A Refutation of an Ex-SDA's Argument on the Sabbath...

[woobadooba]

A Refutation of Ex-SDA's Argument against the Observance of the Sabbath day--Part 1

This post is going to be one of several in response to an argument presented on an Ex-SDA website which promotes the idea that the 7th day Sabbath is no longer binding to the Christian.


Please be aware that I am not seeking to make this an open debate as such, but am merely endeavoring to present another side of the argument in hope that those who read this refutation will detect the cunning nature of this Ex-SDA group.


Nevertheless, I do welcome questions, and will do my best to answer them accordingly. But if you feel a need to ask a question, please be sure to ask one that is pertinent to the topic of this thread.

Note: the argument that I am about to counter contains 7 points. Therefore, I will counter each point one at a time, since I don't have the time to address every point all at once. So if you have questions, please ask them as each point is countered.

Also, from now on I will refer to the person who authored this argument as Ex-SDA; but before I begin I just want to draw your attention to the fact that Ex-SDA is very selective of the verses that he chooses to use in his argument, thus leaving out the entire context of the chapter(s) in which such verses appear! Because of this, it is my request that you take a moment to read the whole chapters of Amos 8 and 9 to get the gist of what I'm about to share with you. In fact, it might even be good to read it 2-3 times, taking special note of what God means when He speaks of "that day".


By doing this it will make it easier for you to see that Ex-SDA did not interpret
this passage aright. For, the context does not support his conclusion...


The argument is located here: http://www.ex-sda.com/29-abolished.htm



Is the Sabbath Commandment Abolished?
Point #1

Amos, who lived approximately 800 years before the crucifixion, was presented this prophecy by God: Amos 8:4-9 -- Hear this, you who trample the needy and do away with the poor of the land, saying "When will the new moon be over that we may sell grain, and the Sabbath be ended that we may market wheat?" -- skimping the measure, boosting the price and cheating with dishonest scales . . .


"In that day," declares the Sovereign Lord, "I will make the sun go down at noon and darken the earth in broad daylight. I will turn your religious feasts into mourning and all your singing into weeping."


Would just abolishment of the ceremonial feast days allow them to begin marketing wheat on the Sabbath? No! This would require the abolishment of the fourth commandment for God to allow this to happen without penalty. Do we have any record in the Scriptures that met the requirements as to when this ever happened?

What Ex-SDA is trying to argue here is that Amos prophesied that the Sabbath day would come to a perpetual end on a specific day. It is important to note however, that as much as Ex-SDA would like this passage to mean that the Sabbath would be abolished, the question, "When will the new moon be over...and the Sabbath be ended...?" in verse 5, was not stated for the purpose of making it known to the people that the Sabbath day would be abolished at a designated time/day, but for the purpose of disclosing the true intent of the hearts of those to whom the Lord sought to rebuke at that time.

In other words, it is obvious that the people themselves didn't really ask this question, but that God through Amos sought to use this question as an introductory means to open their eyes to the reality of their self-centered condition.​

You see, the context suggests that these people were more concerned about incurring monetary prowess than they were about securing spiritual gain.​

As a result of this self-centered nature of theirs, not only did they look upon the Sabbath day as being an economical hindrance to the welfare of their existence, but for personal gain they also sought to find opportunity to strip the poor and needy of the little money that they had. ​

Therefore, the Sabbath day posed a minor threat to their objective. For, the Sabbath was a time when they could not venture into an open-market of commerce as such, but had to rest from their work. This explains why the question was disclosed in this way; for they anticipated the closing of the Sabbath day so that they could go out and sell their goods in the marketplace, thus making more money for themselves by taking advantage of the poor and needy, while forgetting all about God's mercy.​

Hence, the context behind the question has nothing to do with the idea that the Sabbath day would be abolished; rather, it has to do with the idea that the people who were supposed to be keeping it were desecrating it by anticipating the time that it would end. That is, the end of day (24 hour period) itself, NOT the actual command. ​

Thus they really didn't keep the Sabbath day holy because their thoughts were not on God, but on what they had hoped to gain at the close of the Sabbath day. As a result of this they dishonored God on the Sabbath day, even though they observed the command.​

