SABBATH/SUNDAY SABBATH/SUNDAY TRAINING TRAINING (Days 3-4)(Days 3-4)© Rev. Clinton Chisholm, March, 2013© Rev. Clinton Chisholm, March, 2013

Day 3 - New Testament Perspectives on the Mosaic

covenant 3 2 Cor. 3:6-17

In this text Paul provides revealing contrasts between the Old

Covenant (specifically the Ten Commandments, see v.7) and the New Covenant, and his comments at the end of the chapter show his strong views of the nature of the

Old Covenant (see vv. 12-16)

Old Covenant New Covenant 1. Of the letter that kills (v.6) 1. Of the Spirit that gives

life (v.6) 2. Ministry of death, written 2. Ministry of the Spirit (v.8)& engraved on stones (v.7) 3. Glorious 3. More glorious 4. Ministry of condemnation 4. Ministry of righteousness

(v.9) 5. Passing away 5. Remains (v.11)

The epistle to the Romans also sheds light on the Sinaitic covenant and

teaches that nothing in that covenant is commanded for

Christians today.

Romans 3 In Rom. 3:20 Paul makes a point

which he also made in Galatians time and again that no one will be

declared righteous in God’s sight by observing the Law and he proceeds, in the following verses, to argue the

same point from different angles. Technically, Paul plays with ‘law’ as a

principle and ‘the Mosaic Law’ as a specific law code. So, at times, the

definite article ‘the’ appears, other times it does not.

20“One [lit. every flesh] will not be justified before him [God] by works of law for through law comes knowledge

of sin. 21 “But now the righteousness of God

minus law has been manifested being witnessed by the Law and the

prophets. Paul’s burden in Romans 3 and 4 is to

argue that one is declared righteous simply and solely by faith in Jesus

Christ, so that the Jew has no unfair advantage over the Gentile since everyone has to come by faith.

27“Where, then, is boasting? It was shut out. Through what

law/principle? That of works? No, but through a law/principle of faith.

28 “For we reckon a man to be justified by faith minus works of

law. 29 “Is God of Jews only? Not also of

Gentiles? Yes also of Gentiles, 30 “Since there is one God who justifies

the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.

31 “Do we therefore destroy law through faith? Perish the

thought, rather we affirm/uphold law.”

Even if you use the NKJV rendition of v. 31 “Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law,” it

must be clear that Paul is not “saying that Christians establish the law by obeying it. Such an interpretation

would run counter to the tenor of the whole argument up to this point.”

(D.R. de Lacey)

You never go to any text of the New Testament without asking questions

of before Calvary or after Calvary and you must never discuss the

Sabbath by itself, the issue is the Old Sinaitic covenant and the

treatment of it in the New Testament.

The continuance of a practice after Calvary, be it Sabbath-keeping,

circumcision or heeding dietary laws does not of itself prove that the

practice is necessary for, or binding on, Christians.

What does one do with James’ mention of the Ten Commandments

in 2: 8-13? I concur with Ratzlaff when he says

the passage “…speaks of two laws: The Law of Liberty (Christ’s law of love) and the Ten Commandments. We are to be judged by the law of liberty. This [text] says nothing

about the Sabbath.”

The Sabbath in the Gospels & Acts

Until Calvary, the old era or dispensation of the Mosaic Law

prevailed, where obedience to the Mosaic Law was the means of being

right with God. Jesus, prior to his death/resurrection, would be expected to keep the Mosaic

Law and observe the Sabbath. The Apostles, prior to the

death/resurrection of Jesus would be expected to keep the Mosaic Law and

observe the Sabbath because that was what they knew as required by God to

be right with God.

Before dealing with Sabbath in post-Calvary passages, I must deal with a passage that seems to give problems

to many people, Mt. 5.17-19. Matthew uses 'law' to mean not just

the Ten Commandments but the whole Torah, the books of Moses.

Indeed the expression 'the law and the prophets' in the New Testament, describes the whole Old Testament.

The idea of 'fulfil' relates to 'satisfying the demands of ' and hints

at what our Lord would accomplish on Calvary and in this regard John

19.28-30 is critical.

If the text is seen as arguing for the continuing validity of the law then it

is every bit of the Law or old covenant that would be still binding since not one smallest part is to be

removed!! There is no place for escape by

neatly carving up the law into moral, ceremonial and civil and arguing that one part is now not

binding, IT IS EVERY JOT OR TITTLE (=smallest part) OF THE WHOLE

LAW OR NOTHING!

What is not appreciated when this text in Mt. 5 is cited is the time limitation expression 'till all is

fulfilled'. This means that the Law, the Torah, would have validity until its purpose is realized. Once that purpose is realized then the whole Law would cease to be operative.

