Saturday, December 28, 2013


The Jewish rituals were exciting, yet mysterious and serious...deathly serious. God set them in motion at that time so that the world would look at the Jews, see their holiness and know that God lived among them. Everything from what type of cloth and what color the priests wore, to the washing, to the spoken liturgy, to the Sabbaths both weekly and annual were instigated that God could remain with them--a taste of the Immanuel, “God with us” that would be fully come in the future Messiah. The rituals themselves were holy, Messianic prophecies. The Jews were a living prophecy and their rituals, an anticipatory drama daily performed in the Temple in Jerusalem. The Old Covenant was the road map to the New. It was a sign to point to who Christ would be.
Jesus fulfilled the purpose of all the Jewish Temple rituals and regulations. He became our passover Lamb, our sacrifice, our high priest. Because of Christ the old law was absorbed into the new. The new fulfilled the old. All the old laws and rituals were shadows of the more perfect that were to come in the New Covenant with a new priesthood and a new law. Let’s look at how the inspired writer of Hebrews put it: 
Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek..? For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.....For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness (for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God. And inasmuch as it was not without an much the more also Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.[Jewish laws] serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises...For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. For finding fault with them, He says, "Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, when I willeffect a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; not like the covenant which I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt...When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. 
For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance...For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things...He takes away the first in order to establish the second. (Excerpts of Hebrews 7-10)

The sacrifices and laws and Sabbaths of the Old Covenant point to Christ and His New Covenant. But let us focus on the Sabbath and its fulfillment in Christ and why Sunday is part of this fulfillment.

Many Christians misunderstand how the Jewish Sabbath and the Christian Sunday complement each other. The Jewish Sabbath is completed in and made perfect in Sunday, not because Christians have a new Sabbath, but because Christ became our eternal rest, our eternal “Sabbath.” Sunday is holy, not because it is a Sabbath, but because it is part of the new covenant plan of Salvation! Yes Sunday! 

From the very beginning, Sunday was part of the gospel mystery because God chose the first day of Creation week to announce, “let there be light” and God chose the first day of a new world of grace to announce the light of the gospel--Christ Himself who is the truth and the light.

This atoning for our sins was fulfilled when Christ ascended to heaven to offer His blood to the Father on Sunday.  The Resurrection Sunday wasn’t an accident, Christ didn’t overlook it and then regret rising on Sunday because so many of His followers made that a false day of worship. No, Sunday was planned from the beginning. It fit into the Messianic prophecy. 

But how did the Old Testament Jewish sacrifices and the Sabbaths point to Sunday as part of the Passion and Crucifixion week of Christ? We need to look closely at the rite of the sacrifice itself. We will examine how t
hree actions (common to all Jewish bloody sacrifices) correlated to the Cross: 

  • The bringing forward of the victim:
    (Ex. 29: 42; Lev. 1: 5; 3:1; 4: 6) There was a procession of the animal and the sacrificer to the altar. Then a confession of sins (Lev. 16: 21; 5: 5; Nu. 5: 5) which, according to Rabbinic tradition, was verbal (Otho, "Lex rabbin," 552). 1

    The Cross: Friday. The Via Dolorosa is where Christ carried the cross through the streets to the hill of Golgotha. There they placed above his head a description of his crimes. (John 19:   Mark 15: 26)
So by this, Christ was fulfilling the procession of being the sacrifice and the public confession of the "sin" of being the Messiah and Savior.
  • The slaying: to be performed by the sacrificer himself (Lev. 1: 3.) That the act of slaying or the destruction of the victim was not the chief element, is evident from the precept that the sacrificers themselves, who were not priests, had to care for the slaying.2

    The Cross: Friday and Saturday. Jesus freely lay down His life for us. He was the sacrificer and the priest both. (John 10: 15, 17.)
But the sacrifice was not yet complete. 
  • The sprinkling of the blood and acceptance by God: The real sacrificial function began with the sprinkling of blood by the priest, which, according to the Law, pertained to him alone (Lev. 1: 5; 3:2; 4:5; 2 Chr. 29: 23). If a layman undertook the blood-sprinkling, the sacrifice was invalid (cf. Mischna Sebachim, II, 1). The oblation of the blood on the altar by the priest thus formed the real essence of the bloody sacrifice.3
Jewish tradition also expressly designated the priestly sprinkling of the blood on the altar as "the root and principle of the sacrifice". The explanation is given in Lev. 17:10.: "...the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you, that you may make atonement with it upon the altar for your souls, and the blood may be for an expiation of the soul." Here the blood of the victim is declared in the clearest terms to be the means of propitiation, and the propitiation itself is associated with the application of the blood on the altar.4 
The Cross: Sunday. Christ presented His sacrifice to the Father at His resurrection on Sunday finishing the Atonement. 
Is it possible that Jesus is giving us a clue as to when He applied His blood when He spoke to Mary?