In fact, this self-centered attitude of theirs eventually caused them to desecrate everything that God regarded as holy; and it inevitably led them to become callous toward everything that God loved, especially the poor and needy!​

This, of course, was very displeasing to God, which explains why throughout the chapter the people are informed that on a certain "day" God's judgment would come upon them.​

Moreover, Ex-SDA goes on to assume that that "day" spoken of in Amos is none other but the day when Jesus died on the cross. Hence he assumes that that was the day when the Sabbath was abolished, and he thus uses the following verses to find support for this false idea:​

Mark 15:33-37 -- At the sixth hour (Noon) darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour (3:00 PM) and at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice . . . "My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me?" Vs. 37 -- With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last."

​

​

Ex-SDA then proceeds to say,


​

​

"This would clearly indicate that they could now start marketing wheat on the Sabbath without penalty. It is very and precisely pinpointed to the time of Christ's crucifixion.

​

But is this really true? A close examination of Amos, chapters 8 and 9 shows us that the "day" that Amos spoke of, and the events that would occur at that time, do not fit the description of what happened on the day that Jesus died on the cross! So not only is Ex-SDA wrong about the nature of the question that was stated in verse 5, he is also wrong about the scriptural correlation that he makes between Amos 8 and Mk. 15.​

​

Incidentally, the Sabbath day could not have been abolished at any time in history, since Isa. 66:23 clearly states that "From one New moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, all flesh will come to worship before me Says the Lord." The context behind this statement pertains to the New Earth.

Moreover, it couldn't have been abolished at the cross for the simple fact that both the Apostles and the Gentiles continued to keep it after the resurrection. See Acts 13:14, 27, 42, 44; 16:13; 17:2; 18:4

In fact, even IF the Jews really asked God when the Sabbath day would end, it is absurd to think that they meant to ask God when it would be abolished, since they understood it to be a perpetual commandment! "Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant." Ex. 31:16

It is obvious at this point that Ex-SDA has twisted the scriptures in an attempt to make them fit the mold of his theological agenda. One must wonder why he did this...

With that said, can we really trust him on giving us sound guidance in doctrine?​

Please feel free to ask questions, and be sure to check in from time to time to see the next point.​

God bless,
--Chris​

​

 

[StormyOne]

With that said, can we really trust him on giving us sound guidance in doctrine?

sure, as much as we can trust you giving guidance.... he has an agenda, as do you.... that's not a bad thing, it is what it is....
​

 

[Kolya]

Thanks for your feedback Wooba. Quite thought provoking.
Although I do not share your views on Sabbath keeping, at the time Amos was written it certainly was a reqirement, and it does show a certain possible contempt by tradesmen for God's Law.

I look forward to your next refutation.

God bless

Kolya

 

[Tavita]

Hence, the context behind the question has nothing to do with the idea that the Sabbath day would be abolished; rather, it has to do with the idea that the people who were supposed to be keeping it were desecrating it by anticipating the time that it would end. That is, the end of day (24 hour period) itself, NOT the actual command.

I agree with your refutation, Chris.

That's how I read this passage in Amos. In fact, it's very obvious that it was the people feeling inconvenienced by the sabbath.

Nowhere does it even infer that God would give up the sabbath to pander to their selfishness.

In verse 9, are we sure it was God's appointed feasts being spoken of here when He says... 'Then I shall turn YOUR festivals into mourning'?

 

[woobadooba]

In verse 9, are we sure it was God's appointed feasts being spoken of here when He says... 'Then I shall turn YOUR festivals into mourning'?

It is probable that "your festivals" is referring to something that was ordained by man, not by God.

In fact, these festivals could very well have been the ones that were ordained by Jeroboam, or something similar, since the people were obviously apostatising at the time:

"He instituted a festival on the fifteenth day of the eighth month, like the festival held in Judah, and offered sacrifices on the altar. This he did in Bethel, sacrificing to the calves he had made. And at Bethel he also installed priests at the high places he had made." 1Kgs. 12:32

 

[OntheDL]

It is probable that "your festivals" is referring to something that was ordained by man, not by God.