The 'book of the law' mentioned in Deut. 31.26 as being put beside the

ark, was the 5 books of Moses containing all kinds of laws;

ceremonial, civil, etc., as one package.

If you take Jesus seriously, in Mt. 22:36-40, he says the essence of

the Law and the prophets [meaning the whole Old Testament] is in 2

commandments. and keeping the Sabbath is not one

of the 2 supreme commandments in the Law.

What are the two? (1) Love God with the totality of your being, Deut. 6.5 and (2) love neighbour as the self, Lev. 19.18.

Interestingly, both commands are in the Law but neither can be found in the

Decalogue or the Ten Commandments!!

Our Lord was NOT SUMMARIZING BUT QUOTING FROM AND PICKING

OUT OF THE HUNDREDS OF COMMANDS IN THE LAW, THE TOP

TWO COMMANDMENTS and the Sabbath does not make the grade in

the top 2. Confirmation of the quotation view

as opposed to the summation view is provided in Mark’s version of this

incident. Mk. 12:28-31

‘Lord of the Sabbath’: Sense & Nonsense

Mk. 2.27-28 (Mt. 12:1-8; Lk. 6.1-5)

Sabbatarian lay folk and clergy alike use this text to prove the abiding validity of

the Sabbath, completely ignoring the polemical context of the text which is a rebuke of the Pharisaic challenge of the Sabbath behaviour of Jesus’ disciples. To argue for the universality of the Sabbath —‘Sabbath made for MAN (not

just Jews)—would be pointless in a company of Jews and argumentative

suicide amounting to a non-defence of the disciples.

On this line of reasoning the point of the appeal to David’s behaviour would

be a major mystery if not an indictment of our Lord’s ability to

reason logically. The verb ‘made’ (Greek egeneto, root

ginomai) does not suggest a creation or fashioning but simply means ‘come

into being’ or ‘originated’. As D. A. Carson observes, the construction ‘made for man’ …

suggests the reason for the Sabbath’s origination…as distinct from [a

construction] suggesting the agent of creation/origination as in Jn. 1.3.

“If the Sabbath was made for man it should not be surprising…that the

messianic Son of Man, whose authority to forgive sins has just

been emphasized (2:10) should also be Lord even (kai) of the Sabbath.”

(D. A. Carson) The mention of Sabbath in Mt. 24: 20

has been used as proof of the abiding validity of the Sabbath since

it is mentioned in connection with the end-times or the 2nd coming of

our Lord.

Mt. 24.20 does not have reference to the 2nd coming of Jesus but had

to do with fleeing to escape the impending destruction of Jerusalem caused by the abominable Roman

armies invading the holy city in AD 66 (note that Mt. 24:15-21=Mk.

13.14-19=Lk. 21.20-22). Now then, what do you do with

Sabbath or Mosaic Law passages in the Acts that deal with a time after

Calvary, after the death/resurrection of Jesus?

You will find such post-Calvary passages with individuals

suggesting or requiring obedience to the Mosaic Law or Sabbath

regulation because of entrenched Jewish tradition or because of

ignorance concerning the crisis nature of Calvary for the Mosaic Law and for Sabbath observance.

The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15)

Catch the context in Acts 15:5. What are these brethren demanding?

THAT GENTILES KEEP THE MOSAIC LAW [including Sabbath observance]

AND BE CIRCUMCISED. Ponder Peter’s speech in vv.7-11

So one has to ask all Sabbatarians, what is critical, crucial, fundamental, vital, pivotal, necessary before God, for Jew and Gentile alike, according to vv.10-11, the unbearable yoke of the Mosaic Law or salvation by grace

through faith?

The Council’s Decision (Acts 15:22-

29) The logic of this decision (based on

the stated reason for the meeting, vv. 5, 28) rules out, as necessary,

'circumcision and the Law of Moses'. The decision was NOT TO SADDLE

THE GENTILES WITH THE MOSAIC LAW WHICH MEANT NOT TO SADDLE

THEM WITH THAT PART OF THE MOSAIC LAW CALLED THE SABBATH.

Notice that the final court of appeal, in v. 28, is not Moses or the Mosaic

Law but the Holy Spirit.

It is worthy of note that the Sabbath commandment is the only one of the ten commandments not

reiterated or commanded of anyone in the epistles of the New

Testament. But didn't Paul, after Calvary, keep

the Sabbath? Ratzlaff offers a summary response, "In every

Sabbath incident recorded in the Book of Acts Paul is seeking to

persuade the Jews, and others, that Jesus is the Christ. The subject of

the teaching is always the gospel."

