Sunday Worship Is the Mark of the Beast?

I used to think 7th day adventists are cults until I was invited to their services and so I did some research myself. While I’ve not been to a services yet, I now have good friends from that church

Without wishing to discount the possibility that “the mark of the beast” is a visible, physical mark on someones head or hand, there is, I think, a more likely and more treacherous position.

Remember that the devil is an impostor who likes to lie and turn around the truth. Now lets see what we find in Deuteronomium 6 (WEB translation)

4 Hear, Israel: Yahweh is our God; Yahweh is one: 5 and you shall love Yahweh your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might. 6 These words, which I command you this day, shall be on your heart; 7 and you shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise up. 8 You shall bind them for a sign on your hand, and they shall be for symbols between your eyes. 9 You shall write them on the door-posts of your house, and on your gates.

Note how the Law/commandments is/are to be bound upon head and hands. This can be done physically, as traditional Jews do. But it certainly is meant internally, i.e. have those commandments bound upon your thoughts (head) and acts (hands).
The next instance in the bible we hear about a mark on head and hand it is in revelation, where it is not from God, but from his adversary.

Now if we follow the reasoning that this is immitation or perversion of the original idea, than revelation is stating that without thinking or Acting like Gods adversary, no trade is possible.

So in all transaction deceit will be necessary. Now beware, for deceit in yourself is harder to discern than a physical mark.
A physical mark is a clear milestone, while deceit can be like the most travelled road to hell “a soft gentle slope, without milestones, without turning points”

Again, not wishing to discount the possibility that this text is speaking about a physical remark, take care that you do not incorporate “the mark of the beast” in your thoughts or acts.

I would appeal to a Scripture on this matter if I may:

Col 2:16-17 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. (17) These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

I would not break fellowship with someone who keeps Saturday as the Sabbath. I would break fellowship with someone, such as the SDA movement, who would make a matter of salvation…

Hi,

I came across this useful distinction some time ago between the sabbath and the Lord’s Day, by one of your favourite authors John MacArthur, on one of my favourite sites, gracegems.

I think it may help cast some light on the issue. It certainly helped me:

http://www.gracegems.org/1/Sabbath.htm

Sorry, do not have much time nowadays to sit through videos, so I’ll pass on this one.

I cannot thank you enough for putting up this video. I got majorly convicted. (again) I knew these things already and have not attended Sunday services in years but since we moved here, we started going to Sunday services again. What was I thinking??? I honestly don’t know why. I guess we thought that we should be around other believers and that was the only way we knew how to - but what good is having fellowship with believers (like the Bible says to do) while simultaneously breaking the 4th Commandment?

I liked how he explained the new authority and used the ‘boyfriend’ as an example. I never looked at it that way and that’s when the conviction really started. It was then that I stopped the video and confessed what I had been doing all this time.

I thought of Rev. 14:9-12 9A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: “If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, 10he, too, will drink of the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb.

See the word “or”… So while I knew about the evils of the Catholic church and was against it (forehead), I still obeyed it’s authority by observing Sunday (hand). Also, according to the verse above, this IS a salvation issue.

As far as the chip - what a clever scheme this might be. People could NOT take the chip yet STILL receive the ‘mark of the beast’ unwittingly!

Excellent post!!!

Hi

Thanks for the post. While you are looking at Colossians 2:16-17. You may want to explain what the Apostle Paul is talking about in Gal 4:8-11.

Our Lord Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath - Mat 12:8. And he offers us rest in Him.
Mat 11:18.

And the Sabbath is made for man and not the other way round.

Fixation on what is the right day to worship and what days is the Sabbath is plain wrong. You have been freed from bondage just like Paul says in Gal 4, why do you want to go back to prison again? Granted Walter Veith is making some good points. But lets leave it at that and not forget our great commission - winning souls. Have you asked someone if they have escaped the wrath of God today. I must repent I did not. By His Grace I will tomorrow.

God Bless.

BTW you don’t have to post this.

I didn’t watch the video, but I must confess that our family has come to a conviction that we ought to be mindful about keeping the Sabbath as the Jews do. That said, it doesn’t mean that we’re going to give up worshipping God on Sunday either - we do worship God every minute of every day, don’t we? It’s just that the corporate gathering and worship is now on Sunday, and starting the week with worship is simply perfect; a bracket of mindful worshipping for the rest of the week in between.

As for keeping Sabbath, I doubt that we’ll start having Sabbath meals with the whole candle-lighting thing… but we’ll probably have an extended devotion time with the kids, and spend Saturday with family and the cell group - trying our best to keep from even thinking about work. heh. (We visited the Maghain Aboth Synagogue with other homeschoolers, and the rabbi who spoke to us explained a great deal about how they kept Sabbath. No electricity, no computers, no cars, no cooking, no buying or selling, no discussion of work - not even thinking about work! )

With regards to the Apostles keeping the Sabbath, it must also be remembered that they are Jews, so culturally, it’s not something they would stop doing, just because they became followers of Christ… after all, Jesus was a Jew himself. Socially, it would just make sense for the Apostles to keep the Sabbath, for during that day, the Jews would gather at the synagogues for the reading of God’s Word. In a sense, there, in the synagogues were a captive audience for the disciples to explain God’s Word to the people. Also, it could be argued that the Apostles kept their Jewish traditions - but does it therefore mean that we Gentiles ought to begin following all the Jewish traditions, laws and manners? I don’t really think so; nonetheless, as adopted children, we do have to be discerning and be open to God’s admonishment and instructions regarding how we live our lives.

Frankly, I feel it’s far more important to show Christ in our relationship with non-believers than to maintain a form regarding which day to worship God. We need to be careful, lest we forget that our worship of God isn’t dependent on day, time or place.

I have to strongly agree with Jon.

I did a simple search of the word Sabbath. What struck me like a thunderbolt is that throughout the four gospels, the Sabbath is mentioned mostly because Jesus broke it by healing the sick, commanding lame men to walk and allowing his disciples to find food to eat, and the Pharisees were angry with him for doing so. Check it out yourself.

