faith is another huge blockade to Cotto’s claim that the Abrahamic Covenant included the Sabbath commandment on the basis of the assumption that Abraham kept all of God’s “laws. Islamic scholars point out that the Sabbath was not part of the Abrahamic Covenant. Islam traces its origin back to Abraham and asserts, correctly so, that the descendants of Ismael shared the Abrahamic Covenant with the descendants of Abraham’s son, Isaac —that is the line that became the Jews. In addition to the Abrahamic Covenant, God made a covenant with Ismael, through
his mother, Hagar, to provide additional blessings and protection to her son’s descendants. This information is widely available. Abraham is a prominent figure in the Islamic holy book, the Quran, and his excellent character forms the basis for Muslim moral values. This is what Wikipedia has to say about the relationship of Islam to Abraham: Muslims believe that the prophet Abraham became the leader of the righteous in his time and it was through him that the people of both Arabia and Israel came. Abraham, in the belief of Islam, was instrumental in cleansing the world of idolatry at the time. Paganism was cleared out by Abraham in both Arabia and Canaan. He spiritually purified both places as well as physically sanctifying the houses of worship. Abraham and Ismail (Ishmael) further established the rites of pilgrimage,[7] or Hajj, which are still followed by Muslims today. Muslims maintain that Abraham further asked God to bless both the lines of his progeny, of Ismail (Ishmael) and Ishaq (Isaac), and to keep all of his descendants in the protection of God. They also believe that Muhammad is a descendant of Abraham through Ishmael. (Article, “Abraham in Islam”)
Islamic clerics point out that the claim that God “rested” on the 7 th day of Creation is absurd because the Scriptures teach that God, being Divine, needs no rest. At the same time, recall that the Hebrew word translated “rest” in Genesis 2 means “ceased” or “stopped,” indicating that the 7 th day was a dividing line between God’s creative activity and, in reference to the creation of Planet Earth, His non-creative activity. They point out that there was no Sabbath until the Exodus and that the Sabbath was given to Israel as a special sign that applied only to them. For an interesting discussion of the Islamic view of the Jewish Sabbath, view the following blog, and if the link has gone cold by the time you read this, do an on-line search for the Islamic view of the Jewish Sabbath: http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/234926530-why-dont-muslims-observe-the-Sabbath/
Once again we must conclude the Cotto’s claim that Abraham kept the Sabbath is the result of wishful thinking and assumptions. Widely available sources indicate the contrary. COTTO: The fact that Moses used the term, “declared,” in Deuteronomy 4:13 to describe the covenant as being the 10 commandments is evidence that it was not given for the first time, but rather had been in existence prior to the giving of the 10 commandments on Sinai. The Hebrew word, “nagad,” translated “declared” in this passage, is used throughout the old covenant in most cases in the context of declaring or making something known that has already existed. Deuteronomy 4:13 (KJV) - And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even Ten Commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.
Quoting Cotto: “Take note, dear reader, that Moses said God "declared" His covenant. The word "declared" implies it was not given "for the first time," but rather, as it has already existed, it was "declared" to them for their benefit. This is made more evident by the Hebrew word "nagad," which in the majority of times throughout the Old Testament is used in the context of declaring or making known something that already existed. This claim would be labeled a “whopper” in common circles. A careful study of the linguistics of this word tells a very different story. Here is the definition of the Hebrew word, “nagad:” Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions נגד 1. to be conspicuous, tell, make known a. (Hiphil) to tell, declare 1. to tell, announce, report 2. to declare, make known, expound
3. to inform of 4. to publish, declare, proclaim 5. to avow, acknowledge, confess 1a b. messenger (participle) c. (Hophal) to be told, be announced, be reported Origin: a primitive root TWOT: 1289 Parts of Speech: Verb Our research indicates that Cotto is not correct in stating that the Hebrew word, “nagad,” is frequently used to refer to something that previously existed. In fact, Moses used a FORM of this word that never seems to be used in connection with the revealing of mysterious things not known. We studied an exhaustive listing of the use of this word with the help of The Englishman’s Concordance at Bible Suite.Com—via its Hebrew-English translation. It suggests that a better rendering of it would be that “nagad” is used when someone is telling someone about an interesting event that happened in the past. The idea of that thing being mysterious, concealed, or not understood is foreign to the use of this word. Since the past begins the very instant the present is over, this word is used when things happened all the way from moments ago to many years ago. The use of this word in this passage is not significant and is of no use to Cotto’s argument. The form of this verb, “nagad,” that is often used to make known something from the past that is not understood, has been concealed, or is mysterious, is the Hiph`il [328] form. Please note that even if the Hebrew word in Deuteronomy 4:13 had been Hiph`il [328], it is only its second meaning that is often used to make known something mysterious that existed in the past. Here is a complete listing of all the places in the Old Testament where Hiph`il328, is used, and note that Deuteronomy 4:13 is not included in either list. It would have to appear in the second list to be of any help to Cotto’s argument. 1. tell, announce, report, usually human subject: Genesis 9:22; Genesis 24:23; Genesis 32:6; Leviticus 14:35; Judges 13:6; 1 Samuel 3:18; 1 Kings 1:23; Nehemiah 2:12; Esther 2:10 (twice in verse); Job 12:7; Psalm 142:3; Isaiah 19:12; Jeremiah 5:20; Ezekiel 24:19 +. 2. declare, make known, expound, especially of something before not understood, concealed or mysterious: Genesis 3:11; Genesis 12:18, etc.; 1 Kings 10:3 2Chronicles 9:2; a riddle Judges 14:12,15,16 (3 t. in verse); Judges 14:19; dream Daniel 2:2; secret Job 11:6, etc.; of ׳יas revealing, Genesis 41:25; 2 Samuel 7:11; 2 Kings 4:27; Micah 6:8; Jeremiah 42:3; Psalm 147:19; of declaring by ׳יs agents Deuteronomy 5:5; Micah 3:8; 1 Samuel 15:16; 2 Samuel 24:13; Jeremiah 50:28; Isaiah 58:1; by divine. Hosea 4:12. http://biblesuHYPERLINK"http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/5046.htm" iHYPERLINK "http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/5046.htm"te.com/hebrew/5046.htm At the above source you can find a list of over 300 references to the word, “nagad,” and its meaning always seems to be that someone is telling someone else about an interesting but non mysterious event that happened in the past– even minutes ago, hours ago, or days ago. It appears that there are serious problems with Cotto’s effort to extract a Sabbatarianfriendly interpretation of Deuteronomy 4:13. COTTO: In this text God refers to the covenant that Moses identifies as the ten commandments as “His covenant” rather than “their covenant.” This distinction is evidence that this reference was the covenant God made with Abraham. Quoting Cotto: Then notice that it reads, "His covenant." God made known "His" covenant to them. It is not "their" covenant, as our opponents would have us believe. No, it was "His" covenant, because this covenant of His was His before he declared it to the children of Israel, it was first a covenant between Him and Abraham!
HOHMANN: What of Deuteronomy 5:1-3? This covenant with the Sabbath requirement was not made with the fathers; the patriarchs, of which Abraham was one. How can Cotto conclude otherwise? And of course it was “His” covenant. He was the party of the first part, who would provide that which was the “consideration” upon completion of the covenant or compliance over time. They were required to meet certain conditions; perform certain tasks in return for the consideration; national blessings and God's favor. The contract had penalty clauses also, should they fail to perform that which was required of them that they agreed to, including being “consumed”. WYNNE: This type of covenant is a formal agreement between two parties. Here is an example. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs had an agreement a couple of decades ago that Bill would loan Apple Computer millions of dollars and allow Apple to have a Mac version of Microsoft Office. Their agreement way back then set the stage for something no one would have predicted at the time. Who could have ever guessed that Apple Computer, which was nearly bankrupt when Bill lent Steve a hand, would eventually pass up Microsoft and become many times larger? His agreement would cost Bill more than he ever could have guessed at the time. Cotto’s manipulation of Scripture is highly imaginative, but there is no way he can make this argument credible. All the covenants were God's. He tailor-made them for each party He offered them to at various times. There is no basis in logic to make this leap of application other that Cotto’s need to make it happen—that is, to somehow get a Sabbath to appear before the Exodus. “His” and “Theirs” are not terms that are designed, either in Hebrew or English, to establish a time relationship between events. Furthermore, Deuteronomy 4:13 is not a good text for Sabbatarians to mention under any circumstance. It is the Achilles Heel of the pro-Sabbatarian teaching that the Old and New Covenants are essentially the same. This text equates the 10 Commandments with the Old Covenant. Scripture says that the Old Covenant was to be done away with, that it was faulty, and that it would be replaced with a new covenant that would not be like the old one. The Old Covenant did get replaced with the New Covenant, and the Sabbath is conspicuously missing from the new contract between God and His Christian believers. Even St. Paul’s list of 23 sins that he said would be certain to keep someone out of Heaven does not include Sabbath breaking. Sanders observes that it was the same God (Jesus) who gave His people, in one dispensation, the Old Covenant, which included the Sabbath, and the New Covenant, which did not. He reasons that Jesus was not exhibiting forgetfulness when He failed to place the Sabbath commandment in the New Covenant. If Jesus had wanted His followers in the New Covenant dispensation to keep the Sabbath, He would have given them a clear command to do so, just like He did to Israel. In that case, the apostles would have expounded on it and preached its importance. Instead, we find, in the New Covenant dispensation the apostles telling the Gentiles that they did not have to keep the Law of Moses and St. Paul commanding the church not to require the Gentiles to keep the Sabbath. Where there is no law there is no sin. The fact is obvious that there is no Sabbath keeping command in the New Covenant. Sabbatarians by preaching a dead law are preaching a false gospel—a “gospel” that is not taught by the Apostles. We challenge any student of the Bible to provide a “thus saith the Lord” text to support a New Covenant Sabbath Commandment! It isn't there. You have to resort to deceptive reasoning to make the case. COTTO: When God said that the Mosaic covenant was not made with the fathers of the Hebrews, He only meant that it was not made with their ancestors who lived during the 400 years of slavery in Egypt. This would contradict I Chronicles 16:15-17, which says that the same covenant that was made with Abraham was made with Israel on Mt. Sinai. – In other words, the 10 commandments. He quotes Deuteronomy 5:3 (KJV): The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.
Common sense tells us that Moses knew that God had made various covenants with his people previous to the one He made with Israel at Mt. Sinai. If it was the same covenant that God had made with Abraham, by the process of elimination, there is no other reason to explain why Moses would explain to the people that the covenant they had with God was not the same covenant that was made with their ancestors. One only need read the context of I Chronicles 16 to see what covenant is being referenced– the one that related to the promises revolving around the land Israel would eventually inhabit. See especially verses 18 and 19.
Again, the covenant made with Abraham and the covenant made with Israel at Sinai shared two components, but neither one was the Sabbath. What license does Cotto have to limit the “fathers” back only as far as 400 years? There is nothing in the text itself and nothing in its context to suggest that any provision of the Hebrew or the English translations of this passage would permit such a thing. You might as well invoke magic to intervene wherever you need it to bring about your desired result. Nothing is said about limiting it to a certain number of generations,” much less to the generations of four hundred years. This mistake is the result of his assumption that there was a Sabbath prior to their enslavement by the Egyptians. It is an error of logic created by circular reasoning. It is adding words to Scripture that are not there. Robert Sanders observes that Moses knew good and well who the Fathers of the Israelites were and these “fathers” started with Adam. If Moses intended to refer only to the Fathers starting with those who entered into Egypt, he would have said so and identified them as such. Furthermore, Moses knew The Law started with the Israelites. We have seen that 1 Chronicles 16:15-17 talks about the fundamental covenant God made with both Abraham and Israel. If they were faithful to Him, He would give them the land of Canaan for a possession forever. Cotto’s limitation to 400 years is unacceptable because it demands a high degree of interpretive imagination. If Anti-Sabbatarians used similar license in interpreting a far-fetched idea like this to their advantage, the Sabbatarians would be howling. Unfortunately, Cotto is adding words to Scripture that are just not there. "Not with our Fathers" means exactly that. There is no biblical record of any person or nation having the Ten Commandment covenant before they were given through Moses to the Israelites. However, Sabbatarianism might possibly not be dependent on a Sabbath in Genesis. If the Ten Commandments are actually one and the same thing as “God's Law,” then everyone on Earth must still keep the Jewish Sabbath. No texts or additional concepts from the Bible would hold any water against the idea that Christians must keep the Jewish Sabbath. Hopefully, we have clobbered this heresy to its well-deserved ignominious death. The Gospel writers clearly stated that Jesus broke the Sabbath. Since Jesus did actually break the Sabbath, the heresy that the Ten Commandments equal God's Law would make Him a sinner, which is an impossibility because Jesus was 100% God when He appeared to human beings in human form. In the next part of VERDICT, we will consider just about every biblical and historical barrier to Sabbatarianism that comes up in the Sabbath-Sunday debate. Final thoughts on Cotto and Knudson: Is the seventh day of Creation Week set up as a memorial throughout time, or not? If it is in fact the first weekly Sabbath in the time frame of these heavens and earth, then wouldn't the memorial of it as the day wherein God ceased His work of Creation be trivialized? Are we to assume God ceased work then every seventh day as a result? This, of course, contradicts the Words of Jesus who informs us through John that God works on the weekly Sabbath, ergo how can that day of rest of God's be equated as such? Why do Cotto and Knudson work from the assumption that all mankind are to keep the Sabbath in the manner prescribed by Moses, if the Sabbath was extant from Creation, where we find no instructions as to its observance besides the implied “cease from work” on that day? Is/was preparing a meal “work” between Genesis 2 and Exodus 16? Did people, keeping the Sabbath from the beginning until Exodus 16 refrain from eating on the Sabbath? There are way too many gaping holes in this belief the weekly Sabbath has been extant and in force from the beginning as a Creation ordinance. There are no instructions regarding its observance. There are no examples of anyone actually keeping the Sabbath, and no specific statement to even keep it as a day of rest. Everything is dependent upon assumptions. And, as I have pointed out so many times before; assumptions lead to deceptions. Why are Jesus' instructions regarding the Sabbath not even mentioned? SDA routinely claim Jesus kept the Sabbath, yet Scripture reveals something else entirely. Jesus “worked” on the Sabbath, healing people. Jesus called this “work”. The laws revolving around the Sabbath in the Law state emphatically no one was to do “any” work. Jesus and the Jews of the time agreed that works based in mercy and compassion, such as rescuing an animal out of a ditch, did not violate the prohibition against work. Yet such actions constituted work. Jesus even pointed out that the Priests “profaned” the Sabbath and were themselves blameless in relation to sin. Yet their work was extremely physical and tiring; all done on the Sabbath! Jesus was pointing out something that both the Jews of His time, and Sabbatarians today are blind to. One of the claims of the SDA is that the “Law of Moses” (sans the Ten Commandments, they being a separate covenant law binding on all mankind) was nailed to the cross, being collectively “ceremonial” law. This effectively does away with the
instructions that address how to keep the Sabbath, leaving it up to interpretation by who? The Sabbatarian groups themselves. Is there a problem with this? What of Jesus' comments to the Jews who made the Law of God “of no effect by their traditions” keeping points of law contrary to the intent of Scripture? The SDA have developed a list of works one can perform on the Sabbath, as well as works that are prohibited that would make the Pharisees of old proud. And like the Pharisees and religious leaders of the time of Jesus, the focus is all wrong. Jesus had two things of importance He spoke about in relation to the Sabbath. The first is that people are to no longer judge according to appearance, but rather to judge righteous judgment, understood to mean one is to judge based upon the heart and intent of heart. One who pulled an ox out of a ditch did so out of compassion for the animal in distress. The animal was hardly enjoying the repose the Sabbath day was to offer the animal. The focus of the person in such a situation was not a self-centered occupation. Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me? 20 The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee? 21 Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel. 22 Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the Sabbath day circumcise a man. 23 If a man on the Sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the Sabbath day? 24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. – John 7:19-24
They didn't get it. Sabbatarians don't get it. If righteous judgment is to judge according to the heart and intent of heart, then judging according to appearance is to judge unrighteous judgment. When a Sabbatarian looks upon another who is working at their job on the Sabbath, or out shopping on the Sabbath, the Sabbatarian concludes they are sinning. Why? Because they judge based on their own extra-biblical Pharisaical yardstick. Their own ministers work for pay on the Sabbath. They look to the “why” in order to make their determination between justified works and sin, still based on appearance. At this point, I need to mention the other statement of Jesus in relation to the Sabbath that Sabbatarians reject in favor of their own contrived rules for observing the Sabbath. And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath days? that they might accuse him. 11 And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the Sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? 12 How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath days. – Matthew 12:10-12 10
And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand. 2 And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the Sabbath day; that they might accuse him. 3 And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth. 4 And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace. 5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other. – Mark 3:1-5 1
Their focus was on the letter of the law; judging according to appearance, and Jesus equated this with hardness of heart. The “enforcers” and advocates of the Sabbath were hard-hearted and judging unrighteous judgment. Jesus teaches them a concept they just could not wrap their legalistic heads and hearts around. It is lawful to do good or well on the Sabbath, as contrasted to doing evil. How does this relate to how the Hebrews kept the Sabbath? They were to keep the day holy. If doing good or well on a Sabbath is lawful, then it is doing evil on the Sabbath that actually results in profaning the Sabbath and not keeping it holy. Is there evidence to further support this conclusion? Yes. If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: 14 Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee 13
with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it. – Isaiah 58:13-14
Note the contrast of what was to be done in relation to the Sabbath, and not done. One was not to do their own pleasure, not doing their own ways, speaking their own words. They were to focus on making the Sabbath a delight by honoring God. Honoring God results in making that day a delight. Realistically, would not honoring God make every day a delight? For the children of Israel and the children of Judah have only done evil before me from their youth: for the children of Israel have only provoked me to anger with the work of their hands, saith the LORD. – Jeremiah 32:30
The “works” of the Hebrews were evil “even from their youth”; the works of their hands. What are the implications then for Christians? What about the works of a Christian? Can they be construed as evil and sin, if done on the Sabbath? He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. – John 3:18-21 18
A believer's works/deeds are wrought in God. Can that which is wrought in God be sin? If we judge righteous judgment, looking to the heart and intent of heart, a Christian meets the requirements of Isaiah 58:13-14 cited above. A Christian seeks to honor God every waking moment. A Christian's life focus is on serving God and dedication to God. A Christian's actions or works are not geared to the self, but done in the furtherance of serving and honoring God. A Christian's life is hidden in Christ. The “old man of sin” has been crucified; that old self that was self-serving and living a life devoid of God in their life. The Sabbath for the believer now transcends any one specific “day” of rest or cessation of labor that was previously in vain, eventually ending in death. This one enters into God's rest He entered into on that seventh day of Creation through faith. The Sabbatarian judges a work to be good or evil based on whether it is performed on a Sabbath or not. Jesus is stating a good work can be performed on the Sabbath, and an evil work cannot. A work is good or evil based on its own merits, and not according to what day it is performed. One looks to the intent of heart. One does not look to the day it was performed, which again is to judge according to appearance. But those who insist on boasting in the self and the Law; those who wish to make merchandise of you; want to bring you under bondage... to them, using the weekly Sabbath as a means to that end, teaching you to judge according to appearance, and to ignore and avoid the instructions of Jesus regarding righteous judgment. If you accept their rationalizations regarding their alterations of Scripture that revolve around the Sabbath, you will in turn accept every additional alteration or subversion of Scripture. So who are you going to listen to? Who is your Lord? A Sabbatarian church corporate like the SDA, or Jesus the Christ? We, the “anti-Sabbatarian” writers of this book seek to point you to Christ; bring you to Christ and the rest found in Him. The SDA apologists seek to bring you to their church corporate and the temporary, physical rest found in the weakly Sabbath, along with the attendant condemnation you will bring upon yourself as a result. You cannot call good, evil. You cannot call evil, good.
Chapter Four BARRIERS TO SABBATARIAN THEOLOGY
BARRIERS TO SABBATARIAN THEOLOGY And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the LORD thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day. — Deuteronomy 5:15
BIBLICAL BARRIER: THE SABBATH A MEMORIAL TO THE ESCAPE FROM EGYPTIAN SLAVERY No Christian meets both qualifications for being a Sabbath-keeper. The first requirement, of course, is that a person must be able to remember that God created the world. Everyone can do this, so it might be construed as a possible argument to use in favor of the idea that everyone is supposed to keep the Sabbath. However, the second thing a person must be able to do is to remember that God rescued him or her of Egyptian slavery. William Hohmann asks if today's Sabbath-keepers break the Sabbath when they fail to think about how God rescued them from Egyptian slavery. No gentile Christian or his ancestors has ever been rescued from slavery in Egypt by the miraculous power of God, so Christians do not meet an important qualification for those who were commanded to keep it― the Hebrews and their progeny. Note this passage from Deuteronomy: (NIV) - Deuteronomy 5:12-15 - “Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, as the Lord your God has commanded you. 13Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns, so that your male and female servants may rest, as you do. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the Lord your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.
Sabbath-keeping for Christians fails the logic test. As believers we are not “allowed” to take only the parts of Scripture that suit our own personal agenda and discard those that teach what we do not like. Israel was commanded to keep it as a memorial; a reminder it was their God who made heaven and earth and who rested on that seventh day, of which the Sabbath was a shadow of where they could rest from their labors and remember also that they and their ancestors who were slaves in Egypt worked without rest. Israel collectively often “forgot” all this– having abandoned God and His commands for them, having turned time and again to idolatry. Christians are not ancient Israelites, devoid of God's Spirit. True Christians, in possession of God's Holy Spirit, are not going to forget who their God is, and as such, do not need the memorial of a Sabbath as a reminder not to forget God. The Christian has entered into God's rest through faith, a rest that is permanent as contrasted to the weekly Sabbath rest which was temporary and merely a shadow of God's rest. (See: Psalms 95; Hebrews 4; Colossians 2:16-17.)
CONCEPTUAL BARRIER: Circumcision We cover this subject from another perspective elsewhere. Here we will touch on what Adventists knew about the barrier of the Ordinance of Circumcision and when they knew it. We will also cover some Adventist objections, such as the less-thanstellar ones of the late SDA Sabbath scholar, Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi. A former Adventist researcher who has chosen to remain anonymous has found proof in the work of Seventh-day Adventist theologians Maxwell and Damsteegt that Seventh-day Adventists have known since no later than 1992 that the Jews have typically understood that observance of the Ordinance of Circumcision was a requirement for keeping the Sabbath. This unnamed former Adventist scholar, whose work we found posted at a website which examines the Sabbatarian views of the now defunct Worldwide Church of God, focuses on the research of these SDA biblical scholars, Mervyn Maxwell, and P. Gerard Damsteegt, eds., Source Book for the History of Sabbath and Sunday. Berrien Springs, MI: Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, 1992.
So, if the Christians were worshiping on Sunday, why wasn’t there an outcry in the Jewish church in Jerusalem? It was a church that most likely continued to meet on Saturday at the synagogue for several decades to hear the scriptures read. The reason they did not cry out in protest is because Jews believed then, and still believe now, that the Sabbath was given only to Jews. They NEVER expected Gentiles (which made up most of the early church) to keep the Sabbath. Notice the following passages: “The children of Noah...were given seven Laws only, the observance of the Sabbath not being among them” (Midrash Deuteronomy Rabbah 1:21 [Soncino ed., p. 23], as quoted in C. Mervyn Maxwell and P. Gerard Damsteegt, eds., Source Book for the History of Sabbath and Sunday [Berrien Springs, Mich.: Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, 1992], p. 75). The Noachian laws are also listed in Midrash Genesis Rabbah 16:6 (Soncino ed., p. 131), Sanhedrin 56 a, b; and Midrash Song of Songs Rabbah 1:2(5) (Soncino ed. pp. 26-7) (ibid., p. 74). Gentiles could be considered righteous if they observed these laws, which did not include the Sabbath. Nor did they include restrictions about pork. Rabbi Judah could say that there was a time for the “sons of Jacob when unclean beasts were still permitted to them'' (Hullin 7:6, as quoted in Maxwell and Damsteegt, p.74. The rabbis did not think that the Sabbath had been given to Gentiles: “Why does it say, 'The Lord hath given you' (Ex. 16:29)? To you hath he given it [the Sabbath], but not to the heathen. It is in virtue of this that the Sages stated [Sanh. 56b] that if some of the heathen observed the Sabbath, then not only do they not receive any reward [but they are even considered to be transgressing]” (Midrash Exodus Rabbah 25:11 [Soncino ed., p. 314], as quoted in Maxwell and Damsteegt, p. 74). A non-Jew who observes the Sabbath whilst he is uncircumcised incurs liability for the punishment of death. Why? Because non-Jews were not commanded concerning it.... The Sabbath is a reunion between Israel and God, as it is said, 'It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel' (Ex. 31:17); therefore any non-Jew who, being uncircumcised, thrusts himself between them incurs the penalty of death.... The Gentiles have not been commanded to observe the Sabbath. (Midrash Deuteronomy Rabbah 1:21 [Soncino ed., pp. 23-4], as quoted in Maxwell and Damsteegt, p. 75).
The Jews understood that the Sabbath commandment was given only to Israel. The Jews traditionally thought in terms of two different sets of laws– the Noachian laws– which they believed were given to everyone, and the TORAH laws that they believed were given only to Israel at the time of the Exodus. Circumcision was not part of the Noachian Laws. It was part of Abraham’s covenant, which is shared by both Jews and Muslims, both of which regard Abraham as the “father” of their religion. As we have pointed out elsewhere, Islam curiously has never demanded to share in the special sign between Jews and God: The Sabbath. It is important to keep in mind that the Noachian laws are listed in the Pentateuch and fully explained in the sacred oral traditions that Jesus Himself validated when He instructed His followers to do everything the Pharisees told them to do, as we have documented elsewhere. The Pharisees were the only Jewish sect that considered the sacred oral traditions to be significantly “inspired.” All seven of these laws are found in the Pentateuch if you look carefully. Please note that the following quotes from the Jewish Encyclopedia, some are from traditional laws published by the Sanhedrin, so they originated later in the history of Jewish sacred traditional law. When Palestine came under Roman control, the dual court system of Israel as described in another chapter evolved into the Sanhedrin. By the time of Jesus, the Sanhedrin enforced Jewish laws within conquered Israel, but its ability to carry out a death penalty was subject to Roman approval. Adventist apologists may be tempted to suggest that these interpretations were developed by the Jews at some time after the death of Christ after they had new reasons to feel animosity toward Christians. This escape route is blocked by the total history of the development of the Jewish sacred oral traditions. In another chapter, one authored by Larry Dean, examples from the Mishnah are presented. Keep in mind that by contrast, the Mishnah developed from exacting oral transmission standards over a period of nearly 5,000 years and which dated back to the time of Moses. Dean explains why the sacred oral traditions of the Mishnah were not written down until around 200 CE. These very ancient sacred oral laws provide every possible evidence that the Noahide laws ruled everyone in the world prior to the giving of the Torah from Mt. Sinai to the Hebrews and that these laws never included a Sabbath commandment. As Dean demonstrates so well, in the Nation of Israel, which set of laws, Noahide vs. Torah, was applied to individuals within its borders depended on whether that person was circumcised or not:
The Seven Laws Laws which were supposed by the Rabbis to have been binding upon mankind at large even before the revelation at Sinai, and which are still binding upon non-Jews. The term ‘Noachian’ indicates the universality of these ordinances, since the whole human race was supposed to be descended from the three sons of Noah, who alone survived the Flood. Although only those laws which are found in the earlier chapters of the Pentateuch, before the record of the revelation at Sinai, should, it would seem, be binding upon all mankind, yet the Rabbis discarded some and, by hermeneutic rules or in accordance with some tradition (see Judah ha-Levi, “Cuzari,” iii. 73), introduced others which are not found there. Basing their views on the passage in Gen. II.16, they declared that the following six commandments were enjoined upon Adam: (1) not to worship idols; (2) not to blaspheme the name of God; (3) to establish courts of justice; (4) not to kill; (5) not to commit adultery; and (6) not to rob (Gen. R. xvi. 9, xxiv. 5; Cant. R. i. 16; comp. Seder Olam Rabbah, ed. Ratner, ch. v. and notes, Wilna, 1897; Maimonides, “Yad,” Melakim, ix. 1). A seventh commandment was added after the Flood—not to eat flesh that had been cut from a living animal (Gen. ix. 4). Thus, the Talmud frequently speaks of “the seven laws of the sons of Noah,” which were regarded as obligatory upon all mankind, in contradistinction to those that were binding upon Israelites only (Tosef., Ab. Zarah, ix. 4; Sanh. 56a et seq.). He who observed the seven Noachian laws was regarded as a domiciled alien (Ab. Zarah 64b; see Proselyte), as one of the pious of the Gentiles, and was assured of a portion in the world to come (Tosef., Sanh. xiii. 1; Sanh. 105a; comp. ib. 91b; “Yad,” l.c. viii. 11).
Here is a more extensive quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia which supports the concept that the Jews are very serious about their belief that the Sabbath was given to Israel alone. This passage is particularly interesting because it has a direct bearing on the Sabbath question for Christians as viewed by the Jews (Jewish Encyclopedia, article, “Gentile,” section “Gentiles May Not Be Taught the Torah”): Resh Laish (d. 278) said, “A Gentile observing the Sabbath deserves death” (Sanh. 58b). This refers to a Gentile who accepted the seven laws of the Noachidæ, inasmuch as “the Sabbath is a sign between God and Israel alone,” and it was probably directed against the Christian Jews, who disregarded the Mosaic laws and yet at that time kept up the observance of the Jewish Sabbath. Rabbina, who lived about 150 years after the Christians had changed the day of rest to Sunday, could not quite understand the principle underlying Resh Laish's law, and, commenting upon it, added: “not even on Mondays [is the Gentile allowed to rest]”; intimating that the mandate given to the Noachidæ that “day and night shall not cease” (=“have no rest ”) should be taken in a literal sense (Gen. Viii. 22)— probably to discourage general idleness (ib. Rashi), or for the more plausible reason advanced by Maimonides, who says: “The principle is, one is not permitted to make innovations in religion or to create new commandments. He has the privilege to become a true proselyte by accepting the whole Law” (“Yad,” Melakim, x. 9). R. Emden [An unrenderable Hebrew symbol follows the word “Emden,” ed. note] In a remarkable apology for Christianity contained in his appendix to Seder Olam (pp. 32b-34b, Hamburg, 1752), gives it as his opinion that the original intention of Jesus, and especially of Paul, was to convert only the Gentiles to the seven moral laws of Noah and to let the Jews follow the Mosaic law— which explains the apparent contradictions in the New Testament regarding the laws of Moses and the Sabbath.
In his classic “A Digest of the Sabbath Question,” former SDA theologian, Robert D. Brinsmead observed: The Book of Jubilees (a Jewish pseudepigraphal work of the second century BC) says that “the Creator of all things.., did not sanctify all peoples and nations to keep Sabbath thereon, but Israel alone” (“The Book of Jubilees,” in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, ed. R.H. Charles, vol. 2, Pseudepigrapha [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913], p. 15).
This same anonymous researcher also quotes biblical scholar, James Charlesworth, in support of his point that the Jews have always viewed the Sabbath as being given only to the Jews: Further evidence of the antiquity of this rabbinic understanding comes from the second-century BCE book of Jubilees: The Creator of all blessed it, but he did not sanctify any people or nations to keep the Sabbath thereon with the sole exception of Israel. He granted to them alone that they might eat and drink and keep the
Sabbath thereon upon the earth'' (Jubilees 2:31, James Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, [New York: Doubleday, 1985], vol. 2, p. 58).
As noted by Michael Morrison, who writes about the former Sabbatarian views of the Worldwide Church of God, it was the fact that the Jews understood that the Sabbath was only for the Jews that combined with the decision of the Council of Jerusalem not to require the new Gentile converts to be circumcised that prevented any controversy over the official discontinuance of the ordinances of circumcision and the Sabbath at that time. See: http://www.gci.org/law/Sabbath/history1"??? Summarizing the research of SDA researchers, Maxwell and Damsteegt, and biblical scholar, Charlesworth, our anonymous former SDA scholar comments on their work as follows: Based on these quotes above, we can see from the Jewish writings, and from the Adventist documents that the Gentiles were never expected to keep the Sabbath. This was the understanding of the Jews, to whom the Sabbath was given, and whom Christ never corrected on this matter. So, this begs the question, Why do Adventists and others keep the Sabbath rather than the Lord’s day, which according to the writings of early Christians, was kept during the time of the Apostles?
Note: Unfortunately the link to this quote no longer works, so source identification at the time the 7 th Edition was published is impossible. We will spend a considerable amount of time examining the Circumcision-Sabbath connection because the concept is so critically important to the Sabbath question. A proper understanding of this principle helps us understand what St. Paul was thinking when he wrote about the law, circumcision, and the Sabbath. Paul was a Jewish lawyer, and he would have thought about these things the same way as other Jewish lawyers. Apologists for Adventism point out that the mixed multitude were commanded to keep the Sabbath during the Exodus when the Manna was also given to the Hebrews, and that a very large number of these people were not circumcised at the time. This excuse works for about two weeks. At the time the Sabbath appears to have been merely an obedience test, like the Manna Obedience Test. However, when the LAW was given to them a short time later at Mt. Sinai, circumcision became a covenantal agreement between each individual Hebrew and God and the nation of Israel as a whole. The specifications of this treaty required circumcision in order to keep the Mosaic Law. Thereafter, Old Testament writers made note of how this concept was incorporated into universal practice in Israel. We are much more interested in the entire concept as it developed through Jewish history because above everything else, we need to understand what St. Paul and the other apostles were thinking when they brought circumcision into discussions about the Law. Israel viewed the Law of Moses as one integrated and inseparable body of 613 equally important “covenant” points of law. You break one of these 613 laws, and you have violated the covenant. The Decalogue was only a part of the Law of Moses, and it was strikingly incomplete. Rabbinical thought rejects outright the idea of “Ten Commandments,” instead viewing the Decalogue as “Ten Categories” of the Mosaic Law. Take the Seventh Commandment that addresses the sin of adultery. Because of the very nature of Hebrew linguistics and culture, this commandment of the Decalogue, to our surprise, does not forbid sexual relationships between a man and a woman who are not married. By the very definition of the word "adultery", two unmarried persons cannot possibly commit the sin of adultery. Any attempt to say that adultery covers all sexual sins ignores the facts of Hebrew linguistics and culture. In English, fornication is the definition of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman who are not married. Even more striking is that the Decalogue portion of the Law of Moses does not address homosexual behavior or human sexual relations with animals. Rabbinical law draws a sharp difference between adultery and fornication, supporting this fact. Evidence of the interpretive restrictions imposed by the existence of the separate definitions of these English words is that God chose to cover these additional areas of sexual sins– fornication, homosexuality, and bestiality― outside of the Decalogue “section” of the Law of Moses. The Jews believed that all 613 of these laws were equally important. Thus, when St. Paul says that circumcision is a token of bondage to the entire law, we are confronted with the principle that without the requirement for circumcision, there is no requirement for keeping the Sabbath because it is one of the most important
components of the Law of Moses. Abraham’s covenant is explicit: Circumcision must occur on the 8th day. For Jews, that means that circumcision is the “front door” of the entire Mosaic law, since circumcision must occur on the 8 th day, even if the 8th day was the Sabbath. Circumcision “trumped” the Sabbath’s stern prohibition against “working” on the Sabbath. Keep in mind that the abrogation of the Decalogue at the cross did not cause natural law and/or the Law of the Spirit to cease: Galatians 5:3 (NIV) - Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.
The Torah, we must remember, contains the Sabbath Commandment and is included in the 613 laws of Moses. A Gentile only needed to swear before three “learned Rabbis” that he would abide by the Noahide Commandments in order to avail himself of all benefits of both Jewish citizenship and the Jewish afterlife. Circumcision was not necessary, and neither was Sabbath-Keeping. Before the Law of Moses was given at Mt. Sinai, God required the foreigner who wished to participate in the Passover to be circumcised: Exodus 12:48 (NIV) - “An alien living among you who wants to celebrate the LORD's Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land. No uncircumcised male may eat of it.”
In the Old Testament we see that Gentiles were only required to keep the Sabbath if they chose to undergo circumcision and full-conversion to Judaism as we see in this passage from Isaiah 56– a text which Sabbatarians like to use to demonstrate the perpetuity of the Sabbath. This conclusion begs the logical conclusion regarding the perpetuity of sacrifices: Isa 56:4 - 7 (NIV) 4 For this is what the LORD says:“To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant— 5 to them I will give within my temple and its walls a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will not be cut off. 6 And foreigners who bind themselves to the LORD to serve him, to love the name of the LORD, and to worship him, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant— 7 these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.”
In our study of the problems of Sabbatarianism, our interest is as much in how the Israelites viewed the concept of the Law and its relationship to the Sabbath as we are in the actual teachings of the Scriptures regarding it. What we do know is that by the time of Jesus, the keeping of the Torah– the Law of Moses– was thought of to be for Jews only, and Gentiles were not welcome to participate in its ordinances unless they were circumcised and underwent full-scale conversion to Judaism. The Council of Jerusalem made the decision not to impose circumcision on the Gentile converts, thus settling the Sabbath question forever. The late SDA Sabbath scholar, Dr. Bacchiocchi teaches that the exemption (contrary to the law) for circumcision was for the Gentiles only and was still required for the Jewish Christians. (See Bacchiocchi’s essay, “How Did Sabbath Keeping Begin,” in the section titled, ‘Attachment to the Law.’) If the issue involved here is truly a moral one, God could therefore not make a distinction between what Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians were required to do! What kind of theological nonsense is this in regard to the Gospel in which God and his Christian followers do not even differentiate between male and female, the free and the slave? We are at a total loss to see why Dr. Bacchiocchi would suggest such an idea. Dr. Bacchiocchi’s willingness to split the requirement for Sabbathkeeping between the Jew and the Gentile is a desperate attempt on his part to extricate himself from the illogical web into which he has fallen. If the Jewish Christians elected to continue to keep the Sabbath and circumcise themselves, it was only because they chose to retain their Jewish identity and cultural connection. It had nothing to do with their conversion to Christianity. In essence, the Pharisees of Antioch in Acts 15 wanted the Gentile Christians to convert to Judaism as part and parcel of their conversion to Christianity. The Apostles at the Council of Jerusalem would have none of it. The biblical understanding of circumcision as taught in Scripture and Jewish rabbinical writings is close to absolute proof that Sabbath-keeping ended at the cross and was officially put to rest at the Council of Jerusalem. As we mention elsewhere, Jewish thought regarding Gentiles and the Sabbath is based on the Jewish belief that the
Sabbath was not given to Adam and Eve at Creation. Nowhere in the Book of Genesis is the Sabbath mentioned. Nobody is mentioned keeping it. No rules are set forth for keeping it in Genesis. Nowhere in Genesis does God command any Patriarch to keep it. Understanding the linguistics of their own Hebrew language, they clearly perceived that Moses worded his account of the events of the 7 th day of Creation in such a way as to make certain they could not possibly read a Sabbath commandment into what he wrote. The complete absence of any mention of the Sabbath in the Book of Genesis loudly confirms the careful reading of the Creation events. These concepts about what the Bible really teaches about the question of Sabbath-keeping for Christians from a combination of Jewish traditional theology and the Bible: The Jews knew the Sabbath didn't begin at Creation. The Jews believed the Sabbath was given to Israel and Israel alone. Similarly, the gateway to keeping the TORAH, even for an Israelite, was circumcision. Circumcision represents the bondage of an Israelite to the Torah. The Sabbath was not part of Noachian Law, which is self-evident from studying the Pentateuch, and which is evident from studying the sacred oral laws that Jesus validated when He told His followers to do everything the Pharisees told them to do. God sent his prophets to rebuke many Gentile nations, but there is no record in the Bible that God ever rebuked them for Sabbath-breaking. Jesus viewed both the Sabbath and circumcision to be ceremonial in nature. He did not condemn the Jews for breaking the Sabbath to circumcise a child on the 8 th day following his birth according to the laws of Moses: John 7:21-23 (NIV) - Jesus said to them, “I did one miracle, and you are all astonished. 22 Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs), you circumcise a child on the Sabbath. 23 Now if a child can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the Law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing the whole man on the Sabbath?”
The Weekly Sabbath is listed in Leviticus 23 as one of many ceremonial ordinances. Note that the Jews knew which ordinance superseded the other when contests between circumcision and the Sabbath arose. Jesus recognized that the Law of Moses incorporated this hierarchy between the two ordinances. At the Council of Jerusalem, the Apostle Peter, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, was able to persuade the other apostolic leaders to avoid saddling the new Gentile converts with a burden that neither they nor their Jewish fathers were able to bear. Once the decision was made not to require the Gentile converts to be circumcised, the Sabbath question was settled forever. There was no chance (without ignoring the legalities of that covenant law) for the Sabbath question to surface again without first reviving the question over Christians undergoing circumcision. This understanding helps us to see why the requirement to keep the Jewish Sabbath was never indicated in any Scripture that post-dated this historic council. The link between circumcision, the TORAH, and the Sabbath is clear. Acts 15:4 - Acts 15:5 (NIV) - And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them. 5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
Both Christians and Jews understood that TORAH law was designed to keep Jews and Gentiles separate. The TORAH, with the Sabbath and its dietary laws, had to come to an end before the Gospel could include the Gentiles. While it may not matter what day Christians choose to worship God, choosing to retain the Sabbath as a day of rest is like rebuilding the same wall of separation that cost God so much to tear down. Here is how Paul talks about this concept in Ephesians Chapter 2: (NIV)Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by
those who call themselves “the circumcision” (that done in the body by the hands of men) ― 12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. 14 For He himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17 He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit. 19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In Him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in Him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by His Spirit.
Jews and Christians can now eat together and worship together. The barrier erected by the Jewish ordinances of the Sabbath, the Jewish dietary laws, and circumcision have been destroyed by what happened at the cross. The Jews, according to the sacred oral traditions passed down under the most exacting oral transmission standards , have virtually always believed that the Sabbath was given to them at the Exodus as a sign to differentiate them from all the other peoples of the world. In fact the very words of God Himself explain why He gave the Sabbath to Israel: “Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, as the LORD your God has commanded you. 13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor the alien within your gates, so that your manservant and maidservant may rest, as you do. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.” (NIVDeuteronomy 5:12-15)
Israel was the only nation ever brought out of Egyptian slavery by God. The Sabbath part of the 10 Commandments would differentiate the Nation of Israel from all the other peoples of the world who were required only to keep the moralistic requirements of the Noachian laws. Furthermore, Rabbinical Judaism taught that the Gentiles would be eternally saved if they kept the basic moralistic laws given to mankind in the Book of Genesis. The Noachian Laws and how they were enforced were not detailed in the Old Testament as we know it and which both Jews and Christians accept as the inspired Word of God. We present the concept not as true doctrine, but as a way to understand how Jews thought about the subject of The Law. It is no surprise that the Jews would view the Sabbath as their exclusive sign from God, since they read the books of Moses in their own language. The meaning indicators in Genesis 2 that are invisible to us are perfectly clear to rabbinical scholars who have had special training in the ancient form of the Hebrew language. They have recognized, “from the beginning,” that Moses contraindicated a Sabbath commandment at the time of Creation. In his classic “A Digest of the Sabbath Question,” Robert D. Brinsmead says: The Book of Jubilees (a Jewish pseudepigraphal work of the second century BC) says that “the Creator of all things.., did not sanctify all peoples and nations to keep Sabbath thereon, but Israel alone” (“The Book of Jubilees,” in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, ed. R.H. Charles, vol. 2, Pseudepigrapha [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913], p. 15).
Jewish tradition taught that the “Noachian Laws” were given to every person on Earth around the time of the Great Flood. The key point, however, is that the Sabbath was not a part of the Noachian laws. Therefore, the Jews believe that the Gentiles who keep the Noachian laws will be saved without having kept the Sabbath or circumcision, and there is no indication in the rabbinical records that the Jews ever officially believed otherwise. God never sent an Israelite prophet to rebuke a heathen
nation or city for Sabbath-breaking, but He did so for disregarding the basic principles of REAL morality– in particular violence and sexual evils. Thus, the Noahide Commandments were an earlier “shadow” of the Great Commission. The Great Commission commanded the Apostles to take the Gospel to ALL the Nations. In the Mishnah, the Jews were commanded to enforce and apply the simple moralistic rules of the Noahide Commandments to all “Nations.” If the Gentiles agree to abide by these simple Commandments, their lives were to be spared. The logic of set theory demands that one cannot use a trait that is characteristic of all the members of the set to create a subset. C.S. Lewis once said that nonsense is nonsense even when you are talking about God. One of the reasons God explained for giving the Sabbath to Israel was to create a sign that would differentiate them from all the other nations of the world. If all the nations, kindred, tongues, and people of the world kept the Sabbath, it would be impossible for God to use the Sabbath as a distinguishing sign. In fact God wished to keep Israel separate from the Heathen during the dispensation of the Torah (Exodus to the Cross) for good reasons. The Israelites were a stubborn and stiff-necked people according to God’s own assessment. He knew the Hebrews would easily be corrupted by associating with the Heathen. The ordinances of the Sabbath, circumcision, and the Jewish dietary laws placed a high wall of social separation between Israel and the Gentiles. If people don’t eat together, they are less likely to become friends. Along similar lines, the ordinance of circumcision made it a very painful process for the head of a Gentile household to make a decision to join an Israelite community and to live as a proselyte. Contrast this with God’s expressed New Covenant purpose to tear down this barrier between Jews and Gentiles after the cross. St. Paul was God’s specially designated ambassador of the Gospel to the Gentiles according to Scripture. We credit our reading of the works of Robert D. Brinsmead for the concepts I have mentioned in this paragraph. It should be clear, now, that the Adventist interpretation that only the “ceremonial” laws were nailed to the cross is not possible for a number of reasons. The Sabbath was a ceremonial law designed to keep Israel and the Gentiles separate, and that barrier must come down if Jews and Gentiles are to be united in the Gospel. The Old Testament, as well as Jewish traditional theology, view the TORAH as absolutely inseparable covenant. No Jewish Scholar recognized a distinction between the “moral” and “ceremonial” components of the Mosaic Law, nor did any of them recognize a distinction between the “Ten Commandments” and the rest of the 613 Mosaic Commandments. At least in the years subsequent to the writing of From Sabbath to Sunday, Dr. Bacchiocchi was fully aware of the Jewish concept of the circumcision-Sabbath connection, although he tried his best to discount it. In a later book he acknowledges that the opinion of Jewish rabbinical thought for hundreds of years before the birth of Christ was that the Sabbath was given to Israel at the time of the giving of the manna; that it was given only to Israel; and that circumcision was a prerequisite for both Israelites and proselytes to Judaism for keeping the Sabbath. Here is proof of what he knew, quoting a section of that book. Please keep in mind that the following statement is written by a pro-Sabbatarian, Seventh-day Adventist author. The trouble is that he wrote this at a time when he had unfettered access to scholarly studies that by that time had thoroughly disproved the concept that the Sabbath was a Creation ordinance. We are referring again to the definitive work of the D.A. Carson team. Dr. Bacchiocchi offers no proof that the Sabbath was a Creation ordinance, perhaps because there is no proof to offer and all the evidence is against this point-of-view. We do not approve of the content of the following quoted passage and it does not reflect the opinion of any of us four authors. The following quote is from Bacchiocchi’s book, The Sabbath in the New Testament, Answers to Questions, Chapter 8, “Questions About The Sabbath in the Old Testament,” posted at Dr. Bacchiocchi's website, Biblical Perspectives.) QUESTION: Have not Rabbis and Church Fathers taught that the Sabbath is a Mosaic institution established by Moses for Israel alone? Does not this historical view negate the creation origin and universal validity of the Sabbath? ANSWER: Mosaic Institution. Some Palestinian Rabbis and some early Church Fathers did reduce the Sabbath from a creation ordinance for mankind to a Mosaic institution for the Jews. Their teaching, however, does not negate the validity of the Biblical view of the creation origin and universal scope of the Sabbath, because the teachings of the Scriptures are not "a matter of one’s own interpretation" (2 Pet 1:20). Jewish Identity. Furthermore, note should be taken of the factors which contributed to the adoption of the Mosaic origin of the Sabbath. It was the strong desire to preserve a Jewish identity, at a time when
Hellenistic forces were pressing for the abandonment of the Jewish religion, that apparently led Palestinian Rabbis to reduce the Sabbath from a creation ordinance established for mankind to a Mosaic ordinance given exclusively to Israel. Such a development occurred in response to the determined efforts of the Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes to implement a program of radical Hellenization of the Jews through the prohibition of sacrifices and Sabbath-keeping (175 BC). The result was that many Jews fell away, "sacrificed to the gods and desecrated the Sabbath" (1 Macc. 1:43). Pious Jews passionately resisted the Hellenization efforts of Antiochus Epiphanies, preferring to be slaughtered rather than desecrate the Sabbath (1 Macc. 2:32-38). The need to preserve a Jewish identity at that critical time inspired an exclusivistic and nationalistic view of the Sabbath. The notion was introduced at this time by some Rabbis that the privilege of Sabbath-keeping was denied to the Gentiles and reserved exclusively for Israel. As stated in the book of Jubilees, "He [God] allowed no other people or peoples to keep the Sabbath on this day, except Israel only; to it alone he granted to eat and drink and keep the Sabbath on it" (2:31). If the patriarchs are sometimes mentioned as keeping the Sabbath, this is regarded as an exception "before it [the Sabbath] was given" to Israel. A Secondary Development. The notion of the Sabbath as an exclusively Jewish institution, established not at creation for all mankind but by Moses for Israel alone, makes God guilty, to say the least, of favoritism and discriminatory practices. It must be said, however, that the notion of a Mosaic origin of the Sabbath represents a late secondary development rather than an original tradition. This is borne out by the fact that in Hellenistic (Greek) Judaism the Sabbath was viewed as a creation ordinance for mankind. Moreover, even in Palestinian literature (both apocalyptic and rabbinic) frequent mention is made of God, Adam, Seth, Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph as scrupulously observing the Sabbath. Apologetic Need. The early Fathers adopted the notion of the Mosaic origin and exclusive Jewish nature of the Sabbath, to challenge those Christians who defended the binding obligations of the Sabbath commandment in the Christian dispensation. The standard and frequent argument is that the patriarchs and righteous men before Moses did not observe the Sabbath, and thus the day must be regarded as a temporary ordinance, deriving from Moses, and enjoined exclusively on the Jews on account of their unfaithfulness. The reduction of a creation ordinance to an infamous sign of Jewish disobedience may reflect the need for short-term apologetic arguments, but it lacks a comprehension of the permanent and lofty values placed upon the Sabbath by Scripture.
(Dr. Bacchiocchi, from The Sabbath in the New Testament, Answers to Questions, Chapter 8, “Questions About The Sabbath in the Old Testament,” posted at Dr. Bacchiocchi's website, Biblical Perspectives.) Again, our purpose in providing the above reference from Dr. Bacchiocchi is simply to show that he was well aware of facts that make his Sabbatarian views difficult to sustain. As we mentioned in another chapter, Bacchiocchi seemed to be unaware that the Greek hatred of the Sabbath, circumcision, and the Jewish Food Laws continues unabated until this day. His is an odd “Judeo-centric” view of the conflict found in the Book of Maccabees. Adventism has fewer than 1,000 members in Greece today, and Greece has the lowest rate of circumcision in the Western World (less than 2 percent). Had not the Apostles swiftly abandoned the Sabbath, Circumcision and the Jewish Food laws at the Council of Jerusalem, Christianity would have quickly shriveled into an obscure sect of Judaism localized around Jerusalem. Simply put, Adventism is a non-starter in Greece because of the Sabbath and its adoption of the Jewish Food laws. The Greeks hate those Jewish traditions just as passionately today as they did 2,000 years ago. For the Apostles to have NOT abandoned the Sabbath, circumcision and the Jewish Food laws would have been direct disobedience to the Great Commission. Christianity would have never spread among the Greeks, had the Greeks been forced to comply with the Mosaic Law. BRENDAN KNUDSON’S OBJECTIONS KNUDSON: Just because the Jews believed that circumcision was a prerequisite to Sabbath-keeping does not make it true.
AUTHORS: Thanks for acknowledging that the Jews have believed that circumcision is a prerequisite to Sabbath observance. Additionally, it is odd for an Adventist to argue that circumcision was not a prerequisite to Sabbath Keeping, since Adventists erroneously – and without a stitch of proof in Genesis – argue that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob kept the Sabbath. Yet Genesis is clear that all of those Patriarchs were circumcised. In order to understand a Jewish book like the Bible, you must understand Jewish language, culture, and history. We know that the Jews of Jesus’ day believed that neither Gentile proselyte nor Jew could keep the Sabbath without being circumcised. Jesus Himself restricted the application of the Sabbath to Israel by excluding the Gentile “dogs.” It was a group of Jews—the Apostles—who, in apostolic times, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, decided that the Gentile converts coming into the Church did not have to be circumcised. The issue of Sabbath-keeping never arose after the Council of Jerusalem. Even if the Apostles happened to be wrong in their beliefs, this was what they believed, and it was this belief that guided their thinking about what Jewish requirements would be appropriate for the new Gentile converts. More than anything though, they had the Great Commission, and Jesus' expression of the Great Commission was inconsistent with the Mosaic Law. What they believed about the relationship between circumcision and Sabbath observance affected how New Testament writers thought and wrote about it. The truth of the concept is found throughout the Law of Moses. The interpretation of this principle is manifest in how the Jews implemented it throughout their recorded history. Jesus even commented on the relationship between the two ordinances when He pointed out to his Jewish audience that their practice was to circumcise a new baby boy on the Sabbath if the 8 th day of his life fell on the Sabbath. KNUDSON: The Bible demonstrates that Sabbath-keeping applied to the uncircumcised stranger who was passing through Israelite territory. The scope of the teachings of the Pentateuch about Sabbath-keeping seems to include both the circumcised foreigner and the uncircumcised foreigner. AUTHORS: Gentiles working within the national boundaries of Israel on the Sabbath would make it difficult for their Jewish hosts to keep the Sabbath. Almost certainly the Law of Moses regulated the foreigner’s activity on the Sabbath so the Jews could keep the Sabbath at all times, as well as to prevent a Jew from working by proxy through Gentiles. The Gentiles rested on the Sabbath only because Jewish law required them to appease their hosts while they were within their gates. When they left they were no longer bound by law to keep the Sabbath. They were no more “Sabbath keepers” than the animals within the gates of the Jews, who also rested/ceased. Imagine a Gentile merchant who wants to load the goods he purchased from an Israelite merchant on his camels after sunset on the Preparation Day. He wants his Jewish merchant to unlock the storehouse and help him load-up for the long journey back to the Kingdom of Sheba. The Mosaic Law as interpreted in both the Mishnah and the Talmud demonstrate yet another outrageous falsehood of Adventism, and the opposite of what Knudson alleges. Recall that White stated that Jews could hire Gentiles to do work on the Sabbath that Jews were prohibited from doing: As a consequence the people were dependent upon the Gentiles for many services which their rules forbade them to do for themselves. They did not reflect that if these acts were sinful, those who employed others to perform them were as guilty as if they had done the work themselves (The Desire of Ages, page 204, paragraph 1, Chapter Title: Bethesda and the Sanhedrin.)
Both Knudson and White have fallen into the notorious logical morass known as the “Myth of the Shabbos Goy,” which is debunked here: “The basic rule of thumb as far as having a gentile do work for a Jew on Shabbat is that if a Jew may not do it, a non-Jew cannot do it for him. This is true whether or not the Jew specifically asks the non-Jew to do the work or if the non-Jew does it on his own, whether the non-Jew is paid for his efforts or not.” “Therefore, they decreed that when a non-Jew performs work for a Jew on Shabbat, he becomes his agent for that action and it's considered as if the Jew performed the work himself.” http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1140867/jewish/The-Myth-of-the-Shabbos-Goy.htm
KNUDSON: In this, we see that the Sabbath was binding upon the uncircumcised as well as the circumcised, thus demonstrating that its universal nature extended beyond the covenant God had established with Israel.
AUTHORS: God made no covenant with any other nation but Israel. The Law of Moses specified what was to happen within the territorial boundaries of His nation, Israel. The concept of national jurisdiction is recognized by the popular statement, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.” The provision Knudson cites was enacted to enable the Jews within their own domain to keep the Sabbath without interference from their Gentile visitors. The law also prevented the Jew from using the Gentiles among them as proxy workers. Knudson draws a conclusion then that goes way beyond the confines stated in Scripture regarding the Gentiles who happened to be “within the gates” or borders of Israel. This restriction to territory within the confines of Israel hardly qualifies the Sabbath as being universal in nature. The Sabbath was definitely a “religious” thing for the Jew, but it was merely a civil provision for the visiting Gentile. The Jew could be stoned to death for picking up firewood on the Sabbath, but there was no provision in the Law of Moses for stoning their Gentile guests who collected firewood on the Sabbath (unless of course the Gentile was doing it on behalf of a Jew). As demonstrated in the previous response, the Sabbath was only “binding” on a Gentile insofar as a Jew could not hire a Gentile to perform work on the Sabbath that a Jew was prohibited from doing. SANDERS: Any Gentile or foreigner that wished to keep the Sabbath was required to obey all the Old Covenant laws which required circumcision. In Isaiah 56, we have the mentioning of the Eunuchs who kept the Sabbath. God told them that they must keep the covenant to be accepted and that the covenant requires circumcision. Isaiah 56:4-5 (NIV) 4 For this is what the LORD says: “To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant— 5 to them I will give within my temple and its walls a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will not be cut off.
KNUDSON: From the time that the Israelites refused to enter the Promised Land at Kadesh, the Scriptures reveal that the Hebrews were forbidden from performing circumcision (Joshua 5:7) and the entire next generation who entered the promised land were not circumcised until they had crossed the Jordan (Joshua 5:24). Circumcision was required to partake of the Passover (Exodus 12:43-49) and they did not eat it during all the 40 years in the wilderness until the rite of circumcision was renewed (Joshua 5:11). This fact represents a final blow to the anti-Sabbatarian argument that the Bible concept of circumcision is a barrier to Sabbatarianism. HOHMANN: Knudson takes great liberty with Scripture, drawing conclusions not necessarily supported by the text. It does not say the Hebrews were forbidden from performing circumcision. The narrative indicates it was something neglected by them. Israel had a nasty habit of forgetting the law given to them down through time. The same can be said for the Passover. Knudson assumes; draws out a conclusion, that they had not kept the Passover for those 40 years in the wilderness. All the narrative does tell us is that it was kept by them just prior to entering into the land, along with the next generation undergoing circumcision. Knudson wants desperately to turn this into the “last nail in the coffin” regarding the “alleged” connection between circumcision and Sabbath observance, when in fact all that is demonstrated is the Hebrew's proclivity at ignoring their own law. Here is the passage from Joshua 5 to study for yourself: At that time the Lord said to Joshua, “Make flint knives and circumcise the Israelites again.” 3 So Joshua made flint knives and circumcised the Israelites at Gibeath Haaraloth. 2
Now this is why he did so: All those who came out of Egypt—all the men of military age—died in the wilderness on the way after leaving Egypt. 5 All the people that came out had been circumcised, but all the people born in the wilderness during the journey from Egypt had not. 6 The Israelites had moved about in the wilderness forty years until all the men who were of military age when they left Egypt had died, since they had not obeyed the Lord. For the Lord had sworn to them that they would not see the land he had solemnly promised their ancestors to give us, a land flowing with milk and honey. 7 So he raised up their sons in their place, and these were the ones Joshua circumcised. They were still uncircumcised because they had not been circumcised on the way. 8 And after the whole nation had been circumcised, they remained where they were in camp until they were healed. 4
Note that this passage does not suggest or imply that God ordered Israel to cease practicing the ordinance of circumcision during their desert wanderings. It does not tell us why circumcision ceased during those 40 years. It is more reasonable to assume that the cessation of this practice was the result of the neglect of the practice by the people. What Knudson would need to support his objection is a text that records God forbidding circumcision around the time when the forty years of wandering in the desert began.