Jesus said to her, "Mary." She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, "Rabboni!" (which means Teacher). Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' " John 20:16-17
We can be certain that Christ applied the blood of His sacrifice on Sunday because He told Mary He had not yet ascended to the Father to whom the blood must be offered. Yet later that day, in the evening, He went to His disciples, evidently having returned. From then on people touched Him.

We also have another possible clue as to the day the blood was presented to the Father. In Revelation 1: 10 we read that on the “Lord’s Day” St. John went into vision and saw:

...a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders... And they sang a new song: "You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.... In a loud voice they sang: "Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!" Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing: "To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever! 

Christ chose to atone for the sins of all men on Sunday by presenting the Father with His precious blood. 

  • Christ chose Thursday to instigate the Lord’s Supper and the New Covenant. 
  • Christ chose Friday to sacrifice Himself just as the Passover Lamb was being slaughtered in the nearby Temple of Jerusalem. And the Old Covenant was finished. Done. Completed. Sin and death were conquered. 
  • then Christ chose to rest on SabbathGod’s Sabbath was given to the Jews to point to the final Sabbath of Christ! 

It was the final Sabbath when, in His rest, Christ descended to the dark place of rest for all generations up until that point and released His people from sleep. The Sabbath now was Christ. He is the true rest.
  • Then Christ chose Sunday.
A new day dawned. A new light--the sun of
righteousness! (Malachi 4:2; Wisdom 5: 6) A new heaven and a new earth. Prophesied in the Old Testament, not as a replacement for the seventh day of the week, but as the new first/eighth day symbol. (See: Ex. 12: 16; 22:30; 40:2, 17, Lev. 9:1; 12:3; 14;10,23; 15:14, 29; 22:27; 23: 7, 35, 36, 39-40, Num.6:10; 28: 1829:35, I Kings 12:32, 2 Chr. 2: 9; 29:17, Neh. 8:18, Ezek. 43:27; 45:18, Luke 1:59; 2:21, Phil. 3:5)

The sacredness and holiness of Sabbath was never transferred to Sunday. Saturday Sabbath didn’t become Sunday Sabbath anymore than a lamb became Christ. Sabbath was a rest from labor in preparation for the eternal rest in the Messiah. Sabbath was our prophetic clue to what the New Covenant would be like.

Sunday was also planned from the beginning.

It was on Sunday that Christ chose to rise from the dead (Matt. 28:1), ascend to His father, consecrate His disciples. On that Sunday, He revealed Himself at the breaking of the bread (Luke 24: 31), breathed on His Apostles and they received the Holy Spirit (John 20: 19-21). A week later on Sunday, Christ came to doubting Thomas and showed him the wounds in His side. On pentecost Sunday the Holy Spirit was given at the birth of the church. 

Fundamentalists will claim, "Since Paul said there are no more holy days, Sunday cannot be holy.” But Gal. 4: 10, Rom. 14:5 and Col. 2: 16 do not prevent observing Sunday as a holy day, it just says we are not to return to Judaism and let others judge us on our holy days. We are at liberty to observe or not observe. 

Adventists will claim, "Since there is no specific prooftext that records God making Sunday holy, I won't ever believe it. Au contraire. Even if not explicitly recorded, it is most definitely implied. 

[Some of what Christians believe do not have an explicit prooftext in the Bible: The Trinity, the full divinity of Christ. Not all was explicitly revealed in the Old Testament about the Messiah. Jesus never calls the New Testament "holy." Only the Old Testament is called sacred and holy and yet the vast majority of Christians agree that the New Testament is holy.]

Yet, please Adventists do not misunderstand me. Sunday is not a New Covenant Sabbath as the 7th-day is the Old Covenant Sabbath. But worshipping on Sunday as a holy day can deduced several ways:

We can deduce that Sunday is holy because Christians are holy. (I Cor. 3:17, I Cor. 7: 14; Eph. 1:4, Col. 1: 26; 3:12, I Thess. 4:8, Heb. 3: 1, I Peter 2:5, Rev. 20:6). We are the church and the holy temple (Eph. 2: 21; 5: 27) and when we worship, where we worship it is holy. Because everything we do should be holy, even our kisses!(I Cor. 16: 20; 2 Cor. 13: 12). In a sense, since the Apostles met daily (Acts 2:46), each day in the New Covenant is holy--including Sunday. But Sunday was special (Acts 20:7, I Cor. 16:2). 

But there is a much greater reason to celebrate Sunday as a holy day:

The church has placed emphasis on Sunday because Christ placed an emphasis on SundaySunday was chosen by God Himself to birth a New Covenant. It is the birthday of our righteousness by faith. It is a very holy day, for on it Christ broke the bonds of death and sin. Sunday was the day the blood was offered to the Father--the end of the Atonement ritual. Sunday is the first day of our adoption as children of God. 