What does that tell me? The person insisting on the strict observance of the Sabbath - is he more like our Lord Jesus, or like one of the Pharisees (I’m referring to the SDA, not to you, Isaiah)?

In any case, I don’t think any of us truly observe the Sabbath in the way God had commanded in the Old Testament, whether on a Sunday or a Saturday. Meeting together and worshipping is not the same as observing the Sabbath. I used to think I was keeping a “Christian Sabbath” but I’ve come to realize there is no such thing. We meet together and worship on the Lord’s Day - the first day of the week - as the early disciples did in Acts 20:7.

There’s really a very simple reason why Paul and the Apostles (and Jesus) observed the Sabbath and preached on that day. They were Jews! And they preached in Jewish synagogues! If they had gone on a Sunday, everyone would be at work!

I’ve done some trawling on the net, and it seems that this idea about worshipping on Sunday being a mark of the beast is very much an invention of the Seventh Day Adventists, being mooted more than a hundred years ago.

Just think about that for a moment - does my salvation depends on whether I worship on Saturday or Sunday? I certainly hope not.

I’ve read and re-read the link I pointed out earlier (http://www.gracegems.org/1/Sabbath.htm) and I find that it answers all the points with sound Biblical doctrine. I don’t think any man is infallible either, that’s why we point to the Word, as MacArthur does. For the record, I’ve not read anything else written by him, so I don’t owe him any prior “loyalty”.

In love.

Well sitting for a long time (and taking notes), i do have some problems with his position.

To note, not that the sabbath was instituted as a day of rest, but that the commandment of the sabbath is the seal upon the law, without which the law is invalid.
He makes a few wild links, for which i think scriptural support is weak.
For ex: promise before the fall to a law given to moses.

He is a bit arbitrary with ceremonial law, or even, all law outside the specific 10 commandments.
At lot more arbitrary than Jesus was. Take from the sermont on the mount the following:
“You have heard that people were told in the past, ‘Do not commit murder; anyone who does will be brought to trial.’ 22 But now I tell you: if you are angry with your brother you will be brought to trial, if you call your brother ‘You good-for-nothing!’ you will be brought before the Council, and if you call your brother a worthless fool you will be in danger of going to the fire of hell.”
(I took the GNB because it appears english has no proper insult relating to “Racah” so the ASV and KJV insisted on “Racah”)

Initially this seems to point to the 10 commandments, but there is another text in Lev. 19 verses 17 and around

“7 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.
18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD. ”

This is a commandment not in the 10 commandments, yet Jesus holds it high.

I do agree with the speaker however that the shown quotes from the catholic teachings show hubris of the highest order.

Currently i have no time to follow up with a longer reaction, and i fear coming week will be busy too.

Bro Isaiah, thanks so very much for the wonderful article, and the video link.

It certainly warns us not to be anachronistic in our understanding and living out of Scripture. We do ourselves a great disservice by projecting our own culture and understanding on Scripture.

A few thoughts (sorry for the rambling):
1) Jesus did not break God’s Sabbath Laws - he went against hypocrisy and man-made rulings (Dogma is different from Nomos). If you read the Old Testament (and even extant texts) thoroughly, you will find that there are many provisions that attest to validity of His actions;

2) Please be very careful about bad-mouthing Pharisees. Not all of them are bad - and you really need to read more history to understand what was really going on at that time.

3) We need to be very careful about “declaring” what is cultural and what is Biblical. If we go down this road, we may end up practicing reverse discrimination and create another wall of seperation

4) The Bible does not make a distinction between moral and ceremonial and civil laws. A deeper understanding of the history and culture of that point in time bears this out, and any attempts to try and classify outside of what is prescribed in Scripture is dangerous at best.

5) The texts in Colossians and Galatians need to be read in context.

Colossians 2 sees Saul encouraging the Gentile believers in Colossae to hold fast and not let their unbelieving countrymen from judging them for keeping the Sabbaths, and observing the “Jewish” things.

Galatians 4 also sees Saul speaking to a Gentile audience where he is telling them not to go back to the pagan practices that they were once a part of - the Israelites were not the only ones to keep feasts, and observe new moons and the like.

6) There are many who observe the traditional Sabbath - not just the SDAs. So equating these other brothers and sisters to be Pharisees as well …

7) JPvB - like some of the points you raised. Might be useful for all of us to re-look at Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. You’ll be surprised by what the Lord reveals. In fact, the famous Rabbi Hillel, when asked what are the most important commandments, said to love God and to love our neighbors, all else is just the details of how to do it. Interesting thing is he said this about 100 years before Jesus was born.

Shalom,
Caleb

Hi Saint Isaiah!!!!

You might miss this comment but if our Lord wants you to see it then so you will. I don’t want to come across here yet as being too strongly opinionated ’cause you will be doing your own reading. In this matter though just bear in mind the incredible sweep of God’s will through the history of the crowning glory of His creation, namely us. The Old(Mosaic Law) covenant was a foreshadow of the new covenant(in Jesus Christ) to come which is much better than the old. The old covenant pointed to mankinds sin and the need of a saviour. Also as has been mentioned before read carefully through the gospels as to how Jesus treated the sabbath. Then pick up the prophesies of Jesus rising on the third day. In this case the third day just happened to be on….Sunday. So God had already ordained it. Of course read the gospels carefully about the resurrection of Christ and what occurred then on that day. Then also there is only one Jewish feast which is on a Sunday and that is…..you got it…..Pentacost, which is also the birth of the church of Jesus Christ. Also pick up the other external factor of the Mosaic Law, circumcision and see how the 1st century church handled that issue. Their is one ‘killer’ scripture which Paul writes regarding circumcision but I leave it for you to find. It neatly sums up what Christ has done for us and the far greater depth of the new covenant.
If you read all through the new testament you will not find any teaching on the sabbath, if it was so important the apostles would have taught it. All the other nine commandments are taught and mentioned.
One should be very careful when listening to anyone giving any teaching, you check everything against the word(which you are doing) and you check his/her weaknesses/blindspots, their fruit and their spiritual foundation from which they teach. I have not watched the video (sorry bandwith in South Africa sucks at the moment) so I can’t really make any comment on that.
One last thing you could do, after you have read the word,is to do some research on the origins of the SDA’s and the reason(s) why they promoted the sabbath.
I pray that you are led and taught by the Holy Spirit.