WYNNE: The root of Knudson’s objection is based on the errant premise that the Sabbath ordinance is intrinsically moral. The Sabbath started out as an obedience test. Shortly thereafter it was elevated to the status of an obedience test that would distinguish Israel from all the other nations of the world. Because both are intrinsically “ceremonial,” God can do what he wants to with them. The whole world did without a Sabbath for two-thousand years before God gave it to Israel. The whole world went without the ordinance of circumcision until God called Abraham out of Ur of the Chaldees. God would not be intermittent with moralistic laws. For example, He would not ever suspend the natural law against adultery. Imagine God punishing Israel by taking away the prohibition against adultery because they had been doing evil! Recall that once God did threaten to take away Israel’s Sabbaths: Hosea 2:11 (NIV) I will stop all her celebrations: her yearly festivals, her New Moons, her Sabbath days—all her appointed feasts.
Note that once Israel crossed the Jordan and became established as a nation, the hierarchy between circumcision and the Sabbath remained unchanged until the time of Jesus, with circumcision, a “ceremonial” point of law, taking precedence over the Sabbath. Circumcision remained the gateway to the privilege of keeping the Law of Moses, the Sabbath being the most significant seal of the contract between God and Israel from Mt. Sinai to the Cross. Circumcision may have fallen into widespread neglect during the Desert Wanderings because there was no functioning court system until the Children of Israel crossed the Jordan and established one! KNUDSON: Exodus 23:9 - "You shall not oppress a sojourner ()ג(ר. You know the heart of a sojourner ()ג(ר, for you were sojourners ( )ג(רin the land of Egypt." This verse highlights how the Hebrews were in the position of gēr while they were in Egypt. It doesn't imply that they had adopted Egyptian religious practices, but speaks in the general sense of being foreigners. It is speaking of the vulnerable status of being a minority within another culture. Also, the command not to oppress the foreigner within the land must also embrace a universal sense inclusive of uncircumcised foreigners in the land. So we see that the Sabbath in Exodus 23:12 is for the uncircumcised stranger as well as the circumcised Hebrew. In the Sabbath Commandment in Deuteronomy, we see again a social aspect of the Sabbath commandment with the commentary which shows that the rest of those mentioned alongside the Israelites was to be equal to the Israelites rest as it says synecdochally, "that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you". The Deuteronomic account also gives the larger context for the gēr by reference to the experience of slavery in Egypt. In this, we see that the Sabbath was binding upon the uncircumcised as well as the circumcised, thus demonstrating its universal nature beyond the covenant God had established with Israel. DEAN: For much of Israel's history, oral and written histories record key court decisions and the legal precedents that those decisions established. Down through the history of Israel, judges within that legal system referred to those records to help them make decisions in difficult situations that would be in keeping with the principles of the Torah. These records were collected and incorporated into a Jewish document called the Mishnah. The record of these oral and written traditions shows that Israel utilized two separate court systems― one for Jews and one for the Gentiles living within the borders of the country. The Gentiles were not held accountable to the TORAH. Instead, they were held to the Noachian laws. These Noachian laws were the foundation of all law systems, including the TORAH, but they did not include the Sabbath. As noted elsewhere in this book, the Jews have traditionally believed that Gentiles who kept the Noachian laws would be granted eternal life in Paradise. Here is a Wikipedia definition of the Mishnah: According to Rabbinical Judaism, the Oral Torah (Hebrew: פה-תו(רה שבעל, Torah she-be'al-peh) was given to Moses with the Torah at Mount Sinai, as an exposition to the latter. The accumulated traditions of the Oral Law, expounded by scholars in each generation from Moses onward, is considered as the necessary basis for the interpretation, and often for the reading, of the Written Law. Jews sometimes refer to this as the Masorah (Hebrew: )מסו(רה, roughly translated as tradition, though that word is often used in a narrower sense to mean traditions concerning the editing and reading of the Biblical text (see Masorah). The resulting Jewish law and custom is called Halakha (Hebrew: )הלכה. While most discussions in the Mishnah concern the correct way to carry out laws recorded in the Torah, it usually presents its conclusions without explicitly linking them to any scriptural passage, although
scriptural quotations do occur. For this reason it is arranged in order of topics rather than in the form of a Biblical commentary. (In a very few cases, there is no scriptural source at all and the law is described as Halakha le-Moshe mi-Sinai, law to Moses from Sinai.) The Midrash Halakha, by contrast, while presenting similar laws, does so in the form of a Biblical commentary and explicitly links its conclusions to details in the Biblical text. These Midrashim often predate the Mishnah. The Mishnah also quotes the Torah for principles not associated with law, but just as practical advice, even at times for humor or as guidance for understanding historical debate.
In Israel's legal system Gentiles were held accountable ONLY to the Noahide laws, which did not include a Sabbath requirement. Correlating with and reinforcing this principle is that the Rabbis believed and taught that the Gentiles would be eternally saved if they kept the Noahide laws. The Sabbath was only binding on a Gentile insofar as a Jew could not hire a Gentile to perform work that a Jew was prohibited from doing on the Sabbath. Once again, the heart of the 4 th Commandment is a prohibition against “working,” and the Commandment facially includes “man-servants and maidservants” in this prohibition. That includes Gentiles and “sojourners.” Our assertion that there can be no Sabbath-keeping without circumcision, therefore, is based on biblical evidence and is supported by Jewish written and oral tradition that Jewish authorities believe extends back as far as the period of the Judges.
RESEARCH BARRIER: THE SABBATH IS ABOUT A TREATY WITH A CEREMONIAL REQUIREMENT IN THE MIDDLE Robert Brinsmead's intense research prior to the publication of his 1981 essay, “Sabbatarianism Re-examined,” brought to Adventists the fact that contemporary biblical scholars had discovered the fact that the 10 Commandments were modeled after the Hittite treaties of the time. (See Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East, George E. Mendenhall, 1954; and “The Two Tables of the Covenant,” Meridith Kline, Westminster Theological Journal 22 (1960) 133-146, both available on the Web). Brinsmead says: The ceremonial nature of the Sabbath law has been confirmed by Mendenhall's 1954 discovery that the Ten Commandments conform to the structure of treaties between Hittite kings and their vassals. Annexed to the stipulations of a Hittite treaty was a provision for a periodic ceremony to rehearse the treaty between the lord and the vassal. Meredith Kline beautifully demonstrates that the Sabbath law in the middle of the Ten Commandments is the counterpart of a Hittite treaty memorial celebration with respect to its provision for the rehearsal of God's covenant. The Sabbath law, therefore, was a law requiring a ceremony of covenantal rehearsal.
The Sabbath was a ceremonial rite given to Israel to help the Chosen People remember that God was the One responsible for bringing them out of Egypt. It would be so very much like God to communicate His plan for them in the context of their contemporary culture because the people could understand it better. Moses, in Leviticus 23, lists the weekly Sabbath as one of the many ceremonial festivals given to the Israelite nation to be observed, labeling them “appointed feasts.” The evidence in this section combines with the fact that a study of the Hebrew linguistics of the Creation Story illustrates the fact that the Sabbath could not have been a Creation ordinance. There are two fundamental reasons God listed for giving the Sabbath to Israel, and BOTH specifications have to be met for its consistent application: (1) to help Israel remember that God created the world, and (2) to help Israel remember that God rescued them from Egyptian slavery. At the time of Creation, there was no Egyptian slavery to be rescued from. The specifications for the use of the Sabbath cannot be met for anyone living before the time of the Exodus.
RESEARCH POTENTIAL BARRIER: THE THEORY OF PROLEPSIS: A POSSIBILITY One respectable but less-than-definitive argument against a Genesis origin for the Sabbath is the possibility that Moses used a literary device called prolepsis in Genesis 2:2-3 to show the relationship between the events of the 7 th day of
Creation and the giving of the Sabbath commandment at Mt. Sinai. The Bible is literature. The books of the Bible share many attributes with world literature. We mentioned earlier that failure to understand the linguistics of the original language of the Pentateuch can lead to disaster. The same is true of a failure to understand it as a literary work. One of our critics, Knudson, objects that the prolepsis argument is not a good one and claims that it has been thoroughly refuted. We have never claimed that it is a proven argument, and we fail to see how either Sabbatarians or antiSabbatarians could prove or disprove it. It is a definite possibility since Moses wrote about events that stretched from Creation through the giving of the 10 Commandments on Mt. Sinai. The commentary on Genesis 2:3 in John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible theorizes that since Moses wrote about both Creation and the Exodus, he was likely thinking about both events when he wrote Genesis and Exodus. It is entirely possible and consistent with other facts that He chose to show the relationship between the 7 th day of Creation and the 4th commandment through prolepsis. Merriam Webster’s On-Line Dictionary defines this term as “The representation of a thing as existing before it actually does or did so, as in “he was a dead man when he entered.” [In regard to] literary [terminology], a figurative device in narrative, in which a future event is prefigured, such as “the destruction of the Vendôme Column and his part in it are foreshadowed in moments of haunting prolepsis.” The calculated risk we take in including this in our presentation is that our Sabbatarian brethren might think that we include it because we have nothing better to hold up as evidence against a Creation origin for the Sabbath. To the contrary, we are confident to present it because we are in the process of providing proof, not merely “evidence,” that a Creation origin for the Sabbath is not possible. We demonstrate this fact, and not tentatively, from a study of the Hebrew linguistics of Genesis 2, Exodus 16, and Exodus 20. Quoting Gill: And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it. A day in which he took delight and pleasure, having finished all his works, and resting from them, and looking over them as very good; and so he pronounced this day a good and happy day, and "sanctified" or appointed it in his mind to be a day separated from others, for holy service and worship; as it was with the Jews when they became a body of people, both civil and ecclesiastical: or this is all said by way of prolepsis or anticipation, as many things in this chapter are, many names of countries and rivers, by which being called in the times of Moses, are here given them, though they were not called by them so early, nor till many ages after: and according to Jarchi this passage respects future time, when God "blessed" this day with the manna, which descended on all the days of the week, an omer for a man, and on the sixth day double food; and he "sanctified" it with the manna which did not descend at all on that day: besides, these words may be read in a parenthesis, as containing an account of a fact that was done, not at the
beginning of the world, and on the first seventh day of it; but of what had been done in the times of Moses, who wrote this, after the giving of the law of the Sabbath; and this being given through his hands to the people of Israel, he takes this opportunity here to insert it, and very pertinently, seeing the reason why God then, in the times of Moses, blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it, was, because he had rested on that day from all his works, (Exodus 20:11) and the same reason is given here, taken plainly out of that law which he had delivered to them: because that in it he had rested from all his work, which God created and made; which shows, that this refers not to the same time when God blessed and hallowed the seventh day, which was done in the times of Moses, but to what had been long before, and was then given as a reason enforcing it; for it is not here said, as in the preceding verse, "he rested", but "had rested", even from the foundation of the world, when his works were finished, as in ( Hebrews 4:3 ) even what "he created to make" V5, as the words may be here rendered; which he created out of nothing, as he did the first matter, in order to make all things out of it, and put them in that order, and bring them to that perfection he did. http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/genesis-2-3.html
It is possible, then, that Moses, writing about both events, comments on the blessing and the hallowing of the 7 th day in Genesis 2 before it took place because in his mind he knew it had taken place in the future. Knudson possesses a general knowledge of the Hebrew language. He does not, however, exhibit expert level knowledge of
Ancient Hebrew. Nor does he speak for the Seventh-day Adventist Church in any official capacity, especially in view of his recent highly controversial activities in regard to the White Estate. He has reviewed our work, having posted refutations of it on the Internet. His challenges are well-articulated, and we will present his objections with appropriate rebuttals throughout this up-dated version. Here are his objections in regard to the concept of prolepsis: KNUDSON: The author’s defense [Wynne’s] that you can have your cake and eat it too in regard to the possibility that Moses referred to the blessing and the hallowing of the 7th day of Creation as a literary prolepsis— is double-speak and amounts to a concession that the blessing and hallowing would have to have taken place on the 7th day of Creation. This concession backs Wynne away from an argument he initially presented as a weighty one. DEAN: Since the practice of the Sabbath obligation itself is nowhere mentioned in Genesis; and is not introduced until Sinai in Exodus; it is not “having your cake and eating it too” to admit that the 7 th Day of Creation was hallowed. The “blessing and hallowing” of the 7 th Day of Creation does not imply a recurring weekly 7th Day Sabbath. Nor can the language in any way be stretched that far. The Adventist insistence that the Sabbath is a “creation ordinance” is simply dishonest.
RESEARCH BARRIER: MATTHEW 5:17-18 TEACHES US NOTHING ABOUT THE SABBATH Both Sabbatarians and their anti-Sabbatarian opponents try to use Matthew 5:17-19 to support their points of view. Our assessment of this passage suggests that neither side can legitimately use it. This passage says nothing definite about the Sabbath question. It is very difficult to translate it from the original Greek into English: Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (Matt 5:17-18 NIV)
Sabbatarians claim this text proves that the 10 Commandments will last until Heaven and Earth disappear, which takes the end of the Law and the Prophets way beyond the Cross. Adventists fail to acknowledge to reality that when the Jews thought about the Law, they were thinking of the entire Torah, which consisted to 613 rules and regulations that were considered to be equally important with no differentiation between moralistic and ceremonial precepts. Since Jesus expanded His saying to also include the “Prophets,” there can be no mistake that He intended to communicate the concept that the entire Torah was included as something that would not perish until all things were fulfilled. Let's use some logic in our application of this passage to thinking about whether the Sabbath goes to Heaven with us. If the Sabbath were to survive into the New Earth, so would the annual Sabbath feast days and the monthly New Moon observances, along with the Jewish dietary restrictions. Imagine! No Pork-eating in Heaven? We are not so sure there will even be pigs there, and we wouldn't expect to eat them if they were. This line of thinking pushes us into crazy absurdities. Adventists like to link this text with Isaiah 66 to prove that the Sabbath will be kept in Heaven, but this flawed approach ignores the fact that Isaiah seems to be telling Israel that the Hebrews who are faithful to God in the current moment of national distress they were experiencing as a nation will be remembered for their loyalty to Him for as long as the new Heaven and Earth endure. We cover Isaiah 66 in depth elsewhere. For the purpose of this topic, just keep in mind that if we meet Ellen White and the Adventists on their own ground, Ellen White taught (in error, of course) that the ceremonial laws, but not the Sabbath, were nailed to the Cross. Adventists historically have viewed the annual Sabbaths and New Moons as ceremonial laws that got nailed to the Cross. If Ellen White is to be believed by her own followers, there can be no New Moons kept in Heaven. While we believe that Matthew 5:17-18 cannot possibly be utilized to teach the idea that the Sabbath goes to Heaven, we are reluctant, at the same time, to say with 100% assurance that the death of Jesus on the Cross represented the “fulfillment” to which Jesus was referring. However, the latter seems more plausible than the former if we were to be forced to choose between them. Paul Kroll explains the problem and possible solutions in the following Internet article, “The ‘Law’ of Matthew 5:17-19.” A Google search will provide you with access to the entire paper, which is well-worth reading:
The meaning of “until everything is accomplished” has several possibilities. It is suggested by the Tyndale New Testament Commentary that the translation: “Until what it [the Law] looks forward to arrives” gives the best sense of this phrase. This links the thought with the idea of “fulfillment” in verse 17. This also seems to be the thrust of Paul’s comments regarding the relationship of the Law and Jesus’ earthly ministry (Galatians 3:19, 23-25). The Tyndale New Testament Commentary expresses the interpretation of “accomplished” in these words: The law remains valid until it reaches its intended culmination; this it is now doing in the ministry and teaching of Jesus. This verse does not state, therefore, as it is sometimes interpreted, that every regulation in the Old Testament law remains binding after the coming of Jesus. The law is unalterable, but that does not justify its application beyond the purpose for which it was intended (page 115). The Tyndale commentary also makes the same point in these words: This passage does not therefore state that every Old Testament regulation is eternally valid. This view is not found anywhere in the New Testament, which consistently sees Jesus as introducing a new situation, for which the law prepared (Galatians 3:24), but which now transcends it. The focus is now on Jesus and his teaching, and in this light the validity of Old Testament rules must now be examined. Some will be found to have fulfilled their role, and be no longer applicable...others will be reinterpreted (page 117). This explanation must be the correct one, or else the early Christian church and the apostles violated Matthew 5:17-19 by telling gentile Christians that circumcision and keeping the Law of Moses was not necessary. The book of Galatians would also have been in error on this point. And the book of Hebrews would have been in extraordinary violation of Jesus’ words, too, since it states that the entire sacrificial system, the temple worship and Levitical priesthood had been annulled. http://www.gci.org/bible/matthew517
St. Paul said that Christ is the end of TORAH law: Rom.10:4 (NIV): “Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.” Under the New Covenant, the “Law of God” is written on the hearts of the people, this “law” being identified also as God's Spirit, and a new heart of flesh. Bill Hohmann offers the following observation in his new blog-based book, Christian Basics, Chapter 5, “Methodology of Truth:” One of the Sabbatarian legalist's favorite passages is Matthew 5:17-19 where it is concluded that the legalities of the law remain inviolate even down to the strokes of the letters of the law. Even a cursory examination of the passage shows this interpretation to be flawed. The context of what Jesus was referring to was the law and prophets. In this context it should be understood that this refers to the first 5 books, commonly called “the law” and the writings of the prophets being “the prophets” as well as the context of Scripture overall. Sometimes the term, “the law” could indeed refer to the entirety of the Old Testament writings. There are no laws codified in the prophets. You cannot fulfill or destroy something in the prophets that is not there. What then is found in both the law and prophets that has the potential to be fulfilled or destroyed? Prophesies! Did Jesus state He had come to fulfill the prophesies that were written about Him in the law and prophets, that is, the Old Testament writings? Yes, He most emphatically did. And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. – Luke 24:44
What, then, is the excuse of the Sabbatarian for rejecting this explanation in light of Matthew 5:17? They point out that Jesus did not fulfill everything while He walked the earth in human form. Well then, what do they think the very next verse addresses? Things that were not fulfilled prophetically that are eschatological in nature that will be fulfilled later, at that time, before heaven and earth pass away. Let's humor the Sabbatarian a bit here, seeing as they insist this is about the legalities of the law. When then is the conclusion in regards to verse 18? When heaven and earth passes, so too passes this law after it is “filled to the full.” So the law passes away; the same law they claim is eternal. Also, if this is all about
the legalities of the law being inviolate down to jots and tittles, what about the context of the same chapter where Jesus proceeds to alter points of that law way beyond jots and tittles, and even negating points of that law? http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2010/06/chapter-5-methodology-of-truth.html
BIBLICAL BARRIER: The Torah Was To Be Temporary As we demonstrated earlier, a careful analysis of Moses' account of the events of the 7 th day of Creation in Hebrew shows that he went out of his way to indicate to his Hebrew readers that the recurring Sabbath rest did not start in Eden. We have also seen strong evidence that God communicated concepts to Israel in the context of their own cultural familiarity. The Ten Commandments were modeled after the treaties of their neighboring countries with a ceremonial component in the middle. The best evidence available to date is that the “Sabbath” concept was originally a Heathen idea based on the four phases of the Moon and fertility rites that God took, cleansed of its Heathen connotations, and presented to Israel fully redeemed and cleansed, and newly identified with the seven days of Creation Week as both a remembrance of God's creative power and a reminder that He had brought them out of Egyptian slavery. Moses stated that the Covenant, which contained the new ceremonial weekly Sabbath, was not given before Sinai: Their fathers prior to Egypt did not keep the Sabbath: Deut. 5:2-3: The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. The Lord did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, with all those of us alive here today.
God gave them the Sabbath law at Sinai. He did not remind them about it: Nehemiah 9:13-14: You came down also on Mount Sinai, and spoke with them from heaven, and gave them just ordinances and true laws, good statutes and commandments. You made known to them Your holy Sabbath, and commanded them precepts, statutes and laws, by the hand of Moses Your servant.
It is clear that the Sabbath command did not exist before the Exodus. In other chapters we will study more about the temporary nature of the TORAH. Colossians 2:14-17 tells us when the reign of TORAH law ended.
Chapter Five THE EXODUS JOURNEY
THE EXODUS JOURNEY From The Land Of Goshen To The Mountain Of The Moon The Hebrews did not rest on the Sabbath prior to its introduction and the manna Sabbath “test.” The Hebrews left Egypt on a Thursday night, marching and camping for a total of 38 days before they kept their first Sabbath, treating all the previous days of their journey the same in regard to travel and work. One week before observing the first Sabbath ever kept, they marched 20 kilometers from their camp by the Red Sea to the edge of the Wilderness of Sin, trampling on the 7th day of their week, arriving around 5 pm on the 31 st day of their journey late that “Saturday” afternoon. That evening, God introduced the Manna Obedience Test to Israel, instructing them to gather daily an amount sufficient for their needs for one day, and that on the sixth day they were to gather a double portion in order to provide them with manna on the Sabbath, seeing as there would be none provided on that day. Critical thinking suggests that you cannot keep the Sabbath holy without having a preparation day before it. All work has to be completed before sundown on the 6 th day. Sabbatarian apologist, Brendan Knudson raises the following objections, which can currently (as of February 2015) be found at the Adventist Defense League's website: KNUDSON – The Ox Was In The Ditch. In Bible, Jesus pointed out that the Jews believed that it was OK to pull an ox out of a ditch on the Sabbath, and Jesus seemed OK with this principle (summarization). There are two problems with this rationalization. First, if the Sabbath were a “moral” issue, He could not possibly make an exception. For example, in a pinch, God would not allow adultery or murder under any circumstances. Second, God controls everything. No one can interfere with His will. God could easily have forced events to take place in such a way as to have the Hebrews leave after sundown on “Saturday” and to control the Egyptian chase with divine intervention that would allow for proper Sabbath-keeping, including a necessary preparation day on “Friday.” KNUDSON – The idea that God forced the Hebrews to break the Sabbath is dependent on the assumption that the Hebrews were using a “solar” calendar in which each month was 28 days in length. Until the history of the world moved up to the time of the civilizations of Babylon and Assyria, the only method of time keeping humans understood was that of the lunar calendar. The case for the universal use of lunar calendars prior to the time of the Babylonians and Assyrians is very strong, and later we present both evidence for and against this claim. (Reader's please withhold your judgment until you see our research on this subject presented in a later chapter.) The lunar month varied by up to several days in length with the extra days essentially discarded. The Egyptians, like all known civilizations at the time, used a lunar calendar. By the lunar calendar, the Exodus began on what we would call “Friday night,” and it is clear from Moses' account of the Exodus that the Hebrews marched the next day, which we would call “Saturday.” KNUDSON – There is not enough detail in Moses' account of the Exodus journey to preclude the probability that Israel rested on every Sabbath between the Land of Goshen and their arrival at Mt. Sinai. The exact route and the location of Mt. Sinai are not known, so it is impossible to know for certain that Israel traveled on any Sabbath day en route. This assertion is simply not true. Enough detail is given in the account to know for certain that Israel traveled on the Sabbath days. The giving of the Law from Mt. Sinai took place on the High Sabbath of the lunar calendar. At the time the Hebrews were slaves in Egypt, the Egyptians utilized a Sabbath system based on the four phases of the Moon and which was characterized by superstitious concerns and fertility concepts. (Again, documentation for this fact is available in a later section of this book.) Much more is known about the Exodus route than either Sabbatarians or higher critics (skeptics) would like to admit. The conservative biblical researcher, Steve Rudd, of Bible.CA has done an in-depth study of the Exodus route as its correlation with the lunar calendar. To see his work go to Bible.CA and review it. We will cover these things in greater detail later. The Exodus journey has been considered a barrier to Sabbatarianism for at least several hundred years. A theologian characterized by Cox as "pious and profoundly learned", Joseph Mede (d. 1638), developed evidence that the Israelites did not keep the Sabbath on their way from the Dead Sea crossing to the camp at the Wilderness of Sin. Here is what he said, quoted by Cox in The Literature of the Sabbath Question, Vol. I, pages 155-156. Keep in mind, for the moment, that the entire context of Mede's comments is an argument that the Christians are obligated to keep one day out of seven, since he
believed the Sabbath was given at Creation Week, but that which day out of seven they keep doesn't matter, since the Sabbath was probably "re-set" to the day the Hebrews marched out of Egypt at the time of the Exodus. However, we are mostly interested in Mede's analysis of the time and events of the journey from the Red Sea to Mt. Sinai that proves that the Israelites did not keep the Sabbath during the first 31 days of their journey: Certain I am the Jews kept not that day for a Sabbath till the raining of manna. For that which should have been their Sabbath the week before, had they then kept the day which afterward they kept, was the fifteenth day of the second month, and which day we read in the 16th of Exodus, that they marched a wearisome march, and came at night unto the wilderness of Sin, where they murmured for their poor entertainment, and wished they had died in Egypt. That night the Lord sent them quails; the next morning it rained manna, which was the sixteenth day, and so six days together; the seventh, which was the twenty-second day, it rained none, and that day they were commanded to keep for their Sabbath. Now, if the twenty-second day of the month were the Sabbath, the fifteenth should have been, if that day had been kept before; but the text tells us expressly they marched that day; and, which is strange, the day of the month is never named, unless it be once, for any station but this where the Sabbath was ordained, otherwise it could not have been known that that day was ordained for a day of rest, which before was none. And why might not their day of holy rest be altered as well as the beginning of the year was (Exodus xii.2), for a memorial of their coming out of Egypt? I can see no reason why it might not, nor find any testimony to assure me it was not."
Cox comments that if this argument is sound, it endangers the idea that the Sabbath was a Creation ordinance. To his credit, Cox demonstrates his commitment to balanced reporting by mentioning that an opponent of Mede by the name of Stopford (Scripture Account of the Sabbath, Section X) had challenged the validity of one element of Mede's day and time calculations– a point which was non-essential to demonstrate that the Hebrews did not keep the Sabbath weeks into the Exodus journey. Paraphrasing Stopford, Cox says of Mede's position: He [Stopford] contends that Mede (with whom Heylyn and Bramhall agree) mistakes in supposing that quails were sent on the evening of the fifteenth day, and manna the next morning.
When studying excerpts like this, context is critical. In the next passage from Cox, the setting for his comment (that Mede might be totally mistaken) is in reference to Mede's belief that because the Sabbath was given at Creation Week, but “re-set” at the time of the Exodus, Christians are morally obligated to rest one day out of every seven days and that which day of the week they rest on is not important. Cox is not saying that Mede's theory that Israel did not keep the Sabbath on the way from the Red Sea to Mt. Sinai is wrong, and he did not necessarily agree with him that the Sabbath was given at Creation Week: But there is a more vital question, the decision of which in the negative might leave the whole reasoning of Mede without any foundation whatever. Is it allowable to assume that Moses, professing to repeat to the Israelites the laws inscribed on the tables of stone, omitted a part of the Fourth Commandment there written, and substituted something else in its place; expressly telling them at the conclusion of the ten, that the words just repeated were those which the Lord had spoken to them in the mount– to which He had there "added no more"– and which He had written on the tables of stone and delivered to Moses? (See Deut. v.22.) In considering this question, it will not be overlooked by the careful student of the chapter [Exodus 16], that what it records is not a repetition of the Sabbath-law, in the sense of its re-enactment or re-imposition, but a retrospective narrative, orally given by Moses, of its enactment on the sole occasion at Sinai,in which narrative he included a historical repetition of the Ten Commandments which had been then and there proclaimed. [Emphasis supplied].
While it is interesting to know what kind of information was available to Adventist leaders regarding the keeping of the Sabbath during this part of the Exodus journey in the past, it is enlightening to know what is available to them now. A number of exhaustive studies have been done by modern scholars who have more information about Hebrew culture and better analytical tools than ever before. Calculations done by the staff at Bible.Ca conclusively demonstrate the non-observance of any Sabbath for the first few weeks of their Exodus journey. The Hebrews left Goshen in Egypt on Nissan 14, a Thursday, and a Passover, and arrived at the Wilderness of Sin 31 days later on a “Saturday” evening about 5 pm. That evening, God explained the Manna Obedience Test, and the Manna fell the next morning—a “Sunday”. It wasn’t until the following “Friday” that God gave them the Sabbath Obedience Test. He explained the Sabbath along with instructions for gathering twice the normal amount of Manna that evening. Therefore, the first Sabbath ever kept in the history of the world was observed on the 38th day after the Hebrews left Egypt.
See: http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-exodus-route-travel-times-distances-days.htm
Since they did not arrive at the Wilderness of Sin until late Saturday afternoon, they marched on the seventh day of that week, the week before the first Sabbath was observed. No wonder the Jews have never believed that the Sabbath was a Creation ordinance! These calculations can be made with only a moderate level of knowledge about Hebrew history, culture, and calendars. These facts are especially compelling because the Hebrew people were led directly by God to treat all days the same for the first five weeks of their journey. Before Mt. Sinai, the Sabbath represented nothing more than the second of two obedience tests. It was not until a few weeks later when, at Mt. Sinai, the Sabbath was incorporated into the treaty between God and Israel known as the 10 Commandments. Like the ordinance of circumcision and the Jewish dietary laws, the institution of the Sabbath was designed to set the Hebrews apart from every other society, forming a protective social barrier that would severely restrict their interaction with the Heathen. Regarding these cultic Jewish rituals, a scholar once observed that people who do not eat together seldom become friends. If the Sabbath were a Creation ordinance with truly moralistic qualities, God would not have led His children out of Egypt without provision for keeping it every step of the way. Once, because of their sins, God seems to have threatened to take Israel’s Sabbaths away. Hosea 2:11 (NIV) - 11 I will stop all her celebrations: her yearly festivals, her New Moons, her Sabbath days—all her appointed feasts.
There is some evidence that this text merely represents a prophecy of what would become of Israel’s Sabbath system as a result of their disobedience, rather than an actual statement that God would specially intervene to take away their Sabbaths. During their various captivities, Israel undoubtedly experienced disruptions of their Sabbath-keeping. In either case, the adoption of the fixed calendar by their conquering nations around the time of the building of the second temple may have made it very difficult to keep the Sabbath as is was intended in the Law of Moses. In effect, they were forced to keep “Saturday” rather than the “Sabbath.” All of this Sabbath chaos illustrates the fact that the Sabbath is characteristically ceremonial rather than moralistic. For example, if Israel was committing adultery and fornication “too much,” God would not suspend the parts of the Law of Moses that forbid these sins. Not even God Himself can set aside or suspend moralistic laws because such laws are based on the natural laws of cause and effect. Before the Hebrews left Egypt, the instructions God gave them regarding the keeping of the Passover Feast suggest that no Sabbath existed at that time. This feast was to last seven days, so whether a fixed or lunar calendar is used for our calculations, one of those days would have to have been a Sabbath – if there had been a Sabbath in existence at that time. The preparation of food was allowed on all of the seven days of the Passover feast. By contrast, cooking on the Sabbath was forbidden. For the Sabbath, the cooking must be done on the Preparation Day, or the sixth day of the week. If there was no sixth day of preparation, there could be no seventh-day Sabbath because food would have to be prepared for the people on it. While permission to prepare food on the Sabbath may have been granted in connection with some of the Jewish feast celebrations that God added later, the only national feast week God had given them up to the time of the Exodus was the Passover. As our study unfolds it will become painfully clear that Exodus 16 provides water-tight proof – not merely evidence – that no Sabbath existed before the giving of the Manna. We do not use the term, proof, loosely. What this fact means is that any argument for the existence of the Sabbath prior to the Exodus must be remarkably clear, or it is hardly worth discussing. Also, any pro-Sabbatarian arguments must be able to stand on their own with evidence gathered only from Genesis 1 through Exodus 16. In view of the absolutes of Exodus 16, Sabbatarians should not expect to be taken seriously if their approach involves taking references to the Sabbath from beyond the account of the Exodus journey and stuffing them back into Genesis 2. In order for them to provide meaningful support for their agenda, they must demonstrate clear Sabbath content in Genesis 2. All it takes is a brief survey of Genesis through Exodus 16 to see that there is nothing of this sort available to Sabbatarians. At the same time, there is only a limited amount of evidence available to anti-Sabbatarians, such as the four of us, to actually prove that there is no Sabbath content in Genesis. This evidence is found in part in that Moses used special literary devices to limit the blessing, hallowing, and sanctifying (the setting aside) of that day to that ONE day ALONE. We will explain these indicators and how they work subsequently. Meanwhile, let us turn our attention back to the Exodus journey.
God introduced the Sabbath to Israel as something new. The people acted as if it were something new – a stiff-necked and stubborn people testing the boundaries. Some individuals gathered firewood on that first Sabbath. They did so publicly. If the Sabbath had existed prior to Exodus 16, these offenders would have been stoned. The stubborn nature of the Hebrew people strongly suggests that if there were Sabbaths before Exodus 16, some of them would have tested God by breaking the Sabbath every chance they got; yet there is no record that God ever rebuked them for Sabbath-breaking prior to Exodus 16. Here is what the Law of Moses has to say about Sabbath-breaking: Numbers 15:32 - 36 (NIV) 32While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35Then the LORD said to Moses, “The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp.” 36So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses.
COMMANDMENTISM'S PARADOX: JESUS A LAW-BREAKER? Think how bad the Exodus journey would make God look if the Sabbath had originated at Creation! Was He not powerful enough to control the events of the Exodus to provide for Sabbath-keeping, including, in each case, a Preparation Day? What kind of example would He have set for His people? Do God’s children have to keep the Sabbath only when it is convenient? The Law of God existed before the Ten Commandments. During or before the age of Noah, God loosely codified these laws in what the Jews refer to as the Noachidæ Laws. As we will demonstrate later, these laws governed the entire human race, but they did not include a Sabbath commandment. Everything we know about God’s character screams out that He would not lead His people to break an eternally binding moralistic law. This fact explains several mysterious things that honest-at-heart, thinking Sabbatarians have secretly pondered. Why is there no mention of the Sabbath in Genesis? Why did God give Abraham a surgical procedure (circumcision) as a “seal” for his descendants instead of the Sabbath, which was never even mentioned? Why was Sabbath-keeping not included in a list of basic laws that God gave to Noah around the time of the Great Flood? Why did St. Paul instruct the early church not to require Sabbath-keeping of the new Gentile converts (Colossians 2:14-17)? And why did St. Paul not list Sabbath-breaking in any of the several lists of sins he discussed in his writings? In Galatians, St. Paul discusses the Christian's freedom from the “LAW,” and it is clear he is discussing moralistic, rather than ceremonial, laws because the example he cited was adultery. Yet in the same breath he explained that the Christian is not subject to the LAW, he gave a list of 15 sins that he said would keep a person from entering Heaven. Robert K. Sanders observes that in Romans 1:28-32 he listed 16 sins that were not mentioned in Galatians 5 and that he listed still more sins in Ephesians 4:25-32 – and that in all of these lists there is not a single mention of Sabbath-breaking. With all the sins that Paul’s writings mention – which included sins of motive and omission in addition to the sins of commission that are the focus of the Decalogue – it is difficult to imagine how an objective Bible student could think that the 10 Commandments could be equated with “God's Law”. Jesus gave us additional spiritual “laws” in the Sermon on the Mount. St. Paul would be a blasphemer if he, as a mere human being, were to presume to add anything to God's Law. There is no intellectually honest way to get around this fact. There were several occasions when either Jesus or His disciples broke the Sabbath. You can read about two of them in Matthew 12. On one particular Sabbath day, His disciples harvested grain as they walked through a field. Then they went to the synagogue where Jesus healed the man who had a withered hand. In neither case did Jesus deny that they were not really working. In John 5, Jesus healed an invalid at a pool on the Sabbath and was again accused of Sabbath-breaking. Note that John could have said that the Pharisees planned to kill Jesus because they thought He was breaking the Sabbath, but he chose to state that they were trying to kill Him because He had broken the Sabbath. Moreover, it appears that John worded his statement to reflect his own analysis: John 5:16 (NIV) - So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. 17 In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” 18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
Chapter Six THE SABBATH: A NON-ISSUE AT THE WORLDWIDE CHURCH COUNCILS By Larry Dean, J.D.
THE SABBATH: A NON-ISSUE AT THE WORLDWIDE CHURCH COUNCILS By Larry Dean, J.D. As we have said before, Ellen White’s plagiarism is far from being her greatest sin. In fact, we may be the first who have bravely argued that she should have plagiarized more. In other chapters we have demonstrated that her sins of plagiaristic omission were at least as bad as her sins of commission. We thought we had seen it all when we caught her, red-handed, deliberately choosing not to plagiarize information about the Noahide laws and the Reformer's unequivocal-rejection of Sabbath-Keeping on sola scriptura grounds. Of course these are two things that we think Adventist members would find to be very interesting. But we were wrong. There was more serious plagiaristic omission to be uncovered. One of White’s great prevarications of history was her characterization of the early “worldwide” church councils― the Great Councils. All her available sources would have contained information that told her that there was no justification for presenting this amazingly untrue statement: The arch deceiver had not completed his work. He was resolved to gather the Christian world under his banner and to exercise his power through his vicegerent, the proud pontiff who claimed to be the representative of Christ. Through half-converted pagans, ambitious prelates, and world-loving churchmen he accomplished his purpose. Vast councils were held from time to time, in which the dignitaries of the church were convened from all the world. In nearly every council the Sabbath which God had instituted was pressed down a little lower, while the Sunday was correspondingly exalted. The Great Controversy, P. 53 http://text.egwwritings.org/publication.php?pubtype=Book&bookCode=GC&lang=en&pagenumber=53
There are so many levels of outright deception in that statement, it is hard to know where to begin. We will begin with the fact that none of the Great Church Councils generally defined as the first Seven “Ecumenical Councils” ever discussed the Sabbath, or issued any new canon law on the issue for the first 800 years of Christianity. The Seven “Ecumenical Councils” are the only ones that remotely fit White’s “worldwide” or “vast” descriptions, since the Christian church went through the Great Schism in 1054 AD, when Eastern and Western Christianity divorced for good. This is, incidentally, a fact of massive historical significance that is mentioned nowhere in White’s writings. A comprehensive collection of the rulings of these Ecumenical Councils - known as “canons” - can be found here: http://www.intratext.com/X/ENG0835.HTM
We spent many hours poring over the minutest details of the voluminous number of canon laws generated by those Councils. They covered every possible issue confronting the early church. The Sabbath is nowhere mentioned. Aside from a regional synod held in Laodicea in 365 AD, in what is now known as modern Turkey, only one of the other minor regional synods discussed the Sabbath. That was a minor regional Roman Catholic synod held in Toledo, Spain after the Great Schism, that governed only Western Christianity. The Synod of Laodicea has achieved near-mythical status among Seventh Day Adventists. The fact that it has such a status indicates a profound misconception of that synod’s role, jurisdiction and scope of influence. We will discuss it later in this chapter. That NONE of the Ecumenical Councils discussed the Sabbath, or issued canons on the subject, strongly indicates that there simply was no controversy on the subject. It suggests, instead, that Christians had abandoned Sabbath-keeping immediately after the Resurrection, which is the avowed position of the 300 million member Eastern Orthodox Church. Adventist leadership has been aware of Eastern Christianity’s unequivocal-position on this issue since no later than 1915, and has never acknowledged that fact; let alone addressed the contention; let alone disputed the Eastern Church’s contention; let alone refuted it. They simply ignored it all. Ellen White simply never mentions the Eastern half of the church anywhere in her voluminous writings on the Sabbath. Strange, isn’t it? The Ecumenical Councils were focused on major doctrinal heresies that ranged from the Divinity of Christ to the Trinity, which were covered at the First Council of Nice in 325; to the Second Council of Nice that met in AD 787, which resolved the nagging issue of Icons versus Iconoclasm (images in the church) dispute with finality. The Sabbath was simply of no importance in any of the Great Councils. There literally was no interest expressed on the issue of Sabbath versus Sunday. It
was never mentioned! The history of the Councils― whether you review the actual canons of the Councils or eminent Protestant Historian Philip Schaff’s, detailed and voluminous historical analysis― demonstrates a complete absence of any evidence that the Sabbath was ever discussed at any of the Councils, even in passing. Schaff’s historical masterpiece can be found and downloaded free here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.html
Schaff never mentions anything about any of the “vast” “worldwide” church councils discussing the Sabbath. We are left with the abiding conviction that Ellen White’s description in the Great Controversy of these events is nothing short of a calculated, highly-intentional deception. In fact, early on in his analysis, Schaff joins with the Eastern Christian Church’s assertion that Sunday worship commenced immediately at, or immediately after, the Resurrection. With the major deception within White’s description now clearly established, we can unpack her statement and examine the rest of the numerous levels of intentional deception contained therein. All of the first seven Church Councils were held in the Eastern half of Christendom. That makes sense, since the capital of the Roman Empire was in Constantinople (now modern-day Istanbul, the capital of Turkey) from approximately 330 AD until 1204 AD. As Rome’s capital, Constantinople was Europe’s largest and wealthiest city and was instrumental in the advancement of Christianity. The first seven councils were all held in what is now modern-day Turkey. NONE of them were held in Rome, or anywhere in what was known as Western Christendom: First Council of Nicaea (325) (held at a mere “bedroom community” of Constantinople, near the modernday city of Iznik in Turkey). First Council of Constantinople (381) (present day capital city of Turkey, now known as Istanbul) Council of Ephesus (431) (located about 200 miles south of modern-day Istanbul, on the shore of the Black Sea) Council of Chalcedon (451) (located about 30 miles across the Bosporus via ferry from Istanbul, yet still considered to be part of modern-day “metro” Istanbul) Second Council of Constantinople (553) Third Council of Constantinople (680) Second Council of Nicaea (787) The fact that ALL of the first seven Church Councils were held in what is now the modern-day Republic of Turkey; and NONE of them were held in Rome or anywhere near the territories of Western Christianity demonstrates the primacy of the Eastern Church, which White never mentions anywhere in her writings. A modern-day traveler in Turkey will be shocked by the close proximity of all of the cities in Turkey where these “worldwide” Councils were held. As the crow flies the distance between Ephesus (the southernmost Turkish city where a “worldwide” Council was held); and Chalcedon (the Northernmost “worldwide” council city); is less than 300 miles! It can be easily driven in a day’s time, with plenty of time to stop and loiter at each one of them. In fact, Nicea (where two of the Councils were held) is nothing more important than a mere suburb of Constantinople. By contrast, Rome is 853 miles from Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul), most of which is over water. Geography alone proves the overwhelming dominance of the Eastern Church at the seven “worldwide” Church Councils. The Eastern Church dictated the place and subjects to be resolved in the major councils, and convened the counsels exclusively in Eastern cities. Last but not least, the infamous (to Adventists) but obscure (to everyone else) Synod of Laodicea was held in a city that is located near Denizli in modern-day Turkey. Denizli is reached via a winding seven-hour drive from Istanbul, over two mountain passes. It’s Far East location says a lot about the subjects it actually discussed. It turns out that the “pope” was conspicuous by his absence at all seven “worldwide” Councils. Here’s why: "The Papacy had laid claim sporadically to the primacy of Christendom in earlier centuries [than the fifth century], but these claims had either been denied or ignored by those to whom they had been addressed. ... In the East [the Popes] were confronted by a theory of Church government which had a place for episcopal authority, but none for Roman Primacy." (W.H.C. Frend, The Early Church, pp. 233, 235)
The complete dominance of Eastern Christianity and Rome’s secondary role is demonstrated by the following brief descriptions of the seven Ecumenical (“worldwide”) Councils: 1). The pope was completely absent from the First Council of Nicea (but sent some priests as legates). Both the controversy and the ultimate resolution of the controversy regarding the Divinity of Christ emanated from Alexandria, Egypt. The two antagonists were from Alexandria: Arius and Athanasius. Hence “Arianism” was declared to be a heresy, and Arius was condemned and excommunicated. 2). The pope was completely absent from the First Council of Constantinople, and did not bother sending a legate to represent Rome. 3). The Council of Ephesus (the Third Council) resolved a dispute where the main players were from Constantinople and Alexandria. The Pope sent a legate, but was not personally-present. 4). The Council of Chalcedon (the Fourth Council) once again featured an absence of the pope, who gave the convening of this important Council only his “reluctant approval.” He did not bother to send his legate, let alone attend in person. 5). The Second Council of Constantinople (the Fifth Council) featured yet another nadir of papal power: not only did the pope not attend; he did not send legates; and furthermore refused to participate in the proceedings. 6). At the Third Council of Constantinople (the Sixth Ecumenical Council), papal influence over the Council reached an all-time low-point: the Pope, who did not personally attend the council, was charged and convicted of high treason in Absentia, and he was accordingly arrested, tried, condemned and sent into exile, where the he soon died. 7). Pope Adrian 1 was invited to participate in the Second Council of Nicea (the Seventh Ecumenical Council), and gladly accepted. Once again, the pope sent legates to represent himself, an archbishop and an abbot. That was the last “worldwide” church council that would have fit Ellen White’s description. Western and Eastern Christianity permanently split apart in the Great Schism, about 300 years after this last “vast” “worldwide” Council. Ironically, this Council focused on Icons. The Eastern Church still has them. The Roman Church’s art form has evolved dramatically, and Rome no longer practices the introspective and mystical Byzantine iconography that was resolved at this Council. Ellen’s description of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils is a disturbing, vast tissue of fraud and carefully-concocted lies. None of the Councils were held anywhere near Western Europe. All of them were held in Modern Day Turkey, within 300 miles of each other. At none of them was the Pope personally present, let alone dominating the procedure. All of the Councils were presided over by Eastern bishops. They resolved issues that were rocking the Eastern Church. The pope sent legates to represent Rome at four of them. Two of them he did not participate in at all, and could not be bothered apparently to make an appearance via representatives. At one of them, a warrant for the pope’s arrest was issued and that Pope was arrested and died, disgraced in exile. Most importantly, at none of them was the Sabbath mentioned, even as a passing afterthought. There simply was no controversy about the Sabbath that was worth discussing at a major council. It would have been a waste of time. That issue had been settled long ago, at the AD 50 Council of Jerusalem.
What REALLY Happened at Laodicea? We turn next to Laodicea, which is located about seven hours of exhausting driving East from modern-day Istanbul, in modern-day Turkey. In Adventist lore, the Synod of Laodicea takes on immense and ominous importance. In reality, it was a small, obscure regional meeting where the Sabbath was discussed in passing. That it was discussed at all was a rather shocking variation from normal council practice, as has been demonstrated previously. A canon on the subject was issued. It was not one of the central themes of discussion among the delegates. Significantly, NONE of Laodicea’s canons were adopted by the “worldwide” church, including the one on the Sabbath. This is another detail that Adventists do not comprehend. Any new canon that was issued by the councils had to be accepted by the local churches. The canons adopted by Laodicea were never adopted by the entire Christian church. They couldn’t have been! They dealt mainly with
practice and behavior at the Eastern Divine Liturgy and said nothing about the Roman Latin Mass. Still, history is completely silent on any members of the church protesting Christianity’s abandonment of the Sabbath, before or after this Synod. Ancient Sabbatarians left no written records, nor is any such protest group mentioned by any of the church historians. Nobody from Rome was in attendance at Laodicea. The attending bishops were all from the Eastern Churches. Church canons, which were the “work product” of the Christian councils, were listed in descending order of importance. The Canon No. 29, which generates delicious shudders of horror in all good Adventists, reads as follows: Christians must not Judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather than honoring the Lord’s Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be Judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3806.htm
First and foremost, we have been unable to find a single instance where a Sabbath-keeper was anathematized for keeping the Sabbath. We are not saying it never happened. We just cannot find a case that substantiates that one did. That is probably because at this time and place, nobody would have dreamed of keeping the Sabbath, as it had fallen so completely into disuse. In order of importance, the Laodicean Canon #29 that condemns Sabbath-keeping pales in importance after a number of seemingly trivial canons that continue to carefully govern the conduct of participants in the Divine Liturgy to this very day, which is Eastern Christianity’s equivalent of the Latin Mass. Adventism’s misconceptions about the place of the Sabbath in the deliberations at Laodicea are grounded in its studiedignorance of the Eucharist. The Divine Liturgy consecrates the Eucharist. So the procedures of the Divine Liturgy were plainly the main topic of discussion at Laodicea, with the overwhelming number of Canons focusing on the subject. Things that were resolved at the Synod that have far more importance than the Sabbath include describing where the canonical singers are allowed to stand and sing during the Divine Liturgy (Canon #15); prohibiting back-to-back reading of the Psalms without intervening commentary (Canon #17); the timing of the prayers for catechumens (those studying for baptism) (Canon #19); prohibiting the deacon from sitting down in the presence of the Priest (Canon #20); prohibiting the sub-Deacon from touching the Eucharistic chalice (Canon #21); describing the clothing appropriate for chanters (Canon #23). Adventists just don’t “get” the Eucharist. It is impossible to fully-understand what the councils were up to unless one does. Nowhere in Ellen White’s writings does one get the impression that she had the foggiest understanding of the Eucharist’s place of primacy, which was really second to none in the first thousand years of Christianity. Nothing else really mattered, compared to the Eucharist. Ellen White’s obvious ignorance about the Eucharist has catastrophic implications against the fulfillment of her scary prophecy about a National Sunday Law, as we have discussed elsewhere. Minuscule rules regarding the most obscure parts of the Divine Liturgy (the Eastern “Mass”) were more important in the deliberations of this obscure regional synod than was the Sabbath. Notably, most of the Canons applied only to the Divine Liturgy and NONE of them governed similar ritualistic conduct of the analogous Western Mass. Laodicea's canons could not have been accepted by the worldwide church, given its focus on the Divine Liturgy. Rome wasn’t there, so the Catholic Mass was not discussed. It is obvious that the Laodicean Synod chiefly-governed internal conduct of the Divine Liturgy in the Eastern Churches, since only about 30 Eastern Bishops attended this obscure and remote meeting. It was held in the remotest, far eastern parts of Eastern Christendom, far away from the population centers around Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon and Nicea. It was held in the backwaters of what the Bible calls “Asia Minor.” This was a synod held out in the boondocks. One cannot help but be struck by the thought that Canon #29 was included as a trivial afterthought, likely without any debate or dissent. It was nothing more than a “throwaway line” passed thoughtlessly and without debate. The issue was delegated to a regional synod because it was too trivial to be discussed at one of the “Great Councils.” Those Councils were reserved for the resolution of important heresies. Another theory on why the Synod of Laodicea had this trivial discussion on the Sabbath in the first place was the widespread fear of Christians that their faith was be diluted if they participated in Jewish events and festivals. This fear was mixed by a healthy dollop of outright antisemitism. These fears and prejudices were articulated most famously by the celebrated Bishop of Constantinople, John Chrysostom, who was both the writer of the Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy and famously anti-semitic. Chrysostom was a considerably-gifted polemicist and rhetorician (“Chrysostom” is Greek for “Golden Mouth”), who was exiled a number of times by the emperor for his inflammatory and intemperate attacks on the empress. Christians attending Jewish festivals and ceremonies was one of his pet peeves:
The festivals of the pitiful and miserable Jews are soon to march upon us one after the other and in quick succession: the feast of Trumpets, the feast of Tabernacles, the fasts. There are many in our ranks who say they think as we do. Yet some of these are going to watch the festivals and others will join the Jews in keeping their feasts and observing their fasts. I wish to drive this perverse custom from the Church right now. My homilies against the Anomians can be put off to another time, and the postponement would cause no harm. But now that the Jewish festivals are close by and at the very door, if I should fail to cure those who are sick with the Judaizing disease. I am afraid that, because of their ill-suited association and deep ignorance, some Christians may partake in the Jews' transgressions; once they have done so, I fear my homilies on these transgressions will be in vain. For if they hear no word from me today, they will then join the Jews in their fasts; once they have committed this sin it will be useless for me to apply the remedy. ….. Nothing is more miserable than those people who never failed to attack their own salvation. When there was need to observe the Law, they trampled it underfoot. Now that the Law has ceased to bind, they obstinately strive to observe it. What could be more pitiable that those who provoke God not only by transgressing the Law but also by keeping it? http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/primary-texts-from-the-history-of-the-relationship/247-chrysostom
These things must be put in the context of the hostility which Jews themselves had against Christians and the fact that the Christian Fathers found abhorrent the rejection of the Messiah by the Jews. St. John's [Chrysostom's] statements are expressions of theological and "ideological" (if I may use this somewhat inappropriate modern term) outrage, and not of racism. http://orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/antisemitism.aspx
For the early Christians, Sabbath-keeping represented nothing short of fraternizing with the enemies of Jesus Christ. Finally, Canon #60 notes an earlier (and incomplete) version of the Biblical canon. The evolution of the Biblical canon was mentioned in all of the major Church Councils until the canon was finally closed in 396 AD. Understandably for Adventists, Laodicea’s denunciation of Sabbath-keeping was far more important than its note on the evolving choices of the inspired books that would eventually compile the Bible. In an irony of notable magnitude, Ellen White and her followers believe that the “vast,” “worldwide” church councils' decisions regarding which books belong in the Canon were 100% inspired and accurate, while at the same time everything ELSE these Councils did was corrupt and manipulated by the papacy! Ellen White’s description of the first 7 Ecumenical Councils is nothing but a vast web of lies and a transparent tissue of fraud. At none of those “worldwide” Councils was the pope present. At none of them was the Sabbath discussed, even in passing. The Sabbath was simply not even a minor issue at any of them, which lends strong support to Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestant historian Philip Schaff’s contention that Sunday worship commenced on Resurrection morning. Careful reading demonstrates that the Great Councils were focused on the Eucharist. It was the sacrament that obsessed the councils― not the Sabbath. The inference is overwhelming that any question about the Sabbath was resolved once and for all with finality at the AD 50 Council of Jerusalem, described in Acts 15. The regional Synod of Laodicea; which does not even rise to the level of being called a “Council,”― let alone a “vast” one, let alone a “worldwide” one― focused primarily on minute details of rituals involved in the Eastern Church’s Divine Liturgy. The details about how the Eucharist was to be consecrated in the Divine Liturgy dominated the Synod’s discussion. The Sabbath was of less importance in the grand scheme of things, than was the spot where the chanters were to stand, or what they were to wear during the Divine Liturgy, or whether a Deacon could sit down in the presence of a Priest. If you are not angry about the depths of Ellen White’s dishonesty in her description of these Church Councils, you should be. What kind of a person would tell such obvious lies, with so much malice aforethought to people she must have known were mostly illiterate and uneducated, at a time when the truth was buried in stacks of dusty books at the local library? Telling such lies to farmers and other hard-working folk who had little, or no access to libraries and could not read even if they did represents a cynical and high-handed intent to take advantage of them by any means necessary. When the entire subject is analyzed in all of its relevant aspects, it is simply startling that Ellen White cynically-resurrected Sabbath-keeping (the Judaizing Heresy) as a mere tool to exploit the unwary and the illiterate. And she did it by dishonestly
smearing the brave Christians who were brutally tortured for their faith and slaughtered at the hands of the Roman Empire. Many of these tortured and maimed bishops were at the First Council of Nicea, still bearing visible signs of their grisly torture: “....But we must admire those also who suffered martyrdom in their native land; where thousands of men, women, and children, despising the present life for the sake of the teaching of our Saviour, endured various deaths...numberless other kinds of tortures, terrible even to hear of, were committed to the flames; some were drowned in the sea; some offered their heads bravely to those who cut them off; some died under their tortures, and others perished with hunger. And yet others were crucified; some according to the method commonly employed for malefactors; others yet more cruelly, being nailed to the cross with their heads downward, and being kept alive until they perished on the cross with hunger. It would be impossible to describe the outrages and tortures which the martyrs in Thebais endured ....Others being bound to the branches and trunks of trees perished. For they drew the stoutest branches together with machines, and bound the limbs of the martyrs to them; and then, allowing the branches to assume their natural position, they tore asunder instantly the limbs of those for whom they contrived this. All these things were done, not for a few days or a short time, but for a long series of years. Sometimes more than ten, at other times above twenty were put to death...and yet again a hundred men with young children and women, were slain in one day, being condemned to various and diverse torments. We, also being on the spot ourselves, have observed large crowds in one day; some suffering decapitation, others torture by fire; so that the murderous sword was blunted, and becoming weak, was broken, and the very executioners grew weary and relieved each other.” Eusebius HE VIII.8-9
After giving some further descriptions of torture, Eusebius then goes on to say that even some of the Romans were put off by the hideous nature of the torments: Therefore it was commanded that our eyes should be put out, and that we should be maimed in one of our limbs. For such things were humane in their sight, and the lightest of punishments for us. So that now on account of this kindly treatment accorded us by the impious, it was impossible to tell the incalculable number of those whose right eyes had first been cut out with the sword, and then had been cauterized with fire; or who had been disabled in the left foot by burning the joints, and afterward condemned to the provincial copper mines, not so much for service as for distress and hardship. Besides all these, others encountered other trials, which it is impossible to recount; for their manly endurance surpasses all description. In these conflicts the noble martyrs of Christ shone illustrious over the entire world...and the evidences of the truly divine and unspeakable power of our Saviour were made manifest through them. To mention each by name would be a long task, if not indeed impossible.” Eusebius, HE VIII.12.10-11 http://www.churchhistory101.com/century4.php
Many a brave bishop attended the First Council of Nicea, bearing visible signs of beastly, inhuman torture. Eyes poked out with red hot irons! Brandings and limb amputations. Gruesome evidence of intense suffering! Many of them had watched their wives and children tortured and murdered for the Faith. They were held in awe by the assembled delegates, and honored as “the Marked Ones.” These incredibly brave people are the same ones Ellen White flippantly charged with corruption, cowardice and low character for supposedly abandoning the Sabbath. To the assembled bishops at the First Council of Nicea, these “Marked Ones” were rightfully seen as genuine heroes, that preserved the Faith through the worst of horrifying persecution. Such cases of incredible, selfless bravery seemed deific in its nobility and grace, as the great early Christian historian Eusebius has pointed out. Some of the awe-struck bishops must have rubbed their eyes and taken a second look at the “Marked Ones.” There was something strange about them. There was a strange light emanating from some of them. The Trinity being discussed was not an idle, distant dry theory. It was the life living inside them, and their passionate arguments were bright video games of rhetoric that lit up the nighttime sky over Nicea. They were already halfway ascended between Heaven and Earth. They were lit up with the divine light that passes all human understanding. They exuded heavenly peace and love. Some of the “Marked Ones” were no longer entirely human.
