Ellen White on the Sabbath

[Lysimachus]

May the following decimate to pieces all the hopes and dreams of those who possibly think Jesus broke the Sabbath:

Nothing so distinguished the Jews from surrounding nations, and designated them as true worshipers of the Creator, as the institution of the Sabbath. Its observance was a continual visible token of their connection with God, and separation from other people. All ordinary labor for a livelihood or for worldly profit was forbidden upon the seventh day. According to the fourth commandment the Sabbath was dedicated to rest and religious worship. All secular employment was to be suspended; but works of mercy and benevolence were in accordance with the purpose of the Lord. They were not to be limited by time nor place. To relieve the afflicted, and comfort the sorrowing is a labor of love that does honor to God's holy day.

The work of the priests in connection with the sacrificial offerings was increased upon the Sabbath, yet in their holy work in the service of God they did not violate the fourth commandment of the decalogue. As Israel separated from God, the true object of the Sabbath institution became less distinct in their minds. They grew careless of its observance, and unmindful of its ordinances. The prophets testified to them of God's displeasure in the violation of his Sabbath. Nehemiah says: "In those days saw I in Judah some treading wine-presses on the Sabbath, and bringing in sheaves, and lading asses; as also wine, grapes, and figs, and all manner of burdens, which they brought into Jerusalem on the Sabbath day, and I testified against them in the day wherein they sold victuals."

And Jeremiah commands them: "Take heed to yourselves, and bear no burden on the Sabbath day, nor bring it in by the gates of Jerusalem; neither carry forth a burden out of your houses on the Sabbath day, neither do ye any work, but hallow ye the Sabbath day, as I commanded your fathers."

But they heeded not the admonitions of the inspired prophets, and departed more and more from the religion of their fathers. At length calamities, persecution, and bondage came upon them in consequence of their disregard of God's requirements.

Alarmed at these visitations of divine punishment, they returned to the strict observance of all the outward forms enjoined by the sacred law. Not satisfied with this, they made burdensome additions to those ceremonies. Their pride and bigotry led them to the narrowest interpretation of the requirements of God. As time passed they gradually hedged themselves in with the traditions and customs of their ancestors, till they regarded them with all the sanctity of the original law. This confidence in themselves and their own regulations, with its attendant prejudice against all other nations, caused them to resist the Spirit of God, and separated them still farther from his favor.

Their exactions and restrictions were so wearisome that Jesus declared: "They bind heavy burdens, and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders." Their false standard of duty, their superficial tests of piety and godliness, obscured the real and positive requirements of God. Heart service was neglected in the rigid performance of outward ceremonies. The Jews had so perverted the divine commandments, by heaping tradition upon tradition, that, in the days of Christ, they were ready to accuse him of breaking the Sabbath, because of his acts of mercy upon that day.

The grain was ready for the sickle when Jesus and his disciples passed through the corn fields on the Sabbath. The disciples were hungry, for their Master had extended his work of teaching and healing to a late hour, and they had been without food for a long time. They accordingly began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat, rubbing them in their hands, in accordance with the law of Moses, which provides that: "When thou comest into the standing corn of thy neighbor, then thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbor's standing corn."

But spies were continually upon the track of Jesus, watching for some occasion to accuse and condemn him. When they saw this act of the disciples, they immediately complained to him, saying, "Behold thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the Sabbath day." In this they expressed their own narrow views of the law. But Jesus defended his followers thus: "Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was a hungered, he, and they that were with him? how he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? And he said unto them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath."

If excessive hunger excused David for violating even the holiness of the sanctuary, and made his act guiltless, how much more excusable was the simple act of the disciples in plucking the grain and eating it upon the Sabbath day. Jesus would teach his disciples and his enemies that the service of God was first of all; and, if fatigue and hunger attended the work, it was right to satisfy the wants of humanity, even upon the Sabbath day. That holy institution was not given to interfere with the needs of our being, bringing pain and discomfort, instead of blessing. "The Sabbath was made for man," to give him rest and peace, and remind him of the work of his Creator, not to be a grievous burden.