LoCTY!!!
PS. No comment yet on the mark of the beast.

We must be careful in reading the Old Testament without knowing that Christ and the New Testament are the great fulfiller and interpreter of it. We don’t throw out the Old Testament. I love it and taught it for three years at the college level. But I also know that we need the end of the story - the New Testament.

Many things in the Old Testament foreshadowed greater things in the New Testament. The high priest pointed to Christ, the great High Priest. The tabernacle and temple pointed to the greater temple of Christ (John 2:19) and His people (1 Peter 2:5). And there are many other things.

One such thing I do believe the New Testament is clear on is that of the Sabbath. There was a pattern set in the Old Testament, even by God Himself in Genesis 1. The Sabbath rest pointed to relationship with God, because that was the day in which Israel focused on their specific relationship with Him. But in Christ and the new covenant, the Sabbath rest of God is opened to a greater meaning. Yes, Christ said, “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28). He is the great rest-giver.

But also, we read in Colossians 2:16-17. Paul states, “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.” Do you see that - all of the Old Testament dietary laws, festive feasts, and the Sabbath were all pointers to something greater. They were a shadow of things to come, those being in Christ.

When we start arguing that we must “worship” on Saturdays, or even Sundays, we begin to go against Paul’s heart in Colossians 2:18 when he says, “Let no one disqualify you…” And plus, we realize that the New Testament opens up worship beyond just a certain day and shows that it is our whole lives (Romans 12:1).

So let us be encouraged that if we gather together on Saturdays, Sundays, or Thursdays, it matters not. For we walk with Christ everyday and the worship that flows from the hearts of the people of God is to be continual.

Isaiah:

I think I will be writing something in response to this on my blog in a few days time, but let me just say for now that the most important topic here is the question of hermeneutics, not the Sabbath per se. IMO, we must settle how we read the Old Testament with respect to the New Testament first before we even talk about this topic. And once we settle that, this entire Sabbatarianism is more or less settled.

Just something for you to think over, read Heb. 4.

Anyway, you do know Walter Veith is a SDA, right?

First Hi to you Isaiah it’s just gone 10.50am here in Cape Town SA. Just come back from an awesome prayer meeting with a coupla rough neck buddies in Christ of mine. And yeah it’s Saturday!!! The seventh day! So we kinda worshipped on the sabbath, or did we?! Hey I know sometimes I’m provocative but I love Christ with a deep passion…….so there it is.

Hey Daniel thanks for your comment. Now as they say in the classics the thick plottens?! Look forward to your comment on your blog and definitely will go ‘check’ it out.

LoCTY!!!

To all:

I have looked up to 1 hour of presentation and am continuing so as to prepare my response, but for now let me just say that Walter Veith does not know what he is talking about when he referenced the Protestant teachings on the Sabbath. If he cannot even represent the Protestant position on the Sabbath correctly, do you seriously think he can represent others (which I have no way of checking; ie who here can check his quotation from the Catechismus Romanus? Similarly, who here owns the NPNF (or is it the ANPNF?), ok besides Vincent, with him/her and the time to check the refence, of which he does not present the reference properly too?) properly also?

Apologies.

Caleb, you’re absolutely right. Jesus did not break God’s Sabbath law - (what was I thinking when I wrote that??!!) - He only went against man-made rulings regarding the Sabbath. The Sabbath rest, as pointed out by Scott, is about focusing on our relationship with God and resting in Him - something we do every day now that we are in Christ.

And yes, my comment about the Pharisees should have been qualified to refer only to those amongst them who stood against Jesus.

I look forward to reading about your findings, brother Isaiah.

ahbeng, thanks much for the clarification. Hee hee, had many of the same comments till a short while ago (maybe a year back now).

Looking forward to bro Isaiah’s thoughts.

Scott is absolutely right. The Sabbath points to our relationship with God and resting in Him, always has and always will. Might be useful for us to learn from Jewish believers who have a very thorough understanding on this topic.

Did a very thorough study on the Epistle to the Hebrews on the Sabbath in Chapter 4 - you’ll notice in the Greek, different words are used, and it all refers to a 3-fold rest - the weekly Sabbath, the land Sabbath and the Jubilee Sabbath which is reflective of eternal rest in Him.

Also important to note is that the Sabbath, and the other feasts are not Jewish feasts (at least not called so in the Bible). They are the Feasts of the LORD (Leviticus 11). Jewish feasts are Purim and Hannukah, and a few others along the way.

Last point for now is that while we should not miss the forest for the trees, we should also not miss the trees for the forest. That’s what being a Berean is all about. Same as we are all concerned about false teachings cropping up all over the place these days, these all start with small deviations ( all of us throughout history are guilty of that ). As they say, rat poison is 99.995% nutritious.

Just in case anybody is concerned, no, I’m not SDA, just a fellow pilgrim who was called to return to HIS ways.

Hello Sicarii,

@ Caleb,

I appreciate your comments, and I agree. I am not a SDA and I observe the Lord’s Sabbaths, as He (not Moses) commanded us to do. All “christians”, need to do a Berean type study of the Pentatuch (1st five books of the Bible) as well as the other 61 books. There is a wealth of information as to <b.the will of Jesus–(no typo), for Jehovah is the God that became the Son of Man in the flesh. 1Corinthians 10:4

Peace to All

Hi King’s Kid,

Thanks so much for the encouragement.

Apologies, too quick on the keyboard. The LORD’s Feasts are in Leviticus 23. Leviticus 11 is about the dietary laws.

Shalom to all

Wow wow wow…..

Isaiah, Carol, Raymond, Caleb and King’s Kid, I have just finished an article on the Sabbath based upon a rather comprehensive study of Scripture here. This ia partial reply to the claims of Sabbatarianism; I will complete the second half in which I will reply to Walter Veith later.

Brothers and Sisters.