Chapter Seven IGNORING EASTERN CHRISTIANITY FOR 175 YEARS By Larry Dean, J.D.
IGNORING EASTERN CHRISTIANITY FOR 175 YEARS By Larry Dean, J.D. NOTE: In this chapter, using your control (CTRL) key when clicking on a superscript footnote number may open up the corresponding website.
D. M. CANRIGHT “OWNS” ADVENTISM Despite the best efforts of DM Canright, Ellen White's chief antagonist during her life-time, Ellen White persisted in teaching that Christians abandoned Sabbath-keeping as the result of papal apostasy and conspiracy. Among other things, she taught that Constantine, the Roman emperor, “changed the day” in 321 CE. Her de facto chief historian, J. N. Andrews, conceded in 1859 that Sunday observance was widespread by 100 CE and universal by 200 CE. If Ellen White had not claimed that God Himself validated the view that the Roman Catholic (Western) Church was responsible for “changing” the Sabbath, we might be able to excuse her on the basis that neither she nor Andrews were scholars. Apparently whoever told White that the Western Church did this did not know that the Capital of Rome - and thus the center of gravity of Christianity - was in Constantinople from 330 CE until 1204. 1 This very concession on the part of Andrews —that Sunday observance was virtually universal within 200 years of the Resurrection—made Ellen White’s theory of the so-called “change” of the Sabbath historically impossible. Adventism’s theories on when and how Christians adopted Sunday worship are based solely on what occurred, or did not occur; inside the limited confines of Ellen White’s skull. Ellen White’s and J.N. Andrew’s deficits as historians are exemplified by their glaring absence of knowledge about the Egyptian Orthodox (Coptic Church), The Armenian Apostolic Church, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the MalankaraSyrian Church of India. Neither White, nor Andrews nor Adventist theologian Samuele Bacchiocchi ever mention these four Apostolic churches. They never mentioned them, because none of these churches ever kept the Sabbath. All four churches have deep roots into the first century of Christianity, and were founded directly by one or more of the original 12 Apostles. Alternatively, the Adventists knew, and made a command decision to withhold the evidence of these Apostolic churches from Adventist membership. As we have demonstrated elsewhere, that was an unfortunate and repeated tendency of Ellen White. Very early Christian writings indicate that the Apostle Thomas went to India as a missionary in 52 CE (two years after the Council of Jerusalem). He started what is now known as the Malankara-Syrian Oriental Orthodox Church. 2 The Armenian Apostolic Church claims that it was founded in ancient Persia by the Apostles Bartholomew and Thaddeus immediately after the Resurrection in 33 CE.3 4 5 The Assyrian Church of the East similarly claims the same apostles founded it in 33 CE Persia, although it uniquely claims the additional contributions of Peter and Matthew. The Assyrians formed the first Christian empire, which predated the Roman Empire’s embrace of Christianity by hundreds of years.6 7 8 Finally, the Apostle Mark was a missionary to Alexandria, Egypt, leaving Jerusalem in CE 42 and started a church now commonly known as the Coptic Oriental Orthodox Church.9 10 What is profoundly-interesting is these four churches were founded in virtual geographic and linguistic isolation from the big early Christian population centers of Constantinople, Jerusalem and Rome. Paul, the “missionary to the Gentiles,” had nothing to do with them. All four of these apostolic churches completely severed all ties with the rest of Christianity in the aftermath of the long-brewing Christological crisis that was resolved in the 452 CE Council of 1 Notably, nowhere in Adventist theologian Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi’s “From Sabbath to Sunday” is the movement of the Roman Capital from Rome to Constantinople acknowledged, particularly on Pp. 184-188 in the Chapter titled “The Primacy of Rome.” http://www.friendsofsabbath.org/Further_Research/SDAs/sab2sun.pdf
2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malankara_Orthodox_Syrian_Church 3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Apostolic_Church#Origins 4 http://www.holytrinity-pa.org/files/holytrinity/files/looys/looysoctdec13.pdf 5 http://www.stgregoryarmenian.org/faq1/ 6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_Church_of_the_East#Early_years_of_the_Church_of_the_East 7 http://www.aina.org/faq.html 8 http://www.independentsentinel.com/the-assyrians/ 9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_Orthodox_Church_of_Alexandria 10 http://st-takla.org/Coptic-church-1.html
Chalcedon.11 12 All of these churches adamantly insist they have worshiped on Sunday since their founding very early in the First Century by their respective Apostles, and no Adventist theologian or historian has ever bothered to dispute, let alone refute their contention. Both the Armenian and the Assyrian churches claim their founding within two years of the Resurrection. Their liturgical services, iconography and theological outlooks are culturally-unique, and bear scant resemblance to Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodox practices. No Egyptian Christians had formal ecclesiastical relations with Rome until the 17th Century, when a breakaway faction of the Coptic Church established communion with Rome. 13 The Persian and Indian churches have had no similar relations with either the Roman bishop or the Roman emperor. These four ancient churches stayed faithful to the doctrines presented by them by the respective founding Apostles, including the Lord's Day celebration of the Resurrection, the liturgy, and the Eucharist. They were geographically isolated and cut off from the Roman Empire prior to 451, and completely alienated from the rest of Christianity after 451. The Sunday worship of the Syrian-Malankara Church, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Armenian Apostolic Church could not have been caused by Constantine’s 321 CE Sunday Edict, since India and Persia were not part of the Roman Empire, or subject to Roman law! All of these ancient Apostolic Church's’ traditions of Sunday worship developed in virtual laboratory “double-blind” conditions, with no outside influence from the rest of Christianity, or the whims of the Roman Empire. Certainly, the Roman bishop had no effect or influence on them. The venerable Coptic Church has its own pope. The Syrian-Malankara Church existed on the faraway Malabar coast of India, far outside of the Roman Empire's jurisdiction. The Armenian and Assyrian Churches developed in exotic Persia, also far outside of the borders and jurisdiction of the Roman Empire. The Assyrian Christians evolved into a Christian empire that long predated Constantine’s Council embrace of Christianity on behalf of the Roman Empire. Why would any of these churches obey the far away Roman pope? The Copts had their own pope to obey. The use of the word “pope” was not even used to describe the Roman bishop until the 11th Century. 14 (the Bishop of Alexandria - i.e. the Coptic pope - was the first Christian leader to be called a “pope”). The Coptic Church harshly denounces Seventh Day Adventism as a non-Christian cult, and has aggressively sponsored language that would remove Adventists from Egypt's list of approved Christian organizations. 15 16This is a much more aggressive and abrasive stance than what has ever been taken by the Roman pope. The Coptic pope wants Adventism banned from Egypt for good. Adventist “sheep stealing” has resulted in a souring of the relations between Muslims and Copts in Egypt, causing Copts to be killed or persecuted. You won’t hear Adventists admit this, but the Coptic pope has been far more repressive to Adventism than the Roman pope ever was. He is actually doing what Ellen White predicted the Roman pope would do “someday.” This is known as a double “irony.” Adventism’s silence on this― given White’s complete absence of any mention of the Coptic pope in The Great Controversy― is deafening. The history of these four relatively obscure churches irrefutably demonstrate that Christians worshiped on Sunday from the very beginning of Apostolic Christianity. They simply never adopted Sabbath-keeping, not even temporarily. They were founded outside of the Roman Empire and far away from Jerusalem, where neither the writ of the Romans, nor their Pagan practices, nor the Roman Catholic Church had any effect on how they evolved. India and Persia, after all, were never part of the Roman Empire and were certainly not under the jurisdiction of the Roman bishop. 17 18St. Paul died between 64 CE and 67 CE, and he would have written his last epistle shortly before that— perhaps 63 CE. Within only 40 short years after his death, probably all Gentile Christians as well as the vast majority of Jewish Christians were worshiping on Sunday. As the 11 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/_of_Chalcedon 12 http://orthodoxwiki.org/Fourth_Ecumenical_Council 13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_Catholic_Church 14 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope#Title_and_etymology 15http://news.adventist.org/en/all-news/news/go/2003-01-13/egypt-coptic-pope-publicly-insults-seventh-day-adventist-church/ 16 http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/629/eg7.htm 17 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Roman_trade_relations 18 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Roman_relations
four Apostolic Churches founded outside of the Roman Empire demonstrate, First Century Christians adopted Sunday worship because they were taught to do so by the original Apostles. Even Dr. Bacchiocchi conceded that Sunday observance was widespread by 100 CE and universal by 140 CE. Note that Andrews conceded four years before the organization of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in 1863 that Sunday observance was widespread by 100 CE. Neither White, Andrews nor Bacchiocchi ever discussed the unrebutted-claims of the Coptic, the Armenian, the Assyrian and the Malankara-Syrian Churches that they were founded by the Apostles and worshiped on Sunday from the very beginning. White fantasized that all of Christianity was under the monolithic control of the Roman pope, and she appears to have been blissfully unaware that the Coptic Church had its own pope. The Roman pope couldn’t have made a dent in the beliefs of the Egyptian, Persian, or Indian churches, even if he had wanted to. They were too far away, given the primitive travel and communication methods that were dominant during the first 1,000 years of Christianity. The Indian, Egyptian and Persian churches worshiped on Sunday because that is what their respective missionary Apostle founders taught them to do. This conclusion is the only possible reasonable explanation. This is absolutely consistent with Acts 15, Colossians 2, the virulently anti-Mosaic Law themes in the Books of Romans and Galatians, and the repeated instances of Jesus’ willful Sabbath breaking. Dr. Bacchiocchi’s 140 CE date seems especially cautious in view of the extensive writings of three of the earliest Christian writers, Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107 CE); Justin Martyr, writing in 155 CE, who was strongly anti-Sabbatarian; and Tertullian, who was born in 160 CE. Tertullian discussed at length the early church’s understanding that the Sabbath was first given to Israel in Exodus 16, that the Sabbath was a temporary ordinance to regulate Israel between the Exodus and the cross, and that the Ordinance of Circumcision was required for Sabbath-keeping. He also explained that while Christianity’s day of worship was uniformly on Sunday, Christians also celebrated “Christian Sabbath Festivals” with festivities on the two Saturdays that bookend Holy Week, the yearly week of celebration that lead up to Easter (in the Western traditions); and “Pascha” (in the Eastern traditions). Tertullian discussed how Christians should, or should not fast; and should, or should not kneel on these twice-a-year occasions. The Christian “Sabbath Festivals” celebrate the Resurrection of Lazarus on the day before Palm Sunday and the “Great Sabbath” (at the end of the week) that Jesus spent in the tomb. Neither event has any connection with the Jewish 7 th Day Weekly Sabbath of the Old Testament or the 7 th Day of Creation. They are creations of Christian tradition, with no scriptural warrant. Tertullian's writings sound very much like those of the new anti-Sabbatarians who have written about the subject after the Bacchiocchi Sabbath fiasco. We have examined Tertullian’s anti-Sabbatarian leanings in another chapter. This additional, substantial volume of information is necessary because Sabbatarians quote one or more of his statements out of context to promote the erroneous idea that Tertullian was a Sabbatarian. At the same time we have every right to question Dr. Bacchiocchi’s scholarly integrity for not mentioning the substantial body of evidence that strongly suggests that Sabbath abandonment/Sunday observance took place almost immediately. By the time Dr. Bacchiocchi wrote From Sabbath to Sunday, historians had dated the Didache, which documents Christians worshiping on the first day of the week, to as early as 50 CE and no later than 125 CE. More accurately, the Didache is an Early Church liturgical handbook that was widely-used in the First Century. The variance of the estimated age of the Didache is the result of widely-varying views on the efficacy of liturgical transmission via oral tradition. 19 The earlier dating suggests that the Didache was spread orally, as part of the memorized liturgy. The later dates reject the notion of oral transmission, and insist that the Didache - and its pronouncements - did not exist before it was put in writing. Adventist pioneers might be excused from this oversight, since the Didache was not “re-discovered” until 1873. 20 But that is not an excuse that avails Bacchiocchi, writing in 1977. The Didache has sections that establish the practice of Christians worshiping on the first day of the week, which some researchers believe to have been authored around 70 CE. American scholars seem convinced that this section was probably written between 50 and 70 CE, whereas European scholars tend to think 70 CE. to 125 CE. Elsewhere, you will find our critique of SDA historian, J. N. Andrews’ 1912 study on the Didache. If you look at our historical time-line in a subsequent chapter, you will see that in 1912 D.M. Canright was still bombarding Adventist leaders with the fact that Sunday observance happened almost immediately. Adventists should have raised the White flag of surrender to Canright, but instead they continued the myth that the papacy was to blame. 19 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html 20 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache
As Robert D. Brinsmead so clearly illustrated in his paper, “Sabbatarianism Re-examined" (1981), a much clearer picture of the early church had emerged from continuing scholarly research by the 1960's, and this clearer understanding spelled disaster for Sabbatarians.21 Brinsmead presents the potent argument that the Gentile churches never kept the Sabbath and that the Jewish churches that continued Sabbath-keeping slid very quickly into fatal heresies. Constantine’s Sunday law of 321 CE didn’t change the day of worship for Christians. It simply made it possible for Christian slaves (and others) to attend church without interference on the same day they had been worshiping on for 300 years— Sunday. History is devoid of protests from 4th century Sabbatarian Christians regarding this legal innovation. It is also silent on any negative enforcement actions against Sabbatarian Christians. Mind you, Christianity had just recently survived the most brutal tortures and mass executions the world had ever seen, and it had barely been legalized. Did Christians suddenly become cowards and buckle under Roman legal writ and abandon their cherished Sabbath? Adventists obsessively-focus on what is Constantine’s most trivial pro-Christian accomplishment, which simply codified existing unanimous Christian practice. Then they ignore his undeniably-massive assistance to Christianity. After all, he only ended the deadly persecution of Christians: He exempted the Christian clergy from military and municipal duty (March, 313); abolished various customs and ordinances offensive to the Christians (315); facilitated the emancipation of Christian slaves (before 316); legalized bequests to catholic churches (321); enjoined the civil observance of Sunday, and in company with an ordinance for the regular consulting of the haruspex (321); contributed liberally to the building of churches and the support of the clergy; erased the heathen symbols of Jupiter and Apollo, Mars and Hercules from the imperial coins (323); and gave his sons a Christian education.” 22
In fact this same clearer understanding of the early church demonstrates that while the Jewish Sabbath-keeping Christians fell into serious heresies and were lost to Christianity within the first 200 hundred years, the vibrant Sunday-observing, Gentile churches supplied the Christian Faith with believers who maintained orthodox Christian doctrines and carried the Gospel to the world. In stark contrast to what Seventh-day Adventists teach their followers, Sabbath-keepers were not the heroes of the Early Church. The Jewish Sabbath-keeping Christians drifted into the fatal heresies of Ebionism and Gnosticism and gradually became extinct. Jerusalem today resembles the dusty “graveyard” of Jewish-Christianity.
THE UNIQUE CASE OF THE ETHIOPIAN ORTHODOX TEWAHEDO CHURCH Of all of the “Oriental Orthodox” Churches that split away from the main body of Christianity in the schism after the 452 CE Council of Chalcedon, the 45 million membered Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church is the most unusual. Since Ellen White gave it such a fascinating, yet cursory treatment, we will begin by quoting her in full: .... Others suffered in a similar manner for their fidelity to the fourth commandment. The history of the churches of Ethiopia and Abyssinia is especially significant. Amid the gloom of the Dark Ages, the Christians of Central Africa were lost sight of and forgotten by the world, and for many centuries they enjoyed freedom in the exercise of their faith. But at last Rome learned of their existence, and the emperor of Abyssinia was soon beguiled into an acknowledgment of the pope as the vicar of Christ. Other concessions followed. An edict was issued forbidding the observance of the Sabbath under the severest penalties. But papal tyranny soon became a yoke so galling that the Abyssinians determined to break it from their necks. After a terrible struggle the Romanists were banished from their dominions, and the ancient faith was restored. The churches rejoiced in their freedom, and they never forgot the lesson they had learned concerning the deception, the fanaticism, and the despotic power of Rome. Within their solitary realm they were content to remain, unknown to the rest of Christendom. The churches of Africa held the Sabbath as it was held by the papal church before her complete apostasy. While they kept the seventh day in obedience to the commandment of God, they abstained from labor on the Sunday in conformity to the custom of the church. Upon obtaining supreme power, Rome had trampled upon the Sabbath of God to exalt her own; but the churches of Africa, hidden for nearly a thousand years, did not share in this apostasy. When brought under the sway of Rome, they were forced to
21 http://www.exadventist.com/home/articles/Sabbatarian/tabid/452/default.aspx 22 http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/3_ch01.htm
set aside the true and exalt the false sabbath; but no sooner had they regained their independence than they returned to obedience to the fourth commandment (The Great Controversy, 577-578).23
First, White is to be commended for noticing (for the first time) that an Oriental Orthodox Church exists, although she never actually mentions that the Ethiopian Church belongs to that tradition. Otherwise, it is hard to know where to begin, but first and foremost White’s overly-simplistic rendition of a very complex history and tradition is not at all fair to this proud and venerable branch of Christianity. Notice how she mentions no dates when the pope allegedly did his nefarious Saturdaycrushing in Ethiopia? Watch closely as we unpack White’s vivid fiction. Ethiopia’s conversion to Christianity can be traced to the early Apostolic age. (Acts 8:26-38) 24 But its conversion to Judaism hundreds of years before the time of Christ is the reason for its atypical 7th Day Saturday observance.25 26 While there are several theories about how the Ethiopians converted to Judaism at such an early time, one of those theories is that when the Queen of Sheba (Ethiopian) visited King Solomon, they had a hot romance. The Ethiopian story goes that she gave birth to a son when she returned to her country, and she and her son taught their people to worship the True God of Israel. Because this story also involves the Ark of the Covenant, it would make a movie that would draw a larger crowd than Harrison Ford’s Raiders of the Lost Ark. We will share with you shortly the other theories about how Ethiopia became a country heavily populated with followers of Judaism, but for the moment let us focus on the story of how Ethiopian Orthodoxy adopted the “schizophrenic-like” idea that they needed to “keep” both Saturday and Sunday. Since the Ethiopians were essentially “Jewish” and had practiced Judaism for many centuries before Christian missionaries arrived, they had an existing culture that had long venerated the 7th day of the week. When the Christian missionaries arrived both Jews and non-Jews were converted to the Faith. As a manifestation of cultural values, Orthodox leaders seemed to have decided to recognize the day while at the same time giving it Christian connotations. In the process Saturday lost almost all of its association with things Jewish. In their treatment of the 7th day, the Ethiopian Orthodox leaders appeared to be following, in principle, in the same footsteps of the other Orthodox churches, which chose to recognize the 7th day of the week but with the Christian values of Lazarus Saturday and the Great Sabbath. Therefore, this highly unusual Orthodox church worships God on both Saturday AND the Christian Lord’s Day but requires its people to WORK on Saturdays. We will say more about this idea of working on Saturdays later. Significantly, Sunday has the clear dominance since it is the day of the week when the Eucharist is dispensed. Notice that we insist on calling the first of the two worship days “Saturday” like the Ethiopian Orthodox do, rather than “Sabbath” like Ellen White does. You will see why we insist on doing this when you see the Ethiopian Orthodox canon laws that regulate what happens in the country on Saturdays. Those Canon laws long predate the influence of the Roman Pope described by White. If Adventists were ever to discover the facts of Ethiopian Orthodoxy, they would find their greatly cherished Sabbath day slighted even further. The Ethiopian Church has multitudes of other yearly holy days that do not necessarily fall on either Saturday or Sunday, including a whopping 33 holy days spent venerating Mary alone! 27 Given the massive number of holy and fasting days that must be observed that tend to fall outside of Saturday and Sunday, Saturday sinks even deeper down the list of which holy day the Ethiopian Orthodox Church values the most. That day is definitely not Saturday. It is, like most Christians everywhere― Sunday. It is no exaggeration to argue that being an Ethiopian Orthodox Christian is a demanding, full-time career. By comparison, Adventists look like real slackers when it comes to holiness, as do all other Christians. It is clear, then, that Ellen White made a serious error when she assumed that the Ethiopian Orthodox views on Saturday were synonymous with hers. The canon law of the Church is known as the “Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church Faith and Order,” and we cite the relevant part of it two paragraphs below. It has been widely-available in written form since the early 23 http://www.whiteestate.org/books/gc/gc35.html 24 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+8%3A26-38&version=NIV 25 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonic_dynasty 26 https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/ejhist.html 27 http://www.ethiopianorthodox.org/english/ethiopian/worship.html
1200’s, so Ellen would have been wise to have done a little more research before making her sweeping and erroneous statements. The Ethiopian Church does not even refer to Saturday as the “Sabbath.” Working is mandatory on Saturday under canon law, which would be an explicit violation of the 4th Commandment, according to Jews and Adventists! It would appear for all the world that Orthodox leaders went out of their way to distance their recognition of the 7th day from Jewish associations. This excerpt from the Ethiopian Orthodox Church’s canon law also makes it clear that Saturday and Sunday are viewed as equally holy days. Scores of other holy days are discussed in the same section of canon law that are at least as important, or even more important, than Saturday and Sunday. Church attendance is mandatory on Sunday, but not on Saturday. Here is the canon law governing Saturday observance: Christians must not stop work on Saturday, as the Jews do, but as Christians they shall work on this day. If among the [Christian] people some are found to behave like Jews, they will be driven away from the face of Christ. [. . .] Servants shall work for five days, but on Sundays and Saturdays they shall go to church to be instructed in the service of God, because the Lord rested on Saturday when He finished the creation of the creatures and He rose from death on Sunday. On all Saturdays, except the day of Fesh, and on all Sundays, you [i.e., priests] shall receive the Eucharist between you in the church and rejoice. In the chapter on fasting it is said that no one shall fast on Sundays and Saturdays, except the Saturday on which Our Lord Jesus Christ was buried in the tomb. (The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church Faith and Order, pp. 114-115) 28
Get that? Refuse to work on Saturday and the Church will excommunicate you! White’s depiction of Rome’s missionary efforts and ultimate influence of Rome with Ethiopia’s emperor appears to be outlandishly dishonest. Where did she get her information? Was there a historian she found somewhere who wrote such nonsense? If she got this errant history from her attending angel― the one who appeared to her al most daily in the form of a young man for the first 26 years of her ministry― he didn’t do his homework before he left the pearly gates of Heaven to minister to her on the day she wrote this section of The Great Controversy. Perhaps he burst into her Elmshaven upperfloor bedroom early in the morning, and she was too startled to take down what he said because she wasn’t exactly prepared to entertain a male visitor. Remarkably, first and foremost, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church’s bishop was subservient to the Pope of Alexandria for the first 1600 years of Christianity― not the pope of Rome. Second, both Alexandria and Ethiopia broke completely away from the main body of Christianity in 452 CE. For almost 1,000 years, Rome made not the slightest effort to control the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, after it split from the rest of Christianity following the Council of Chalcedon. Sometime in the 1400’s, Rome began sending Jesuit missionaries to Ethiopia, originally as a consequence of the Portuguese defense of Ethiopia against Islamic conquest in the Abyssinian–Adal war.29 The resultant overwhelminglyunsuccessful Catholic missionary effort ground to a sudden and catastrophic halt when Emperor Fasilides ascended to the Ethiopian throne in 1632. Emperor Fasilides summarily expelled all of the Jesuit missionaries, seized their land and property, and ordered that all of the Catholic books be burnt. 30 To take her historical blunder right over the top, all of this happened right in the middle of a period of time when White absurdly insisted that the Roman pope had “papal supremacy” and virtually ruled the world! Papal influence over Emperor Susenyos-Facilides’ father and predecessor lasted approximately ten years, and led to massive revolts and a nasty civil war that was not quelled until the offending pro-Roman emperor, Susenyos, abdicated after suddenly panicking and reinstating religious freedom for the Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church in a vain attempt to retain power. 31 White is dishonest to claim that Saturday worship had anything to do with the repression of Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Christianity by a pro-Catholic emperor. White’s profound ignorance and twisting of the facts in regard to this issue― while claiming supernatural guidance for the material she was selecting for The Great Controversy― is simply astounding. No Sabbatarian Christians were ever persecuted. The severe anti-Sabbatarianism of Emperor Susenyos’ misrule was 28 http://www.ethiopianorthodox.org/biography/01thelawofkings.pdf 29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abyssinian%E2%80%93Adal_war 30 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasilides 31 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susenyos_I
directed exclusively at the non-Christian “Falasha,” or “Beta-Israel” Jews. 32 In more recently history, an event took place that gives credibility to the idea that Judaism took a strong hold in Ethiopia long ago through a remarkable set of events. In 1984 a severe famine in Ethiopia threatened to cause widespread hardship and death for its population, which included its minority of Black Jews. This unique tribe of ancient Jews was summarily airlifted to Israel, and the refugees were granted automatic citizenship under Israel’s Right of Return. 33 See also the following New York Times story at this Internet address: http://www.nytimes.com/1984/12/11/world/airlift-to-israel-is-reported-taking-thousands-of-jews-from-ethiopia.html
The hard-nosed Israeli government found the Falashas petition for Right of Return refugee status compelling on the basis of a number of fascinating theories: 1) The Beta Israel may be the lost Israelite tribe of Dan. 2) They may be descendants of Menelik I, son of King Solomon and Queen Sheba. 3) They may be descendants of Ethiopian Christians and pagans who converted to Judaism centuries ago. 4) They may be descendants of Jews who fled Israel for Egypt after the destruction of the First Temple in 586 BCE and settled in Ethiopia.34 This airlift is one more remarkable set of circumstances that tends to give credibility to the possibility that the Ethiopian Jews were descendants of King Solomon, the Queen of Sheba, and their son. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church has “always” claimed that it has possession of the Ark of the Covenant. It claims that the Ark is in a basement fortress underneath a certain one of its churches. The Ark has always been protected by a single virgin monk who has been carefully-selected to guard the Ark for life. It is kept on an Island in a lake, where no woman has been allowed for centuries. The guardian of the Ark prays next to it constantly, and burns incense daily. All of the monks who have guarded the Ark have eventually gone blind.35 The Ethiopian story goes something like this. When the Queen of Sheba and King Solomon’s son grew up, he wanted to see his father. He is said to have visited his father with a retinue of his warriors. As a godly prince he perceived that for some reason or another, the Ark was in grave danger. He had a copy of it made, snuck it into the Temple, and stole the real one, departing for home under the pursuit of his father’s army. So the story goes, he got away with the Ark and hid it from public view until this day: The Ethiopian Orthodox Church 36claims to possess the Ark of the Covenant, or Tabot, in Axum. The object is currently kept under guard in a treasury near the Church of Our Lady Mary of Zion. Replicas of the Axum tabot are kept in every Ethiopian church, each with its own dedication to a particular saint; the most popular of these include Mary, George and Michael.
See the following reference for additional support for this legend: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menelik_I The prudishly-Victorian Ellen White must have been repelled and horrified by the flagrant sexuality inherent in the King Solomon/Queen of Sheba theory. However, for whatever reason it came to pass, the Judaism that was thoroughly entrenched in Ethiopian society was powerless to make Sabbatarians out of Christians when the Gospel of Christ showed up via Apostolic missionaries. With help from an “angel” guide, there would have been no excuse for her to teach that Sabbatarian Christians were persecuted in Ethiopia by a Roman pope. She simply made that up. Last but not least, one of the most astonishing facts of Ethiopian history creates an irony that fully exposes Ellen White’s intellectually dishonest and distorted Sabbath-centric view of history. There exists a tiny, yet truly unique sect of Ethiopian 32 The Beta-Israel (Falasha) in Ethiopia, by Steven Kaplan, Pp. 92-93 33 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Moses 34 https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/ejhist.html 35 http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/keepers-of-the-lost-ark-179998820/?=&preview=&pa=&page=6 36 Stuart Munro-Hay, 2005, The Quest for the Ark of the Covenant, Tauris (reviewed in Times Literary Supplement 19 August 2005 p. 36)
Christianity that continues to practice circumcision, dietary laws, and worships on both Saturday and Sunday. This tiny sect is NOT a part of the much larger Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox communion. It is the Ethiopian Catholic Church, also known as “Ge'ez Ethiopian Rite.” Yet it is in full communion and affiliation with Roman Catholicism and in the good graces of the Roman Pope! Incredible!
DR. BACCHIOCCHI CONTINUES ADVENTISM’S CONSPIRACY TO HIDE EASTERN CHRISTIANITY Adventist theologian Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi’s book, From Sabbath to Sunday, unintentionally ignited the modern-day antiSabbatarian movement. 37 As we discuss elsewhere, it did so because it supported many of D.M. Canright’s caustic debunkings of the blatant misrepresentations in Ellen White’s Sabbath-centric faux history. Worse yet, Bacchiocchi’s extremely Judaizing “interpretation” of Colossians 2:16 manages to outrage both Evangelicals and “Historic” and “Traditional” Adventists. For purposes of this section, we will analyze his book from the standpoint of his involvement in Adventism’s long-term campaign to hide the existence and significance of Eastern Christianity from Adventist membership. The main title chapters of Bacchiocchi’s Book are revealing.. No Chapter is devoted to a discussion of Greek or Eastern Christianity and its dominance of Christianity for the first 1,000 years. No mention is made of the Capital of the Roman Empire being moved to Constantinople in AD 330, that sealed the East’s domination of Christianity. The chapter headings alone demonstrate Bacchiocchi’s profound bias towards Rome : ●
"The Jerusalem Church after A. D. 70"
●
"The Church of Rome and the Sabbath"
●
"The Primacy of the Church of Rome"
●
"Sun-Worship and the Origin of Sunday"
The following analysis is difficult to follow unless you remain focused on what we are trying to show you is not there but should be there. All we could find were a few scraps―obscure references to various things― that merely hint at acknowledging the existence of a Church in the East. You might even wonder why we have included them until you realize that the point we are trying to make is that the dominance of Eastern Christianity during about the first 1,000 years of the Faith should have dominated his analysis. Like an older child taking some gullible young children on the proverbial Snipe Hunt, Bacchiocchi decided to lead his trusting readers away from a place where they would have a real chance to stumble onto the real origin of Sunday observance. While the last title is not about Rome, the contents are almost entirely devoted to the Roman Sun worship cult. There is just one footnote that references Helios, the Greek god of the Sun. The rest of the chapter and all of the rest of the footnotes discuss Roman Sun worship. There appears to be an unspoken ulterior motive behind this. Here it is: L.R. Farnell assumed "that sun-worship had once been prevalent and powerful among the people of the pre-Hellenic culture, but that very few of the communities of the later historic period retained it as a potent factor of the state religion." Our largely Attic literary sources tend to give us an unavoidable Athenian bias when we look at ancient Greek religion, and "no Athenian could be expected to worship Helios or Selene.” 38
In other words, Bacchiocchi probably took one glance at Greek Sun god worship (or the complete abandonment of any such worship by the Greeks, long before First Century Christianity); and wisely-decided that Roman Sun worship could be a more viable model on which to base a dubious Christian Sunday worship theory. In one of the few mentions of Greek Christianity outside of endnotes, Bacchiocchi attacks the idea that Eastern Christianity could have been the source of Sunday Worship: 37 http://www.friendsofsabbath.org/Further_Research/SDAs/sab2sun.pdf 38 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios
Though the three New Testament references commonly quoted to substantiate an apostolic origin of Sunday observance belong to the geographic area of the Greek-speaking Christian communities of Greece … or Asia Minor; there is a marked tendency in recent studies to attribute to the Apostolic community of Jerusalem the initiative 39 (P. 131).
Next, Bacchiocchi adopts a truly bizarre theory that Greek bishops could have introduced Sunday worship when they “settled in Jerusalem:” Marcel Richard endeavors to show that the new day was introduced at this time not by the Church of Rome but by the Greek bishops who settled in Jerusalem. Owing to Hadrian’s prohibition of Jewish festivals, they would have pioneered the new Easter-Sunday date to avoid appearing “Judaizing” to the Roman authorities. (page 181)
That begs the question, why would Greek bishops “settle in Jerusalem?” They were required to live in the cities of their Bishopric. This is why “cathedrals” are named as such, since a cathedral is the seat of the bishop. And Jerusalem had its own bishop in the First Century, which status was elevated to the Patriarch of Jerusalem in 530 CE. The first 16 Bishops of Jerusalem were Israelites, not Greeks. The first ethnic Greek Patriarch of Jerusalem was not appointed until after the 452 CE Council of Chalcedon.40 That Bacchiocchi would have endorsed such a flagrantly dishonest and easilyrefutable statement is just mind-boggling. Next is an obscure footnote about the "Sabbath Festivals" that are so mystifying to Sabbatarians, but which are the Lazarus Saturday and the Great Sabbath festivals that book-end the Holy Week of Pascha ("Easter" in the West"): 68. F. A. Regan, Dies Dominica, p. 60, raises a significant question: “Thus while protecting the practices of the Church from false and misleading influences, nevertheless the Church of the East was very solicitous in preserving the special reverence due to both Saturday (the Sabbath), and the Lord’s Day. How is it then, one may rightly ask, that the day which the Church of the West kept as a fast day, the Church of the East celebrated as a festival? (page 203)
At least Bacchiocchi mentions the Great Schism, albeit in a footnote, which is better than the way that Ellen White and J.N. Andrews completely ignored it altogether. Here, Bacchiocchi tries to imply that the Schism was the result of Rome fasting on the Sabbath, and Constantinople not fasting. There were MANY more important issues that led to the Schism than the Sabbath, or whether to fast on it or not. Bacchiocchi does not mention the Patriarch of Constantinople's reply to the Papal excommunication order: 85......."[This treatise was composed in the form of a debate about the year 1054 by Cardinal Humbert.] The Cardinal had been sent by Pope Leo IX early in 1054 as papal nuncio to Constantinople to endeavor to bring back the Greeks into conformity with the religious practices of the Roman (Latin) Church. The mission however did not succeed. The treatise was composed as a further attempt to dissuade the Greeks from holding on to certain divergent religious practices such as the veneration of the Sabbath. The significance of the document for our study is twofold: (1) it substantiates the existing divergent attitude toward the Sabbath between the East and the West; (2) it quotes the earlier testimony of Pope Sylvester (ca. AD. 314-335) which offers additional insights into the motivations for the Sabbath fast." P. 205
It is incredible to think that Bacchiocchi didn’t know better! The most heated dispute that provoked the split between Eastern and Western Christianity was Papal primacy and superiority. Other issues include the Pope’s accusation that Constantinople was the source of most heresies and the use of unleavened bread on the part of the Latins.41 Here is Bacchiocchi's only mention of Constantinople (a mere footnote) in the entire book and it says NOTHING about it being the Roman Capital: 117. A fitting example is provided by the development of the patriarchal authority of the Bishop of Constantinople. At the Council held in that city in A.D. 381, he was given honorary pre-eminence after
39 http://www.friendsofsabbath.org/Further_Research/SDAs/sab2sun.pdf http://www.friendsofsabbath.org/Further_Research/SDAs/sab2sun.pdf
40 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Orthodox_Patriarch_of_Jerusalem#Patriarchs_of_Jerusalem 41 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_I_Cerularius
the Bishop of Rome, and in 451, in spite of the objections of the Pope, patriarchal powers were formally conferred upon him (canon 28); cf. Dictionnaire de theologie catholique (1908), s.v. “Constantinople,” by S. Vailhe.” P. 212
Bacchiocchi does not come right out and admit that Greek Christianity actually existed: 134. Bruce Metzger acknowledges that the need for Christians in the West to separate from the Jews provides “a reasonable historical explanation” for “the difference between East and West in the observance of the Sabbath.... In the West, particularly after the Jewish rebellion under Hadrian, it became vitally important for those who were not Jews to avoid exposing themselves to suspicion; and the observance of the Sabbath was one of the most noticeable indications of Judaism. In the East, however, less opposition was shown to Jewish institutions (Studies in the Lectionary Text of the Greek New Testament, 1944, II, sec. 3, p. 12)." P. 214
As both Canright and ourselves have demonstrated, Adventists perform extraordinary feats of concealment to hide the existence and significance of Eastern Christianity from Adventist membership, and its base of power in the Roman Capital of Constantinople. A book by an Adventist scholar that makes no mention of the fact that Constantinople was the Roman Capital between 330 AD and 1204 AD and almost no mention of Greek or Eastern Christianity deserves some sort of prize for obscurantism. Bacchiocchi’s “Jewish Persecution Theory” is based on nothing but hot air.
THE SUPREMACY AND POWER OF GREEK CHRISTIANITY Christianity hit ancient Greece like a nuclear carpet bombing. Within a short time after the Resurrection and Paul’s Mars Hill speech, the Temple of Aphrodite at Corinth, perhaps the greatest center of religious prostitution in the ancient world, was in shambles. Also, within no more than 150 years, other temples to heathen gods were either destroyed, fell into disuse, or were little utilized. Even the temple of Poseidon south of Athens, where the Pagan sacrificial system was clearly spelled out, is believed to have been destroyed in the first century: Both sanctuaries at Sounion declined and were eventually abandoned. The date of the abandonment of religious activity at Sounion can possibly be deduced from the removal of the temple of Athena Sounias as well as the sima from the Temple of Poseidon from Sounion to Athens. If the sima was actually recycled on the Temple of Ares, then the Temple of Poseidon must have been unroofed, and therefore religious activity at Sounion had probably ended by by the middle of the 1st century A.D. (Dinsmoor 1974). 42
The Christian revolution in Greece was responsible for the swift, earth-shattering destruction of the Greek Pagan temple system. The vibrant Greek churches sent missionaries to Italy, and maintained the fledgling mission church at Rome. The Heathen temples of Rome quickly suffered the same fate as the Greek ones. The rapid destruction of pagan culture in Greece and Italy testifies to how real the resurrection of Christ was to these missionaries. (Recall that around 500 people witnessed the resurrected Christ shortly before He ascended to Heaven.) Later, a Roman emperor tried to revive the moribund Pagan religions. He failed miserably. 43 44 The speed at which Christianity changed Greek moral behavior is truly astonishing. For centuries Greek philosophers had waxed eloquently about the nobility of the soul and taught largely respectable moral values, based on reason alone. At the same time they counseled the temple prostitutes on how to conduct themselves. The thought that the Temple practices were intrinsically wrong or irrational apparently never occurred to these moral teachers. Christianity virtually exploded within Greek society and destroyed the resident Heathen culture in the process. Christianity was a revolutionary historical fact. It was the liberation of the human spirit. Paganism was elaborate, laughable fairy tales. It was cruel bondage for thousands of enslaved temple prostitutes. Christianity made more headway in the Greek-majority provinces of the Roman Empire than anywhere else. It would take more than ten centuries for Italian Christianity to surpass that of Greek Christianity in power and influence, and by that time, Greek and Italian Christians had been observing Sunday for many centuries. As we have explained in detail elsewhere, the first seven ecumenical councils that were held in what is now the modern-day Republic of Turkey; were presided over by 42 http://www.dartmouth.edu/~cpano/sounion/details/history.html 43 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08558b.htm 44 http://www.britannica.com/biography/Julian-Roman-emperor
Eastern bishops. They resolved distinctively-Eastern disputes with solutions originating in the East. They feature an almost complete absence of the Roman bishop. Nowhere in Ellen White’s books does she mention that the Capital of the Roman Empire was in Constantinople. It was moved there from Rome in 330 CE, because Constantinople had become the vibrant center of the explosive Greek Christian world. Like Roman Paganism, Greek mythology contained references to gods who were part divine and part human. 45 The story of the God-Man, Jesus, made perfect sense to them. Mystery religions were centered on a belief that a god would die, perhaps in the fall and be resurrected, perhaps, in the spring. These mystery religions were so prevalent in Greek culture that St. Paul had to counsel Greek churches to keep its women distinctly in the background. (The mystery religions worshiped their savior-gods with fertility rites, and the women were always there at the gates to the mystery temples with their alluring invitations.) It was nearly a perfect fit for Greek thought. Furthermore, the concept of the Trinity made good sense to them because they had a definitely pantheistic view of the gods. The concept of three Gods in One was not very difficult for the Greek psyche to swallow. It was Greek terminology that dominated the theological debates at the First Council of Nicea― not Roman ones. 46”Homoousia” was a revolutionary Greek concept, and the culmination of the Greek philosophical project. After Nicea, both Greek philosophy and paganism were simply spent forces. They were done. At the very same time, Greek culture made the acceptance of the Jewish Sabbath, circumcision, and Jewish dietary laws impossible for most Greeks to swallow. Swine's flesh was viewed as the most noble of all meats. The Books of Maccabees (found in the Catholic and Orthodox Bibles, but not the Protestant ones) demonstrate that when Antiochus Epiphanes, a Greek king, sacrificed a pig on the altar of the Jewish temple, his reason for doing so was not to desecrate the temple and offend the Jews, but to honor his god with the only acceptable sacrifice. 47 48 Similarly, the Greeks worshiped the male human body as a beautiful and wondrous Creation of the god (or gods). 49 50They were repulsed by any mutilation of the male body. 51 The Greeks exercised and bathed without any clothes on. If the apostles had persisted in imposing the Jewish rite of circumcision on them, Christianity would have gone nowhere. 52 Of key importance is the concept that Gentiles must be circumcised and convert to Judaism before they can keep the Sabbath. These cultural trends are virtually impenetrable barriers to change in Greek culture to this day. Less than 2% of native Greek men are circumcised,53 and many of the beaches― especially in the Balkans where Greek culture is the most intensely rooted― are nude swimming areas. Recent information from Greek Adventism reveals that there are only about 1,000 Seventh-day Adventists living in Greece, about 500 of whom live in Athens, and most of those members are nonethnic Greek expatriates.54 55 Adventism’s focus on the Sabbath and the Jewish food laws is a non-starter in Greece. Nothing has changed there in 2,000 years. These strongly held attitudes of the Greeks betray a fierce loyalty to Greek culture and values that make them almost impervious to the acceptance of any other culture, specifically Jewish culture. It is of supreme importance to understand that for hundreds of years before Christ, Jewish society had become largely Hellenized. Many Jews within Palestine and those dispersed throughout the Roman Empire had adopted Greek values and had essentially discarded religious observance of the Mosaic Law.56 The majority of Jews in Judea and nearly all of them in Greek areas had jettisoned the Mosaic Law by the time of Christ. The Pharisees of Christ's day were the heroes in the war against this creeping Hellenization of Judaism, and, therefore, champions of the Sabbath. They were seeking to restore the sacredness of the Sabbath within Israel. Keep in mind that the Jews didn't even speak “their own” language anymore. They spoke Greek. The apostles wrote their gospels 45 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demigod 46 http://www.britannica.com/topic/homoousios 47 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Maccabees%206&version=GNT 48 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Maccabees%207&version=GNT 49 http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_wsd_sec142.htm 50 http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_wsd_sec143.htm 51 http://www.cirp.org/library/history/hodges2/ 52 http://www.cirp.org/library/history/hodges2/ 53 http://www.photius.com/rankings/circumcised_men_country_ranks.html 54http://news.adventist.org/en/all-news/news/go/2004-08-08/greece-adventist-church-grows-to-500-members-nine-churches/ 55 http://www.ted-adventist.org/countries/europe/greece 56 http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Pharisees
and epistles largely in Greek. The Jews could no longer speak or write their own language. If you believe in the Sabbath, the real heroes of John 5 were the Pharisees― not Jesus. The Pharisees promulgated rules and regulations about the Sabbath with the goals of making the Sabbath easier to keep, harder to convict anyone of Sabbath breaking, and extremely difficult to impose the mandatory death penalty. Their compassionate efforts to make the Sabbath more attractive to Hellenized Jews are well-documented in the Talmud. While the Jews readily assimilated Greek culture, the reverse was not at all true. The Greeks, along with the Romans, contemptuously looked at Jews who kept the Sabbath as being lazy and silly, wasting a day in idleness. The Greek provinces of the Roman Empire assimilated the Gospel as preached by St. Paul so fast that the pagan system of worship was virtually banished from Greek society within 125 years. However, this huge societal change never would have happened if Paul had tried to push the Jewish Sabbath, the Ordinance of Circumcision, and the Jewish dietary laws on Greek Christian converts. The Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches include the following: the Greek Orthodox Church, the Armenian Church, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Coptic Church of Egypt, the Orthodox Church of India, and the Russian Orthodox Church. As far as historians can tell, none of them have ever kept the Jewish Sabbath. The Greek Orthodox Church has kept good records of its history and creeds going back to the turn of the century after the birth of Christ, and what we find is that they only kept the yearly “Sabbath Festivals” during Holy Week, and only then on the most special days of their liturgical calendar.57 58 Christianity “interfered” with the morals of Greek culture, but not with any other aspect of it. Sabbath-keeping would have wreaked havoc with its economics, and especially its trade. Imagine a merchant ship arriving at a Greek port, and the port was closed for the day! The Greeks thought the Sabbath was both lazy and stupid, and a profound insult to Greek pantheism. The Resurrection melted away their objections to a God firmly grounded in history, since nobody believed that the Greek gods had a historical basis. Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of the empirically-verifiable yearnings of the Greek philosophers. He was real. It is no wonder, then, that the chief architect of modern Sabbatarianism, Ellen G. White, never mentioned the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches in her history of the Sabbath as portrayed in her monumental work, The Great Controversy! The Eastern Church was the center of the Christian Faith for nearly 1,000 years, and it rejected Sabbath-keeping on biblical grounds. They simply obeyed the Apostles, and met on the first day of the week. In fact, there is a complete lack of historical evidence that any of the Eastern Churches ever kept the Sabbath. It is not a good area of history for Sabbatarians to investigate. D. M. Canright confronted Adventist leadership of this fact well before the crisis of the 1919 Bible Conference. The next section in this chapter clearly spells out what Adventists knew and when they knew it about the impossibilities of Ellen White's theory that the Western (Roman Catholic) Church “changed the day.” No one understood this better than D. M. Canright― Ellen White's most significant contemporary critic. Significantly, our own research, done with full access to the resources available with today’s Internet, substantiates the accuracy of his work to a very high degree. To follow is a chapter from one of his later works, brought up to date for our readers with annotations and a few minor corrections.
HOW SUNDAY OBSERVANCE ORIGINATED IN THE EASTERN ORTHODOX CHURCH Chapter 7 From D. M. Canright's Book:The Lord's Day From Neither Catholics Nor Pagans: An Answer To Seventh-day Adventism On This Subject.
Published in 1915 NOTE: We have updated Canright’s observations with our italicized, blue-texted interlineations. 57 http://lent.goarch.org/saturday_of_lazarus/learn/ 58 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Saturday
“This is a very important fact bearing on the Sunday question. Adventists are constantly pointing to "Rome," to the "Pope of Rome," to the "Roman Church," to the "Roman Papacy," to the "Roman Councils," and to the “Roman pagans "as the originators of Sunday observance. They publish "Rome's Challenge," "Rome's Catechism," etc. Their cause stands or falls with these claims. It is easy to show that all these assertions are groundless. The change of the day was made in the Eastern Greek Church in the time of the apostles, and was carried thence to Rome, not from Rome to the East. The proof of this is abundant.” Both Ellen White and Bacchiocchi were “Papal-centric” in their single-minded obsession with Rome. This problem seriously-draws into question the integrity of their scholarship. White’s was based on her understandable ignorance of Church history and lack of formal education. Bacchiocchi, who had full access to many fine world-class libraries during his studies in Rome, had no excuse. His failure to address the Eastern Church in his Sabbath studies is unforgivable. The fact of the matter is that the “center of Christian gravity” and population was Constantinople, not Rome― from 330 CE until 1204 CE. This is never mentioned in Bacchiocchi’s Magna Opus “From Sabbath to Sunday.” 59 This easily explains the overwhelming dominance of the Eastern Church over the Western Church, and its complete dominance of all 7 of the major church councils. “Generally people know little about the Greek Orthodox Church, if anything. Yet it is the oldest Church and numbers now 150 million members. Generally people suppose that Rome is the "Mother Church," which is not true. As we all know from the book of Acts, the Christian Church began in the East, in Asia, not in Rome.” Greek Christianity birthed the massive Russian Orthodox Church, now more than 85 million members strong and which was a potent missionary force in Alaska during Ellen White’s and J.N. Andrew’s lifetimes. 60 Neither of these Adventist pioneers mentioned either the Russian Orthodox Church or its missionary endeavors in Alaska. The effect that Greek Christianity had on the “Christianization” of Russia is fascinating: “The chronicles report that the Great Prince of Kiev sent embassies around the world to find the faith that best suited his nation and people. Traveling from nation to nation they visited Muslims and Jews at worship observing their forms of worship and pondering the way of life that each religion taught. The emissaries judged neither of these worthy religions suitable for Russia. Finally, they visited the city of Constantinople and attended Divine Liturgy in the great cathedral of Hagia Sophia. The Russians were dumbfounded by the richness and sublime beauty of the service, the church and the celestial singing of the Byzantine choirs in the lofty, domed cathedral. They breathlessly reported back to Kiev that in Hagia Sophia they were unable to tell if they were on earth or in Heaven. The choice was made, Byzantine Orthodoxy it would be.” 61 “It started in Jerusalem in the East; thence spread over Judea, Samaria, Asia Minor, Greece, Egypt, Damascus, and far-off Babylon on the Euphrates. Rome and the West came later.” “Notice briefly; Jesus and all the apostles lived in the East, where the Greek language was spoken. Every book of the New Testament except Matthew was written in Greek. Revelation, written as late as CE 96, is in Greek. Largely the preaching of the apostles was in Greek. The Gospel began at Jerusalem in the East (Acts 2:1-11). Notice who heard that first sermon on Pentecost: "Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and Judea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene and strangers from Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God." Some interesting side debates have sparked our idle interest, in light of these observations by Canright. Theologians are virtually unanimous that Paul did not write the Book of Hebrews. Classical rhetoricians are unanimous that he DID write it. Furthermore, the Eastern Churches have always accepted only the Septuagint LXX Old Testament, which was written entirely in Greek. The Protestant Bible is sourced in the Hebrew Old Testament. The Septuagint contained the so-called “Deuterocanonical” books, which 59 Notably, nowhere in Adventist theologian Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi’s “From Sabbath to Sunday” is the movement of the Roman Capital from Rome to Constantinople acknowledged, particularly on Pp. 184-188 in the Chapter titled “The Primacy of Rome.” http://www.friendsofsabbath.org/Further_Research/SDAs/sab2sun.pdf
60 http://www.akhistorycourse.org/articles/article.php?artID=201 61 http://www.pallasweb.com/ikons/russia.html
Protestants have derisively-denounced as “apocryphal” and “uninspired.” Nobody disputes that they are accurate history, however. Furthermore, when Jesus and Paul quoted from the Old Testament, they always quoted from the Septuagint. The Books of Maccabees plainly spell out the fulfillment of the Daniel 8:14 prophecy of the “cleansing of the Temple,” which occurred during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, when Judas Maccabees liberated the temple from Greek desecration. Jesus endorsed this obvious interpretation of Daniel’s prophecies when he celebrated Hanukkah in John 10:22-23. Hanukkah is a holiday that developed to explicitly-celebrate the liberation of the Temple and restoration of Jewish temple rites. Adventism’s 1844 and “Investigative Judgment” hoaxes were comically the direct result of Protestantism’s unwise decision to adopt the Hebrew Old Testament and jettison the Septuagint. Canright’s Protestant Bible was not an adequate resource for this most obvious refutation of Adventism’s “central pillar.” (See especially Chapter Vll of Seventh Day Adventism Renounced, by Canright)62 “Here were persons from far-off Parthia, Media, and Mesopotamia, away east on the Euphrates, about two thousand miles east of Rome; then comes Egypt and Libya; then Arabia; then Asia Minor; then Macedonia; then Crete - all these were in the East. Only one city in the West was named as being represented at Pentecost - Rome. These first converts carried the Gospel into all these far Eastern countries. The apostles soon followed and raised up Churches there. See where Paul went - Damascus, Arabia, Antioch, Ephesus, Troas, Corinth, Philippi, Galatia - all Grecian cities. Revelation is written to the seven Churches which are in Asia, none in Rome (Rev. 1:4). Peter's first letter seems to have been from Babylon (1 Pet. 5:13).” All of the “Seven Churches” in the biblical-description of “Asia Minor” are located in the modern day Republic of Turkey, which did not exist when Canright was alive. Unfortunately, Ellen White never recanted her embarrassingly bone-headed endorsement of Josiah Litch’s view that the Ottoman Empire collapsed in 1841. 63 It remains in The Great Controversy to this day. She was still alive when the supposedly “fallen” Ottoman Empire massively-defeated the combined armies and navies of Britain, France, Russia, New Zealand and Australia in World War 1.64 The Ottoman Empire waited until 1923 to collapse, almost 80 years after White and Litch said it had. Furthermore, the Republic of Turkey “stepped into the shoes” of the moribund Ottoman Empire in 1923, and is now a vibrant economic powerhouse and staunch member of NATO. “Paul was the first minister to visit Rome. This was not till CE. 65. (See Acts 28.) Even then Paul found only a few brethren at Rome, and these were Jews (Acts 28.), but no bishop or pope. For three or four hundred years after Christ the Bishop of Rome had no authority even over a large share of the Churches at home in the West. Over the great Eastern Greek Churches the Pope had none whatever. On the other hand, for about three hundred years the Church at Rome was a Greek mission, supported and ruled over by the Greek Church, as we will soon see. Long before Paul visited Rome great Churches of thousands had, for half a century, been established in the East, even in far-off nations outside the Roman Empire. Notice another fact. All the first witnesses for the Lord's Day were not Romans, but Greeks living in the East. These were Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Dionysius, Ignatius of Antioch, Clement, Anatolius, Origen, Eusebius, etc. Not a single one of the first witnesses for the Lord's Day was a native of Rome. This speaks volumes as to the birthplace of Sunday observance. It was born in the East, not in Rome in the West. What the Christian world owes to the Eastern, or Greek Church, is thus stated in the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, Article "Greek Church": "This Church is the oldest in Christendom, and for several centuries she was the chief bearer [missionary] of our religion. She still occupies the sacred territory of primitive Christianity, and claims most of the apostolic sees, as Jerusalem, Antioch, and the Churches founded by Paul and John in Asia Minor and Greece. She produced the first Christian literature, Apologies of the Christian Faith, Refutation of Heretics, Commentaries of the Bible, Sermons, Homilies, and Ascetic Treatises. The great majority of the early Fathers, like the apostles themselves, used the Greek language. Polycarp, Ignatius, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, Basle, Gregory of Nazienzen, Gregory of Nyssia, Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyril of Alexandria, the first Christian emperors since Constan-tine the Great, together with 62 http://members.tripod.com/~Help_for_SDAs/SDAism-RENOUNCED-by-D-M-Canright.html#Chapter7 63 http://text.egwwritings.org/publication.php?pubtype=Book&bookCode=QSEW&pagenumber=50 64http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-i/battle-of-ga
a host of martyrs and confessors, belong to the Greek communion. She elaborated the ecumenical dogmas of the Trinity and Christology, and ruled the first seven ecumenical councils which were all held in Constantinople or its immediate neighborhood (Nicaea, Chalcedon, and Ephesus). Her palmy period during the first five centuries will ever claim the grateful respect of the whole Christian world." The reader is directed to our comprehensive new chapter on the Seven Ecumenical Councils, where Ellen’s fraudulent assertion that the Sabbath was “pressed lower and lower” is unequivocally-debunked. At none of the Ecumenical Councils was the Sabbath ever discussed. Perhaps Canright was merely being gentlemanly in not raising this glaring instance of Ellen White’s dishonesty. One glaring omission in Canright’s (and Ellen White’s) historical analysis is the fact that neither discuss the obvious importance of the move of the Roman Empire capital from Rome to Constantinople in 330 CE, in the process moving the “center of Christian gravity” completely away from Rome until 1204. 65 66 “Notice that the Eastern, or Greek Church, ruled the first seven general councils which were all held in the East, none of them in the West, or papal territory. The date of these seven councils was CE. 325, 381, 431, 451, 557, 680, and 787. All these were dominated by the Eastern Greek Church, not one by Rome. They were presided over by Eastern Bishops, and resolved disputes that cropped up in the Eastern churches. These take us down this side [of] the latest date Adventists fix for the change of the Sabbath. Hence, if the Roman Church, or Pope, or Papacy changed the Sabbath, it could only have changed it in the West, for it had no authority or influence over these hundreds of great Greek Churches in the East, many of them outside of Roman rule. Canright is not correct here. All of the Greek Churches WERE subject to Roman Rule, and both Greek Christianity AND the Roman Empire were headquartered in Constantinople, not Rome as commonly assumed by Adventists. The following is from the Right Rev. Bishop Raphael, head of the Greek Church in America. Few Protestants are aware of the importance and number of that great primitive Church. Read it: ‘The official name of our Church is 'The Holy Orthodox-Catholic Apostolic Church.' It was founded in the time of the apostles and by the twelve apostles, Jesus Christ Himself being the Chief Corner Stone, beginning on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2). Our Church has never been subject to the Roman Church or to the Latin Popes or to the Papacy. The Roman Church herself was a Greek mission for nearly three hundred years, and the Greek language was the tongue in which the Liturgy, or Mass, was said in the City of Rome.”