The work done in the temple upon the Sabbath was in harmony with the law; yet the same labor, if employed in ordinary business, would be a violation of it. The act of plucking and eating the grain to sustain the bodily strength, to be used in the service of God, was right and lawful. Jesus then crowned his argument by declaring himself the "Lord of the Sabbath,"--One above all question and above all law. This Infinite Judge acquits the disciples from blame, appealing to the very statutes they are accused of violating.

But Jesus did not let the matter drop without administering a rebuke to his enemies. He declared that in their blindness they had mistaken the object of the Sabbath. Said he: "But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless." He then contrasted their many heartless rites with the truthful integrity, and tender love that should characterize the true worshipers of God: "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt-offerings. But they like men have transgressed the covenant; there have they dealt treacherously against me."

Jesus was reared among this people, so marked with bigotry and prejudice; and he therefore knew that in healing upon the Sabbath day, he would be regarded as a transgressor of the law. He was aware that the Pharisees would seize upon such acts with great indignation, and thereby seek to influence the people against him. He knew that they would use these works of mercy as strong arguments to affect the minds of the masses, who had all their lives been bound by the Jewish restrictions and exactions. Nevertheless he was not prevented by this knowledge from breaking down the senseless wall of superstition that barricaded the Sabbath, and teaching men that charity and benevolence were lawful upon all days.

He entered the synagogue, and saw there a man who had a withered hand. The Pharisees watched him, eager to see what he would do with regard to this case--whether or not he would heal the man upon the Sabbath day. Their sole object was to find cause for accusation against him. Jesus looked upon the man with the withered hand, and commanded him to stand forth. He then asked, "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. 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."

He justified this work of healing the paralytic, as in perfect keeping with the principles of the fourth commandment. But they questioned him: "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath days?" Jesus made them the clear and forcible answer, "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? How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath days."

The spies upon our Saviour's words dared not, in the presence of the multitude, answer this question for fear of involving themselves in difficulties. They knew that while they would leave men to suffer and die rather than to violate their traditions by relieving them upon the Lord's day, a brute which had fallen into danger would be at once relieved, because of the loss that would accrue to the owner if he was neglected. Thus the dumb animal was exalted above man, made in the image of God.

Jesus wished to correct the false teachings of the Jews in regard to the Sabbath and also to impress his disciples with the fact that deeds of mercy were lawful on that day. In the matter of healing the withered hand he broke down the custom of the Jews, and left the fourth commandment standing as God had given it to the world. By this act he exalted the Sabbath, sweeping away the senseless restrictions that encumbered it. His act of mercy did honor to the day, while those who complained of him, were, by their many useless rites and ceremonies, themselves dishonoring the Sabbath.

There are ministers today who teach that the Son of God broke the Sabbath and justified his disciples in doing the same. They take the same ground as did the caviling Jews, although ostensibly for another purpose, since they hold that Christ abolished the Sabbath.

Jesus in turning upon the Pharisees with the question whether it was lawful to do good upon the Sabbath day or evil, to save life or to kill, confronted them with their own wicked purposes. They were following upon his track to find occasion for falsely accusing him; they were hunting his life with bitter hatred and malice, while he was saving life and bringing happiness to many hearts. Was it better to slay upon the Sabbath, as they were planning to do, than to heal the afflicted as he had done? Was it more righteous to have murder in the heart upon God's holy day, than love to all men which finds expression in deeds of charity and mercy? E. G. White. {ST, November 30, 1876 par. 1-18}​

 

[MoreCoffee]

What a long post to say something against a claim that nobody in this thread has made.

By the way, a lot of your Ellen White material has already been quoted in this thread in my posts from her chapter on The Sabbath from THE DESIRE OF AGES.