Thanks Daniel for your thoughts.

Had read the article some time ago. Warrants consideration for sure.

Might be useful for us to separate the different discussion points. They really cannot be lumped together, and really do deserve deeper study.

Some thoughts (apologies for the long post, but the Sabbath is a huge blessing from GOD, and we would be selling ourselves short by not understanding it fully):

1) I am not in total agreement with Walter Veith’s presentation, but he does make some valid points.

2) The angelfire article’s usage of a distinction between the moral, ceremonial and civil laws is anachronistic (and also a man-made distinction-for that matter, same as chapter and verse numberings and passage headings in our Bibles) and impedes our ability to appreciate GOD’s Law in its totality.

3) The angelfire article’s treatment of the passages in Colossians and Galatians need to be taken in context. Please refer to my earlier post.

4) Pardon my concern in saying so, but to allegorize the two covenants in this manner is illogical at best.

To tie Hagar with Mount Sinai, and to equate that to slavery, and then to say that Sarah points to the new Jerusalem is downright dispensational.

Sarah’s seed beget the line of Promise that received GOD’s word at Mount Sinai, and then went on to culminate in our LORD. Hagar’s line did not receive GOD’s Word there.

The key point about Mount Sinai, is that GOD’s law was given to the children of Israel AFTER they were redeemed from Egypt - it was not a requirement for redemption, but grace, and was the blueprint for the way of life for His chosen people.

5) The statement that “the Law can theoretically merit salvation through works” found in the angelfire article is not to be found in Scripture. Even Jewish believers - for that matter Jews - will tell you that following the Law has nothing to do with earning salvation, but is the response to the abundant grace of GOD, and a direct response

Sweeping statements about the “high possibility of the apostasy of Jewish believers” does injustice to the way the Epistle was written. It is not a letter of contrasts - although, of course, Messiah is superior to everything and everyone - but rather uses a literary device used by our LORD and the apostle Saul, known as kal v’homer (from light to heavy).

6) Taking the angelfire article to a logical conclusion would make GOD a bait-and-switch artist i.e. He gives His people an instruction, tells them to obey, but in reality, if they obey, they will be disobeying. Very thin ice here …

—

If we really hold on to the faith that He is faithful, that He never changes, and that His Word never changes, these “apparent contradictions” cannot be swept away just by easy theological and doctrinal arguments.

To be truly Berean, we must be willing to consider that for the longest time, we have been more faithful to “church” doctrine than to the Word of GOD.

I also don’t think we take the matter of the Sabbath seriously enough. Nowhere in the Bible has GOD rescinded the command of the Sabbath. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that for our modern generation, or since Christ, is it OK to work 7 days a week and to ignore the Sabbath. Many church leaders have taken Paul’s meaning in Col. 2 to mean that the institution of the Sabbath can be made into anything man wants…which, by the way, makes no sense whatsoever to understand it in that way (this is what happens when Bible passages are taken out of context in order to try to validate a predetermined agenda or doctrine).

And, also remember, that it is simply documented and historical fact that the early Church continued to follow the Biblical rule of the Sabbath (as Saturday) right on up until Emperor Constantine ordered the Sabbath abolished, and replaced it by something called “The Lord’s Day”, which was to become the new day in which the gentile Church came together to worship. This new day of worship, the Lord’s Day, was designated to be
the 1st day of the week, Sunday, which was already the traditional day of national worship for the primary pagan religion of the Roman Empire……the Mishrain Sun Worshippers…..which is why Sun-day is called Sunday in the first place. This day was chosen as a political compromise between the Sun Worshippers and the Christians.

Let me quote directly for you a couple of edicts handed down in the early 300’s AD when this all happened. And, BTW, the ancient official documents I am quoting from, you can find in the local library or on the Internet. First, the very first “Sunday Law”, ordered and enacted by Constantine, during his 2nd meeting with the council of Church Bishops in Nicea, in 321 AD:
“On the Venerable Day of the Sun (the sacred day of the Sun-god, Sunday) 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; because it often happens that another day is not so suitable for grainsowing or for vine-planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations
the bounty of heaven should be lost….. given the 7th day of March, 321, Crispus and Constantine being consuls each of them for the second time.”

What happened in these several councils of Nicea was that the GENTILE Christian Church was established, and the JEWISH Christian Church was abolished. Some 16 years after the first Sunday Law was enacted, the following edict was handed down from another of these Roman Church councils, called the Council of Laodicea:
“Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Sabbato (the Sabbath), but shall work on that day; but the Lord’s Day (Sunday) they shall especially honor and, as being Christians, shall, if possible, do no work that day. If however they are found Judaizing they shall be excommunicated”.

Understand, that in this context “Judaizing” simply referred to Christians doing anything that Jews traditionally did. So, for example, if Jews honored the Biblical Feasts, Christians should NOT. If Jews baptized by submersion, Christians should NOT. If Jews lit candles and ate Challah bread on the Sabbath, Christians should NOT. And, since Jews honored the Sabbath, then Christians should NOT. The principle that was begun in the 4th century, and now firmly entrenched in our modern church was this: if the Jews do it, Christians shouldn’t. Christians who did anything Jews did in relation to honoring GOD, were considered to be Judaizing, and this would result in being excommunicated from the Church.

Now, I know this is not an easy subject; but (at the risk of offending you) I must say that the reason it is not easy is because we love our traditions and prefer our doctrines to what the Scriptures tell us. So we run around twisting and allegorizing the Bible in order that we have it mean what men have decided they want it to mean. There are plenty of passages in the Bible that are difficult and their understanding is not straightforward. But, the passages on Sabbath are not like that: they are plain and unequivocal.

Now, let me give you the view of the Catholic Church concerning Sunday, rather than Sabbath worship; and, by the way, Catholics lay claim to Constantine as one of theirs.

This comes from the official publication of the Catholic Press…..the official Catholic newspaper……. and was written a little over 100 years ago: “Sunday is a Catholic institution, and its claim to observance can be defended only on Catholic principles …. From beginning to end of Scripture there is not a single passage that warrants the transfer of weekly public worship from the last day of the week (Saturday) to the first (Sunday)”.

