SABBATH SILENCE?

Created 05/05/2001; Updated 05/09/2003: made easy to print out; Updated 05/06/2004: the current gay marriage situation as it relates to city and even the American Constitution shows why lawmakers of yesteryear were silent about claiming the right to solemnize gay marriages. Updated 08/14/2004: slight change in third and twelfth paragraph.

So many come to us in order to show us that the Seventh-day Sabbath is no longer binding for the Christian. Their stated agenda is to lift up Christ, so they tell us that the works of the law do not save a man. We have already gone to great lengths in order to show that we know that fact. We have also shown that we already know how the whole process works. But then, the same people who accused us of being legalists would then vouch for Sunday-keeping. What therefore is going on?

Well, there are certain points they would throw into their propositions, and we hope to explain and expound upon what they're trying to do and where they can be caught in error here.

They remark about the "complete" silence in the New Testament about any obligation about the Sabbath command. We show that there is relative silence, but it is not complete. What is mentioned about the Sabbath is even more strong than anything mentioned about keeping Sunday, but, for these people, the issue is not about being right here. The issue is despotism: whether or not people can rant fables into enforced reality as had happened during the Dark Ages and Protestant Reformation. They themselves have even said that it is better to give a message in "a right spirit" than the actual accuracy of what you say. Sort of like Moses coming down from the mountain with the Ten Commandments and his resulting "spirit" that came from his shining face.

There was relative silence in the New Testament on the practice of Sabbath-keeping to be handed down to us as Christians. That was because of conditions and situations during those times. The Pharisees, among others, made sure that everyone knew about everything there was to do about the Sabbath AND MUCH, MUCH MORE. Scripturally, that was practically all the complaint that the Jews could make against Christ during His life: that He broke the Sabbath, but then found it impossible to accuse Him of Sabbath-breaking at His trial and condemnation. Christ healed on the Sabbath. The Pharisees made that out to be a crime, but the scriptures did not. The Apostles therefore found that they not only didn't have to expound upon the Sabbath at that time, but often spent time trying to tune down the emphasis upon it, along with the extra regulations that were added by the Scribes and Pharisees.

Because of the issues constantly dwelt upon especially by the Jews and even thence new Jewish Christians, Paul had to comment by saying:

1 Cor. 2:2:1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

Here even this scripture is twisted by the religionists of today as they claim we are to talk about Christ alone as a means to ignore much of His instruction. This is rampant even in the SDA Church, where infiltrators, struggling to make sure her members are not prepared, urge them to forsake studying the important aspects of the last days so that they can be caught in delusion. They come telling Adventists that they concentrate on these things TOO MUCH. Folks, ONLY WHEN PEOPLE THOROUGHLY UNDERSTAND A CONCEPT TO THE POINT OF TEACHING IT, AND THEN YET GO OVERBOARD INTO OBSESSION, IS A PERSON CONCENTRATING ON SOMETHING "TOO MUCH!" Truth is, Adventist members hardly know a thing about the very doctrines crucial to even the concept they support! Why then are people who claim we must have the right to disagree, fighting with us to make sure Adventists don't study them?

In the quotation above, Paul was not saying the Jews were not to talk about doctrine or the law. He was saying that he only wanted to hear about Christ and Him crucified, "AMONG YOU." He was pointing to those specific people as members who were just too overboard about everything else other than Christ. Remember this is the same Paul who was schooled in Old Testament history. This was the one who told us that even the history of God's people, the Children of Israel, was written "for ensamples." (1 Cor. 10:9-11).

But here now comes an interesting issue as the Jesuits begin to more and more embarrass a free people before the Divine, who gave them liberty. As if suddenly, city official after city official are stepping forward saying that they are going to solemnize gay or same-sex marriages with the claim that their constitutions and even the American Constitution supports this! The very suddenness and lack of precedence of this again indicates the workings of treason.

Since the birth of this country our forefathers understood what homosexuality was, and it was abhorred. One thing clear is that back then there was no confusion about this.

