Category Archives: Beliefs

My beliefs – grounded in God and the Bible

Does Seventh-day Adventism Hang on One Word?

Posted on by
6

Guest post by my dad, Dr Eric Livingston, who has studied multiple postgraduate degrees regarding this “one word.” I provide my own thoughts and introduction at another post.

Abstract

It is claimed that “cleansed” in Daniel 8:14 is a mistranslation and that it should be “justified” or similar and does not link to Leviticus 16 where the ‘cleansing of the sanctuary’ has a different word. Also, the ‘Little Horn’ context, it is asserted, does not support a sanctuary ‘Investigative Judgment’ of believers. Should these repeated claims be sustained, Seventh-day Adventism would have taught wrongly for 170 years. We will suggest that the critics misunderstand how words work, that the ‘cleansed’/‘justify’ association and interrelationship renders “cleansed” a legitimate translation, and that the context does support a judgment of professed believers. Being some of the most prominent and sustained objections of critics, should their assertions be found lacking in the appreciation of the Daniel 8 context, in linguistic method, and regarding the ‘cleanse’/‘justify’ connection, their case would lose much credibility.

scalesofjusticeA former Seventh-day Adventist lecturer wrote: “Why do Adventists use a mistranslation such as ‘cleansed’ for the basis of their judgment doctrine? Why do Adventists ignore the context of Dan. 8:14 . . .?”[i]

More recently the critic’s biographer asserted: “He [Ford] explained the SDA habit of taking Daniel 8:13 and 14 out of context . . . .. The word ‘cleansed’ (Daniel 8:14), he added, is a poor translation and has no linguistic link to the description of the Day of Atonement service (Leviticus 16).”[ii] The assertion is that the Hebrew word (sdq) in Daniel 8:14 is a legal word that means ‘justified’, ‘restored’, or ‘vindicated’, while the unrelated sanctuary word for ‘cleansed’ (thr) in Leviticus 16 has to do with purification.[iii] In 2016, Des Ford is still pressing his questions about the Investigative Judgment and this translation issue.[iv]

If correct, this undermines the Danielic basis for the Day of Atonement typology of the ‘cleansing of the sanctuary’ as the end-time judicial review. That vital judicial investigation-review assesses three major issues in the universe: the destiny of professed believers (why these and not others are genuine and safe to pluck from sin’s infestation), the principles of good and evil (considered the ultimate cosmic perplexity, raising questions about the efficacy of God’s mode of governing the universe), and God’s character (the justice-mercy and law-love interrelations tied to the foregoing)—all seen through Seventh-day Adventism’s most distinctive teaching, the Investigative Judgment.

A number have succumbed to the critics and left Adventism in body or mind, some slipping into atheism, more into mere ‘church club’ socialisation. Have they made a tragic mistake in believing the glib assertion that it is simplistic to accept the KJV “cleansed” translation in Daniel 8:14 and link it to the Day of Atonement ‘cleansing of the sanctuary’ in Leviticus 16? Is our foundation so poorly laid in outdated, non-scholarly, “flimsy assumptions”[v] via proof-texting with a mistranslation?

We could say, “I’ll just keep things simple. If the good old KJV and some recent translations have ‘cleansed’ that is sufficient.” To such simplistic escapism, thinkers will respond as one former pastor: “We are expected to leave our brains at the door when we enter church.” It is actually in a judicial lawsuit passage that God says, “‘Come now, let us reason together …’” (Isa 1:18). God created us with minds that reason.

I would propose that biblical evidence and linguistic method abundantly support the translation “cleansed” and that the Daniel 8 context surely does link to Leviticus 16 and ‘the cleansing of the sanctuary’. The keys to the issue are context, semantic (or meaning) flexibility in word usage, and the fact that the concept of righting or restoring can be expressed by seemingly unrelated words, such as the legal term ‘justify’ and the sanctuary purification word ‘cleanse’. We will first view context, then the “cleansed” word.[vi] 

The Witness of Context

In the wider context, Daniel 7 and 8 are recognised as closely parallel for decisive reasons: They commence in the same way: “In the first year” (7:1) and “In the third year” (8:1) of King Belshazzar, with 8:1 referring back to the chap. 7 vision/dream. They continue with similar formulaic introductions to their visions (7:2; 8:2). They conclude in similar fashion with a perplexed prophet (7:28; 8:27). Their literary layout is identical (first half vision, second half interpretation). Both chapters are historical apocalypses with animal symbols. Finally, each chapter prominently features an arrogating Little Horn power that follows earlier nations and takes the reader into the final judgment (Dan 7) or the ‘cleansing/righting of the sanctuary’ in the end time (Dan 8; cf. vv. 14, 17, 19, 26).

Within this close connection, Daniel does give a notable contrast by moving from the ferocious, unclean beasts of Daniel 7 to the clean, sacrificial animals of the ram and goat in Daniel 8. This ‘contrast within correspondence’, together with other sanctuary references, sharply focuses the sanctuary as the counter to the Little Horn in Daniel 8. The vision climaxes with the ‘cleansing’/‘righting’ of the sanctuary reversing the work of the Little Horn power.

While evident that the cleansing/righting of the sanctuary is Daniel 8’s answer to the Little Horn and in Daniel 7 it is the judgment, Daniel 7 should be noted for its repetition and decisiveness. Three of the four times when the Little Horn is described in chapter 7, a judgment scene immediately follows (v. 8–>9-10; 20-21–>22; 24-25–>26). The one other depiction of the Little Horn in Daniel 7 implies that it is active during the Investigative Judgment and/or its activities are relevant to it (v.11a between vv. 9-10 and 13-14).

It would be expected that the closely paralleled chapter 8 would similarly connect the Little Horn with judgment, particularly as the context calls for judicial redress of the Little Horn (8:10-12). Compare the parallel from a non-Adventist scholar:

The trampling down of the sanctuary . . . does have a term set to it [the 2,300 evening-mornings/days = years]. The forensic metaphor of judgment being given for the holy ones on high (7:22) reappears as the vision promises that the sanctuary will ‘emerge in the right’ ([sdq]), ‘be vindicated’.[vii]

So both the immediate context of Daniel 8 and the broader Daniel 7/8 context support the idea of a judgment coming upon the Little Horn’s activities. But how does this relate to professed believers? This Little Horn power claims religious rights (7:20-22, 25), displacing “the Prince of the host,” “the daily/continual” provisions of the Prince, “and the place of his sanctuary” (8:11) and persecutes “the saints” (7:25) or “the host”/“holy people” (8:13, 24). These are all religious activities or preoccupations, strongly suggesting that the context is dealing with those professing to be believers. Consequently, the “judgment” distinguishes “the saints of the Most High” from “the same horn” pretender who “made war with the saints” (7:21-22).