 

[Lysimachus]

God has done so much for us in giving His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish but have everlasting life. We are persons of hope. We may every one lay hold on the hope that is set before us. "He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also" (John 14:12), and He says, "I kept My Father's commandments." The Pharisees said when the disciples rubbed the ears of corn as they went through the wheat fields, "He has broken the Sabbath." Could they have fastened that upon Him, then what? They would not have had to get false witnesses to speak against Him. They would have condemned Him as a Sabbath-breaker. But He said, "Ye do not know what this means, I will have mercy and not sacrifice" (See Matthew 9:13), or ye would not have condemned the guiltless.

Who dares to say that Christ is a Sabbath-breaker? He made the Sabbath Himself. He is the one that spoke the law from Sinai. He is the one who was enshrouded in the pillar of cloud, and therefore He said, "Ye are ignorant of the Scriptures and of the power of God." Why? Because they covered it all up with their maxims and traditions which had been handed down from rabbi to rabbi, and repeated and enlarged till the specifications of the law of God were buried in a mass of rubbish, and till the people were not certain that they were keeping the law, for the law is the transcript of the Father's character. {Ellen White sermon: 1SAT 242.2}​

 

[MoreCoffee]

Ah, I see, you want to flood the thread with this stuff?

 

[Lysimachus]

What a long post to say something against a claim that nobody in this thread has made.

By the way, a lot of your Ellen White material has already been quoted in this thread in my posts from her chapter on The Sabbath from THE DESIRE OF AGES.

The above quotes I gave are not found in The Desire of Ages.

I don't care what claim you have made. I am posting the truth. Let the truth speak as it is.

 

[Stryder06]

A shadow can only pass away when the reality is present, as you say, but isn't saint Paul's point that Christ is the reality and the things he mentioned are mere shadows?

Let no man therefore judge you

1. in meat, or
2. in drink, or
3. in respect of an holyday, or
4. of the new moon, or
5. of the sabbath days:

Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.​

John Wesley says:

Therefore - Seeing these things are so. Let none judge you - That is, regard none who judge you. In meat or drink - For not observing the ceremonial law in these or any other particulars. Or in respect of a yearly feast, the new moon, or the weekly Jewish sabbaths.
​

Paul couldn't say they were a shadow of things to come if they pointed to Christ, since Christ had already come. What Paul is saying is don't let people bug you about what you're doing, for these things are shadows of things to come. All of which is in Christ.

 

[Lysimachus]

MoreCoffee,

The overall birds-eye view context reveals that Ellen White was in perfect harmony with the points that Jesus was making, about why it was not unlawful to pick corn on the Sabbath when hungry.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The above quotes I gave are not found in The Desire of Ages.

I don't care what claim you have made. I am posting the truth. Let the truth speak as it is.

Yes, I can tell that you "don't care what claim you have made", it shines through. But if you want to post Ellen White quotes feel free, I think that this is an excellent thread to post Ellen White quotes on the 7th day (sabbath).

 

[Lysimachus]

Yes, I can tell that you "don't care what claim you have made", it shines through. But if you want to post Ellen White quotes feel free, I think that this is an excellent thread to post Ellen White quotes on the 7th day (sabbath).

Sounds good. Deal!

 

[Lysimachus]

Thanks for your research; you are correct that the case of the word used in each passage differs one being genitive and the other dative. Do you realise that the case is reflected in the translation into English by the use of appropriate adjectives and that the noun "sabbaths" is unchanged just as the root in the Greek remains unchanged? So in fact what Jesus says in Mark 3 and what Paul says in Colossians 2 do in fact both use "sabbaths" and there is nothing in the words used to differentiate them that is not properly captured in the English translations.

You are incorrect about Colossians 2:17 differentiating the weekly sabbaths from the other sabbaths, but some people do believe that it is the other sabbaths that are discontinued. It seems to be a matter of doctrine filtering interpretations rather than the text of the scripture determining the meaning in this case. If you prefer to think of the passage as preserving an obligation to keep the 7th day then that will be because your denomination's doctrine tells you so rather than because the passage tells you so.

Let no man, therefore, judge you in meat or in drink.