The Catholic Church who CLAIMS the establish of Sunday as the day of communal worship for Christians says outright that NOWHERE in Scripture (OT or New) is there a single passage that would allow the 1st day of the week worship and rest to be substituted for the GOD-ordained 7th day of the week worship and rest. That statement is factually true in every sense. But, why was that statement made and communicated to the world? Why would the Catholic Church say such a thing, because it sounds as if its condemning itself for Sunday worship by openly admitting the truth that scripturally there is nothing to indicate that any day other than the 7th, Saturday, is Sabbath? You see, this was part of an ongoing argument against Protestants, who, of course, deny the all-important doctrine of the Catholic Church that the Pope has special authority, given to him directly from GOD, to change or add or subtract from the Scriptures. So, in yet another article continuing the debate, again from the official Catholic Press, we get this: “Protestantism, in discarding the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, has no good reason for its Sunday theory, and ought to logically keep Saturday as the Sabbath”.

In other words, the Catholic Church openly admits that there is NO scriptural authority at all for abolishing or moving the Sabbath to Sunday.

However, since in their view the Pope has the authority from GOD to change anything he believes GOD has directed him to change, then the act of the Roman Catholics (Constantine and the Roman bishops) abolishing the Sabbath, and instead observing Sunday as a new and different day of meeting called the Lord’s Day, is OK. The Catholics view Constantine as a Pope. Conversely, since Protestants broke away from the Catholic Church several centuries ago, and since Protestants deny the authority of the Pope and the Catholic Church as empowered by GOD to alter scriptural commands, then on what basis can Protestants say that they can change the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday? And, the implied answer is: there can be none.

And, in another Catholic Press article: “ It is well to remind the Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, and all other Christians that the Bible does not support them anywhere in their observance of Sunday. Sunday is an institution of the Roman Catholic Church, and those who observe that day observe a commandment of the Roman Catholic Church.”

Does that hit you where it ought to? Do you understand that the Catholic Church completely acknowledges that Sunday observance is NOT a Biblical command; it is a command of the Roman Catholic Church government? Does that bother you just a little bit? Man, I hope so. Believe me, I understand how it uncomfortable it is to scrutinize traditions and doctrines that have been mainstays of our church lives. But, discomfort is just not a good enough reason to skirt this issue, or worse, disregard the plain Scriptural truth.

I am in no way saying that we should stop meeting or worshiping GOD on Sunday - everyday is a great day to do that. But…..every day is NOT Shabbat; every day is NOT the 7th ; every day is NOT the day that GOD ordained in Genesis as the Sabbath, and is reinforced here in Exodus, again at Mt. Sinai, and all throughout the Bible…. including, BTW, the New Testament. Let’s all remember that Jesus Christ, observed the 7th day Sabbath. But, as individuals, or as families, we can certainly honor GOD’s Sabbath, the 7th day, AND still participate in the Lord’s Day (a non-scriptural, gentile tradition) if we choose to. We can honor the day GOD ordained as Sabbath, by taking GOD’s intent to rest and be with our families and worship Him on the 7th day, and we can STILL attend Church and/or Sunday School on The Lord’s Day if we wish to. So, I’m not here to condemn any denomination or to tell you to abandon going to church on Sunday; but I am saying that Shabbat is an important enough issue that we cannot do whatever we wish just because we always have.

Look forward to your second half on Walter Veith, brother Daniel.

Shalom.

Hi to all the Saints taking part in this discussion. I have been prompted by all these viewpoints to go back and study the Law again and also the way God made covenants with His people before I make a further comment on the issue of the Sabbath. Personally for me I sorted out this ‘issue’ a few years ago coming up against a few SDA’s, who are a cult, no two ways about it. I’m an ex Jehovah’s Witness myself who has been wonderfully saved by God’s grace 9 years ago. When I accepted Christ as my Saviour it took me a year to dismantle the JW theology that was imbedded in my mind. I did this by intense study of the word with the help of various teachers but mostly with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a wonderful freedom which Christ and His Holy Spirit brings to ones life and this can be summed up in John 8:36 “So if the Son sets you free you are free indeed” I seriously think and I mean this comment as no disrespect to anyone, that what is really lacking here in this discussion is the third person of the Trinity His Holy Spirit and I don’t mean it in a way we see it used in modern day pentecostalism but as in John 14:26 as the Counsellor and the teacher and reminder of the things that Jesus taught. Also I will leave you with this scripture to chew on 1 Timothy 1:3-11
LoCTY!

Thanks, Daniel.

That was a very very useful piece to me, not just the bit about the Sabbath, but the entire approach to studying and understanding the Word. I appreciate the great amount of thought and effort you put into it to the glory of God!

@ahbeng - Ahbeng:

thanks.

@Caleb -

I will reply to your points after replying to Veith, but FYI I am the author of that “angelfire article”, and that is my website.

Originally Posted By Daniel Chew @Caleb -

I will reply to your points after replying to Veith, but FYI I am the author of that “angelfire article”, and that is my website.

Eh… make that reply to your points in conjuction or before/after replying to Veith, because some of the points you are making either overlap or are even more foundational.

Hi Brother Daniel,

Looking forward to learning more.

Shalom.

I don’t know whether anyone still reads this post, but here goes.

I have finished responding to this entire presentation by Veith (including the part on the mark of the beast) on my latest blog post dated 3rd July here. Hopefully this will repair some of the damage Veith seems to have caused.

Isaiah:

Oh ya, with regards to your former warning you linked in your original post, I think it is a logical non-sequitur. We mustn’t let the wickedness of Roman Catholicism color our views of their actions such that everything they do is always wrong.

@Caleb -

I hope you are still there, since I took quite a long time to lay the foundation and then critically analyze Veith’s presentation before comming back to you.

With regards to the part on the Law and its differentiation, I trust you will find my article On the Mosaic Law sufficient to answer you objections.

4) Pardon my concern in saying so, but to allegorize the two covenants in this manner is illogical at best.