A related thought is that this judgment reveals to the universe a concrete picture of what Lucifer, if not evicted, would have perpetrated in heaven as the initial “man of sin” sitting “as God in the temple of God” (2 Thess 2:3-4; cf. Isa 14:12-14). Principles of good and evil, and God’s wisdom and character, are reviewed in the Arch-Deceiver’s ecclesiastical Little Horn/Man of Sin representative facing off against true believers.

So the context supports a judgment between professing believers, just as the Day of Atonement ritual prefigured through the earthly ‘cleansing of the sanctuary’. Then, the likes of Israel’s pretenders, such as the Nadab, Abihu, Korah, Dathan and Abirams, would come to justice. But what of Daniel’s use of a word (Hebrew root sdq) that normally is translated as “justified,” “restored,” or “vindicated,” and is not the verb used in Leviticus 16?

Words –> Meaning or Meaning –> Words or Both Directions?

The tendency of ‘cleansed’ critics is to take a sole ‘Words –> Meaning’ dictionary approach, treating words as the pre-packaged containers of meaning and unconsciously override historical, cultural and literary context. This is called the ‘Container Method’ or ‘Determinacy’ and is often implemented even when a writer professes to know better.

Such Lexical (or Word) Determinacy misunderstands how we conceive and express concepts. We typically do not lock in to one or more preconceived dictionary definitions (though they have their place, as do etymology and cognate languages). Rather, prior usage gives meaning potential that may be employed in varying ways, sometimes accenting one aspect relating to its semantic range, other times another, or occasionally a quite creative usage that the context shapes.

As we speak or write we are following a train of thought and our mind consults our store of words to structure the concepts being communicated. This is an ‘online process’ in which the flow of thought calls upon our mental lexicon or encyclopedia for words to express the concept at hand. It is the ‘Encyclopedic Method’ that is based on previous usage of terms, but, most importantly, permits the present context to direct usage, sentence structure and associations so that the intended meaning of the speaker/writer is ultimately context-determined.

We will give four positive examples bearing on our topic. The first reveals the shift in concepts within the usage of the same word; the other three illustrate the interchange of words and settings to express the same concept. The first manifests the flexibility in the semantic range of a word; the other three show how the same concept can be expressed by seemingly unrelated words taken from different realms of experience, literature and cultures.

The first example: The Hebrew verb ‘see’ (r’h or ra’ah in its simple active form) classically denotes physically looking with the eyes, visual sensory perception. This primary usage is sometimes called the ‘core’ or ‘basic meaning’ in a semantic range. Contexts of speech/writing, however, show that a great many of the 1300+ usages of ‘see’ (r’h) in the OT have called for a translation that reflects the faculty of understanding; e.g.: “And Abimelech said to Abraham, ‘What were you thinking [r’h] of, that you did this thing?’” (Gen 20:10, RSV, NRSV; CEB similar); “‘What was your reason.. .?’” (NIV); “‘have in mind’” (NABRE).

Given this figurative shift into conceptual perception, if the context called for the idea of evaluating, investigating, examining, then the verb ‘see’ could be utilised. So: “The priest shall examine [r’h] the disease on the skin of his body, . . . after the priest has examined [r’h] him …” (Lev 13:3; NRSV, NIV, etc.). “then the priest shall make an examination [r’h], . . . pronounce him clean [thr]” (v. 13, NRSV; ‘examine(s)’ in NIV, NLT).

These translations of r’h move from ‘see’ to ‘examine’ simply because the context required the idea of examining. The concept, utilising prior usage and the present setting, determined the translation. Likewise, sdq can move from ‘justify’ to ‘cleanse’ in the context of the righting of the sanctuary (Dan 8:14). We will now move to the New Testament (NT) to illustrate direct substitution of words for the same concept.

The second example: Gordon Wenham briefly states, “According to Paul we are justified by Christ’s blood; according to John we are cleansed by it.”[viii] Paul characteristically uses Greek words with the dik– stem that come from the language of the law court and translate as ‘justify’, ‘just/righteous’ ‘righteousness’. So: “… being now justified (dikaiothentes) by his blood (Rom 5:9; cf. 3:25-26). When John expresses the same concept of righting or justifying by Christ’s blood, he employs the sanctuary vocabulary of cleansing: “. . . and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses (katharizei) us from all sin” (1 Jn 1:7; cf. v.9).

The analogy with Daniel 8:14 of the sanctuary and its adherents being ‘justified’ (sdq), and with Leviticus 16:19, 30 where the sanctuary and its adherents are ‘cleansed’ (thr) is clear. The same idea of righting or restoring is the meaning being conveyed by both expressions, by the legal term ‘justified’ and by the sanctuary purificatory word ‘cleansed’. The concept of righting/restoring is central. Moreover, when the context of sdq is the sanctuary, the translation ‘cleansed’ is quite appropriate.

The third example, from anthropology, manifests the same interchange of ‘legal’ and ‘cleanse’ terms and ideas to express the shared concept of righting or restoring. Discussing the characteristics of worldviews, Paul Hiebert lists three cultures with their varying “Images of Moral Order.”[ix] We will concentrate on two, to represent the West and the East. In this oversimplification we can understand that right relationships, shame, etc. would also feature in different sections.

Focus Legal Order Cleanliness
Response Guilt Repugnance
Salvation Punishment,
Restore Moral Order		 Washing, Purification,
Restore Cleanliness
Image Righteousness Holiness, Purity
Example United States India

So we have two cultures seeking the same righting/restoring outcome through different paradigms. Righting is accomplished through both the Legal focus (cf. sdq ‘justified’ Dan 8:14) and through the Cleanliness focus (cf. thr ‘cleansed’, Lev 16).

When we think of the diversity of atonement metaphors in the NT (legal, ‘cultic’ [a technical term for religious ritual and worship, as in the sanctuary], ransom, victory, redemption, adoption, exemplarist, etc.), the inclusive double approach of justify/cleanse should not surprise. It reaches into varying literary, metaphorical and cultural backgrounds through the different associations and connotations linked to the complementary sdq/thr concepts.