Handling Sabbatarian Apologists

S. Bacchiocchi concedes that there is no mention of a command to keep

any Sabbath in Genesis. “There are several possible reasons

for the absence of an explicit command to keep the Sabbath in

Genesis 2:2-3. First of all, we must remember that Genesis is not a book

of commands but of origins. None of the Ten Commandments are ever mentioned in Genesis, yet we know

that their principles were known…”

On p. 79, Bacchiocchi explains further, why no mention of Sabbath-keeping is in

Genesis. “A more plausible explanation [than that

Sabbath-keeping was known but not observed, and therefore not mentioned,

p. 78] is that the custom of Sabbath keeping is not mentioned simply

because it is taken for granted…Genesis does not contain laws like Exodus but is rather, a brief sketch of origins. Since

no mention is made of any other commandment, silence regarding the

Sabbath is not exceptional.”

So he concedes what we have been saying, Sabbath is neither mentioned nor commanded in

Genesis. God obviously, according to Gen. 26.5, gave commands and statutes

and laws to Abraham and those need not have anything to do with the Ten commandments nor even with any other commandment in

Exodus or Leviticus or Deuteronomy or Numbers.

We do not know that the principles of the Ten

commandments were known by Abraham because he did not need to know the Ten commandments to know God’s commandments or

statutes or laws.

Baccchiocchi’s bold assertion in the second quotation, last sentence, that there is no mention of any

other commandment in Genesis is flatly untrue.

There are Divine commands in Gen. 1:28, ‘…fill the earth and subdue it, take dominion over it…’ But more critically, look at Gen. 2:16 [3:11; 4:17]. The text is a clear stated

command. For more responses to Ian Boyne

see the DVD The Sabbath vs. Sunday Controversy, where he and

I debate the issues.

Uriah Smith Uriah Smith was an elder in the Seventh

Day Adventist Church in the late 19th century of this era and he wrote quite a bit for the denomination’s magazine and was a stalwart defender of Ellen White’s

teaching. In his undated pamphlet “The Two Covenants” his burden is to prove that the Mosaic Covenant in general and the Ten Commandments in particular cannot be equated with the first or old covenant

spoken of in the New Testament as having been abolished.

Elder Smith uses twisted logic and very questionable argumentation in his valiant but failed effort to discharge his stated burden and

prove his point. I’ll quote him fully—and provide his pamphlet on the CD you’ll all

get with my teaching notes. On day 1 we dealt with all the key

passages that refute Smith’s arguments but you need to see

how he argues the points.

“If the ten commandments constituted the old covenant,

then they are forever gone; and no man need contend for their perpetuity or labour for their

revival. But if they did not constitute the old covenant,

then they have not been abolished, and no man need breathe a doubt in regard to

their perpetuity and immutability…” (Uriah Smith)

Ponder my blog ‘Sabbath and the Two-Law Theory’

on my website www.thechisholmsource.com

Day 4 - Sunday ‘Sabbaths’ & Sunday observance in history One of the signal contributions of

Riggle’s book The Sabbath and the Lord’s Day is the treatment of Old

Testament sacred convocations that fell on Sundays and that foreshadowed

New Testament realities. Lev. 23:10-11 deals with waving the

sheaf of the first-fruits of harvest before the Lord by the Priest “on the day after the Sabbath” (v.11, NIV). This seemed to be linked with the resurrection of Jesus (see 1 Cor.

15:20).

The Feast of Pentecost (= Feast of Weeks, Lev. 23;15-22) linked

with the Holy Spirit’s fiery presence in Acts 2 was “the day

after the seventh Sabbath ” (v.16).

Sunday Observance in History (The Apostolic Era)

(Acts 20.6-7) Though we do not support the view that

Sunday observance is commanded in scripture nor even described as required

of God’s people today the history concerning Sunday observance is worthy

of reflection. Acts 20.6-7 contains nuggets that have

been glossed over, missed or misread/misunderstood owing to

inadequate attention to the language of the text and the socio-cultural

implications of its context.

“…Luke seems to follow the Jewish religious calendar but the Roman means of reckoning time (cf. Luke 24:1), another clue that our author

had one foot in the Jewish and another in the Greco-Roman world.”

(Ben Witherington III) The meeting was on Sunday evening

and Paul departed on Monday morning.

In our view then, Acts 20.7, though somewhat abused by Sabbatarians is not helpful to the case of a tradition

of Sunday observance in the apostolic church.

1 Corinthians 16:1-3 It may be suggestive though not conclusive that Paul counseled the

churches in Galatia and now the Corinthian Church that each

believer should set aside privately a voluntary offering, on a Sunday, as opposed to any other day of the week, perhaps because that was the day that Christians used as

their marker of the weekly cycle of days owing to their worship

assembly on that day.

