Sabbath in Crisis": A Chapter-by-Chapter Review

[Servant_2000]

Dale Ratzlaff’s Idol-Smashing “Sabbath in Crisis": A Chapter-by-Chapter Review

7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay
7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay

Chapter I -- “Why Study the Sabbath?â€Â

Ratzlaff categorizes “Sabbath belief†into three motifs:

1. Transfer/modification people hold that (1) the day of worship has been transferred from the 7th day Sabbath to the 1st day Sunday and (2) the rules of practice have been modified. “Sunday is the Sabbath of the New Testament.â€Â

2. Reformation/continuation people hold that (1) Christianity needs reformation by restoring sanctity back to the 7th day Sabbath which (2) continues under the new covenant. The spectrum ranges from (1) those who observe the 7th day but do not try to impress their own belief onto other Christian groups to (2) those who both observe it and advocate it. This end of the spectrum teaches not only that it is “God’s final test of loyalty,†but also that those who reject it will “receive the mark of the beast†and be “tormented with fire and brimstone†in the final judgment.

3. Fulfillment/transformation people hold that (1) the obligation of day has been fulfilled by Christ and (2) the “Sabbath rest†has been transformed into the “rest of grace offered in the gospel in the new covenant.†Most worship on Sunday which they call “the Lord’s day,†not “the Sabbath day.â€Â

Ratzlaff appeals to the reader’s honesty and warns that “a highly developed and well-organized belief system can often be the most dangerous blinder to truth.†He cites the Copernican challenge to the prevailing earth-centered world view of Galileo’s day and the rejection of “new factual evidence†for the sun-centered world view by the religious leaders.

7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay
7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay

Read it for yourself. Write Life Assurance Ministries, P.O. Box 282, Sedona AZ 86340. Or call 520.282.4319.

Go not gentle into legalistic night, rage against the dying of the gospel light,

 

[Servant_2000]

Dale Ratzlaff’s Idol-Smashing Classic “Sabbath in Crisis": Review of Chapter 2

7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay
7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay
7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay

Chapter II -- “The Seventh Day in Genesisâ€Â

From the account of the creation of the seventh day Ratzlaff makes three surprising observations:

1. The formula used to describe each of the first six days – “and there was evening and there was morning an Nth day†-- is missing from the description of the seventh day.

2. The word “Sabbath†does not appear.

3. Nor is anything said about the newly created Adam and Eve resting.

God rests, but since “He who keeps Israel will neither slumber nor sleep†(Ps. 121:4), his rest is not the same as human rest. It “more likely relates to His enjoyment of His creation,†Ratzlaff writes, “which He characterized as ‘very good.’â€Â

While the word “day†may refer to a 24-hour period, the lack of the evening-morning formula renders possible a longer, indefinite period of time. In fact, in the very next verse (Gen. 2:4), the word “day†is used to indicate a period of time at least 144 hours or six days in duration.

After an undefined period of time during which the created pair sinned, “the Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them,†quotes Ratzlaff, who then goes on to say, “This event was the beginning of a ‘work’ which would continue throughout the centuries until its significance would become fully revealed in the death of Christ.â€Â

7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay
7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay
7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay

Read it for yourself. Write Life Assurance Ministries, P.O. Box 282, Sedona AZ 86340. Or call 520.282.4319.

Go not gentle into legalistic night -- rage, rage, against the dying of the gospel light,

 

[Servant_2000]

Review of Chapter 3 of Ratzlaff’s Idol-Smashing “Sabbath in Crisis":

7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay
7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay
7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay

Chapter III -- “The Old Covenantâ€Â

The Old Testament contains three covenants, all in the form of an ancient Near Eastern suzerainty (or ruler-subject) treaty. In all cases the suzerain (ruler) is God. Each contains three main parts:
(1) promise,
(2) requirement and
(3) a sign or seal. Such an “everlasting†covenant was made between God and:

1. Noah. (1) Promise: God will never again destroy earth and flesh with floodwater. (2) Requirement: “You shall not eat flesh … with … blood [in it].†Gen. 9:11. (3) Sign: rainbow.

2. Abram (Abraham). (1) Promise: God would make Abram the father of “many nations†who would inhabit Canaan forever. (2) Requirement: Abram would believe God and change his name to Abraham to indicate that belief. (3) Sign: circumcision.

3. Israel (Moses as mediator). (1) Promise (A) Of God to Israel: Deliverance, protection, sustenance, land, forgiveness of sins, etc. (B) Of Israel to God: “All that the Lord has spoken we will do.†Exodus 19:7,8. (2) Requirement: Keep the Ten Commandments and some 613 “other laws†in Exodus and Deuteronomy. (3) Sign(s): (A) Circumcision for men (included from the previous Abrahamic Covenant) as a one-time act of entrance into the covenant community and its celebration of the annual Passover feast. (B) The Seventh-day Sabbath (“not included in the Abrahamic Covenantâ€Â) as a perpetual observance to “remember†and thus renew the suzerainty treaty weekly.

This third covenant, called the Sinaitic (from Mt. Sinai or Horeb) Covenant, became synonymous with the Old Covenant (p. 30) and later the entire Old Testament (p. 30) including the creation account (p. 33) with the Sabbath as its memorial. But the reverse is not true. “The stipulations of the Sinaitic Covenant were NOT included in the covenants God made with Noah or Abraham. [p.39,40].â€Â

This Old Covenant was supposed to last forever, but because Israel broke it, a “new covenant†is mentioned in Jeremiah 31:31. Individual violations were sins and consisted of two kinds: (1) Unintentional, with stipulated blood sacrifices or other non-lethal punishment. (2) Intentional or “open rebellion,†with punishment as severe as death, such as the man who was stoned to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:35,36).

7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay
7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay
7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay

Read it for yourself. Write Life Assurance Ministries, P.O. Box 282, Sedona AZ 86340. Or call 520.282.4319.

Go not gentle into legalistic night -- rage, rage, against the dying of the gospel light,

 

[Servant_2000]

Reviews Ratzlaff’s idol-smashing “Sabbath in Crisis"

7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay
7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay
7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay

Chapter IV -- “Shadows of Hopeâ€Â

Those who were raised and schooled Adventist were imprinted with a mindset that saw the weekly Sabbath as the only Sabbath of the Old Testament. They were taught to ignore the whole calendrical pattern of Sabbaths, each of which was just as sacred, just as much a part of the law, just as “holy†a “Sabbath to the Lord,†and just as necessary to be kept as was the 7th day Sabbath. Ratzlaff points out this pattern:

1. One Sabbath per week.

2. Seven additional “seasonal†Sabbaths per year.

3. A "sabbatical year†every seven years.

4. A jubilee Sabbath every seven “sabbatical years.â€Â

On these Sabbaths, Israelites, slaves, foreigners, animals and the land itself had to rest. None may do ordinary labor.

Specific “don’ts†applied to all:

1. Sabbath-keepers could not leave their homes.

2. Sabbath-keepers could not bake or boil.

3. Sabbath-keepers could not do any work. Neither could your son, your daughter, your male servant, your female servant, your cattle, nor the traveler staying with you.

4. Sabbath-keepers could not kindle a fire.

5. Sabbath-keepers could not buy or sell.

6. Sabbath-keepers could not do their own pleasure.

Specific “do’s†applied to all:

1. Sabbath-keepers had to keep it holy or “set aside†from ordinary days.

2. Sabbath-keepers had to rest. (This meant physically, implying that the Sabbath was a labor law.)

3. Sabbath-keepers had to celebrate the covenant that had been made with the Lord (suzerain).

4. Sabbath-keepers had to take delight in the Lord.

5. Sabbath-keepers had to begin Sabbath at evening on the 6th day and end it at evening on the 7th day, “day of atonement,†for instance.

Specific punishments applied to all:

1. Sabbath-breakers were to be put to death.

2. Sabbath-breakers were to be “cut off†from the rest of the people.

The old SDA argument that the Sabbath was not a part of the ceremonial law -- that was nailed to the cross (Colossians 2:14) -- becomes increasingly unbelievable as one recognizes how inextricably the Sabbath was connected with such rites as the morning and evening burnt offerings.