Sunday is all over the Old Testament hiding mysteriously awaiting to be revealed at the resurrection. 
(All footnotes from Catholic Encyclopedia, “Sacrifice.”)


Arik said...

What is sad is that your interpretation of this subject is based largely on idealism. A method of inerpretation mostly based on the allegorizing of Scripture championed by Clement and Origen.

Epesians 2:14-15 "...hath broken down the middle wall of partition (sanctuary imagery) between us (Jews and Gentile) having abolished in His flesh the emnity, even the law of commandments CONTAINED IN ORDINENCES, for to make in Himself of twain one new man, so making peace." There is no doubt that the law spoken of here is the law of rituals and temple services conained in the book of the law written by Moses. Even your own Catechism makes a sharp distinction between this law and the Ten Commandments: 2056 "The word 'Decalogue' means literally 'ten words.'...they were written with the 'finger of God' UNLIKE THE COMMANDMENTS WRITTEN BY MOSES..."

The idea that the 4th commandment of the Decalogue is merely a ceremonial law or a shadow and therefore can be changed does not come from Scripture, but rather from certain church fathers who's ideas are traced to pagan Neoplatonism.

The biggest problem that I see in the Christian world today, is the failure to see the Gospel and the function of the law in the OT. Somehow most believe that salvation came by law in the OT and Jesus in the NT established His kingdom of grace, paving the way for salvation by grace through faith.

But listen to the words of Psalm 77:12-13 "I will meditate also of all thy work, and talk of thy doings. Thy way, oh God, is in the sanctuary:who is so great a God as our God."

This was the function of the sanctuary laws and rituals and ceremonies. Like Paul said "The law was our schoolmaster to BRING US UNTO CHRIST that we might be justified by faith" (Gal. 3:24). In other words being saved by grace through faith in Christ was the Gospel then as it is now. This is why Hebrews can declare that "For unto us was the gospel preached as well as unto them..."(Heb. 4:2). I could say it this way; the Old Covenant was the means by which God used to bring about the New Covenant experience. What is the New Covenant experience? Hebrews 8:10-"THIS IS THE NEW COVENANT.....I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts, and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people..."

But why do people throw away the baby with the bath water when we transition from the Old Covenant to the New? The Ten Commandments are still part of the New Covenant. Even your own Catechism is very clear that this law still stands. It even recognizes that "...this law has not been abolished... (2053) that "the Decalogue must be interpreted in light of this twefold yet single commandment of love, the fulness of the law." (2055) and "The Decalogue forms a coherent transgress one commandment is to infringe on all the others..."(2069).

Arik said...

"Fundamentalists will claim, "Since Paul said there are no more holy days, Sunday cannot be holy.” But Gal. 4: 10, Rom. 14:5 and Col. 2: 16 do not prevent observing Sunday as a holy day, it just says we are not to return to Judaism and let others judge us on our holy days. We are at liberty to observe or not observe."

Gal. 4:10--Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.

The context of the Galatians returning back to weak and beggerly elements or bondage from whence they were brought out of (vs.9) is not that they returned to keeping the Sabbath but rather they exchanged one form of bondage (heathenism) for another form of bondage by observing the Jewish festivals as a means of salvation. This is most evident from Pauls illustration that the Galatians returning to the ceremonial laws of the Old Covenant was like being born of the bondwoman. Paul is not speaking of the moral law that even your Catechism is very clear is still binding.

Romans 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth everyday alike. Let every man be fully pursuaded in his own mind.

The context is to be mindful of those "weak in faith" (vs 1, cf 1 Cor. 8). It took time for Christians to understand the Jewish ceremonies pointed to Christ and were no longer binding. Paul was mindful that though truth is not progressive, our relationship to it is. Paul himself attended some of the Jewish feast days (Acts 18:21) Had Timothy circumcized (16:3) even though he called circumcision nothing (1 Cor. 7:19), and agreed to fulfill a vow according to the stipulations of the ancient code (Acts 21:20-27). The context is patience and forbearance, it is not whether certain days or certain foods should or shouldn't be kept. Again Paul is not speaking of the moral law.

Col. 2:16 Let no man therfore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holyday, or of the new moon, or in the sabbah days.

Verse 16 is Paul's final thought of his argument earlier, vs 14 sets the context "blotting out the HANDWRITTING OF ORDINENCES that was against us, which was CONTRARY to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to the cross.

Deut 31:26 Take this BOOK OF THE LAW, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there AS A WITNESS AGAINST THEE.