In fact, these festivals could very well have been the ones that were ordained by Jeroboam, or something similar, since the people were obviously apostatising at the time:

"He instituted a festival on the fifteenth day of the eighth month, like the festival held in Judah, and offered sacrifices on the altar. This he did in Bethel, sacrificing to the calves he had made. And at Bethel he also installed priests at the high places he had made." 1Kgs. 12:32

Hi,

Look up Hosea 2. Here the Lord talks about destroying the nation of Israel for her whoredom and all her new moons, her feast days and her (annual) sabbaths.

 

[woobadooba]

Hi,

Look up Hosea 2. Here the Lord talks about destroying the nation of Israel for her whoredom and all her new moons, her feast days and her (annual) sabbaths.

Yes, but Ex-SDA did demonstrate in his second point that Lev. 23:1-3 includes God's 7th day Sabbath within the description/list of His appointed sabbath days. So the 7th day Sabbath, though its purpose is not the same as the others, and even came before them for that matter, is still to be acknowledged as one of God's appointed sabbaths. Therefore, we can't assume that Hos. 2:11 leaves it out.

However, some would argue that because the text says "her sabbath days", that means it can't be referring to God's appointed sabbath days, but merely "hers".

But that isn't necessarily true...

For example, in Lev. 23:32 the sabbath is also personalized with the pronoun "your":

"It shall be unto you a sabbath of rest, and ye shall afflict your souls: in the ninth day of the month at even, from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbath." Lev. 23:32.

So it isn't that simple to argue that just because it says "her sabbaths" that it is indefinitely referring to none other but those days that were merely ordained by man.

Therefore, we have to assume that Hos. 2:11 does not exclude God's appointed sabbaths, which also includes the 7th day Sabbath.

And this is the approach that I took in refuting the second point, which I will post either sometime today, or tomorrow.

I am sure you will find it to be interesting.

 

[OntheDL]

Yes, but Ex-SDA did demonstrate in his second point that Lev. 23:1-3 includes God's 7th day Sabbath within the description/list of His appointed sabbath days. So the 7th day Sabbath, though its purpose is not the same as the others, and even came before them for that matter, is still to be acknowledged as one of God's appointed sabbaths. Therefore, we can't assume that Hos. 2:11 leaves it out.

However, some would argue that because the text says "her sabbath days", that means it can't be referring to God's appointed sabbath days, but merely "hers".

But that isn't necessarily true...

For example, in Lev. 23:32 the sabbath is also personalized with the pronoun "your":

"It shall be unto you a sabbath of rest, and ye shall afflict your souls: in the ninth day of the month at even, from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbath." Lev. 23:32.

So it isn't that simple to argue that just because it says "her sabbaths" that it is indefinitely referring to none other but those days that were merely ordained by man.

Therefore, we have to assume that Hos. 2:11 does not exclude God's appointed sabbaths, which also includes the 7th day Sabbath.

And this is the approach that I took in refuting the second point, which I will post either sometime today, or tomorrow.

I am sure you will find it to be interesting.

Yep, thought about that...but we know better.
The weekly sabbath is a perpetual institution. So it can't actually be talking about destroying the sabbath itself. Maybe the observances by the Jews since they greatly polluted it.

 

[woobadooba]

A Refutation of Ex-SDA's Argument against the Observance of the Sabbath day--Part 2-A

I must say, one good thing that is coming out of Ex-SDA's argument is the fact that it is highly important for every student of the Bible to learn how to properly exegete the Holy Scriptures. For, once again Ex-SDA has made a very serious exegetical mistake.

Let’s take a closer look…

Ex-SDA argues:

[2]

Approximately 700 years prior to the time of Christ, Hosea, a contemporary of Isaiah, was instructed by the Lord about Israel's adulterous spiritual relationship with Him. God instructed Hosea to marry an adulterous woman (Gomer) to give him some insight as to how he felt about Israel. The Lord revealed to Hosea some of His future plans for Israel.

​

Hosea 2:11 -- I will stop all her celebrations; her yearly festivals (Passover, trumpets, tabernacles, etc.), her new moons, (monthly), her Sabbath days (weekly appointed feasts) -- all her appointed feasts.