Particularly revealing is the order in which these Sabbaths were listed. It was usually either ascending:

1. Weekly Sabbaths: Sabbaths (days)
2. Monthly Sabbaths: New moons (months)
3. Yearly Sabbaths: Fixed festivals (seasons)

Or descending:

1. Yearly Sabbaths: Fixed festivals (seasons)
2. Monthly Sabbaths: New moons (months)
3. Weekly Sabbaths: Sabbaths (days)

What there SDA parents, teachers and pastors have so carefully hidden from them all these years now becomes glaringly, embarrassingly clear as at long last they read the apostle Paul with “eyes†(Colossians 2:16,17 NIV):

“Do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to

1. a religious festival [yearly Sabbath such as Christmas or Easter is today],

2. a New Moon celebration [monthly Sabbath]

3. or a Sabbath day [the familiar weekly event].

These are a shadow of the things that were to come;†Paul continues, “the reality, however, is found in Christ.â€Â

So ALL the Sabbaths -- the yearly, the monthly and the weekly -- are only a shadow! A SHADOW! That's the news! And you thought the weekly one was a gospel requirement, didn’t you? The SUBSTANCE belongs to Christ! Christ is our true Sabbath rest! When you find the substance that the long long shadow pointed you to, you don't need the shadow any more. Think about that. Now that we have Christ, we don't need the pointer-shadow Sabbath any more! It's done its job. Well, thank you, friend Paul, even from a distance of 1,945 years in the past!

It's tiime to admit that there is a time-worn SDA deception, perpetrated upon the denomination's own children -- you. It is the idea that that the Sabbath of Colossians 2:16 refers only to a yearly Sabbath (see SDA Bible Commentary, e.g.) and not ALSO to the weekly Sabbath!

I don’t know about the rest of you out there in SDA cyberspace, but this deception stirs within me a deep, righteous anger.

For those who incline to check out these descending/ascending lists, Ratzlaff lists plenty of references: 1 Chron. 23:31, 2 Chron. 2:4, 2 Chron. 8:12,13, 2 Chron. 31:3, Ez. 45:17, Hos. 2:11, 2 Ki. 4:23, Neh. 10:33, Isa. 1:13,14, Isa. 66:23

Ratzlaff goes on to point out that the Sabbath was at the heart of Hebrew complex of ceremonial interrelationships: the covenant, the covenant people, the tabernacle, the services, the laws, the promises, the blessings, the cursings, and the land. Circumcision was the sign of entrance into the community (following birth or immigration). And the Sabbath (yearly, monthly and weekly) was the sign of continuance within it and a test of loyal to it.

In other words, the Sabbath is most definitely a part of the ceremonial law. And it is not a part of the moral law, such as "no murder" and "no adultery" and "no stealing."

Now if it is not a deception, what is it?

7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay
7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay
7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay

Read "Sabbath in Crisis" for yourself. Write Life Assurance Ministries, P.O. Box 282, Sedona AZ 86340. Or call 1.520.282.4319.

Do not go gentle into the SDA night,
Rage against the dying of the gospel light,

 

[Servant_2000]

Reviews Ratzlaff’s “Sabbath in Crisis" Chapter 5

7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay
7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay
7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay

Chapter V -- “The New Covenantâ€Â

The old covenant was based on Israel’s (1) deliverance from Egypt, (2) reception of the covenant at Sinai, and (3) settlement of Canaan. The new covenant is based on Christ’s (1) life, (2) death, and (3) resurrection.

The new is better than the old in every way. The New Testament is full of laws. As SDA children they generally ignored these laws. When they learned the “definition†of sin – transgression of the law – they thought only of the Ten Commandments along with certain other Old Testament laws, such as the prohibition of pork foods and the necessity of tithing.

MORAL LAW IS NOT DONE AWAY, BUT RE-SEATED IN A BETTER PLACE -- JESUS CHRIST

But the New Testament record of Jesus Christ’s actions and sayings – “a new commandment I give unto you that ye love one another,†for example – serves as a new and better foundation of law. Recognizing the superiority of this new body of moral laws to the Ten Commandments and other Old Testament laws frees us of all guilt trips that the SDAs still try to inflict on us. This includes the oft-heard slander, “If you do away with the law [meaning the Old Testament statements of laws], then you can go out and steal, commit adultery, murder and anything else you want.†This type of thinking only reflects ignorance and legalistic slavery to the letter of the Old Testament laws.

By contrast, Paul writes, “The letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life.†1 Cor. 3:6.

Writes Ratzlaff, “While morality is clearly taught in the Old Testament, the New Testament writers seldom refer to Old Testament law as the reason for moral living, and when the law of the old covenant is mentioned in the epistles it is usually by way of illustration, rather than by way of command…. In 1 Corinthians 6 Paul admonishes Christians to stay away from prostitution and immorality. His reason for pure living is not based upon the laws of Sinai but upon the believer’s relationship with Christ.†(Pages 75,76.)

WHY THE NEW TESTAMENT IS BETTER THAN THE OLD

The new covenant is better than the old because it’s fuller, clearer and more accurate. Hebrews 1:1-3 (NAS) is telling: “God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son … and He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature.†God had to filter his messages through fallible human beings, fathers and prophets though they may be. In Jesus Christ God himself is with us and among us. And the record of this Christ event is the New Testament. The Old Testament has served its purpose and, wonderful though it may be, it cannot begin to compare to the richness and accuracy of the New Testament. For practical purposes, the old covenant may be considered synonymous with the Old Testament, and the new covenant may be considered synonymous with the New Testament.

In one of his most powerful statements, Ratzlaff writes: “The flickering candle of truth which lighted the shadowy pathways of Old Testament history must give way to the unveiled glory of the risen Son!†Page 79.

From 2 Corinthians 3:1-18, Ratzlaff contrasts the two covenants:

OLD COVENANT………........……NEW COVENANT
written with ink………………...written with the Spirit
on tablets of stone…………….on tablets of human hearts
inadequate (implied)………….adequate servants
of the letter………………....……of the Spirit
the letter kills………..…………the Spirit gives life
ministry of death……………...ministry of the Spirit
came with glory………....………abounds in glory
ministry of condemnation…ministry of righteousness
glory fades……………......………glory surpasses
now has no glory……………....remains in glory
veil remains unlifted…………veil removed in Christ
veil over their heart….……veil taken away
bondage (implied)………...â€Â…liberty
can't change heart……..…..being transformed

In practice, writes Ratzlaff, “We should not accept any old covenant laws or practices on the basis of the old covenant statements themselves. Rather, we must examine every old covenant law and statement from the new covenant perspective: Jesus Christ.†Page 86.

This includes your personal decision to keep the 7th-day Sabbath holy or not.

7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay
7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay
7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay

Read "Sabbath in Crisis" for yourself. Write Life Assurance Ministries, P.O. Box 282, Sedona AZ 86340. Or call 1.520.282.4319.

Do not go gentle into the SDA night,
Rage against the dying of the gospel light,

 

[Servant_2000]

Reviews “Sabbath in Crisis" Chapter 6

7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay
7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay
7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay

Chapter VI -- “Jubilee Sabbathâ€Â

The use of Jesus as an example is limited. There are many things about Jesus that are beyond the scope of being an example for us to follow:

1. Jesus was “born under law.†Gal. 4:4. We are not.
2. Jesus was circumcised. Luke 2:21. We don’t have to be.
3. Jesus observed the Passover. Luke 2:41. We don’t have to.
4. Jesus wore tassels on the bottom of His garment. Numbers 15:38, Mt. 9:20. We don’t have to.
5. Even Jesus’ teaching includes demands that the people hallow the temple (Mark 11:15-18) and present old covenant sacrifices (Matthew 5:23,24).
6. Jesus died for the sins of the world.

Ratzlaff writes, “We cannot use Christ’s example in Sabbath observance to enforce present-day Sabbath keeping unless we are also willing to use His example to enforce circumcision, the Passover, temple worship, the wearing of tassels on the bottom of garments and other old covenant practices.â€Â

Another function Jesus fulfilled which is outside the scope of exampleship is the Jubilee. (Luke 4:16-30, Mark 6:1-6, Matthew 13:53-58.) In His first sermon Jesus made three points:

1. He was the messiah.
2. The Jubilee had come.
3. His mission was to set captives free.

This ministry bursts the framework of the old covenant. He said, “I must preach the kingdom of God to the other cities also, for I was sent for this purpose.†Luke 4:43. Jesus IS the covenant by fulfilling Isaiah 42:6: He, Himself, is “a covenant to the people.â€Â

In the Old Testament the jubilee (Lev. 25:8-17):

1. Started on the day of atonement.
2. Was ushered in with the blowing of a ram’s horn.
3. Proclaimed release to all inhabitants of the land.
4. Had each return to his own family and property.
5. Allowed no sowing or reaping.
6. Told the people to eat crops directly out of the field.
7. Brought justice to all.