This statement of Canright struck us at first glance as obviously false. We knew that Latin very early on dominated the Roman Mass. But sure enough, the Roman Mass was pronounced in Greek for at least the first 200 years of Christianity: “It is certain that the liturgy at Rome was at one time said in Greek (to the end of the second century apparently).”67 Canright’s scholarship is validated. "The first seven General Councils, beginning with Nicaea, CE. 325, on down to 787, which were the only General Councils acknowledged alike by Eastern and Western Christendom, were all held within the domain of the four ancient Eastern Patriarchates. They were dominated by the Holy Orthodox-Catholic Apostolic Church. Even the Popes of Rome, as in the case of Pope Leo in the matter of the exaltation of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to an equality in temporal and spiritual powers, to Rome (vide Acts of the Fourth General Council-Chalcedon), were compelled to assent, like all others, to the Decrees of the General Councils, which latter were always higher than Popes or Patriarchs. "Rome never dominated any of the first seven General Councils; on the contrary, they dictated to her and in some cases, e. g., Pope Honorius, excommunicated and condemned Popes as heretics. As we have pointed out elsewhere, all of the first Seven General Councils were held within a 200 mile radius of the Roman Capital in Constantinople. Rome was a whopping 800 miles away from 65 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinople 66 http://www.friendsofsabbath.org/Further_Research/SDAs/sab2sun.pdf (see especially Pp. 184-188 “The Primacy of Rome”) 67 http://www.catholic-convert.com/wp-content/uploads/Documents/KyrieinGreek.pdf
Constantinople. None of the disputes that obsessed the first Seven Councils originated from Rome, nor did Rome have much say, if any, in the doctrinal resolution of those disputes. "The name 'Catholic' was common to all Orthodox Churches, Eastern or Western, Greek or Roman, for eight hundred years after Christ. Rome, in the West, exclusively assumed the name 'Catholic,' yet prefixing it by the appellation ' Roman,' by default on the part of the schismatics within her own patriarchate, in the sixteenth century; but the Holy Orthodox-Catholic Apostolic Church of the East has never from the first been known by any other name than 'Catholic,' nor has she set aside the title in any official document. It is her inalienable property as the Mother Church of Christendom (vide Nicene Creed, Article 9), which, without a single omission, has been from the first proclamation read in our churches. Rome and all Western Christian Churches have never denied to her the title of the 'Mother Church' nor 'Catholic.' Her Apostolicity and Catholicity have been and are acknowledged in all lands and in all ages. "Our Church, which includes all the very first Churches founded by the apostles, such as Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, Alexandria, and even Rome, for the first three hundred years, has kept the 'first day of the week' as a day of rest and in holy remembrance of the Resurrection of our Blessed Lord from the dead. From the dawn of Christianity she bears witness that it has been the Sacred Day on which the faithful assembled for the partaking of the Lord's Supper, for the saying of public prayer, and the hearing of sermons. The Persian and Indian Churches were also founded by some of the original 12 Apostles, and are adamant they worshiped from their foundings on Sunday, as taught to them by their founding Apostles. "Our Holy Traditions, the Sub-Apostolic, Anti-Nicene and Sub-Nicene Fathers, as well as all of our historians, also bear testimony to this fact. Under the head of the Fourth Commandment in our Catechism, which is accepted by the whole Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church, this instruction is given. And both the Roman Church and all other Churches which regard the authority of antiquity, calling themselves Protestant, agree on this very fact, viz., that the Lord's Day (the first day of the week) has been observed from the morning of the Resurrection till this moment. This is the “money shot,” a historically bulletproof claim that remains unchallenged to this day by Adventists.68 69Adventism has known about this claim since Canright first included these quotes in his book around the turn of the century, and Ellen White never acknowledged these claims of the Greek Church, let alone addressed them, let alone disputed them, let alone refuted them. They stand unchallenged by the founding Prophet of Seventh Day Adventism and Adventist Sabbath Scholar Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi.. "The Holy Orthodox-Catholic Apostolic Church consists to-day of not only the four ancient Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, but of the great Churches of Russia, Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, Montenegro, Albania, Cyprus, Mount Sinai, and the four independent Churches of Austria, etc., and here in America, under the Holy Synod of Russia, a prosperous Mission, consisting of different national Churches, which extends from the northern limits of Canada to the City of Mexico. All these Churches are equal in authority and united in Doctrine, Discipline and Worship. She is the same Church without break, in her succession of bishops, traditions and teaching, from the days of the twelve apostles, when they met in the Upper Room at Jerusalem before there was ever heard of or thought of a Pope in Rome, and when St. James, spoken of as the first Bishop of Jerusalem, presided over the council of the Apostles and Brethren, when they considered the admission of the Gentiles into the Christian Faith. "The Holy Orthodox-Catholic Apostolic Church has never perceptibly changed in Doctrine, Discipline or Worship since Apostolic Days, and numbers to-day about 150,000,000 members." NOTE: The Eastern Orthodox Church today has around 300 million members, roughly-doubling in size since Canright’s day.70 Neither Ellen White nor Canright seemed to be aware of the existence of the Oriental Orthodox Church, which today boasts some 84 million members. 71 Oriental Orthodoxy has not been in communion with, or under the control of either Rome or the Eastern Church since the CE 452 Council of 68 http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7118 69 http://orthodoxwiki.org/Lord's_Day 70 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church 71 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Orthodoxy
Chalcedon. The mere existence of the defiant Oriental Orthodox church refutes White’s argument that papal superiority was established in 538 CE! To follow, Canright included the following letter received in response to his inquiry from one of the top Orthodox leaders in America: RAPHAEL HAWAWEENY, Bishop of Brooklyn, and Head of the Syrian Holy Orthodox-Catholic Apostolic Mission in America March 30, 1914. Their catechism is very plain on this point. The Longer Catechism of the Greek Church says: "Is the Sabbath kept in the Eastern Church? "It is not kept strictly speaking. "How does the Christian Church obey the fourth commandment? "She still every six days keeps the seventh, only not the last day of the seven days, which is the Sabbath, but the first day in every week, which is the day of the Resurrection, or Lord's Day. "Since when do we keep the day of the Resurrection? "From the very time of Christ's Resurrection."
The catechisms of a Church are the very best authority as to what that Church believes. Here are the Churches raised up by the apostles themselves and have continued this ever since. They have always kept Sunday. Here is a clear and emphatic testimony from the highest authority in that great Eastern Church. All her historians, bishops, councils, catechisms, and traditions agree in witnessing to the observance of the Lord's Day from the very beginning of the Church. This is not a mere theory, but an actual historical fact witnessed to today by one hundred and fifty million members. And all outside history confirms this. Ellen White and J.N. Andrews never mentioned the “Great Schism” of 1054, 72 where the Roman Church permanently split from the recalcitrant Eastern Church some 500 years before the Protestant Reformation; nor did either of them seem to know that the soldiers of the Roman Crusades sacked and looted the headquarters of the Eastern Church in Constantinople in 1204. 73 White and Andrews believed in an embarrassingly-naive fairy tale about a monolithic papacy that supposedly dictated to all of Christianity its doctrines “All the first writers to defend the faith against both pagans and heretics were members of this early Eastern Church. None were Romans. The fundamental doctrines of Christianity now held in common by the Greek, the Roman, and Protestant Churches were first formulated and settled by the Eastern Church, not by the Roman Church. Her great scholars and teachers, her Christian literature, her preachers, and world-wide influence, far exceeded that of Rome and the West for over six hundred years. Rev. A. H. Lewis, Seventh-Day Baptist, admits that the Greek Church was the Mother Church. He says: " In the changes of the first four centuries after Christ, the Eastern Church, which was really the Mother Church, and the home of primitive Christianity, was kept unaffected by way of influence which started the strong current of empire westward by way of Rome. But the truth is that a very large factor of church history is the Eastern current, and especially so in regard to the earliest ideas and practices, that of the Apostolic Period." (Sabbath and Sunday, pp. 220, 221) This is true, and is an important concession from a Sabbatarian confirming the above from Bishop Raphael. Justin Martyr states in explicit language that as early at least as CE. 140 that Mother Church was keeping Sunday. (See previous chapter.) How then could Rome, two hundred years later, introduce Sunday to this old Church? How could Sunday originate with the pagan Romans in the time of Constantine, CE. 321?” Canright largely seemed to be unaware of the massive effect of St. Ignatius, who was a direct disciple of John and who succeeded Peter as the Bishop of Antioch. Ignatius harshly denounced Sabbath-keeping as the Judaizing heresy in his Letter to the Magnesiums at around 107 CE.74 72 http://www.britannica.com/event/Schism-of-1054 73 http://www.roman-empire.net/constant/1203-1204.html 74 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm
It was her apostles and consecrated missionaries who carried the Gospel to Rome and the West and Christianized them. It was not Rome and the West that taught the East. It was exactly the other way. Especially was this true of the observance of the Lord's Day. It was carried from the East to the West, from the Greeks to the Romans. It was not pagan Romans, as Adventists say, who introduced the keeping of the Lord's Day to the great Eastern Church, but it was the Eastern Church that carried that day West and taught the converted pagans to observe it. The following is from The Historians of the History of the World, Article "Papacy," Vol. VIII, p. 520: "But the history of Latin Christianity was not begun for some considerable (it cannot but be indefinable) part of the first three centuries. The Church of Rome, and most, if not all, the Churches of the West, were, if we may so speak, Greek religious colonies. Their language was Greek, their organization Greek, their Scriptures Greek, and many vestiges and traditions show that their rituals and their liturgies, were in Greek. Through Greek the connection of the Churches of Rome and the West was constantly kept up with the East." The Britannica, Article "Papacy," says that the Church at Rome was not founded till CE. 41-54. Then it says of the fourth century: "The Roman Church, having ceased to know the Greek language, found itself practically excluded from the world of Greek Christianity." "During the fourth century it is to be noticed that, generally speaking, the Roman Church played a comparatively insignificant part in the West." These linguistic differences between Eastern and Western churches were profound, and quite likely led to the Christian Churches’ first major schism, following the Council of Chalcedon of 452 CE. At that Council, what we now know as the “Oriental Orthodox” Churches split away over the issue of whether Christ has two natures (as the majority of Christians thought); or whether he was strictly one nature, as the “Oriental Orthodox” insisted. The Oriental Orthodox Churches included Egypt’s Copts, the Indian Syrian-Malankara Church, the Armenian Apostolic Church, and the Ethiopian Orthodox, among others. 75 Needless to say, Ellen White seemed to be blissfully unaware of the Schism of 452 CE, and the obvious refutation of her dates when “Papal Supremacy” or “Papal Primacy” supposedly-occurred. Her imaginary date was fatallycompromised when 25 percent of all Christians broke communion with the other 75 percent of Christendom, in expressed and explicit defiance of the Roman Pope’s wishes. “These historical facts show that Rome for centuries was taught and ruled by the Eastern Greek Church, not the East by Rome. The following is from the noted scholar, the late Dean Stanley, Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Oxford, in his "History of the Eastern Church." It is of the highest authority. He says: "By whatever name we call it 'Eastern,' 'Greek,' or 'Orthodox' - it carries us back, more than any other existing institution, to the earliest scenes and times of the Christian religion." (Lecture 7. p. 56) "Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, are centers of local interest which none can see or study without emotion, and the Churches which have sprung up in those regions retain the ancient customs of the East, and of the primitive age of Christianity, long after they have died out everywhere else" (page 57). Again Stanley says: "We know, and it is enough to know, that the Gospel, the original Gospel, which came from the East, now rules in the West" (page 95). The Church in far-off Eastern Asia, Chaldea, the home of Abraham," was the earliest of all Christian missions-the mission of Thaddeus to Agbarus" (page 58). A delegate from that Church came to the Council of Nice, CE. 325. "The early Roman Church was but a colony of Greek Christians or Grecized Jews. The earliest Fathers in the Western Church, Clement, Irenaeus, Hermas, Hippolytus, wrote in Greek. The early Popes were not Italians, but Greeks" (page 65).” This view of the dominance of Eastern Christianity (which after all was headquartered in Constantinople, the capital of the Roman Empire from 330 CE until 1204) over Rome was strongly endorsed by preeminent Protestant historian, Philip Schaff. Unfortunately, Schaff gave his first historical lectures in 1844 in the German Language at an American Seminary, and his historical masterpieces were also written in German originally. 76 77
75 https://www.svots.edu/content/beyond-dialogue-quest-eastern-and-oriental-orthodox-unity-today 76 http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/About.htm 77 http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff
They were not translated into English until after Canright wrote Seventh Day Adventism Renounced. 78 “Consider carefully these facts. It was the Eastern Greek Church which sent missionaries to Rome, founded that Church, furnished it her teachers and supported it as a mission for centuries. For over two hundred years the observance of the Lord's Day was fully and universally established among all the thousands of the old Eastern Churches before the Church at Rome in the West ceased to be taught and supported as a Greek mission. Read the previous chapter. This shows that Sunday-keeping went from the East to the West, not from Rome to the East. Barnabas, Justin Martyr, and others show that the Greek Churches were all observing the resurrection day in the first part of the second century when they were yet sending teachers and pastors to Rome. Would not these carry their home custom there and teach it to the Roman Church? Certainly, and that is the reason why the West and the East were always agreed about keeping the same day, the Lord's Day. Did that "mission" force on all the old, long established, powerful Eastern Churches a Western Roman pagan day of worship, and that without a word of protest from these Apostolic Churches? Candid men will not accept such an unreasonable assertion.” The Romans never had a weekly day of worship, for ANY of their deities. The closest resemblance between worship of the Roman Sun God and Christianity was Christmas. Even then, Christianity worshiped Christ as the Creator of the Sun and set the day of Christmas celebration exactly 9 months from the date that Christian tradition holds was the day of Christ’s “conception,” March 25. 79 We know of no theory of our Solar System that argues that the Sun had a nine-month gestation period. “Again I quote from Dean Stanley. "She [the Eastern Church] is the mother, and Rome the daughter" (page 66)." All the first founders of theology were Easterners. Till the time of Augustine (355-430) no divine had arisen in the West; till the time of Gregory the Great (596-604) none had filled the papal chair. The doctrine of Athanasius [the Trinity] was received, not originated, by Rome" (pages 71, 72). This indicates how dependent Rome was for centuries on the East and how far behind the East Rome was in learning and influence. Again: "There can be no doubt that the civilization of the Eastern Church was far higher than that of the Western" (page 76). "The whole force and learning of early Christianity was in the East. A general council in the West would have been an absurdity. With the exception of the few writers of North Africa, there were no Latin defenders of the faith" (page 100). For over four hundred years the East was the mother, the missionary, the teacher, the leader, the ruler, while the West was the child, the mission, the taught, the led, the one to receive, not give. With the rest of the Gospel the East brought the Lord's Day to Rome and taught it to the less educated Roman. Here is a notable fact: While the Jewish Christians, and perhaps a few Gentiles living among them, continued for a while to keep the Jewish Sabbath, all Christians, Jews or Gentiles, without a single exception, kept the Lord's Day. Not one single Church in all the early history of the Church has ever been found which did not hold their assemblies on Sunday. Let Adventists name one if they can. They never have, and never can. Another notable fact is: While there was some dispute with a few about the Sabbath, there is not the slightest hint of any dispute among the widely scattered and differing sects of Christians about the Lord's Day. Only one reason can be given for this; namely, the custom of keeping the resurrection day must have begun at the very first with the apostles and was universally accepted by all from the beginning. It is highly-doubtful that any Gentiles ever kept the Sabbath, since circumcision and full conversion to Judaism was required before the Sabbath could be kept. That is the whole bone of contention in Acts 15. Most of the Gentiles that converted to Christianity in the First Century were Greek, and undisguised Greek hatred of both circumcision and the Sabbath is a matter of historical record in the Book of Maccabees. The initiation rite of Christianity was baptism, not circumcision. Jesus was both baptized and circumcised, and yet The Great Commission only mentions baptism.80 The Great Commission ALONE refutes Sabbatarianism.
78 http://www.friendsofsabbath.org/Further_Research/SDAs/sab2sun.pdf (See especially pages 184-188 in Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi’s “The Primacy of the Church at Rome.” The movement of the Capital of the Roman Empire from Rome to Constantinople, where it remained for 800 years is a fact of critical and unparalleled magnitude in the analysis of Western versus Eastern primacy of the Church. That Bacchiocchi never mentions this is both baffling and unforgivable.
79 http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/calendar/invictus.html 80 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2028:16-20&version=NIV
Starting out from Jerusalem after Pentecost, the apostles and teachers went everywhere carrying the practice of the Mother Church to all nations. "The Lord's Day," Rev. 1:10, was thus accepted by all, Rome with the rest. Here is another great fact. Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and others wrote extensively against all heresies, but not one ever mentioned Sunday observance as a heresy, though it was often mentioned incidentally as a well-known existing Christian practice. The "Advent History of the Sabbath," edition of 1912, makes this confession: "Although Ireneus writes five books against the heresies, it is rather strange that he himself nowhere alludes to Sunday" (page 334). If the Lord's Day had been a heresy lately introduced from the pagan Romans, he certainly would have named it. His silence is proof that Sunday was not a heretical, pagan institution, for he wrote against all that. Weigh this fact well.
THE EASTER CONTROVERSY This question furnishes strong proof that the Lord's Day originated with the beginning of the Church itself, and was universally observed by all Christians from the very first. Of this controversy Dean Stanley says: "It was the most ancient controversy in the Church." (History of the Eastern Church, p. 173) It began immediately after the death of the apostles. The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, Article "Easter," says: "In the early Church there was no uniformity in the day observed." Some Churches celebrated it on the fourteenth day of the Jewish month Nisan, the day of the Passover, no matter what day of the week it came on. The Churches of Syria, Mesopotamia, Cilicia, and Asia Minor followed this date. Others celebrated it on the day of the Resurrection, no matter what day of the month it came on. The Eastern Churches of Egypt, Greece, Palestine, Pontus, and the Church of Rome followed this custom. This shows that the apostles felt that it was a matter of indifference and had left no definite instruction about it. The above named Encyclopedia says: "In the second century this difference was the occasion of a protracted controversy which agitated all Christendom." In CE 154 Polycarp visited Rome and tried to reach an agreement but failed. In 197, Victor, Bishop of Rome, threatened to excommunicate those who held to Nisan 15th, but no one obeyed him. Even the Churches in the West paid no regard to his order, while the Eastern Churches condemned and defied him. This shows how little influence the Bishop of Rome had at that date. This controversy continued to divide and agitate the Church till it was settled by the Council of Nice CE. 325. The council says: "It has been determined by common consent," indicating that it was not a matter of vital importance either way. Remember that this question was settled by the Eastern Church, not by Rome, for this council was entirely dominated by the East.”
To this day, the Western Church’s “Easter Celebration” rarely falls on the same day as the Eastern Churches’ “Pascha Celebration.” Not only do the churches not give Resurrection Day the same title, but cannot even agree to hold it on the same day. 81 So much for Papal Supremacy. Notably, neither White nor Canright ever mentioned the fact that “Easter” is mentioned in Acts 12:4, 82 which is more accuratelytranslated as “commemoration of the Passion and Resurrection of Christ” in the Orthodox Study Bible. Adventists tie themselves into knots, scouring history for support for a “Pagan Origins” of “Easter, which was based all along on a ridiculous and discredited theory advanced by the Venerable Bede. 83 Now notice: This simple question as to whether Easter was to be celebrated on a certain day of the month, or on a certain day of the week, divided all Christendom in a hot debate for nearly three hundred years, yet it pertained to only one day in the whole year! Nor did it pertain to more than a few hours' service even in that one day. Now compare this with the question of the Lord's Day. This came every week during the entire year, fifty-two days, and it embraced the whole day, twenty-four hours every week, yet during all these three hundred years of the early Church there was not one word of division over the observance of the Lord's Day. The question never came up for discussion as to any difference between any parts of the Church, East or West, North or South, Greece or Rome. During the entire Easter controversy the Lord's Day was often mentioned, but only incidentally as an institution well known to all and equally regarded by all, East or West. This uniformity could not have been obtained unless all the apostles had agreed in it and had established it at the very beginning of the Church so that there was no question about it later. Opponents of the Lord's Day have never been able to satisfactorily answer this. 81 http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2012/04/pascha-or-easter-or-both.html 82 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+12%3A4&version=KJV 83 http://taylormarshall.com/2013/04/was-easter-pagan-holiday-venerable-bede.html
The Eastern Church’s “Pascha” celebration involves much more than a “few hours’ service,” as Canright stated. First and foremost, Holy Week features services once or twice every day, leading up to Pascha. And then there is the celebration of the two once-a-year Christian Sabbath Festivals on either end of Holy Week. It commences with a lengthy liturgy early in the morning, then another on the afternoon of the Great Sabbath, with yet a third liturgy held beginning at 11 pm on Saturday night. The liturgy celebrated at that time is the much longer liturgy of St. Basil, which takes a solid three hours all by itself. The liturgy of St. Basil is only trotted out during Holy Week. The Pascha liturgy does not end until around 2 am Sunday morning, whereupon the Great “Pascha” Feast commences, which lasts until 5 am or so. The Eastern Churches do not even hold anything resembling a normal Church service at the usual time on Resurrection Sunday morning, with only a desultory “Agape Vespers” celebrated at 1 pm. Thus, the Eastern Churches’ Resurrection Day celebration bears little, if any resemblance to the Western Church’s “Easter” celebration. Further, while there were some still who kept the Jewish Sabbath for a while, all these invariably kept the Lord's Day. No exception to this can be found whether orthodox or heretic. All observe the Lord's Day. Even Sabbatarians are compelled to admit this. Elder Andrews says: "Those Fathers who hallow the Sabbath do generally associate with it the festival called by them the Lord's Day." (Testimony of the Fathers, p. 11) Yes, while some did, for a while, keep the Sabbath, yet even they, in every instance, also kept the Lord's Day. "I have read this chapter and find it correct. - BISHOP RAPHAEL." Bishop Raphael was educated in three seminaries: Damascus, Constantinople, and Kiev, Russia. He has twice received the degree of "Doctor of Divinity." He is the head of the Greek Orthodox Church in America. Hence, he is well qualified to state correctly the position of the Eastern Church on this question.
CANRIGHT: NO WEEKLY HEATHEN WORSHIP OR REST DAYS Chapter Five From: The Lord's Day From Neither Catholics nor Pagans “One of the chief arguments which Seventh-Day Adventists make against Sunday observance is this: They say that the pagan nations, especially the Romans, regarded Sunday as a holiday, or festival day: a day of worship of their heathen gods, particularly the sun, on every Sunday, hence Sun-day. When these pagans professed Christianity they gradually brought into the Church this pagan custom of a Sunday festival day. Then the apostate Roman Church adopted it from these heathens. So now we are keeping a pagan, papal day, hateful to God. Their literature against Sunday-keeping is largely based on this theory as fundamental. Their "History of the Sabbath " is saturated with this argument. It bristles in their tracts, pamphlets, books, and sermons everywhere and all the time. Their children and members believe it as firmly as they believe the Bible. Hence, they abominate Sunday observance and delight in showing contempt for it in every possible way. If they are wrong here the very bottom drops out of their anti-Sunday arguments.” That Paganism was instantly obsoleted and became diseased and gangrenous after the introduction of vibrant Christianity is demonstrated by the laughably-failed attempt by Julian the Apostate to reintroduce Paganism during his tenure as Roman Emperor. Noted Protestant Philip Schaff has documented and analyzed Julian’s complete lack of success in his all-out effort to “modernize” Paganism with Christian practices. Never was Christianity modified with Pagan practices, according to Schaff. 84 “Read a few of their assertions. Elder J. H. Waggoner says: "I only take it upon me to fully and clearly show that the Sunday has its origin as a day of regard and observance in paganism and the Papacy." "I shall show that the authority, the name and the sacredness of Sunday are entirely of pagan origin." "Sunday is in every feature a heathen institution." (Replies to Canright, pp. 125, 126,133) Also "History of the Sabbath," 1912, page 315: "Sunday was indeed the wild solar holiday of all pagan times."
84 http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/3_ch01.htm
Scores of such statements are found in their works. By these assertions they frighten the common people into giving up Sunday, because they are not able to answer them. All such statements are absolutely untrue as the following evidence will abundantly prove. I do not accuse the brethren of any intent to deceive in this matter. Till nearly the last years I was with them, I myself taught the same thing. This they now quote against me. I did not mean to be untruthful, but, without personal investigation for myself, simply followed our older authors. I know that the other ministers did the same, and their ministers and writers do the same now. Their quotations on this subject in their recent publications easily prove that. It is not intentional dishonesty, but a lack of a candid investigation of historical facts as they really are. In my city there is a great Public Library, of 146,000 volumes, containing all up-to-date publications available. Each department has a clerk who will quickly bring any book or article on any subject wanted. Here I have found much contained in these pages. An editorial in a leading daily says: "One of the outstanding features of modern life is the fact that specialized knowledge is always on tap for inquiring minds. The first fruits of research may be procured at any up-to-date and extensive library, such as the one which Grand Rapids is fortunate enough to possess." Imagine what Canright would have been able to do with the Internet at his fingertips! And yet his research and analysis remains amazingly fresh and accurate. All of the following opinions of historical experts were easily-confirmed with quick Google searches. We challenge Adventists to make even the slightest dent in the following historical assertions. Knowing that our great state and national institutions of learning maintain specialists in every line of knowledge, I decided to apply to them for information on this subject. These learned scholars would have no inducement to be one-sided or unfair. These specialists have every possible means of information at hand and devote a lifetime of study to their particular branch of knowledge. It is their business to furnish to inquirers the results of their research. Hence I drew up a list of questions fully covering every possible phase of this subject, as will be seen. I carefully avoided giving any intimation of my views, or of the use I wished to make of their replies, so as not in any way to influence their answers. The world-renowned British Museum is the highest authority to which I could refer, so I will give this first. I quote my letter to them with their answer to each question one after the other: Grand Rapids, Mich., Dec. 8, 1911 British Museum, Department of History London, England. Dear Sir: For the information of many who are deeply interested in this subject, would you kindly answer briefly the enclosed questions? D. M. CANRIGHT. Here is the answer: Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum London, England Dec. 21, 1911 Sir: I am commanded by the Assistant Keeper of Greek and Roman Antiquities to reply as follows to your questions on the ancient week: Q. 1. Did the pagan Romans and Greeks ever have any regular weekly day of rest from secular work? Ans. No. Q. 2. Did they have any regular weekly festival day?Ans. No. Q. 3. Did they have any regular weekly day when they assembled for pagan worship? Ans. No. Q. 4. Did they have any special day of the week when individuals went to the temples to pray or make offerings? Ans. No; both for Greeks and Romans the month was the unit and not the week. The Greek calendar varied in different states but the month was generally divided into three periods of ten
days. The Romans reckoned from three fixed points in the month, the Kalend or first, the Nones fifth or seventh, the Ides thirteenth or fifteenth. These subdivisions in themselves had no religious significance. Also in the Roman calendars were nundinal, or market days, at periods of eight days, or, as the Romans reckoned time. On these days farm work, etc., stopped and citizens flocked into the town markets. To some extent this may be a regular stoppage of secular work.; but it had no religious significance, except that it was considered an evil omen when the nundinal coincided with other festival days, e. g., the: Nones. The nundinal period seems derived from a blundering reminiscence of a quarter of a lunar period, and there seems no connection with the later seven days' week (see below). Q. 5. As Sunday was sacred to the Sun, Monday to the Moon, Saturday to Saturn, etc., were those supposed deities worshipped on their own particular days more than on any other days? Ans. No; the old worship of the gods was disappearing when the seven-day week came about. The significance of the deities' names was astrological, not religious, e.g., if a person were born on Monday, the moon would influence his horoscope, but the moon was never an object of common worship. Q. 6. When was our week of seven days first introduced into the Roman calendar? Ans. There are traces in the literature of the late republic (first cent. B.C.) that the Romans used the week of seven days for astrological purposes, in connection with the many Eastern superstitions of the period. It was probably the third century, A.D. before the seven day week came into common use. Q.7. From whom did the Romans learn the week of seven days? Ans. From the Jews, alternately the Assyrians and Babylonians; the names were probably fixed by the Hellenistic Greeks. Q. 8. Did the pagan Greeks ever adopt in common life, or in their calendar, the week of seven days? Ans. No. Q. 9. Did Apollo, the Sun god, either among the Romans or Greeks, have any special day on which he was worshipped with prayers or offerings more than on any other day? Ans. There were certain set festivals at various temples; these were annual, not weekly. Q. 10. Did the pagan reverence for Sunday have anything to do in influencing Christians to select that day as their rest day? Ans. No; it can hardly be said that there was any special reverence for Sunday in pagan times (see answer to No. 5). I am, sir, Your obedient servant, F. N. PRYCE.
“You see this historian gives an unqualified NO to all the questions. Notice particularly that the names of the days of the week were all only astrological, not religious. There was no religious sacredness attached to a day because it was named after some planet as Sun-day - Sun's day - or Mon-day, Moon's day, etc. The sun was not worshiped on Sunday, nor the moon on Monday, nor Saturn on Saturday, etc. Also notice carefully that Apollo was not worshiped on Sunday or on any weekday. His festival days were annual, not weekly, as Adventists have taught. Then note that there was no special reverence for Sunday in pagan times. Here again Adventists are proved to be entirely wrong. This again destroys all their contention that Sunday sacredness originated with pagans. The proof is abundant that no such thing was ever known among the pagan Romans or Greeks. Hence, Sunday-keeping, or Sunday sacredness, could not have originated with them. Our next witness is from the Smithsonian Institute, Washington, D.C. This great institution of learning is supported by the United States Government. Here the highest qualified specialists in every line of knowledge are employed. Here they have access to every possible means of up-to-date information in the Library of Congress, etc. It will be seen that I addressed nearly the same questions to this learned body and that the answers are the same as from the British Museum: Smithsonian Institute, Washington, D.C. September 23, 1914: REV. D. M. CANRIGHT Grand Rapids, Mich. Dear Sir: I have referred your letter of September 14th to Dr. I. M. Casonawicz, Assistant Curator of Old World Archeology, who furnishes the following replies to your several inquiries: 1. Did the pagan Romans and Greeks ever have any regular weekly day of rest from secular work? Ans. No. 2. Did they ever have any weekly festival day? Ans. No. 3. Did they have any regular weekly day when they assembled for pagan worship? Ans. No. 4. When was our calendar of the week first introduced among the Romans and Greeks? Ans. The division of the month into weeks was introduced into Rome from Egypt. The date is uncertain, but it was not earlier than the second century, A.D. 5. When was our calendar of the week first recognized in Roman law? Ans. The earliest Sunday legislation was enacted under Constantine I, 321 A.D. No legislation of earlier date on the division of the month is known. 6. As each day of the week was dedicated to some god, as Sunday to the Sun, Monday to the Moon, Saturday to Saturn, etc., was each of these supposed deities worshiped on one particular day more than any other day? Ans. No. 7. Did the pagan Romans have any one special day in the week when individuals, if they chose, went to make prayers or offerings to
their gods? Ans. No. 8. Did Apollo have any special day in the week or month more than any other day when he was worshiped with prayers or offerings? Ans. No. Very truly yours, R. RATHBORN Assistant Sec. in charge of National Museum.
“Here we have two of the most reliable witnesses in the world perfectly agreeing. If their testimony is worth anything, then Adventists must revise their theory that Sunday sacredness, or Sunday festivals, or Sunday rest days originated with pagans. But here is another witness confirming the other two but giving the answer more in detail. Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., is the oldest and best known university in America. I addressed the same questions there. George F. Moore, professor of Ancient Roman and Greek History, furnished me the following complete account of all the Roman and Greek festivals. It completely destroys all claim for any pagan sacredness of Sunday. Professor Moore wrote me as follows: Divinity Ave. Cambridge, Mass. May 24, 1913 Dear Sir: There are two seven-day weeks: the Jewish week, with a Sabbath on the seventh day; and the Astrological week, with days named after the sun, moon, and five planets, in our order determined by the theories of astrology, but without any day of rest. The combination of the two is Christian. The Astrological week first appears in Greek and Latin writings about the beginning of the Christian era. Its antecedents are unknown. It had no use in ordinary life. Abstinence from labor on the seventh day, or on one day in seven, is a distinctively Jewish institution. The edict of Constantine (321 A.D.) closing the courts on Sunday and prohibiting some kinds of labor on that day, is the first recognition of a seven-day week in Roman law. The ancient Romans had a market day every eight days, when the peasants came to town to market, but it was in no sense a day of rest. In the old Roman calendar there were many days when the courts were closed and other public and private business was not done. They had also many festivals on which the people left their ordinary occupation to take part in the celebrations, but these have no periodicity like that of the week. Very truly yours, GEORGE F. MOORE
In a second letter he says: REV. D. M. CANRIGHT Dear Sir: In reply to your inquiries in your letter of November 23rd, I would say: 1. The planetary week in which the days were named from their regents, Saturday, Sunday, etc., was an invention of the astrologers, probably in the second century, B.C., and has no relation to religion or influence upon it. Saturn, for example, was not worshiped on Saturday, nor Jupiter on Thursday. The festivals of the several gods were never weekly festivals, nor did they occur on days fixed by other divisions of the month, say the tenth day. 2. The religious calendars of the Greek cities were independent of one another and underwent many changes in the course of time. Our knowledge of these calendars is incomplete; only that of Athens is pretty fully known. The festivals fell in certain months, and on certain days of the month. Thus, at Athens, where the first month of the year, Hekabombaion, began at the new moon following the summer solstice (roughly corresponding, therefore, to our July), there was a festival of Apollo on the first (or on the seventh of the month). The great festival of Athena Polias, the prophetess of the city, was on the 28th. There were often festivals on the 12th (Kronia) and on the 16th (Synorkia). The second month had only one, rather insignificant,
festival. In the third month, the 5th day was an All Souls' Day, a feast of the dead; a thanksgiving was observed on the 12th-15th; from the 16th to the 25th were the great Athena Elensinia, and so on. No particular days of the month were to be especially favored, either in general or for any individual god. 3. The Roman calendar is preserved only from a comparatively late time, when the worship of Greek and foreign deities was fully established. So far as the old Roman calendar can be reconstructed it appears that the Ides of every month were dedicated to Jupiter, who had, besides, festivals on the 23rd of April, 5th of July, 19th of August, 11th of October, 25th of December. The festivals of Mars occur chiefly in the month named after him, 1st, 14th, 17th, 19th, 23rd, also February 27th, October 15th and 19th. These examples may suffice to show that no principle determines the fixing of these days. It may be observed, however, that, as among many people, the solstices and equinoxes, which mark the seasons of the year, are recognized in the calendar. Also that all who have a calendar based on lunar months give some importance to the first appearance of the new moon, and often to the full moon also. The festivals were public holidays, each with its own rites, and customs, sacrifices, processions, etc. The priests in Greece and Rome, speaking generally, officiated on these occasions only. The priest was a citizen, elected or chosen by lot, for a longer or shorter time (sometimes for life): in most cases he was not expected to demit his ordinary occupation. A priesthood who were priests and nothing else, who spent their lives in the service of the temples, with daily offerings and liturgies came in only with foreign, chiefly Oriental, gods, like the Magna Mater. Private persons went to the temples when they had occasion to offer prayers or sacrifices or to make vows, etc. There were no stated days for such visits-though some days were in some temples luckier than others, and there was nothing like a stated day for the assembling of a worshiping congregation except the festivals of the local calendar. Yours very truly, GEORGE F. MOORE
It will readily be seen that this is a valuable historical document covering in detail every phase of Roman and Greek festivals. A weekly Sunday festival was utterly unknown to either pagan nation. Underlying Adventist perfidy, bigotry and dishonesty in this whole discussion is largely unmentioned and uncontextualized by Canright. Vicious anti-Catholic conspiracy theories and anti-immigrant feelings ran high during the mid-1850’s, enough so that a major anti-Catholic political party was formed. 85 The Great Controversy repeated lurid accusations of the papacy’s alleged “pagan” corruption of Christianity. It was just one of many facets of a hysterical literary genre that whipped Americans into an anti-Catholic frenzy, before and after the Civil War, and led eventually to the formation of the Ku Klux Klan. 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 No weekly worship or sacredness whatever attached to Sunday. Our Advent brethren, if candid, must abandon that theory. To make surety doubly sure, I will introduce one more witness. It will be seen that all four fully agree in every item. This one is from Prof. W. H. Westerman, of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Nov. 13, 1913 D.M.CANRIGHT Grand Rapids,Mich. Dear Sir: I shall answer your questions briefly, and in the order in which you sent them. 1. The pagan Greeks and Romans never had a weekly day of rest. 2. They never had a weekly holiday or festival day. 3. They never had a special day in the week on which they made offerings or prayers to heathen gods. (Neither the pagan Greeks nor the Romans
85 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing 86 https://www.english.upenn.edu/~traister/hughes.html 87 https://www.gutenberg.org/files/86/86-h/86-h.htm 88 https://archive.org/details/pleaforwest00beec 89 http://www.jstor.org/stable/4247849?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents 90 https://archive.org/details/femaleconventsse00ricc 91 http://documents.routledge-interactive.s3.amazonaws.com/9780415807487/document25.pdf 92 http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/10/opinion/la-oe-davies-catholics-20101010
recognized a seven-day division or week division in the month.) 4. They made no offerings or prayers on Sunday to their gods any more than on other days. 5. The seven-day period of dividing the month or the week was never adopted into the calendar of the pagan Greeks. It appears in the Roman calendar after the time of Theodosius, or after 391 A.D., but the week, or seven-day period, first appears in Roman law in a constitution of Constantine, promulgated in 321 A.D. This appears in the Code of Justinian. The seven-day division of the month, which is, of course from the standpoint of the calendar, a pretty cumbersome method of division, comes from the ancient Hebrews, whose Sabbath, falling on every Saturday, early became a period of rest. The word, Sabbath, means, probably, the "divider." The early Christians, for example, Paul, did not think it necessary for the Christian communities to observe the Jewish Sabbath. Usually, however, they did observe it. In the first two centuries of our era they developed the custom of observing the Lord's Day with prayer and common meals, and out of this, and the Jewish day of rest, arose our practice of observing Sunday. I have been very glad to be of service to you. Sincerely yours, W. H. WESTERMAN December 18, 1914 REV. D. M. CANRIGHT Grand Rapids, Mich. Dear Sir: I will again answer your questions in the order in which you asked them of me. 1. In the constitution of Constantine of A.D. 321, which spoke of the "venerable day of the sun," Constantine regards Sunday as venerable undoubtedly from the Christian standpoint. It had been so regarded by the Christians since the second century, as the day of the Resurrection. It would, therefore, be venerable to Constantine, who had already legalized the Christian religion. If it was in any way venerable or a holiday to the pagans, so far as my information goes, the pagans must have adopted the practice from the Christians. 2. Apollo was not worshiped on any stated day of the week or month more than any other. 3. I do not believe that there is any proof that the early Christians were led to observe Sunday by the example of any pagan worship upon that day. Indeed, I think Tertullian's statements, quoted by you, from Chapter XVI of his "Apology," goes to show that the pagans did not worship the sun upon that day, rather than the opposite. Very sincerely yours, W. H. WESTERMAN
“The united testimony of these high authorities is decisive. Neither the pagan Romans nor the Greeks had any weekly day of rest from work, or any weekly festival, or any weekly day for worship. They made no use of a week of seven days for anything. Professor Moore says it had no use in common life. Notice further: The old astrological week of seven days had no rest day. The idea of a rest day once a week was unknown to the pagan Romans and Greeks till they learned it of the Jews and Christians centuries after Christ. The edict of Constantine, A.D. 321, was the very first time the week of seven days was recognized in Roman law. All history agrees in this and it is a decisive fact showing that, up to that date, the Romans had made no use of our week of seven days, hence, did not, and could not, have observed Sunday as a day of rest. There was no religious idea connected with the naming of the days from the planets, as Sunday from the sun, Monday from the moon, etc. Once again, the Syrian-Malankara Church started by St. Thomas in India in CE 52; and the Armenian and Assyrian Churches of Persia; are the absolute and irrefutable proof that the Constantinian Edict of 321 CE did NOT “initiate” Sunday worship among Christians. The Indian and Persian Churches insist that they worshiped on Sunday from their respective and independent Apostolic foundings. 93 They grew up in almost complete isolation from the Christian population centers of Jerusalem, Constantinople, Alexandria and Rome, due to the primitive travel and communication methods extent at the time. 94 After 452 CE, they joined with the other Oriental Orthodox churches, and severed themselves even further from the main body
93 http://malankaraorthodoxchurch.in/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16&Itemid=242 94 http://mtcsv.org/home/history-of-marthoma-church/
of Christianity. In CE 321, India and Persia were not part of the Roman Empire, nor did Roman Law apply in India and Persia.95 96 97 Like ancient Judaism, Ancient India had a Lunar Calendar, and rejected the Roman Calendar. 98 Parts of the Indian church did eventually join in communion with Roman Catholicism, but not until 1930, and that was after 2,000 years of Sunday worship.99 It should be clear that neither the pagans of the Roman Empire, the Roman Emperor, or the Roman Pope had the slightest effect on the Indian and Persian Church's’ Sunday worship traditions. There is only one logical explanation: the Indian and Persian Churches were taught Sunday Worship by their respective founding Apostles. They did so no later than two years after the Council of Jerusalem, which had ruled that Gentile Christian Converts were not subject to the Mosaic Law. The Indian and Persian Christian converts of these Apostolic Christian communities - established far away from the boundaries of the Roman Empire and the large Christian communities of Rome, Constantinople and Alexandria - long predated the “Gentile Christian Converts” of Antioch that were benefited by the Council of Jerusalem’s staunch obedience to the Great Commission. All four of these specialists in ancient history agree in answering these questions though neither one knew that they had been submitted to the others; yet all four exactly agree in every particular, though widely scattered, London, Washington, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin. Such a unanimous agreement would settle any question in a court of law. I accidentally learned that J. W. Moncrieff, A.Y., D.D., Associate Professor of Church History, University of Chicago, had carefully studied Seventh-Day Adventism, especially on this subject. So I sent him this chapter for examination. He wrote me as follows: University of Chicago May 13, 1915 Rev. D. M. Canright: I appreciate very much the privilege of reading the two chapters of your forthcoming book, and shall certainly want a copy of it when it is out. Seventy years ago, when Seventh-Day Adventism was born, when people possessed a very meager amount of information concerning the ancients, and when even the great Samuel Johnson's Dictionary contained the statement that "The division of time by weeks hath been universally observed in the world, not only amongst the civilized, but likewise among the most barbarous nations" (I quote from the edition of 1819), it was excusable in Seventh-Day Adventists to relate Sunday observance to pagan Roman Sunday observance. But in the last fifty years an enormous amount of research into antiquarian life has been accomplished by reliable, competent historians, and when, with one accord, they proclaim the previously held notion to be a myth, pure and simple, with no support in well-ascertained facts, it is high time someone is bringing these facts which are to be found in every recent standard encyclopedia in the articles on "Calendar" and "Week" to the minds of the uninformed who are confused by a doctrine wholly at variance with now ascertained historical fact. I have consulted sixteen encyclopedias and dictionaries, and they differ in no essential detail in their treatment of the subject. Sincerely yours, J. W. MONCRIEFF
It will be seen this historian fully agrees with the four preceding ones. Having given special attention to this particular subject, his testimony is of great value in confirming the other. Modern historians emphatically agree with Canright that there is no basis for Adventism’s contention that Christian Sunday worship has or had any connection to Pagan Sun Worship. 100
95 http://cristoraul.com/ENGLISH/readinghall/UniversalHistory/INDIA/Early-6th_BC/HISTORY-20.html 96 http://www.indianscriptures.com/vedic-lifestyle/beginners-guide/ancient-indian-laws-and-practices 97 https://archive.org/details/ancientromanempi00brycrich 98 http://www.ancientindia.co.uk/staff/resources/background/bg13/home.html 99 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syro-Malankara_Catholic_Church 100 http://home.earthlink.net/~mysticalrose/pagan7.html
“I consulted a graduate of Michigan State University who has for four years made a specialty of teaching Roman history in the high school. I asked her if the Romans had any weekly rest day, or day of worship. She said, "No," and gave me Roman Festivals, by Fowler, as her textbook. Two university professors referred me to this same book, so it is good authority. The Preface, page 7, says: "A week of eight days was introduced at an early period." Notice, it was eight days, not seven; and the eighth day was simply a market day, not a day of worship. A large number of festivals are fully described but there is in all the book no reference to any rest day, or day of worship, on Sunday. If there had been such a rest day, the author would certainly have named it. The Romans, centuries after Christ, learned the week of seven days, partly from Egyptian astrology and partly from Christians and Jews. The "Standard Dictionary," Article "Week," says: "It was not introduced into the Roman calendar till after the reign of Theodosius in the fourth century." The "Universal Dictionary of the English Language," Article "Week," says: "During the early centuries of their history the Greeks and Romans had not the institution of the week." Webster's Dictionary, Article "Week," says: "The week did not enter into the calendar of the Greeks, and was not introduced at Rome till after the reign of Theodosius." This obvious and undisputed history supports our conclusion in other chapters that the Jewish Sabbath as practiced by Jesus was based on the Lunar Month, and bears no resemblance to the weekly day of “Saturday.” 101 Constantine had been dead over forty years before Theodosius began to reign. So at the time when Constantine issued his Sunday law, A.D. 321, his pagan subjects did not use the week of seven days, hence, could not have kept the first day of our week until taught to them by Christians and required by Constantine's law. Prof. A. Rauschenbusch, of Rochester Theological Seminary, quotes Lotz thus: "It is a vain thing to attempt to prove that the Greeks and Romans had anything resembling the Sabbath. Such opinion is refuted even by this, that the Roman writers ridicule the Sabbath as something peculiar to the Jews. In proof he cites many passages from the Roman poets, and one from Tacitus. Seneca also condemned the Sabbath observance of the Jews as a waste of time by which a seventh part of life was lost." ("Saturday or Sunday," p. 83) Herzog says: "No special religious celebration of any one day of the week can be pointed out in anyone of the pagan religions" (Article "Sabbath"). The renowned Max Muller in "Chips from a German Work Shop," Vol. V, page 116, says: "It is well known that the names of the seven days of the week are derived from the names of the planets, and it is equally well known that in Europe the system of weeks and week days is comparatively of very modern origin. It was not a Greek, nor a Roman, nor a Hindu, but a Jewish or Babylonian invention." The early Christian Father, Tertullian, A.D. 200, bears a decisive testimony that the pagans had no weekly festival and did not keep the Lord's Day with Christians. Reproving Christians for attending heathen feasts, he says: "Oh, truer fealty of the heathen to their own religion which taketh to itself no rite of the Christians. We are not afraid lest we be openly declared to be heathen! If thou must needs have some indulgence for the flesh too, thou hast it and thou hast not only as many days as they, but even more. For the heathen festival is on but one day in every year, thine upon every eighth day. Gather out the several solemn feasts of the heathen and set them out in order; they will not be able to make up a Pentecost." ( Ante-Nicene Lib.," Vol. XI, pp. 162-163) I notice that he says the heathen did not have a festival on the Lord's Day, nor on Pentecost, and that the heathen festivals came only "once a year" not every week, like the Christian Day. He says that all their feast days, if gathered together, would not be as much as Pentecost. This is decisive, that the heathen did not have a weekly festival day, nor did they have a festival on the same day the Christians did; viz., on the Lord's Day. Johnson's "New Universal Encyclopedia," Article "Week," says: "The Greeks divided the month into periods of ten days, and 101 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_calendar#Modern_calendar
the Romans gathered the days into periods of eight days; with both, the first day of a period was market day, on which country people came to town and stirred up both business and public life. The period of seven days, the week proper, was introduced to the Romans and Greeks, partly by Christianity, partly by Egyptian astronomy." This demolishes the theory that keeping the first day of our Christian week came to Christians from the pagan Romans. Exactly the opposite is true. The Jew and Christians taught it to the pagan Romans. Schaff, in his "Church History," says: "The pagan Romans paid no more regard to the Christian Sunday than to the Jewish Sabbath." The "Encyclopedia Americana," Article "Week," says: "The Romans and Greeks each divided the months into periods, and were not acquainted with the week till a late period. The Romans had, however, for civil uses, as the arrangement of market days, a cycle of eight days, the ninth being the recurring one, instead of the eighth as with us." I have before me a book of 160 pages, entitled, "Sunday is the Christian Sabbath, or Lord's Day," by M. H. MacLead, Pueblo, Colo. It is the most exhaustive and scholarly work I have yet found on the history of the Sunday question in the first four centuries. He carefully quotes a large number of high authorities showing that the pagan Romans and Greeks had no weekly day of rest or worship on any day of the week. On the subject of heathen rest days he says: "I have given it an uncompromising consideration. It was not without a study of the matter that I ventured even to myself a final and unchangeable denial of any truth in the claim." What the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, or other ancient nations believed or did has nothing to do with our question. It is claimed by Adventists that Sunday, as a day of rest and worship, came into the Church from pagan Rome. Hence, that is the only question to settle. The simple fact that Sunday was named from the sun, dedicated to the sun, or was sacred to the sun, does not furnish the slightest evidence that people ceased work on that day. Every day in the week was named from some supposed deity and was sacred to that god. "The World's Standard Dictionary" says: "Monday, the day sacred to the moon." Did pagans worship the moon that day? Did they cease work that day? Saturday was Saturn's day, sacred to Saturn. Did they rest that day? So of all the days of the week. If they rested every day named after some god, when would they work? Sunday was no more sacred than any other day and pagans reverenced none. Canright brings up one of Adventism’s crazy ironies: the common accusation they level at Christians of being “Sun Worshipers” by worshiping on “Sunday.” Most Adventist debaters will conveniently “forget” that “Saturday” was named in honor of the Roman god Saturn. However, the pagan connection between the “Sabbath” and “Saturn” arguably runs MUCH deeper than the connection between “Sunday” and “Sun Worship.” This anomaly was first expressed by Roman historian Tacitus. 102 103 As we have demonstrated previously, Greek Sun worship had died out centuries before Christ. Modern-day Wiccan witches apparently accept Tacitus’s argument, and celebrate various “Sabbaths.” 104 Some of the hostility that Adventists imagine Catholics have toward the Sabbath may be simply explained by the close connection between witchcraft and Sabbath-keeping that was observed in the Middle Ages: “Although allusions to Sabbats were made by the Catholic Canon law since about 905, the first book that mentions the Sabbat is, theoretically, Canon Episcopi, included in Burchard of Worms's collection in the 11th century. The Canon Episcopi alleged that "Diana's rides," (by the name of the Roman goddess of the hunt) were false, and that these spirit travels did not occur in reality. Errores Gazariorum later evoked the Sabbat, in 1452. In the 13th century the accusation of participation in a Sabbat was considered very serious. Helping to publicize belief in and the threat of the Witches' Sabbath was the extensive preaching of the popular Franciscan reformer, Saint Bernardino of Siena (1380–1444), whose widely circulating sermons contain various references to the sabbath as it was then conceived and hence represent valuable early sources 102 http://forward.com/articles/9794/the-sabbath-planet/ 103 http://www.livius.org/sources/content/tacitus-on-the-jews/ 104 http://www.trueghosttales.com/wicca-wheel-of-the-year.php
into the history of this phenomenon. 105 The irony here is total: an outbreak of Middle Ages Paganism and witchcraft featured a reversion to Sabbath-keeping, and a rejection of the Christian Day of Worship! So plain is the evidence on this subject that some of the best read Adventists have admitted that pagans did not rest from work on Sunday. Thus Elder J. H. Waggoner says of Constantine's Sunday law, A.D. 321: "Though the venerable day of the sun had long― very long― been venerated by them and their heathen ancestors, the idea of rest from worldly labor in his worship was entirely new." (Replies to Elder Canright, p. 130) Mark this confession, for it gives up the main pillar of their argument in their effort to prove that Sunday-keeping was taken from the pagans. The pagans never kept Sunday. It was a new idea to them when they were required to cease work that day! Where did they get that new idea? From the emperor who had just recently professed Christianity. He got it from his Christian brethren who had always kept it! See the folly of arguing that the pagans taught Christians to keep Sunday, when the pagans themselves had never kept it. Here is another confession: Elder L. R. Conradi, Seventh-Day Adventist, author of "History of the Sabbath," edition of 1912, in a letter to me dated Hamburg, February 9, 1914, says: "A weekly rest day from work and solely dedicated to divine worship was unknown in heathenism and only known among the people of Israel." In answer to my question, "Did the pagan Romans keep Sunday as a religious day?" he says: "We never claimed that. The idea of keeping a day means, in the present age, resting from work and giving the time solely to worship. But this the pagans never did. They only made prayers to the sun-god and then followed their regular work." Here we have two witnesses from Seventh-Day Adventists themselves, confessing that the pagans had no weekly day of rest from common work. Of course, they could say nothing else, for all history says the same. So then this point is settled beyond denial. "Admissions in favor of truth from the ranks of its enemies constitute the highest kind of evidence." These confessions from the two Adventist elders give up the question, as any candid person must see. Elder Conradi, above quoted, says of the pagans: "They only made prayers to the sun-god and then followed their regular work." Here he assumes that the pagans made Sunday a special day of worship when they made prayers to the sun-god. He asserts that for which there is not a particle of proof. No prayers were made to the heathen gods on Sunday more than on Saturday or any other day. He cannot produce a scrap of proof for his assertion. The quotations given above from the historians of the several universities squarely deny what he asserts without any proof. Did all these pagans leave their homes every Sunday and go to their temples and offer prayers? No. They had no meetings whatever that day, nor on any other day of the week. On some special occasion, as a birthday, or recovery from sickness, or to avert some feared evil, or on some yearly festival, persons would go and offer incense or gifts to the gods. That was all. There was no regular day in the week for any offerings of gifts or prayers. The Adventists have invented a pagan Sunday of rest and worship which never existed. No pagan nation today keeps Sunday. The great Chinese nation, numbering four hundred millions, keeps no day. Elder W. A. Westworth, Seventh-Day Adventist, in the Battle Creek, Mich., Daily Journal, May 18, 1914, says: "I have put in 15,000 miles in inland China visiting our stations. The Chinese have no week, nor any day of the week, kept as a weekly rest." The same is true of the Japanese, 67,000,000, the Koreans, the millions of pagans in Africa, etc. Then the Mohammedans, numbering 200,000,000, rest on Friday, and all work on Saturday and Sunday. They copied the idea of a weekly rest day from the Jews and Christians in the seventh century after Christ. India has a population of 315,000,000. They have no weekly rest day. The entire population of the earth is sixteen hundred millions. Of these only six hundred millions believe in the Bible and Christianity, and hence nominally respect Sunday. So ten hundred millions, nearly two-thirds of the people on the globe, have no regard for Sunday or Saturday and never had. All on this globe who now, or at any other time, have ever rested on Sunday have learned it from Christians. So Christians could never have learned it from pagans, for none of them ever kept Sunday. 105 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witches%27_Sabbath
Canright was not correct about the origin and nature of Islam’s Friday observance. The actual origin of Islam’s Friday religious observance is based on the fact that Arab traders were gathered together in Mecca on Fridays in order to cater to their Jewish customers. Friday was the Jewish “shopping day,” who got their shopping out of the way in anticipation of the Jewish Sabbath the following day, long after the Jews abandoned their original Lunar-based weekly calendar. It became an Islamic custom to gather together for Friday prayers, because the merchants were already gathered on that day for trade with the Jews. Islam has never regarded Friday as “a day of rest.” 106 Ironically, Islam claims Abraham as “The Father of Islam;” but endorses the Jewish contention that the Sabbath is a “special sign” between the Children of Israel and God;” and continues to circumcise on the 8th Day as commanded to Abraham; yet Muslims have curiously never demanded a “share” in the Jewish Sabbath. Islam has never hesitated to “appropriate” to itself practices from other religious traditions: Islamic traditions of prostration and female head covering were stolen from Eastern Christianity. Many thousands of Christian Churches, Jewish Synagogues and HIndu and Buddhist Temples have been converted into Mosques. Thus, one billion Muslims constitute continuing proof that Abraham never kept the Sabbath. The observers of the seventh day continually assert that Sunday with pagans was always a popular festival day, a day for religious assemblies and pagan worship, then of festivity or, perhaps, work, by some. The above testimony from numerous reliable authors squarely contradicts these assertions. Listen now to the Adventists. Of Sunday they say: "They are assembly days at early morn, then given up to busy pleasure and to labor." "Many of his [Constantine's] pagan subjects reverenced the same day as a day of prayer in honor of the sun." Again: "The very effect of joining the pagans in their devotions on Sunday was to let down the bars which God had put up." (History of the Sabbath," edition 1912, pp. 373, 384,385, 363) Here is another: "The bishops would very readily adopt the most popular heathen festival day [Sunday] in order to gain the favor of the pagans." "The observance of Sunday was itself the custom which was brought into the Church by converts from heathenism." "Sunday, the wild solar holiday of all pagan times." (Fathers of the Catholic Church, by E. J. Waggoner, pp. 324, 326, 328). Here is one from a Seventh-Day Baptist, Rev. A. H. Lewis, in "History of the Sabbath and Sunday," page 70: "Sunday, already a festival among the heathen." "The sun's day had been a leading weekly pagan festival for many centuries" (page 521). Elder Andrews in "Testimony of the Fathers," pages 26, 34, 43, says: "The Roman people observed a festival on the first day of the week." "The day commonly honored as a festival by the Romans." These are only samples of what is repeated over and over by opposers of the Lord's Day. These assertions are made, not only without proof, but directly contrary to all reliable testimony, as we have quoted above. There was absolutely nothing of the kind with Romans or Greeks. Elder Waggoner says: "Sunday is in every feature a heathen institution." (Replies to Canright, p.133) Let us see. What are the features of Sunday as kept by Christians? •
All secular work ceases.
•
People dress up and go to church.
•
A hymn is sung.
•
Prayer is offered.
•
Scriptures are read.
•
A sermon is preached.
106 http://www.answering-islam.org/Books/MW/friday.htm
•
A collection is taken.
•
The Lord's Supper is celebrated.
•
Benediction is pronounced.
These are the features of the Christian observance of Sunday. Waggoner says that in every feature it is pagan! How many of these features can be found in the pagan day? Absolutely not one. Moreover, as we have pointed out in a previous chapter, both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Canon Law establishes that the Eucharist is the centerpiece of Sunday “Worship.” “No Eucharist” means no “Sunday Worship.” The Eucharist unequivocally defines “worship” under both sets of canon law. Carnight here uses the Protestant form of the “Lord’s Supper” in his analysis of Sunday worship. No Pagan custom remotely resembles the Eucharist in either theory or actual practice. Both the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholics insist the basis of the Eucharist is found in John 6. 107 That is simply a contention that has never been rebutted by Adventism. Adventist ignorance on this one issue - and the clear evidence that the Eucharist historically gave Sunday its validity as a day of worship - is simply jaw-dropping and the basis for the foolish National Sunday Law conspiracy theory. They did not even cease work that day as he himself says above. Is not his assertion recklessly untrue? Could the pagan Romans give to the Christians these features of Sunday observance when they themselves never had one of them? It is absurd. But Adventists believe and teach it as a fact while all reliable evidence shows that it is all absolutely untrue. The strong, clear, united historical quotations given in this chapter prove, beyond denial, that the pagan Romans never had any religious regard for Sunday, never had the week of seven days in common life, or in their calendar, or in their civil or religious laws. The very first deference they ever paid to Sunday was in obedience to the law of Constantine the first Christian emperor. Because one day was named Sunday, Sun's day, and because the ancient Babylonians and others worshiped the sun, therefore Adventists always assume and assert that Sunday was specially devoted to the worship of the sun. Thus one writer says: "The worship of the sun is one of the oldest and most universal forms of idolatry, and Sunday was the special day honored by the sun worshiper." Another writer says: "The very name Sun-day is a standing witness that it was the day of sun worship." This is simply in the sound of names, nothing more, without any foundation, in fact. This ready assumption is entirely groundless. Each day of the week was named from some planet: as Sunday from the sun, Monday from the moon, Saturday from Saturn, etc. The first hour of each day was supposed to be ruled over by the planet of that day. This was purely an astrological invention for civil purposes and had no religious significance whatever; no idea of worship was connected with the name of anyone of these days. Religious worship had nothing to do in naming the days. The idea was purely and only astrological. Thus Johnson's "New Universal Encyclopedia," Article "Week," says: "It was found as a civil institution in the very earliest times among the Hindus, Persians, Assyrians, and Egyptians. But the Jews were the only nation with which the week had a religious significance." So also the answers from the above quoted historians all agree that names of the days are purely astrological, not religious. Sun worship had no connection with Sunday whatever, no more than any other day.