Sunday in the Post-Apostolic Era At the beginning of the 2nd century

Sunday, observance was the universal tradition all across the

Christian world with the only exception being the Ebionites a

group of Jewish Christians who kept both Saturday and Sunday.

Let the records reflect that the witnesses to the rise to prominence

of Sunday observance into the second century include no Roman

Catholic Church, no Pope nor even a Church council because these were

all non-existent at that time.

The allegation that the Roman Catholic Church changed the Sabbath to Sunday in the 2nd

century AD is devoid of evidence.

The claim that Emperor Constantine changed the

Sabbath to Sunday is misinformed.

On the 3rd March, 321 AD, Constantine passed a law declaring total rest from work on Sunday ‘the

most honourable day of the Sun’ (only farmers were exempt).

Is Sunday observance the ‘mark of the beast’?

In Seventh-day Adventist circles, the observance of Sunday as a day of

worship is regarded as the taking of the mark of the beast mentioned in

Revelation 13. This notion is a legacy of Ellen White who

said, “The sign, or seal, of God is revealed in the observance of the seventh-day

Sabbath, the Lord’s memorial of creation…The mark of the beast is the opposite—the observance of the first day of the week.”

Let it be known that Mrs. White in her Early Writings said that before

the end of time SDAs would and should suffer persecution for refusing to work on Sunday. Yet in 1909, in light of a

governmental threat to arrest workers and lock down the SDA publishing house in Melbourne, Australia, on Sundays, The SDA

prophetess got a convenient revelation.

“The light given me by the Lord …was that when the people were

moved by a power from beneath to enforce Sunday observance,

Seventh-day Adventists were to show their wisdom by refraining from their ordinary work on that day, devoting it to missionary effort…Give them no

occasion to call you lawbreakers…Give Sunday to the Lord as the day

for doing missionary work…This way of spending Sunday is always

acceptable to the Lord.”“Testimonies for the Church”, Vol. IX,

No. 37, pp. 232 and 238

The idea of some kind of mark as in some sense indicating ownership or allegiance was very common in the

ancient world. The mark of the beast was a mark of

allegiance on the part of those who received it and designated them as

worshippers of the beast. The mark of the Beast in Rev. 13 had

nothing whatsoever to do with the observance of Sunday as a day of

worship but had everything to do with the refusal of Christians to participate in

the rituals associated with the Roman Imperial cult which involved showing religious respect and sometimes even worshipful reverence for the Emperor.

The mark of the beast in Rev. 13 was not literal but symbolic, similar to, indeed a parody of the mark/seal of God associated with the servants of

God in Rev. 7:3; 9:4 (see also Rev.14: 9,11).

The compound theme of suffering and martyrdom is a dominant motif in the book of Revelation and Christians are suffering and being executed because of “the word of God and the testimony of Jesus” (see 1: 2, 9; 12:17; 19:10).

The SDA claim that “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy” means having a living prophet in Ellen White is bogus because that meaning to Rev. 19.10 could not

have been countenanced by the 1st century audience of the book and

worse for Adventism, Ellen White’s death killed their argument.

What really is the meaning of the expression “the testimony of

Jesus”?

In Greek, the expression as found in the last part of Rev. 19: 10 is hē

marturia Iēsou. Marturia (testimony, witness) is the word from which we get martyr

and the force of the word in the context of Revelation is declaration

of truth regardless of cost. The word Iēsou (of Jesus) is the possessive case (a genitive) and

can mean either the source of the testimony (=from Jesus) or the

content of the testimony (=about Jesus).

Either option for the kind of genitive is grammatically feasible so “the

testimony of Jesus” would be “the declaration of truth from/about Jesus

regardless of cost”. If the testimony of Jesus is equal to the spirit of prophecy then the spirit of prophecy must be ‘telling forth’ or

‘foretelling’ the truth from/about Jesus regardless of cost.

It is most definitely not a person, especially of the 19th century!

SDA folk especially stake claim to Rev. 12:17 as suggesting their Church

because of their interpretation of “the commandments of God” as suggesting

the Ten Commandments. In Greek the expression reads tas

entolas tou theou. The problem for the SDA view is that John in his writings never refers to the old covenant law or commandment by entolē (singular

of entolas) but by the more traditional nomos. Entolē is almost always used

of the new covenant law of love.

Jesus’ Death & Resurrection: What Days?

The Arguments for a Wednesday Crucifixion

Matthew 12.40"For as Jonah was three days and

three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man

be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

Christ's entombment (time in the grave) would be "…a full three days and three nights which is equal to 72 hours."