• That is, for not abstaining from meats, called unclean, for drinking out of a cup without a cover, (see Numbers xix.) or for not keeping the Jewish festivals. For these were but shadows, types and figures of future things to be fulfilled in the new law of Christ: but the body is of Christ, (ver. 17.) i.e. was the body, the truth, the substance signified by these shadows and types. (Witham)
• He means with regard to the Jewish observations of the distinction of clean and unclean meats; and of the festivals, new moons, and sabbaths; as being no longer obligatory. (Challoner)

​

Paul's qualification is readily clear. No need to exhaust it beyond what it says. Paul would not be contradicting Luke 23:56. Nor would he be contradicting the fact that Jesus prayed our flight is not to be in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day. Nor would he be contradicting Isaiah 66 where the Sabbath would be kept in the New Earth.

There are 11 Jewish Sabbaths.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Paul couldn't say they were a shadow of things to come if they pointed to Christ, since Christ had already come. What Paul is saying is don't let people bug you about what you're doing, for these things are shadows of things to come. All of which is in Christ.

But saint Paul does say that Christ is the reality to which the shadows merely pointed. The Author of Hebrews also makes the same point saying:

For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. Hebrews 10:1-18 KJV
​

Hebrews was written after Colossians, so id saint Paul can refer to the law as a shadow and Christ as the substance as he does in both passages then what legitimate objection can anybody from the 21st century bring against his reasoning without denying the inspiration of the scriptures he wrote?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Paul's qualification is readily clear. No need to exhaust it beyond what it says. Paul would not be contradicting Luke 23:56. Nor would he be contradicting the fact that Jesus prayed our flight is not to be in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day.
Nor would he be contradicting Isaiah 66 where the Sabbath would be kept in the New Earth.

There are 11 Jewish Sabbaths.

Wasn't that concerning the Jews in Judea in AD 70? And are you a Jew by any chance?

Matthew 24:20 and pray ye that your flight may not be in winter, nor on a sabbath;

The Destruction of Jerusalem - George Peter Holford, 1805AD
Olivet Discourse fulfilled AD 70

The day on which Titus encompassed Jerusalem, was the feast of the Passover ; and it is deserving of the very particular attention of the reader, that this was the anniversary of that memorable period in which the Jews crucified their Messiah !
At this season multitudes came up from all the surrounding country, and from distant parts, to keep the festival. How suitable and how kind, then, was the prophetic admonition of our LORD, and how clearly he into futurity when he said "Let not them that are in the countries enter into Jerusalem." Luke xxi. 21.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The above quotes I gave are not found in The Desire of Ages.

...

Do you really believe that the quotes from your post #161 are not in THE DESIRE OF AGES chapter on The Sabbath? You ought to read the posts I have been putting in this thread with quotes from that chapter. I think you will find that much of what you quotes is present, verbatim, in the paragraphs I've already posted.

 

[Lysimachus]

MoreCoffee,

What are your thoughts of Albert Barnes, Matthew Henry's, and Adam Clarke's, and the People's New Testament commentaries concerning Colossians 2:16?

Also, are you familiar with the latest exegesis done by Ron du Preez?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

MoreCoffee,

What are your thoughts of Albert Barnes, Matthew Henry's, and Adam Clarke's, and the People's New Testament commentaries concerning Colossians 2:16?

Also, are you familiar with the latest exegesis done by Ron du Preez?

Nope. But I did find a thread discussion on it.

http://www.christianforums.com/t4651075/
Book Review--Putting the Sabbath to Rest--Col 2:16

Book Review!
Putting the Sabbath to Rest: A Scriptural Study of Colossians 2:16 by Ron Du Preez (Member of the Biblical Research Institute).

Intro:

I just had the chance to read over this short book last night when I woke up at an odd hour. While the name may sound like something debunking the Sabbath, it is not.

It actually takes up the rather hotly debated topic of what Sabbath is meant in Colossians 2:16. It defends the traditional Adventist view.

A little background on the subject. Col. 2:16 is a text that many believe refutes the Sabbath. Here is the text:

Col 2:16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.