Since atonement (kpr) and cleansing (thr) overlap in Leviticus 16 (see vv. 18, 20: kpr; v. 19: thr; cf. v. 30) and since, even though in a neutral setting, Daniel associates atonement and righteousness (Dan 9:24: kpr and a sdq noun form), the connection of righting/cleansing with atonement is pertinent. The NT (and OT) atonement metaphors coalesce around the legal and the cultic/sanctuary (which two are actually more analogical than metaphorical)[x]:  The “cultic and legal images must be regarded as providing the objective foundation of a doctrine of atonement,” “the objective core.”[xi] This is seen in the OT: e.g., Isa 53: sanctuary expiatory sacrifice (v. 10) immediately following by the judicial act of justifying (sdq, v. 11); and in the NT: Rom 3: the sanctuary idea of propitiation through sacrificial blood (v. 25) in the midst of legal language involving overt justice (vv. 24, 26).

It could be said that Hebrews and any Bible students with a tendency to left-brain activity would grasp the more propositional sdq; others with right-brain activity would gravitate to the thr sanctuary symbolism. However, they should be allowed to complement and fortify each other whatever personal tendencies we have. The “sacrificial and judicial … have a special relationship to the event they interpret.”[xii]

Our fourth example is one of Scripture’s interchanges. We now compare Leviticus 13 (priestly laws regarding a scale, leprosy-like disease) with Ezekiel 18 (regarding individual responsibility for right doing, moral accountability)—two differing topics in different genres (types of literature), but each approach having the same idea: investigation to determine fitness:

Leviticus 13: Investigation of physical fitness for sanctuary ritual/spiritual life in the community, leading to the declaration: “He is clean (thr) / unclean (tm’).” See Lev 13:13, 17, 37; cf. vv. 6, 23, 37: “and the priest shall pronounce him clean.”

Ezekiel 18: Investigation of moral fitness for moral and spiritual/sanctuary life in the community, leading to the declaration: “He is just (sdq) / wicked (rš‘).” See Ezek 18:9.

The list of virtues in verses 5-9 of Ezekiel 18 “is patently an elaboration of what ‘righteous’ means.” This calls to mind Psalms 15 and 24 and “a liturgical ceremony conducted at the sanctuary gate . . . the declaratory verdict ‘He is righteous [sdq]’ pronounced by the priest after the pattern of similar such declaratory pronouncements in Leviticus 1:17, 2:15, 13:3 [sic., assume v. 13].”[xiii] “Ezekiel’s ‘mirror of virtue’ ends with a declaratory formula of priestly vintage: he is righteous [sdq], he will surely live.”[xiv]

The important point for Daniel 8:14, is that the ‘justify’ (sdq) – cleanse (thr) conceptual interchange seen here is made in sanctuary contexts of investigating/examining the fitness or right standing before YHWH at the sanctuary. Space forbids listing other scriptural examples of a cleanse/sdq interchange, save an abbreviated footnote,[xv] but it is significant that quite often this happens in the context of investigation, reflecting Daniel 7 and 8. As Blocher affirms regarding the atonement images which

exhibit the same structure (isomorphism), so that they naturally translate into one another—hence the intertwining in so many passages. As soon as one discerns that cultic holiness can be translated ‘righteousness’ in the ethical-juridical sphere, one understands that the danger of the Presence’s devouring fire, the danger of being struck dead by sacred intolerance [such as sanctuary presumption: Lev 10:1-11; 16:1-2ff], is the danger of being condemned and punished by divine justice. With the biblical God (not any numen [non-personal divine spirit/power]), what is the stain to be covered or wiped out if not the guilt incurred by sinning?—actually ‘sin’ and ‘sin-bearing’ belong to both sacrificial and judicial languages.[xvi]

Blocher adds how the spotless “slaughtered animal . . . together with the priest. . . satisfies the demands of justice,” and “the worshipper . . . declared to be in the right by him who judges justly.”[xvii] The worshipper being declared to be in the right by One who judges justly is quite applicable in the context of Daniel 8 where the ‘religious’ Little Horn subjugates the true people of God, eliciting the cry “How long . . . ?” (v. 13). We have just seen in Leviticus, Ezekiel and Psalms that “cultic holiness [with its ‘cleansing’] can be translated ‘righteousness’ in the ethical-juridical sphere,” so with Daniel 8:14 (sdq) and Leviticus 16 (thr). 

Conclusion

In sum, the immediate and wider contexts of Daniel 8:14 call for judgment on the Little Horn power. Since this symbol represents a religious body that persecutes the saints, Daniel and Leviticus reassure us that there comes a time when all will be righted through the Investigative Judgment and its verdicts.

Linguistics explains how lexical meaning is not to be pre-determined. There is far more flexibility. We gain the sense of words by noting the context in which the ‘on-line’ production of the speaker/writer is communicating. The setting sparks or drives a person to seek a word from their mental encyclopedia–the ‘Encyclopedic Method’–to best portray the sense intended, rather than resorting to a mere dictionary ‘Determinacy’ approach. It is a combination of previous usage plus present context, with the context being the final determinant of meaning.

We noted the interchange between the word used in Daniel 8:14 (sdq) and that used in Leviticus 16 (thr), and most importantly the sharing of the same concept of righting/restoring in order to be able to freely make the interchange. It is connected, concurrent and complementary, rather than oppositional, thinking. In Daniel 8:14 the sanctuary context naturally takes us to the ‘righting’ or ‘cleansing’ of the sanctuary that engages the symbolic Day of Atonement ritual of Leviticus 16.

Footnotes

[i] Desmond Ford, Daniel 8:14: The Day of Atonement and the Investigative Judgment (Casselberry, FL: Euangelion Press, 1980), 312.

[ii] Milton Hook, Desmond Ford: Reformist Theologian, Gospel Revivalist (Riverside, CAL: Adventist Today Foundation, 2008), 228. See also pp. 230, 254, 357-358, 378. Hook quotes a 1971 Ford article acknowledging that this “key word of the text” links to judgment (123), but soon quotes another claiming “cleansed (wrong translation)” (125).

[iii] Cf. Ford, Daniel 8:14…, 63, 292.