Why didn't they write constitutions that prohibited gay marriages? Because they never even thought that any advancing generation would become so drunk and stupid as if to dream that homosexuality would be any kind of an option! Why write about something they foresee no danger of ever becoming an issue?

Yet one mayor or city official after another steps forward telling us that even the Constitution of the United States supports gay marriages, BUT THEY CAN'T POINT TO A PRECEDENT! What is the reason for the silence on this issue in our founding documents?

Now comes the issue of the Sabbath. Many Jesuits move forward to tell us that there is complete silence about the Sabbath in the New Testament. Well that is not totally true. But the question would be, why didn't the Apostles even write more about the topic?

Living in the days of the Pharisees, who would think that confusion about the Sabbath would ever become a reality!!

Still, Protestant principle dictates that silence proves nothing if commands were already set forth before. If the Lord asked that something be done, the Christian will keep doing that thing until clear instruction is given stopping the practice. There will be and can be no guesswork here. But we have already shown that there was a solid command to keep the Sabbath, and the command was never annulled.

We pointed out Matthew 5:17-19, where Christ told us that not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law till all be fulfilled. He said, "Till heaven and earth pass." Again, in predicting the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem and also His imminent coming, Christ told His disciples in Matthew 24 that they should pray that their flight be not in the Winter, nor upon the Sabbath day.

"But the Disciples were Jews! Those instructions were not for us Christians!"

And so our enemies, when it suits their purposes, work to make classifications and separation in order to evade their sacred duties. These would later be found quoting this scripture:

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Our response to the idea that Christ was talking to the Disciples and was therefore talking to Jews comes from the Gospel commission to all his followers. Christ gave this instruction to His Disciples who were Jews:

Matt. 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

So here we see that Christ's instructions applied to the Gentiles also. That was why, during the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem that Christ was specifically talking about in that chapter, not one Christian perished in the conflagration. The Christians heeded this instruction of Christ.

"I'm sorry, but the commandments were all done away with at the cross. The Apostles then gave us back nine of the Ten Commandments for the Christian, but the Sabbath simply is not mentioned!"

This statement is just not true. When the Ten Commandments were proclaimed upon Mt. Sinai, it was done with awful grandeur and display. It was done where most all the specially appointed people of God were all witnesses of the event. It was done very ceremoniously, and this display was all done TO ELIMINATE ALL CONFUSION about the duties that were already imposed upon Christ's servants. All were to witness it so that there were no questions about what took place. Even the honor of Moses and the fact that it had to be embraced that he was a servant of God and is to be implicitly obeyed was shown and demonstrated at Mt. Sinai. All this was done to eliminate confusion.

What is being told us by those who hate the Sabbath is that Peter in the New Testament mentioned one principle of the Ten Commandments to be still obeyed for the Christian therefore giving us back one commandment for the New Testament, while Paul would mention another. Collectively the Apostles would mention one and then another until all of the commandments are mentioned EXCEPT THE SABBATH given back to us in the New Testament for the Christian. But still Sunday gets in there somewhere and somehow.

When Peter spoke and re-emphasized one of the commandments, neither Paul nor any of the other thousands of Christians were there. Paul probably didn't even know that Peter spoke, and the same is true the other way around. On this vital issue we cannot blame the God of heaven for the confusion that exists around these issues today.

What is being done here is the taking of statements made by the Apostles in casual conversation where they were showing that the commandments were still valid. One would expound upon one, while another will expound upon another in casual conversation. Clearly the statements that were made were not some awesome moment to change the course of any history.

"But the Disciples met in Acts 15 in order to show that the Sabbath and those other laws of the Jews were no longer valid. They even concluded that there were no further duties for the Christian but to refrain from eating strangled meats and meats offered to idols!"