2056 The word "Decalogue" means literally "ten words."11 God revealed these "ten words" to his people on the holy mountain. They were written "with the finger of God,"12 UNLOKE THE OTHER COMMANDMENTS WRITTEN BY MOSES.13 They are pre-eminently the words of God.

Arik said...

"Adventists will claim, "Since there is no specific prooftext that records God making Sunday holy, I won't ever believe it. Au contraire. Even if not explicitly recorded, it is most definitely implied. "

Actually Adventist will claim, regarding the Ten Commandments, much of what Catholics claim:

2052….Finally Jesus sums up these commandments positively: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

2053..following Jesus Christ involves keeping the Commandments. the Law has not been abolished.

2054 Jesus acknowledged the Ten Commandments, but he also showed the power of the Spirit at work in their letter.

2055 The Decalogue must be interpreted in light of this twofold yet single commandment of love, the fullness of the Law:

2056 The word "Decalogue" means literally "ten words." God revealed these "ten words" to his people on the holy mountain. They were written "with the finger of God," unlike the other commandments written by Moses. They are pre-eminently the words of God.

2057 .. the "ten words" point out the conditions of a life freed from the slavery of sin. the Decalogue is a path of life:

2058 The "ten words" sum up and proclaim God's law:

2059 They belong to God's revelation of himself and his glory. the gift of the Commandments is the gift of God himself and his holy will.

2061 The Commandments take on their full meaning within the covenant. According to Scripture, man's moral life has all its meaning in and through the covenant.

2062 The Commandments properly so-called come in the second place: they express the implications of belonging to God through the establishment of the covenant. Moral existence is a response to the Lord's loving initiative. It is the acknowledgement and homage given to God and a worship of thanksgiving. It is cooperation with the plan God pursues in history.

2067 The Ten Commandments state what is required in the love of God and love of neighbor. the first three concern love of God, and the other seven love of neighbor.

2068 The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them.

2069 The Decalogue forms a coherent whole. Each "word" refers to each of the others and to all of them; they reciprocally condition one another. the two tables shed light on one another; they form an organic unity.
To transgress one commandment is to infringe all the others. One cannot honor another person without blessing God his Creator. One cannot adore God without loving all men, his creatures. the Decalogue brings man's religious and social life into unity.

2072 Since they express man's fundamental duties towards God and towards his neighbor, the Ten
Commandments reveal, in their primordial content, grave obligations. They are fundamentally immutable, and they oblige always and everywhere. No one can dispense from them. the Ten Commandments are engraved by God in the human heart.

2073 Obedience to the Commandments also implies obligations in matter which is, in itself, light.

Arik said...

"Yet, please Adventists do not misunderstand me. Sunday is not a New Covenant Sabbath as the 7th-day is the Old Covenant Sabbath. But worshipping on Sunday as a holy day can deduced several ways:"

Teresa you are being way too modest. Reading what the Catechism has to say about the Ten Commandments, which includes the Sabbath commandment, and reading Dies Domini we can deduce that indeed Sunday has become the Catholic Church's sabbath:

"14. In the first place, therefore, Sunday IS THE DAY OF REST because it is the day "blessed" by God and "made holy" by him, set apart from the other days to be, among all of them, "the Lord's Day."

"15…..This is precisely why it is also THE DAY OF REST…."

"17…human rest on the Lord's Day takes on its full meaning. It is then that man ENTERS THE DEPTHS OF GOD'S "REST"…."

So Teresa, how in the world can you claim that the true Sabbath as a "day of rest" (Gen 2:1,Ex 20:11 ) has not been replaced by Sunday as a "day of Rest (no Scripture)?" How can you claim that Sabbath, a day "blessed by God" (Gen 2:3, Ex 20:11) has not been replaced by Sunday that Dies Domini also claims has been "blessed by God (no Scripture)?" How can you claim that the Sabbath, included in the Decalogue as the 4th commandment (Ex. 20:8) has not been replaced by the third commandment to keep Sunday holy (no Scripture)?

Teresa Beem said...


Catholics do not see worshipping on Sunday as rejecting the Ten Commandments. That is a misunderstanding of Adventists. We believe the Ten are a building block. This is what Christ did. He said, "You have heard it said that you shall not kill" that is one of the Ten. But watch what Christ does. He takes it and builds upon it, "BUT I SAY (He is claiming authority to even change the commandments!) BUT I SAY, "you shall not call your brother an idiot or you are in danger of hell fire."

Jesus took each commandment and built upon it, perfecting it.

Adultery? NOW Jesus told us not even to LUST!

Respect our parents? NOW Jesus told us to respect everyone, most especially our elders both in age and in spirituality.

Covet? NOW Jesus said we are to GIVE liberally.

Slander against neighbor? Now we are to love them and speak the words of the gospel of truth. James speaks a lot about taming the tongue!