[iv] Ford asks: “Why is this controversy important? Firstly, it strikes at the very vitals of Adventism.” (Desmond Ford, The Investigative Judgment and the Everlasting Gospel: A Retrospective on October 27, 1979 [n.p., 2016], 6). Ford then lists AD1844, Ellen G. White writings (which connect Daniel 8:14 with the Leviticus 16 ‘cleansing of the sanctuary’; e.g., GC 409–436) and Historicism. In this 2016 compilation with brief update comments, Ford reproduces his 1979 PUC forum talk that includes, “On the basis of that word, our pioneers linked this prophecy with Leviticus 16, but the word isn’t there. You say, ‘Of course it’s there.’ No, it’s not there. The KJV is a mistranslation. The word translated ‘cleanse’ there is not found in Leviticus 16. It’s a different word altogether. That’s why almost all modern translations do not use ‘cleanse,’ and therefore, from all other translations, you are crippled as a way of getting back to Leviticus 16. Now let me state it again. Adventists have traditionally jumped from Daniel 8:14 to Leviticus 16 on the basis of the word ‘cleanse.’ ‘Then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.’ The point is, the word ‘cleanse’ isn’t there. It’s a mistranslation” (ibid., 12).

[v] Hook, 288. Hook’s assertions seem prejudiced by his disdain for what he calls “the fabricated doctrine of the Investigative Judgment” (224; cf. 215-217, 223-231, 238, 241-244, 345-346, 379). Even the liberal Spectrum blog questioned Hook’s caricaturing (David Larson, “Why Does Desmond Ford’s Biographer Lament our Wesleyan Heritage?,” Spectrum, 15 September , 2008; http://spectrummagazine.org/article/column/2008/09/15/why-does-desmond-ford%E2%80%99s-biographer-lament-our-wesleyan-heritage; accessed 25th Oct, 2015). The narrowed justification/forgiveness truncated ‘gospel’, particularly proclaimed within Western SDAsm since the 1970s, has been re-broadened in the wider Evangelical world by the influence of the New Perspective on Paul (NPP). Despite the flaws and excesses in NPP, the way has been opened to return to a biblical gospel that is inextricably tied to obedience and a final judicial review: Rom 2:12-16; 10:16; 14:1-12; 2 Thess 1:5-8; 1 Pet 4:17-19.

[vi] This essay can only include a fraction of available evidence. There is (or was!) an academic publisher waiting for a longer version, but continued agitation calls for a brief response on a more popular level.

[vii] John E. Goldingay, Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 30: Daniel (Dallas, Texas: Word Publishing, 1987), 212.

[viii] G. Wenham, “The Perplexing Pentateuch,” in Vox Evangelica, 17 (1987): 18.

[ix] Paul G. Hiebert, Transforming Worldviews: An Anthropological Understanding of How People Change (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 62.

[x] Henri Blocher, “Biblical Metaphors and the Doctrine of the Atonement,” in Journal of the Evangelical Society 47/4 (December 2004), 643, in relation to the judicial language of atonement, “probably the least metaphorical of all” (645).

[xi] Nico Vorster, “The Nature of Christ’s Atonement. A Defence of Penal Substitution Theory,” in Strangers and Pilgrims on Earth: Essays in Honour of Abraham van de Beek, ed. E. Van der Borght and P. van Geest (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2012), 140, 146. Compare the Reformers generally and Calvin specifically (130-131). “Why, then, does Paul use legal and sacrificial terms more often than family ones? Probably because of the deeply-ingrained Pharisaic [and biblical: Zech 3; Dan 7] notion of an afterlife lawcourt. Judgment Day is a compelling metaphor for Paul . . .” (Stephen Finlan, The Background and Content of Paul’s Cultic Atonement Metaphors [Atlanta: Society of Biblical Lierature, 2004], 158; cf. 190, 229: “The significance of the Messiah’s martyrdom is interpreted through cultic metaphors; even justification and reconciliation emanate from the place of sacrifice”).

[xii] Blocher, 641, where the writer is suggesting their elucidating the meaning of the death of Christ. So, too, we will see how they interact around the concept of investigation in our next example.

[xiii] R. M. Hals, “Methods of Interpretation: Old Testament Texts,” in Studies in Lutheran Hermeneutics, ed. John Reuman (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1979), 272.

[xiv] Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezekiel (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1990), 83.

[xv] For example, Job 15:14-16 with 25:4-6 that relate sdq to the ‘cleanse’ field of words, this time through zkh, a synonym of thr. What is striking is the threefold relationship: by substitution between the passages and speakers, by synthetic parallelism, and by a chiasm between the passages. Also, more generally, see Elias Brasil de Souza, The Heavenly Sanctuary/Temple Motif in the Hebrew Bible: Function and Relationship to the Earthly Counterparts, ATS Dissertation Series (2005), 446-450, 464 (drawing on H.T. Fletcher-Louis), regarding sanctuary imagery of fire and clouds and the Son of Man as a priestly figure in Daniel 7:9-14 paralleling, with Day of atonement imagery, 8:9-14; and the interweaving of judicial and cultic elements and procedures in Zech 3:1-10 and Lev 16 (deferring to R Gane) (328).

[xvi] Blocher, 643-644 (Blocher’s italics).

[xvii] Blocher, 644.

Soul Mortality Doctrinal Cluedo

Posted on by
Reply

The original lie of Satan was “You shall not surely die” (Gen 3:4).

The lie has been believed by billions of people and the myth remains alive and well today.

Immortality of the soul gained popularity in Christianity thanks to the popularity of Greek dualism. The traditional view of eternal torment remains the dominant view throughout Christianity, leading many to discard belief in a ‘tyrannical’ God.

Yet there is an awakening among thought-leaders to rediscover the truth of annihilationism, including none less than world renowned theologian John Stott.

Here is a starting guide that I put together for anyone wanting to go back to the relevant Bible passages and assess the evidence. Feel free to add to or change this. Leave your feedback.

I’m not afraid of learning more about God’s character of love, so don’t hesitate to challenge my framework. A deeper understanding of this truth reveals an amazing and perfectly good God.

Doctrinal cluedo for the state of the dead (by the author)

Doctrinal cluedo for the state of the dead (by the author)

Earth Hour: When an Hour of Darkness Saved the World

Posted on by
Reply

(Cross-posted from www.recyclingearth.com)

Millions of people in over 100 countries will be turning their lights off over the next 24 hours or so, as part of Earth Hour.

What for? To help save the planet from environmental threats such as climate change.