In Hosea, 700 years later, we are told that all her sacred feast days would be brought to an end.

Here Ex-SDA is arguing that because God said, “I will stop all her celebrations: her yearly festivals, her New Moons, her Sabbath days—all her appointed feasts” in Hos. 2:11, that God really didn’t mean He would merely "stop" them, but that He would 'abolish' them altogether.

But isn’t there a difference between the words “stop” and “abolish”? Ex-SDA obviously doesn’t think so. Yet, I believe there is.

Allow me to illustrate the difference: When a driver stops at a red light, he doesn’t stop because he can never proceed to go again, but because something else has to happen before he can proceed. In this case, other drivers who are not traveling in the same direction as he is, have to be given the opportunity to get to where they want to go too. And once the light changes back to green he can then proceed to go again.

So then, the act of “stopping” denotes the idea of a cessation of an act or idea that has the potential to reoccur at any point in time. In fact, if you look up the word stop in the dictionary you will find that what I’m saying is correct.

But can the same be said for the act of abolishing something?

What does abolish mean?

Abolish : 1. To do away with; annul; 2. To destroy completely.
Synonyms: abolish, exterminate, extinguish, extirpate, eradicate, obliterate

According to this, when you ‘abolish’ something you take it out of the way permanently. So, to abolish something means you have not only taken it out of the way, but there is no potentiality whatsoever for its recurrence.

Therefore, “stop” and “abolish” do not mean the same thing. For one represents a temporary cessation of an act or idea, thus leaving room for its potential recurrence, whereas the other represents the cessation of an act or idea on a permanent basis, thus leaving no potentiality for its recurrence.

Now then, with that said, if God ‘abolished’ the “sabbath days”, then that means they were completely taken out of the way, never to resurface again thereafter the point upon which they were done away with. But if He merely stopped them, then that means they could potentially be brought back into motion again at any given point in time.

So what really happened to the "sabbath days" spoken of in Hos. 2:11? Does the text really state that God would abolish the “Sabbath days”, or does it disclose that He would merely “stop” them for a period of time?

Well, it's obvious that it says, "I will stop...her sabbath days..." It says nothing about abolishing them. But I have a hunch that Ex-SDA wouldn't be satisfied with this, but that he would still assume that "stop" and 'abolish' mean the same thing.

Therefore, it is necessary for us to take a closer look at the context of both the passage and the entire book of Hosea, as well as history to discover what exactly God meant when He said that He would "stop...her sabbath days", and what time period this verse applies to...

You see, Ex-SDA believes that what is described in Hos. 2:11 happened when Jesus died on the cross. For, he goes on to say:

If the sacrifices associated with each of these sacred holy days came to an end, wouldn't the sacred day also come to an end, of being a sacred day, at the same time?

All agree that the sacrificial offerings on each of these days has come to an end at the time of the cross. All also agree that the sacred day associated with these prescribed sacrifices has lost its holiness by its fulfillment by Christ on the cross.

Only the Sabbatarians insist on retaining the sacredness for the Sabbath, even though agreeing that the sacrificial offering intimately associated with that day was abolished at the cross.

In other words, Ex-SDA believes that Hos. 2:11 is a prophecy concerning the time of the crucifiction, whereupon the “Sabbath days” would be abolished as a result of Christ’s death.

But does the context of the passage really support this idea? Certainly not!

In fact, a close examination of the chapter informs us of God’s displeasure with Israel, and the impending judgment that is about to befall them as a result of their rebellious nature, and idolatry.

Moreover, the book itself places great emphasis on God’s impending judgment on Israel. So it's not about the coming of the Messiah, but about God's judgment.

So how then could Hos. 2:11 be referring to what would result from Christ dying on the cross for all humankind when not only the pericope of this verse, but also the entire book itself emphasizes the theme of God's impending judgment?