SUMMARY The studied ignorance and complete-lack of scholarship on the Eastern Church by Adventists is apparently founded on deliberate dishonesty, and astounding in its depth and reach. Similarly, Adventism’s obvious ignorance of the Eucharist and its central role in Sunday “worship” is profoundly disturbing. Nowhere in The Great Controversy, or anywhere else in Ellen White’s writings is the Eastern Church mentioned. She seemed to think that Sunday was the equivalent of the Jewish sacramental Sabbath, when the Christian sacrament was the Eucharist. Historically, the Eucharist gave Sunday worship any “legs” it may have had. Bacchiocchi’s Sabbath books feature a similar absence of mention of the role and dominance of the Eastern Church, or understanding of the Eucharist. This is simply scholarship at its worst and most dishonest. Neither 107 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+6
Bacchiocchi or White ever mention the Apostolic Coptic, the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Assyrian Church of the East, or the Syrian-Malankara Churches, which were founded directly by four or more Apostles in areas far away from the large Christian populations of the First Century. Neither mention the profound schisms of 452 and 1054 that split Christianity long before the Protestant Reformation, and the effect these schisms had on White’s theories on papal supremacy, and the dates this supposedly occurred. As we have discussed in another chapter, the Eastern Church dominated the first seven Ecumenical Councils, resolving theological disputes that arose only in the Eastern Churches. The pope did not attend a single one of the seven Ecumenical Councils. Nor was the Sabbath ever discussed at any of them. Christianity was headquartered in Constantinople, the capital of the Roman Empire, not the city of Rome. What is remarkable and refreshing about this study of DM Canright’s views on Eastern Christianity is how modern historical sources adamantly support nearly all of his assertions. His analysis and writing remain as fresh and vivid as it was the day it was written. No wonder Adventists simply attacked his person, rather than his historical evidence. 108 109 110 One thing is indisputable: Canright took into account the actual history of the Eastern Church, both its good and its bad. By contrast, Adventism has featured a deafening silence on one half of historic Christianity. Adventism is founded upon and posits an ahistorical, virulently-bigoted and hysterical “Papal-Centric” historical/doctrinal fad that was all the rage in the 1850’s. Adventism has had almost 150 years to refute Canright’s brutal shredding of the Church’s hysterical historiography. That Adventism has not made a dent in Canright’s research and writing speaks volumes about this remarkable man, his integrity and his legacy. The Miracle at the Areopagus:Viva la revolución!!
Fittingly, Paul’s most revolutionary speech was delivered on a rocky hill in Athens― not on one of the Seven Hills of Rome. If you want to outrage a Greek, slur it with its Roman name: “Mars Hill.” Since the Greeks are madly in love with their rhetoric, it took a fire-eating stem-winder of a speech to light the fuse that blew the ancient world to smithereens. Paul did exactly that on a smooth round rock mound in the center of Athens. Greece was the original target of Christianity, not Rome. You can stand right there in one spot at “Ground Zero” where the hydrogen bomb of Christianity was detonated, and see the catastrophic result of the shock waves uphill (the ruins of the Parthenon) and downhill (the ruins of Temple of Apollo). ... Hot Aegean sea winds whistled through the Parthenon on the Acropolis, and blew over the scoured-smooth rounded Areopagus and the assembled stunned and awestruck crowds, and terminated at the Temple of Apollo in the valley below. It ended at the Old Heart of "Greekness." The Saint's soaring rhetoric electrified the milling and restless crowds that swelled to 70,000 and more at times. This spectacle was the equivalent of a Super Bowl combined with a resurrected JFK repeating his inaugural speech, combined with a Rolling Stones concert. And yet there was More! More strangeness! The dumbstruck Greeks rubbed their eyes with disbelief. This was no Hebrew lawyer. Hebrew Lawyers do not mesmerize a skeptical crowd for hours without speaking a single word of the Hebrew Law. The Hebrew Law does not create Sainthood. Hebrew lawyers can not speak in the flawless, clipped idiom of urban Athens. Jewish Lawyers cannot learn classical Greek rhetoric, according to Apollonius Molon of Rhodes. The Sabbath and circumcision had never severed the evil chains of misery of one single Temple Prostitute. This newly-minted Greek Saint stood there, hoarse and the hot winds mussing up his hair, wet with sweat from the supreme exertion. All of his prior trappings of Jewishness had been abandoned. His pride in his distinguished career as an expert on the Mishnah and the Talmud had been punctured on the Road to Damascus. He was blinded by the Son. He described a heroic half man/half god creature that killed itself, went into the bowels of hell to destroy death, and then resurrected itself in front of 500 people. Many of the jaded Athenian Greeks sunk to their knees involuntarily upon hearing this. The Greeks knew real heroes when they saw them. They had them in abundance at Thermopylae and Marathon. This strange Jewish deity was the Real Deal. 108 http://www.andrews.edu/library/car/cardigital/digitized/documents/b18300078.pdf 109 http://www.andrews.edu/library/car/cardigital/digitized/documents/b16017237.pdf 110 http://www.andrews.edu/library/car/cardigital/digitized/documents/b18365553.pdf
There was the anticipated usual glow of charisma (literally "touched by the gods") that always emanated from an emotionchoked, head-held-back, standout rhetorical performance. The Greeks were used to that. There was more. There was no ending with the usual tidy flourish and elaborate self-congratulatory courtesies. They looked again in shock, stunned into silence. There were no rounds of standing and escalating applause and calls for an encore performance. This was the ending of all endings. Thousands of desperate Temple prostitutes were soon liberated from their brutal captivity, no longer pleading with the deaf and incompetent gods of diseased paganism for mercy. They were given hope, and then freedom. The Greek Saint’s revolutionary sermon fulfilled Isaiah's Divine command to rise up and free the oppressed: “Shout it aloud, do not hold back. Raise your voice like a trumpet.” to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke... If you do away with the yoke of oppression, with the pointing finger and malicious talk, and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry and satisfy the needs of the oppressed, then your light will rise in the darkness, and your night will become like the noonday.
It was the death knell of decrepit paganism: the greatest continuous assault against the human spirit the world had ever seen. The metastasized and unholy union of empty philosophy and pagan fairy tales had a life expectancy of days, maybe weeks. The morning light of the Son illumined, and the proud Greeks were embarrassed and appalled by the foul, dank corner of their rotten world. Homoousian was the noon battle cry of the Greek rebellion. It was the sudden END of the Ancient World.
It was the end of human history. It was noon. It was the First Day of the brand-new Greece. The Greek Saint had transcended the earthly bonds of law and rhetoric. He had achieved the pinnacle, the wedding of the Divine with sublime Attic Oratory. He called down the thunder of revolution, and the eternal liberation of the soul. He has defined “Greekness” for 2,000 years. He is one of the Immortal Ones.
Chapter Eight THE BOOK OF JUBILEES ANNIHILATES SOME PET ADVENTIST “SABBATH” MYTHS by Larry Dean, J. D.
THE BOOK OF JUBILEES ANNIHILATES SOME PET ADVENTIST “SABBATH” MYTHS by Larry Dean, J. D. In this chapter, doing “control-click” on the super-scripted footnotes will take you directly to the website of the reference. If the link has grown cold, do a Google search for it. The Book of Jubilees is a remarkable source of authentication for five concepts that are key to understanding the SabbathSunday Question.1 Among other remarkable things, the Book of Jubilees is part of both the Jewish and Christian canons in Ethiopia. The Christians of Ethiopia have complicated views on the veneration of their holy days. This is further complicated by the fact that these unique Christians were, historically, Solomonic Jews. Their Jewish heritage, as well as the Jewish heritage of the Jews of Ethiopia, have claims that go back to the son born to King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, Menelik I: Menelik I (called Bäynä Ləḥkəm in the Kebra Nagast; also named Ebna la-Hakim, Arabic: Ibn AlHakim, "Son of the Wise"[1]), first Solomonic Emperor of Ethiopia, is traditionally believed to be the son of King Solomon of ancient Israel and Makeda, ancient Queen of Sheba (in modern Ethiopia). He is alleged to have ruled around 950 BC, according to traditional sources. [2][3] Tradition credits him with bringing the Ark of the Covenant to Ethiopia, following a visit to Jerusalem to meet his father upon reaching adulthood. (Wikipedia article, “Menelik I”)
The Ethiopian Christians are composed of both “orthodox” Christians who were converted from Judaism shortly after the Resurrection2 and Roman Catholic Christians who were converted much later by Jesuit missionaries. The Ethiopian Orthodox Christians worship on both Saturday and Sunday by dispensing the Eucharist, but do not treat Saturday like the Jewish Sabbath. The Roman Catholics of Ethiopia treat Saturday as the Sabbath with all of its Jewish attributes. The Roman Catholic Church has gone on record stating that if the Ethiopian Catholics were to abandon their distinctive Saturday worship, it would be a tragedy. If all of this sounds confusing, that is because it is. Therefore, we will focus on what all of these concepts of “day” veneration have to do with the question of whether or not Christians are required to keep the Jewish Sabbath. For the rest of this chapter we want you to think of the Sabbath-keeping Roman Catholics of Ethiopia as “Seventh-day Roman Catholics.” We will also explain how the facts surrounding the legendary origins of the Ethiopian Judeo-Christian faiths prove that the angel who was guiding Ellen White in selecting her material for her book, The Great Controversy, fell asleep at the wheel while he was helping Ellen White pick and choose her material for her section on Ethiopian Christianity. (We refer to the “angel” who appeared to her almost daily in the form of a young man for the first 26 years of her career as the Seventh-day Adventist prophetess.) First, the Book of Jubilees provides proof that the Jews were utilizing the lunar Sabbath system because the author is advocating a change from a lunar-based calendar to a solar-based calendar for scheduling their Sabbath festival days. Once again, from an unexpected source, we have proof that the Jewish Sabbath was originally inseparably and intimately intertwined with the lunar calendar. Second, it establishes that the weekly Sabbath was not a required or recognizable holy day until the time of the Exodus. Third, it proves that God not only made the weekly Sabbath a required festival at the time of the Exodus, but that it was required of Israel and Israel alone, intended as a national law to separate the Hebrews from every other society on the face of the Earth. Fourth, its sets forth in detail the animal and other sacrifices that were necessary to “keep” the day “holy,” suggesting that without these sacrifices the Sabbath is invalid. Fifth and finally, it makes it clear that the Sabbath is inseparable from all of the other festivals and holy days of Judaism and that its separation from those other days at the Cross is biblically impossible. Either all of the Sabbath festivals and observances (annual, monthly, and weekly) survived the Cross, or none of them did. They were a unitary system, woven together in tight knots of logic and theology.
SOURCES OF AUTHORITY OF THE BOOK OF JUBILEES We will now present the case that the authority and “quasi-scriptural” nature of the Book of Jubliees’ status is based on four (4) independent and extremely-credible sources. Even if one does not believe that the book is canonical, it certainly 1 http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/jubilees/index.htm 2 See Acts, 8:26-27
provides an authoritative and divinely-inspired commentary on the Books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers as they relate to the establishment of Sabbath observance: a). Jubilees has overwhelming archaeological support as the result of the discovery and subsequent analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls after World War II in newly-independent Israel. Numerous intact complete copies of Jubilees were discovered. b). It has been treated as scriptural and canonical by the Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church since its founding, 2,000 years ago by Philip The Evangelist. This factor alone should make Jubilees canonical for Seventh Day Adventists, given prophetess Ellen White’s uninhibitedly gushing and glowing depiction of Ethiopian Christianity. cf, The Great Controversy, Pp, 577-578. c). It is treated as scriptural and canonical by the Beta Israel Ethiopian Jews, which we have discussed more at length in another chapter. This unique tribe of Jews claims its origin is historically tied to a son born to the Queen of Sheba and King Solomon long before the birth of Christ. d). It was widely cited by leaders in the Early Christian Church, including Epiphanius, Justin Martyr, Diodorus of Tarsus, Isidore of Alexandria, Isidore of Seville, Eutychius of Alexandria, John Malalas, George Syncellus, and George Kedrenos.3 As with some of our other non-canonical sources, we are primarily interested in learning how to think like a Hebrew about the Sabbath. Whether Jubilees teaches theological truth or not is not particularly important in this context. Only its historical veracity and accuracy is. The real question is, does it accurately portray the rites, context and ceremonies connected with Sabbath-keeping among ancient Jews? The history of the mechanics of Sabbath-keeping in this apocryphal book, especially given its four credible endorsements of its veracity, is both persuasive and fascinating. Archaeologists were surprised to find many well-preserved copies of it among the Dead Sea Scrolls (excavated between 1946 and 1956), and even more surprised to find that these manuscripts demonstrated an extremely high translation accuracy when compared to the manuscripts possessed by both the Beta Jews of Ethiopia and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. We will begin our analysis by discussing the impact of the modern rediscovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls on the credibility of the Book of Jubilees with a lengthy quote from Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times, By Sidnie White Crawford (2008). Pp. 60-62: “The Book of Jubilees is the only document discussed in this volume that was known prior to the discoveries at Qumran. It was preserved especially in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, in which is is part of their canon. Jubilees survived in its entirety only in Ethiopic translation, although fragments survived in Greek, Syriac, and Latin. It was long suspected, however, that Jubilees was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, a suspicion confirmed by the discovery of at least 14 and possibly 15 Hebrew manuscripts of Jubilees at Qumran. These manuscripts were distributed among several caves; this and the number of manuscripts preserved attest to the popularity of Jubilees at Qumran. In addition, three manuscripts from Cave 4 have been labeled “pseudo-Jubilees” because of their similarity to the Ethiopic Book of Jubilees. Jubilees was translated from Hebrew into Greek; the Greek title was the “Little Genesis.” It was translated from Greek into Latin and Ethiopic and into Syriac, either directly from Hebrew or from Greek.
EVIDENCE FOR SCRIPTURAL STATUS Within the Qumran community Jubilees appears to have had the authority of scriptural status. As we shall see, the book certainly presents itself as given by God and thus authoritative: it claims to have been dictated to Moses by an “angel of the presence” on Mt. Sinai (Jub. 1:4-6, 27). Therefore, it meets one of the criteria for scriptural status set out in the Introduction above. Further, at least two other documents found at Qumran, the Damascus Document (CD) and 4QText with a Citation of Jubilees (4Q228), cite Jubilees as an authoritative book. The Damascus Document reveals the title of the book in antiquity: “The Book of the Divisions of the Times according to their Jubilees and their Weeks” (CD 16:3-4). This Title also appears in a broken context in 4Q Apocryphon of Jeremiah (4Q384, frg. 9, line 2). Thus Jubilees fulfills another criterion for scriptural status, citation in another text as an authority. Since Jubilees was composed before the foundation of the Qumran community (see below), it is not a Qumran composition
3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Jubilees
but is part of a constellation of texts found at Qumran that share certain priestly-levitical concerns and traits, including, as we have said before, concern for the temple and its rituals, strict purity regulations, and an embrace of a particular chronology and calendar system. These texts were congenial to the Essene Movement in the late Second Temple period, of which the Qumran community was a part. Of these texts, which included the books of Enoch, Aramaic Levi (see below), and probably the Temple Scroll (see Chapter 5), we have the most solid evidence for the scriptural status of Jubilees. This status may have continued in the early Christian Church, since Jubilees is cited many times by the church fathers, e.g., Epiphanius, Justin Martyr, Origen, etc. However, Jubilees was not canonized by either Judaism or Christianity, except in the Abyssinian (Ethiopian) Orthodox Church. …. Now, however, with our vastly expanded knowledge of the variety of Jewish literature in the late Second Temple period, Jubilees can be contextualized and classified with more exactitude. Jubilees belongs to the category of Rewritten Scripture, located at the point on our spectrum where the act of scribal intervention into a base text becomes so extensive that a new, distinctive composition is created.....The resulting new composition is still closely tied to Genesis and Exodus, in narrative sequence, characters, and content, but Jubilees is a separate book, meant as a companion to the Pentateuch, given to Moses on Sinai at the same time and bearing the same weight of authority. That it was not meant to replace the Torah as the authoritative Jewish law book is clear from its frequent mention of the “First Law” [citations omitted], which refers to the Torah. But Jubilees was meant to stand beside that First Law, and it too claims divine authority. Why the composer and his audience thought this second book was necessary will become clear later on....” (Emphasis added).
Arguably, the discovery of so many intact copies of The Book of Jubilees in the Dead Sea caves at Qumran gives the book immense credibility, and testifies to its supreme importance to the Jews of that community. A comparison of the Qumran texts with the Ethiopic version, performed by James VanderKam, found that the Ethiopic version was an accurate and literalistic translation.4 The date of the writing of the texts found at Qumran has been established as between 150 and 170 BCE. 5 There can be no question that the Essenes of the Qumran community treated Jubilees as sacred and inspired canonical scripture. It was indispensable as a guide to appropriate Sabbath-keeping behavior, since it places it within its cultural and historical context. And finally, the Christians that were compiling the Biblical canon did not have access to these scrolls to determine their canonicity. The fact that it was never included in the Christian Bible just might be an accident of history. The Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church has for 2,000 years characterized Jubilees as one of the “historical” books of its Old Testament canon, along with such indisputably-canonical books as First and Second Samuel; First and Second Kings; and First and Second Chronicles.6 While all other Christian denominations including Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism and most other Oriental Orthodox Churches have rejected the notion that Jubilees belongs in the Biblical Canon, it is unclear from history whether the compilers of the Christian Bible had access to any reliable copies of the Jubilees when final decisions were being made to close the Canon in the 4th and 5th centuries. Additionally, the Ethiopian Christians are the only major branch of historic Christianity that modified the Jewish tradition of Sabbath-keeping after the Resurrection, and adopted BOTH Sunday and Saturday as significant days of the week (with Sunday having clear preeminence). Jubilees was not necessary to the rest of Christendom, since the rest of Christianity did not follow the Ethiopian Church in this practice. Its absence from the Christian Bible strongly suggests that Christianity jettisoned Sabbathkeeping no later than the CE 52 Council of Jerusalem, and almost certainly on Resurrection Morning. The Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church did have the only known full copies, which have been compared to the Qumran scrolls, with very little error or variances found. Amusingly, Ellen White’s attending “angel,” guided her in choosing a glowing account of the Ethiopian Christian Church that contained an error that was so grievous that, had she been led to choose an accurate account of it, would have disproved the key point she was trying to make ― the claim that it kept Saturday as the Jews would keep the Sabbath and that this incited the anger of the papacy. We can’t even figure out where her “angel” found this information. There does not seem to be a historian of Ethiopian ecclesiastical history who did not know that the Ethiopian Christian Church― the particular one that traced its origin to First Century Apostles ― never venerated Saturday as the equivalent of the Jewish Sabbath. Look at her flawed account:
4 VanderKam, "Jubilees, Book of" in L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam (eds.), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Oxford University Press (2000), Vol. I, p. 435 5 Ibid. pp. 17–21
6 http://www.euclid.int/papers/Anke%20Wanger%20-%20Canon%20in%20the%20EOTC.pdf
.... Others suffered in a similar manner for their fidelity to the fourth commandment. The history of the churches of Ethiopia and Abyssinia is especially significant. Amid the gloom of the Dark Ages, the Christians of Central Africa were lost sight of and forgotten by the world, and for many centuries they enjoyed freedom in the exercise of their faith. But at last Rome learned of their existence, and the emperor of Abyssinia was soon beguiled into an acknowledgment of the pope as the vicar of Christ. Other concessions followed. An edict was issued forbidding the observance of the Sabbath under the severest penalties. But papal tyranny soon became a yoke so galling that the Abyssinians determined to break it from their necks. After a terrible struggle the Romanists were banished from their dominions, and the ancient faith was restored. The churches rejoiced in their freedom, and they never forgot the lesson they had learned concerning the deception, the fanaticism, and the despotic power of Rome. Within their solitary realm they were content to remain, unknown to the rest of Christendom. The churches of Africa held the Sabbath as it was held by the papal church before her complete apostasy. While they kept the seventh day in obedience to the commandment of God, they abstained from labor on the Sunday in conformity to the custom of the church. Upon obtaining supreme power, Rome had trampled upon the Sabbath of God to exalt her own; but the churches of Africa, hidden for nearly a thousand years, did not share in this apostasy. When brought under the sway of Rome, they were forced to set aside the true and exalt the false sabbath; but no sooner had they regained their independence than they returned to obedience to the fourth commandment (The Great Controversy, 577-578).7
For the Ethiopian Church, “obedience to the Fourth Commandment” means strict fidelity to the Book of Jubilees’ teaching that the Sabbath is a mark of distinction, that distinguishes the Jews from all other Nations. Ethiopian Christians recognize that they are NOT Jews even though Jubilees is part of their Bible. This interpretation should mean the same thing to Adventists, given White’s status as “the Lord’s messenger, [whose] writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction.” 8 And given that Jubilees spells out in no uncertain terms that the Sabbath is only for the Jews; it explains the Ethiopian Church’s Canon Law requirement that all of its adherents must do ordinary work on Saturday (the Adventist “Sabbath).” Its canon laws require working on Saturday in order to demonstrate that their very limited and theologically unique veneration of Saturday is Christian-based and is not in ANY way associated with Jewish Sabbath-keeping! The Beta Israel tribe of Ethiopian Jews treats the Book of Jubilees as canonical and scriptural.9 We have discussed and analyzed the Beta Israel’s Jewish roots elsewhere. In fact, the Beta Israel Jew’s entire conception of the Sabbath is based completely on the rites and procedures set forth in Jubilees, more so than the usual canonical books of Leviticus, Numbers and Exodus. Additionally, more than any other branch of Judaism, the Beta Israel tribe places the Sabbath at an undisputed place of prominence. For Sabbatarians who wish to ignore Jubilee's detailed Sabbath procedures, the verdict of the Beta Israel tribe could not be starker: No Jubilees = No Sabbath: The Book of Jubilees....had a substantial influence over the Beta Israel community.. Jubilees enjoyed canonical status in their tradition, and the communities fundamental laws, such as attentkugn laws and Sabbath laws, are based upon it......The theological theme that characterizes Beta Israel tradition is the centrality of the Sabbath. The Sabbath is pictured as a divine princess, radiant and full of joy and, through the cycle of weeks, it is the focus of communal religious life. This centrality of the Sabbath in Beta Israel tradition is based on Jubilees. 10
Finally, many of the leading lights and scholars of the Early Christian Church quoted from Jubilees extensively: The Book of Jubilees, or the Little Genesis, is mentioned by name continually in the writings of the early Fathers…...Some difficulty had occurred in earlier investigations in fixing the identity of the book from which the citations were made, owing to the different appellations under which it was known, or by which reference was made to it. The oldest reference, that in Epiphanius, calls it " Jubilees," or the "Book of Jubilees," a very fitting designation of a treatise which divided the history of which it treated into periods of
7 http://www.whiteestate.org/books/gc/gc35.html 8 http://www.adventist.org/fileadmin/adventist.org/files/articles/official-statements/28Beliefs-Web.pdf 9 http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/29826/how-do-ethiopian-jews-see-the-book-of-jubilees 10 The Jews of Ethiopia: The Birth of an Elite, edited by Tudor Parfitt and Emanuela Trevisan Sem, Pp. 182-183
Jubilees, i.e. of forty-nine years, the author, in his strong partiality for the number seven, departing from the Mosaic principle which counted the fiftieth as the year of release (Lev. xxv.10). Epiphanius and many others also name it the "Little Genesis," Microgenesis, Leptogenesis, or ta lepta Geneseos ― the minutiæ of Genesis ― appellations appropriate to it, not as being less in bulk than the scriptural record, but as giving particulars of name, date, and other "small matters" not found in the canonical book, or because it divides the history into small periods. Other references are current which probably, though not with certainty, appertain to this book. Thus Syncellus more than once alludes to "what is called the Life of Adam," quoting from it passages which occur in the "Jubilees," so that it seems likely that the work which he names is merely a portion of the latter. The same is also true of the "Book of Adam's Daughters," mentioned in a decree of Pope Gelasius. The title "Apocalypse of Moses," Syncellus himself applies to "Little Genesis." In the Ambrosian MS. our book is followed immediately by the "Assumption of Moses," as though this formed an appendix to the former; and in the catalogues of Pseudo-Athanasius and Nicephorus, the "Testament (Diatheke) of Moses" directly precedes the "Assumption;" so that it is not unlikely that the "Testament of Moses" is merely another name for the "Book of Jubilees." The Abyssinian Church names it the "Book of the Division of Days," from the first words of the inscription at the beginning. 11
Jubilees is arguably canonical in a limited sense based on four major, diverse and historically potent endorsements. No credible argument can be made that the book belongs in the Christian Bible at this late date, since plainly Christians are freed from any obligation of the Mosaic Law, most especially the part of the Law that is the Book’s focus: the Sabbath. This fact presents an irresolvable dilemma for Sabbatarian Christians, since it has never been disputed that the formalities regarding Sabbath observance in Jubilees are an accurate and complete statement of the legal duties involved. Both the Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church and the Beta Israel Jews rely on it to determine how they will recognize the specialness of the day, Saturday. The Christian churches of Ethiopia emphasize its teaching that the Sabbath is for Jews only, so they require their Christian believers to work on Saturdays to set them apart from the Jews and the Jewish way of looking at the 7th day. By contrast, the Beta Israel Jews use the same text to determine how their Sabbaths will be kept and how they will be scheduled. Jubilees independently establishes many detailed rules and regulations regarding Sabbath practice, and strongly supports many of the anti-Sabbatarian arguments presented elsewhere in this book. That it is regarded as canonical by both a major strain of apostolic Christianity and an ancient and unique sect of Judaism gives it tremendous credibility, even if its inclusion in the Christian Bible would be unnecessary and superfluous. Seventh-day Adventists are obligated to treat it as canonical, given their prophet’s uninhibited endorsement of the Ethiopian Christian Church and its staunch custom of venerating Saturday. (She was, as we pointed out, oblivious of the fact that this veneration of Saturday was anti-Sabbatarian in its application.) The Book of Jubilees has overwhelming modern archaeological support of its validity that far exceeds most other books of the Old Testament. And finally, it was widely viewed as scriptural and divinely-inspired by many different early church fathers. It is rare for any canonical books of the Bible to have such widespread and deep support among such a diverse variety of extrinsic indicia of veracity and reliability. Its pronouncements on the Sabbath are simply as authoritative as any other book of the Old or New Testament. For Sabbatarians, it is an indispensable book.
WHAT THE BOOK SAYS ABOUT THE SABBATH Please study the following texts from this book: Book of Jubilees 2:9 - And God appointed the sun to be a great sign on the earth for days and for Sabbaths and for months and for feasts and for years and for Sabbaths of years and for jubilees and for all seasons of the years. Book of Jubilees 2:20,21,24,31 - And God appointed the sun to be a great sign on the earth for days and for Sabbaths and for months and for feasts and for years and for Sabbaths of years and for jubilees and for all seasons of the years. And thus He created therein a sign in accordance with which they should keep Sabbath with us on the seventh day, to eat and to drink, and to bless Him who has created all things as He has blessed and sanctified unto Himself a peculiar people above all peoples, and that they should keep Sabbath together with us. And to this [Jacob and his seed] it was granted that they should always be the blessed and holy ones of the first testimony and law, even as He had sanctified and blessed the Sabbath day on the seventh day. And to this [Jacob and his seed] it was granted that they should always be the blessed and 11 http://biblehub.com/library/deane/pseudepigrapha/the_book_of_jubilees.htm
holy ones of the first testimony and law, even as He had sanctified and blessed the Sabbath day on the seventh day. Book of Jubilees 3:30,31 - And they shall not bring in nor take out from house to house on that day; for that day is more holy and blessed than any jubilee day of the jubilees; on this we kept Sabbath in the heavens before it was made known to any flesh to keep Sabbath thereon on the earth. And the Creator of all things blessed it, but he did not sanctify all peoples and nations to keep Sabbath thereon, but Israel alone: them alone he permitted to eat and drink and to keep Sabbath thereon on the earth. Book of Jubilees 50:1,2 - And after this law I made known to thee the days of the Sabbaths in the desert of Sin[ai], which is between Elim and Sinai. And I told thee of the Sabbaths of the land on Mount Sinai, and I told thee of the jubilee years in the sabbaths of years: but the year thereof have I not told thee till ye enter the land which ye are to possess. Book of Jubilees 50:10,11 - For great is the honour which the Lord has given to Israel that they should eat and drink and be satisfied on this festival day, and rest thereon from all labour which belongs to the labour of the children of men save burning frankincense and bringing oblations and sacrifices before the Lord for days and for Sabbaths. This work alone shall be done on the Sabbath-days in the sanctuary of the Lord your God; that they may atone for Israel with sacrifice continually from day to day for a memorial well-pleasing before the Lord, and that He may receive them always from day to day according as thou hast been commanded. These passages, plus an entire reading of the book, suggest that the Book of Jubilees teaches these things: ● The Sabbath was kept in Heaven long before Planet Earth was created. ● The Sabbath festival system was established at Creation, and holy days and weeks were to be celebrated by the People of God according to a lunar-solar calendar that provided for annual, monthly, and possibly weekly, events. ● There might have been some kind of a weekly festival-like celebration that might have been part of an annual, monthly, and weekly world clock-related set of sacred days, but the weekly festival, if there was one, did not get turned into a required cultic ordinance for the Nation of Israel until the time of the Exodus. Nor are there any texts in Jubilees that support any inference that Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac or Jacob ever kept the Sabbath. ● The weekly Sabbath was required for Israel and Israel ALONE as a mark that would sharply-distinguish them from all other societies on Earth. ● Possibly implied: Additional animal sacrifices were offered on the Sabbath Day, in addition to the daily sacrifices required on the other days of the week. ● The weekly Sabbath is considered a “festival,” which agrees with its classification as a festival in Leviticus 23. The Sabbath was part of a unitary system of festival and holy days and feasts. It was never designed to be kept in isolation from all of the other festivals and feasts and holy days. ● Jubilees 22 and 30 present an almost impossible-to-fathom strict prohibition of Jews marrying Gentiles, and strongly equates this prohibition with the Temple rites of sacrifice and the genetic purity of the Levitical priesthood. This blanket prohibition against intermarriage was logically-facilitated by circumcision. Thus, the Sabbath is contextualized as just one more method by which the Jews were to be kept absolutely separate and distinct from the Gentiles. The fact that the Sabbath observance of the Jews functioned so well to maintain this separation is one of the reasons why the Seleucid Greeks were so hostile toward the Jewish practices of the Sabbath, circumcision and the Jewish food laws as discussed in The Books of Maccabees. They correctly perceived this refusal to mix as a rude national insult as well as a roadblock to their immensely successful march to Hellenize the world based on what is known as “the Greek philosophical project.” 12 This explains how St. Paul’s deliberate choice to present only the universally applicable truths of Christianity created an explosion of the Faith almost instantly in the Greek speaking parts of the Roman Empire after his discourse on Mar’s Hill. The idea that the Sabbath was celebrated in Heaven prior to the Creation of Planet Earth is not a biblical concept. The 7 th day of Creation is stated to have been set aside as a memorial of the Creation of Planet Earth ― something that had not 12 http://faculty.washington.edu/zerbe/docs/progress/
happened prior to that moment. The point, of course, is not necessarily whether the book is theologically correct in all points, but what it says about how the Hebrews viewed the Sabbath. However, all the other tenets of the book seem to square with what we know about Hebrew linguistics and what the Jews believed about the origin of the Sabbath and its exclusiveness to Israel. Since Lying for God is a book about what Adventists knew and when they knew about serious problems with its major doctrines, it is significant to note that SDA Sabbath scholars are familiar with the Book of Jubilees. In the following quote from Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi’s 1977 book, From Sabbath to Sunday, page 67, he not only quotes the Book of Jubilees, but also the Mishnah, betraying his awareness of the Jewish opposition to the idea that the Sabbath was for all nations. Recall that in a different chapter we explain how the Mishnah explains the Jewish view that the Gentiles within Israel’s borders were held accountable by the Jewish dual court system for keeping the Noahide laws which did not include the Sabbath: 104. Jubilees 2:31, “He allowed no people or peoples to keep the Sabbath on this day, except Israel only; to it alone he granted to eat and drink and keep the Sabbath on it,” cf. Mechilta 109b; Mishnah, Yoma 8, 6.
Remarkably, the teachings of the Book of Jubilees are congruent with what Moses wrote in Genesis Chapter 1 about how God gave Planet Earth world clocks in the form of the movements of the major heavenly bodies. These predictable movements were to be used to schedule the sacred days and festivals. Although the text of the Book of Jubilees clips the reference to the world clocks mentioned in the Book of Genesis, it clearly references Genesis 1:14, which is the basis for the nearly universal concept of both pagan and Hebrew lunar sabbath systems: And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” 14
We should also point out that it would be unreasonable to expect that the Ethiopian churches, all of which give special recognition in either a Jewish or a Christian way to Saturdays, would be scheduling their Saturdays or Sabbaths by the lunar Sabbath beyond ancient times. We would expect that like virtually all other ancient societies, at some point after the building of the Second Temple the catastrophic changes in the world clocks by one or more biblical miracles brought about the adoption of a calendar with a fixed week. The general world abandonment of the lunar calendar happened so long ago that even in civilizations that kept relatively good historical records, it is difficult to pinpoint exactly when this happened. It would seem, according to the Book of Jubilees, that the seventh day of Creation― this one, particular day in the history of Planet Earth― was made holy at that time of Creation, but that the weekly Sabbath festival, based on the “natural” four phases of the lunar month, was not turned into a required cultic ordinance for Israel until the time of the Exodus. This principle agrees with other things we have discovered in our research from various other sources. The Book of Jubilees provides solid, “backhanded” support for the fact that the Jews of that age were using the lunar calendar to schedule their Sabbath days. This is true, you may recall, because the Book of Jubilees argues for a change from the highly variable lunar calendar to a 364 day solar year. This fact appears to correlate with other research we have presented elsewhere that convulsive changes in our solar system, as noted, pushed the solar year from about 360 days to about 364 to 365 days, making a lunar calendar more and more difficult for societies to utilize. This book was a challenge to abandon the Jewish lunar calendar in favor of a more stable, solar calendar in opposition to the prevalent Rabbinical reliance on a lunar monthly calendar: In contrast to the lunar-solar calendar found in Rabbinic sources, Jubilees follows a solar calendar of 364 days per year, to which it refers as a “complete year” ()שנה תמימה: Now you command the Israelites to keep the years in this number—364 days. Then the year will be complete and it will not disturb its time from its days or from its festivals because everything will happen in harmony with their testimony. They will neither omit a day nor disturb a festival. (6:32) 13
Jubilees appears to be a call for Judaism to accept nothing less than complete calendar reform ― a total abandonment of the lunar calendar in favor of the kind of solar calendar we use today: This leads up to a final section in which the law respecting jubilees and sabbatical years is solemnly enjoined. The writer's aim seems to have been nothing less than a reformation of the Jewish Calendar. The
13 http://thetorah.com/jewish-calendar-in-jubilees-a-solar-year/
prevailing system has led to the nation "forgetting" new moons, festivals, and sabbaths (and (?) jubilees); 1 in other words, it has produced grave irregularities in the observance of matters which were of divine obligation. …. But more revolutionary is the writer's advocacy of a solar calendar. In ii. 9 he says, "God appointed the sun to be a great sign upon the earth for days and for sabbaths, and for feasts and for years and for jubilees and for all seasons of the years." In Gen. i. 14 this function is assigned to the sun and the moon; but in our Book [Book of Jubilees] the moon is deliberately excluded. The writer objected fiercely to the traditional calendar which was based upon the changes of the moon, and was adjusted to the solar year by means of intercalation. How can his apparent violation of the express wording of Scripture be explained? His answer would probably have been that the solar year of 364 days (cf. vi. 32) was actually the system implied in the Pentateuch.14
The Sabbath was analogous to and served the same function as the airtight prohibition against intermarriage articulated in Jubilees. Israel’s identity was to be made clear and unambiguous: Jubilees 30 discusses Genesis 34 in detail, using it as a “proof text” to forbid intermarriage...While Genesis 34 probably was not written for this purpose, the way Jubilees retells it and omits elements of the story about Jacob and Dinah makes it clear that, for its authors, intermarriage was strictly to be forbidden. However, before looking into this issue, it is important to note that Jubilees’ main focus is on Israel itself, and especially the question of its identity......This may explain the attention given to the founding families of Israel as cornerstones of Jewish identity.....The structure of Jubilees thus reveals its interpretation of Jewish identity as basically understood within the framework of and defined by the Mosaic Law......The nations are portrayed in a much more negative way than Israel. ….Being God's people, then, means being separated from the nations. More than that, it means being a “light to the nations. “ 15
Jubilees’ strict prohibition against intermarriage with Gentiles may have been the cause of the violent oppression of the Sabbath, circumcision and Jewish food laws during the Greek occupation of Judea under the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes around 160 BCE. That the Sabbath, Circumcision, Food Laws and the prohibition against intermarriage were all specifically designed to separate the Jews from the Gentiles cannot be denied, especially when it is placed in the historical context under which Jubilees was written down : In early Hellenistic Judaism the refusal of mixed marriages was widespread. Its impact has an antiHellenistic direction and aims at the development of a distinct Jewish religious identity. Therefore, it is referred to as authoritative literature in this context, as Armin Lange has pointed out correctly. The same holds true for the Book of Jubilees, especially for ch. 30. Jubilees reveals an anti-Hellenistic attitude, be it extro- or introverted, which is quite prominent because of its radicalism and the recourse to the biblical texts. Within the Hellenistic discourse on Jewish identity, the Book of Jubilees advocates a clear-cut demarcation between Jews and the Gentiles. There is hardly any Jewish writing from the second century B.C.E. that is as radical and plain in the call for separation from the nations as the Book of Jubilees….16
Can there be any starker distinction between the Sabbath and the Great Commission? The Sabbath was relentlessly divisive, keeping the Jews and Gentiles in strict separation. It specifically-excluded Gentiles. By contrast, the Great Commission embraces Gentiles. Christianity was universal in its truth claims, which is closely-related to the Hellenizing impulse of Greek philosophy which also emphasized the importance of identifying and following universally applicable truths. No wonder the Greeks fell madly in love with Paul’s theology. They hated the exclusiveness of Judaism but recognized, at the same time, that their polytheistic religious practices were monstrously incompatible with the universal morality espoused by its own philosophers. Paul’s version of Christianity was stripped of Judaism’s exclusiveness and focused on universal principles of self-evident moral principles that everyone in the world could understand and graft into their daily lives. The result was the swift destruction of the entire pagan worship system of the Greek-speaking parts of the Roman Empire within less than 100 years. 14 http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/jub/jub06.htm 15 Early Judaism and Modern Culture: Literature and Theology, Gerbem S. Oegema, Pp 45-46
16 MIXED MARRIAGES Intermarriage and Group Identity in the Second Temple Period, Edited by Christian Frevel. Pp. 220-221. http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/at/mam/download/frevel__intermarriage_jubilees__2011_.pdf
That the Sabbath was intended to be a national law enforced by a court system to maintain the wall of separation between the Children of Israel and the Gentile world surrounding it is well-understood in modern Israel today. Modern Israel has Sabbath observance laws, complete with “Sabbath police,” to enforce those laws. The Israel of today has a court system that stays busy considering cases of Sabbath-breaking and appropriate penalties for those infractions. As we have pointed out elsewhere, there is no danger of a National Sunday Law being passed in Christian countries that would force Adventists to worship on the “wrong” day. But a National Saturday Law is already alive and well in today’s Israel, and it is a major source of inconvenience17 for those who do not familiarize themselves with Jewish customs and Israeli Sabbath laws before visiting Israel : Underlying Gavison's dream are the revived ideas of Ahad Ha'am, the late 19th-century Zionist who argued for a cultural, rather than political, Zionism―an Israel based on a positive Jewishness rather than on ethnic nationalism and anti-anti-Semitism. What he was calling for isn't clear either, though anyone who has ever found himself on a synagogue mailing list will be familiar with his sociological aperçu on the Sabbath: "More than Israel has kept the Sabbath, the Sabbath has kept Israel.” …. A national day of rest in the global era—even for Israelis—is probably a fantasy. But it's a strangely inspiring one. Who talks of "public culture" anymore? 18
The Sabbath, Circumcision and prohibition against various kinds of food continue to work superbly well at their intended work of separation and distinction in Israel today, where observant Jews and secular Zionists coexist in what can only be described as an ongoing “Cold War,” which threatens to constantly erupt into a “hot” brush-fire conflict: To Zionists, Haredi Jews were either "primitives" or "parasites"; to Haredi Jews, Zionists were tyrannizing heretics. This kulturkampf still plagues Israeli society today, where animosity between the two groups has even pervaded both their educational systems. 19
We point out the significance in the fact that animal sacrifices were specifically mentioned as being the only “work” that was permitted on the weekly Sabbath. As noted elsewhere, the canonical Scriptures clarify that double the number of animal sacrifices were to be offered on the weekly Sabbaths. This passage from the Book of Jubilees, however, supplements our observation that animal sacrifices were a necessary part of the Hebrew weekly Sabbath. Since Jesus’ Sabbathkeeping/Sabbath-breaking occurred while the Second Temple was still functioning, these sacrifices were a vital part of what the Sabbath meant to Jesus. Nowhere does either Jesus or Paul call into question the necessity of the specific additional Sabbath sacrifices that were being performed in the Temple. They knew these sacrifices were necessary to validate the holiness of each Sabbath day. (Elsewhere we explain our biblically-based theory of what these Sabbath sacrifices were designed to accomplish.) The fact that Sabbath sacrifices are no longer required for observant Jews is purely a function of Rabbinical rulings in the aftermath of the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans in CE 70. 20 For Christians, Colossians 2:16 plainly establishes that Sabbaths are unnecessary for Christians. Thus, Adventism’s ill-advised revival of the Judaizing heresy of Sabbath-keeping some 1800 years after the Resurrection presents surreal issues. Do Adventists reject Sabbath sacrifices because Jesus was the ultimate Sacrifice, or because of the Rabbinical rulings after the Destruction of the Second Temple? As a practical, historical matter, wasn’t it really the latter? Historically, the destruction of the Temple and the Rabbinical rulings regarding Sabbath sacrifices had no effect on First Century Christians. They had already abandoned the Sabbath and cultural Judaism with all of its techniques of separation. The Great Commission demanded it. Adventists are brutally-skewered on the horns of another nasty dilemma. It is impossible to ignore Ellen White’s uninhibited and gushing endorsement of the Ethiopian Christian Church. That alone presents two absolutely fatal obstacles to the anodyne and unscriptural veneration of Saturday that Adventists pretend they are accomplishing by treating it like Jews treat the Jewish Sabbath. Ethiopian Christian Canon Law requires that its members work on Saturday or face excommunication. They make no pretense about the fact that they do not “keep” the Sabbath like the Jews do. Its canon law recognizes that the Sabbath was a sign of separation from the Jews and the rest of the world. 21 Ethiopian Orthodox 17 http://www.israelinsideout.com/Touring/a-tourists-guide-to-shabbat-the-sabbath.html 18 http://www.slate.com/articles/life/faithbased/2005/07/the_view_from_saturday.html 19 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_relations_in_Israel#Tensions_between_Haredim_and_secular_Jews 20 http://www.jewfaq.org/qorbanot.htm 21 http://www.ethiopianorthodox.org/biography/01thelawofkings.pdf
Canon Law specifically states it is designed to distinguish its Christianized version of Saturday observance from the Sabbath observance of the Jews. Secondly, the Ethiopians’ canonical treatment of Jubilees proves that if one does wish to “keep the Sabbath holy,” then one is probably required to observe it according to the lunar calendar, given that calendar's total integration into the economy and thought of ancient Judaism; offer the mandated Sabbath sacrifices; and undergo full-scale conversion to Judaism. Jubilees clearly establishes that the Sabbath was the means by which the Children of Israel would be unequivocally distinguished and separated from all of the nations of the world. Adventists seem to think that the New Covenant altered the rules for Sabbath-keeping. There are huge disagreements among Adventists about how the Sabbath should be kept. Some SDA's think it is alright to eat out on the Sabbath if they are away from home, but not if they are at home. Other SDA's would starve to death rather than eat at a restaurant on the Sabbath whether at home or away from home. There is a reason for this confusion. Adventists demonstrate a nearly comical cognitive dissonance in their Sabbath logic. They think the laws of Moses that governed Sabbath-keeping are “ceremonial,” and therefore they could be nailed to the Cross. However, they think the Sabbath law itself is a “moral” law. What confusion! The Hebrews had both the Mosaic Law and the guidance from the Mishnah to govern their Sabbath-keeping. If the Sabbath law had been a moralistic law, then all the rules and regulations God gave for its keeping were moralistic laws. But if the Sabbath law was a ceremonial law― which it clearly is― then all the laws that supported it were ceremonial. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. The Sabbath system stands or falls together, and it “fell.” Adventists attempt to rip the Sabbath out of its entire Jewish context with disastrous results. They insist that this ceremonial festival of Jewish distinctiveness must be grafted onto Christianity without any of the other Jewish festivals― without observing it pursuant to the mandatory lunar calendar, and without the mandatory animal sacrifices. Sabbath-keeping is NOT an individual matter of conscience. Either it is right to eat out on Sabbath or it is not. The Hebrews had well over 1,000 years to interpret and implement Sabbath-keeping in Israel. If one is going to keep the Sabbath, it must be kept in its Jewish context. No fires started on Sabbath in your Arctic Circle igloo! No lighting thousands of fires per minute by driving your Jeep Cherokee to church! And keep one more thing in mind. These Sabbath-keeping laws did not come from the Judaizers. They came from the Law of Moses and the Mishnah. (We must never forget that the Mishnah was only accepted by the Pharisee sect of Judaism, and Jesus told His followers to obey the teachings of the Pharisees.) The Book of Jubilees delivers a stern rebuke to these Adventist fantasies.
Chapter Nine THE REALITIES OF CHURCH HISTORY THE SABBATH DURING THE BEGINNING OF THE FAITH By Kerry Wynne, William Hohmann, Robert K. Sanders, and Larry Dean
THE REALITIES OF CHURCH HISTORY THE SABBATH DURING THE BEGINNING OF THE FAITH By Kerry Wynne, William Hohmann, Robert K. Sanders, and Larry Dean Coordinating the fact that Christian doctrine and practice emanated from the Eastern Orthodox Church to the Western Church (Church of Rome) is a wealth of information long known to Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant scholars. It would appear, unfortunately, that once the pioneer SDA church “historian,” J. N. Andrews, accepted his belief in the Sabbath from a purported prophet of God, everything he studied about early church history thereafter had to be interpreted along the line that Sabbath abandonment represented apostasy. Thus Andrews and White abetted each other in creating an interpretation of history that disagreed with well-established facts. Their naïve view of things implied that the early Christians who abandoned the Jewish Sabbath kept Sundays as one would observe the Sabbath. Thus, White and Andrews failed to notice that while some of the Jewish Christians did continue to keep the Sabbath by resting from labor on that day, they would have been free to meet in fellowship with their Gentile counterparts for table fellowship along with corporate worship and prayers on the next day, which example we see in Acts 20:7. As Jews they would have tended to remain in their homes on the Sabbath according to the requirements of the Law. What, then, if the Gentile Christians were observing Sundays along the lines of the Sabbath? The Jewish Christians would not have been able to have any concourse with the Gentile Christians for the same reasons! What Jesus' death had accomplished in order to bring the two disparate groups together would have been undone and reversed by the early church had they observed Sundays along the pattern of the Sabbath! Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 12That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: 13But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. 14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; 15Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; 16And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: 17And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. 18For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. 19Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. ― Ephesians 2:11-22 (KJV)
Sundays had no sacredness associated with it in the early Church. Early writings show that Christians either gathered early on Sunday mornings for communal worship and prayers before going off to work on that day, or meeting together after work on that day for the same purpose as well as to share a communal meal. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. (Justin Martyr (65-155 AD.) From: The First Apology of Justin, Chapter LXVII.-Weekly Worship of the Christians.) The early church associated Sundays with the resurrection of Christ. His resurrection ushered in a new beginning that was not to be trivialized. The first Christians were Jews and they understood, as Hebrews, reading the books of Moses in Aramaic, that the Sabbath ordinance was not given at Creation. They understood the subordinate relationship of the Sabbath to the ordinance of circumcision. It was Jewish Christians who, at the Council of Jerusalem, vetoed the move by the Pharisaical members to require the new Gentile believers coming into the Church be circumcised and keep the law.
There is no hope of salvaging Ellen White’s concept that Sunday observance began in the Western Church (Rome). Sunday observance came from the East to the Western churches by its missionaries and that the Eastern Orthodox Church exerted powerful control over the church at Rome that these missionaries established. As we mentioned earlier, the Eastern Church was the center of Christianity for the first few hundred years of the Christian Faith. This is where Christian doctrine and practice were established. The Western Church did not develop into any prominence within Christianity until after 500-600 AD. The center of political power shifted to the East (think Asia versus Europe) when Constantine moved the seat of the Empire from Rome to Constantinople in 324 AD. The fact that the Roman Empire survived in the East for around 1,000 years longer than it did in the West suggests that the Eastern Orthodox Church would likely retain preeminence in matters of the Christian Faith for hundreds of additional years. The emperor didn't move the bishop of Rome to Constantinople with him. Therefore, speculative claims about how Sunday observance might have developed in the West (Rome) is an exercise in futility and deception. All the theories developed by SDA scholars to place the development of Sunday observance in the West have been successfully refuted, and these theories include (1) Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi's Jewish Persecution Theory, (2) Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi's “Influence of Sun Worship Theory,” (3) the Dual Day Theory as developed by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, and (4) Kenneth W. Strand's Out of Easter Theory. During the time that Adventists claim all these various influences were coming together to bring about Sunday observance in the West (Rome), Christian doctrine and practice was flowing from the East to the West. As the significant councils of the Christian Faith began to be held, they were conducted in the East, and the bishop of Rome traveled to Asia to participate as one of a number of others from the Christian world of their day. These bishops returned at the conclusion of these councils to implement the decisions of these councils in their bishoprics. In a manner of speaking, the bishop of Rome received his “marching orders” from the East as did all the other bishops from around the Christian world. If we did not already know that Sunday observance and Sabbath breaking were universal by 140 AD– and if we did not already know that the Eastern Church never kept the Sabbath– and if we did not already know that Christian doctrine and practice originated in the East and flowed to the West during this time of ecclesiastical history– we would still conclude that the Western Church (Rome) did not develop the practice of Sunday observance and Sabbath-breaking on its own, but that it was imposed on it around 363-365 AD by the Council of Laodicea! While not classified as one of the “Great Councils,” the Council of Laodicea, circa 363-365 AD, was also held in the East. Laodicea is located in what is modern-day Turkey, and is not to be confused with the Laodicea in Syria. (See Wikipedia article, “Council of Laodicea.”) This council was convened to address many questions, including which books should be in the Bible and the Sabbath-Sunday question. Please read Canon #29 carefully: Canon 29: Christians must not Judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be Judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ. (See http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3806.htm, New Advent is a Roman Catholic website.)
Notice that the Council, by its directive to have Christians rest on Sunday IF THEY CAN, purposed to establish Christian practice (think tradition) rather than Christian doctrine in regard to resting on Sunday. If the Council had intended to transfer the sacredness of the Jewish Sabbath to Sunday, resting would not have been treated as an option. The Council wished to provide a day where Christians could worship God and spend time with their families, and working would interfere with these things. There was no element of sacredness of time involved. This provision of Canon #29 casts even more doubt on Bob Pickle's SDA theory that we could still say that the pope changed the Sabbath because this “change” was not complete until rest required by the Jewish Sabbath was transferred to Sunday. Like all the other bishops in the Christian world, the bishop of Rome continued to receive– not impart– Christian doctrine and practice throughout all the centuries through which Sunday observance and Sabbath rejection ensued. Note that as discussed in the comments of R.J. Baukham in the next section, the bishop of Rome utterly failed to influence the other bishops of his day to adopt his preferred date for Easter and to enforce the Sabbath fast. It is not very realistic to think that he would have had a chance to "impose" Sunday observance on the entire Christian church, even if he had tried to do so. A
review of the Great Councils of the East clearly demonstrates that the center of Christian thought and influence was in the Eastern Orthodox Church during the entire period of time that Adventists like to talk about the role of Rome in establishing Sunday observance, and even to centuries beyond that point: (See Wikipedia article, “First Seven Ecumenical Councils”): The First Seven Ecumenical Councils, as commonly understood, are: 1. First Council of Nicaea (325) 2. First Council of Constantinople (381) 3. Council of Ephesus (431) 4. Council of Chalcedon (451) 5. Second Council of Constantinople (553) 6. Third Council of Constantinople (680) 7. Second Council of Nicaea (787) The first council held in the West, Lateran, was held in the year 1123 in the Basilica in Rome after the Great Schism between the Eastern and Western churches had existed for some time. Nicaea, the home of the First Great Council, took place about 40 years before the Council of Laodicea in what is now present day Turkey in 321 AD. While Roman Catholics like to claim that it was the Bishop of Rome who was responsible for establishing the doctrine of the full divinity of Christ at this Council, Protestants quote the following Council’s statement that shows that the Bishop of Rome was mentioned only as a peer with the bishops of other major jurisdictions: “Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, Pentapolis, prevail. Let the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction over all of these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the churches retain their privileges (Canon 6).”
The Wikipedia article, “First Council of Nicaea,” makes this interesting observation: “According to Protestant theologian Philip Schaff, ‘The Nicene fathers passed this canon not as introducing anything new, but merely as confirming an existing relation on the basis of church tradition; and that, with special reference to Alexandria, on account of the troubles existing there. Rome was named only for illustration; and Antioch and all the other eparchies or provinces were secured their admitted rights. The bishoprics of Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch were placed substantially on equal footing’. (Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church, vol. 3, pp. 275-276.)
THE “CHURCH AT ROME” THEORY Dr. Bacchiocchi theorized that the Church at Rome, which developed into the Roman Catholic Church hundreds of years later, might have had a significant role pushing Christians away from the Jewish Sabbath in order to adopt Sunday observance. Dr. Bacchiocchi further theorized that it was the supposedly preeminent authority of the bishop of the Church at Rome (the predecessor of the pope of the Roman Catholic Church) who influenced the entire church to adopt the “new” practice of Sunday observance (From Sabbath to Sunday, pp. 207-212). R.J. Baukham, who lectured in the Department of Theology at the University of Manchester, said this about Dr. Bacchiocchi’s theory in his essay, “Sabbath and Sunday in the Post-Apostolic Church:” This is probably the weakest of Bacchiocchi’s arguments, but it is essential to his thesis. Only this assertion of the primacy of Rome can begin to explain how a custom originating in the early second century could have become as universal in the Christian church as Sunday worship did. Against Bacchiocchi’s argument, it must be said that the evidence he presents for the authority of the Church of Rome in the second century is not convincing. The Church of Rome had great prestige, but the kind of jurisdictional authority his thesis presupposes is anachronistic in the second century. No church of that period had sufficient authority to change the weekly day of worship throughout Christendom.
Furthermore, Bacchiocchi’s other two examples of liturgical change in the second century, the Sunday Easter and fasting on the Sabbath, do not, as he thinks, support his case, but rather highlight its weakness. Whether or not Bacchiocchi is correct in locating the origin of the Sunday Easter in early second-century Rome, it is quite clear that the see of Rome did not have the authority to impose it on the rest of the church. It was not until the end of the second century that bishop Victor of Rome attempted to convert the Quartodeciman churches to the observance of the Sunday Easter, and his attempt encountered stubborn resistance in Asia. Similarly, the Church of Rome was singularly unsuccessful in promoting the practice of fasting on the Sabbath. As Bacchiocchi himself admits, as late as the fifth century it was still confined to the Church of Rome, itself and a few other western churches. Both in the case of the Sunday Easter and in the case of the Sabbath fast, the surviving historical records indicate considerable debate and controversy in the churches. It therefore seems extremely unlikely that already in the early second century the authority of the Roman see was such that it could impose Sunday worship throughout the church, superseding a universal practice of Sabbath observance handed down from the apostles, without leaving any trace of controversy or resistance in the historical records. Bacchiocchi’s own comparison with Sunday Easter and the Sabbath fast shows up the difficulty of his explanations of the origins of Sunday worship. Like all attempts to date the origins of Sunday worship in the second century, it fails to account for the universality of the custom. Unlike the Sunday Easter and the Sabbath fast, Sunday worship was never, so far as the evidence goes, disputed. There is no record of any Christian group (except the extreme part of the Ebonites) that did not observe Sunday, either in the second century or in later centuries of the patristic era. (From Sabbath to Lord’s Day, Carson, p.271, 272)
Michael Morrision, in his article, “Sabbath and Sunday: Adventist Theories,” posted at the Grace Community International website, provides a list of additional reasons that provide evidence that the Roman Church did not have the power to legislate any particular practice to the other churches in the Roman Empire: As evidence that Rome did not have such power, we can note: Ignatius does not greet a bishop of Rome. Irenaeus disagreed with the bishop of Rome regarding policy toward Quartodecimans. Polycarp and Polycrates acted as equals with the bishop of Rome. It was only with difficulty and recorded controversy that Rome pressured a change in the date of Easter for one area in Asia Minor. Even in later centuries, Rome was unable to force other cities to observe the seventh day as a fast day. In the fourth century, when many Eastern Christians began to observe the Sabbath as well as Sunday, Rome was unable or unwilling to stop the practice. (Kenneth A. Strand, From Sabbath to Sunday in the Early Christian Church: A Review of Some Recent Literature. Part II: “Samuele Bacchiocchi's Reconstruction," Andrews University Seminary Studies (AUSS) 17 (1979), pp. 96-99. Strand also notes that "Christian influences were still moving largely from East to West rather than vice versa" (Sabbath, p. 332, n. 22)
Now we know where Sunday observance came from. The first Christians met on Sundays because the Jews were meeting on Saturdays. The Jews threw the Christians out of the synagogues. The Council of Jerusalem voted not to impose the ordinance of circumcision on the Gentle converts, thereby bringing them under the law with its Sabbath. It is doubtful that many of the Jewish Christians kept the Sabbath, but if they did, they abandoned it within several decades. It is unlikely that the Gentile Christians ever kept it. Sunday observance quickly became the tradition of the Eastern Church, which from the beginning was the center of Christian belief, practice, and influence. Sunday observance was never a church doctrine. The early Christians had no illusions about it having any intrinsic sacredness that had been transferred to it from the Jewish Sabbath. As we have seen, the practice of Sunday observance spread from the East to the West– not from the West to the East. The doctrines of Rome were imposed on it by the important church councils, all of which were held in the East. There is no evidence that Rome originated and imposed one single doctrine or practice on the Christian world until many centuries after the practice of Sunday observance and Sabbath "abandonment" had become the unquestioned, universal practice of the Christian Faith for hundreds of years.
Bacchiocchi's “From Pagan Sun Worship” Theory Dr. Bacchiocchi tried to salvage some components of Ellen White’s conspiracy/apostasy theory– that pagan sun worship influenced Christians to adopt Sunday observance. The sun has always had its worshipers throughout the world, especially in ancient times. For Dr. Bacchiocchi’s theory to have credibility, he must prove two things beyond reasonable doubt. 1. First, he must demonstrate that sun worship was popular enough in the Roman Empire between 100 and 140 AD. to potentially have influenced Christianity in the choice of a day of worship on the basis of a perceived need for commonality. 2. Second, he must provide adequate evidence to show a high degree of probability that it actually DID influence Christianity in this manner. The more incredible any theory appears to be, the greater demand there is that the supportive evidence and arguments be strong. In Dr. Bacchiocchi’s book, Sabbath under Crossfire (1998), Dr. Bacchiocchi spends nearly an entire chapter discussing the possibility that this sun cult or that sun cult was popular between 70 and 140 AD., but there is no consensus among his sources. During the period of time in question, sun worship was not predominant in general and Mithraism was not widely practiced in specific. Bacchiocchi, in an apparent contradiction of himself, concedes: The Christian Sunday and the pagan veneration of the day of the Sun is not explicit before the time of Eusebius (ca. AD. 260-340)... From Sabbath to Sunday, p. 264.