Over and over the New Covenant brings us into the perfection of the Old. It doesn't get rid of it. It completes it.

Think of it this way Arik. When a man is finished with medical school, he doesn't jettison all he learned. It is there for him to command. He is no longer required to go to school. That is what happened with the old and new covenant. We in a sense "graduated."

As far as the Sabbath, in the new Covenant that commandment isn't forgotten. It isn't tossed aside, it is FULFILLED IN CHRIST!! Now, we do not have one day a week as a rest. We have SEVEN!!

Now for those who need the commandment to still be in effect (the biblical literalists), we can look to Calvin. Calvin said that we still literally rest one day a week--but the one day is any day you wish it to be. The seventh-day is not a certain day of the week, but one that follows six days of labor.

Because of the resurrection, Calvin chose the seventh day of the week to be Sunday. Some calendars even have Sunday as the seventh day of the week. So for them, they ARE keeping the seventh day of the week.

Catholics are not literalists about this.

The TEN are part of the natural moral law of God. The Ten were, in a sense, dipped from the wellspring of God's universal laws (the New Covenant.) They were just a taste of the better law which was to come. Yes the Ten are PART of the spring, but they have been PERFECTED in Christ.

I hope that makes sense. We are not going to agree on this, my friend, but I hope that you can see that this is not a matter of obedience to God verses disobedience to God, but interpretation of HOW we are obedient to God. Catholics, rightly or wrongly, are being obedient to our understanding of God's will. You read scripture differently. Let's part as brothers in the Lord until HE unites us!

Arik said...

"Sabbath was a rest from labor in preparation for the eternal rest in the Messiah. Sabbath was our prophetic clue to what the New Covenant would be like."

What does Scripture have to say about the "eternal rest?" Speaking directly about the rest that God offers, the author of Hebrews 3 and 4 says of those in the days of Israel in the wilderness "shall not enter into My rest". (3:11). Chapter 4 takes it further saying that "…as well as unto them (Israel) was the Gospel preached, and it did not profit them because of their unbelief. For we which do believe do enter into His rest" (vs3).

So what we see is that the Gospel, the true Gospel, brings about "rest" to the soul. This is much more than just physical rest from labor. This is a spiritual rest. And notice that the author links this rest with the rest of God at creation "For he spoke in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, and God did rest the Seventh Day from all His works." (vs 4), and vs 10 "For he that is entered into His rest, he has also ceased from his own works, as God did from His."

There is absolutely no reference of Sunday being even hinted at being linked with His rest. No "Sunday is the eternal rest of the Messiah". The entire premise of Hebrews 4 is that the Gospel brings rest, the same rest as what God created at creation on the Seventh Day. There is an invitation to enter into His rest, the same invitation given to Israel, that they failed to enter into because of their unbelief and disobedience! We are warned not to follow in the same example. A Sabbath rest still remains, the invitation is still good. The Sabbath day is the symbol of entering into His rest. In the Commandment itself to honor the Seventh Day is said "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and RESTED THE SEVENTH DAY: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath Day, and hallowed it."(Ex 20:11). Same language as Hebrews 4.

The author, presumably Paul, had a perfect opportunity, speaking specifically about entering into God's rest, to link it with Sunday. But he is utterly silent, not even an implication of the first day exists! There is no "Sunday is the fulfillment of the Sabbath", "Sabbath is made perfect in Sunday", "Sunday as the light of the gospel". Sunday was not "planned from the beginning", Paul does not point us to the Creation of light on the first day, but rather points us back to the Seventh Day of Creation!

So you see Teresa, there is no need to "spiritualize" the rest that God offers. As Paul says, the "law is spiritual" (Romans 7:14). The same Gospel in the OT is the same Gospel of the NT, the same rest that God offered in the OT is the same rest that God offers in the NT. The Sabbath Day is a symbol of entering into the rest that God offers to us everyday.

Arik said...

"Catholics do not see worshipping on Sunday as rejecting the Ten Commandments. That is a misunderstanding of Adventists."

First I would like to say that I do thank you for posting my comments and for commenting too.Your quote here seems to be a recurring theme I see in many of your posts. As though what we "think" is what is the test of truth. While God does invite us to reason with Him, at the same time we are warned that our reasoning can be corrupted. "There is a way that seems right to a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death" (Prov. 14:12). This is a foundational statement and shows that our reasoning even our sincerity are not tests of truth. As you admitted in another post, the church is built on Christ,and not the shifting sand of our own reasoning and sincerity.