Ratzlaff writes, “The book of Hebrews shows how this old covenant Sabbath pointed forward to the atonement brought by Christ’s death on the cross. In the old covenant the Day of Atonement had to be repeated every year.†Page. 95. But by contrast Jesus sacrifice was one time for all people. (Hebrews 10:1-4, 12, 14.) When that ‘one offering’ was sacrificed, the function of the yearly Day of Atonement ceased to exist.†Page 95.

The prophecy of eating crops directly out of the field was fulfilled when Jesus had his disciples pick the heads of grain and eat. Matthew 12:1. These are examples of how Jesus ushered in the Jubilee Sabbath rest.

Ratzlaff gives many other examples: Releasing people from demons and/or Satan, from fever, from sicknesses. He preached that the kingdom of God had come. He forgave sin. He opened the eyes of the blind. All was done on the Sabbath day against the law of Moses as the people understood it.

In these instances Jesus is not our example. He is our Savior.


7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay
7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay
7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay

Read "Sabbath in Crisis" for yourself. Write Life Assurance Ministries, P.O. Box 282, Sedona AZ 86340. Or call 1.520.282.4319.

Do not go gentle into the SDA night,
Rage against the dying of the gospel light,

 

[Servant_2000]

Reviews Ch.7, “Sabbath in Crisis" by Dale Ratzlaff

7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay
7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay
7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay

Chapter VII -- “The Lord of the Sabbathâ€Â

An alternate title for this chapter could be: “Jesus Asserts His Authority over Old Covenant Sabbath Law.†There are two "headlines":

1. JESUS BREAKS SABBATH BY CASTING OUT DEMON, HEALING FEVER SICKNESS (Mark 1:21-34, Luke 4:31)

In synagogue (church) on Sabbath Jesus was “teaching them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.†SDAs under-emphasize Jesus' teaching authority and over-emphasize his obedience to the law. Thus they turn the truth on its head. The truth is that Jesus broke the letter of the law as it was understood by all Israel and taught a newer, higher form of the law seated within himself. Jesus did not just “take authority†like a rebel – He already had all authority by virtue of His deity. Yes, Jesus was “under the law,†but only in the sense that, being born under it, He kept it perfectly. But He was above the written form of the law in the sense that, having inate authority over it, He re-instated it within Himself in a new, more authentic form by His actions and teachings.

For example, on the Sabbath day Jesus took authority over Satan in the form of an unclean spirit and ordered it out of a man. To the Jews this was “work.†And Jesus agreed with them that it was indeed work. In this way Jesus redefined the law and put it on a higher level, the level of God-in-the-flesh living among us.

On the Sabbath Jesus also healed Simon’s mother-in-law, who was sick with a fever. And after she was healed “she began to wait on them.†In other words, Jesus worked by healing her and she worked by “waiting on them.†It’s significant that she didn’t need a recovery period before she could begin to work again. It is even more significant that Jesus allowed her to work on the Sabbath in violation of Moses’ prohibition.

2. JESUS LETS HIS DISCIPLES REAP AND THRESH GRAIN ON THE SABBATH AND DEFENDS THEM AGAINST JEWISH ACCUSATIONS (Mark 2:23-28, Matthew 12:1-8, Luke 6:1-5)

In defending his disciples Jesus cites the example of David, who “entered into the house of God … and ate the consecrated bread, which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests.†And He gave the meaning: “The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. Consequently, the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.â€Â

It’s time for you SDA people to lift your hearts and admit with a clear conscience: Yes, Jesus broke the Sabbath in the only ways meaningful to the culture (church equivalent) of the time and had others do so. Since His life was sinless, He demonstrated that this kind of Sabbath-breaking – whether or not it was a violation of Exodus 20 – was not a violation of the new covenant law that He represented as God-in-the-flesh on earth.

Need more scriptural evidence? Here it is: “Have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath, and are innocent? But I say to you, that something greater than the temple is here.†Matthew 12:5-7, NAS. The point is not whether SDA pastors have to work hardest on Sabbath and are blameless. At best, that point is only a legalism. The real point is: Something greater than the temple (which housed the law) was there. Jesus Christ was demonstrating that the Sabbath, which was only a shadow-pointing-to-him, was being re-centered from words-on-stone-tablets to the person of himself.

This is what former Adventists have to struggle with. In there new way of life, which may involve work or recreation on the seventh day, are they simply reacting to the abuses of our former Adventist leaders, whom they now think are wrong? If so, their missing the point!

The point is that the person of Jesus Christ IS our Sabbath rest. This truth must be a living reality in our lives and not just an excuse to “go to the movies†or “go shopping†or “mow the lawn†on Saturday. If we are to realize the truth of the Sabbath for today, we must make sure that we are living the life of Christ, living in the kingdom of heaven, right here on earth, right now in the year 2005, 24-hours each day, seven days each week.

7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay
7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay
7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay

Read "Sabbath in Crisis" for yourself. Write Life Assurance Ministries, P.O. Box 282, Sedona AZ 86340. Or call 1.520.282.4319.

Do not go gentle into SDA night,
Rage against the dying of the gospel light,

 

[Servant_2000]

Reviews Ch.8 of “Sabbath in Crisis" by Dale Ratzlaff

7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay
7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay
7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay

Chapter VIII -- “Sabbath Conflictsâ€Â

In three Sabbath incidents Jesus asserts powers only God can claim. Adventists typically attack Jesus Christ’s status as fully God-on-earth. They do this by relegating Him to “our elder brother,†“the son of God†(meaning something less than fully God), or “our example†(denying that He is more). Their closed minds cannot relate to these incidents as they were written. And they seek to downplay their significance by claiming that “Jesus was only trying to show the Jews HOW to keep the Sabbath of the law properly.â€Â

The three incidents may be headlined as:

1. JESUS HEALS WITHERED HAND ON SABBATH (Luke 6:6-11, Matthew 12:9-14, Mark 3:1-6).

In synagogue (church equivalent) Jesus was teaching on the Sabbath. A man with a withered hand was in the congregation. Jesus asked him to come forward. He did so. Jesus then asked, “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good, or to do evil, to save a life, or to destroy it?†No response. “Stretch out your hand,†said Jesus. The man did so, and immediately his hand was restored healthy. At the sight of this miracle the synagogue members “were filled with rage, and discussed together what they might to do Jesus.â€Â

In response Jesus said, “What man shall there be among you, who shall have one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will he not take hold of it, and lift it out? Of how much more value then is a man than a sheep! So then it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.â€Â

The Adventist way of looking at this incident is to put Jesus in a one-down position. Poor little Jesus, trying to defend His actions so that they wouldn’t “destroy Him.†The gospel way of looking at it is to understand that Jesus is DECLARING and not PLEADING. He deliberately challenged the Jews in their own “church†building, declared that it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath, and then followed through on His declaration. In so doing He was asserting His control over the law, His authorship of the law, and His interpretation of the law. This is not something that a person who is ANYTHING LESS THAN FULLY GOD can do!

2. JESUS HEALS MAN WITH EDEMA (DROPSY OR SWELLING) ON THE SABBATH (Luke 15:1-6).

Again Jesus takes utter charge of the situation. He accepted a dinner invitation at a high-society home. The Pharisees and lawyers were watching him closely. Jesus looked them in the eye and asked, “’Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath, or not?’ But they kept silent.†Jesus then boldly healed the man, sent him on his way, then boldly asked, ‘â€ÂWhich one of you shall have a son or an ox fall into a well, and will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day.’ And they could make no reply.â€Â

The elite of society planned a trap for this “upstart.†Jesus didn’t fall into the trap. He destroyed it. They could not not cow this “God with us.†Instead Jesus single-handedly reduced them all to an enraged silence by showing that they care more for their own “flesh and blood†or even an animal than another human being. Note also that this was not an emergency situation. Jesus could just have well waited till the next day. But He did not, because He was demonstrating His right to redefine the law of Moses. Again, only God could do this.