The traditional Adventist view of the text states that the Sabbath mentioned is a reference to the ceremonial Sabbaths, and that what is being referenced is the ceremonial system which is fulfilled in Christ, and which points to events in salvation history.

An alternative view within Adventism in recent years holds that it is referring to the weekly Sabbath, but the key argument is not to judge people based on man-made requirements that were not Scriptural.

The newer, alternative view, DuPreez notes, has been argued by at least 15 Adventist scholars since 1985. Here are the ones I found to be most notable on that list: Rodriguez of the Biblical Research Institute, Bacchiocchi, Gerhard Hasel, Herbert E. Douglas, Alden Thompson, Erwin Gane, Wiliam Richardson, and Desmond Ford.

I admit that is more than I would have thought, and I was particularly suprirsed by the names Hasel and Douglas.

So that you know where I am coming from on the topic, I started reading the book at least tentatively in the camp of the newer alternative view, agreeing with Rodriguez, etc. I came to this view about a year ago as a result of a debate in GT in which a Sabbatarian (but not Adventist) pointed out to me the logical order in the text from yearly to monthly, to weekly.

Now, having read the book, I would say I am at least 60 percent in the traditional camp. It made some good arguments. It is somewhat rare to read a book that changes your view on an important text. So I definitely recommend the read, even if you are skeptical.

(I also plan to read again some of DJConklin's views which parallel Du Preez's).

Alright, now to the arguments. For the sake of brevity I will assume some familiarity with the issues in this section. If you don't understand it then...buy the book!

Arguments:

1. This book focuses heavily on linguistic study, as this has been somewhat ignored. It therefore looks at each term in the "triad" to see its usage throughout the NT, the Greek Septuagint (OT), and the Hebrew equivalent of the terms in the Masoretic text.

As a starting point he examines all the uses of σαββατον and σαββατα, in the Greek NT, and the Hebrew counterparts to see if there are any linguistic keys to determining whether the weekly Sabbath is indicated or some other meaning. Other meanings would include ceremonial Sabbaths associated with the day of atonement and day of trumpets, as well as Sabbath Jubilee years, etc. He indeed finds markers in 100 percent of the cases when referencing the weekly Sabbath. (though one or two I am not completely convinced on). He also finds distinct markers for other uses. Of course context also plays a role nearly all of them.

2. Next he examines the use of compound phrases. The use in Colossians is a simple construction, just σαββατων. Critics alledge that when referring to ceremonial Sabbaths a compound phrase is employed in the LXX (Septuagint). He notes that this is not always the case. In particular, the Day of Atonement is expressed with the same simple construction as in Colossians. The feast of trumpets is likewise designated with a simple σαββατον in some manuscripts, and σαββατα in others.

3. He also looks at the NT usage. It again shows linguistic markers. It is noted that, apart from the passage in question, there is no definite example of σαββατον indicating a ceremonial Sabbath. On the other hand, the term is flexible beyond just representing the weekly Sabbath ,as it also is translated "week" because of contextual factors 9 times.

4. The passage in Colossians has none of the characteristic linguistic markers associated with the weekly Sabbath, or the translation "week". It does fit the pattern used in the Septuagint for the day of atonement, and in some manuscripts the day of trumpets.

5. The term rendered festival in Colossians, and its corresponding term in the Hebrew are studied, and yields the fact that the term was only applied to the three pilgramage "feasts" and not to the more somber day of atonement and day of trumpets. This is important because it means that Paul was not necessarily repeating himself (feasts...new moon...more feasts). This is likely his strongest argument.

6. The triad order that is often referred to as a succession from yearly to weekly was compared to its old testament counterparts to see if any formed the basis of an allusion. I thought this part was fairly weak. But I do think that he is right in saying that the passage in Hosea is the most likely allusion. I won't go into the reasons. They are long, and you should buy the book if you want to know

7. In Hosea we have precedence for inverted parallelism which would fit the structure if the traditional view is accepted.

In simple terms it looks like

a. man
b. woman
c. back to man

In Colossians then the structure would be

festivals (3 pilgramage feasts), new moons, sabbaths (day of atonement and trumpets).