So please lets reason together. Right off the bat Jesus is clear "Think not that I have come to destroy the law…..I have come to fulfill." (Matt 5:17). The word "fulfill" does not mean what you seem to make it say. Jesus is not saying "I have not come to destroy the Sabbath commandment, but to fulfill it with Sunday, and by fulfilling it with Sunday, I have destroyed the Sabbath commandment!" What Jesus means by "fulfill" is to magnify the law, to make its teachings come true. To fulfill the law means to bring it into perfection. It does not mean to fulfill as in discharge or negate, for He says of the law it will stand until the end (vs. 18).

You seem to only be quoting half of what Jesus said on the Mount. For most certainly He says "You have heard, and it was said". In Christ's day the Jewish leaders had turned God's law into nothing more than exterior rules, dividing them into lessor and greater importance. A better word to illustrate the "righteousness of the Pharisees" was legalism. So when we hear Jesus say "you have heard, and it was said" He most definitely is countering the legal shell and hollow core that the law has been turned into by the leaders teaching of external adherence to the letter of the law. Jesus is showing that moral standards are more demanding than mere "legal" obligations.

I think it is important to realize that it has always been this way. Has it ever been ok to be angry with our brother? In the OT we see Moses bring judgement on himself for his anger against Israel. Has it ever been ok to lust after a woman? Who ever has committed adultery without first lusting? Jesus is showing that sin starts in the heart, and it is the heart that needs to be pure (Matt.5:8). Jesus said Moses allowed divorce because of the "hardness of their heart, but in the beginning it was not so" (Matt. 19:8). Psalm 15 show us that a righteous man speaks truth IN HIS HEART and therefore does not need to swear and take an oath.

I could go on Teresa, but by now you should see that the Catholic idea of "old law" and "new law" is not Biblically sound. Speaking directly of law and fulfillment, Jesus is silent about Sunday fulfilling the Sabbath commandment. We should not elevate our reasoning above Scripture.

Teresa Beem said...

Nope, I disagree with your interpretation of scripture. You are having a difficulty understanding that Catholics do not directly correlate Sunday with a weekly rest…. nor do they connect it with the fourth commandment.

Arik said...

Well I truly am sorry you see what I am saying as merely my interpretation of Scripture. I happen to believe that Scripture is more than adequate to interprets itself, and therefore does not need our own corrupt reasoning added into the mix to make Scripture say what we want it to say.

As far as me not understanding that "Catholics do not 'directly' correlate Sunday with a weekly rest…" I think I understand more than you think, or at least more than your willing to admit. I find that the Catechism as well as Dies Domini absolutely and directly does correlate Sunday with a weekly rest. After all Dies Domini makes correlations between Sabbath Rest and Sunday rest as well as the 4th commandment to remember the Holy Sabbath to your 3rd commandment to remember Sunday all throughout chapter 1 of the document. It's entire premise is the transference of everything that is Holy about the Sabbath to Sunday. You are just unwilling to "directly" admit it, thats all.

Trust in the Lord with all thine heart: and lean not unto thine own understanding! (Proverbs 3:5)

Teresa Beem said...

If you read the catechism and Dies Domini you will see that it DIRECTLY links Sunday with the first day/eighth day of scripture, not the seventh.

I think I have used this analogy before but I will again just to clarify.

The entrance to the Old Covenant was circumcision. The direct fulfillment of that in the New Covenant is baptism. Those two things are directly one fulfilling and replacing the other. This is what some Protestants believe happened with Sabbath going from Saturday to Sunday.

But not Catholics. (IF Sunday were to fulfill a sabbath of Israel it would be more fitting for it to fulfill the Pasch, the annual Passover High Sabbath, not the weekly Sabbath. And many early Christians saw a more direct link between those than a weekly Sabbath.) But it is rather like comparing apples and oranges. They are both fruit, both are round, both are sweet. But they are not directly related to each other. One is not a hybrid of the other.

Here's a better comparison. The Anglican church is a direct split off from Catholicism. And then the Methodist Church split off from that. Though the Methodist Church may have much in common with the Russian or Greek Orthodox church, they are not directly related.

That is what you are reading in the documents. Peripheral comparisons. But since you are suspect of Catholicism and since your church MUST have a direct correlation in order to theologically survive, you must remain in that same inflexible mindset that Sunday is a Catholic Sabbath. I remember how it was within Adventism.

You HAVE to see everything Catholics say, teach and believe as a deception, for in your worldview she is the whore of Babylon and is set to pounce upon the remnant faithful Adventists. It is very sad that this is the situation, very sad indeed.

Arik said...

"If you read the catechism and Dies Domini you will see that it DIRECTLY links Sunday with the first day/eighth day of scripture, not the seventh."

I'm thinking by now that you are hanging everything on the word "DIRECTLY" as well as the ignorance of your readers I might add.