Incidentally, we know that the Judgment is impending because Hos. 9:7-9 says, “The days of visitation are come, the days of recompense are come; Israel shall know it: the prophet is a fool, the spiritual man is mad, for the multitude of thine iniquity, and the great hatred. The watchman of Ephraim was with my God: but the prophet is a snare of a fowler in all his ways, and hatred in the house of his God. They have deeply corrupted themselves, as in the days of Gibeah: therefore he will remember their iniquity, he will visit their sins.”

Notice how it says “the days of recompense are come” v. 7. In other words, God’s judgment is about to come upon His idolatrous people.

Therefore, what is described in Hos. 2:11 could not have been fulfilled that much longer after it was prophesied, since it is something that has to do with the result of God’s impending judgment, rather than something that would happen hundreds of years later.

So then, when did God really “stop the sabbath days“? In other words, when was Hos. 2:11 fulfilled?

Well, let’s take a little look at some history to answer this question…

“Nebuchadnezzar gained control of Jerusalem for the first time, in 605 B.C., he compelled the incumbent Jewish king, Jehoiakim, to break with Egypt and sign a treaty with Babylon instead. Not long after Nebuchadnezzar departed, however. Jehoiakim renewed his special relationship with Egypt…


Nebuchadnezzar made three trips to Jerusalem, inflicting a stricter punishment each time. On his first visit, the one to which we just referred, he carried off many of the precious utensils that he found in the magnificent temple which Solomon had built there. He also took hostage a number of carefully selected Jewish youth.


On his second visit, in 597 B.C., he was pleased when King Jehoiachin (not to be confused with King Jehoiakim) gave up his rebellion and surrendered to him, but he confiscated a large quantity of temple utensils and took 10,000 captives.


Later, after a serious revolt by Judah’s King Zedekia, Nebuchadnezzar returned to Jerusalem for a third visit; and, in 586 B.C., at the conclusion of the extended siege, he leveled the city to the ground, completely destroying the temple.”--C. Mervyn Maxwell; The Message of Daniel--God Cares Volume 1, pages 12, 13.

Did you catch that? The temple was completely destroyed. Hence the answer to our question concerning when the prophecy of Hos. 2:11 was fulfilled!

You see, with the majority of the Israelite populace having been either killed or taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar's army, and the temple no longer being operative because it was completely destroyed, the obvious result was that the celebration of the “sabbath days” stopped as a result of God‘s judgment falling upon His people in this way. That is, God's judgment manifested itself in His allowance of their enemies to lay waste to everything that was precious to them!

And this makes perfect sense. I mean really, at that point they had no reason to celebrate. Rather, it was a time of great mourning for God‘s people, and with the temple no longer being operative as such, how could they continue to make their sacrifices and offerings to God.

Moreover, since the Babylonians laid waste to everything, it is quite plausible that they also either killed or had taken their beasts, leaving them nothing to sacrifice to God! So even if they wanted to, they couldn't celebrate their sabbath days (the annual ones) for a period of time, since it was required that sacrifices and offerings be made on them.

And if it isn’t convincing enough that Hos. 2:11 was fulfilled thus, then take a look at the hint that we are given of its fulfillment in Lamentations 2:6 where the prophet of God says, “And he hath violently taken away his tabernacle, as if it were of a garden: he hath destroyed his places of the assembly: the LORD hath caused the solemn feasts and sabbaths to be forgotten in Zion, and hath despised in the indignation of his anger the king and the priest.”


Thus it is obvious at this point that Ex-SDA didn’t do his homework! For, Hos. 2:11 without a shadow of a doubt, is not a prophecy which concerns what would happen to the “sabbath days” at the time of Christ’s Crucifixion, but to what happened to them when the city of Jerusalem (including the temple) was leveled by the Babylonians!

For, when this happened things weren’t the same for the Israelites at that point in time. They had no temple, and no passion left in them to celebrate! Thus the “solemn feasts and Sabbaths” were “forgotten”, or temporarily stopped. Not “abolished” as Ex-SDA suggests. For, it is clear from scripture that they were eventually put back into motion again when the Temple was restored. See the book of Nehemiah, and also Ezek. chapters 43-46 for proof of this and further study.

So there you have it! Ex-SDA is wrong again.