So it would be essentially yearly, monthly, yearly. But the second series of yearly is a distinct class.

This seems more foreign to us than the Yearly, monthly, weekly paradigm that the alternative view presents, but we are talking near eastern thought here.


He then notes that research is still needed to settle question of context, what the greater heresy was at the church in Colossai, etc.

Strong points:

A. It makes sense with the Acts Council which basically only puts a few requirements on the Gentiles and does not hold them accountable to the rest of the law of Moses.

B. It makes sense with the immediate context of ceremonial elements (food, drink, etc.) though there were obvious pagan corruptions as well.

C. It could also point to a conclusion for Romans 14. Romans 14 address days considered holy, and Paul leaves it up to conscience. Here again, in regard to the ceremonial days Paul leaves it up to conscience. Since they "shadows of the things to come" but the body is "of Christ."

Weak points:

As he notes, the book doesn’t go in-depth on context or the situation that Paul was addressing, especially the nature of the heresies.

I found that the he placed a little too much emphasis on the linguistic markers, as these are not in my book definitive. However, usage is an important argument. And it at the least leaves it a possibility, and given what I perceive the context, makes sense of a number of other passages (Acts 15, Romans 14, etc.)


The cover is quite hideous! And the title almost makes it sound like he is getting rid of the Sabbath. But those are minor quibblies.


Conclusion:

The book is short and to the point. He bills it as popular reading, but I don’t know as I would go that far. He references some terms without defining them amply. But most readers could follow along. You will want to check out his extensive charts that track usage. Looking up each reference would be helpful, though the first read I just skimmed through all but those that I suspected would be problematic.

I would recommend the book. It speaks on a neglected aspect (linguistics) of an important Sabbatarian text.

 

[Stryder06]

But saint Paul does say that Christ is the reality to which the shadows merely pointed. The Author of Hebrews also makes the same point saying:

For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. Hebrews 10:1-18 KJV
​

Hebrews was written after Colossians, so id saint Paul can refer to the law as a shadow and Christ as the substance as he does in both passages then what legitimate objection can anybody from the 21st century bring against his reasoning without denying the inspiration of the scriptures he wrote?

The law contained shadows which pointed to Christ. All of these were seen in the sacrifices that had to be offered. The certain festivals and the Sabbath however point to something that has not yet come. Even in Hebrews we read that there remains a Sabbath rest.

The issue isn't with Paul and inspiration, but with man and his interpretation

 

[MoreCoffee]

MoreCoffee,

The overall birds-eye view context reveals that Ellen White was in perfect harmony with the points that Jesus was making, about why it was not unlawful to pick corn on the Sabbath when hungry.

Go back and read my posts numbers 1, 6, 11, 25, 41, 42, 58, 61, 65, 77, 88, 96, 99, 105, 118, 142.

 

[MoreCoffee]

MoreCoffee,

What are your thoughts of Albert Barnes, Matthew Henry's, and Adam Clarke's, and the People's New Testament commentaries concerning Colossians 2:16?

Also, are you familiar with the latest exegesis done by Ron du Preez?

Albert Barnes is usually good, but his denominational theology can, at times, get in the way of a good exegesis. Matthew Henry was a puritan and a bit of a legalist, alas. I don't have Adam Clarke's work nor the People's new testament commentaries. And I have never heard of Ron du Preez, is he a Seventh Day Adventist commentator?

 

[ebedmelech]

Ellen G. White is a false prophet...bottom line. Her vision of the 4th commandment with a "halo around it" was her own vision...it was not from God at all because God doesn't contradict his Word...He confirms it.

No one has to keep the sabbath any longer. That is very clear in scripture.

Do I need to list the rest of her false prophecies?

 

[Lysimachus]

Wasn't that concerning the Jews in Judea in AD 70? And are you a Jew by any chance?