To tie Hagar with Mount Sinai, and to equate that to slavery, and then to say that Sarah points to the new Jerusalem is downright dispensational.

This is what that passage in Galatians (Gal. 4:24-31) is teaching. It is not Dispensational at all, for Dispensationalism stresses a lot on the “clear” teaching of Scripture, such that ‘Israel’ is always ‘Israel’, the ‘Church’ is always the ‘Church’ and the two shall not meet.

5) The statement that “the Law can theoretically merit salvation through works” found in the angelfire article is not to be found in Scripture. Even Jewish believers - for that matter Jews - will tell you that following the Law has nothing to do with earning salvation, but is the response to the abundant grace of GOD, and a direct response

That concept is found in Scripture in Rom. 2:6-11 being the most explicit proof-text for it. Correspondingly, the statement that the Jews tell that the Law has nothing whatsoever to do with earning salvation is false and contradicted by the entire teaching of the blessings and curses of the Law in Deut. 28-29 for example. Granted, the Jews do not believe in pure works-righteousness aka Pelagianism, in that salvation for them is via inclusion in the Covenant followed by Law keeping. But it is the same as other semi-pelagian religious systems such as Roman Catholicism in which baptism/faith PLUS good works save. Roman Catholics btw traditionally DO NOT believe that works apart from faith save. Just read the sixth session of the Council of Trent to see that they pronounce a curse on the teaching of salvation by works.

Sweeping statements about the “high possibility of the apostasy of Jewish believers” does injustice to the way the Epistle was written. It is not a letter of contrasts - although, of course, Messiah is superior to everything and everyone - but rather uses a literary device used by our LORD and the apostle Saul, known as kal v’homer (from light to heavy).

If it is not about the possible apostasy of Jewish believers, why then are there strong passages warning against apostasy in Heb. 6:4-6, 10:26-31, which are not found in any other part of the Bible? Or how then is Heb. 10:32-36 supposed to be interpreted except as an exhortation not to give up the faith and apostasize?

And how can it not be about contrasts since in Heb. 1:4-13 the Son is said to be superior to the angels, Heb. 3:1-6 shows that Jesus is superior to Moses, in Heb. 7:11-28, Jesus is stated as being superior in His priesthood to the Levitical priesthood? With regards to the Old Covenant, doesn’t Heb. 8:13 and 10:9 throw out the entire Old Covenant as being obsolete?

6) Taking the angelfire article to a logical conclusion would make GOD a bait-and-switch artist i.e. He gives His people an instruction, tells them to obey, but in reality, if they obey, they will be disobeying. Very thin ice here …

There is no bait-and-switch tactic here. What you are doing in actual fact is assuming that the rabbinic Judaist interpretation of the Law is the true interpretation while it is not! Of course if the rabbinic Judaist interpretation of the Old Testament is correct, then sure, there is possibly a bait-and-switch.

And I am not sure what you mean by God commanding obedience while practical obedience is actual disobedience. If anyone obeyed the Law, then that is obvious obedience, but the fact is that no one obeys the Law (Rom. 2:17-24, 3:9-18), especially since James 2:10 tell us that a slight transgression of the Law is counted as breaking all of the Law.

[to be continued]

@Caleb -

If we really hold on to the faith that He is faithful, that He never changes, and that His Word never changes, these “apparent contradictions” cannot be swept away just by easy theological and doctrinal arguments.

God does not change, but whoever said that God intended the Covenant with its laws to similarly not change?

I also don’t think we take the matter of the Sabbath seriously enough. Nowhere in the Bible has GOD rescinded the command of the Sabbath. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that for our modern generation, or since Christ, is it OK to work 7 days a week and to ignore the Sabbath. Many church leaders have taken Paul’s meaning in Col. 2 to mean that the institution of the Sabbath can be made into anything man wants…which, by the way, makes no sense whatsoever to understand it in that way (this is what happens when Bible passages are taken out of context in order to try to validate a predetermined agenda or doctrine).

That is because most peopleare ignorant of church history. The Reformers have tackled this problem during their time and the creeds are evidences of that. Heb. 4 is the definite and most comprehensive NT passage on the Sabbath issue.

And, also remember, that it is simply documented and historical fact that the early Church continued to follow the Biblical rule of the Sabbath (as Saturday) right on up until Emperor Constantine ordered the Sabbath abolished, and replaced it by something called “The Lord’s Day”, which was to become the new day in which the gentile Church came together to worship.

Documented and historical fact? Care to give me some references to check? Walter Veith’s tried to cite Eusebius Ecclesiastical History as written in the Nicene Post-Nicene Fathers and ended up with an egg to his face.

This new day of worship, the Lord’s Day, was designated to be
the 1st day of the week, Sunday, which was already the traditional day of national worship for the primary pagan religion of the Roman Empire……the Mishrain Sun Worshippers…..which is why Sun-day is called Sunday in the first place. This day was chosen as a political compromise between the Sun Worshippers and the Christians.

I have refuted this in my review of Veith’s presentation, but I can state the same here. So is Saturday a compromise between the Saturn worshippers and the Christians?

… First, the very first “Sunday Law”, ordered and enacted by Constantine, during his 2nd meeting with the council of Church Bishops in Nicea, in 321 AD:
“On the Venerable Day of the Sun (the sacred day of the Sun-god, Sunday) 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; because it often happens that another day is not so suitable for grainsowing or for vine-planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations
the bounty of heaven should be lost….. given the 7th day of March, 321, Crispus and Constantine being consuls each of them for the second time.”

Care to give me a credible literature reference for that? I do not trust websites in general for historical information.

What happened in these several councils of Nicea was that the GENTILE Christian Church was established, and the JEWISH Christian Church was abolished.

Mere assertion.

Some 16 years after the first Sunday Law was enacted, the following edict was handed down from another of these Roman Church councils, called the Council of Laodicea:
“Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Sabbato (the Sabbath), but shall work on that day; but the Lord’s Day (Sunday) they shall especially honor and, as being Christians, shall, if possible, do no work that day. If however they are found Judaizing they shall be excommunicated”.