3. JESUS HEALS MAN SICK 38 YEARS AND TELLS HIM TO CARRY LOAD ON THE SABBATH (Luke 5:1-18, 7:14-24).

A 38-year chronic condition is not a life-threatening emergency. Jesus deliberately provoked a serious confrontation with the “powers that be†of his day. He not only healed the man on the Sabbath but also told him to carry his bedroll. Both actions broke the Halakah, equivalent of a legal code.

(Halakah: legal portion of the Talmud and of post-Talmudic literature concerned with personal, communal, and international activities, as well as with religious observance. The term usually refers to the Oral Law, as codified in the MISHNA. This Jewish tradition sought to elicit from the biblical text directives for proper Jewish behavior, including religious and ritual activities. About A.D. 180 Halakah and Haggadah together were codified as the Mishnah.)

“For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God [John 5:9-18, NAS].â€Â

From the Gospel of John, then, we learn that Jesus actually was breaking the Sabbath and teaching others to do so. We should not limit our understanding to thinking that He “wasn’t really breaking the Sabbath,†but only trying to show the Jews how to keep it better. Yes, John tells us that He really was breaking the Sabbath. If this goes against your grain, it is because you are still trapped in the SDA mode of thinking that subordinates Jesus to the law of Moses. Clear your mind of that claptrap and let Jesus be God! This is proof that the Sabbath is not a part of the moral law (such as “no murder,†“no stealing,†“no coveting,†“no adultery,†etc.). For Jesus never broke or had others break the moral part of the law. It is proof that the Sabbath is part of the ceremonial law (like circumcision, sewing tassels on the hems of your garments, shunning pork and shellfish, wearing clothes of wool and linen woven together, etc.). Therefore, breaking it isn’t the same as breaking the eternal moral law that emanates from God who is in Christ Jesus.

Further proof of Jesus Christ demonstrating that He is God incarnate: He didn’t “explain†how working on the Sabbath wasn’t really breaking the Sabbath. Instead he “raised the stakes,†so to speak, He escalated the tension, by stating: “My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.â€Â

The Jews reacted strongly to what they considered blasphemy: “For this cause the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking [Greek, destroying] the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.†John 5:18.

When Jesus said He was Lord of the Sabbath, He meant something much more radical than the SDAs think. He was literally putting an end to the Sabbath as a legal requirement.

7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay
7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay
7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay

Read "Sabbath in Crisis" for yourself. Write Life Assurance Ministries, P.O. Box 282, Sedona AZ 86340. Or call 1.520.282.4319.

Do not go gentle into SDA night,
Rage against the dying of the gospel light,

 

[Servant_2000]

Reviews Ch.9, “Sabbath in Crisis" by Dale Ratzlaff

7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay
7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay
7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay

Chapter IX -- “Paradox of Sabbath Lawâ€Â

The incident of the healing of the man born blind could be headlined: JESUS BREAKS SABBATH BY OPENING THE EYES OF MAN BORN BLIND

Amazing fact: Two thousand years ago God allowed a baby to be born blind. Not because of his or his parents’ sin, as the Pharisees maintained. But so that one day his eyes might be opened by Jesus and “the works of God might be displayed in him.†John 9:3

Not only that, but Jesus deliberately chose “holy time†to display these “works of God†in open defiance of the laws of Moses against doing work on the Sabbath. SDAs claim that the Ten Commandments are the ultimate statement of law -– “transcript of God’s character†(EGW) -- and that Jesus, by healing on the Sabbath, was only showing the Jews a more excellent way to keep the Fourth Commandment.

One little problem: There is no exemption for the work of healing on Sabbath -- neither in the Fourth Commandment, nor in the Ten Commandments as a whole, nor in the entire Old Testament!

A second little problem: Nowhere in the New Testament record is there any statement that Jesus “wasn’t really breaking the Sabbath. He was only trying to show the Jews a better way of keeping it.†Instead we find gospel writers stating flatly, Jesus broke the Sabbath.

“Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.†John 5:18. John doesn’t say here, “The Jews INCORRECTLY THOUGHT He had broken the Sabbath!†Nor does he say, “The Jews MISTAKENLY THOUGHT that Jesus was making Himself equal with God.†John could not possibly be more clear and blunt:

* Jesus BROKE the Sabbath.

* Jesus MADE HIMSELF EQUAL with God. This gives Jesus the right to break the Sabbath and allow, even instruct, others to do so.

Examples of the kinds of work involved:

* Reaping and threshing grain. Matthew 12:1.

* Healing. Matthew 12:9-15 and many other places. That healing was clearly work and was therefore clearly breaking the Sabbath is betrayed by the the reaction of the head personage in the community: “Indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, the synagogue ruler [church pastor equivalent] said to the people, ‘There are six days for work. So come and be healed on those days, not on the Sabbath.†Luke 13:14, NIV.

* Carrying a load (mat or bedroll). John 5:8-21.

* Making clay or mud (to be used as a poultice-type healing agent). John 9:14.

A third little problem: SDAs claim that the Jews of Jesus’ time made the Sabbath more restrictive. But in fact, some of the additional rules actually liberalized or eased the absolute strictness of the command. For instance, law of Moses stated, “For the LORD has given you the Sabbath; therefore He gives you on the sixth day bread [manna] for two days. Let every man remain in his place; let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.†Exodus 16:29, NKJV.

If SDAs were to take this literal commandment to heart, they would have to stay home indoors for 24 hours from sunset on Friday to sunset on Saturday. They wouldn't even be allowed to go to church!

The same dilemma existed for the Jews of Jesus' day. The rabbis eased that absolute restriction by allowing for a “Sabbath day’s journey†-- a bit over half a mile -- so that God-fearing Jews could go to synagogue on the Sabbath day. This term appears in Acts 1:12: “Then [the apostles] returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day’s journey away.†Acts 1:12, NAS.

If Jesus' purpose wasn’t to break the Sabbath, but to restore it to its original condition, then He would have had to denounce this “Sabbath day’s journey†as being unscriptural in that it appears nowhere in the law of Moses.

Then -- to restore Sabbath-keeping to its original practice, as per current SDA teaching -- Jesus would have had to demand that people, including His Gentile followers, remain in their homes for the 24 full hours of the Sabbath.

Obviously Jesus did not do that. Nowhere does the New Testament say that Jesus was trying to restore the practice of Sabbath-keeping to its literal form precisely as Moses commanded it.

Instead, Jesus dealt with Sabbath-keeping law just as He found it praciced in His time. Knowing that healing on Sabbath was unlawful, He asked the Jews,“Which is lawful to do on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?†You can be sure that if healing on Sabbath was allowed and even demanded by the law of Moses, the Jews would have not only allowed it, but they would have demanded it as well. These religious leaders KNEW the letter of the law very very well.


Jesus asked this rhetorical question not because the the letter of law of Moses allowed for healing on the Sabbath. He asked it the law DID NOT ALLOW for healing on the Sabbath.

The same can be said for Jesus’ other Sabbath-breaking actions/allowances/instructions: reaping, thrashing, mixing a "medicinal" poultice, and carrying a load. None of these is allowed by the letter of the law of Moses. And so SDAs come wrongly to the conclusion that Jesus came to RESTORE law-keeping to its original practice as recorded in the Old Testament.

Jesus did NOT come to restore the law to some supposed pristine state. Jesus came to FULFILL the law and then, having fulfilled it, to TAKE IT OUT OF THE WAY BY NAILING IT TO THE CROSS. Colossians 2:14.

Not the eternal moral aspects of the law: having love for neighbors and enemies, practicing justice, showing mercy, not murdering or stealing or coveting or committing adultery, etc. But the ceremonial aspects: Sabbath-keeping, distinguishing clean from unclean foods, circumcision, and all the hundreds of other laws that basically have nothing to do with what the gospel is all about:

“Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.†James 1:27.

Grace and peace to you all,

Jude

7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay
7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay
7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay

Read "Sabbath in Crisis" for yourself. Write Life Assurance Ministries, P.O. Box 282, Sedona AZ 86340. Or call 1.520.282.4319.