Therefore, requirement #1 is not met. In the remainder of this same chapter, Dr. Bacchiocchi attempts to make a case for the probability that the Romans were using a 7-day calendar that corresponded with the 7-day Jewish calendar. It is painfully evident that he is grasping at straws to show that a 7-day calendar had even limited use anywhere in the Roman Empire during this period of time. Most of the historical sources we could locate indicate that the Romans used an 8-day calendar during New Testament times and that the day named in honor of the sun was the second day of that 8-day week. These sources are fairly consistent in stating that, so far as can be reconstructed, the Romans did not completely adopt a 7-day calendar until around 300 AD. On the other hand there are a few sources we found which see evidence that the Roman Empire might possibly have partially adopted a 7-day week 100 years or more before the birth of Christ, but that the vast majority of Romans continued using the customary 8 day week. Robert Cox, a contemporary of Andrews and White who is quoted in other areas by Andrews, examined this historical question. This book would have been available to J. N. Andrews and Ellen White in that era. Here is what Cox says in his chapter entitled “Origin and Prevalence of the Week:” The opinion, still frequently expressed, that the week is and ever has been a universal institution, appears to be now untenable. Although anciently employed by the Hindoos, Assyrians, and Egyptians, the week was unknown to the Greeks and Etrurians, and was adopted by the Romans only in the second century, when they borrowed it from Egypt.
In his book From Sabbath to Sunday, Dr. Bacchiocchi states that some historians believe that a 7-day calendar was in widespread use in the Roman Empire by the latter part of the Second Century (150-199 AD). The trouble is that the transition from “Sabbath keeping” to Sunday observance was universal by 140 AD as conceded by Dr. Bacchiocchi himself. As we will explain subsequently, none of the Roman gods were worshiped on a weekly basis. But let us, for the sake of argument, pretend for a moment that the Roman sun worshipers did get together on the day of their “week” that was named in honor of the Sun. The Romans are using an eight-day week. It is the SECOND day of the eight-day Roman week that is named in honor of the Sun. The Jews are using a seven-day week, and it is the 7 th day of their week that has been set aside as their sacred day of worship. In this hypothetical case, the day of worship for the Sun worshipers would only fall on the same day as the Jewish Sabbath occasionally. Compound this with the likelihood that the Jews were still using a lunar calendar to calculate the Sabbath, resetting their weeks according to the new moon, and the disparity widens even further. Since the Romans did not worship their gods on a weekly basis, there was no such thing a day of sun worship during any kind of a week that the Jewish Sabbath could be changed to, even if both weekly systems were the same! The followers of any particular god visited that god’s temple whenever they felt the need, and there were special days of a calendar year set aside to honor specific deities. Again, and for a somewhat different reason, we are faced with the impossibility that any
worship day was “changed.” There was no weekly day of sun worship that the papacy could have moved the Jewish Sabbath to. In 1997 Evangelical biblical scholar, Ralph Woodrow, startled the Christian world by publishing a book, The Two Babylons? which refuted virtually everything he had taught in his best-selling 1966 book, The Two Babylons. In the 1966 book he taught that a lot of Christian customs, including its day of worship, had been borrowed from the Pagans. Years later Woodrow was informed by another scholar that his teachings were in error, and he determined to set out to find out the truth for himself. He had based The Two Babylons largely on the work of a much earlier religious writer, Alexander Hislop (1807-1862). Woodrow began to examine Hislop’s sources. Soon he discovered that those sources did not validate his claims! Pursuing additional historical records, he managed to stumble across the historical research of D. M. Canright. In his 1997 book, he drew extensively from Canright’s findings to show that his initial premise― that Christians had borrowed a lot of pagan customs― was not true. The Christian world was impressed that he had the humility to admit that he was wrong and to try to correct his error. Sunday observance could not have come from Pagans because they had no such custom to borrow from. No later than 1915, D.M. Canright had confronted the leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church with overwhelming historical evidence their claim that pagan sun worship influenced Christians to abandon the keeping of the Jewish Sabbath was dead wrong. In Canright's book, The Lord's Day From Neither Catholics Nor Pagans: An Answer to Seventh-day Adventism on this Subject (1915), he had presented the scholarly opinion of a number of noted American historians that the pagans had never had a weekly day set aside to worship any of their gods. You can read this story at: http://hwarmstrong.com/sunday-worship.htm http://hwarmstrong.com/sunday-worship.htm Finally, if Dr. Bacchiocchi's apostasy theory were true, we would be forced to believe that the early Christians were willing to break the Sabbath, which they supposedly believed was based on an eternal, moral principle, while at the same time they were willing to give up their lives rather than to bow the knee to an idol or publicly renounce Christ. R.J. Baukham, in his essay, “Sabbath and Sunday in the Post-Apostolic Church,” answers Dr. Bacchiocchi as follows: Bacchiocchi argues that the reason why the church of Rome adopted Sunday as the Christian day of worship, instead of the Sabbath, was that the pagan day of the sun, in the planetary week, had already gained special significance in pagan sun cults, and by adopting this day Christians were able to exploit the symbolism of God or Christ as sun or light, which was already present in their own religious tradition. Bacchiocchi here underestimates the resistance to pagan customs in second century Christianity. The desire for differentiation from paganism had deeper Christian roots than the second-century desire for differentiation from Judaism. It is true that, from Justin onwards, the Fathers exploited the symbolism of the pagan title “Sunday,” but to have actually adopted the pagan day as the Christian day of worship because it was prominent in the pagan sun cults would have been a very bold step indeed. Even if the Church of Rome had taken this step, it becomes even more inexplicable that the rest of the church followed suit without argument. (D.A. Carson, ed., From Sabbath to Lord’s Day, p. 272)
Mithraism is the sun cult that Sabbatarians most suspect was influential in causing the abandonment of Sabbath-keeping for the adoption of the so-called “pagan” Sunday as the day of worship for Christians. Bacchiocchi knew of this possible link, but declined to say that he had proof that such was the case. Since Mithraism had only been present in the Roman Empire for a few centuries before Christ, it did not reach its peak of popularity until a couple of hundred years after Sunday observance had become universal. Here is what The Encyclopedia Wikipedia has to say about the relationship of Mithraism with Christianity. You can read it in its full context at this link: http://www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/Courses/Phil%20281b/Philosophy%20of%20Magic/Pythagoras,%20Empedocles,%20Plato/Mithraism.htm
Mithraism arrived fully mature at Rome with the return of the legions from the east in the first century BC. As an action god of armies and the champion of heroes, he appealed to the professional Roman soldiers, who carried his cult to Iberia, Britain, the German frontiers and Dacia. The cult of Mithras began to attract attention at Rome about the end of the first century AD, perhaps in connection with the conquest of then-Zoroastrian Armenia. The earliest material evidence for the Roman worship of Mithras dates from that period, in a record of Roman soldiers who came from the military garrison at Carnuntum in the Roman province of Upper Pannonia (near the Danube River in modern Austria,
near the Hungarian border). These soldiers fought against the Parthians and were involved in the suppression of the revolts in Jerusalem from 60 A.D. to about 70 A.D. When they returned home, they made Mithraic dedications, probably in the year 71 or 72. Statius mentions the typical Mithraic relief in his Thebaid (Book i. 719,720), around A. D. 80; Plutarch's Life of Pompey also makes it clear that the worship of Mithras was well known at that time. By A. D. 200, Mithraism had spread widely through the army, and also among traders and slaves. The German frontiers have yielded most of the archaeological evidence of its prosperity: small cult objects connected with Mithra turn up in archaeological digs from Romania to Hadrian's Wall. At Rome, the third century emperors encouraged Mithraism, because of the support which it afforded to the divine nature of monarchs. Mithras thus became the giver of authority and victory to the Imperial House. From the time of Commodus, who participated in its mysteries, its supporters were to be found in all classes. Concentrations of Mithraic temples are found on the outskirts of the Roman Empire: along Hadrian's Wall in northern England three mithraea have been identified, at Housesteads, Carrawburgh and Rudchester. The discoveries are in the University of Newcastle's Museum of Antiquities, where a mithraeum has been recreated. Recent excavations in London have uncovered the remains of a Mithraic temple near to the center of the once walled Roman settlement, on the bank of the Walbrook stream. Mithraea have also been found along the Danube and Rhine river frontier, in the province of Dacia (where in 2003 a temple was found in Alba-Iulia) and as far afield as Numidia in North Africa. As would be expected, Mithraic ruins are also found in the port city of Ostia, and in Rome the capital, where as many as seven hundred mithraea may have existed (a dozen have been identified). Its importance at Rome may be judged from the abundance of monumental remains: more than 75 pieces of sculpture, 100 Mithraic inscriptions, and ruins of temples and shrines in all parts of the city and its suburbs. A well-preserved late 2nd century mithraeum, with its altar and built-in stone benches, originally built beneath a Roman house (as was a common practice), survives in the crypt over which has been built the Basilica of San Clemente, Rome. Worship of the sun (Sol) did exist within the indigenous Roman pantheon, as a minor part, and always as a pairing with the moon. However, in the East, there were many solar deities, including the Greek Helios, who was largely displaced by Apollo. By the 3rd century, the popular cults of Apollo and Mithras had started to merge into the syncretic cult known as Sol Invictus, and in 274 CE the emperor Aurelian (whose mother had been a priestess of the sun) made worship of Sol Invictus official. Subsequently Aurelian built a splendid new temple in Rome, and created a new body of priests to support it (pontifex solis invicti), attributing his victories in the East to Sol Invictus. But none of this affected the existing cult of Mithras, which remained a non-official cult. Some senators held positions in both cults. However, this period was also the beginning of the decline of Mithraism, as Dacia was lost to the empire, and invasions of the northern peoples resulted in the destruction of temples along a great stretch of frontier, the main stronghold of the cult. The spread of Christianity through the Empire, boosted by Constantine's tolerance of it from around 310 CE, also took its toll - particularly as Christianity admitted women while Mithraism did not, which obviously limited its potential for rapid growth. The reign of Julian, who attempted to restore the faith, and suppress Christianity, and the usurpation of Eugenius renewed the hopes of its devotees, but the decree secured by Theodosius in 394, totally forbidding non-Christian worship, may be considered the end of Mithraism's formal public existence. Mithraism arrived fully mature at Rome with the return of the legions from the east in the first century BC.
The idea that the Sabbath was changed to Sunday faces seemingly impossible barriers at every turn. The writings of the first Christians indicate that the Jewish Sabbath was "abandoned" on biblical grounds. The leaders of the Reformation cited biblical concepts for abandoning the Jewish Sabbath. The truth of the matter, when the rhetoric is set aside, is that the early gentile Christian churches never embraced the Sabbath to begin with. The early Christians do not deserve the derogation that Sabbatarians have subjected them to over the years with the false claim that they went along with a conspiracyapostasy to circumvent the Law of God.
NOT ACCORDING TO BACCHIOCCHI'S "JEWISH PERSECUTION THEORY" As we have seen, Dr. Bacchiocchi has conceded himself into a historical box canyon. He admits the early date of 140 CE for universal adoption of Sunday observance and wisely refuses to suggest that the Roman Catholic Church changed the day. He concedes that he cannot prove a link between sun worship and Sabbath abandonment before 140 CE. His last hope is to prove that the Roman Empire's persecution of the rebellious Jews between 100 CE–140 CE caused the Christians at Rome to distance themselves from Sabbath-keeping in order to escape the possible threat of associated persecution. Dr. Bacchiocchi presupposes that Christians believed they were still required to keep the Sabbath at that time– something difficult to prove since Sunday observance was already widespread by 100 CE. He further theorizes that the Church at Rome used its influence over the Christians throughout the vast Roman Empire to distance itself from Sabbathkeeping to escape the possibility of such a persecution on the basis of this key religious practice supposedly being common to both Jews and Christians.
The Fiscus Judaicus and the Parting of the Ways It turns out Christianity’s reason for “distancing itself” from Sabbath keeping Jews was more banal and less heroic that avoiding persecution. The fiscus Judaicus was a tax imposed on the Jews of the Roman Empire by Emperor Vespasian in the early 70s C.E. Whereas formerly the Jews had sent a half shekel (two drachmas) annually to the Temple of Jerusalem, now, after the Roman destruction, they would be required to send that same amount to the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome, which had been badly damaged by fire and was in need of repair and restoration. The Roman victory over Judea in 70 C.E. was celebrated widely in Rome in the 70s and 80s C.E. because it was so important to the new ruling dynasty. It turns out that Christians did not want to appear to be “Jewish” simply to avoid additional taxation. This theory has been explored at length here: The Fiscus Judaicus and the Parting of the Ways, By Marius Heemstra (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010) Although no Christian text mentions the fiscus Judaicus, Marius Heemstra argues that this tax had an crucial role in the development of “Christianity” as a social and cultural system separate from “Judaism,” a process commonly called “the parting of the ways.” Christianity was now seen by the Romans as not-Judaism; the fiscus Judaic was applied to neither gentile Christians nor Jewish Christians. Bacchiocchi never mentions the fact that the fiscus Judaicus had completely severed Christianity from Judaism by CE 80. These Christians did not pay the fiscus Judaicus because they did not see themselves as obligated to do so, because they did not see themselves as Jews. In other words, this was merely a confirmation of what Christians, both Jewish Christians and gentile Christians, already believed, namely, that Christianity was not Judaism. Thus, Christians avoided being seen keeping the Sabbath out of a desire to avoid the tax on Judaism. Neither the Jews of Rome, nor the Christians anywhere joined in with the Jewish revolts. Christians didn’t join with the 135 CE revolt because Simon bar Kokhba, the commander, was regarded by many Jews as the prophesied Messiah, a heroic figure who would restore political independence. Christians already had their Messiah. The end result of the 135 CE revolt was 580,000 Jews were massacred and Judaea was depopulated. Not one Christian was killed during the revolt that led to the destruction of the Temple, nor were in any killed in the 135 CE revolt. The Bible, and second century Christian writers, say NOTHING about the these major catastrophes of Judaism, because neither of those major wars had the slightest effect on Christianity. The centers of Christianity were no longer anywhere near to Jerusalem by CE 70: they were in Antioch, Corinth, Rome, and Athens. Just 20 years after the Council of Jerusalem, which had ruled that Gentile Christian converts need not circumcise or observe the Mosaic Law, Christianity had spread far beyond Jerusalem and the Temple. Since the vast majority of Christian converts were Gentiles long before 70 CE, the destruction of the Second Jewish Temple had no effect on them. The Destruction of the Temple was trivial, not even important enough for a sentence in the New Testament. Since the Sabbath required a number of sacrifices that are set forth in the Old Testament, the Temple was necessary to keep the Sabbath “holy.” Adventists seize on various verses in the Book of Acts that demonstrate the Apostles preached to the Gentiles on the Sabbath, at the Temple. If this proves the continuing obligation to keep the Sabbath, what happened to this supposed obligation after the Temple was destroyed? Similarly, in the aftermath of the 135 CE Bar Kokhba revolts, Judea was depopulated and the Jews dispersed throughout the Roman Empire. Sabbath-keeping, circumcision and the food laws were criminalized. Yet no mention of either of these events is made in any of the first and second century Christian literature, because none of this had any bearing or effect on Christianity. Those laws had no effect on Apostolic Christianity. Obviously, that was a direct result of the AD 52 Council of Jerusalem’s verdict.
By around 100 CE there were large numbers of Jewish Christians in Rome. The Jewish population of the Church at Rome might have been keeping the Sabbath as part of their Jewish culture, rather than as a requirement for salvation. More likely, Jews who lived in Rome were like the Hellenized Jews that lived in Greek cities and had abandoned the Mosaic Law long before the time of Christ, during the Greek occupation of Judea. If they were keeping the Sabbath merely as a part of their Jewish culture, it is reasonable to assume they would be willing to abandon their Sabbath-keeping to avoid the threat of Roman persecution, Roman taxes on Judaism, or under peer pressure from other Hellenized Jews. On the other hand, if they were keeping the Sabbath from the perspective of a salvation requirement, as Dr. Bacchiocchi supposes, it is very difficult to imagine that they would be willing to risk their eternal salvation to avoid persecution. The Christians of this era were eager to give up their lives for the Gospel. Since the Jewish Christians in Rome understood that circumcision and Sabbath-keeping cannot be separated, they would understand that Sabbath-keeping was not required of them or their Gentile brethren, but parental and cultural pressure could have kept them grudgingly compliant. Paul did not condemn the Christians at Rome for keeping the Sabbath, but urged that the Jews and the Gentiles of the Church be tolerant of one another in matters that were not essential to salvation. There was no threat of Jewish persecution that could have been a powerful enough factor to induce Christians to stop an alleged Sabbath-keeping. While these facts certainly do not absolutely preclude the possibility that Dr. Bacchiocchi's theory is correct, it would collapse if a better explanation could be offered. There is no evidence that the Christians in the Early Church were persecuted for an unwillingness to work on the Sabbath. If the Early Church had maintained a Sabbath stance, the Romans would have made record of it. Supporting this idea is the fact that the Jews had such a bad reputation with the Romans for their Sabbath keeping that they were generally exempt from military service and were not valued for slaves, but this was not true for Christians. See Henry Chadwick, The Early Church (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1967), pp. 9-13. See also William Barclay, The Ten Commandments for Today (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1973), pp. 31-2; Werner Forster, Palestinian Judaism in New Testament Times (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1964), p. 72; Eduard Lohse, art. “Sabbath,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 7:9. [Credit for this concept goes to Robert Brinsmead, and it is his references we have cited.] Brinsmead, in his “A Digest of the Sabbath Question,” provides this observation from a well-respected New Testament scholar: “Whereas circumcision would have been practicable for Gentile converts, Sabbath observance simply was not. Unless they came inside the Jewish ghetto, where there was an ordered life adjusted to the cessation of work on the Sabbath, they could not earn their living or subsist while observing the Sabbath. If they were slaves, Gentile masters would not release them from work; and if they were independent and earning their own living, they would still have had to pursue their trade on a Sabbath. It was no doubt because circumcision was a practical possibility for Gentile Christians, as the Sabbath was not, that it was the centre of controversy” (Moule, Birth of the New Testament, 1961, p. 49).
NOT ACCORDING TO KENNETH A. STRAND’S “OUT OF EASTER THEORY” SDA Bible scholar, Kenneth A. Strand, theorizes that Sunday observance grew out of the Quartodeciman Controversy, which was regarding which week Easter should be celebrated, and then over which Sunday Easter should be celebrated, and how the days-dates being considered were related to the Jewish calendar. Michael Morrison explains in his article, “Sabbath and Sunday– Adventist Theories,” at the Grace Communion International website: Strand suggests that weekly Sunday observance grew out of an annual Easter observance. He gives a possible reconstruction for the origin of the Quartodeciman controversy, with some Christians observing Sunday and others a day of the month, both with roots in the Jewish calendar(s). He then notes that some early Christians "not only observed both Easter and Pentecost on Sundays but also considered the whole seven-week season between the two holidays to have special significance. He suggests that Christians began meeting on every Sunday in that season, and then eventually to every Sunday every week: "Throughout the Christian world Sunday observance simply arose alongside observance of Saturday." The Sabbath in Scripture and History. Edited by Kenneth A. Strand. Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1982, p. 327, p. 327, and p. 323, respectively.
Morrison summarizes the weaknesses of Strand's theory, which are many: This theory, however, in addition to being entirely speculative, does not explain the universality of Sunday observance. Either we must suppose that this custom began before the Gentile mission did, or that it was so obvious that Gentiles everywhere came to the same conclusion (and if it was that obvious, then it would have begun before the Gentile mission!). Also, this theory does not work for the Quartodeciman Christians, and all evidence is that even the Quartodecimans observed Sunday. [16] Strand feels that his theory explains why Sunday is a "resurrection festival," but no explanation for that is really needed; it would genuinely be an obvious connection for anyone meeting on a Sunday. [16] "The Quartodeciman controversy had nothing to do with Sabbath observance; the Quartodecimans appear to have observed the weekly Sunday like most other Christians did at the time.” C. Mervyn Maxwell and P. Gerard Damsteegt, eds., Source Book for the History of Sabbath and Sunday [Berrien Springs, Mich.: Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, 1992], p. 96.
Additionally, Strand, like most Adventist authors is unaware of the “Christian Sabbath Festivals” that bookend either end of Holy Week. The Quartodeciman controversy codified both the date and manner of the yearly-Resurrection festival, including the “Christian Sabbath Festivals.” And as we mentioned earlier, the Easter Controversy was settled by the Eastern Church —not by the Western Church.
NOT ACCORDING TO THE “DUAL DAY” THEORY PROPOSED BY THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS IN 1988 Again, Michael Morrison outlines the “Dual Day” Theory as developed by SDA theologians for the official release of a new book designed to provide so-called biblical support for the Church's 27 key beliefs (Seventh-day Adventists Believe...: A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines (Washington, DC.: Review and Herald, 1988), p. 259, footnoting as source Justin, Bacchiocchi, and Socrates 5.22. Please keep in mind that there is no evidence that Christians in any of the very early centuries observed Sunday like the Jews kept the Sabbath. There is no evidence, for example, that they ceased from labor or thought of it as a sacred period of time, much less than observed it for a 24-hour period of time such as from sunset on Saturday night to sunset on Sunday night. It was thought of as a celebration of Christ's resurrection. Here is the mythical theory proposed by the SDA Church in 1988: By the middle of the [second] century some Christians were voluntarily observing Sunday as a day of worship, not a day of rest. The Church of Rome, largely made up of Gentile believers (Rom. 11:13), led in the trend toward Sunday worship. In Rome, the capital of the empire, strong anti-Jewish sentiments arose.... Reacting to these sentiments, the Christians in that city attempted to distinguish themselves from the Jews. They dropped some practices held in common with the Jews and initiated a trend away from the veneration of the Sabbath, moving toward the exclusive observance of the Sunday. From the second to the fifth centuries, while Sunday was rising in influence, Christians continued to observe the seventh-day Sabbath nearly everywhere throughout the Roman Empire. The fifth-century historian Socrates wrote: "Almost all the churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries 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."
If you have been following our discussion of Early Church History, you already see some very serious problems with this alternate theory, including the fact that Christians observed the Christian Sabbath Festivals as part of their liturgical year. Morrision outlines the theory's problems for us as follows: This theory has numerous deficiencies and inaccuracies, some of which we have already covered. First, it was in the early second century that some Christians were observing Sunday, and this was in Antioch and Asia Minor as well as at Rome and Alexandria. Rome did not initiate this trend, nor is there evidence that anti-Jewish sentiments motivated them to abandon customs they held in common with the Jews.
Moreover, second-century Christians were not observing two days, but only one. Second-century writers are uniformly negative toward literal Sabbath-keeping. There is no evidence that anyone (other than Ebionites) kept the Sabbath in the second century.
The yearly “Christian Sabbath Festivals” of Holy Week distanced the nature of them from any Jewish-related requirements. How the Christian Sabbath festivals were observed varied from church to church and from area to area, and some of the components included public worship, observance of the communion ordinance, and sometimes even fasting, along with wholesome festivities. Holy Week was a Christ-centered celebration that further distinguished Christianity from its Jewish roots. Thomas M. Preble, joined the Seventh-day Adventist Church when it was founded in 1863. After four years he apostatized and published a book, The First Day Sabbath Proved, which refuted the biblical and historical claims of the first Seventhday Adventist Sabbath scholar and church “historian,” J. N. Andrews. He drew from historical fact to demonstrate that Adventists were misunderstanding and misrepresenting the intent of some of the early Christian writers who, according to the terminology of the day, meant Sunday, the “Christian” Sabbath, when they referred to their day of worship. Preble explained to Andrews that once the terminology of the age is understood, references to the “Christian” Sabbath and the Sabbath festival cannot be used as evidence that the early Christians kept the Jewish Sabbath. Andrews’ future work never provided any evidence that he acknowledged his errors, and he continued to teach his false understanding of the history of the early church throughout the remainder of his life.
THE HISTORY OF THE SABBATH BETWEEN 200 AND 500 CE There are numerous references to the Sabbath by early Christian historians between 200 and 500 CE in addition to those of Tertullian. Except for the writings of the heretical sects, including those who rejected the apostleship of St. Paul, none of the early fathers of the Church write in support of the concept that Christians must keep the Jewish Sabbath so far as we can tell. The Eastern Orthodox churches never kept the Sabbath. For the first 3 – 5 centuries after the death of St. Paul the Eastern Church greatly eclipsed the Western Church. D. M. Canright in his extensively documented book, The Lord's Day Neither From Catholics Nor Pagans, gives this appropriate reference provided to him by Raphael Hawaweeny, Bishop of Brooklyn, The Syrian Orthodox Catholic Church, around 1914: The Longer Catechism of the Syrian Orthodox Catholic Church says: “Is the Sabbath kept in the Eastern Church?” “It is not kept strictly speaking.” ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------“How does the Christian Church obey the fourth commandment?” “She still every six days keeps the seventh, only not the last day of the seven days, which is the Sabbath, but the first day in every week, which is the day of the Resurrection, or Lord's Day.” -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------“Since when do we keep the day of the Resurrection?” “From the very time of Christ's Resurrection.”
An understanding of the overshadowing supremacy of the Eastern Orthodox Churches during the first few centuries after the death of St. Paul is essential to grasping the immensity of the problem these facts pose to Sabbatarians. It is no wonder that Sabbatarian literature never mentions this subject. A study of Canright's extensive scholarly research on this subject is well worth the effort for anyone who truly wishes to understand the Sabbath-Sunday question. We cover Canright's research in another chapter. Early historians from the East and the West also wrote about the Christian practice of celebrating the Sabbath festival. In these two passages the historians commented on which groups of Christians celebrated it with fasting or by eating the Lord's Supper. Socrates Scholasticus lived approximately between 379 and 450 AD, and Sozomen between 363 and 420 AD: Since however no one can produce a written command as an authority, it is evident that the apostles left each one to his own free will in the matter, to the end that each might perform what is good not by constraint or necessity. Such is the difference in the churches on the subject of fasts. Nor is there less
variation in regard to religious assemblies. For although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries 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. The Egyptians in the neighborhood of Alexandria, and the inhabitants of Thebaïs, hold their religious assemblies on the Sabbath, but do not participate of the mysteries in the manner usual among Christians in general: for after having eaten and satisfied themselves with food of all kinds, in the evening making their offerings they partake of the mysteries. At Alexandria again, on the Wednesday in Passion Week and on Good Friday, the scriptures are read, and the doctors expound them; and all the usual services are performed in their assemblies, except the celebration of the mysteries. This practice in Alexandria is of great antiquity, for it appears that Origen most commonly taught in the church on those days. He being a very learned teacher in the Sacred Books, and perceiving that the importance of the Law of Moses (Romans 8:3) was weakened by literal explanation, gave it a spiritual interpretation; declaring that there has never been but one true Passover, which the Saviour celebrated when he hung upon the cross: for that he then vanquished the adverse powers, and erected this as a trophy against the devil.― Socrates Scholasticus, circa 379-450 A.D., Ecclesiastical History, Book 5, quoted from www.newadvent.org
That Socrates Scholasticus is not discussing Sabbath-keeping in this passage is clearly proved by his introductory words to Book 5, Chapter 22. He sounds very much like an anti-Sabbatarian writing after the Bacchiocchi Sabbath fiasco, quoting principles from St. Paul and linking Sabbath-keeping to the ordinance of circumcision: As we have touched the subject I deem it not unreasonable to say a few words concerning Easter. It appears to me that neither the ancients nor moderns who have affected to follow the Jews, have had any rational foundation for contending so obstinately about it. For they have not taken into consideration the fact that when Judaism was changed into Christianity, the obligation to observe the Mosaic Law and the ceremonial types ceased. And the proof of the matter is plain; for no law of Christ permits Christians to imitate the Jews. On the contrary the apostle expressly forbids it; not only rejecting circumcision, but also deprecating contention about festival days. In his epistle to the Galatians, verse, 4:21 he writes, 'Tell me ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law.' And continuing his train of argument, he demonstrates that the Jews were in bondage as servants, but that those who have come to Christ are 'called into the liberty of sons.' (Galatians 5:13) Moreover he exhorts them in no way to regard 'days, and months, and years.' (Galatians 4:10) Again in his epistle to the Colossians (2:16-17) he distinctly declares, that such observances are merely shadows: wherefore he says, 'Let no man judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of any holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath-days; which are a shadow of things to come.' The same truths are also confirmed by him in the epistle to the Hebrews (7:12) in these words: 'For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.' Neither the apostles, therefore, nor the Gospels, have anywhere imposed the 'yoke of servitude' (Galatians 5:1) on those who have embraced the truth; but have left Easter and every other feast to be honored by the gratitude of the recipients of grace. Wherefore, inasmuch as men love festivals, because they afford them cessation from labor: each individual in every place, according to his own pleasure, has by a prevalent custom celebrated the memory of the saving passion. The Saviour and his apostles have enjoined us by no law to keep this feast: nor do the Gospels and apostles threaten us with any penalty, punishment, or curse for the neglect of it, as the Mosaic Law does the Jews. (Book 5, Chapter 22, within the first couple of paragraphs) Quoted from: www.newadvent.org
Seventh-day Adventist theologians and church leaders, since no later than 1992, have known that this particular passage from Socrates cannot be used to support the idea that Christians were keeping the Sabbath into the 300's and 400's, as evidenced by this assessment by SDA theologians Mervyn Maxwell and P. Gerard Damsteegt: In actual fact, Socrates did not say that the churches of Rome and Alexandria had ceased to observe the Lord's Supper (the "sacred mysteries") on the Sabbath, implying that once upon a time they had so observed it. Instead, he said that the churches do not observe the Supper on the Sabbath, leaving the reader to conclude, if he wishes, that the church in these places never did so observe it. (Part 3, Note 27, (C. Mervyn Maxwell and P. Gerard Damsteegt, eds., Source Book for the History of Sabbath and Sunday; Berrien Springs, Mich.: Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, 1992, as cited in the Internet article, “Sabbath and Sunday: Adventist Theories," by Michael Morrison, posted on the Grace Community International website.)
Morrison, himself says, “Socrates actually said, "Almost all the churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, do not do this." He was commenting on fourth-century practices, with no implications about what had been done in earlier centuries. His comment cannot be used as evidence about the second century, especially if it contradicts all the other evidence we have from second-century documents. Another early historian, Sozomen, mentions the term Sabbath in only one passage in his entire history of the church. He lived between circa 375 and 447 A. D. It is mentioned only in the concept, once more, of which groups fasted on the Sabbath “festival” or celebrated the Lord's Supper on it. He states, as you will notice, that he has digressed from his main topic to address the concept of fasting: In some churches the people fast three alternate weeks, during the space of six or seven weeks, whereas in others they fast continuously during the three weeks immediately preceding the festival. Some people, as the Montanists, only fast two weeks. Assemblies are not held in all churches on the same time or manner. 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 or at Alexandria. There are several cities and villages in Egypt where, contrary to the usage established elsewhere, the people meet together on Sabbath evenings, and, although they have dined previously, partake of the mysteries. The same prayers and psalms are not recited nor the same selections read on the same occasions in all churches. Thus the book entitled The Apocalypse of Peter, which was considered altogether spurious by the ancients, is still read in some of the churches of Palestine, on the day of preparation, when the people observe a fast in memory of the passion of the Saviour. So the work entitled The Apocalypse of the Apostle Paul, though unrecognized by the ancients, is still esteemed by most of the monks. Some persons affirm that the book was found during this reign, by Divine revelation, in a marble box, buried beneath the soil in the house of Paul at Tarsus in Cilicia. I have been informed that this report is false by Cilix, a presbyter of the church in Tarsus, a man of very advanced age, as is indicated by his gray hairs, who says that no such occurrence is known among them, and wonders if the heretics did not invent the story. What I have said upon this subject must now suffice. Many other customs are still to be observed in cities and villages; and those who have been brought up in their observance would, from respect to the great men who instituted and perpetuated these customs, consider it wrong to abolish them. Similar motives must be attributed to those who observe different practices in the celebration of the feast which has led us into this long digression. —The Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen, bk. 7, ch. 19. (Quoted from: www.newadvent.org )
Additionally, the Apostolic Constitutions, which can be dated from 375 to 380 AD. (Wikipedia article, “Apostolic Constitutions”), mentions the Sabbath. Leading to much confusion is the fact that Chapter 7 is a “remake” of the still more ancient document, the Didache. One section of the Didache talks about the first Christians meeting together on the Lord's Day (Sunday) for worship, and early church historians have dated this section of the Didache to between 50 AD and 125 AD. Since the Christian church observed the Sabbath as a festival, rather than keeping the Sabbath and often debated about whether or not one should fast on the Sabbath festival, it is easy to assume, incorrectly, that these references provide support for Sabbatarianism. A passage like this one, taken out of context, does not do justice to the problem because it ignores its relevance to fasting and that fasting in regard to the Sabbath “festival”. Our investigation into what Adventists knew and when they knew it led to our discovery that in his 1912 book, Advent History of the Sabbath, pioneer SDA expert in the history of the Christian church, J. N. Andrews, provides a very complete study of the section of Chapter 14 which has been translated in such a way that it demonstrates that Christians were meeting on the first day of the week as early as 50 AD. It is understandable that, failing to understand the real problems with Sabbatarianism, he would find it necessary to somehow demonstrate that the translation of this passage is wrong. The more evidence there is that Christians were keeping Sunday during the life-time of the apostles, the more difficult it is to make Ellen White's apostasy theory of the adoption of Sunday observance by Christians seem plausib le― that is, unless you consider Peter to be the first pope. The Greek wording of this passage is incomplete, making it impossible to be 100% certain how to translate it correctly into English. However, when all the facts presented by Andrews are taken together, it is easy to understand why scholars, for the most part, stand by the anti-Sabbatarian wording of the translation in English. The following is a Greek/English Interlinear translation of the Didache Section 14 dealing with Sabbath observance. The
majority of translators translate it as THE LORD’S DAY, although several meanings are possible. Please note that in my text, the Greek words are not represented in Greek characters: 1 According to 'the Lord's things' - of [the] Lord: gather break bread and give thanks, confessing out 1 kata kuriakhn de kuriou sunacqentev klasate arton kai eucaristhsate, proexomologhsamenoi the failings of you, so that pure the sacrifice of you be. ta paraptwmata umwn, opwv kaqara h qusia umwn h.
(The above quotation is from a Greek/Interlinear translation by Wieland Willker from the critical edition of Funk/ Bihlmeyer (1924) at this address: http://home.earthlink.net/~dybel/Documents/DidacheIlnr.htm
Here are the key points Andrews makes about the translation problem: 1. Other writers, contemporary to him, used the Greek word in question to mean, the Lord’s Supper, the Lord's Day, or the Lord's Life. 2. Over the next 100 years, writers came to use this Greek word almost exclusively to mean the Lord’s Day. 3. John used the adjective form of this Greek word in Revelation 1:10— “on the Lord’s Day.” Andrews seems to suggest the passage should be translated something like, “When you come together at the Lord’s Supper, break bread and give thanks.” The majority of scholars believe the passage should be translated something like, “When you come together on the Lord’s Day, break bread and give thanks.” In the mind of Andrews, the issue is the supposed un-scriptural transfer of the sacredness of the Jewish Sabbath to Sunday, making Sunday a man-made, rather than a God-given, ordinance. He is right about Sunday being a man-made ordinance in a sense of the word, but this fact is not relevant to the Sabbath-Sunday question at all. He knows nothing of the deliberate anti-Sabbatarian wording of Moses’ account of the Creation events of the 7 th day, the weekly Sabbath being a part of TORAH law only, and the absolute requirement that a Jew or Gentile mu st be circumcised before keeping the Sabbath. This knowledge deficit allows him to draw the illogical conclusion that since gospel writers and Justin Martyr― contemporary writers to the author(s) of the Didache― did not use the Didache’s Greek word when designating the first day of the week, the writer/writers of the Didache were not likely to have used it to mean The Lord’s Day. Andrews articulates his point-ofview as follows: But we have another chain of proof. All the Gospels give to Sunday its regular Bible name― first day of the week. If the Didache is said to be the first evidence that henceforth this Bible term was changed into Kvpuucq, then Justin Martyr, writing soon afterward, ought to have used it. But lo and behold he uses interchangeably the Bible term, “first day of the week,” and the heathen designation, “day of the sun (p. 276).”
Justin Martyr was writing to a Jewish critic of Christians, Trypho, and would probably not risk offending his Jewish sensibilities by designating the first day of the week with this decidedly Christian term. The Gospel writers were telling the story of Jesus as it took place in His contemporary setting— before Sunday became known as the “Lord’s Day.” Note that John the Revelator, writing late in the First Century, used the adjective form of the Greek word. Furthermore, it would seem to be uncharacteristic of Greek literary usage to construct a sentence that would read something like, “At the Lord’s Supper, break bread and give thanks.” Andrews sums up his arguments as follows: We are now brought down to the close of the second century, and what is the result?—According to its first use, the term applied to the Lord’s Supper. John uses the same adjective in speaking of the Lord’s Day. The conclusion from its use in the New Testament is, the word means the Lord’s or belonging to the Lord, whatever may be referred to. Ignatius uses the very same preposition, the same case, the same gender, as is found in the Didache, to be rendered, “according to the Lord’s life.” This fully sustains the first conclusion reached from the New Testament—it may be the Lord’s Supper, the Lord’s Day, or the Lord’s life.
It would not make any sense to translate the passage something like, “According to the Lord's life, break bread and give thanks.” When all the facts are considered and the Sabbatarian bias is removed from one's thinking, it is clear why scholars had little choice but to choose to translate this passage in the best possible way, and that best possible way does not support Ellen White's apostasy/conspiracy theory of why Christians “ceased” to keep the Sabbath and adopted Sunday observance during the first years of the development of the Christian Faith. An early Christian work, The Apostolic Constitutions (or Constitutions of the Holy Apostles), possibly written between 375 to 380 CE, has the following to say about the Sabbath: WHICH DAYS OF THE WEEK WE ARE TO FAST, AND WHICH NOT, AND FOR WHAT REASONS. But let not your fasts be with the hypocrites; (15) for they fast on the second and fifth days of the week. But do you either fast the entire five days, or on the fourth day of the week, and on the day of the Preparation, because on the fourth day the condemnation went out against the Lord, Judas then promising to betray Him for money; and you must fast on the day of the Preparation, because on that day the Lord suffered the death of the cross under Pontius Pilate. But keep the Sabbath, and the Lord's Day festival; because the former is the memorial of the creation, and the latter of the resurrection. But there is one only Sabbath to be observed by you in the whole year, which is that of our Lord's burial, on which men ought to keep a fast, but not a festival. For inasmuch as the Creator was then under the earth, the sorrow for Him is more forcible than the joy for the creation; for the Creator is more honourable by nature and dignity than His own creatures.
The author of the above statement specifically states that there is only one Sabbath of the year that is to be observed with fasting. Additional study of the Constitutions reveals that the early Christians honored the Passover Week with fasting on set days of that week and no fasting on the other days of that one particular week of the year. We recommend that our readers do a search for the Apostolic Constitutions and search the entire document for all references to the word “Sabbath.” Here is what you will find: These references to the Sabbath refer to the Sabbath festival. Virtually all references to the Sabbath are in regard to whether or not fasting should be done on the day of the Sabbath festival. The case for using the Apostolic Constitutions to teach that Christians were keeping the Sabbath in the Jewish sense of the word through the 300's into the 400's represents highly creative reasoning, or a lack of it.
THE HISTORY OF THE SABBATH DURING THE REFORMATION Ellen White's classic book, The Great Controversy gives her readers a patently dishonest view of how the reformers treated the Sabbath question. Four major reformers studied the Sabbath-Sunday Question and rejected it on biblical grounds, but she glossed over this fact without a comment. A study of what Advent Movement Sabbath historian, J. N. Andrews, knew and wrote about regarding the history of the early church proves that he would have to have known that what Ellen White claimed God showed her about the Roman Catholic Church “changing the day” was historically impossible– regardless of whether Sabbatarianism was true or not. An examination of several major research studies published between the King James Era and the contemporary times of Andrews and White provides further evidence that both of them had to know that her account of the status of the Sabbath during the Reformation in The Great Controversy was patently dishonest. For example, her book devotes several chapters to Martin Luther, but she does not disclose the fact that an important Sabbath-Sunday debate arose at the beginning of the Reformation and that Luther was staunchly against Sabbatarianism on the basis of well-reasoned biblical principles. If White had given a fair treatment of her subject, she would have told her readers that he was anti-Sabbatarian and why he had made that choice. Sanders observes, “Luther heard Carlstadt's teachings on Sabbath observance and he rejected them. Mrs. White states that “angels of light from God's throne” revealed treasures of truth to Luther. If indeed God had shown Luther “treasures of truth” as stated by EGW, then Luther would have accepted the Sabbath. EGW just could not get it right.” Sanders fu rnishes these two EGW quotes from the Great Controversy:
Ellen White says of him [Luther]: “Zealous, ardent, and devoted, knowing no fear but the fear of God, and acknowledging no foundation for religious faith but the Holy Scriptures. (p. 120) Angels of heaven were by his side, and rays of light from the throne of God revealed the treasures of truth to his understanding. (p. 122)
Sanders then contrasts what Luther himself said to what Ellen White claimed God had shown her about him: Now hear Luther. Carlstadt, a zealous and learned Sabbatarian, laid his arguments for the seventh day before Luther, who examined them. Here is Luther's decision in his own words: 'Indeed, if Carlstadt were to write further about the Sabbath, Sunday would have to give way, and the Sabbath– that is to say, Saturday– must be kept holy; he would truly make us Jews in all things, and we should come to be circumcised; for that is true and cannot be denied, that he who deems it necessary to keep one law of Moses, and keeps it as the law of Moses, must deem all necessary, and keep them all.' — Heylyn, History of the Sabbath . 457.
Because the Reformation did not result in a so-called “return” to Sabbath-keeping, Sabbatarians have gone to the trouble to write books with titles like, “Why the Reformation Failed,” based on the idea that Luther rejected the Sabbath light when it was presented to him, so God could not fully bless the Reformation. This kind of reasoning only makes sense if you ignore the problem that such thinking is circular reasoning and the assumption that Sabbatarianism is true. These writers also point to the fact that the Council of Trent (1545-1563), which was convened to deal with the Lutheran “heresy,” decided to go with the authority of both the Scriptures and church tradition in the formation of its (The Catholic Church’s) doctrine and practice on the basis that the Protestants had capitulated to the Mother Church in regard to the change of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. This claim was a Catholic lie, because in the Augsburg Confession (first presented at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530), the Protestants rebuked the Mother Church for its blasphemous claim that it had the authority to change the Sabbath. Then this Lutheran document spelled out the scriptural basis for Sabbath abandonment with many of the same arguments used by anti-Sabbatarians today, demonstrating that it was biblical authority, not church authority that caused the abandonment of Sabbath-keeping by Christians. Pro-Sabbatarian writers quote the following passage from the Confession to “prove” that the Roman Catholic Church claimed to have changed the Sabbath, while they ignore the significance of the fact that Lutherans understood and cited biblical reasons for their rejection of Sabbatarianism and called “bluff” on the Catholic Church's claim that it had “changed the day”– something Ellen White either never knew about or chose not to disclose in The Great Controversy. The first two quotes from The Augsburg Confession are taken from the translation posted at the web-site www.reformed.org and posted by the Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics. The third quote comes from a different translation as separately credited: Moreover, it is disputed whether bishops or pastors have the right to introduce ceremonies in the Church, and to make laws concerning meats, holy-days and grades, that is, orders of ministers, etc. They that give this right to the bishops refer to this testimony John 16, 12. 13: I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth. They also refer to the example of the Apostles, who commanded to abstain from blood and from things strangled, Acts 15, 29. They refer to the Sabbath-day as having been changed into the Lord's Day, contrary to the Decalogue, as it seems. Neither is there any example whereof they [the Mother Church] make more than concerning the changing of the Sabbath-day. Great, say they, is the power of the Church, since it has dispensed with one of the Ten Commandments! But concerning this question it is taught on our part (as has been shown above) that bishops have no power to decree anything against the Gospel.
Then, after castigating the Mother Church for its presumptions, the Confession outlines the biblical reasons the Jewish Sabbath was abrogated in apostolic times: But there are clear testimonies which prohibit the making of such traditions, as though they merited grace or were necessary to salvation. Paul says, Col. 2, 16-23: “Let no man judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath-days. If ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances (touch not; taste not; handle not, which all are to perish with the using) after the commandments and doctrines of men!
which things have indeed a show of wisdom.” Also in Titus 1, 14 he openly forbids traditions: “Not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men that turn from the truth.”
The Lutherans exhibit an excellent understanding that no day possesses intrinsic holiness and that the Church’s decision to designate Sunday as the day of worship and Christian fellowship was utilitarian. A modern anti-Sabbatarian could not have said it better. Please read this passage carefully, as it is packed with significance for the Sabbath-Sunday Question: [57] Observing the Lord's Day, Easter, Pentecost, and other holy days and rituals are customs of this kind. [58] For those people make a big mistake by claiming that the church by its authority has decreed that Christians must worship on Sunday rather than the Sabbath Day. [59] For it was Scripture that did away with the observance of the Sabbath Day. The Bible teaches that since the gospel has now been revealed, none of the ceremonies of the Law of Moses need be followed. [60] Yet, since a day did have to be chosen so that Christians would know when they should gather for worship, it seems that the Christians chose Sunday for this purpose. It seems that this day was chosen for another reason as well. It gives people an example of how to use their Christian freedom, and shows them that it is not necessary to observe the Sabbath nor any other day in particular. (The Unaltered Augsburg Confession A.D. 1530, Translated by Glen L. Thompson, Northwestern Publishing House, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; posted at Wordpress.Com.)
Therefore, Ellen White's book, The Great Controversy, is not history. It is pure propaganda. Her claim that her information came from God is disturbing. The Sabbath heresy has surfaced periodically throughout history, and it re-surfaces from time to time as the result of ignorance and poor Bible study methods (hermeneutics), including repeated attempts to apply the Mosaic Law to a dispensation for which is was never intended. Andrews, White, and the Adventist Sabbatarian apologists who have followed them failed to tell their unsuspecting readers that Sabbath-keeping was opposed on biblical grounds by the Christian Church at virtually all times, including the Early Fathers, the great Reformers, and subsequent Catholic and Protestant scholars. The more you look into what Andrews and White knew, what they probably knew, and what they should have known, the more reason one has to question their motives and their integrity. Our research suggests that Andrews and White had access to the two most exhaustive histories of the controversy over the Sabbath ever written– Peter Heylyn's 1636 book, History of the Sabbath, published during the reign of King Charles I of England (the successor to King James), and the massive two-volume study on the subject by Ellen White's contemporary, Robert Cox, published in 1865. Andrews quotes both Heylyn and Cox. Since Thomas Preble published The First Day Sabbath Proved in 1867, which was a direct rebuke of J.N. Andrews' apparent deliberate twisting of historical facts to fit the Sabbatarian agenda, it seems reasonable to assume that Andrews had access to it. Heylyn compiled an exhaustive biblical and historical study of evidence up through the King James Era that demonstrated to the point of over-kill that Sabbatarianism was impossible. Robert Cox, after discovering Heylyn's work centuries later, compiled an exhaustive list of all the arguments for and against Sabbatarianism from apostolic times through 1865. We quote from Luther's Larger Catechism as quoted in Robert Cox's 1865 book, The Literature of the Sabbath Question, Volume One, p. 127: God set apart the seventh day, and appointed it to be observed, and commanded that it should be considered holy above all others; and this command, as far as the outward observance is concerned, was given to the Jews alone, that they should abstain from hard labour, and rest, in order that both man and beast might be refreshed, and not be worn out by constant work. Therefore, this commandment, literally understood, does not apply to us Christians; for it is entirely outward, like other ordinances of the Old Testament, bound to modes, and persons, and times and customs, all of which are not left free by Christ. But in order that the simple may obtain a Christian view of that which God requires of us in this commandment, observe that we keep a festival, not for the sake of intelligent and advanced Christians, for these have no need of it...But that it is not bound to any particular time, as with the Jews, so that it must be this day or that; for no day is in itself better than any other... And because Sunday has been appointed from the earliest times, we ought to keep to this arrangement, that all things may be done in harmony and order, and no confusion be caused by unnecessary novelties.
Please note that Luther discussed the church's view of the Sabbath as a festival. Later in our study the under-standing that the concept that the Christian church observed Saturday as a FESTIVAL while observing Sunday as the day of WORSHIP
is key to correctly interpreting many of the passages that mention the Sabbath in the writings of the church fathers during the first 500-600 years of the Faith. In many cases the writings of the early fathers cannot be properly interpreted without a study of the entire context of their statements– a fact which requires, in some cases, the reading of the nearly entire work from which the excerpt is taken as well as its context within the author's entire set of writings. An analysis of the early, middle, and later work of SDA Sabbath historian, J.N. Andrews, proves that he was aware that the early church abandoned the Jewish concept of the Sabbath and created its own, non-sacred way of commemorating the Creation of the World by instituting the Sabbath Festival, which was observed on select seventh days during the liturgical year. Andrews says: "Those Fathers who hallow the Sabbath do generally associate with it the festival called by them the Lord's Day." (Testimony of the Fathers, p. 11, quoted in D. M. Canright, The Lord’s Day From Neither Catholics Nor Pagans.) According to Cox, the other reformers were of the same opinion as Luther and Melanchthon. Cox says in regard to this fact: The Reformers found more meaning than the Puritans and their followers have done, in Rom. xiv. 5, 6, Gal. IV. 10,11 and Col. ii.16,17; while they failed to see in the New Testament any of those indications which the Puritans were the first to discover, of a transference of the Sabbath to the first day of the week by Jesus or His apostles. (The Literature Of the Sabbath Question, Vol. 1, pp. 127,128.)
Melanchthon, a close associate of Luther, and who, according to Cox (p. 131), was one of the most learned of the Great Reformers, said this about Sabbath-keeping for Christians: Of this nature is the observation of the Lord's Day, of Easter, Whitsuntide, and the like holidays and ceremonies. For those who think that the observance of the Lord's Day has been appointed by the authority of the church instead of the Sabbath, as a thing necessary, greatly err. The Scripture allows that we are not bound to keep the Sabbath; for it teaches, that the ceremonies of the Law of Moses are not necessary after the revelation of the Gospel. And yet, because it was requisite to appoint a certain day, that the people might know when to assemble together, it appears that the church appointed for this purpose the Lord's Day, which for this reason also seemed to have pleased the more, that men might have an example of Christian liberty, and might know that observance, neither of the Sabbath, nor of any other day, is necessary.
Cox's research on John Calvin, who died in 1564, established him as firmly anti-Sabbatarian, even though his comments on Genesis 2 and Exodus 20 suggest that it is possible he might have still believed that the Sabbath was instituted at Creation. Cox quotes from Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion as translated by Henry Beveridge and printed in 1845: As the truth was delivered typically to the Jews, so it is imparted to us without figure; first, that during our whole lives we may aim at a constant rest from our own works, in order that the Lord may work in us by his Spirit; secondly, that every individual, as he has opportunity, may diligently exercise himself in private, in pious meditation on the works of God, and, at the same time, that all may observe the legitimate order appointed by the Church, for the hearing of the word, the administration of the sacraments, and public prayer; and, thirdly, that we may avoid oppressing those who are subject to us. In this way, we get quit of the trifling of the false prophets, who in later times instilled Jewish ideas into the people, alleging that nothing was abrogated but what was ceremonial in the commandment (this they term, in their language, the taxation of the seventh day), while the moral part remains, viz., the observance of one day in seven. But this is nothing else than to insult the Jews, by changing the day, and yet mentally attributing to it the same sanctity; thus retaining the same typical distinction of days as had place among the Jews. And of a truth, we see what profit they have made by such a doctrine. Those who cling to their constitutions go thrice as far as the Jews in the gross and carnal superstition of sabbatism; so that the rebukes which we read in Isaiah (Isa. I.13; viii.13) apply as much to those of the present day, as to those to whom the prophet addressed them. We must be careful, however, to observe the general doctrine, viz., in order that religion may neither be lost nor languish among us, we must diligently attend on our religious assemblies, and duly avail ourselves of those external aids which tend to promote the worship of God. ― (Beverly's translation, volume I, p. 466.)
According to the Wikipedia article, “Puritans,” the movement got it's beginning among the Marian exiles (See Wikipedia article, “Marian Exiles”) who earlier had fled England for the Continent to escape persecution, and then returned to England during the reign of Elizabeth I, who came to the English throne in 1559. This article explains that the Puritans adopted Sabbatarian views during this time. It was the combined forces of the Puritan “Sunday” Sabbatarians and traditional
“Saturday” Sabbatarians that created the second major Sabbath crisis of the Christian World. In essence, then, the King James Era Sabbath Crisis in England was really a transplanted controversy that had been brewing in Holland for a long time prior to its eruption on English soil.
HISTORICAL BARRIER: THE HISTORY OF THE SABBATH IN ENGLAND Ellen White, in her book, Great Controversy, inexcusably failed to discuss the greatest Sabbath-Sunday battle in the history of the Faith― an event which took place during the post King James Era under the reign of Charles I. With the kind of historical writing and interpretation she undertook to write the book, it unavoidably appears that she deliberately chose to leave the information out. Therefore, few Adventists know that the Church of England came precariously close to establishing the Sabbath as official church doctrine within a few decades of the publication of the King James Bible, which was published in 1611. Therefore, her readers remain unaware of the largest body of biblical and historical evidence ever assembled against the idea that Christians must keep the Jewish Sabbath assembled up until that time. Here is what happened. During the reign of King James (1603-1625), two tremendously powerful Sabbatarian movements had developed and were putting pressure on the Church of England to require Sabbath-keeping. One faction was pushing for the adoption of the Jewish Sabbath, or Saturday, and the other was pushing for the adoption of Sunday observance with Jewish-type Sabbath restrictions. King Charles I, who succeed King James, inherited the controversy. When things heated to the boiling point, he turned to his court chaplain, Peter Heylyn, for help. He ordered him to begin a “Manhattan Project”- like research marathon to provide him an account of all the arguments for and against the idea that Christians must keep the Sabbath. Thanks to the definitive research that resulted, the Church of England rejected both kinds of Sabbath-keeping. Heylyn's monumental work, The History of the Sabbath, was first published in 1636, and it appears to encompass almost all the arguments used by modern anti-Sabbatarians, with the exception of some of the advanced Hebrew linguistics studies of Genesis and Exodus. His major points were these: (1) The Sabbath commandment was not instituted until the manna was given in Exodus 16, (2) that the Sabbath was given to Israel and to Israel alone, (3) that the Sabbath commandment is predicated by the requirement of circumcision, was ceremonial in nature, and was abrogated at the Cross ― officially and publicly― being officially “retired” at the Council of Jerusalem, (4) that Colossians 2:14-17 clearly abrogates the Sabbath, and (5) that the “abandonment” of Sabbath-keeping by the Gentiles was virtually immediate; the adoption of Sunday observance by them being virtually immediate, and that the Early Church observed the seventh day of the week only as a festival. Seventh-day Adventists may be especially interested to know that the biblical and historical evidence Heylyn discovered demonstrated that Ellen White's concept that the Roman Catholic Church “changed” the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday was impossible. As we noted earlier, Heylyn's work was familiar to pioneer Sabbath scholar of the Advent Movement, J.N. Andrews, and he had his own personal antagonist, Thomas Preble, who published a major volume which refuted his positions and exposed his blundering historical errors in the form of a book, The First Day Sabbath proved. Andrews cited Heylyn in his own work, proving that he had no excuse for not understanding his many errors. Furthermore, he dialogued in published writings with Preble, proving that he could not possibly fail to understand that his historical claims were absurd. These books have been available to Seventh-day Adventist scholars and historians throughout the history of Adventism. It is difficult to imagine how Ellen White could have written about the history of the Sabbath without mentioning the Sabbath crisis in England at all. Similarly, it is difficult to imagine that one of the most prominent Sabbath scholars of recent times, the late Seventh-day Adventist theologian, Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, would write as if he were unfamiliar with the evidence Heylyn uncovered against the credibility of Sabbatarianism. If any assumptions can be made about this failure, one would have to think it received no mention because the Sabbath was summarily defeated by Heylyn's clearly defined biblical and historical arguments. Heylyn also demonstrated an understanding of why Sabbatarianism destroys the Gospel principle that salvation comes by faith alone. In fact Heylyn labeled Sabbatarianism a heresy because it teaches that Sabbath-keeping is ultimately a requirement for salvation.
BOB PICKLE'S REST THEORY Bob Pickle is an articulate apologist for Adventism, its Sabbath doctrine, and its Church prophetess, Ellen G. White. He contends that she was not in error when she accused the Roman Catholic Church and the papacy for the “changing the day.” He contends that Ellen White was right despite the very early universal adoption of Sunday worship, because Christians did no actually rest on Sundays until after Constantine ordered cessation from labor on that day in the early 300's. He reasons that the sanctity of the Sabbath was not actually transferred to Sunday until the Sabbath rest was changed from the Jewish Sabbath to the “pagan” Sunday. This is an interesting approach to solving the Ellen White problem because the idea of resting from labor on Sunday came about primarily as a result of Constantine's new Sunday law. We thank Bob Pickle for acknowledging that Christians did not rest on Sundays prior to that event, but there is much more to the story. It is most interesting to observe that Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi has no such illusions about whether or not Ellen White's theory of how Sabbath-keeping began could be reconciled in this way. He publicly stated that he disagreed with Ellen's position on the matter: In an E-mail message to the "Free Catholic Mailing List" [emailprotected] on 8 Feb 1997 [Bacchiocchi] said: I differ from Ellen White, for example, on the origin of Sunday. She teaches that in the first centuries all Christians observed the Sabbath and it was largely through the efforts of Constantine that Sunday-keeping was adopted by many Christians in the fourth century. My research shows otherwise. If you read my essay HOW DID SUNDAY KEEPING BEGIN? which summarizes my dissertation, you will notice that I place the origin of Sunday-keeping by the time of the Emperor Hadrian, in A. D. 135." (Posted at Bible.ca and available via search on Dr. Bacchiocchi's website, Biblical Perspectives.)