Please don’t misunderstand me. I am all for avoiding any waste of resources – especially non-renewable energy sources. And I do believe humanity is doing much that is needlessly environmentally damaging.

But there’s some great news about Earth Hour that deserves much greater focus and attention.

An hour of darkness has already guaranteed the best possible future for Planet Earth! When Jesus died to save the world, there were three hours of darkness.

44 It was now about noon, and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon, 45 for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. 46 Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last. Luke 23:44-46

While I commend people for turning off their lights to do their bit to help save the planet, I am ever so much more grateful to Jesus for His death – and the three hours of darkness that surrounded it – that has already saved the planet. Completely. Forever.

1 Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away… And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4 ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” Revelation 21:1-4

Introduction to the Bible

Posted on by
Reply

Where should someone who has never looked at the Bible start?

First, a copy of the Bible is needed! English Bible translations I would suggest include: New King James Version (NKJV), New International Version (NIV) and the Good News Bible. The NKJV and NIV stick more closely to a literal translation in today’s English, while the Good News Bible takes some more interpretive liberty to put things into modern concepts and examples – a “paraphrase”.  The 400 year old King James Version (KJV) is considered “classic” but is not so easy to understand.

When someone reads the Bible for the first time, I suggest starting with some highlights rather then reading straight through the whole thing. There’s typically over 1,000 pages in a Bible. It took me a few years before I read it right through for the first time. It is dense conceptually, too. There’s always something new that I pick up going back over some part of it (which I do every day).

There are 66 books of the Bible, each divided into chapters and verses. Some highlight books and chapters that I think are worth prioritising:

Books:

  • The four gospels that tell the story of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection and teachings: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, my favourite being John. Mark is the most concise.
  • Genesis – tells the story of Creation, origin of evil, and some ‘classic’ Bible stories (Noah, Abraham, birth of Israelite nation, Joseph in Egypt, etc)
  • Acts – tells the story of the early Christian church (fast-paced, lots of interesting stories with some principles of Christianity)
  • Proverbs – lots of short & sharp pieces of ‘wisdom’ (or advice)
  • Romans – explains the Christian gospel with a lot of key principles of Christianity
  • Daniel and Revelation – these are quite a bit more advanced (needing understanding of whole Bible context & themes, as well as history) but they are the key prophetic books of the Bible that describe current world events

Specific chapters:

  • Matthew 5-7: Jesus’ sermon on the mount with key teachings such as the Golden Rule and applications, the Beatitudes, the Lord’s prayer, etc
  • Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21, 2 Timothy 3 (first half): describe the condition of the world before the prophesied second coming of Jesus
  • John 3: the gospel in a nutshell (John 3:16)
  • Exodus 20: The Ten Commandments
  • Psalm 23: The Shepherd’s Psalm
  • Luke 15: Three famous parables including the Prodigal Son
  • 1 Corinthians 13: Description of love
  • Portions of Isaiah 14, Ezekiel 28, Revelation 12: the origin of evil and the Great Controversy between good and evil

Why Do I Believe in and Keep the Seventh-day Sabbath?

Posted on by
Reply

The Simple Reason: God Asks Me to Keep the Sabbath

The simple reason for me to keep the seventh-day (Saturday) Sabbath is that it’s one of God’s Ten Commandments found in the Christian (and Jewish) Scriptures, the Bible. Why do I choose to believe and obey the Bible and the God of the Bible? That’s another topic, but I believe the reasons for that are also compelling!

The Sabbath commandment is the only commandment to start with the word “Remember” – implying that it might easily be forgotten. The fourth commandment (Ex 20:8-11) makes it very clear which day is meant: i.e., the seventh day of the week.

Christians (and even non-Christians) around the world still affirm the importance of the Ten Commandments (see http://www.tencommandmentsday.com/). Jesus and many of the New Testament writers also affirmed the keeping of the Ten Commandments.

OK, so I’ve given the simple reason, but that probably wouldn’t satisfy everybody, so I’m going to go into more detail here. As you can see, I’m basing my belief and practice on the Bible as my authority, informed (and also limited) by my understanding of it until now. I don’t profess to have complete understanding of everything in the Bible; so this discussion is not intended to be ‘the final word’ and I’m always happy to learn more.

Note: I reference Bible texts throughout, on the assumption that the reader will check their own Bible (or an online one – e.g. http://www.biblegateway.com) to see and decide for themselves (cf Acts 17:11).

Weight of Biblical Evidence Contradicts Current Empirical Evidence

Not only is there overwhelming evidence supporting the current value and applicability of God’s Ten Commandment law, but there was also unanimous empirical support for keeping the Sabbath throughout the millennia of history covered by the Bible. That is, all the Bible writers and main characters, including Jesus Himself, faithfully kept each Sabbath.

Further, on simple reading and interpretation of the Scriptures, it appears obvious that the day God intended for us to keep was always to be the seventh-day Sabbath, not any other day. It is true that there are some obscure texts (which we’ll look at in some detail) that some people suggest mean God either changed the Sabbath to another day or abolished it. Such conclusions are actually very hard to reach from Biblical evidence alone, but because the overwhelming majority of Christian churches around the world worship on Sunday, this current empirical evidence seems to make it much more difficult for sincere and faithful Christians to see the Biblical evidence for the seventh day. Many of God’s people are unfortunately missing the blessing of the seventh-day Sabbath because of this. The Bible gives us clear warnings about following the crowd instead of the Scriptures (Acts 5:29, Mark 7:7,9, Matt 7:13,14).

So there are a few things that we need to cover to understand this present situation. We’ll cover such things as when, why and how Christians started worshipping on Sunday, and whether the Bible really does suggest a change or abolition of the Sabbath.

The Sabbath is a Huge Blessing to Me!

But first I would like to share why the Sabbath, for me, is such a blessing. In today’s post-modern world, experiential support is often (though incorrectly) weighted above any other form of evidence, so I’ll happily deal with this right up front. I believe God always gives us commands that are entirely consistent with His character of love (1 Jn 4:8) and that actually give us freedom (James 2:12) because they are designed for our happiness. Indeed, the Bible says that “the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27).