Do not go gentle into SDA night,
Rage against the dying of the gospel light,

 

[Servant_2000]

Reviews Ch.10, “Sabbath in Crisis" by Dale Ratzlaff

7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay
7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay
7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay

Chapter X -- “The Sabbath in Actsâ€Â


From a friend of mine who is a former Adventist

================
I am the son of an SDA evangelist, pastor, and conference administrator. From my earliest memories in studying the book of Acts, I heard this message: The apostles roamed the Roman Empire from town to town keeping the Sabbath in synagogue [church equivalent] and preaching Christ. Little if any distinction was made between the Jews and the Gentiles [non-Jews]. And since all were keeping the seventh day and all believed Jesus was coming soon, they were all – Jews and Gentiles alike – Seventh-day Adventists. This fit right in with the idea that the SDA church has been the only true church since Creation and is therefore 6,000 years old. Very soon, however, apostasy in the form of Roman Catholicism took nearly all first century believers away from the Seventh-day Adventist “present truth†of the time, leaving only the remnant, who were and remain the Seventh-day Adventists.

================

But, you know, the truth is like a successful surgery: At first it hurts, but it results in healing.

And the truth about the Sabbath in Acts of the Apostles is rather different from what I learned and believed as a child. How do I know this? From studying Acts after hearing people such as Dale Ratzlaff. And here’s what he has brought to light in one chapter:

There are only four cities in Acts where “Sabbath incidents†took place: Ratzlaff takes these in turn and draws conclusions about what happened in each.

FIRST CITY: PISIDIAN ANTIOCH (IN WHAT IS NOW TURKEY): ACTS 13:13-52.

What happened: On the Sabbath “Paul and his companions†preached the gospel of Christ in the synagogue there. Basically, he told them that “the prophets which are read every Sabbath†prophesied of Jesus as the Christ [anointed one or messiah]. Such crowds came that the Jews became jealous and blasphemed the name of Jesus. So the apostles turned to the Gentiles and the gospel spread through the whole region.

Conclusions drawn: Sabbath meetings were held in a Jewish synagogue for a basically Jewish congregation -- not Christians, not SDAs -- because they had been commanded by Jesus to preach the gospel to the Jews first. Nothing was taught about the Sabbath. Paul mentions the Sabbath only incidentally by saying that the Jews in Jerusalem had rejected the very Christ whom they read about in the Prophets each Sabbath in synagogue.

SECOND CITY: PHILIPPI (IN GREECE): ACTS 16:11-40.

What happened: On the Sabbath they “went outside the gate" to a river side and began speaking to a group of women. One of them, Lydia, believed and was baptized. Later Paul cast a “spirit of divination†out of a slave girl. Her owners had been making money off of her “fortune telling.†Having lost their source of revenue, the slave owners complained to the city authorities who had the apostles arrested, beaten and thrown in jail, where after an earthquake the jailer was converted. He freed them and was baptized along with his entire household. Paul spoke to new believers at Lydia’s home, then left town.

Conclusions drawn: On Sabbath Paul did not go to synagogue, but met a gathering of Gentile women who normally attended Jewish synagogue. Paul preached only the gospel, not the Sabbath.

THIRD CITY: THESSALONICA (IN GREECE): ACTS 17:1-9.

What happened: For three successive Sabbaths Paul preached the gospel to the Jews and “God-fearing Greeks†in synagogue. A few Jews believed. But a “great multitude of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women†believed. Thereupon the Jews created such a disturbance that the apostles had to leave town.

Conclusion drawn: For three successive Sabbaths Paul preached only about Jesus being the Christ, nothing about the Sabbath.

FOURTH CITY: CORINTH (IN GREECE): ACTS 18:1-11.

What happened: Paul proclaimed Jesus as the Christ “in the synagogue every Sabbath.†The Jews “resisted and blasphemed.†Paul “shook out his garments and said to them, ‘Your blood be upon your own heads, I am clean; from now on I shall go to the Gentiles’†and went next door to the home of God-fearing Gentile Titus Justus.

Interestingly enough, “the leader of the synagogue believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized.†Paul had a vision that encouraged him to stay there for eighteen months.

Conclusions drawn: Paul preached only the gospel, nothing about the Sabbath. Paul stayed in Corinth eighteen months. From this some SDAs have argued that Paul kept eighteen months of Sabbaths there, since Acts 18:4 says Paul was in synagogue “every Sabbath.†However, Ratzlaff points out that Acts 18:7 shows that Paul was forced to leave the synagogue and go to a house next door after only three Sabbaths. Whether he kept the Sabbath after that cannot be proven from the text one way or the other. In any case, nothing is said about Paul preaching anything about the Sabbath. He did contend that Jesus was the Christ of Old Testament prophecy.

The only other references to the Sabbath in Acts are incidental:

1. JERUSALEM (ACTS 1:12).

“Then [the disciples] returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day’s journey away.†The text doesn’t even say this happened on Sabbath. It only refers to the Sabbath in the context of a well-known unit of length, slightly over half a mile.

2. JERUSALEM (ACTS 15:21).

“Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.†Ratzlaff writes, “The context of this verse is the final decision of the Council, which stated that the Gentiles did not have to keep the law of Moses, rather they were only required to “abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood [Acts 15:21].â€Â

Again, Ratzlaff comments, “It is clear these Sabbath meetings where Moses was read were Jewish meetings. Note that (1) they are places which have been established ‘from ancient generations,’ (2) they are synagogues,’ (3) they are ‘in every city.’ These characteristics would not fit the early Christian assemblies, many of which were in homes .... Of greater interest to our study is the fact that it is in these Jewish synagogues where Moses is read every Sabbath [page 144].â€Â

CONCLUSIONS DRAWN FROM “THE SABBATH IN ACTSâ€Â

1. In no Sabbath meeting is the Sabbath ever the point of discussion. Nothing is ever taught about it.

2. In every instance the sole subject is always the gospel and the gospel alone.

3. Every Sabbath incident involves a Jewish meeting, all in synagogue where Moses was read every Sabbath, except one, the assembly of women “God-worshippers†(Gentiles who attended synagogue with the Jews on Sabbath) on the river bank. This conclusion supports the contention that the only reason Paul went to synagogue on Sabbath was to preach the gospel to the Jews first, as his Lord had commanded him to do.

4. Paul’s evangelistic approach in city after city was to go first to a Jewish synagogue and “reason with them from the Scriptures.†He would do this every Sabbath until the Jews had “heard enough†and threw him out, usually after only two or three weeks. Only then would Paul direct his ministry to the Gentiles where they met in private homes and not necessarily on the Sabbath.

I ask you now, do you really think the first-century Christian church was identical to “the 6,000-year-old Seventh-day Adventist church� Is there convincing textual evidence that the apostles ever preached the Sabbath to the Gentiles?

Personally I'm persuaded that the scriptural evidence shows that “Paul and his companions†preached the gospel and the gospel only wherever they went. Some Gentiles must have continued keeping the Sabbath after accepting Christ and being baptized, because they were already “God-worshippers†accustomed to going to synagogue on Sabbath and meeting with the Jews to hear Moses and the prophets read to them. But other Gentiles -- the overwhelming majority -- who accepted Christ as their personal Savior probably did not -- because there is no record of the apostles ever preaching the Sabbath to them.

But you make up your own mind.

7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay
7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay
7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay

Read "Sabbath in Crisis" for yourself. Write Life Assurance Ministries, P.O. Box 282, Sedona, AZ 86340. Or call 1.520.282.4319. Or go to http://www.ratzlaf.com/sabb.htm.

 

[Servant_2000]

Reviews Part 1, Ch.11, “Sabbath in Crisis" by Dale Ratzlaff

7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay
7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay
7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay

Part One of Chapter XI -- “Sabbath in the Epistles†-- Colossians 2:16,17

Here is that famous text: “Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day – things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.â€Â

Bible scholars are generally professors at seminaries and universities who have Ph.D. degrees in biblical studies, who know Greek and Hebrew and sometimes Aramaic and even Sanskcrit, etc., and who are also generally learned in the history and often the archaeology of the ancient Near East.

These people almost universally interpret the phrase – “[1] a festival or [2] a new moon or [3] a Sabbath day†– as [1] a Jewish annual Sabbath (such as the Day of Atonement for them or Christmas or Easter for us today), [2] a Jewish monthly religious celebration, and [3] the weekly Sabbath day. Such scholars go all the way back to luminaries such as Tertullian, Augustine, Luther and Calvin. And that interpretation has remained almost universally inviolate to this day.