Now, I don’t know if you caught this or not, but there is another argument within Ex-SDA's argument wherein he had said:

If the sacrifices associated with each of these sacred holy days came to an end, wouldn't the sacred day also come to an end, of being a sacred day, at the same time? All agree that the sacrificial offerings on each of these days has come to an end at the time of the cross. All also agree that the sacred day associated with these prescribed sacrifices has lost its holiness by its fulfillment by Christ on the cross. Only the Sabbatarians insist on retaining the sacredness for the Sabbath, even though agreeing that the sacrificial offering intimately associated with that day was abolished at the cross.

In other words, what Ex-SDA is doing here is equating the ceremonial/annual Sabbaths with the 7th day Sabbath. But I obviously disagree with this, and for good reason.

Nevertheless, I will address this idea in my next post, since there is already quite a bit of information in this one to absorb.

Blessing to you,
--Chris

 

[woobadooba]

It appears that there really isn't much of an interest in what I'm doing here. However, appearances can be deceiving. So if you are interested in seeing how the rest of Ex-SDAs argument can be refuted, just send me a PM to let me know this, and I will continue with my refutation. Otherwise, due to the fact that it is time consuming, if people really aren't interested in this then I see no sense in taking the time to refute it, since I already know it to be false. Thanks.

 

[Tavita]

I'm sorry. I haven't been in here enough to do any serious reading lately, but I will try to get to it soon.

 

[JasMate]

I think it is important to hold day/s holy if you choose. But I don' think it is a salvation issue. If it were only the SDA's would go to heaven (but that is not true is it )

 

[OntheDL]

I think it is important to hold day/s holy if you choose. But I don' think it is a salvation issue. If it were only the SDA's would go to heaven (but that is not true is it )

Yes, SDA's are not the only ones who will go to heaven. But anyone who breaks God's laws intentionally definitely won't.

 

[Lavv]

Quote - It appears that there really isn't much of an interest in what I'm doing here. However, appearances can be deceiving. So if you are interested in seeing how the rest of Ex-SDAs argument can be refuted, just send me a PM to let me know this, and I will continue with my refutation. Otherwise, due to the fact that it is time consuming, if people really aren't interested in this then I see no sense in taking the time to refute it, since I already know it to be false. Thanks.

Hey Chris: Don't be discouraged, keep the faith and keep on writing. I find the discussion to be very interesting.

Lavv

 

[SnowBird77]

Yes, SDA's are not the only ones who will go to heaven. But anyone who breaks God's laws intentionally definitely won't.

I don't understand the relevance of the last sentence. Are you referring to ALL the laws of God? I hope you are. Are you certain that you are meeting the standards sufficiently? Do you have a role in implementing the plan? Will you be at the gate, as it were, deciding who stays out?

 

[OntheDL]

I don't understand the relevance of the last sentence. Are you referring to ALL the laws of God? I hope you are. Are you certain that you are meeting the standards sufficiently? Do you have a role in implementing the plan? Will you be at the gate, as it were, deciding who stays out?

What is your point that you were trying to make?

 

[Cliff2]

Quote - It appears that there really isn't much of an interest in what I'm doing here. However, appearances can be deceiving. So if you are interested in seeing how the rest of Ex-SDAs argument can be refuted, just send me a PM to let me know this, and I will continue with my refutation. Otherwise, due to the fact that it is time consuming, if people really aren't interested in this then I see no sense in taking the time to refute it, since I already know it to be false. Thanks.

Hey Chris: Don't be discouraged, keep the faith and keep on writing. I find the discussion to be very interesting.

Lavv

I am interested and I am sure many more are so send me a PM with your info if that is possible.

 

[Dasdream]

I usually don't bother to listen to ex-sda or non believers as all they do is try to change history. Isn't ironic out of a everything the bible teaches they have to start an arguement, isn't it against wrong to question his word? I am glad you made all the posts pointing out the facts. Man tries to change history, but when you have God on your side you will win, so props to you for doing this.

 

[JESUSLUVA1]

sure, as much as we can trust you giving guidance.... he has an agenda, as do you.... that's not a bad thing, it is what it is.... ​

u right

 

[JESUSLUVA1]

i luv the [bible]