How does the Sabbath contribute to my happiness? It is a day that has as its focus dwelling in the presence of God – building my relationship with Him, and sharing “God time” with fellow believers. It’s much like sharing a birthday or anniversary with someone special. Actually that is what the Sabbath is – it’s the earth’s birthday, because the Sabbath is the day God finished His amazing work of Creation. So not only do I go to church and spend time with fellow believers, but I also spend time in nature, admiring the beauty of God’s Creation that has withstood centuries of sin, death and degradation. Given there are bad things in this world that have marred the perfection of God’s original Creation, the Sabbath is also a time to remember God’s promise of recreation – recreation of a New Earth (Rev 21) and also His recreation of His own image in us. Our creation and recreation in God’s image is a past, current and ongoing reality, as well as a future reality in completeness (Gen 1:26, 1 Cor 15:52-54, 2 Cor 3:18).

Our bodies seem to be designed to take a weekly rest. Nearly every culture, business, industry or institution uses a weekly schedule. Interestingly, the seven day week cannot be conclusively traced to any other origin than the story of Creation. And it is certainly my belief that when God created us, He knew that we would need a weekly day of rest and worship to revitalise. Hence the Bible says the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27). Interestingly, when humans have tried to operate on any cycle other than a seven-day week, it has resulted in burn-out – even for animals made to work a 10-day week! But this practical reason for a seven-day week doesn’t point specifically to the seventh day as being special, so we’re also dealing the question of which day.

Does God Still Ask Us to Keep the Sabbath?

The basic and obvious answer to this question is that God expects us to keep the seventh-day Sabbath just as much as He expects us to keep any other of His Ten Commandments (e.g. “Do not kill”, “Do not steal”, etc. – see Ex 20:3-17). There are several texts in the Bible that quite clearly show that God’s seventh-day Sabbath day is still important today, and that the Ten Commandment law is still binding today. There are also some texts that seem to say that special ceremonial laws and days are no longer important after Jesus’ death and resurrection – and we’ll need to look at that, to see if the Sabbath is included or excluded in that which was brought to an end at the cross. There are actually no texts that even remotely ask us to honour the first day of the week, and we’ll look at that in a little more detail, too.

First, there are many texts which highlight the perpetuity of the Sabbath:

  • The Sabbath was instituted at Creation as part of a perfect world, before sin (Gen 2:1-3).
  • The Sabbath will be kept in the New Earth (Is 66:22,23).
  • The Sabbath was given to all of mankind, not just to Jews (Mk 2:27,28, cf Creation).
  • Jesus and Paul kept the Sabbath (Luke 4:16, Acts 13:42-44), as did every other Bible character both before and after the death and resurrection of Jesus. In fact, it cannot be argued that Paul simply kept the Sabbath because others around him did, because he voluntarily kept the Sabbath with believers where there was no established Christian church (e.g., Philippi, see Acts 16:13).
  • Jesus predicted and advocated that the Sabbath would be kept at the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, many years after his death (Matt 24:20).
  • The Lord still has a special day at the end of the first century (“the Lord’s day”, Rev 1:10). Which day that is isn’t specified in Revelation, but it is in Matt 12:8, Mark 2:27,28 and Luke 6:5 – i.e., the seventh-day Sabbath.
  • The Sabbath was established for all mankind as a sign between God and His people (Ezek 20:12,20). It could be argued from the context that these texts are only addressing the Jews as God’s people, but the purpose of the Sabbath sign given (God’s sanctification of His people) is equally applicable today, therefore the Sabbath sign may also be argued to be equally applicable to all who are sanctified by God, including Christians today.
  • God’s final message to mankind is a call to worship of the Creator (Rev 14:6,7). The basis of all worship is the fact that God created us (Rev 4:11). Worshiping God as Creator is giving honour to Jesus, the active agent in Creation (Eph 3:9). We worship Him as the Creator by keeping His Sabbath (Ex 20:8-11 – note the similar wording to Rev 14:6,7).
  • Since the Sabbath is actually a memorial of Creation (the day that God rested), keeping another day and calling it the Sabbath (which means ‘day of rest’) does not make too much sense. How would your significant other feel if you decided that some other day other than their birthday or anniversary should be celebrated? Even God’s crowning work of redemption (Jesus’ death for our sins) involved Jesus’ body resting in a tomb throughout the Sabbath day.
  • As Christians we have a ceremony, a ritual, instituted as a memorial and celebration of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus: baptism (Rom 6:3-6).

It seems fairly clear from those texts that there is abundant evidence in the Bible that the seventh-day Sabbath has continued, and was supposed to continue, beyond Jesus’ death. But since the Sabbath is a part of the Ten Commandments, and some say they are done away with, let’s also consider the question of whether there is any expectation of the Ten Commandments continuing. We won’t be able to go into all the detail on this question, as this is another topic in itself, but a few key points should suffice:

  • The Bible is all about God’s dealing with the problem of sin. The Bible starts with a perfect Creation in the first two chapters of Genesis, then the introduction of sin in Genesis 3. The last three chapters mirror this: Revelation 20 is the final annihilation of sin and sinners, and Revelation 21 and 22 are God’s perfect recreated New Earth. In the middle is an abundance of stories, prophecies and instruction as to how we can avoid the penalty of sin, which is death. “The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Rom 6:23)
  • OK, so what is sin? Why do we humans deserve death? Sin is defined in the Bible as being the transgression (breaking) of God’s law (1 John 3:4). If you read through Romans, you can quite clearly see that we wouldn’t even have a ‘sin problem’ except that a law exists to point out sin (Rom 3:20, 5:13; 7:7; 7:13, etc).
  • God’s law cannot be changed (Ps 89:34, Deut 4:13) – it is for this reason that our salvation required Jesus’ death.
  • God’s commandments are eternal (Ps 111:7,8), and they existed before Sinai or Jews (Gen 26:4,5).
  • They reflect God’s character of goodness and love (Ps 119:172, Rom 7:12).
  • They lead us to see our guilt and lead to our conversion (Ps 19:7, Rom 3:20).
  • The law serves the purpose of a mirror – pointing out our problem (James 1:23-25).
  • We are not “under the law” (Rom 6:14) as a means of salvation, because all that the law can do is reveal our guilt, not cleanse it. But salvation (thankfully) comes totally and always by grace through faith (Eph 2:8) just as it always did, even before Christ’s death (see Titus 2:11, Acts 4:12, Hebrews 4:2; 11:1-40, Ps 51).
  • It is God’s purpose to write His law in our hearts under the new covenant (Heb 8:10). But it should be noted that this new covenant was always God’s purpose – not simply after Jesus’ death and resurrection (see Gen 17:7,13,19, Jer 31:33). God found fault with the people’s side of the bargain, not with His own eternal covenant (Heb 8:8). This should hardly be surprising, since God cannot err, does not change (Mal 3:6), and His means of dealing with the sin problem – i.e. His covenant – was offered to man from the beginning as an everlasting gospel covenant (Rev 14:6, Gen 3:15, Rev 13:8).
  • The problem Paul was addressing in Romans and Galatians was that the early Christians were misunderstanding the purpose of God’s law, and trying to keep it in their own strength as a means of salvation, just as the children of Israel had mistakenly done (Ex 19:8; 24:3,7, cf Heb 8:8). This was never God’s intention, since it was just as impossible for people by themselves to keep the law completely holy then as it is today.
  • Paul specifically warned against trying to nullify God’s law by a misunderstanding of grace (Rom 3:31; 6:1,14,15).
  • However, a love relationship with God does lead us to naturally keep His commandments (John 14:15), because God gives us power and desire to keep His laws (Ps 40:8, John 1:12, Rom 8:1-4, 2 Cor 5:17, 1 Jn 2:4,5, 5:3, cf Ezek 20:12,20).
  • Jesus did not come to change the law (Matt 5:17-19) but to expand on it (Is 42:21, Matt 5-7). Jesus reveals how love is the fulfilling of the law (Rom 13:10, Jn 14:15). When Jesus gave ‘new commandments’ based on love (Matt 22:37-40, cf Jn 13:34), He was actually summarising the Ten Commandment law, and even quoting from the Old Testament. Deut 6:5 says “Love the Lord your God with all your heart.” And Lev 19:18 adds “Love your neighbour as yourself.” The first four commandments “hang” from the principle of love to God, and the last six “hang” from that of love to fellow man.
  • God emphasises that all, especially His last day people, should and will keep His commandments (Matt 5:19, Jn 14:15, 1 Jn 2:4, Rev 12:17, 14:12).
  • God actually prophesied that His law (and specifically that which deals with time) would come under attack (Dan 7:25) and Jesus gave warning to those who would detract from the commandments (Matt 5:19). The final judgment scene of Daniel 7 is in response to the little horn power that attempts change “times and laws”. (The call to worship the Creator at a time of final judgement in Rev 14:6,7 is closely related not only to the 4th commandment as discussed above, but also this prophecy in Daniel 7.)
  • Roman Catholic catechisms are evidence of the fulfilment of the prophecy of Dan 7:25. The 4th commandment (actually the 3rd in the Catholic version) is reduced to “Remember to keep holy the LORD’S day.” Specificity to the seventh-day is removed. Various catechisms explicitly explain how the Catholic Church changed the Sabbath to Sunday independent of any Scriptural basis. See http://www.sabbathtruth.com/sabbath_quotes.asp#Catholic and http://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html.
  • Most Christians today recognise the ongoing relevance of the Ten Commandments. In case there was any doubt, James and Paul make it very clear that they (in addition to Jesus) also uphold the ongoing relevance of these ten laws by specifically quoting and upholding them (James 2:10-12, Rom 7:7).

What was Discontinued or Changed at the Cross?

So there is a very strong Biblical case for the ongoing relevance and importance of keeping the seventh-day Sabbath. But some people are confused because it is true that some things were discontinued at the cross, and we need to be sure that the Sabbath was not one of them.

The legal implications of any modification to the moral law (that which defines sin) which required Jesus’ death are quite profound. Therefore if there is any change to the moral law, then one would expect significant warning and explanation to the nature of the change in the Bible. We do have warning that enemies of God would think to change God’s law (Dan 7:25) but nowhere does the Bible indicate that the terms of our salvation or the identifier of sin (the moral law) would change.

What did change at the cross was that those ceremonial laws and events which were instituted in response to sin and that pointed forward to the coming Messiah were nailed to the cross (Eph 2:15, Col 2:14). The discontinuation of the ceremonial laws was with perfectly good reason, because why would you keep killing lambs when the Lamb of God has already taken away the sin of the world once and for all (Heb 10:1-14)?

Was the seventh-day Sabbath one of the things nailed to the cross? The wording of the texts suggests that it was not. The Sabbath was not a shadow of Christ, while other ceremonial laws and events were shadows (so see Heb. 8:5; 10:1, in their context of discussion of ceremonial laws of sacrifices: 8:1-5; 10:1-14). The weekly Sabbath, in fact, has eternal relevance regardless of whether sin had ever occurred or not, because it is a memorial of Creation. Further, the weekly Sabbath is a part of the Ten Commandment (moral) law, which, from the evidence given above, is unchangeable. The moral law defines sin and constitutes the reason we faced the death penalty until Jesus took it for us in our place. If that moral law could be changed, Jesus would not have had to die.

Let’s look a little more closely at these and other texts which might seem to suggest the Sabbath was included in that which was nailed to the cross, or was somehow changed:

  • Col 2:14-17. This passage says that there were handwritten ordinances (cf. Eph 2:15) that were blotted out or nailed to the cross. There are some key things to note about this passage:
    • The ordinances were “against us” (vs 14). Are the Ten Commandments “against us”? Specifically the Sabbath? Not according to Mark 2:27,28, which says the Sabbath was made “for” us. It is also inconceivable that God would give us the Sabbath, before humanity ever sinned, but that it would be against us. The ordinances that were “against us” involved the sacrificial system. These were unpleasant but a necessary object lesson in dealing with the sin problem. They became unnecessary when the substance or reality of Christ’s death and resurrection occurred.
    • So in verses 16 and 17, where Paul advises that no one need to observe the Jewish ceremonial calendar, whose special days were also called ‘sabbaths’ (but not ‘the Sabbath’), it is quite clear that it is the ceremonial feast days because of verse 17. As already stated above, this verse says that they were a shadow of the coming Messiah. But when the substance had come, there was no need for shadowy symbolic ceremonies pointing forward to an event that had already happened! The condemnation surrounding matters of “food and drink” (offerings) and what was being observed/not observed at festivals, new moons or S/sabbaths was the crucial point. There were additional animal sacrifices and food/drink offerings offered at festivals, new moons and on the weekly Sabbath (see Num. 28:3-10: daily and weekly animal and food and drink offerings; 28:11-15: new moon/month offerings; 28:16 – 29:38: yearly festivals). So even if the seventh-day Sabbath is included in what was meant by “S/sabbaths”, then the shadow would only refer to ritual elements enacted on the day (cf Heb 8 and 10 again re “shadow”, as explained above). Lev. 23 has a clear demarcation between the ceremonial and the weekly sabbaths: v 3 heads up all the festivals with reference to the weekly Sabbath exalted, and v. 38 sets the weekly Sabbath apart; but the remainder of the chapter is about ceremonial sabbaths.
  • Rom 14:5. This text seems to suggest that any day is as good as another, even though some regard one day as more important than another. The question is: important for what? Is Paul talking about a day of worship? Or a day to go to the market? Or a day to celebrate as an anniversary or birthday? Or a day to spend with family? Or a day to spend with God? The context says nothing about a day of worship or the Sabbath. Verse 1 sets the context – it is about “doubtful disputations”. The Sabbath, to Paul and the early Christians, was certainly not a doubtful matter. Everybody was keeping it. The rest of the Bible is also clear on the matter of the Sabbath. Verse 6 is key. It talks about eating and abstaining. Paul was talking about days of fasting and feasting – probably connected to the ceremonial feast days of the Jewish calendar. Some Jewish Christians believed fasting on particular days was important (cf. Luke 18:12). Paul is saying here that such days for feasts or fasts are a matter of individual conscience, not God’s command. To apply this text as justification for not keeping the seventh-day Sabbath is equally as (in)appropriate as applying it as justification for not remembering your significant other’s birthday or anniversary!
  • Acts 20:7 is used by some to say that the early Christians met on the first day of the week, keeping Sunday holy. We have seen that there is abundant evidence of early Christians keeping the Sabbath (Acts 13:42-44; 16:12,13; 17:2; 18:4, etc). But this text is the only evidence of a first-day meeting of Christians. It is quite clear that Paul ministered to believers on many different days, not just Sabbaths. So this isolated text should not be considered as evidence for a change from Sabbath to Sunday, and particularly on closer examination. It is clear that Act 20:7 is talking about a night meeting during the dark part of the first day of the week. The Sabbath (as with all days) was observed from sunset to sunset (cf. Lev 23:32). The seventh-day Sabbath, therefore, is from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset (Mk 1:21,32), so this night meeting on the first day of the week therefore had to be what we would now call a Saturday night meeting. Why was there a night meeting? Because Paul was to leave the next day (in the daylight hours of Sunday). So it seems that Paul had met with the believers all Sabbath, and continued the meeting into Saturday night, before leaving when daylight came. Travelling all day Sunday is hardly keeping Sunday holy. The New English Bible translates this passage explicitly as involving a Saturday night meeting, with Paul travelling on Sunday.
  • 1 Cor 16:1,2. Here Paul advises the Corinthian Christians to put aside money as an offering on the first day of the week. Note that there is nothing suggestive of regular worship meetings, merely counsel to put money aside for later collection. In fact, the Greek expression is clear that the counsel is that the money be put aside at home. The advice also focuses on the work of deciding and allocating funds, rather than giving them. The former is appropriate on a ‘work’ day of the week, the latter on a ‘worship’ day. Paul was advising the Corinthians to do some budgeting for later collections, not weekly worship through giving.

So it seems that there is absolutely no Biblical support for the idea of Sunday sacredness, and only very weak but invalid support for the idea of the abolition of seventh-day sacredness. In fact I have heard that there have been offers of prize money to anybody who could find any form of Biblical support for a change from seventh-day to Sunday sacredness. So far those who have offered still have their money.

Various Positions on the Sabbath and the Ten Commandments

It is clear that there are some things under the label of “law” that were abolished at the cross and some that are currently binding (e.g. see Jn 14:15, Rev 14:12, etc). It is interesting that there is not a lot of agreement between Sunday-keepers as to the basis for abolishing the Sabbath. Was the Ten Commandment law completely abolished? Was just the fourth commandment abolished? Was it only changed, not abolished? Who changed it?

The Catholic church openly states that it changed the Sabbath to Sunday. Since there is nothing in the Bible to support this, Catholics claim that the majority of Protestants are actually still showing allegiance to the ‘Mother Church’ by keeping Sunday. I agree (see http://www.sabbathtruth.com/sabbath_quotes.asp#catholic).

You can see these multiple and confusing positions outlined from an anti-sabbatarian point of view at http://www.bible.ca/sabbath.htm and http://www.bible.ca/7-4-positions.htm. The only tenable position is that which I have outlined, otherwise in some way God is made to look vacillating by changing some aspect of a Ten Commandment (moral) law that should quite clearly be unchangeable.

Note that the history given on the http://www.bible.ca website conflicts with the evidence presented at http://www.sabbathtruth.com/history/sabbath_history1.asp. I will give a quick overview of my understanding of the history of the change from Sabbath to Sunday, but this is by no means intended to be exhaustive. Check the above links for much more evidence.

How did a Change from Sabbath to Sunday Happen?

It is clear that at some point the majority of Christians changed from worshipping on Sabbath to worshipping on Sunday. My understanding of this change is that it was gradual over the course of the first few centuries A.D., as the early Christian church deteriorated and compromised with the world. A few key points are listed:

  • Christians actually started voluntarily celebrating the entire crucifixion weekend, focusing on the Friday, and making it a yearly celebration coinciding with the Jewish Passover.
  • But both the Sabbath and the Passover were associated with identifying Christianity as a Jewish sect. Since the Jews were extremely unpopular in Rome, further changes were considered desirable.
  • First it was a yearly Sunday celebration of the Resurrection.
  • The Roman Empire at the time had a joyous sun-worshipping festival on Sunday (hence the origin of the name of the first day of the week).
  • The emperor of Rome, Constantine, made a lot to compromises between pagan religion and Christianity for political expediency and gain. One of the things he did to combine the two religions was to transfer solemnity from the Sabbath to Sunday. A law in favour of Sunday was passed in A.D. 321. The church took action in the council of Laodicea in A.D. 336, also transferring the solemnity of the Sabbath to Sunday:
    • “On the venerable Day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country, however persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits.” Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church Vo1. 3, p. 1902.
  • Around this time (4th Century AD), various councils and laws increasingly condemned the seventh day and exalted Sunday. Thus the pagan institution of Sunday sun worship became the Christian Sunday.
    • “The church … took the pagan Sunday and made it the Christian Sunday … and thus the pagan Sunday, dedicated to Balder, became the Christian Sunday sacred to Jesus.” The Catholic World, Vo1. 58, No. 338, p. 809.