Matthew 24:20 and pray ye that your flight may not be in winter, nor on a sabbath;

The Destruction of Jerusalem - George Peter Holford, 1805AD
Olivet Discourse fulfilled AD 70

The day on which Titus encompassed Jerusalem, was the feast of the Passover ; and it is deserving of the very particular attention of the reader, that this was the anniversary of that memorable period in which the Jews crucified their Messiah !
At this season multitudes came up from all the surrounding country, and from distant parts, to keep the festival. How suitable and how kind, then, was the prophetic admonition of our LORD, and how clearly he into futurity when he said "Let not them that are in the countries enter into Jerusalem." Luke xxi. 21.

It was concerning the Christian Jews in Jerusalem. This was the CHURCH. Jew or Gentile, Sabbath is Sabbath.

The Three Principles of the Covenants
in relation to the Sabbath
by Lysimachus​

It is often argued that Christ's allusion to the Sabbath in Matthew 24:20 was in warning the Christians to pray that their flight not be on that day simply because the gates of Jerusalem would be closed on the Sabbath, and this would make it impossible for them to flee the city.

However, we will soon discover that this argument falls flat on its face in light of the fact that the passage in question was specifically targeted to all those who "dwell in Judea", not just Jerusalem (See verse 16). Was there a wall around the entire land of Judea? This was not so. It is mere conjecture to conclude that Christ mentioned the Sabbath simply because the gates were locked in Jerusalem. If this were so, let us beg the question as to why our Saviour mentions only the Sabbath, and not any other Jewish holidays such as the Day of Atonement, the Passover, the Feast of Tabernacles, the Feast of Trumpets, or any other Jewish holiday that was recognized as "a sabbath"? Obviously Jesus recognized that "the" Sabbath day would still be important after the cross. The clear fact alone that the Syrian Churches established in the east were still keeping Sabbath even well into the 4th century is testimony enough of the fact that the importance of the sanctity of the Sabbath was passed down to them, and a number of their leaders fought hard against the Sunday heresy—which we should all know came from Mithraism. Not Christianity.

Further yet, I will quote a dedicated Christian author named Christian Edwardson who succinctly put the nail in the coffin regarding this subject:

While He taught His disciples that such necessary work as eating, healing the sick, or lifting a sheep out of a pit, was lawful to do on the Sabbath days (Matthew 12: 1-12), He thereby acknowledged the claims of the Sabbath law, which makes ordinary work not lawful on that day. It was "the Spirit of Christ" in the prophets (1 Peter 1: 10, 11) who instructed His people to "bear no burden on the Sabbath day" through the gates of Jerusalem (Jeremiah 17:21, 22, 27). And when foretelling the destruction of that city (which took place A. D. 70) Jesus warned His disciples saying: "But pray ye that your flight be not . . . on the Sabbath day." Matthew 24: 20. This warning was not, as some would have us believe, on account of the gates being closed on that day, for in the same connection Jesus says: "Let him which is on the housetop not come down." V. 17. But how could he flee without coming down from the housetop? There can be only one answer. There was an elevated road from one flat roof to another on which they could flee till they reached the wall, where they could be let down. (See Acts 9: 25; Joshua 2: 15; 1 Samuel 19: 12) In such a case closed gates could hardly come into consideration. This instruction shows Christ's sacred regard for the Sabbath, and His anxiety that His church should keep it properly. (Christian Edwardson, Facts of Faith, p. 80)​

Added to this is that Jesus is clearly urging His followers to pray so that they won't be in a position of being unable to keep the commandment of God regarding the Sabbath. Jesus' attitude and behavior throughout the Gospels shows that He obeyed God's commandments and commanded His followers to obey God's commandments. This is precisely what Paul is talking about in 1 Cor. 9: 21 when he speaks of his keeping the law of God according to the teachings of Christ.

"To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law." (1 Corinthians 9:21)​

What law is Paul referring to when he says that he realizes that he needs to obey "the law of God"? Clearly Paul is not carelessly alluding to words that only Christ spoke, but to God's Moral Law that was written in stone for which Christ came to establish, magnify, and elaborate (See Isaiah 42:21; Matt. 5:17-22; 19:17; 22:35-40; Romans 3:31).