Rare exception: the consensus of SDA church scholars, as seen, for example, in the official SDA Bible Commentary. There it is interpreted as

[1] a Jewish annual Sabbath (such as the Day of Atonement for them or Christmas or Easter for us today),

[2] a Jewish monthly religious celebration, and

[3] a Jewish annual Sabbath (such as the Day of Atonement for them or Christmas or Easter for us today).

Don’t laugh. It’s true; you can check it out for yourself. But more recently some SDA scholars have broken with this ridiculously redundant interpretation.

Among them is, yes, none other than Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi of Andrews University, renowned world lecturer and author of the book FROM SABBATH TO SUNDAY: A HISTORICAL INVESTIGATION OF THE RISE OF SUNDAY OBSERVANCE IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY (Rome: Pontifical Gregorian University Press: 1977). This book (which I will here abbreviate as FSS) is based on his Ph.D. dissertation at Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome where he graduated summa cum laude.

In the “Acknowledgments†of FSS he admits breaking lockstep with his church:

Page 6: “In a few places my interpretation of certain Biblical texts (such as ... Colossians 2:14-17) ... differs somewhat from the traditional position of my Church.†Ahem!

How? Here, in Bacchiocchi's own words:

Page 358: “The Sabbath in Colossians 2:16. The sacred times prescribed by the false teachers [legalistic, 'Judiazing Christians' usually from Jerusalem] are are referred to as ‘a festival or a new moon or a sabbath – heortas a neomania a sabbaton' (2:16). [I know enough Greek to tell you that is New Testament Greek for “festival or new moon or Sabbath.] The unanimous consensus of commentators is that these three words represent a logical and progressive sequence (annual, monthly and weekly) as well as an exhaustive enumeration of the sacred times.â€Â

Page 359: “It is therefore linguistically impossible to interpret the latter [“sabbatonâ€Â] as a reference to the Day of Atonement or to any other ceremonial sabbaths, since these are never designated simply as ‘sabbatata’ [plural, or, in English, ‘Sabbaths’].â€Â

Will he get into trouble for thus breaking lockstep? Not likely, because he sufficiently misinterprets the earlier part of Colossians 2 that this small “heresy†is overlooked by the SDA hierarchy who know that “the little people†-- that’s you and I, folks -- will never figure it out, will never find out anyway, for they don’t read SDA scholarly publications. (Come on now, admit it: Have YOU read FSS?) And they’ll never find it in the denominational publications that they do read, such as “the good old Review.â€Â

What this all means to you and me is that even Bacchiocchi admits that Paul is referring to the weekly seventh-day Sabbath. He won't agree that the Sabbath is one of the many pointer-shadows that became unnecessary after the Christ, the sun of righteousness, arrived on planet earth as Jesus of Nazareth.

Bacchiocchi has his ways around that conclusion, but they are so devious that I don’t think it’s worth my time and yours to debunk them here.

Just be glad you know the truth and that you can read it quite plainly in a good translation of the Bible if you are not disoriented by SDA fog.

7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay
7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay
7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay

Read "Sabbath in Crisis" for yourself. Write Life Assurance Ministries, P.O. Box 282, Sedona, AZ 86340. Or call 1.520.282.4319. Or click here: http://www.ratzlaf.com/sabb.htm.

Do not go gentle into SDA night,
Rage against the dying of the gospel light,

 

[Servant_2000]

Reviews Part 2, Ch.11, “Sabbath in Crisis" by Dale Ratzlaff

7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay
7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay
7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay

Part Two of Chapter XI -- “Sabbath in the Epistles†-- Galatians 4:9-11

If you’re still hanging on to Seventh-day Adventism, better fasten your safety belt, for if you really undertand it, this text of Paul’s is going to throw you way way back in your bucket seat:

“But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? You observe days and months and seasons and years. I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.†Galatians 4:9-11.

In Galatians Paul can’t stop talking about the old covenant Law of Moses. He says (Gal.3:34-25):

(1) The Law is “our tutor to lead us to Christ.â€Â

(2) Faith has come.

(3) Surprise: We are no longer under “the tutorâ€Â!

Inescapable conclusion: We are no longer under the Law of Moses!

And because this is so, you no longer have to observe:

(1) Days (such as the weekly seventh-day Sabbath and the Day of Atonement).

(2) Months and seasons (such as the New Moons of Numbers 28:11, and the Passover and Firstfruits).

(3) Years (such as the sabbath year of Leviticus 25:4).

The Seventh-day Adventists in Galatia were Paul’s opponents. They “were seeking to persuade the Galatians to observe the law,†writes Ratzlaff. To combat their enslaving influence, Paul “shows that observance of the Law as a requirement puts one under a curse for ANY failure to keep it perfectly,†no matter how tiny an infraction. “The Galatians had been persuaded by the Judaizers [SDAs] to observe the convocations [such as the weekly seventh-day Sabbath] of the old covenant.â€Â

Read "Sabbath in Crisis" for yourself. Click here: http://www.ratzlaf.com/sabb.htm. And meanwhile,

Do not go gentle into SDA night, but
Rage against the dying of the gospel light,

 

[Servant_2000]

Reviews Part 3, Ch.11, “Sabbath in Crisis" by Dale Ratzlaff

7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay
7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay
7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay7thDay

Part Three of Chapter XI -- “Sabbath in the Epistles†– Romans 14:5,6

In keeping with the old saying – good things come in threes – Paul now hits us with the third AWESOME LEGALISM-BASHING text. This time it’s Romans 14:5-6:

One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord, and he who eats not [flesh foods offered to idols], does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not [flesh foods offered to idols], for the Lord he does not eat [flesh foods offered to idols], and gives thanks to God.

Amazing fact No. 1: “In New Testament times more Jews lived in Rome than in Jerusalem,†writes Ratzlaff. Inference: That's a lot of Jewish Christians to mix in with the Gentile Christians.

Amazing fact No. 2: Christians of New Testament times divided themselves up into five broad groups:

GROUP ONE: “Jewish Christians who kept the old covenant laws AND insisted that the Gentile Christians do the same.â€Â

GROUP TWO: “Those who felt the Jewish Christians had to keep the old covenant laws, but the Gentile converts did not.â€Â

GROUP THREE: “Gentile Christians who were seeking to keep the old covenant law.†(Examples: Colossian Christians and Galatian Christians).

GROUP FOUR: “Gentiles [Christians] who did not keep the old covenant law.â€Â

GROUP FIVE: “Those [such as Paul himself] who were free from old covenant law keeping, yet … had no problem ‘keeping’ the law when in the company of those who kept it IF it would give [them] an opportunity to proclaim the gospel to these people.â€Â

We can safely assume there were several-to-many of each of the five groups in the Christian churches in this huge metropolis of Rome. There were Christians who ate pork chops and ham and clams and squid -- “all things†(Rom. 14:2). And Christians who ate “vegetables only†(Rom. 14:2). There were Christians who thought some things were “unclean†and Christians who thought otherwise (Rom. 14:14,20). There were Christians who drank wine and Christians who didn’t (Rom. 14:21. There were Christians who thought the first day Sunday was to be observed above the other six, and Christians who thought Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday were all to be observed “alike†(Rom. 14:5-6).

With all this in mind, Paul writes, “I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean of itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean... All things indeed are clean.†(Rom. 14:14,20.)

Take home message for you and me: “Sabbath observance is a matter of personal conviction,†writes Ratzlaff. “Church unity is more important than arguments over the Sabbath. Paul did not believe Sabbath observance, or nonobservance, was important in itself. There is evidence that Jewish Christians in Rome were the ones who were observing the Sabbath while the Gentile Christians there regarded ‘every day alike.’â€Â

While this is good enough for me, I would like to share with you Ratzlaff’s personal testimony:

“When I was a boy, my mother did not cook or wash the dishes on the Sabbath. However, for Sabbath dinner she did reheat the food she had prepared the day before. When we began to use frozen vegetables she found that it was no more ‘work’ to take frozen peas and cook them than it was to reheat the ones which were cooked the day before. I remember the discussion we had in making this transition. However, we never did face the fact that even making a fire on the Sabbath was wrong! If we did, would it have been wrong to build a fire in a wood stove? What if you kept coals overnight so you did not have to light a match, would that [adding more wood] be building a fire? And what about a modern gas cooktop which lights with a turn of the knob? Is that building a fire? There are hundreds of questions that will come up if one tries to keep the biblical rules for Sabbath.