Understand, that in this context “Judaizing” simply referred to Christians doing anything that Jews traditionally did. So, for example, if Jews honored the Biblical Feasts, Christians should NOT. If Jews baptized by submersion, Christians should NOT. If Jews lit candles and ate Challah bread on the Sabbath, Christians should NOT. And, since Jews honored the Sabbath, then Christians should NOT. The principle that was begun in the 4th century, and now firmly entrenched in our modern church was this: if the Jews do it, Christians shouldn’t. Christians who did anything Jews did in relation to honoring GOD, were considered to be Judaizing, and this would result in being excommunicated from the Church.

Such an inference is partly correct, but is decidedly in error. The word Judaizing refers primarily to the error of the Judaizers mentioned in Galatians, and therefore refer always to the idea of following Jewish customs and laws so as to be more spiritual in their Christianity — a perpetual problem for the early Church since it smuggles works-righteousness by the back door which the SDAs and others like them are similarly guilty of. The Council of Laodicea is not an ecumenical council, but nevertheless such a decree mus be interpreted in its historical context. It is an overreaction to prevent Judaizing influences from gaining even a ‘toe-hold’ in the Church and that is all. Note that this occured in the Eastern part of the Empire of which there are many Jews involved and thus this extreme measure taken.

But, the passages on Sabbath are not like that: they are plain and unequivocal.

The passage on the Sabbath are indeed plain and unequivocal, and it using the correct hermeneutical method, we can see that the restriction to days and times are rendered obsolete with the Old Covenant cf Heb. 4 and 8.

Now, let me give you the view of the Catholic Church concerning Sunday, rather than Sabbath worship;

As I have said in my rebuttal of Veith’s presentation, who cares what the Romanists say? The Romanists claim to give you your Bible, so will you say they are correct?

and, by the way, Catholics lay claim to Constantine as one of theirs.

Romanists also claim Jesus as one of theirs. So does this prove anything?

This comes from the official publication of the Catholic Press…..the official Catholic newspaper……. and was written a little over 100 years ago: “Sunday is a Catholic institution, and its claim to observance can be defended only on Catholic principles …. From beginning to end of Scripture there is not a single passage that warrants the transfer of weekly public worship from the last day of the week (Saturday) to the first (Sunday)”.

The Catholic Church who CLAIMS the establish of Sunday as the day of communal worship for Christians says outright that NOWHERE in Scripture (OT or New) is there a single passage that would allow the 1st day of the week worship and rest to be substituted for the GOD-ordained 7th day of the week worship and rest. That statement is factually true in every sense. But, why was that statement made and communicated to the world? Why would the Catholic Church say such a thing, because it sounds as if its condemning itself for Sunday worship by openly admitting the truth that scripturally there is nothing to indicate that any day other than the 7th, Saturday, is Sabbath? You see, this was part of an ongoing argument against Protestants, who, of course, deny the all-important doctrine of the Catholic Church that the Pope has special authority, given to him directly from GOD, to change or add or subtract from the Scriptures. So, in yet another article continuing the debate, again from the official Catholic Press, we get this: “Protestantism, in discarding the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, has no good reason for its Sunday theory, and ought to logically keep Saturday as the Sabbath”.

In other words, the Catholic Church openly admits that there is NO scriptural authority at all for abolishing or moving the Sabbath to Sunday.

However, since in their view the Pope has the authority from GOD to change anything he believes GOD has directed him to change, then the act of the Roman Catholics (Constantine and the Roman bishops) abolishing the Sabbath, and instead observing Sunday as a new and different day of meeting called the Lord’s Day, is OK.

And that means nothing. As I mention also in my rebuttal of Veith’s presentation, it amazes me how much stock Seventh-day sabbatarians place in Catholic writings while denouncing them as the anti-Christ. Sure sounds like trusting the devil’s testimony to me.

… on what basis can Protestants say that they can change the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday? And, the implied answer is: there can be none.

Answer: The Scriptures! The Westminster Confession of Faith, the London Baptist Confession of Faith, the Ausberg Confession, the Savoy Declaration and others have answered the question 400+ years ago already.

Does that hit you where it ought to?

No, because I don’t trust the claims of the anti-Christian religion.

Let’s all remember that Jesus Christ, observed the 7th day Sabbath.

Jesus was brought up as a Jew, so He observed the Jewish Sabbath. That does not mean that He thought that the Sabbath was binding in the same manner thought of by rabbinic Judaism. The passage 1 Cor. 9:22 comes to mind here.

Brother Daniel,

Thanks so much for the replies.

i disagree with many of the points you raised. Actually, been there, done that.

Still find the arguments anachronistic as it leaves out much of the historical context of 1st and 2nd Century Israel, and generally taken out of context.

Great effort though.

After reading your articles and posts, i am all the more convinced by His Word that we are to remember the Sabbath, and to keep it holy.

God bless you in your service to Him.

Originally Posted By CalebBrother Daniel,

Thanks so much for the replies.

i disagree with many of the points you raised. Actually, been there, done that.

Still find the arguments anachronistic as it leaves out much of the historical context of 1st and 2nd Century Israel, and generally taken out of context.

Great effort though.

After reading your articles and posts, i am all the more convinced by His Word that we are to remember the Sabbath, and to keep it holy.

God bless you in your service to Him.

Caleb, thanks for taking the time to read and reply. Yet, what you have just said just proves my point correct. You are reading rabbinic Judaism into the Old Testament instead of reading the Old Testament as it should be read. It is not anachronistic because we claim that our reading is the true reading of the Old Testament believed by Moses and the Prophets, whereas the teachings of rabbinic Judaism is the false reading of the Old Testament.

If there is one thing that ultimately is the issue, it is the issue of Sola Scriptura. You deny it because your views are not derived from Scripture but are instead based upon rabbinic Judaism (the “historical context” of 1st and 2nd century AD Israel) which is not true Judaism as established by the Scriptures.

Thanks for the interaction though.

Most welcome Daniel.

I beg to differ on your assessment.

While i agree to some extent that normative rabbinic judaism may not fully represent all of Biblical faith, it is absolutely anachronistic when a gentile can tell the Jews (believers at that) that their reading of Scripture is a false. Romans 11.