So let's be honest here, you can not get Sunday as a day of rest from first day/eighth day nonsense. The entire chapter 1 of Dies Domini is dedicated to transferring everything that the Sabbath is to Sunday. It makes "DIRECT" links between the 4th commandment and the church's precept, it makes "DIRECT" links between God's rest and Sunday rest, it makes "DIRECT" links between Sabbath being holy and blessed by God to Sunday being holy and blessed by God. For instance:

Paragraph 17: "This formulation [Sabbath rest and the theme of "remembering" God's wonders] complements the one we have already seen; and taken together, the two reveal THE MEANING OF THE LORD"S DAY."

This is an unmistakable and "DIRECT" link between the weekly Sabbath and Sunday! The pope is clear, the meaning of the Lord's Day [Sunday] is found in the Sabbath rest and remembering God's wonders (of which the Sabbath Day is, both creation and redemption).

One of it's paragraphs is titled "From the Sabbath to Sunday" in which it's main argument is "in him, [Christ] the spiritual meaning of 'Sabbath' is fully realized."

Another "DIRECT" link between Sabbath and Sunday. Do I need to go on?

Para. 23 "…because the obligation of Sunday rest was so emphasized, the Lord's day tended to become more like the Sabbath.

Para. 24 "A comparison of the Christian Sunday with the OT vision of the Sabbath prompted theological insights of great interest….THIS" LINK" invited an understanding of the resurrection as the beginning of a new creation…."

Now that is a "DIRECT" link made between Sabbath and Sunday. So Tersesa how in the world can you maintain that there is no "DIRECT" LINK between Sabbath and Sunday? Dies Domin does not go into your first/eighth day link until paragraph 24, before that, the document transfers everything holy and sacred about the Sabbath to Sunday!

Oh you can chalk it all up to my anti-Catholic mindset if you wish, but I think it's more your anti-Adventist mindset that forbids you to acknowledge that Adventist's are correct when we say the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity of the Sabbath to Sunday. I think you owe it to your Protestant brothers and sisters the truth: their tradition of gathering on Sunday to worship is rooted in Catholicism breaking away from God's commandments (4th) and manufacturing a commandment of their own, and incorporating it into the Decalogue (3rd commandment, see Catechism).

Mentioning fruit reminded me of Eve when she was tempted to eat of the fruit of the tree of good and evil. Gen. 3:6 "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make now wise, she took of the fruit and did eat…"

Much like you, Eve relied on her own reasoning against the direct command of God. Sure Sunday has been created to look much like the Sabbath, but one day is commanded by God and one is not. But what the hey, right? They are "both fruit, both round and both are sweet", it doesn't matter which one we eat of, or does it?

Teresa Beem said...

I keep hoping that you are a sincere and honest man. I still will give you the benefit of the doubt. But your repeated insistence that you understand Catholic doctrine better than Catholics leave you on shaky ground. I gave you the Catholic understanding of Sunday. You refuse to believe it and get stuck on a couple Sunday/Sabbath comparisons in these documents and cannot or refuse to see the bigger picture.

Adventism doesn't believe philosophy is of God and they run from it. So until you are able to grasp the philosophy of the Biblical eighth day you will not be able to understand Catholicism. When I explain Catholic doctrine to you, I am using Catholic philosophy and you have to trust that I am telling the truth and you cannot do that. I am not deceiving you. I am being upfront and open with what Catholics actually teach.

Repeating something doesn't make it true. And you coming on here and continually repeating a misunderstanding of Catholicism is a waste of your time. If you run from philosophy, you are running from ever being able to understand anyone but yourself.

I can assure you, I have heard all these SDA arguments and have considered them for many years and find them unbiblical, illogical and unhistorical. They have been weighed in the balances and found wanting. And it isn't because I am anti-Adventist. I loved being Adventists and my time there was in most ways wonderful.

But what Adventists want me to do is prove to THEM that I left for rational reasons and I am unable to do that because they cannot see outside of their own worldview. It is too bad.

I have heard the SDA side and know it well. It is wrong. Repeatedly attempting to convince me with faulty arguments will never succeed.

If you are here Arik to truly learn what Catholics teach and truly are open to learning what and how others think and read scripture then we certainly can continue talking. However, if you are here to push Adventist doctrine, then we are done.

it is a waste of time and frankly a stupid waste of time to rehash theological errors. It is like arguing a flat earth. We're past that….

The goal of Christianity is to be unified in Christ. That is why I seek to write everything I do… to glorify God. But we are in an endless cycle of bickering about irrelevant things…and that is spiritually unwise.

Blessings to you and know that I count you as a brother in Christ and wish you joy and peace in Christ.

Arik said...