“When we took long trips we tried not to travel on the Sabbath. However, we often took short trips in the car on Sabbath afternoon to ‘enjoy nature.’ I remember on several occasions we compromised and decided to ‘enjoy nature’ at the same time we ‘traveled.’ However, when we did this, we always would gas upon Friday night and drive until the gas tank was about empty. We would then find a place to observe the rest of the Sabbath. As soon as the sun was down, we would gas up and continue our trip.

When I was pastoring in the Seventh-day Adventist church I remember a lady who was baptized and joined our church. I studied with her the biblical principles of Sabbath keeping and encouraged her to follow them. Some time later she called me and said that her husband did not like her keeping the Sabbath because she was not making the beds on Sabbath morning. I assured her that making the beds was acceptable Sabbath keeping. I had, in our previous study, instructed her that she should not use the sacred hours of the Sabbath to do her housework, such as washing clothes, etc. In interpreting my instruction, coupled with the biblical rules of Sabbath keeping, she felt that there was more ‘work’ in making a bed than there was in washing clothes in an automatic washing machine. I was hard pressed to defend my definition of what was right and what was wrong to do on the Sabbath.

“Samuele Bacchiocchi, Seventh-day Adventist theologian, in his book, THE SABBATH IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, has some twenty-one pages devoted to modern Sabbath observance. IN these pages he asks many questions about Sabbath keeping and then gives his interpretation. For example: (1) “…holding of weddings on the Sabbath should be discouraged.†(2) “As a general rule, however, it is advisable to avoid conducting funerals on the Sabbath, since they disrupt the spirit of rest, joy, and celebration of the Sabbath.†(3) “A distinction must be made between essential services rendered on the Sabbath in a Seventh-day Adventist institution and those rendered in a non-SDA institution.†The reason for this, says Dr. Bacchiocchi, is that in a non-SDA institution, such as a fire station, the Sabbath keeper might be asked to do routine maintenance work which would not be accepted Sabbath observance. (4) “Purchasing goods or services on the Sabbath, such as eating out in restaurants, will turn the mind of the believer away from the sacredness of the Sabbath to the secularism and materialism of the world.†(5) Dr. Bacchiocchi states that “Historically, Seventh-day Adventists have endeavored to follow the principle of sunset reckoning [to mark the beginning and end of Sabbath] even in the Arctic regions by broadening the meaning of ‘sunset’ to include, for example, the end of twilight, the diminishing of light, the moment when the sun is closest to the horizon.†Having said this, however, he then argues for Sabbath to be reckone in arctic regions using equatorial sunset time, 6 p.m. to 6 p.m.â€Â

That’s what Samuele Bacchiocchi teaches.

Dale Ratzlaff teaches this: “It is obvious that Sabbath keeping was not required or recommended in the Gentile Churches.

What do YOU teach?

Read "Sabbath in Crisis" for yourself. Click here: http://www.ratzlaf.com/sabb.htm. And meanwhile,

Do not go gentle into SDA night, but rage,
Rage against the dying of the gospel light,

 

[SputnikBoy]

Whew ...my head is spinning! The lengths some people will go to justify mainstream Christianity's 'Sunday Sabbath! Since you so laboriously presented all of the above posts I almost hate to respond with a casual, 'so what?' Are you a disgruntled ex-SDA whose objective in life is to besmirch the integrity of that particular denomination? Surely, no one goes to such lengths as you have unless driven by a personal vendetta toward SDAs.

Regardless of all of your warnings against anyone having the audacity to remain obedient to a command of God, I'll continue to keep the 7th-day Sabbath anyway. And, you also have the same freedom to keep Sunday as your Sabbath if you wish. God will be the ultimate judge as to who 'keeps' the right day. Now, wasn't that easy? :fadein:

 

[Servant_2000]

Chapter XII -- “New Covenant Documents and Signsâ€Â

The New Testament defines the Sinaitic Covenant just as the Old Testament does: All 613 laws including the Ten Commandments among them. As a revelation of truth the old covenant was incomplete and fragmentary (Heb. 1:1). The new covenant is unimaginably superior, for it is a revelation of Jesus Christ, and Jesus is the radiance of God’s glory and He is the exact representation of God’s nature (Heb. 1:2). Therefore if the two covenants were to come into conflict, the new covenant would always take precedence over the old.

JESUS IS THE NEW COVENANT

Jesus is the new covenant, the Elect of God (Isaiah 42:6, 49:8, John 6:27) on whom God has set His seal. Jesus is the mediator of a better covenant enacted on better promises (Heb. 8:6). For example. The old covenant partners were God and the “sons of Israel,†whereas the new covenant partners are the Father and Jesus. The old covenant partner to God failed over and over, whereas the new covenant partner to God the Father, Jesus Christ, kept the Law perfectly and therefore fulfilled the old covenant, in the process proving it to be inferior (Sermon on the Mount).

The old order covenant with its temple, sacrifices, etc., was replaced by the new order which says that Jesus is the:

Way
Truth
Life
Good Shepherd
Light
Door
First
Last
I AM
Beloved Son
Bread of life
Water of life
Resurrection
Judge

As a nation, Israel was born at the exodus from Egypt. Similarly but in an unimaginably superior way, Matthew writes, “Out of Egypt did I call My Son†Jesus (Mt. 2:5).

In the old covenant God = I AM gave the Ten Commandments on Mt. Sinai, but in the new covenant Jesus = I AM VASTLY IMPROVED on all ten on the Mount of Blessings.

In the old covenant I AM wrote an inferior Ten Commandments with His finger on two tablets of stone on the Mount of Sinai. In the new covenant I AM spoke vastly improved them on the Mount of Blessings. “No longer are the people to look to Sinai for guidance,†writes Ratzlaff, “but to Him.â€Â

EXPERIENCE ON THE MT. OF TRANSFIGURATION PROVES JESUS SUPERIOR TO THE LAW (MOSES) AND THE PROPHETS (ELIJAH)!

Jesus appeared transfigured (clothed in white radiance) before Peter, James and John. Soon Moses (representing the Law) and Elijah (representing the prophets) appear with Him. Peter volunteered to make three “sacred tents†– tabernacles – one for Jesus, one for Moses and one for Elijah. But this was not to be, for a cloud formed, “overshadowing them.†Then the voice of God came out of the cloud saying, “This (one) is my beloved Son! Listen to Him!†Then – poof! – the obscuring cloud vanishes, leaving WHO standing alone? Elijah representing the prophets? No. Moses representing the Law? No. There’s only one possibility left: Jesus! And, lo, it was so, for Jesus appeared to them ALONE – NAKED IN A SENSE, FOR HE APPEARED WITHOUT THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS! Whooh! Wow! Jesus only! No more Law! No more prophets! Jesus only! Now Peter, James and John were finally ready – along with you and me – to listen to God: “This is my beloved Son! Hear Him!â€Â

And if that doesn’t leave you breathless, you’ve still got a veil hanging in front of your nose!

Therefore Jesus is:

# The elect of God

# God’s FINAL revelation to us

# The exact representation of God’s nature (you can now safely forget about “the blueprint†and the so-called “transcript of God’s character)

# The way

# The truth

# The life

# The light of the world

# The only one who always did our Father’s will

# The basis for new covenant law

# The Word of God (sorry, but the Scriptures only TESTIFY to the true and only Word, Jesus Christ)

When Jesus said, “If you love me, keep my commandments,†He wasn’t talking about MOSES’ commandments. He was talking about HIS commandments: those spoken on the Mount of Blessings and throughout His career on earth.

The new covenant laws, just like the old covenant laws, have aspects that are moral-and-eternal and aspects that are “specifically set forth for the culture in which the writers lived,†writes Ratzlaff.

Under new covenant law, for example, a woman must cover her head (1 Cor. 11:6). If she doesn’t she was to have her head shaved. Why? Writes Ratzlaff: “To understand these instructions we must see them in their cultural setting. The city of Corinth was well known for its abundance of temple prostitutes. They were the ones who had uncovered or shaved heads. Therefore, while the specifics of Paul’s instructions apply only to his culture, we can apply the underlying principle and request that women not come to church looking like prostitutes – however prostitutes look in our culture.â€Â

Other ways the new covenant can be compared with the old.

COVENANT PARTNERS: Old: God and Israel. New: Our Father and Jesus.