Remember also that the majority of the opposition to Jesus, His message, and His apostles came from a small group of people, that was not at all reflective of the opinions and beliefs of the majority of Israel at that point in time.

I am saying that when reading the New Testament, we must take into account the historical/political/social context of 1st and 2nd century Israel, and that your positions are polemic and do not accurately reflect Scripture.

Just because we have a difference of opinion does not mean that I deny the final authority of Scripture. It also does not mean that your position is entirely spot on, and is the only one.

I would therefore counter that you really need to study more about the historical faith (BTW, what you claim to be normative Rabbinic Judaism did not exist till the 4th century). Your understanding of “Judaism as established by the Scriptures” is incomplete. There is much current scholarly research being conducted by faithful followers on our understanding of Scripture that is shedding new light on many of the shortcomings of the perspectives of the past centuries.

God bless.

@Caleb -

it is absolutely anachronistic when a gentile can tell the Jews (believers at that) that their reading of Scripture is a false.

Since when did Jewish believers become de facto more mature in the faith than Gentile believers? The Jews have priority of Covenantal priviledge, but once in Christ, there is no Jew or Gentile, but all are one in Christ (Rom. 10:12; Gal. 3:28). There is simply no such thing as a race caste system within Christianity.

Remember also that the majority of the opposition to Jesus, His message, and His apostles came from a small group of people

The Bible does not state excatly the level of opposition to Jesus and His message from the Jews. We definitely know most of the religious leaders oppose Him, and most of the people in Jerusalem during the times of His death oppose Him. We even know that the people in his hometown of Nazareth wanted to throw him down a cliff (Lk. 4:16-30), while many Jews who had followed him previously deserted him when he preached the Gospel that only through coming to Christ can they be saved (Jn. 6:66). So to say that only some Jews oppose him while the majority is for him is simply unprovable, and the whole question is irrelevant unless you are trying to say that the number of people Jews accepting Jesus correlates with the truthfulness of the Judaism of their times, which is a total logical non-sequitur.

I am saying that when reading the New Testament, we must take into account the historical/political/social context of 1st and 2nd century Israel, and that your positions are polemic and do not accurately reflect Scripture.

The first and foremost context is the biblical context. Each of the Gospels, Acts, the Epistles, and Revelation interprets itself as to where it is coming from. Only when the biblical context is established then we look at the other contexts. The tactic of looking at the historical/political/social contexts as the primary (not secondary) contexts is a denial of Sola Scriptura and makes Historical and Social studies higher in authority in interpreting the context of Scripture than the Bible.

Just because we have a difference of opinion does not mean that I deny the final authority of Scripture.

No, I did not say that you deny the final authority of Scripture. I say you deny Sola Scriptura, which in this particular instance refers to the aspect of the Sufficiency of Scripture. You deny the Sufficiency of Scripture since you deny that the Scriptures cannot be rightly interpreted without looking at historical, political and sociological data and taking that into consideration. That is not to say that Scripture is interpreted its own context for it to be interpreted. Looking at the historical, political and sociological data should enrich our understanding of Scripture, but never determine it in any fashion whatsoever.

I would therefore counter that you really need to study more about the historical faith … There is much current scholarly research being conducted by faithful followers on our understanding of Scripture that is shedding new light on many of the shortcomings of the perspectives of the past centuries

Are you talking about the New Perspective on Paul stuff? And I would counter that you need to study more Scripture and less history for your doctrines.

God bless.

Since when did Jewish believers become de facto more mature in the faith than Gentile believers? The Jews have priority of Covenantal priviledge, but once in Christ, there is no Jew or Gentile, but all are one in Christ (Rom. 10:12; Gal. 3:28). There is simply no such thing as a race caste system within Christianity.

There you go again, putting words into my mouth, and contradicting your own earlier point. I have never said that Jewish believers are more mature, but for you to say that therefore your understanding of Scripture is right, while theirs is wrong, smacks of pride and being indicted under the very passages you quoted.

The first and foremost context is the biblical context. Each of the Gospels, Acts, the Epistles, and Revelation interprets itself as to where it is coming from. Only when the biblical context is established then we look at the other contexts. The tactic of looking at the historical/political/social contexts as the primary (not secondary) contexts is a denial of Sola Scriptura and makes Historical and Social studies higher in authority in interpreting the context of Scripture than the Bible.

I absolutely agree that Biblical context and Sola Scriptura is absolute. I am therefore saying that in studying Scripture, you cannot project your own understanding of how it relates to you, because many of the passages are written to specific peoples in specific situations. While general principles can be gleaned, we cannot issue blanket statements. I am therefore still relying on the extant texts as secondary.

Scripture is absolutely sufficient to interpret itself, but when passages are taken out of context, it becomes only a pretext.

Are you talking about the New Perspective on Paul stuff? And I would counter that you need to study more Scripture and less history for your doctrines.

No, NPP is just one of the many different perspectives, same as what you also hold to be THE truth.

It is precisely in reading and studying Scripture over many years, both formally and informally, that I have come to these conclusions.

Many years have i spent also arguing from your perspective, and i’ve am convicted that i have erred.

That said, i reckon we should call it quits, as we are discussing tangentially, and many of our baseline parameters are different.

God bless.

Isaiah,

I haven’t watched the video yet, but I wonder–Revelation 13:15-16 tells us that the false prophet will cause all to worship The Beats and to take his mark. Is Veith saying that the “mark of the beast” is currently with us? Even though neither The Beast nor the False prophet are? Not arguing, just wondering.

Second, all through his letters, Paul lets it be known, in no uncertain terms, that all those who break the Law on a continual basis will be condemned. But he never mentions Sabbath-breakers.

1st, 2nd Commandments–1st Corinthians 6:9-10
3rd Commandment–2nd Timothy 3:2
5th Commandment–Ephesians 6:2
6th Commandment–Galatians 5:21
7th Commandment–Galatians 5:19
8th Commandment–1st Corinthians 6:10
9th Commandment–Revelation 21:8