In light of all this, I would like to provide what I consider the most irrefutable evidence of the binding nature of the Sabbath in the New Testament era:

We will now focus on Luke 23:56. The binding nature of the Sabbath commandment is evident in Luke’s writing concerning the Sabbath day which came about the next day after Christ's death on Friday:

“And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day ACCORDING to the commandment.” (Luke 23:56)​

Now please pay careful attention to the following:

First of all, the Epistle Luke emphasized that the keeping of the Sabbath by His followers was “according to the commandment” AFTER the New Covenant had been ratified at the cross on Friday. Scripture teaches that the New Covenant was ratified “by the shedding of blood” (Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24), not the resurrection. We also find that Hebrews 9:16, 17 and 22 establishes unequivocally, and unapologetically, that a covenant is in force ONLY AFTER the death of the testator. Not after the resurrection.

Secondly, Paul emphasized that once a covenant is in place, no man can take away or add to the covenant:

"To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified." (Galatians 3:15, ESV)​

Thirdly, Luke wrote about these women of Galilee as "resting the Sabbath according to the commandment” approximately 35 years after the event happened! So even Luke, the only Gentile gospel writer, recognized that the keeping of the Sabbath was indeed “according to the commandment” AFTER the New Covenant was ratified at the cross. If the Sabbath had been disannulled at the Cross, Luke would not have recognized it as being “according to the commandment”, since this day was after Christ had already shed His blood.

Fourthly, Paul said “nothing could be added” once the New Covenant was in place. Catholic and Evangelical Christians somehow fail to realize that Sunday came three days after the shedding of blood. So why are they “adding” significance to this day? Without question, Sunday came three days too late.

To summarize, these principles are in line with the three principles of the covenant which are as follows:

(1) Before either of the two Covenants is put into effect, the conditions of the Covenants are made known (Ex. 24:1-8 );

(2) Wherever there is a Covenant, the Covenant is sealed by the blood of the Testator (Heb. 9:16-22);

(3) Once the Covenant has been sealed by the blood, nothing can be added or subtracted from the covenant (Psalms 89:34; Gal. 3:15)

(Borrowed from The Seal of God & The Mark of the Beast by D.S. Farris, page 14)​

I should not fail to mention that Christ was very clear when He instituted the Lord's Supper prior to His death (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24,25). But He did not even so much as "HINT" at instituting any Sunday sacredness or celebration in honor of His resurrection. We celebrate His resurrection through the sacrament of Baptism (See Romans 6:3-6; 1 Peter 3:20).

The same author above who lists the three principles of the covenants continues to mention that preceding the inauguration of the New Covenant, the Lord Himself came and applied the three principles. Jesus made known in the synoptic gospels what His New Covenant was to be through both word and deed. When Jesus went to the cross, He sealed the New Covenant with His blood. Whatever is—or is not—within the framework of the New Covenant had to be explained or done by Jesus before He died on the cross. Let us raise the question: Did Christ—through deed—keep Sunday before he went to the cross? No! Luke 4:16 says, “So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read.” We agree with Canon Knox Little where he emphasizes: “It is certain that our Lord when on earth did observe Saturday, and did not observe Sunday. If they are consistent, as I have said, they must keep Saturday, not Sunday, as the day of rest” (Sacerdotalism (1894 ed.), 71, 89).

In closing, we shall conclude with the following question: Did Christ—by word—mention Sunday or that the Sabbath would change? No! Christ never mentioned a new holy day. In fact Christ Himself explained in Matthew 5:17 – 19 that He did not come to do away with the Law; not a jot or iota would pass away in the law.

Therefore, through the voice of God's Word in the Holy Scriptures, we can safely conclude that this argument that the Sabbath and the Ten Commandments were vanquished and abolished as "part" of the Old Covenant and its ceremonial system is supported by no Biblical foundation whatsoever.

May we allow the Word of Living Truth to make of it will of us!

~Lysimachus