I do not run from philosophy, I run from philosophy and vain deceit that follows tradition instead of Christ of which in Scripture we are warned of (Col. 2:8). EGW was even clear that there is "sound philosophy in our health reform", she also says that in Scripture is found "poetry, wisdom, poetry, history, and profound philosophy…" We just recognize that there is a philosophy that comes from heaven and one that comes from human reasoning alone that serves only to deceive. So to say "Adventist's run from philosophy" is another inaccurate portrayal of Adventism.

And that is the reason I am here. It is not to convince you, for it seems to me your conscience has already been seared. I want your other readers, who may be contemplating leaving Adventism to do so intelligently, and not to be based on human philosophy, metaphysics, your inaccurate portrayal of Scripture and/or Adventism. or even their poor experiences within the church.

The goal of Christianity is not to be united, that comes from it. Unity can not be manufactured from untruth, it is a gift from God that is rooted in Truth and Love, not one or the other but both. The goal of Christianity is to be like Christ, to be sanctified with Truth, it is reCreation into the image of God. The unity that we are to have is what exist between the Father and Jesus! Jesus emptied Himself, we should empty ourselves, and that means giving up our human wisdom, our prejudices, even our cultural influences (as best we can). If we would only die to self fully and completely, then the Gospel will be experienced as the Power of God. We would not need to go elsewhere looking for some metaphysical, emotional only experience to fill the void.

So I am not on here to bicker, but to expose the falsehoods in your articles, especially about Adventism. This particular article is dedicated to why you think Sunday is a holy day. All I want you to do is admit (and I think in part you did) is that it is based solely on human philosophy and not Scripture, that transferred everything that is sacred and holy about the Sabbath to Sunday.

So Teresa lets have some unity based on truth, and we can start by admitting what is so obvious. The Catholic Church alone transferred the solemnity of the Sabbath to Sunday! In Scripture there is no 3rd commandment of the Decalogue to keep Sunday holy, but in Catholic doctrine there is. Doesn't take a philosophy major to see the obvious.

Anonymous said...

Adventists have wildly misinterpreted and misunderstood the role of the Ten Commandments. Without a context of the Apostles' "Jewishness," it is impossible to understand what they meant by the "Law." Adventists are extremely highly-selective in picking and choosing among the law for convenient gems that will support their preening self-righteousness.

If you asked any knowledgeable Jew about the "Ten Commandments," they would look at you like you are nuts. Just because the "Ten Commandments" are packaged in a colorful, seemingly prominent fashion does not mean Judaism EVER interpreted them above or separate all of the other Jewish Law. The Jews had 613 Commandments, ALL of which were equally important and constituted a whole. Thousands of years of Rabbinical interpretation of the Torah concluded with the 613 number. The Responsa and Talmudic interpretations were every bit as important as the Torah itself. Additionally, Judaism has always held that Moses received much of the law orally, which was never reduced to words until 200 AD ("The Mishnah"). Very little of this massive body of law is part of the Christian Old Testament. The wise Catholics who compiled the canon included at best a bare bones version of the Mosaic Law which is unfortunately somewhat misleading. Of course, nobody thought that Christian cults later on would be unable to read the New Testament and see the obvious message of the Law abolition. At best, we study a very tiny minority of Jewish Law. Adventists are just engaging in massive self-flattery and self-deceit if they imagine that Paul, an expert on Rabbinical law, was limiting himself to only the Old Testament when he discussed the role of the Mosaic Law in his Epistles. Adventists have gone on a wild binge of highly-selective pickings and choosing among the Judaic law to puff themselves up in a superior fashion. Real students of Judaism look on and marvel about their extraordinarily ignorant self-deception.

From the standpoint of the small part of genuine Christianity that is included in the Adventist doctrinal package, the effect that Adventism's bizarre and ignorant understanding of the law has been extraordinarily destructive. For about the first 40 years of Adventism, they taught the non-Christian Arian heresy! It wasn't until EGW received "new light" and the new "Present Truth" of Righteousness by Faith in 1888 that the Adventist heresy of Arianism began to be dismantled. That was a dismantling that wasn't fully-achieved until the Questions on Doctrine in the late 1950's and the rejection of the Sanctuary Doctrine by many of the leading lights of Adventism in the 1970s and 1980s. Until then, Adventism was clearly a non-Christian cult, spewing a destructive Arianism that was resoundingly rejected at the First council of Nicaea. Evangelical cult expert Walter Martin engaged this destructive cult in a series of engagements through the 1960s and 1970s which led it into abandoning many of its most destructive cultish doctrines. Probably about 80 percent of SDAs are now Evangelical Christians, having largely jettisoned EGW, the Sabbath, the "Remnant Church" hoax, the Sanctuary Doctrine and the Investigative Judgment. Yet for more than 100 years, SDA taught obviously cultish doctrines that drastically limited the atoning role of Christ.

A little less sanctimonious self-righteousness is in order. SDAs should be extremely humble, given their horrific cultish past.