'Days' and 'nights' are not idiomatic but literal time frames.

John 19.14, 31"And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, 'Behold

your King'.“

"The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies

should not remain upon the cross on the Sabbath day, (for that Sabbath day was an high day) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken and that

they might be taken away."

'Preparation' was not the day before the 7th day Sabbath but the day

before the annual Passover Sabbath, which in that year, it is alleged,

occurred on a Thursday. 'Preparation' then, was on

Wednesday. John, wishing to differentiate the

Passover Sabbath from the 7th day Sabbath, calls it a 'high day'.

According to Daniel 9.24-27, Messiah would be cut off 'in the midst of the

week', that is on Wednesday.

Matthew 28.1 (5-6)"In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to

dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other

Mary to see the Sepulchre…“ 'In the end of the Sabbath' was when

the women were told Christ was already resurrected. He arose then

before 'the end of the Sabbath'. Counting backwards from Saturday afternoon over a 72-hour period (three days and three nights) one arrives at

Wednesday afternoon for the crucifixion.

Responses to the Argument for a Wednesday Crucifixion

Using Daniel 9.24-27 to argue for a mid-week crucifixion is unsound since

the 'sevens' in Daniel, popularly translated as 'weeks', are not 7-day

weeks but 7-year blocks. Messiah was thus cut off, after 3 1/2 years of

ministry, the middle of a 'seven', and not on a Wednesday, the middle of a 7-

day week. The main point of the 'sign of Jonah'

(Mt. 12.40) is not a literal 72-hour entombment but the miracle of

deliverance.

"It is important to note that in Biblical times a fraction of a day or of a night was reckoned inclusively as representing the whole day or

night. This method of reckoning is known as 'inclusive reckoning'."

(Samuele Bacchiocchi, The Time of the Crucifixion and the

Resurrection, 23) Esther 4.16 is an example of

'inclusive reckoning'. Esther declares, "…fast ye for me and

neither eat nor drink three days, night or day: I also and my maidens will fast likewise: then will I go in

unto the King."

In Esther 5.1, Esther went in unto the King 'on the third day'. If the 'three days and three nights' fast

was intended to be a literal 72-hour fast, Esther would have to go in

unto the King 'on the fourth day'. In 1 Samuel 30 .12 the abandoned

Egyptian is said to have had nothing 'for three days and three

nights' yet in v.13 he declares that he had been left behind 'three days

ago'.

Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, who lived about AD 100, stated, "A day

and a night are an Onah ('a portion of time') and the portion of an Onah is as the whole of it." (Jerusalem Talmud, Shabbath 9,

3) Close examination of the 'three

days' passages pertaining to the resurrection of Jesus confirms the

biblical method of inclusive reckoning.

The same statements of our Lord which in Mark's gospel contain the

phrase 'after three days' are reported in Matthew and Luke with

the phrase 'on the third day' showing sameness in meaning.

Mk. 8.31 =Mt. 16.21 =Lk. 9.22 Mk. 9.31 =Mt. 17.23

Mk. 10.34 =Mt. 20.19 =Lk. 18.33 The crucial verse that demolishes

the arguments for a Wednesday crucifixion and Saturday

resurrection is Luke 24:21.

It is the first day of the week (Luke 24:1,13)

v. 21, " we trusted that it had been he which should have

redeemed Israel: and beside all this TODAY IS THE THIRD DAY SINCE THESE THINGS WERE

DONE.“ The sequence of the Passion weekend are clearly described in the Gospels as Preparation day

(crucifixion/entombment), Sabbath (entombment), First Day

(Resurrection)

In John 19.31 we read, "…that Sabbath was a high day" and in 19.14 we read,

"And it was the preparation of the Passover".

Both passages affirm that the Friday was the Friday of the Passover week and the

Sabbath a high day because it fell in Passover week.

Even though the Greek word translated 'to dawn' in Matthew 28.1 has a figurative sense of 'drawing close' its literal meaning is 'to grow light', 'to shine forth' or 'to dawn', pointing to the early morning of a day.

The plain sense of Matthew 28.1 then is "after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning".

The testimony of the early Christian writers (after the Apostles) reveals unanimous acceptance of a Friday crucifixion, Sunday resurrection.

No early Christian writer ever disputed or doubted this sequence.

The Biblical record, properly understood in its historical context, clearly affirms a Friday crucifixion

and a Sunday resurrection.

For Every Church/Personal Library

A copy of every book or CD/DVD pertaining to the Sabbath on the table/flyer

At leastThe Sabbath vs. Sunday

Debate CDRatzlaff, Sabbath in Christ