Here is an analysis of this interesting attempt to salvage Ellen White's historical blunders: First, there is no sanctity to transfer. The Sabbath literally expired at the death of Christ. St. Paul clarified that under the New Covenant, that no day has any sacred importance in itself. The early Christians did not rest on Sunday because they thought of it as a celebration of the resurrection. Second, since the Gentile churches probably never kept the Sabbath and certainly did not after the Council of Jerusalem, and since all Christians, including the Jewish Christians, did not keep the Sabbath on a universal basis after 140 AD, they were working on Saturdays or having a festival on some of those Saturdays. There was no “resting” left for Constantine to transfer from Saturday to Sunday by the 300's. Christians, and especially the Gentile Christians, began "desecrating" the Sabbath immediately by doing anything on that day that they wished to do, forsaking all Jewish associations with that day from almost the beginning of the Faith. Third, this prophecy is that the little horn (of Daniel 7) that was to change “times and laws.” This prophecy clearly foretells the exact number of days that the Roman emperor, Nero, was to persecute Christians. Nero did change times and applicable laws, and managed to turn the mainstream Christianity of the day into a form hardly recognizable in comparison with its original form. Even if this little horn somehow symbolized the papacy, the little horn did not come into existence until after 500 AD, and Sunday observance was universal by no later than 140 AD. There is no way to rationalize that the little horn existed before 500 AD according to the wheel-within-a-wheel “prolepsis” concept Adventists use to force Antiochus Epiphanes to symbolize something that would come at some time in the future [the papacy], because the prolepsis concept, by its very definition, does not work backward. Even the delegates to the 1919 Bible Conference acknowledged this barrier to Adventist prophecy. An example of a prolepsis is, “He was a dead man the moment he entered the room where the killer way lying in wait.” A prolepsis is a one way street. To prove this to yourself, try to think of a way this last statement could be reversed, and you probably can't. Adventists cannot have their cake and eat it too. As you will see in a revealing transcript of the 1919 Bible Conference Minutes, the Adventist leaders of 1919 understood this problem and struggled with the seeming impossibility of propping up their prophetess' claim that the papacy (the little horns of Daniel 7,8,11) changed the Sabbath. Fourth, Pickle ignores the problem that Rome had no more influence than any other bishopric in the Christian world of that era of early church history, and the Greek Orthodox Church was the center of the Christian world at this time. How, then, can anyone say that the Sabbath was not “changed” until the time of Constantine when from almost the very
beginning of the Christian Faith, the Gentile Christians constantly violated the Jewish Sabbath by not ceasing from labor and by celebrating it as a festival? By the Old Covenant Sabbath laws, Christians observing the Sabbath after their own ideas, would create activity which would demand they be stoned. These Christians were likely picking up firewood for their celebrations and preparing meals. One early Christian writer instructed his readers not to eat food that was prepared the day before, which would be Friday! (This quotation will be included in a later discussion.) The “sanctity” of the Sabbath was trampled on from the very beginning, at least by the Gentile Christians, and, according to Dr. Bacchiocchi, Sunday observance was “universal” by 140 AD, which means that even Christians of Jewish descent who chose to remain in the Gospel– rather than to become a part of the Sabbath-keeping, Paul-hating Ebionite heresy– never again kept the Sabbath in the Jewish sense of the word.
Chapter Ten MORE ABOUT SOME OF THE KEY BARRIERS TO SABBATARIAN THEOLGY
MORE ABOUT SOME OF THE KEY BARRIERS TO SABBATARIAN THEOLGY MORE ON OBJECTIONS TO THE CIRCUMCISION PROBLEM We covered the biblical barrier of circumcision earlier in our point-by-point rebuttal of Cotto and Knudson. We are going to give additional coverage to this subject in the context of what and when Seventh-day Adventists knew about this barrier to its doctrine of Sabbath-keeping. As we have mentioned before, a review of the Sabbath histories authored by J.N. Andrews proves that he understood a broad spectrum of facts about early church history that posed insurmountable obstacles to the Sabbath abandonment theory that he and Ellen White had developed. Let us review some of the things he wrote about. Andrews mentioned the issue of circumcision and was familiar with virtually all of the anti-Sabbatarian comments to be found in the writings of the early church fathers. In fact in some of Andrews’ books he attempted to refute and minimize the significance of specific passages. Apostate SDA leader, D.M. Canright, helps us to know what Andrews knew by examining and refuting his claims. In Justin Martyr's essay, “Dialogue with Trypho,” he discusses circumcision and the Sabbath with his Jewish friend, approaching him in a way that respected his friend’s Jewish heritage. Notice that Justin Martyr did not cite St. Paul as an authority that the Sabbath is not required of Christians. Trypho, being a Jew, would not have recognized Paul's authority. It is significant that Justin is able to prove that the Sabbath was for the Jews and the Jews only from Old Testament logic alone. Justin Martyr was born in 100 AD. and died in 165 AD. Here is what Justin Martyr wrote in Chapter Nineteen: CHAPTER XIX CIRCUMCISION UNKNOWN BEFORE ABRAHAM. THE LAW WAS GIVEN BY MOSES ON ACCOUNT OF THE HARDNESS OF THEIR HEARTS. “It is this about which we are at a loss, and with reason, because, while you endure such things, you do not observe all the other customs which we are now discussing. This circumcision is not, however, necessary for all men, but for you alone, in order that, as I have already said, you may suffer these things which you now justly suffer. Nor do we receive that useless baptism of cisterns, for it has nothing to do with this baptism of life. Wherefore also God has announced that you have forsaken Him, the living fountain, and digged for your selves broken cisterns which can hold no water. Even you, who are the circumcised according to the flesh, have need of our circumcision; but we, having the latter, do not require the former. For if it were necessary, as you suppose, God would not have made Adam uncircumcised; would not have had respect to the gifts of Abel when, being uncircumcised, he offered sacrifice and would not have been pleased with the uncircumcision of Enoch, who was not found, because God had translated him. Lot, being uncircumcised, was saved from Sodom, the angels themselves and the Lord sending him out. Noah was the beginning of our race; yet, uncircumcised, along with his children he went into the ark. Melchizedek, the priest of the Most High, was uncircumcised; to whom also Abraham the first who received circumcision after the flesh, gave tithes, and he blessed him: after whose order God declared, by the mouth of David, that He would establish the everlasting priest. Therefore to you alone this circumcision was necessary, in order that the people may be no people and the nation no nation; as also Hosea, one of the twelve prophets, declares. Moreover, all those righteous men already mentioned, though they kept no Sabbaths, were pleasing to God; and after them Abraham with all his descendants until Moses, under whom your nation appeared unrighteous and ungrateful to God, making a calf in the wilderness: wherefore God, accommodating Himself to that nation, enjoined them also to offer sacrifices, as if to His name, in order that you might not serve idols. Which precept, however, you have not observed; nay, you sacrificed your children to demons.” See how God will destroy the nations to the beat of instruments of music as they also are BURNED. And you were commanded to keep Sabbaths, that you might retain the memorial of God. For His word makes this announcement, saying, 'That ye may know that I am God who redeemed you.'(Ezek. xx. 12.)
D.M. Canright, who was actively critical of Ellen White and Adventism between 1887 and his death in 1919, used Justin Martyr's writings to confront Adventist leaders with the real reasons why Christians did not keep the Sabbath. Thomas Preble used similar arguments two decades earlier in his 1867 book. In fact, Preble dedicated a large section of it to prove to Andrews and his Adventist associates that the young church did not keep the Sabbath and that their claim that a significant number of the Waldenses clung to Sabbath-keeping was wrong, the claim being the result of their failure to understand the terminology the Christians of that era used when talking about the Sabbath festival on Saturday and the “Christian Sabbath,” or the Lord’s Day, which was on Sunday. It is fascinating to see the way these early SDA leaders dealt with this problem. Although a bit long, it is well worth your study. Here is an extended quote from the 1895 edition of Replies to Elder Canright's Attacks on Seventh-day Adventists, edited by Uriah Smith. As you study this passage, keep in mind that the entire passage is taken from Replies to Elder Canright’s Attacks on Seventh-day Adventists, 1895 edition– a SDA book in which Uriah Smith is trying to show that Canright has taken parts of J.N. Andrew’s books, The Complete Testimony of the Fathers, and later, Andrews’ earlier book, History of the Sabbath, out of context: [Smith]: Eld. C. quotes from “The Complete Testimony of the Fathers” very unfairly, as a few extracts will show. In putting forth a historical argument to show that Sunday was called the Lord's day and was observed as a sacred day by the Christian church immediately after the days of the apostles, he says: [Canright]:“The Lord's Day, then, is the day belonging to the Lord Jesus, as 'he is Lord {of all'} (Acts 10:36), and 'Head over all things' (Eph.1:22) in the gospel. We shall find this fact abundantly confirmed in the Fathers. I now quote from 'The Complete Testimony of the Fathers,' by Eld. Andrews: [Andrews]:“Justin's 'Apology' was written at Rome about the year 140.' 'He is the first person after the sacred writers that mention the first day, and this at a distance of only forty-four years from the date of John's vision upon Patmos.” It does not appear that Justin, and those at Rome who held with him in the doctrine, paid the slightest regard to the ancient Sabbath. He speaks of it as abolished, and treats it with contempt. (pp. 33, 36) [Canright]:“This is the confession which even the historian of the Seventh-day Adventists is compelled to make. The Jewish Sabbath was wholly disregarded by Christians within forty-four years of the death of the last apostle. And this is proved by the testimony of the very first Christian writer who mentions the first day after the apostles. Does Eld. Andrews question the genuineness or truthfulness of this statement? - Not at all.” [Smith]: We have given these three paragraphs in full, that the reader may be able to see fully how Eld. C. can treat the writings of others to suit his purpose. We have expressed surprise at his efforts to pervert and garble testimony. “Garble” is defined to mean, “to pick out or select such parts as may serve a purpose.” Webster. This quotation from "The Testimony of the Fathers” is made, remember, to prove that the Sabbath was discarded, and that Sunday was recognized as the Lord's Day by the Christians of that early time; and now let us see what Eld. Andrews does really say: [Andrews]: “'Justin's Apology” was written at Rome about the year 140 AD. His 'Dialogue with Trypho the Jew' was written some years later. In searching his works we shall see how much greater progress apostasy had made at Rome than in the countries where those lived whose writings we have been examining.” [Smith]: Thus Eld. Andrews' first reference to Justin is to show that Rome was far in advance of other bodies on the course of apostasy and that Justin was himself a leader in that work. In proof of this he introduces testimony that he treated God's Sabbath with contempt, denied its origin at creation, taunted the Jews that it was given to them because of their wickedness, and denied the perpetuity of the Ten Commandments. Pages 33, 34. As to the next sentence in Eld. C.'s quotation let us give it entire from Eld. Andrews: [Andrews]: “And it is worthy of notice that though first-day writers assert that 'Lord's Day' was the familiar title of the first day of the week in the time of the Apocalypse, yet Justin, who is the first person after the sacred writers that mentions the first day, and this at a distance of only 44 years from the date of John's vision upon Patmos, does not call it by that title, but by the name it bore as a heathen festival. If it be said that the term was omitted because he was addressing a heathen emperor [just what Canright does now say], there still remains the fact that he mentions the day quite a number of times in his 'Dialogue with Trypho,' and yet never calls it 'Lord's Day,' nor indeed does he call it by any name implying sacredness.”
[Smith]: The quotation given from Justin on pp. 34, 35 (“Testimony of the Fathers”), about meeting together on “the day called Sunday,” etc., Eld. C. gives in full to show that Justin did regard Sunday as the Lord's Day, though he gives it no such name, nor any title of sacredness. But on p. 37 Eld. A. gives a quotation from Justin's “Dialogue with Trypho,” which shows that he regarded all days alike. He calls the gospel “the new law,” and says: “The new law requires you to keep the perpetual Sabbath, and you, because you are idle for one day, suppose you are pious, not discerning why this has been commanded you; and if you eat unleavened bread you say the will of God has been fulfilled. The Lord our God does not take pleasure in such observances: if there is any perjured person or a thief among you, let him cease to be so; if any adulterer, let him repent; then he has kept the sweet and true Sabbaths of God.” Upon which Eld. Andrews remarks: “This language plainly implies that Justin held all days alike, and did not observe any one day as a day of abstinence from labor.” Yet the attempt is made by these misrepresentations to wheel Justin in as a witness for Sunday-keeping. Most astonishing to relate, Eld. C. quotes the epistle of Barnabas in favor of his position. Now he well knows that every critic pronounces that so-called epistle the work of a Jew of mean abilities and an absolute forgery. Yet, when reviewing Eld. Andrews in his notice of this work, he says: [Canright]: “They [the early Fathers] lived early enough to have converse with the apostles themselves, while he [Eld. Andrews] lived eighteen hundred years later! Which would be apt to know best?” [Smith]: Yes; but here is a man who claims to be a Father who was not; a man who was a fraud, an impostor, a forger. The question is, What do the Scriptures teach? And we have the Scriptures as fully as he. Now we ask, Who would be apt to give us the best exposition of Scripture? An old forger of the second century who wrote things too silly to be repeated, and too shameful to quote? Or a Christian scholar of the nineteenth? It will take no reader a great while to answer. Eld. Canright can take the forger if he prefers. In his fourth article in the Advocate, he says: “Let us see what Seventh-day Adventists say upon the sin of Sunday-keeping: 'All who keep the first day for the Sabbath are pope's Sunday-keepers, and God's Sabbath-breakers.'- History of the Sabbath, p. 502.”
After studying the above extended quotation from the 1895 revision of the SDA book, Replies to Canright, it is difficult to see the relevance of this quotation and its discussion. It appears that the SDA leaders were trying to show that Canright failed to prove his point because Justin Martyr did not attach any sacredness in itself to Sunday and thus supposedly did not equate Sunday with the Lord's Day. The authors of Replies to Canright seem to feel that obfuscation will confuse the readers of their book enough to cause their readers to miss a variety of observations that beg to be made. They use circular reasoning at every turn. Whether the Epistle of Barnabas was a forgery or not had nothing to do with the validity of Canright's point, which was that the writers of the Early Church documented the FACT that the first Christians abandoned the Sabbath astonishingly early, well before the existence of the Roman Catholic Church. Andrews could not seem to grasp the concept that the early Christians chose Sunday as a day of worship without attaching any “day sacredness” to it. We see the following things of significance from this quotation from Replies to Canright and the other things we have learned so far: •
The SDA leaders of Canright's Era knew that Sabbath abandonment was common by 100 AD and universal by around 140 AD., hundreds of years before a pope or a Roman Catholic Church.
•
They knew Ellen White said it was the pope and the Roman Catholic Church that “changed the day.”
•
They knew Ellen White was not correct when she said that the Roman Catholic Church changed the day because this change happened far too early for her claim to be true.
•
We see that the SDA leaders of Canright's Era were introduced to the concepts that at least some of the first Christians knew that the Sabbath did not begin at Creation and that there can be no Sabbath-keeping without circumcision.
•
We now know that SDA leaders knew almost everything Canright confronted them with as early as the late 1850’s.
•
We observe that these early SDA leaders could not answer Canright's arguments and that any reasonable person should have been able to see that there was no satisfactory rebuttal to his point that Sabbath abandonment took place far too early for Ellen White’s Roman Catholic sun worship explanation to be true.
Almost 100 years later, Dr. Bacchiocchi found himself still faced with the problem that Sabbath “abandonment” by Christians was almost immediate. He theorizes that Justin Martyr is rationalizing the Sabbath requirement away, looking for an excuse to justify the fact that Justin Martyr and other Christians were not keeping the Sabbath like they were supposed to. Again, this is an example of circular reasoning at its worst, presupposing that Christians were required to keep the Sabbath. Dr. Bacchiocchi, as well as the contributors to the 1895 edition version of Replies to Canright, missed the point completely. Whether Justin Martyr was rationalizing or not, he documented the fact that Christians were not keeping the Sabbath at this time. Whoever may have authored the Epistle of Barnabas, it was written very early, hundreds of years before the Roman Catholic Church came into existence, and it documented the fact that Christians were worshiping on Sunday at the time the document was written.
THE IMMEDIACY OF SABBATH "ABANDONMENT" A variety of Early Christian writers documented that Christians chose to worship on Sunday, beginning in 70 AD and continuing until the Roman Catholic Church came into existence hundreds of years after “Sabbath abandonment” was universal (140 AD). Using their excerpts to support either point of view is filled with risks and challenges. Great caution must be observed. Cox (The Literature of the Sabbath Question, 1865) provides evidence that the writings of the early fathers have been heavily edited and even “tampered with.” There are translation problems with documents believed to be legitimate, and some of the documents are believed to be fraudulent. Our research suggests that the biggest mistake Sabbatarians make in using these excerpts is their failure to understand that many of these writers discuss the term “Sabbath” in the context of the Sabbath festival (such as whether or not to fast) and not in the Jewish sense of a day that is intrinsically holy and requires resting upon it by Divine law. At the same time, anti-Sabbatarians must be careful not to make too much of the anti-Sabbatarian comments of the early fathers because of the possibility that their writings have been tampered with. Kerry Wynne, observes, however, that it seems that the topic of Sabbath-keeping would be of any special interest to someone who would have thought about tampering with the writings of the early fathers. Whether or not Christians should keep the Jewish Sabbath was never an issue of interest to the apostles or the early church. At the same time, taken as a whole, these excerpts demonstrate that the Christian Church during its first 500 years or more worshiped on Sundays and celebrated the Sabbath festival at selected times of the liturgical year. If they rested on these Sabbath festivals, it was because of the festive nature of the tradition, and if they worshiped on them it was because it was a festival established as a tradition to keep alive the memory of the Creation Week. The Lord's Supper was often celebrated on this festival. From the Jewish perspective, the early Christians, then, “broke” the Sabbath on all the Saturdays of the year that were not set aside as a Sabbath festival, and they “broke” it on the Sabbath festival days because the festive activities were not what the Law of Moses would have allowed on the weekly Sabbath of the Decalogue. While these writers had the advantage of perspective that living very close in time to the days of the apostles, they did not have access to the large body of the research that has been done on this subject over the last nearly 2,000 years. While a study of the opinions of the early fathers is useful, it is important to keep in mind that a number of biblical concepts and themes are opposed to Sabbatarian thinking. Just one example is the principle that observing the ordinance of circumcision was a prerequisite to keeping the Sabbath. Do not suppose for a moment that SDA leaders, historians, and theologians are not keenly aware that the Christian writers of the second and third centuries were not virtually unanimous in their disdain for the Jewish concept of Sabbath-keeping. Michael Morrision of Grace Community International comments that SDA Theologian Mervyn Maxwell, in his book, Early Sabbath-Sunday History, concedes that second and early third-century writers had basically the same negative attitudes toward the Sabbath (see part 3, note 27) and summarizes this concept as follows: These writers taught that the new covenant had put an end to the old law — and that now the new spiritual Israel, with its new covenant and its new spiritual law, no longer needed the literal circumcision, literal sacrifices, and literal Sabbath. Barnabas observed that God "has circumcised our hearts." Justin referred triumphantly to the new spiritual circumcision in Christ. Irenaeus taught that circumcision, sacrifices, and Sabbaths were given of old as signs of better things to come; the new sacrifice, for example, is now a contrite heart. Tertullian, too, had a new spiritual sacrifice and a new spiritual circumcision. Each of these writers also taught that a new spiritual concept of the Sabbath had replaced the old literal one... This supplanting of the old law by the new; of the literal Sabbath by the spiritual, was a very Christ-
centered concept for these four writers. God's people have inherited the covenant only because Christ through His sufferings inherited it first for us, Barnabas said. For Justin the new, final, and eternal law that has been given to us was "namely Christ" Himself. It was only because Christ gave the law that He could now also be "the end of it," said Irenaeus. And it is Christ who invalidated "the old" and confirmed "the new," according to Tertullian. Indeed Christ did this, both Irenaeus and Tertullian said, not so much by annulling the law as by so wonderfully fulfilling it that He extended it far beyond the mere letter. To sum up: The early rejection of the literal Sabbath appears to be traceable to a common hermeneutic of Old and New Testament scriptures. - C. Mervyn Maxwell in Maxwell and Damsteegt, Early Sabbath-Sunday History," (pp. 154-156)
Please balance these things in your assessment as you study these excerpts: 1. The Didache [AD. 70] But every Lord’s day . . . gather yourselves together and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned” (Didache 14 [AD. 70]).
2. The Letter of Barnabas [AD. 74] “We keep the eighth day [Sunday] with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead” (Letter of Barnabas 15:6-8 [AD. 74]). This document is almost certainly fraudulent in regard to its claims of authorship, but it still documents the practice of the first Christians, and that practice was to meet for worship on Sunday.
3. Ignatius of Antioch [AD. 110] Those who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death” (Letter to the Magnesians 8 [AD. 110]). This document may have been tampered with, and its authenticity is questionable. If it was tampered with, it may reflect the opinion of very early Christian “editors.” We use it for the support of our point-of-view with these reservations. Dr. Bacchiocchi acknowledges that the Early Church was seeking to differentiate itself from Judaism as early as this time in his book, From Sabbath to Sunday, but seeks to show that Ignatius meant that the OT Jewish prophets did not go around “Sabbatizing,” and that because of this fact, Christians should not do so either.
4. Justin Martyr [AD. 155] “We too would observe the fleshly circumcision, and the Sabbaths, and in short all the feasts, if we did not know for what reason they were enjoined [on] you―namely, on account of your transgressions and the hardness of your heart. . . . How is it, Trypho, that we would not observe those rites which do not harm us― I speak of fleshly circumcision and Sabbaths and feasts? . . . God enjoined you to keep the Sabbath, and impose on you other precepts for a sign, as I have already said, on account of your unrighteousness and that of your fathers” (Dialogue with Trypho, 18, 21 [AD. 155]).
5. Tertullian [AD. 203] “Let him who contends that the Sabbath is still to be observed as a balm of salvation, and circumcision on the eighth day . . . teach us that, for the time past, righteous men kept the Sabbath or practiced circumcision, and were thus rendered ‘friends of God.’ For if circumcision purges a man, since God made Adam uncircumcised, why did he not circumcise him, even after his sinning, if circumcision purges? . . . Therefore, since God originated Adam uncircumcised and unobservant of the Sabbath, consequently his offspring also, Abel, offering him sacrifices, uncircumcised and unobservant of the Sabbath, was by him [God] commended [Gen. 4:1-7, Heb. 9:4]. . . . Noah also, uncircumcised― yes, and unobservant of the Sabbath― God freed from the deluge. For Enoch too, most righteous man, uncircumcised and unobservant of the Sabbath, he translated from this world, who did not first taste death in order that, being a candidate for eternal life, he might show us that we also may, without the burden of the law of Moses, please God” (An Answer to the Jews 2 [AD. 203] Sabbatarian apologists quote another passage from Tertullian which appears to be pro-Sabbatarian, but that quote is in reference to the keeping of the Sabbath by the Early Church as a festival. Sabbatarian apologists seek to show that this writer changed his mind about the Sabbath one or more times, but the confusion they experience is the result of their failure to understand that the Early Church observed the 7 th day of the week as a FESTIVAL that was deliberately made to be different in its make-up than the Jewish Sabbath but still had religious significance.
6. The Didascalia [AD. 225] “The apostles further appointed: On the first day of the week let there be service, and the reading of the Holy Scriptures, and the oblation, because on the first day of the week our Lord rose from the place of the dead, and on the first day of the week he arose upon the world, and on the first day of the week he ascended up to heaven, and on the first day of the week he will appear at last with the angels of heaven” (Didascalia 2 [AD. 225]).
7. Victorinus [AD. 300] “The sixth day [Friday] is called parasceve, that is to say, the preparation of the kingdom. . . . On this day also, on account of the passion of the Lord Jesus Christ, we make either a station to God or a fast. On the seventh day he rested from all his works, and blessed it, and sanctified it. On the former day we are accustomed to fast rigorously, that on the Lord’s Day we may go forth to our bread with giving of thanks. And let the parasceve become a rigorous fast, lest we should appear to observe any Sabbath with the Jews . . . which Sabbath he [Christ] in his body abolished” ( The Creation of the World [AD. 300]).
8. Eusebius of Caesarea [AD. 312] “They [the early saints of the Old Testament] did not care about circumcision of the body, neither do we [Christians]. They did not care about observing Sabbaths, nor do we. They did not avoid certain kinds of food, neither did they regard the other distinctions which Moses first delivered to their posterity to be observed as symbols; nor do Christians of the present day do such things” (Church History 1:4:8 [AD. 312]).
9. Eusebius of Caesarea [AD. 319] “The day of his [Christ’s] light . . . was the day of his resurrection from the dead, which they say, as being the one and only truly holy day and the Lord’s day, is better than any number of days as we ordinarily understand them, and better than the days set apart by the Mosaic Law for feasts, new moons, and Sabbaths, which the Apostle [Paul] teaches are the shadow of days and not days in reality” (Proof of the Gospel 4:16:186 [AD. 319]).
10. Athanasius [AD. 345] “The Sabbath was the end of the first creation, the Lord’s day was the beginning of the second, in which he renewed and restored the old in the same way as he prescribed that they should formerly observe the Sabbath as a memorial of the end of the first things, so we honor the Lord’s day as being the memorial of the new creation” (On Sabbath and Circumcision 3 [AD. 345]).
11. Cyril of Jerusalem [AD. 350] “Fall not away either into the sect of the Samaritans or into Judaism, for Jesus Christ has henceforth ransomed you. Stand aloof from all observance of Sabbaths and from calling any indifferent meats common or unclean” (Catechetical Lectures 4:37 [AD. 350]).
12. Council of Laodicea [AD. 360] “Christians should not Judaize and should not be idle on the Sabbath, but should work on that day; they should, however, particularly reverence the Lord’s Day and, if possible, not work on it, because they were Christians” (canon 29 [AD. 360]).
13. John Chrysostom [AD. 387] “When he said, ‘You shall not kill’ . . . he did not add, ‘because murder is a wicked thing.’ The reason was that conscience had taught this beforehand, and he speaks thus, as to those who know and understand the point. Wherefore when he speaks to us of another commandment, not known to us by the dictate of conscience, he not only prohibits, but adds the reason. When, for instance, he gave commandment concerning the Sabbath―‘On the seventh day you shall do no work’― he subjoined also the reason for this cessation. What was this? ‘Because on the seventh day God rested from all his works which he had begun to make’ [Ex. 20:10]. And again: ‘Because you were a servant in the land of Egypt’ [Deut. 21:18]. For what purpose then, I ask, did he add a reason respecting the Sabbath, but did no such thing in regard to murder? Because this commandment was not one of the leading ones. It was not one of those which were accurately defined of our conscience, but a kind of partial and temporary one, and for this reason it was abolished afterward. But
those which are necessary and uphold our life are the following: ‘You shall not kill . . . You shall not commit adultery . . . You shall not steal.’ On this account he adds no reason in this case, nor enters into any instruction on the matter, but is content with the bare prohibition” (Homilies on the Statues 12:9 [AD. 387]).
14. John Chrysostom [AD. 395] “You have put on Christ, you have become a member of the Lord and been enrolled in the heavenly city, and you still grovel in the Law [of Moses]? How is it possible for you to obtain the kingdom? Listen to Paul’s words, that the observance of the Law overthrows the gospel, and learn, if you will, how this comes to pass, and tremble, and shun this pitfall. Why do you keep the Sabbath and fast with the Jews?” (Homilies on Galatians 2:17 [AD. 395]).
15. The Apostolic Constitutions [AD. 400] “And on the day of our Lord’s resurrection, which is the Lord’s day, meet more diligently, sending praise to God that made the universe by Jesus, and sent him to us, and condescended to let him suffer, and raised him from the dead. Otherwise what apology will he make to God who does not assemble on that day . . . in which is performed the reading of the prophets, the preaching of the gospel, the oblation of the sacrifice, the gift of the holy food” (Apostolic Constitutions 2:7:60 [AD. 400]).
The challenge of interpreting the Sabbath point-of-view of this critically important document is discussed elsewhere in this book. Another passage from the work appears to support Sabbatarianism, but its mention of the Sabbath is almost certainly in the context of the Sabbath as a festival. 16. John Chrysostom [AD. 402] “The rite of circumcision was venerable in the Jews’ account, for as much as the Law itself gave way thereto, and the Sabbath was less esteemed than circumcision. For that circumcision might be performed, the Sabbath was broken; but that the Sabbath might be kept, circumcision was never broken; and mark, I pray, the dispensation of God. This is found to be even more solemn that the Sabbath, as not being omitted at certain times. When then it is done away, much more is the Sabbath” (Homilies on Philippians 10 [AD. 402]).
17. Augustine [AD. 412] “Well, now, I should like to be told what there is in these Ten Commandments, except the observance of the Sabbath, which ought not to be kept by a Christian . . . Which of these commandments would anyone say that the Christian ought not to keep? It is possible to contend that it is not the Law which was written on those two tables that the Apostle Paul describes as ‘the letter that kills’ [2 Cor. 3:6], but the law of circumcision and the other sacred rites which are now abolished” (The Spirit and the Letter 24 [AD. 412]).
Origen [AD. 185-254] "But what is the feast of the Sabbath except that of which the apostle speaks, 'There remaineth therefore a Sabbatism,' that is, the observance of the Sabbath, by the people of God? Leaving the Jewish observances of the Sabbath, let us see how the Sabbath ought to be observed by a Christian. On the Sabbath-day all worldly labors ought to be abstained from. If, therefore, you cease from all secular works, and execute nothing to church, attending to sacred reading and instruction, thinking of celestial things, solicitous for the future, placing the Judgment to come before your eyes, not looking to things present and visible, but to those which are future and invisible, this is the observance of the Christian Sabbath."
Origen in Numeras Homilia 23, cited by J.N. Andrews, History of the Sabbath, Chapter 18, from the translation of Origen's Opera, Tome, p. 358, Paris, 1733: "Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner, and rejoice in days of idleness; for 'he that does not work, let him not eat.' For say the [holy] oracles, 'in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread.' But let every one of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner, rejoicing in meditation on the law, not in relaxation of the body, admiring the workmanship of God, and not eating things prepared the day before, nor using lukewarm drinks, and walking within a prescribed space, not finding delight in dancing and plaudits which have no sense in them. And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's day as a festival, the resurrection day, the queen and chief of all the days [of the week]. Looking forward to this, the prophet declared, 'To the end, for the eighth day,' on which our life both sprang up again, and the victory over death was obtained in Christ." Epistle to the Magnesians (longer form), chap. 9, quoted by J. N. Andrews, History of the Sabbath, Chapter 18.
Note: J.N. Andrews seemed to think that these excerpts from Origen support the idea that the early Christians were still keeping the Sabbath. He apparently ignored the scholarly rebuke he received from Thomas Preble, who addressed his errors in 1867. Upon careful analysis, the comments of Origen demonstrate that Christians were observing FESTIVALS on both Saturday and Sunday. Origen does not appeal to any biblical source, and especially not to the 10 Commandments, to support his views. In fact Origen is careful in both statements to distance his Sabbath remarks from anything related to Judaism. He was a strong supporter of Sunday as the day of worship. Observe that he is instructing Christians not to eat food prepared the day before the Sabbath festival. The Jews were forbidden to prepare food on the Sabbath day, and Friday was considered the “day of preparation” for preparing the meals that would be eaten on the Sabbath. He appears to view the Sabbath festival merely as a Christian tradition designed by the Church to keep the memory of Creation Week before the minds of the believers. Notice the theology in these statements. Some writers gave better reasons for the abandonment of the Sabbath by Christians than others, but the point is that Christians documented the fact that the Sabbath was not being kept in the Jewish sense of the word from virtually the beginning of the Christian Faith.
THE EARLY CHURCH'S NEGATIVITY TOWARD THE SABBATH During the 30 years that transpired between the release of Dr. Bacchiocchi's first book in 1977, From Sabbath to Sunday, and the publication of Dr. Skip MacCarty's “commemorative” book in 2007, In Granite or Ingrained?, Seventh-day Adventists did a lot of research on the problem that early church history poses for Sabbatarianism. Collectively, the research and writings of a handful of these pro-Sabbatarian writers proves that Seventh-day Adventists are more painfully aware than ever that Ellen White's account of how Christians came to observe Sunday is nothing more than a fairy tale. Michael Morrison of the Grace Communion International (formerly the Sabbatarian Worldwide Church of God), discusses what SDA scholar, Mervyn C. Maxwell, concedes about what the Christian writers of the second and early third centuries had to say about the Sabbath. Morrison paraphrases Maxwell's summary of the first basic areas of agreement among the early church fathers in regard to the Sabbath as follows. The words of Morrison are indented and in black and the words of Maxwell are in blue: Sabbath eschatology – The Sabbath foreshadows an age of sinlessness and peace beyond this present age. (2) Moral typology – Living a godly life every day fulfills the purpose of the Sabbath commandment. (3) The Sabbath is one of the Ten Commandments not binding on Christians. (4) The Sabbath is not part of the natural law. (5) The patriarchs before Moses did not observe the Sabbath. Maxwell concludes that second and early third-century writers had basically the same negative attitudes toward the Sabbath. He then writes: These writers taught that the new covenant had put an end to the old law – and that now the new spiritual Israel, with its new covenant and its new spiritual law, no longer needed the literal circumcision, literal sacrifices, and literal Sabbath. Barnabas observed that God “has circumcised our hearts.” Justin referred triumphantly to the new spiritual circumcision in Christ. Irenaeus taught that circumcision, sacrifices, and Sabbaths were given of old as signs of better things to come; the new sacrifice, for example, is now a contrite heart. Tertullian, too, had a new spiritual sacrifice and a new spiritual circumcision. Each of these writers also taught that a new spiritual concept of the Sabbath had replaced the old literal one. . The supplanting of the old law with the new, of the literal Sabbath with the spiritual, was a very Christ-centered concept for these four writers. God's people have inherited the covenant only because Christ through His sufferings inherited it first for us, Barnabas said. For Justin the new, final, and eternal law that has been given to us was “namely Christ” Himself. It was only because Christ gave the law that He could now also be “the end of it,” said Irenaeus. And it is Christ who invalidated “the old” and confirmed “the new,” according to Tertullian. Indeed Christ did this, both Irenaeus and Tertullian said, not so much by annulling the law as by so wonderfully fulfilling it that He extended it far beyond the mere letter. To sum up: The early rejection of the literal Sabbath appears to be traceable to a common hermeneutic of Old and New Testament scriptures. Morrison observes that these various early church writers came from various parts of the empire and shared a common “hermeneutic” that would only be possible if the practice of Sunday observance had been present from the beginning. He says, “That same hermeneutic was used in the Gentile mission ever since Acts 15: a mission that did not require Gentiles to keep the laws of Moses, including the Sabbath. It is unlikely that churches throughout the
empire would, without controversy, develop the same practice unless that practice had been present from the beginning. It is also unlikely that people throughout the empire would, without controversy, develop the same practice unless that practice had been present from the beginning. It is also unlikely that people throughout the empire would give the same reasons for their practice unless those reasons had also been present from the beginning.”
Michael Morrison's series on the history of the Sabbath in the early church can be accessed at the Grace Communion International website, gci.org. Morrison cites Maxwell as follows: Maxwell, C. Mervyn, and P. Gerard Damsteegt, eds., Source Book for the History of Sabbath and Sunday. Berrien Springs, Mich.: Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, 1992. Dr. Skip MacCarty refused to discuss the historical aspects of the Sabbath-Sunday question in his 2007 book, stating that the subject was beyond its scope. The real history of how Christians came to observe Sunday is totally different than what he would want his readers to believe. If the first Christians hadn't figured it out before, they knew the Sabbath was not part of Christianity when the Council of Jerusalem clarified that the Gentile Christians were not to be bound by the ordinance of circumcision and a very brief list of their requirements was outlined. The list of requirements for the new Gentile converts was very brief, and it did not include the keeping of the Jewish Sabbath − a no brainer since they were not to be bound by the ordinance of circumcision. It didn't take long for the Jews to kick the Christians out of the synagogues. Christians were going there to convince the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah. The Christians, out of convenience and expediency, began to meet on the first day of the week. Figuring that it was a good a day to meet as any, they made it a tradition to meet on that day for Christian fellowship and worship. The Sunday observers, then, were on the right side of the fence. The Jewish Christians – at least the ones who chose to cling to Sabbath-keeping– were not the heroes of the Early Church. Instead they were the ones who were seduced into following “another gospel. Somewhat later they became the enemies of Christianity, having evolved into the Gnostics and Ebionites. The Ebionites, who kept the Sabbath, vilified the Apostle Paul and claimed James as their spiritual leader. In his anti-Sabbatarian essay, “Sabbatarianism Re-examined,” (former) SDA theologian Robert D. Brinsmead explains what happened to the Sabbath-keeping Jewish Christians: The picture emerges of Jewish Christianity which, having lost its influence on the predominately Gentile Church became increasingly isolated. It lost vital contact with Gentile Christianity, so that Gentile Christianity was largely cut off from its Jerusalem roots. This has been a tragedy for both branches of the church. By the time of Irenaeus (in the late second century) Jewish Christianity was regarded as real heresy. Some Jewish Christians were called Ebionites (“the poor ones”), while others were called Nazarenes. They kept the Sabbath and persevered in a Jewish way of life. They were generally vegetarian. Some even refused to eat e...[text unclear] Their hero was James; their archenemy was Paul. The most serious heresy of the Ebionites was failure to confess Christ's full divinity. Furthermore, although they believed Jesus was sinless, they taught that he possessed sinful human nature like the rest of Mankind. Yet it is a remarkable fact that the heretical Ebionites traced their lineage back to the original Jewish Christians and claim to be their true successors.
We have reviewed where Sunday observance came from and where it did not come from. In the light of these facts it is difficult to comprehend why the leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church would choose to stick with the Sabbatarian belief model other than the fear of the financial disaster that would take place if fundamental doctrinal changes were made. Perhaps these leaders took notice of the financial hardship which struck The Worldwide Church of God when it renounced Sabbatarianism in 1995. While a study of the facts of Early Church history is interesting, and while it proves to the point of over-kill that Ellen White lied about the source of her information about how Sunday observance replaced Sabbath-keeping, these facts alone do not prove that Sabbatarianism is not correct. Let us look at additional barriers in greater depth.
THE LACK OF SUPPORT FOR SABBATH-KEEPING IN THE EARLY CHURCH Various aspects of this subject will be or have been touched on in other parts of this book. Note that in discussions of right and wrong for Christians, the New Testament writers comment about sins that are related to all of the Ten Commandments of the Decalogue with the exception of the 4th Commandment– the Sabbath. While arguments from silence are among the weakest form of evidence and fail to qualify as “proof” taken alone, this is still a most interesting observation. Combine this fact with everything else we now know about the Sabbath from biblical concepts, and its significance is very great for the Jews. In fact, Israelites who deliberately broke the Sabbath were to be stoned. It is entirely reasonable to suppose that if Sabbatarianism were to be true, the new Gentile converts coming into the Church would have needed some kind of official guidance in regard to the Sabbath. Many Gentile converts had attended the Jewish synagogues where Paul had preached and would have had a degree of familiarity with the Sabbath concept already. However, many other Gentile converts came directly out of heathenism. The apostles, and especially Paul, gave them instructions in almost everything else, including whether or not they could eat meat sacrificed to idols. Paul instructed Christians not to use their freedom from the LAW to fall into licentiousness, and in one passage he gives a list of 23 examples of the kind of sins that a person who lives by the Spirit should not commit. As in every New Testament case where a mention of the sin of Sabbath-breaking would be anticipated by Sabbatarians, Paul does not include it. Neither do any other New Testament writers. The emphasis of the true Gospel of Jesus, as articulated by the Apostle Paul, is that Christians are not guided by the works or deeds of any set of laws, but rather by the Holy Spirit in the heart. Without exception, every time the New Testament mentions Christians getting together, they met on the first day of the week― never on the Jewish Sabbath. Christians went to the Jewish synagogues to witness to their Jewish brethren that Jesus was the Messiah. There is no indication they went there for any other purpose. Sabbatarians teach that the reference to “The Lord's Day” in the Book of Revelation is a reference to the Sabbath (See Rev. 1:9.). However, this concept is not in keeping with linguistics and word usage studies. There is abundant evidence that the term, “The Lord's Day,” was consistently a reference to Sunday, the first day of the week. In regard to the Sabbatarian idea that it was a reference to the Jewish Sabbath, Wikipedia has this to say in the article, “The Lord's Day:” Some seventh-day Sabbatarian writers have argued that because Jesus identified himself as “Lord even of the Sabbath day” (cf. Matt. 12:8), kyriake hemera in Rev. 1:10 should be interpreted as a reference to seventh-day Sabbath. However, in almost every other instance where kyriake hemera or kyriake is used, the unambiguous meaning is Sunday, but there are no early witnesses to the use of kyriake hemera as a name for Saturday.
The Wikipedia article does not provide an authoritative citation for this fact. Notice, however, that the researchers at the Encyclopedia Britannica have concluded that the reference to the Lord's Day in Revelation is to Sunday and that the Lord's Day is to be equated with Sunday (See the Encyclopedia Britannica’s Web entry for “Lord’s Day.”): First day of the week; in Christianity, the Lord’s Day, the weekly memorial of Jesus Christ’s Resurrection from the dead. The practice of Christians gathering together for worship on Sunday dates back to apostolic times, but details of the actual development of the custom are not clear. Before the end of the 1st century ad, the author of Revelation gave the first day its name of the “Lord’s Day” (Rev. 1:10). Saint Justin Martyr (c. 100–c. 165), philosopher and defender of the Christian faith, in his writings described the Christians gathered together for worship on the Lord’s Day: the gospels or the Old Testament was read, the presiding minister preached a sermon, and the group prayed together and celebrated the Lord’s Supper.
A “Sabbath” (Gr. sabbatismos; “God’s rest”) is mentioned in Hebrews 4 to explain the rest that Christians find in the freedom of the Gospel. The apostles went to the synagogues to witness to the Jews on Sabbaths. However, when there is a reference to Christians meeting with other Christians, their meetings always occur on Sunday. Sabbatarians point to the fact that Jesus kept the Sabbath, and He is our Example. Jesus had chosen to live under the
terms of the Mosaic Covenant at that time. The TORAH had not yet been nailed to the Cross. Jesus didn’t marry and he raised the dead. Are we to follow Jesus’ example in these things also? If He had wanted Christians to keep the Sabbath, He would not have instructed Paul, through the Holy Spirit, to write Colossians 2:14-17, which forbids the enforcement of Sabbath-keeping on the Gentile converts. Greg Taylor in his book, Discovering the New Covenant: Why I Am No Longer a Seventh-day Adventist, makes an excellent case that Jesus was preparing His followers for Colossians 2:14-17 by breaking the Sabbath Himself and citing examples of others who had broken the Sabbath and other points of law and were also guiltless. In this context of Jesus being our Example, Jesus commanded the people to no longer judge according appearance, but to judge righteous judgment, looking to the heart and intent or motivation of heart, even in regards to work performed on a Sabbath. He further taught that it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath, as contrasted to doing evil. Sabbatarians reject the teachings of Jesus in this regard, opting for a mixture of the instructions through Moses and their own contrived Pharisaical list of what is acceptable work, and what is not, the result being unrighteous judgment. D.M. Canright had confronted Adventist leadership with exhaustive research in two books he published between 1900 and his death in 1919 (See our historical time line.) that destroyed any hope for the pagan sun worship theory. In the decades that followed the deaths of Ellen White and D.M. Canright, additional discoveries were made, and none of them favorable to Ellen White’s apostasy theory. By the 1960’s it had become very clear that the Heathen did not rest from work on Sunday. One historian put it this way: “In the early centuries of the Church’s history down to the time of the Emperor Constantine it would, in any case, not have been practical for Christians to observe Sunday as a day of rest, on which they were obliged, for the sake of principle, to abstain from work. The reason for this was simply that no one in the entire Roman Empire, neither Jews, nor Greeks, nor Romans, stopped work on Sunday” (Willy Rordorf, Sunday: The History of the Day of Rest and Worship in the Earliest Centuries of the Christian Church, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1968, pp. 154-155).
Pliny’s famous “Letter to Trajan” (c. A. D. 111-112) is also clear evidence that early Christians had no free day of rest. They met for worship early in the morning (probably on the first day of the week), and then they went to work. (See Bruce, New Testament History, pp. 423-24.)
A CONTINUOUS HISTORY OF SABBATH-KEEPERS THROUGHOUT THE DARK AGES? As the chief architect of modern Sabbatarianism, Ellen White sought to demonstrate an unbroken line of Sabbath-keeping Christians until this day. At a minimum she claimed that God directly led her to pick out the historical material she utilized in her most significant book, The Great Controversy. If God had guided her during her selection process, we would not expect to find major errors. God would, after all, be steering her away from flatly wrong sources. Unfortunately, we find numerous cases where Ellen was unsuspectedly (?) taken in by serious errors. One case in point is her claim that the Waldenses were persecuted by the papacy for holding onto Sabbath observance. A review of a wide variety of historical sources suggests that it is possible that there were always small enclaves of Christians who clung to the Sabbath heresy, but after a review of the “facts” presented in the Great Controversy, we found that their was no significant Sabbath-keeping by the Waldenses. The idea that the Waldenses kept the Jewish Sabbath came from a name that developed over time to refer to them― the insabatti. Although this term sounds like they got the name from keeping the Sabbath, this term actually means “Sandals.” The Waldenses wore sandals that were unmistakably very humble to illustrate the humility that was in their hearts. Larry Dean was able to verify this fact by contacting a European linguist, who additionally explained that Christians from this era observed the Sabbath festival, and that some errors of understanding the intent of the writer occur for this reason. Dean says she also pointed out that, at the same time, the Waldenses seemed to carry the belief that Sunday was the Christian “Sabbath.” For a noble but errant defense of the truthfulness of Ellen's claim that the Waldenses were truly keepers of the Jewish Sabbath, no one has done a better job than SDA apologist, Vance Ferrell. You can find his defense at this Internet address. If you do not find it there, use a search engine: http://omega77.tripod.com/bacc3vf.htm The facts suggest that although it was possible that a tiny minority of Waldenses might possibly have kept the Jewish Sabbath, the vast majority of them did not, and that the papacy persecuted them for their Reformation-like stand on a number of theological issues, other than the Sabbath, as well their refusal to bow to the authority of the pope.
As we look at this question in light of today's expanded knowledge of the Waldenses ― a group of Christians who still exist― we find that the main source of the idea that they were Sabbath-keepers seems to have come from a Reformed Church scholar by the name of Robinson. The Reformed Church, which grew out of the Waldensian Movement, historically has viewed Sunday as the “new” Sabbath, believing that the sanctity of the Sabbath was transferred from Saturday to Sunday. You can see what confusion might result. We also noted that ecclesiastical scholars contemporary to Ellen White spotted this glaring mistake and refuted it. One of those scholars was Thomas Preble, who had become a member of the Advent movement a few years before the Seventh-day Adventist Church officially organized in 1863 and left it a few years later. During his brief journey in Adventism he wrote a pro-Sabbatarian book that Adventists like to reference. However, in 1867 he wrote a book which refuted J.N. Andrews' first edition of History of the Sabbath point by point. In this book he devoted over 100 pages to Ellen White's claim that the papacy persecuted the Waldenses for Sabbath-keeping. Larry Dean found that much of the information she presented in regard to the Waldenses was gleaned from James Aitken Wylie's (1808-1890) book, The History of the Waldenses. What Dean found was that in selecting from his work, she ignored passages found amongst her chosen quotes that specifically illustrated the fact that the Waldenses could NOT be characterized as keepers of the Jewish Sabbath. He observes that her habit of deception is more typical of a Spiritualist medium than a prophet of God: Page 98: It was Sunday, the 17th of March 1561. The whole of the Vaudois assembled Pra del Tor had met on the morning of that day, soon after dawn, as was their wont, to unite in public devotion. Page 172: On the 17th of April, being Good Friday, they renewed their covenant, and on Easter Sunday, their pastors dispensed to them the Communion. This was the last time the sons of the Valley partook of the Lord's Supper before their great dispersion. Paged 187-88: Their fatigue was great, but they feared to halt on the battle-field, and so, rousing those who had already sunk into sleep, they commenced climbing the lofty Mont Sci. The day was breaking as they gained the summit. It was Sunday, and Henri Arnaud, halting till all should assemble, pointed out to them, just as they were becoming visible in the morning light, the mountain-tops of their own land. Welcome sight to their longing eyes! Bathed in the radiance of the rising sun, it seemed to them, as one snowy peak began to burn after another, that the mountains were kindling into joy at the return of their long-absent sons. This army of soldiers resolved itself into a congregation of worshipers, and the summit of Mont Sci became their church. Kneeling on the mountain-top, the battle-field below them, and the solemn and sacred peaks of the Col du Pis, the Col la Vechera, and the glorious pyramid of Monte Viso looking down upon them in reverent silence, they humbled themselves before the Eternal, confessing their sins, and giving thanks for their many deliverances. Seldom has worship more sincere or more rapt been offered than that which this day ascended from this congregation of warrior-worshipers gathered under the dome-like vault that rose over them. Refreshed by the devotions of the Sunday, and exhilarated by the victory of the day before, the heroic band now rushed down to take possession of their inheritance, from which the single Valley of Clusone only parted them. It was three years and a half since they had crossed the Alps, a crowd of exiles, worn to skeletons by sickness and confinement, and now they were returning, a marshalled host, victorious over the army of France, and ready to encounter that of Piedmont. They traversed the Clusone, a plain of about two miles in width, watered by the broad, clear, blue-tinted Garmagnasca, and bounded by hills, which offer to the eye a succession of terraces, clothed with the richest vines, mingled with the chestnut and the apple-tree. They entered the narrow defile of Pis, where a detachment of Piedmontese soldiers had been posted to guard the pass, but who took flight at the approach of the Vaudois, thus opening to them the gate of one of the grandest of their Valleys, San Martino. On the twelfth day after setting out from the shores of Lake Leman they crossed the frontier, and stood once more within the limits of their inheritance. When they mustered at Balsiglia, the first Vaudois village which they entered, in the western extremity of San Martino, they found that fatigue, desertion, and battle had reduced their numbers from 800 to 700. The first Sunday after their return was passed at the village of Prali. Of all their sanctuaries, the church of Prali alone remained standing; of the others only the ruins were to be seen. They resolved to commence this day their ancient and scriptural worship. Purging the church of its Popish ornaments, one half of the little army, laying down their arms at the door, entered the edifice, while the other half stood without, the church being too small to contain them all. Henri Arnaud, the soldier-pastor, mounting a table which was placed in the porch, preached to them. They began their worship by chanting the 74th Psalm—"O God,
why hast thou cast us off for ever? Why doth thine anger smoke against the sheep of thy pasture?" &c. The preacher then took as his text the 129th Psalm—"Many a time have they afflicted me from my youth, may Israel now say." The wonderful history of his people behind him, so to speak, and the reconquest of their land before him, must have called up the glorious achievements of their fathers, provoking the generous emulation of their sons. The worship was closed by those 700 warriors chanting in magnificent chorus the psalm from which their leader had preached. To many it seemed significant that here the returned exiles should spend their first Sunday, and resume their sanctuary services. They remembered how this same village of Prali had been the scene of a horrible outrage at the time of their exodus. The Pastor of Prali, M. Leidet, a singularly pious man, had been discovered by the soldiers as he was praying under a rock, and being dragged forth, he was first tortured and mutilated, [text missing from source]. . . receive my spirit." It was surely appropriate, after the silence of three years and a half, during which the rage of the persecutor had forbidden the preaching of the glorious Gospel, that its re-opening should take place in the pulpit of the martyr Leidet. Page 190: Here their second Sunday was passed, and public worship was again celebrated, the congregation chanting their psalm to the clash of arms. Page 190: All through the winter of 1689-90, the Vaudois remained in their mountain fortress, resting after the marches, battles, and sieges of the previous months, and preparing for the promised return of the French. Where Henri Arnaud had pitched his camp, there had he also raised his altar, and if from that mountain-top was pealed forth the shout of battle, from it ascended also, morning and night, the prayer and the psalm. Besides daily devotions, Henri Arnaud preached two sermons weekly, one on Sunday and another on Thursday. At stated times he administered the Lord’s Supper. Page 219: It was the morning of Whit-Sunday, and the Waldenses were preparing to celebrate the Lord’s Supper, when the first boom from the enemy’s battery broke upon their ear.
Error on Ellen White's part would not be a particular issue if she had not claimed that God directly led her to choose the right sources when she was utilizing the material of other writers. Intentional deception on the part of a prophet is incompatible with the biblical standard for a true prophet of God.
ABOUT COLOSSIANS 2:14-17 The blame for the existence of the highly articulate anti-Sabbatarian, anti-Ellen White movement of today lands squarely on the shoulders of one Seventh-day Adventist Sabbath scholar, the late Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi. In his 1977 book, From Sabbath to Sunday, Bacchiocchi tried to explain away the most threatening anti-Sabbatarian passages in the entire Bible― Colossians 2:14-17. This passage labels the Jewish Sabbath system as an obsolete “shadow” and indicates that it received this status when Christ died on the Cross. Bacchiocchi astonished both Seventh-day Adventists and Evangelicals by claiming that these “shadows” merely represented the extra man-made rules and regulations the Judaizers had added to the requirements for observing these ordinances. By doing so, he turned this dangerous anti-Sabbatarian “gun” around and pointed it back into the face of the opponents of the Sabbath. In an attempted feat of theological gymnastics he proposed that by condemning the ABUSE of these ordinances, Paul actually validated the continuance of these Jewish institutions into the Christian disposition. This ploy back-fired on him because this concept flatly contradicted at least two of Ellen White's “inspired” statements. First, he conceded that the Sabbath in the third position was, indeed, a reference to the weekly Sabbath of the Decalogue and that it could not possibly refer to anything else ( From Sabbath to Sunday, page 360). Ellen White cited direct, divine inspiration for claiming that it represented only one of the “ceremonial” Sabbaths. Second, he conceded that the Sabbath could not possibly have been changed by the Roman Catholic Church because it happened too early. Ellen White, again citing inspiration, had taught that the papacy had “changed” it. The up-shot of all this was a focus on the Sabbath-Sunday Question the likes of which had not been seen since England during the reign of Charles I. Although Dr. Bacchiocchi lived long enough to have to fight the “fire” that he himself inadvertently started, he never abandoned these views, although he refined them a time or two. In the later years of his distinguished career as a Seventhday Adventist theologian, he published a series of books that offered instruction to Christians on which of the Jewish festivals should be kept and how to keep them. Here is a representative statement from one of them:
“A fourth surprise was to discover that I was wrong in assuming that the annual Feasts came to an end with the sacrifice of Christ, simply because they were connected with the sacrificial system of the Temple. I came to realize that the continuity or discontinuity of the Feasts is determined not by their connection with the sacrificial system, but by the scope of their typology. If the Feasts had typified only the redemptive accomplishments of Christ’s first Advent, then obviously their function would have terminated at the Cross. But, if the Feasts foreshadow also the consummation of redemption to be accomplished by Christ at His Second Advent, then their function continues in the Christian church, though with a new meaning and manner of observance.” (From the book, God’s Festivals in Scripture and History, Volume I: The Spring Festivals, from the chapter, “Preview of the Book,” by Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi) http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/festivals_1/
By 1995, with the publication of The Sabbath in the New Testament, he seemed to have opened to the possibility that the Sabbath in the third position might be a reference to a ceremonial Sabbath feast day, perhaps an annual one, thus returning more closely to the traditional SDA interpretation. Several years later He added the possibility that it might represent a reference to ceremonial events that lasted an entire week (Sabbath Under Crossfire, 1998). Fatefully, Bacchiocchi decided to aggressively market his 1977 book, From Sabbath to Sunday, to the clergy and religious leaders of the Christian world. Bacchiocchi's outstanding credentials gained him an audience for this old controversy. (He was the first Protestant scholar to graduate from the Gregorian Pontifical University at the Vatican in a thousand years, and his doctorate was in church history.) Eventually his book landed in the hands of Evangelical scholar, D.A. Carson. It so came to pass that some years prior to 1977, Carson and some of his colleagues had been working on a research project to get to the bottom of the Sabbath-Sunday Question. Their interest in this subject must have resulted from general theological curiosity because there was little interest in this subject in the early 1970's. The attack of Dr. Bacchiocchi's book release kicked Carson into action. He and his associates quickly turned their efforts into a “Manhattan Project” like operation, and their research efforts were kicked into high gear. By 1982, their work was ready for publication, and it was released in a book with a title that was named to indicate that it was a rebuttal to Dr. Bacchiocchi's 1977 book― From Sabbath to Lord's Day. Each chapter was written by an Evangelical scholar who had specialized knowledge in each respective area of Dr. Bacchiocchi's work. The advanced Hebrew linguistics work was definitive, and his various Sabbath abandonment conspiracy theories were refuted with elements from the better understanding of the history of the early church that had come to light by the late 1960's. The ramifications of Bacchiocchi's work on Colossians 2:14-17 seemed to never end. One of the Seventh-day Adventist theologians to consider the implications of Bacchiocchi's teaching for Adventism was the independent and controversial Australian Adventist theologian, Robert D. Brinsmead. A man of means, Brinsmead was afforded the leisure time to pursue his own research projects. Four years later he published his landmark 1981 essay, “Sabbatarianism Re-examined,” and in his 1982 sequel, “A Digest of the Sabbath Question.” Both papers were extensively researched and well-documented anti-Sabbatarian documents, and they were widely circulated among Adventist leadership. Despite the fact that Brinsmead drew from relatively recent developments in the historical understanding of the Early Church Era and Hebrew linguistics, Adventist leaders ignored his work, continuing on with their business-as-usual determination. In a very big way, then, the Seventh-day Adventist Church had a strong moral obligation to implement fundamental doctrinal reform by no later than 1983. Not only was the Sabbath-Sunday Question settled by Carson, but also in 1982 an SDA researcher, Dr. Walter Rea, proved that Ellen White had copied large volumes of information from other writers while claiming that she got that information from God. He stumbled across this sensitive information while doing research in her personal library, which had been preserved after her death by the Church. Rea published findings in his New York Times best-seller, The White Lie. The church fired Dr. Rea, who was on the verge of retirement age, and took away his retirement benefits. He took the Church to court and got his pension back by threatening to publish his next book, Pirates of Privilege, which exposed Adventist financial corruption in conjunction with the Davenport Scandal― a Ponzi scheme which had bilked mega millions of dollars from various SDA organizations and the leaders who made privileged private investments in Dr. Davenport's program. That book was not published until the statutes of limits expired, but it is now available to read on the Internet. The evidence is powerful that Bacchiocchi's enigmatic treatment of Colossians 2:14-17 may have had a profound influence on the White Estate, and in particular on Ron Graybill, who was the associate secretary. Bacchiocchi had proved beyond any reasonable doubt that Ellen White could not possibly be right about Colossians 2:14-17.