WORDS OF THE COVENANT: Old: Ten Commandments. New: Love as Christ loved.

BOOK OF THE COVENANT: Old: Exodus to Deuteronomy. New: Gospels and Epistles.

ENTRANCE SIGN OF THE COVENANT: Old: Circumcision. New: Baptism.

REMEMBRANCE SIGN OF THE COVENANT: Old: Sabbath. New: Lord’s Supper.

Writes Ratzlaff, “The role the law filled in the old covenant is filled by the Holy Spirit in the new.†Here’s how this works:

1. The Old Covenant (OC) was written with ink; the New Covenant (NC) was written with the Spirit.

2. The OC was written on tablets of stone; the NC was written on tablets of the heart.

3. The OC was “of the letter;†the NC was “of the Spirit.â€Â

4. The OC “letter kills;†the NC “Spirit gives life.â€Â

5. The OC was a ministry of death; the NC is te ministry of the Spirit.

6. The OC was a ministry of condemnation; the NC is the ministry of righteousness.

7. The OC came with glory; the NC “abounds in glory.â€Â

8. The OC now has no glory; the NC abounding glory remains.

Read "Sabbath in Crisis" for yourself. Click here: http://www.ratzlaf.com/sabb.htm. And meanwhile,

Do not go gentle into SDA night, but rage,
Rage against the dying of the gospel light,

 

[Aloha Joe]

I don't know why, but there seem to be misunderstanding on both sides (seemingly intentional, sometimes) of this argument, and neither side seems to even try to understand what the other side is trying to say.

The Sabbatarians keep insisting that they keep the Sabbath not to be saved, but because God commanded it (as he commanded us not to murder, etc.) and since they love Him, they obey Him. Yet non-Sabbatarians keep arguing that works won't get you into heaven, which is something the Sabbatarians never claim. And no matter how many times Sabbatarians explain their position, people seem to intentionally misunderstand it.

Similarly, non-Sabbatarians agree with Sabbatarians that SUNDAY IS NOT THE SABBATH, and yet Sabbatarians keep on saying things like "why do you disobey God by keeping the Sunday Sabbath?" No matter how many times non-Sabbatarians say "we KNOW God didn't change the Sabbath to Sunday--SUNDAY IS NOT THE SABBATH, JESUS IS" Sabbatarians seem to intentionally ignore it.

I'm not arguing for either position (at least not yet--tee-hee), I'm just saying make sure you know understand what the other side is saying before you argue against them. I'm flabbergasted that people keep arguing against beliefs that the other sides DOESN'T EVEN HOLD TO.

SputnikBoy and Sabbatarians: the whole point of Servant's argument is that THE NEW COVENANT SABBATH IS NOT A DAY. Sunday is not the Sabbath. The non-Sabbatarian belief is that the New Covenant Sabbath is found in the PERSON of Jesus Christ, not a day. I'm not saying Sabbatarians have to agree with this, but at least understand what you're arguing against. When you say "God never commanded a Sunday Sabbath," you're completely misidentifying the non-Sabbatarian position on the matter. If you're gonna argue, argue against the notion the the Sabbath was transferred from day to the person of Jesus Christ, as THIS is the non-Sabbatarian position, not that the Sabbath was transferred to Sunday.

Non-Sabbatarians: Sabbatarians and SDAs are NOT saying that they observe the Sabbath to obtain salvation, so to try to argue against this is pointless, as it's NOT THE POSITION THAT THEY HOLD. Their position is that God commanded it, and because we love Him, we do it. What you should argue then, is not that "no man is justified by keeping the Law," as the Sabbatarians would agree with you. All conscientious Christians obey commands out of love. If He says it, we do it. The question, then, is not whether the Sabbath saves (Sabbatarians will agree that it doesn't), but whether God commands it, making it something we should, out of love for God, obey.

I'm not saying to agree with the other side--but at least try to understand what it is that they're trying to say. Of course, I'm pretty sure the same statements will continue to be made, no matter how much I or others try to clarify.

 

[Heidi]

Aloha, would you want your wife to serve you because she's supposed to or because she loves you? If it's the former, she will do what she's told. She will serve you out of obedience like a robot. There will be no personal relationship with you, only obeying what you tell her. If it's the latter, she will respond from her heart without consulting a rule book. Which one would you prefer?

 

[Aloha Joe]

Heidi,

Your question still misses the point somewhat. It seems to presume that Sabbatarians keep the Sabbath out of robotic obedience rather than a genuine love for God and a desire to please Him. Of course all service to God or fellow man should be motivated by love. Any Sabbatarian will tell you that his/her keeping of the Sabbath is motivated by his/her love of God, as it is something that pleases God and that God desires we do.

Because God desires that I don't look at pornography, I don't look at pornography. Because God desires that I don't fornicate, I don't fornicate. It's not out of robotic obedience, but because I love Him. Similarly, Sabbatarians will tell you that they see the Sabbath as something that God desires for mankind, and so they, out of love for God, choose to do what they perceive as His will. Your example does not address the real issue, and makes faulty presumptions about Sabbatarian motives.

The real issue is whether or not keeping the Sabbath is something God desires for mankind, or whether the Sabbath rest has been transferred to the person of Jesus Christ.

In His Love,
Joe

 

[guibox]

I encourage all of you to read Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi's book "Sabbath Under Crossfire" which came out of Dr. B's debates with Ratzlaff. In the book He decimates Ratzlaff's regurgitated arguments right from the scritpure and with logical thinking.

You can access chapters of this book here:

http://www.biblicalperspectives.com

Don't just get the one sided story from a disgruntled Adventist.

 

[Aloha Joe]

Referring to Ratzlaf as a "disgruntled Adventist" is a cheap mischaracterization of the man, and a subtle attempt to fallaciously discredit an argument via the ol' ad hominem. Almost every article I've read which addresses Ratzlaff's book invariably resorts to attacking the man's character and challenging his sincerity. This is not only inappropriate, but it has no bearing on the validity of his (or anyone's) arguments.

Ratzlaf did not leave the SDA church out of disgruntlement, but out of an inability to honestly continue to teach the unique doctrines of Ellen White, particularly that of the Investigative Judgment.

He writes:

"My wife, Carolyn and I were both fourth generation Seventh-day Adventists. We still have many sacred memories of life and service in the SDA church--and we always will.
...
"We left the Seventh-day Adventist church in 1981 because we could no longer, in clear conscience, teach the doctrine of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgment. Since that time many of our SDA friends ask us, 'Why did you leave?' My answer has been, 'we studied our way out.' This answer is completely incomprehensible to most Seventh-day Adventists. They--as we did--believe that Seventh-day Adventists have "the truth," a special message given by God for the last days. How, then, they reason, can one study himself out of the truth without leaving truth and accepting error?
...
'My real desire, hope, and prayer, is not that people would have to leave the Seventh-day Adventist church as we did, but that the Seventh-day Adventist church would candidly admit the doctrinal errors to which this book is devoted, and continue to move toward mainstream evangelicalism."

It seems that the notion that he could sincerely study his way out of Adventism is so unbelievable to those like guibox, that the only explanation must be that he's disgruntled, despite the fact that he considers his time with, and memories of, the Adventist church sacred.

If you want to disbelieve his motives for leaving the SDA church, it's your prerogative, but it's an inappropriate accusation to level aloud, and has no bearing on the argument at hand.

As for Dr. Bachhiocchi's treatise, he fails to even address important arguments and Scriptures put forth by Ratzlaff, but instead addresses smaller points made by Ratzlaff outside of the context of the greater argument. Dr. Bacchiocchi seems to ignore 75% of what Ratzlaff said.

It's like if there's a t-shirt that I argue is mine because:
it's blue like my shirt
it has the logo of the band "Pedro the Lion" on it, like my shirt
it's a Hanes shirt, like my shirt
it's a medium, like my shirt
it has a small hole in the armpit, like my shirt
it smells like Acqua Di Gio, the cologne that I use
it has a pizza stain on it, like my shirt
it has "from Mom" written under the collar, like my shirt

but someone says "he said he knows it's his because it's blue, but the fact that it's blue doesn't prove it's his, so this point of his argument is obviously invalid" without addressing all the other points of my argument which cumulatively indicate that it is, indeed, my shirt. This part of my argument cannot be appropriately refuted outside of the larger context of my total argument. This is similar to the forensic mistake Dr. Bacchiocchi makes.