Bacchiocchi's work had inadvertently proved that Ellen White's interpretation of it was wrong, but that no pro-Sabbatarian interpretation of it was possible. This self-evident revelation may have contributed in some way to the bringing about of one of the most significant events in Seventh-day Adventist history. In 1983, a crazy set of circumstances came together which placed, into the hands of key Adventist leaders all over the world, an astonishing document that provided incredibly powerful evidence that Ellen White was a fraud. Here is how it happened. Graybill had spent nearly a dozen years at the White Estate with unbridled access to every word―including many of the amazingly stupid words― that Ellen White had written. Perhaps no one else alive at the time knew more about the fraudulent prophetic claims of Ellen White than he did. He had been working on a doctoral dissertation at a non-Seventh-day Adventist University, the subject of which was the major cults that developed in the mid-1800's which were started by unstable women. He secured an agreement with that university to seal that document up and make it inaccessible to anyone for a period of five years after his graduation. Unfortunately, someone favorable to the preservation of the institution of Adventism acquired a copy of it, duplicated it, and sent it to key SDA leaders all over the world without Graybill's knowledge or consent. After being presented with proof that Ellen White was a deceiver from a top official at the White Estate, one would expect a subsequent repudiation of her by the Church. No such thing happened. Graybill had documented the evidence for these problems: 1. She made fraudulent claims. 2. Her personal character was seriously flawed. 3. She appeared to have produced her so-called “visions” when necessary to defeat her opposition. Nearly a decade earlier, the 1974 theft and later unauthorized publication of the secret transcript of the minutes of the 1919 Bible Conference proved that the delegates clearly understood that Ellen White was a fraud. For example, the transcript exposes them discussing how to keep the truth about her from the seminary students. Equally interesting is their tacit admission that her claim that God showed her that the Roman Catholic Church changed the Sabbath did not square with the facts of history or the specifications of the prophecies of Daniel. In fact these delegates conceded that the specifications of the prophecies made it impossible for the Catholic Church to be the culprit. Later we will take you right into the midst of this top-secret meeting via the stenographer's transcript and you will learn for yourself what the delegates to the conference knew about these problems no later than 1919. It is easy to reason from probable cause to likely effect that this sordid revelation may have influenced Graybill to take advantage of his access to the writings of Ellen White, unreleased to the public, which betrayed the fact that she lied to cover-up earlier blunders. It is not surprising, then, knowing the determination of Adventists to protect the institution of Adventism at all costs, that no Seventh-day Adventist Sabbath apologist has ever, to our knowledge, even acknowledge the existence of Carson's Hebrew linguistics arguments, much less attempted to refute them. Some decades ago a well-respected Seventh-day Adventist Hebrew professor, Dr. Jerry Gladson, left the Church and began to teach against Sabbatarianism. Two Sabbatarian apologists have challenged our presentation of the Hebrew linguistics problem. We have asked them to bring forth a Hebrew language expert to refute our findings, but years have passed by and no one has come forth. For an exhaustive treatment of this subject, we refer our readers to our book, Doctors Bacchiocchi, MacCarty, and du Prees Wreak Havoc With The Sabbath And Ellen White. Nearly every significant pro-Sabbatarian theory to explain away Colossians 2:14-17 is examined. It also explains how Bacchiocchi's 1977 book, From Sabbath to Sunday, almost singlehandedly launched the new anti-Sabbatarian movement by proposing a work-around of this text that was so selfcontradictory that it upset both thinking Seventh-day Adventists as well as Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox scholars. In the 1895 version of Replies to Canright, we have proof that Adventist leaders were having a struggle with Colossians 2:1417. Replies to Canright quotes the following passage from Canright's book. Instead of addressing his key argument at his foundational point, they show that just a year or two earlier, he argued in favor of a Sabbatarian interpretation of this key passage. They list his own arguments for a Sabbatarian-friendly reading of the passage and attempt to make him appear to flip-flop back and forth to prove that his thinking is inconsistent, but they provide no evidence to validate their stance that he is incorrect. Here is a portion of what Canright said about Colossians 2:14-17. His basic premise is not addressed by his critics: “But it is argued that as 'the Sabbath days' of Col.2:16 'are a shadow of things to come' (verse 17), and the weekly Sabbath is a memorial of creation, pointing back to the beginning, therefore they cannot be the same; for the Sabbath could not point both ways. But isnot this a mere assertion without any proof? How
do we know that it cannot point both ways? The Passover was a memorial of their deliverance from Egypt, and always pointed back to that event. Ex.12:11-17. Yet it was also a shadow of Christ. Col.2:16,17. 'Even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us.' 1Cor.5:7. So all those annual feasts were types of Christ in some way, and yet all were memorials also of past events, as all know.... Paul says plainly that Sabbath days are a shadow of things to come; and one plain statement of Inspiration is worth a thousand of our vain reasonings. This is in harmony with Paul's argument [Editor's note: Although it was Canright's personal belief that St. Paul was the author of Hebrews, there are reasons for questioning the Pauline authorship of Hebrews. Our position is that the authorship of Hebrews is unknown, but that the content strongly suggests that it was written by a true Christian who was influenced by God's Spirit.] in Heb.4:1-11, that the seventh day is a type. For forty years we have tried to explain away this text, and to show that it really cannot mean what it says; but there it stands, and mocks all our theories. The Sabbath is a type, for Inspiration says so.” Canright in Advocate of Oct. 1, 1887.
Looking back at the Canright Sabbath Crisis of 1888-1889, it is compelling to note that Canright knew all the cheap arguments that he had used himself in arguing for the Sabbath, saw later on that they were cheap, and faced the fact that he had been wrong. Since Canright had been a top leader of the Advent Movement, he was in a better position to know the struggles the Church had experienced in trying to explain away this devastating anti-Sabbatarian passage than most other Adventists leaders of the time. By leaving the employment of the Church, Canright was able to practice Gospel Christianity without any further fear of additional consequences. The unwillingness of other, less noble, Adventist leaders has plagued Adventism from its very beginning. Here is what we now know about the impossibilities of the traditional Adventist defense of Colossians 2:14-17. We are not suggesting that Canright knew all of these arguments. He knew most of them. These are the facts as we know them today, which have been researched from the time of Canright down to our own time: 1. Sabbatarians attempt to discredit the fact that the third reference to ordinances in the passage is a reference to the weekly Sabbath of the Decalogue by saying that Paul used the plural form of the word, which would signify it was one of the other kind of ceremonial Sabbaths. This attempt to evade the plain meaning of the passage doesn’t work because there are about 20 other places in Scripture where the plural form of the word Sabbath, Sabbaton, is used where context demands the meaning be the weekly Sabbath. Sabbath and sabbaton work both in the singular and plural, even as the word “fruit”. It is just as valid to refer to fruit or fruits in many contexts. 2. The sentence structure FESTIVAL, NEW MOON, Sabbath is a phrase used in the Hebrew to imply the three aspects of Jewish observances and designates the order of ANNUAL, MONTHLY, WEEKLY. This same annual, monthly and weekly sequence appears five times in the Septuagint– i.e., 2 Chron. 2:4; 31:3; Neh. 10:33; Ezek. 45:17; Hosea 2:11. All through the history of the Israelites we have annual Sabbaths, monthly New Moons, and weekly Sabbaths. If the word Sabbath as translated here means monthly Sabbaths, the sentence would read, “Annual Sabbaths, monthly New Moons, and monthly Sabbaths.” If it were an annual Sabbath Paul meant here, the sentence would read, “Annual Sabbaths, monthly New Moons, and annual Sabbaths. 3. Whenever the Old Testament links the New Moon celebration with the Sabbath, as in Colossians 2:16, it is referring to the weekly Sabbath (2 Kings 4:23, 1 Chron. 23:31, 2 Chron. 2:4; Neh. 10:33; Isa. 1:13; 66:23; Ezek. 45:17; 46.1: Hosea 2:11: Amos 8:5). In the Old Testament, annual Sabbaths are always called “a Sabbath of rest” in the Septuagint. This Greek version of the Old Testament always, or nearly always, translates this as Sabbata Sabbaton– not simply Sabbaton– as here in Colossians 2:14-17. 1. Paul clearly states that these four things– diet, annual feasts, monthly feasts, and the weekly Sabbath– are not to be a part of Christian belief and practice because they are merely shadows of things that were to come, whereas Christ is the Reality that did come. To try and salvage Sabbatarianism, the Adventists say that Paul could not possibly have meant a weekly Sabbath here because the Sabbath was a memorial pointing backwards to Creation. This SDA approach fails because the most significant Jewish memorials pointed both
backward and forward at the same time. In Colossians, prior to this passage, Paul refers to Adam as a symbol of Christ. In fact it is possible that all the major Jewish ordinances point both backward and forward at the same time. 2. Paul was a Jew, and the Jews, for thousands of years, have used the Sabbath as a symbol of the rest that will come in the after-life. This fact is well-documented in Jewish literature, both ancient and modern. 3. Since the Jews viewed the TORAH as 613 equally important, inseparable laws, it is impossible that St. Paul meant that only the “ceremonial” laws were nailed to the cross. Adventists use circular reasoning when they assert that the Sabbath reference in this passage could not possibly refer to the weekly Sabbath because the Sabbath is an eternal, moral principle. It would be unlike a Jewish writer to list a set of items that were not related to each other. Each item– the Jewish dietary laws, the annual Sabbaths, the monthly New Moons, and the weekly Sabbath– were all ceremonial ordinances within the TORAH and thought of as equal in importance in Jewish law. As Jennifer Rector points out in her personal essay on the Sabbath: Charles C. Ryrie, formerly Dean of the Graduate School and Professor of Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary, explains that “unless the New Testament expressly says so, part of the law cannot be ended without doing away with all of it” (242). The Jerusalem council’s decision to declare circumcision obsolete did away with the entire old covenant law- the seventh-day Sabbath included.” http://www.sabbatismos.com/the-Sabbath/new-covenant-Sabbath-rest/
(Rector is quoting from Ryrie; Charles C. “The End of the Law.” Bibliotheca Sacra 124:495 (1967), pages 240-247.) After the Council of Jerusalem the issue of Sabbath-keeping could never arise again. It would have been settled forever, and this is exactly what we observe about the New Testament record. There is not a single comment about a Sabbath-keeping requirement for Christians from Matthew to Revelation, and there is a command that Sabbath-keeping is not to be required found in Colossians 2:14-17. Now read this passage again with the understanding that the Sabbath referenced in this text cannot be anything else but the weekly Sabbath. The text is from the NIV: 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. ― Colossians 2:16-17
Thanks to the recent revelations about Ancient Israel's observance of the lunar Sabbath, we have still more evidence that Bible writers viewed the Sabbath system as an inseparable set. The complete set must have a minimum of three components― the annual Sabbaths, the monthly New Moons, and weekly Sabbaths. This set would not be complete in this passage if Paul was listing them as annual, monthly, and annual. At present Adventism is under intense pressure to develop a credible work-around of Colossians 2:14-17. We need to look no further than the recent work of SDA theologian, Dr. Ronald du Preez, who came up with the Animal Sacrifices Theory. You can study a full analysis of his work in our book, Doctors Bacchiocchi, MacCarty, and du Preez Wreak Havoc With The Sabbath and Ellen White, which you will find for down-loading at TruthOrFables.Com. In a nutshell, du Preez theorizes that on all the different kinds of Sabbaths, Israel offered animal sacrifices. He further theorizes that the first Christians were still sacrificing animals on these Sabbaths and that St. Paul was merely labeling this practice as obsolete “shadows.” There are several serious problems with his theory. For one thing the only place animal sacrifices could be made was at the Jewish temple is Israel. Paul was writing to a predominantly Gentile audience, and these Gentiles lived in Heathen cities that were generally a long ways from Jerusalem. It seems unlikely that Christians were continuing to sacrifice animals after Christ died on the Cross as the Ultimate Sacrifice.
HEBREWS 4 IS NOT ABOUT SABBATH-KEEPING FOR CHRISTIANS If you use circular reasoning to assume Sabbatarianism to be true, which seems to require reading the Sabbath back into Genesis, Hebrews Chapter 4 looks like a good proof-text at first glance. However, a careful analysis of Hebrews 1-11, using
basic principles of literary interpretation, reveals that the author is using the Sabbath's cessation of labor as a symbol of the rest that the Christian finds in the Gospel. Also the writer’s commentary on the events of the 7 th day of Creation focuses on what God did– and not what man was supposed to do. A thoughtful analysis of this passage clearly demonstrates that the Sabbath is used here as a symbol of the rest the Gospel brings to the Christian through the Gospel's assurance of salvation as taught by the author of Hebrews. Until some break-through research by Larry Dean, the evidence seemed formidable against the thought that St. Paul was a likely candidate for being the author of The Book of Hebrews. This book is written in a very high Greek style and has the qualities of Greek rhetoric at its pinnacle of excellence, according to the critics. By contrast, Paul's epistles suggest that his command of these things is only moderate. Larry Dean, together with a variety of experts in Greek culture from different disciplines evaluated St. Paul's Mars Hill discourse. Paul exhibits the highest level of these skills, as well as a masterful command of Greek mythology and history. It seems clear to these researchers that something miraculous happened, not only to Paul, but in the crowd that heard him. Experts in Greek culture and history believe that over 70,000 people had gathered to hear him. To have the astonishing, long-lasting and quick-acting effect that his speech had on the people, some analysts believe that each person heard Paul speaking in his own language. Is it possible that the Holy Spirit gave Paul his communication skills for that occasion and then allowed him to keep those skills. If so, the case for Paul being an excellent candidate for authoring the Book of Hebrews is strong. The concept of the Sabbath rest being found in Christ is consistent with his view of the Sabbath as an obsolete shadow that found its reality in Him. Read this passage carefully, paying special attention to the symbolism utilized by the writer. This text has nothing to do with proof that Christians are still required to keep the Sabbath: Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it. 2 For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith. 3 Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said, “So I declared on oath in my anger, 'They shall never enter my rest.' And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world. 4For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: “And on the seventh day God rested from all his work.” 1
And again in the passage above he says, “They shall never enter my rest.” 6 It still remains that some will enter that rest, and those who formerly had the gospel preached to them did not go in, because of their disobedience. 7 Therefore God again set a certain day, calling it Today, when a long time later he spoke through David, as was said before: “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.” 8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day. 9 There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; 10 for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his. 11 Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience. (NIV-Bible, www.Gateway.com ) 5
Israel never enjoyed the rest that God had intended for them because of their unbelief. By contrast, the Christian's belief in the assurance of salvation that they find in Jesus provides the rest that God intended Israel to have. This text says nothing that can be construed to support the requirement that Christians observe the ceremony of the weekly Sabbath. God's rest here is not the weekly Sabbath, which Jesus states is a day that God works on, and does not rest in (John. 5:17). These Israelites had, and entered into the weekly “shadow” Sabbath, but were unable to enter into this “sabbatismos”, being God's rest.
Chapter Eleven BARRIERS TO THE SABBATARIAN-FRIENDLY INTERPRETATION OF THE PROPHECIES OF DANIEL
BARRIERS TO THE SABBATARIAN-FRIENDLY INTERPRETATION OF THE PROPHECIES OF DANIEL
BIBLICAL BARRIER: THE PROPHECIES OF DANIEL 7 AND 8 DO NOT PROVE A SABBATH-CHANGING "CONSPIRACY" As we have noted before, it has become impossible to separate Sabbatarianism from Seventh-day Adventism. Ellen White taught that Daniel 8 contains a prophecy that predicts that the Roman Catholic Church would persecute Sabbath-keepers and a whole bunch of other related conspiracy components. However, Since 1914 Adventism had been reeling from the publication of former Swedish SDA leader Aaron Nyman entitled Astounding Errors. This 419 page book demonstrated to the point of over-kill the comical, self-contradictory impossibilities of the SDA interpretations of the major prophecies of Daniel. Aaron was not only a former Adventist, but he was a brilliantly successful businessman who had amassed a small fortune. His book shows a solid command of the facts of ancient history. After he studied his way out of Adventism he challenged Chicago Area SDA leaders to public debates about these prophecies. This tactic garnered a lot of publicity, but the debates never took place. The Conference leaders backed down in the face of his evident command of biblical and historical knowledge, and they made a wise decision not to allow him to make fools of themselves. In a stunning move he offered his personal home, valued at over $5,000, to any Adventist who could prove that the 2,300 days began in 497 BC and that the 2,300 days began at the same time as the 70 weeks. He also challenged them to prove that the 2,300 day prophecy can be successfully utilized to make a day stand for a year to get it to 1844, which would mean they would have to disprove his interpretation that the prophetic period was 2,300 literal evening and morning sacrifices and that this period of literal days represented the number of days that Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the temple in Jerusalem. By 1919 the delegates to the Bible conference at the General Conference headquarters in Washington DC had every possible reason to understand that their prophetess suffered from extreme historical ignorance. Since early Christian times many biblical scholars have understood that the little horn of Daniel 7 referred to the Roman Emperor, Nero. Nero persecuted Christians for exactly 1,260 days. Down through time, biblical scholars have sometimes applied this prophecy to the persecuting activities of the papacy but without any need to link its persecuting behavior to the so-called “change” of the Sabbath as Adventists have done. Similarly, for a very long time scholars have known that the 2,300 evenings and mornings of the little horn of Daniel 8 work out to the exact number of days that Antiochus Epiphanes polluted the Jewish Temple before 161 BC. These prophecies have been so remarkable in their actual “a-day-stands-for-aday” historical fulfillment, that higher critics of the Bible claimed they had to have been written after these events took place. Within a few years of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947, the early authorship of Daniel was firmly established, refuting the skeptics by proving that the author of Daniel wrote significantly earlier than the events he foretold. It is likely that at least a number of honest-at-heart unbelievers had their faith in the Bible established by the spectacular fulfillment of these prophecies regarding Antiochus Epiphanes and Nero. Ellen White’s interpretation of the 2,300 “year” and 1,260 “year” prophecies, therefore, destroys two remarkably accurate Bible prophecies and twists them into ones that are highly imaginative. If the thought has not already occurred to you, Ellen White's false use of these prophecies gives skeptics two more reasons to excuse themselves from believing in the Bible. The entire concept of Adventism rests on the “foundation” of the 2,300 day prophecy of Daniel 8:14. If this “foundation” can be shown to be non-existent, then there is no Investigative Judgment that began in Heaven in 1844 and the Sabbath is not a “seal.” These two key points of SDA doctrine would be false even if Sabbatarianism were to be generally true. Nor would God have called Adventists after 1844 to take the Sabbath and Investigative Judgment doctrines to the world to rescue them from receiving the Mark of the Beast! Without the validity of the 1844 SDA prophetic time period, the SDA concept of 1844 would be nothing more than a huge theological joke played on the Christian world by none other than Ellen G. White herself, whose theological trickery shamelessly rescued the Millerite debacle of 1844 from the jaws of defeat. The Investigative Judgment doctrine affects, to one degree or another, almost every aspect of the Church's teachings. Robert K. Sanders points out that God does not need to have some kind of formal judgment to know who will be saved and who will not. The doctrine of soul sleep is necessitated by the Doctrine of the Investigative Judgment.
We talked about these heresies earlier. It would seem that if God threatens to destroy the very existence of anyone who might dare to challenge His authority, there is no real freedom of choice in the Universe. In the Story of the Rich Man And Lazarus, Jesus taught that after death the wicked find themselves in a less-than-ideal existence of their own creation where they enjoy the results of their own choices. If the wicked are annihilated, they have essentially been told by God, “Do things My way, or I will blast you out of existence.” Orthodox Christianity has widely taught a picture of life after death that exonerates God’s commitment to genuine freedom of choice. Adventists, therefore, place themselves at odds with most Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox communities when it comes to these doctrines, and they seriously err when they try to excuse Jesus’ Story of the Rich Man And Lazarus by claiming that it was merely a parable. It seems unreasonable to think that Jesus would use a “parable” that taught a serious theological error as a cheap shot to make a point that He felt He needed to make at that particular moment. The Adventists of 1919 seemed greatly confused about these prophecies. The transcript of the 1919 Bible Conference Minutes suggests that Wilcox and the other delegates had mistakenly applied the 1,260 days of the little horn of Daniel 7 to Antiochus and were struggling to find solid ground upon which to base the 1844 date on the 2,300 evening and morning sacrifices of the little horn of Daniel 8 and 11. It is not surprising there was considerable confusion among SDA scholars regarding the 2,300 days of the little horn of Daniel 8, since they were trying incorrectly to apply the year-for-a-day concept where there was no scriptural warrant to do so in order to arrive at the desperately needed date of 1844. We will discuss this prophecy in detail later.
DANIEL 7 EVALUATED BY THE DELEGATES TO THE 1919 BIBLE CONFERENCE The key point for now is that the delegates to the 1919 Bible Conference believed that the little horn of Daniel 7 related to a much earlier historical event that happened over 2,000 years before 1844; that they knew that this knowledge was dangerous to the foundation of Adventism, and that they wanted to withhold this damaging information from the Church. “Watch” the delegates in this revealing passage from the Minutes in regard to Daniel 7: PROF. LACEY: In the career of Antiochus Epiphanes there is a kind of a little wheel within a wheel. There are events in his life which are very like what is predicted of the little horn– extremely alike, and I do not know why we could not consider this in the same way that Ezekiel expresses it– a wheel within a wheel. Just to illustrate: The things said about the little horn of Daniel 7 can apply to Antiochus Epiphanes in a small way. He is the 11th down the line, three were plucked up in his place [names were mentioned], he did speak great words against the Most High, he did wear out the saints of the Most High in a small way, he did change the law of the Most High; things were given into his hand for just a time, times, and a half in a literal sense, which was three and one-half years. And in a very small way Antiochus Epiphanes might have been the little horn. So, supposed you and I had been living in that day we would have thought that the prophecy met its fulfillment to us, and we should have been sustained through that hour of persecution. In a small way I think this can apply to Antiochus Epiphanes. But in verse 30 we pass on to Rome, the great anti-Christ, of which Antiochus was here the personal representative. (Mention was made of Josephus Book 12, Chapter 5, paragraph 3, but a question interrupted.) ELDER DANIELLS: You would not want to say that that you have just said now to a class of students, would you?
The above section is taken from the July 8, 1919 transcript as posted at the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventist archives. The portion of the transcript from the July 3, 1919 Bible Conference Minutes you are about to review is one of the most important keys to understanding what and when Adventists knew about this thorny problem. Older Seventh-day Adventist readers will immediately recognize that the Church made no attempt to correct these errant teachings in the Bible text books at any educational level. It is also important to understanding the problems with the “Resting Theory” of SDA Sabbath apologist, Bob Pickle, who seeks to rescue Ellen White’s blunder with a highly creative theory. He rationalizes that the Sabbath was not actually “changed” until resting became associated with Sunday observance, even though it took several additional centuries of Sunday observance and Sabbath-breaking to arrive at that point. According to Pickle, it matters not
that Christians “kept” Sunday and broke the Sabbath from the first century onward. Instead, the Sabbath was not really “changed” until a series of edicts were successful in requiring a civil cessation of labor on Sundays. Nor does it seem to matter that this legislated “resting” was optional under many circumstances and was purely civil in its concept– not linked to the concept of day sacredness, as in the case of the Jewish Sabbath. You will see that the delegates to the 1919 Bible Conference did not attempt to excuse Ellen White's misstatement on this basis. We have evaluated Bob Pickle's “Resting Theory” elsewhere. Notice how the participants finally conclude that the only way Ellen White's claim can be reconciled with the facts of history is to consider her statement to be a vaguely like a type of symbolism called a prolepsis (the representation or assumption of a future act or development as if presently existing or accomplished– Merriam-Webster's On-Line Dictionary)― but only in reverse. The use of “reverse prolepsis,” which would be the presentation of a past act or development as if it existed in the past, is not a known or accepted literary device. FROM THE 1919 BIBLE CONFERENCE MINUTES – JULY 3, 1919 Begins on manuscript page 48 and ends on page 57. Archives stamped page 149 for beginning page. [Note that the Archives page numbering system is different from the manuscript page numbering system.] C.P. BOLLMAN: I was asked about these things we attribute to the papacy before that date [533 AD as discussed in the previous paragraph]. I would answer that in this way. I have used the expression in the paper that the papacy at this time, emerging from its nonage or minority, proceeded to do certain things. Before that date the papacy was a boy, and at that time it became a man. And it is true that many things a boy does follow him all through his life, but he does a number of things afterward, and there comes a time when he really enters upon life. The graduating exercises are called commencement exercises, too, because that is the time when the student goes forth to engage in the activities of life. W.W. PRESCOTT: I think this does not meet the point because the prophecy says it is the horn that changes the law. Now if you do not get the horn up in 533 you can’t say the horn changed the Sabbath before that date. It was another kingdom. H.A. WASHBURN: Was there a monarchical power in the church until Justinian declared the pope to be head? This eleventh horn is a kingdom just as truly as the tenth. It is a kingdom a monarchical power, and it began in 533. W.W. PRESCOTT: If that is the power that changed the law, we can’t say the law was changed in the middle of the fourth century. H.A. WASHBURN: Brother Lacey told us of a woman who said she had spanked Emperor William. It was the same person, but he did not have a title. The apostasy changed God’s law, and it was responsible for all the acts against the Sabbath. There came a time when it was organized under one man. W.W. PRESCOTT: Here is what I would like to say. Hold to the text. The horn power was a kingdom. That kingdom did not rise till 533. The prophecy says it is the horn that changes the Sabbath, the law, and I did not think we can put that back before the horn appears and say the horn did it, because the horn was not there. I would like to have that specifically met. What shall we do with that proposition that the horn power rose in 533 and changed the law? How can we say that the horn power did it in the middle of the fourth century? L.L. CAVINESS: We meet that same dilemma in the Spirit of Prophecy when it says the pope changed the Sabbath. Please tell me the name of the pope that made the change. A.G. DANIELS: That use of the word pope was intended for the papacy. It was not a specific term. It was the power that did it, but before it came to that special stage marked by Justinian. E.R. PALMER: It appears to me that if we were to tie down all of the fulfillments of the prophecies to the span of the 1260 days of continuance spoken of in the prophecy, we are involved in serious difficulty at both ends, at the beginning, before 533, and since 1793 and 1798. It seems to me that in view of the
fact that this evil principle began back in Paul’s day, that it embodied all these things that were powers that were exercised later as a horn, but that they all began back there. I think we have gone astray many times in our explanation by trying to put the change arbitrarily at a date in connection with the papacy at a certain time, but really that time began its work of changing the Sabbath way back in the first century. I think this is true. I think there came a time also when that period closes, and yet much of the most mighty work of that power has been exercised and is being exercised, after the termination of the period. It seems to me that to bring that too definitely within the 1260 year period, it involves us in serious difficulty at both ends, and I think we have a good deal of phrase adjusting and work adjusting in our literature relative to the Sabbath and the papacy to make the thing consistent with what actually took place before the 1260 years and afterwards. A.G. DANIELS: Now then the horn power represents the papacy from its earlier embryonic condition to its destruction, does it not? Now then, it is necessary to place the rise of the establishment of that horn in 533 at the time we say it became a monarchical power? That is the question to me. Is that our position? Is that a right position? Is it a necessary position? Wasn’t it a horn power long before then? E.R. PALMER: That is a serious question. If the thing was not developing, if it was not growing for much more than 1260 years, then there were certain developments that marked off the 1260 years in a definite way. A.G. DANIELS: As a living, acting power, the beast, through various steps and at various times did various things. Now one of the things that the little horn did was to attack Jesus through His law and His Sabbath. It certainly did it before ever that decree of Justinian came. It is safe to not recognize it as a horn power before that decree was made? If that is not necessary, then where is the wrong in recognizing that fulfillment of the prophecy when it was broken up into the ten parts? W.W. PRESCOTT: Here is another difficulty, and that is, we set the Council of Laodicea at the latest date, earlier than we set the breaking up of the empire, so that you have got that action. If we make much of the Council of Laodicea, it was before the breaking up of the empire began. M.C. WILCOX: Shall we take up the beginning of that horn power, the assumption of the power itself, or the recognition of that assumption by the state? W.W. PRESCOTT: You take it clear back when Constantine reached Rome, when Attila appeared against Rome. Was the pope the leading power then? Didn’t he turn back Attila? Yes! Then can’t we go back even to that time? What was a great step in the assumption of that power? When Constantine reached Rome and the pope appeared? That was in the early part of the fourth century. Now as Brother Palmer suggested, the 1260 years mark a special phase of that Rome power, and there it sort of comes into that prophecy under that theme but I don’t see how we can shut him off back of that, because there are things that appear back there that are very vital. H.C. LACEY: I have been face to face with this for some little time, too, and I try to adhere to our traditional view. Our book says 538. We have changed that to 533, and it continues 126 years. I believe there is a great measure of truth in that. It appears that the Sabbath was changed before that. The church turned to the observance of Sunday before 533 or 538. A.G. DANIELLS: You said our traditional view that the papacy arose in 538. You mean that that is when it received supreme power? H.C. LACEY: Could we say that the papacy did something in days anterior to that special time when perhaps the papacy arose in that way to which we generally refer? I have used this little incident that was referred to, about the woman spanking the emperor. An old woman went around boasting that she had spanked the emperor, because she took him upon her knee and walloped him. (C.P. BOLLMAN: She ought to have kept it up [Laughter]) It was not the emperor she spanked. It was the same person who by and by became the emperor. I find the Bible treats in this way the birth of Jesus Christ. He did not become the Christ until A. D. 27, but it speaks of Him as being born in A. D. 5. That is an exactly analogous figure. The papacy can come up in 538, and yet the apostate church was developed before, and by and by it changed the Sabbath. Can we not have a figure of prolepsis? Some take the sign for the thing signified, as when Sister White
says the pope changed the Sabbath. She took the pope to represent that system. She didn’t mean to identify a particular pope, but just as a general term. We say this is the home of the King, of the council. “The king” simply stands for the government, and the pope stands for the papacy. The apostate church changed the Sabbath. Step by step the change developed, and then the pope laid hands upon the Sunday institute and boosted it. And so, as it stands today, the great sponsor of Sunday observance is the papacy. W.W. PRESCOTT: Is it not true, as a fact of history, that the papacy exercised greater political power in the fourth and fifth centuries than it did under Justinian? LACEY: Certainly. C. M. SORENSON: We all recognize that a correct explanation includes all the facts in the case. Of course that is the only explanation that takes recognition of all the facts in the case, and that is the idea[l] explanation toward which we strive. We have been speaking about reading things into the Bible, and of course that is wrong. But there is another practice that is bad, and that is reading things into history. That is one of the evil legacies left us by A. T. Jones’ leadership. His books are full of that practice, and we have consigned them to the scrap heap. They contain some facts, but the facts are biased by a preconceived notion. Now here is another point: There is no connection between the plucking up of the three horns and the giving of the saints into his hands for a time, times, and the dividing of time. If we will keep those two lines absolutely separate, it will be better. There was no tremendous change that took place in 533, so far as the status of the papacy is concerned. There is that question of supremacy. Do we use that understandingly? There was a time when the papacy was the supreme power in Europe― from 1100 to 1300. The papacy was not supreme in any ordinary sense of the term during the 1260 years, but he did exercise domination over God’s people. M.C. WILCOX: I have been trying to get a term that is suitable. What do you suggest? C.M. SORENSON: The word “domination.” M.C. WILCOX: That is the word I have been using― papal domination. C.M. SORENSON: During those two hundred years the papacy did exercise actual political supremacy over all the rest of Europe and civilization. King John, right in the climax of that period, signed over his kingdom to the pope. W. W. PRESCOTT: Can you say, Brother Sorenson, that the papal domination began in 533? C.M. SORENSON: There was a legal enactment by Justinian at that time. But the actual domination over God’s people was tapered off at the beginning and at the end for the elect’s sake. It seems to have been lessened somewhat at the beginning, but more especially at the close of that period. W.W. PRESCOTT: I know, Brother Chairman, it was a great surprise to me after I had read our books when I actually read history and found that the papal supremacy was only from 1100 to 1300, and gradually rose to that climax, and then gradually faded out. I think we have used that term “supremacy” very carelessly. We have heard and we have read how that in 538 the pope became supreme, but it was in that very year that he was absolutely humbled. C.M. SORENSON: That was one of the worst years he ever had. W.W. PRESCOTT: And yet you read in our books and hear in our sermons that in 538 the pope became supreme. If there is any way of correcting these statements, I wish it might be done. W.L. BIRD: The Dark Ages should be considered in the same way. C.P. BOLLMAN: I would just like to ready the prophecy. “After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it
devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.” That is a picture of 478. “I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots; and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of [a] man, and a mouth speaking great things.” When did this little horn come up?—then, or two or three hundred years before? It says, “I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them.” And the term “another” conveys to my mind that the ten horns were there when it came up. It came up “among them.” They must have been there or it could not have come up among them, and they must have been there or it could not have been “another” one. It seems to me that we shall have to solve it along the lines suggested by Professor Lacey. I think we attribute to this power some things that were actually done before. A.G. DANIELLS: This is very interesting and very profitable, and what has been said here shows a need of careful study, and comparison of views and teaching.
DANIEL 8 AS EVALUATED BY THE 1919 BIBLE CONFERENCE It is impossible to find a reasonably correct start date for Ellen White's interpretation of the 2,300 evening and morning sacrifices prophecy of Daniel 8. Without a start date, how could you know what the finish date might be? The standard Christian interpretation, on the other hand, lends itself to an exact fulfillment with a known start date and a known finish date. It is pure assumption on the part of Adventist adherents to the 2,300 “day,” 1844 prophecy that these 2,300 “days” began at the same time another prophetic period began– the 70 weeks, or 490 years– which supposedly began around 457 BCE and was to reach to the appearance of Christ. Historically, nothing important happened in 457 BCE, although something that might meet the specifications (for the command to re-build the temple at Jerusalem took place about 30 years earlier). Unfortunately, 457 BCE is critical to causing the 2,300 years to end in 1844. Dirk Anderson gives us the specifications of the correct interpretation of this prophecy. There are fatal problems to the entire Adventist concept of a prophecy that lasts 2,300 years rather than 2,300 days: The 2300-day prophecy witnessed an amazing fulfillment during the terrifying reign of Antiochus. Could it be that God foresaw this terrible threat coming 400 years before it happened, and sent a message to Daniel to comfort and assure His people that He would ultimately give them the victory? Amazingly, God told the Jews precisely how long His sanctuary would be profaned: 2300 evening and morning sacrifices would be suspended while the sanctuary was profaned. How does the Jewish Calendar Work? The Jewish lunar year contains 354 days, or 12 lunations of the moon. In a cycle of 19 years, an intercalary month (Veadar) is introduced seven times in order to render the average year nearly correct. Leap years occur in the 3rd, 6th, 8th, 11th, 14th, 17th, and 19th years of the cycle. One day is added to the month of Adar, and a 13th month (Veadar), containing 29 days is inserted before Nisan. This adds 30 days to the year. Depending upon whether the latter year is regular, perfect, or defective, a leap year may consist of 383, 384, or 385 days. Thus, six years would be 6 multiplied by 354 days (an ordinary common year), plus four alternating months of 29 and 30 days each, plus two intercalary months of 29. According to the Jewish calendar (see box on right), the 2300 days works out to be six years, three months, and 18 days. This time period began on the fifteenth day of the month Cisleu, in the year 145 of the Selucidae, in which Antiochus set up the Abomination of Desolation upon the altar of God: "Now the five and twentieth day of the month they did sacrifice upon the idol altar, which was upon the altar of God." (1 Maccabees 1:59) This was the beginning of a period of intense suffering for those in Israel who chose to remain faithful to God. Judas Maccabeus was outraged over the injustice done to God's sanctuary:
"Alas! Why was I born to witness the ruin of my people and the ruin of the holy city, and to sit by while it is being given up to its enemies, and the sanctuary to aliens? Her temple has come to be like a man disgraced... Behold, our sanctuary and our beauty and our glory have been laid waste, and the heathen have profaned them." (1 Maccabees 2:7, 8,12) Maccabeus rose up and started a revolt against Antiochus. For over three years he struggled and fought against the armies of Antiochus. Finally, he was victorious over Nicanor, on the thirteenth day of the month Adar, Anno 151, and the power of Antiochus over Judea was broken. After his victory, when Judas entered Jerusalem, he found "the sanctuary desolate." (1 Mac. 4:38) Judas immediately directed the sanctuary be rebuilt and cleansed so that it could be used again for sacred services (1 Mac. 4:41-51). The Jews commemorate the triumph of Judas with an annual feast called the Feast of Dedication (or Hanukkah). The Savior honored this feast by His presence (John 10:22). Reckoning the 2300 Days There are two principle methods of reckoning the 2300-day period: 1.Reckoning from the fifteenth day of the month Cisleu, in the year 145 of the Selucidae, in which Antiochus set up the abomination of desolation upon the altar (1 Maccabees 1:59), to the victory obtained over Nicanor by Judas, on the 13th day of the month Adar, Anno 151, are 2300 days. The Jews kept an annual feast on the 13th of Adar, in commemoration of the victory. 2. The period began with the defection of the people from the pure religion by the Jewish high priest Menelaus, on the 6th day of the 6th month of Anno 141. According to Josephus, Menelaus went "to Antiochus, and informed him, that they were desirous to leave the laws of their country, and the Jewish way of living according to them, and to follow the king's laws, and the Grecian way of living." (Antiquities, bk. 7, Ch. 5.1) The period ended on the twenty-fifth day of Cisleu in the year 148, when the Jews offered the daily sacrifice on the new altar of burnt offerings (1 Maccabees 4:52). This is a total of 2300 days. Using either method results in a 2300-day period. There is also a method, not presented here, which calculate an 1150-day period.
[Editor's note. The next section will present the 1150-day period and contrast it with the 2,300 day period.] The Sanctuary was "cleansed" by Judas Maccabeus when he purified the holy places, sanctified the courts, rebuilt the altar, renewed the vessels of the sanctuary, and put all in their proper places: "Then Judas appointed certain men to fight against those that were in the fortress, until he had cleansed the sanctuary. So he chose priests of blameless conversation, such as had pleasure in the law: Who cleansed the sanctuary, and bare out the defiled stones into an unclean place. And when as they consulted what to do with the altar of burnt offerings, which was profaned; They thought it best to pull it down, lest it should be a reproach to them, because the heathen had defiled it: wherefore they pulled it down, And laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, until there should come a prophet to shew what should be done with them. Then they took whole stones according to the law, and built a new altar according to the former; And made up the sanctuary, and the things that were within the temple, and hallowed the courts. They made also new holy vessels, and into the temple they brought the candlestick, and the altar of burnt offerings, and of incense, and the table. And upon the altar they burned incense, and the lamps that were upon the candlestick they lighted, that they might give light in the temple. Furthermore they set the loaves upon the table, and spread out the veils, and finished all the works which they had begun to make." (1 Maccabees 4:41-51) Thus we can see a stunning fulfillment of prophecy as Judas Maccabeus cleansed and vindicated the sanctuary of God at the end of a 2300-day period of desolation. See http://www.amazingfiction.org/2300.shtml
The 2,300 day And 1,150 day Calculations Clarified David Guzik's Commentaries on the Bible clarifies both methods of applying this prophecy to Antiochus' persecution of the Jews and the defilement of the temple:
b. How long will the vision be? Daniel didn't ask this question; he heard the holy ones speaking together and one asked the question. They wanted to know how long the sacrifices would be suspended and how long the sanctuary would be desecrated. c. For two thousand three hundred days: Literally, Daniel heard a holy one say "two thousand three hundred mornings and evenings." Bible students debate if this means 2,300 days or 1,150 days. 2,300 days is almost seven years. i. Either understanding is possible, but it is more likely that this means 2,300 days. The date when the temple was cleansed is well established as December 25, 165 BC If we count back 2,300 days from then, we come to the year when Antiochus Epiphanes began his persecution in earnest (171 BC). ii. However, if we take it to mean 1,150 days it can refer to the time the temple was actually desecrated. Philip Newell makes this case: "For a duration of time during which 2300 daily sacrifices would ordinarily have been offered, one at evening and one in the morning, as specified in Exodus 29:38-43. Since there are two of these daily, the actual time period involved is 1150 days, or slightly over three years. This, in fact, was the time of the Maccabean tribulation, 168-165 BC, at the end of which the sanctuary was 'cleansed' by Judas Maccabeus in his restoration of the evening and morning sacrifices (2 Maccabees 10:1-5)." iii. This passage has been a favorite springboard for elaborate and fanciful prophetic interpretations. A popular and tragic interpretation of this passage took one year for every day, and William Miller used 2,300 "year-days" to calculate that Jesus would return in 1844 (2,300 years after Cyrus issued the decree to rebuild the temple). His movement ended up giving birth to the Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and several other movements. iv. We can know that Miller and other "year-day" theories are wrong because this passage was fulfilled before the time of Jesus. Jesus recognized that the temple was properly cleansed and rededicated when He attended the Feast of Lights, commemorating the cleansing and re-dedication of the temple after the desecration brought by Antiochus Epiphanes (John 10:22). See David Guzik's Commentary at: http://www.studylight.org/com/guz/view.cgi?book=da&chapter=008
Because Seventh-day Adventists have a do-or-die need to stretch this literal prophecy to 2,300 literal years so it will reach to 1844, they have a particular love for the King James Version of the Bible, which mistranslates several words in Daniel 8:14 “in their favor.” “Days” here is translated from two words― H6153, ereb, meaning dusk/evening, and H1242, boqer, meaning morning. “Days” is always translated from the Hebrew, H3117 “yom”– and never “ereb-boqer”. The KJV is in error, and the SDA embraces this error in order to proffer their “truth.” Dirk Anderson further explains, citing Dr. Russell Earl Kelly, on his website: http://www.nonsda.org/study6.shtml Are the 2300 days really 2300 years? Dr. Russell Earl Kelly explains: "The odd Hebrew word for days in Daniel 8:14 is not the usual Hebrew word, yom, for day. Instead, it is the Hebrew words, ‘ereb-boqer, meaning “evenings-mornings” which are correctly translated in Daniel 8:26 (even in the KJV). When comparing the KJV, NASU, NIV, and RSV, only the King James Version incorrectly reads “days.” It is important to know that ‘ereb (evening) and boqer (morning) occur 48 times in the KJV as “evening and morning” and only once as “days” ― in Daniel 8:14!" "Since the common Hebrew word for “day,” yom, does not appear in 8:14, this is probably a fundamental flaw in SDA calculations. Why? Because when the sanctuary is being discussed, the couplet, ‘ereb-boqer refers to the two daily sacrifices of the evening and the morning and the total count of days could very easily be calculated as half of 2300, or 1150 actual days.” (Footnote #11.) Anderson cited Kelly's work as follows:
11. Russell Earl Kelley, Ph.D., Exposing Seventh-day Adventism, chapter 6, http://www.tithing-russkelly.com/sda/id18.html
The context of this prophecy is Daniel's vision of the Prince and his army taking away the daily sacrifice and defiling the sanctuary. The question is then asked, “How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled—the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, and the surrender of the sanctuary and of the host that will be trampled underfoot?” Dan 8:14 (KJV) - And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days: then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.
Seeing this is about the daily evening and morning sacrifices the text should read; 2300 morning and evening sacrifices. There was one sacrifice in the evening and one in the morning, thus two sacrifices a day. Therefore we have 1,150 days of sacrifices or a little under 3 ½ years. Modern translations have corrected the KJV mistranslation such as the NIV, NASV, and NRSV. Dan 8:14 (NRSV) And he answered him,“For two thousand three hundred evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state.”
The third KJV word correction; Cleansed H6663, tsadaq. - The late Dr. Raymond Cottrell, who is considered to be the greatest of all Seventh-day Adventist theologians, observes in his essay, “The Sanctuary Doctrine Asset or Liability?” that the Hebrew word, nitsdaq, never means “cleansed” as the KJV translates it. Nitsdaq is the passive form of the verb, tsadaql, “to be right,” and means “to set right,” or as the NRSV renders it, “to be restored to its rightful state.” “Had Daniel meant “cleansed” he would have used the word taher, which does mean “cleansed” and always refers to ritual cleansing in contrast to tsadaq, which always connotes moral rightness.” The sanctuary was made right or justified not by the Day of Atonement animal sacrifices for the sins of Israel, but by Antiochus' departure from the temple in Jerusalem and the subsequent cleansing ceremonies conducted by the Jews after he left which restored the temple to its right and holy uses. The pioneers of Adventism as well as the modern Adventists' interpretation of Daniel 8:14 is exegetically incorrect. The Sanctuary to be “justified” (cleansed in the KJV) is contextually located in the earthly Jerusalem, not in Heaven. There is nothing in the text to suggest a cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary in 1844 taught by Ellen G. White. As we pointed out elsewhere, there are two places in the Old Testament, Numbers 14:33-35 and Ezekiel 4:5-6, where God used the day-for-a-year in a prophecy and it was God who made it clear when it was to be used. Adventists should have taken note of this principle. A very complete discussion of the problems of the Adventist interpretation of the little horn of Daniel 8 and 11 can be found at Dirk Anderson's website, AmazingFiction.Org. There is no better way to show our readers just how much SDA leaders had learned about the problems with their prophetic interpretations by 1919 than to provide you with an extensive portion of the 1919 Bible Conference Minutes from July 8, 1919. Keep in mind that you will see the participants acknowledge the serious problems of the single-most important prophecy to Adventism, observe them discuss how to hide the facts from SDA students, and watch them desperately try to justify a “wheel within a wheel” strategy of biblical symbolism to establish the legitimacy of the 1844 cleansing of the sanctuary in Heaven, and therefore prop-up their prophetess, Ellen G. White. We want you to see for yourselves the great difficulties these top SDA leaders were having with the leap from the literal to the symbolic in Chapter 11, which is widely accepted to be a continuation of the explanation of the little horn of Daniel 8. To do this, we are providing an extensive portion of the 1919 Bible Conference Minutes for you to study. We have taken the liberty to make obvious corrections to the stenographer's type-written manuscript, which is rendered at the General Conference Archives as scans of the original pages as they came out of the stenographer’s typewriter almost 100 years ago. Note especially the portions of text we have highlighted in red. Additionally please observe that there are editorial comments inserted within the transcript to show scholarly opinion that tends to support or contradict the various interpretations of these prophecies as proposed by the participants. These commentaries are in green so they can easily be distinguished from the transcript's text.
Again, keep in mind that Seventh-day Adventists traditionally have viewed the little horns of Daniel 7 and Daniel 8 and 11 as the same power. As we pointed out earlier, these delegates seem unaware that the 1,260 days of the little horn of Daniel 7 fit the exact number of days that Nero persecuted the Christians in the Roman Empire, and they mistakenly acknowledged the probability that the prophecy applied, initially, to Antiochus Epiphanes rather than to Nero. This misunderstanding, however, provides strong evidence that these delegates knew that one way of calculating the time that Antiochus desecrated the temple came to 3.5 years. In this passage they are discussing the little horn of Daniel 8 by discussing the prophecies of Daniel 11, which are widely viewed as relating to the little horn of Daniel 8, and widely acknowledged to apply in a spectacular way to Antiochus Epiphanes: From the July 8, 1919 Transcript: http://www.adventistarchives.org/doc_info.asp?DocID=119300 W. E. HOWELL: Not only has God showed the great mountain peaks of prophecy, but In Daniel 11, especially the first part, he has descended to-the minutest detail of the privacies of personal life, and these are thus shown to be under his supervision just as truly as the rise and fall of Empires. The modern critics are saying that the book must have been written after the days of Antiochus Epiphanes, because the statements are as accurate as a history written in his time. But we believe it was written 200 years before the days of Antiochus Epiphanes and that God could look down and see that man’s whole career. Let me read the 25th Verse: He shall stir up his power and his courage against the king of the south with a great army, and the king of the south shall be stirred up to battle with a very great and mighty army; but he shall not stand: for they shall forecast devices against him.
Is this Antiochus Epiphanes, and the two armies are the armies of these two men. H. C. LACEY: (reading his paraphrase): Daniel 11:25: “And he (Antiochus Epiphanes) shall stir up (BC 171) his power and his courage against the king of the south (Ptolemy Philopater) with a great army (“a great multitude”); and the king of the south (Ptolemy) stirred up with a very great and mighty army (“very many and exceedingly strong horses”) and the king of the south ("Ptolemy Philopater) shall not stand (“was afraid and fled”): for they shall forecast devices him (Eula, his minister, Maroon, a premier, the Alexandra ins). 36: Yea, they that feed of the portion of his (Ptolemy's) Meat (his ministers, Eula, Maroon, etc.) shall destroy (by corrupting and betraying) him (Ptolemy Philopater), and his (Ptolemy’s) army shall overflow and many shall fall down slain.” A.G. DANIELLS: What does it mean by overflowing? H.C. LACEY: They dispersed and were defeated. In the old view Rome shall overflow, and many shall fall down slain. A.G. DANIELLS: Does overflow mean to disperse and to run out? H. C. LACEY: Exactly the same criticism may be applied to both views. I suppose we could turn this thing around and make it apply to Rome. . . . is the language in I Maccabees 1:16, 16, 18, 19. (Reads) You see that the language both in the bible and the apocryphal book is practically identical. “And both these kings’ hearts shall be do mischief, and they shall speak lies at one table; but it shall not prosper; for yet the end shall be at the time appointed.” 27
Upon his arrival at Memphis, Antiochus Epiphanes and Ptolemy Philopater frequently ate and conversed together “at one table, Antiochus pretending he would favor the cause of Ptolemy as against the usurpation of his brother, Physson. This Antiochus pretends to espouse the cause of this older nephew against his brother, Ptolemy, laying the blame of the whole campaign upon Eulasus, his majesty who betrayed him, and professing great obligations to his uncle Antiochus. But these protestations of friendship were “lies” on his part. As soon as Antiochus had withdrawn, the two brothers, Ptolemy and Physson, made peace through the mediation of their sister, Cleopatra, and agreed to reign conjointly in Egypt. But even this did not prosper. The two monarchs came to blows at the time appointed.
Let us read into the Scripture the names of these kings: “And both these kings” hearts (Antiochus Epiphanes and Ptolemy Philopater) shall be to do mischief (each hoping to circumvent the other), and they shall speak lies at one table (in apparent friendliness), but it (this patched up peace between them) shall not prosper: for yet the end shall be at the time appointed.” : Then shall he return into his own land with great riches; and his heart shall be against the holy covenant; and he shall do exploits, and return to his own land.” That is the prophecy. 38
Antiochus, hoping that the two Egyptian brothers would ruin each other in civil war, returned to Syria. He took with him immense treasures from the captured towns of Egypt. The verse says, “He shall return . . . with great riches.” History says he took immense spoils from the captured towns of Egypt. In 1 Maccabees 1:19-20 it is stated, “Thus they got the strong cities in the land of Egypt, and he took the spoils thereof.” That is the history. Notice it says “his heart shall be against the holy covenant.” The next verse—(1 Maccabees 1:20) “And after that Antiochus had smitten Egypt, he return again in the hundred forty and third year (312 of the ---era, which is BC 169), and went up against Israel and Jerusalem with a great multitude, and took away the golden altar, and the candlestick of light, and all the vessels thereof, and the table of the showbread, and the pouring vessels, and the vials, and the censers of gold, and the veil, and the crowns, and the golden ornaments that were before the temple, all which he pulled off. He took also the sliver and the gold, and the previous vessels; also he took the hidden treasures which he found. And when he had taken all away, he went into his own land, having made a great massacre, and spoken very proudly. That is the history. The prophecy reads thus: ‘and his heart shall be against the holy covenant.” There is more to that than this, too, ̶ “his heart shall be against it.” When he was in Egypt a false report had been circulated of his death. Thereupon Jason, the ex-high priest—(Antiochus Epiphanes had done this) Thereupon Jason, the ex-high priest, returned to Jerusalem, drove his brother, Wenelaus, out of office, and cruelly ill-treated the citizens. Antiochus, thinking the whole nation had revolted, and hearing that they had made great rejoicing at the report of his death, besieged Jerusalem with a great army, took the city by storm, and vented his anger upon the helpless Jews. He slew 40,000 of them, and sold 40,000 more, polluted the temple, offered swine’s flesh on the altar of God, restored Wenelaus to the priesthood, and made Philip, a barbarian, governor of Judea. “He shall do exploits,” and then “return to his own land,” just as these events here are brought forth. PROF. ANDERSON: What verse in the chapter do you allude to when you speak of the pollution of the temple, as you read in the history? PROF. LACEY: In the 11th chapter, when we get down to verse 30, there is the point. All these modern scholars, I believe—I don’t like to say “all,” but the majority of scholars, you will find, as I have stated, claim indisputably the events occur under Antiochus Epiphanes to Verse 30; but after Verse 30 it is a little hazy, and you cannot group them all around Antiochus Epiphanes. Modern scholars have attempted to do it. Verse 30 speaks of the defiling of the temple. But we will come to that a little later on. In the career of Antiochus Epiphanes there is a kind of a little wheel within a wheel. There are events in his life which are very like what is predicted of the little horn—extremely alike, and I did not know why we could not consider this in the same way that Ezekiel expresses it—a wheel within a wheel. Just to illustrate: The things said about the little horn of Daniel 7 can apply to Antiochus Epiphanes in a small way. He is the eleventh down the line, three were plucked up in his place (names were mentioned), he did speak great words against the Most High, he did wear out the saints of the Most High in a small way, he did change the Law of the Most High; things were given into his hand for just a time, times, and a half in a literal sense, which was three and one-half years. And in a very small way Antiochus Epiphanes might have been the little horn. So, suppose you and I had been living in that day we would have thought that that prophecy met its fulfillment to us, and we should have been sustained through that hour of persecution. In a small way I think this can apply to Antiochus Epiphanes. But in verse 30 we pass on to Rome, the great anti-Christ, of which Antiochus was here the personal representative. (Mention was made of Josephus Book 12, Chapter 5, paragraph 3, but a question interrupted.) ELDER DANIELLS: You would not want to say that that you have just said now to a class of students, would you?
PROF. LACEY: I do not think that I would ever say it. ELDER DANIELLS: I hope you won’t, because the next thing you know some of our boys will be out over the country saying that that is the little horn. VOICE: They have said it already. PROF: LACEY: I have never said it. But I do not see why you object if we take this prophecy as a wheel within a wheel. ELDER DANIELLS – When we come to the discussion, that will come in. PROF. LACEY: Pass on to verse 29: “At the time appointed he shall return and come toward the south; but it shall not be as the former, or as the latter.” At the time appointed Antiochus, perceiving that his cunningly planned scheme failed—that is, to get these two loggerheads fighting against each other—and seeing that Ptolemy and his brother, Eusalus, had made up and were prepared to resent [resist] his aggressions, he was so offended that he immediately made war and laid siege first to the two brothers of Alexandria. But this expedition was not as his former one, for the reasons given in the next verse. Let us re-read this verse with the names opposite: “At the time appointed.” Two years later, this is where he comes to his end, ̶ both of the kings come to an end, and Rome arises. “At the time appointed (BC 168) he (Antiochus Epiphanes) shall return and come toward the South (Egypt), and it (the Egyptian campaign) shall not be as the former (campaign—the Egyptian campaign of verse 25), or as the latter (the Jewish campaign of verse 28). Notice why— Verse 30: For the ships of Chittim shall come against him”—the ships of Chittim apply to the Romans, in Italy, the term being applicable to that whole coastal region—they “shall come against him; therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant; so shall he do:”—and the verse proceeds. Now we would like to know just what did occur just at that junction. “The ships of Chittim shall come against him (Antiochus Epiphanes).” While pressing the siege of Alexandria a Roman embassy reached him and demanded that he desist instantly from his war with Ptolemy and Eulasus. Marcus Popillius Lenas, the head of the embassy, was the old friend of Antiochus, but he drew a circle in the sand around the king, and peremptorily demanded in the name of the Senate and Roman people that he give an immediate answer to the stipulations. As the report of the Battle of Pydna, 168 BC, had just been carried to Antiochus, he assented at once to the request of Popillius, and returned from Alexandria. So we see this campaign was not like the other two. He was pressing the siege, but he was demanded to withdraw, and he obeyed. This is where Rome comes in contact with Antiochus in the same way that Greece and Persia came together. In that verse Rome and Greece come together. Just a moment longer we follow Antiochus, for it says, “he shall be grieved and return.” Does that say to his own land? No. Just “he shall be grieved and return. Now Polybius uses almost the exact language; “He led back his forces into Syria, grieved and groaning, but thinking it expedient to yield to demands for the present.” --- That is the history, it is not the prophecy – “grieved and groaning, but thinking it expedient to yield to demands for the present.” ELDER DANIELS: Where historians use practically the same thing that the prophet used, you consider that some weight of evidence, do you, that the history meets the prophecy? PROF. LACEY: O yes, in a case like this. Not just an isolated reference. The next expression: “and have indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do.” On his way back this Antiochus further vented his spite and his ill temper upon the unfortunate Jews, dispatching Apolloneus with 30,000 men to Jerusalem, who slew great multitudes, plundered the city, set fire to it in various places, pulled down houses and walls, slew those who attended the temple, defiled again the Holy Place so that the whole service was discontinued. The city was forsaken of the Jews and strangers only remained in it. On his arrival at Antioch he published a decree obliging all upon pain of death to conform to the religion of the Greeks. So the Jewish laws were abrogated, and heathen worship was set up in its stead, and the Temple
itself was consecrated to Jupiter Olympius. QUESTION: What was the date of that? ANSWER: BC 158 PROF. LACEY: “They set up the abomination of desolation upon the altar. They did sacrifice upon the idol altar, which was upon the altar of God.” 1 Mac. 1:54, 59 You see that they placed the abomination of desolation in the Holy Place. The very language of the Bible, “the abomination of desolation,” is placed in the temple; and this is history. I do not see why you object to taking this in a small way as referring to Antiochus Epiphanes, ̶ as a wheel within a wheel view of this prophecy. Living in those times we would have thought that the prophecy met its fulfillment, we get a present message from it; as we read any chapter and make other slight allusion to those days and how it applies today. Sister White herself recognized the double application method. “And he (Antiochus) had intelligence with them that forsook the holy covenant.” That is, Antiochus had intelligence with those who forsook the holy covenant, for there were many Jews who complied with his request and became converts to heathenism. W. C. WILCOX: The Revised Version says “Regard.” Verse 31: “And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.”
Here I do not see why we cannot take the word which some of you prefer – “ Out of him yet shall stand.” Exactly the same word is used as in Daniel 8:9, when you come down to the Greek power, and out of the four horns, out of one of them a little horn waxed exceeding great. That “out of one of them” is the same word, and when we explain that we say that that little horn is Rome, and it came out of Greece― Not racially and ethically, but it was incorporated and rose a universal power. So here we have the same point – Out of him, or out of this power, shall come arms; another view of Rome. There is clearly strength and consistency in this view. We have not once doubled back on our track. We have made a steady march down. It is uninteresting history, but the Lord has given us these details, and they carry us right on down, so that the people in those days living as they were in that terrible time of persecution might have help, and now we come down to the latter part, which applies more essentially to us. Rome arises. QUESTION: Did the people back there know anything at all about the book of Daniel—wasn’t it a sealed book? PROF. LACEY: I do not know that it is just right to think that the sealing meant that they were to know nothing about the book of Daniel. They must have understood something about it. When it said that the goat was Greece, they must have understood that. When Alexander came to Jerusalem the high priest went out and pointed out the prophecy of Daniel to Alexander, and said, You are the horn of the goat. PROF. SORENSON: Mentioned the text, “Whoso readeth let him understand.” PROF. LACEY (CONTINUING STUDY) - Out of them arms shall stand up.” Arms for this power which followed Rome shall stand up or shall arise. W. C. WILCOX: Refers to a translation which says, “After him shall arms stand up.” PROF. LACEY: Many have repudiated the translation, but good scholars have accepted it.
NOTE: (Elder Daniells requests that there be an uninterrupted continuation or presentation of the study.) PROF. LACEY: Out