Acts 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Yes, that is what that scripture says, but to conclude that all the duty for a Christian is what is said here is stretching things way out of proportion. The beginning of the chapter tells us that there was a controversy because certain Jews were preaching that if all did not keep the law after the manner of Moses, they could not be saved. That was therefore the controversy that was dealt with in that famous meeting of Acts 15. The scripture above is telling us that concerning those issues, Christians are to make sure that they stay away from meats strangled, offered to idols and from fornication. The scripture above is not telling Christians that it is now alright to lie, cheat or steal. Christ already made His statement clear about all the principles of the Law in Matthew 5:17-19.

As the need arises we will more update these contentions.

For more proof to show that the covenants do not allow anything to be added or subtracted from the religion of Christ after His death, please click HERE.

BUT CAN'T WE EXPERIMENT??

So, dealing with the issue of silence, showing that silence doesn't allow detraction from stated understanding, what about a little experimenting! Can't we experiment just to "wait and see" what happens? We don't have a precedent. THAT MEANS WE CAN EXPERIMENT ANYWAY! Is that true? Let's take a common biblical understanding well known from the following example:

When brought face to face with the queen of Scotland, in whose presence the zeal of many a leader of the Protestants had abated, John Knox bore unswerving witness for the truth. He was not to be won by caresses; he quailed not before threats. The queen charged him with heresy.

Said Mary: "Ye interpret the Scriptures in one manner, and they [the Roman Catholic teachers] interpret in another; whom shall I believe, and who shall be judge?"

John Knox replied:

"Ye shall believe God, that plainly speaketh in His word," answered the Reformer; "AND FARTHER THAN THE WORD TEACHES YOU, YE NEITHER SHALL BELIEVE THE ONE NOR THE OTHER." -- The Great Controversy, pg. 250

Protestantism states that we must not go out into darkness trying things of a moral nature which are not documented within the Scriptures. John Knox stated the Protestant principle that, "FARTHER THAN THE WORD TEACHES YOU, YE NEITHER SHALL BELIEVE THE ONE NOR THE OTHER." Having no scriptural precedent for any doctrine or moral practice, but yet contrary instruction or even hints of no approval will make Protestants content not to stray beyond the light found in the scriptures. You shine a light in a dark place and you will see A VERY CLEAR BORDER where the light ends. Biblical principle states you must not even entertain the thought of going beyond. You don't seek to establish any practice that is unprecedented! You should be able to understand now why so many of our "brethren" are happy when we are debating amongst ourselves into many different issues that are often even wild.

Protestantism was founded upon clarity, and when she held up this attribute, she gave honor to the Scriptures. Since following the Scriptures would inevitably prove Rome wrong, she has since sought to inject those who hold supreme loyalty to her within our positions of public trust in both church and state in order to help her agenda out a little. Our "brethren" know that our churches would be destroyed if they debated within themselves to the point that they conclude that there is no truth or that it can't be found from the Bible, confirming the age old Vatican argument that it therefore can only be found from men interpreting it. They will be completely unhooked from the guarantor of their liberties: the Scriptures containing the mandates of the Lord, and therefore from Protestantism. Continuing, John Knox affirms:

The word of God is PLAIN in itself; and if there appear any obscurity in one place, the Holy Ghost, which is never contrary to Himself, explains the same more clearly in other places, so that there can remain no doubt but unto such as obstinately remain ignorant." -- David Laing, The Collected Works of John Knox, Vol. 2, pp. 281, 284.

The following quotation taken from Ellen G. White was a faithful understanding of how all the Reformers understood the issues over even what to do about issues people perceive the scriptures are silent about:

God has given us His word that we may become acquainted with its teachings and know for ourselves what He requires of us. When the lawyer came to Jesus with the inquiry, "What shall I do to inherit eternal life?" the Saviour referred him to the Scriptures, saying: "What is written in the law? how readest thou?" Ignorance will not excuse young or old, nor release them from the punishment due for the transgression of God's law; because there is in their hands a faithful presentation of that law and of its principles and claims. It is not enough to have good intentions; it is not enough to do what a man thinks is right or what the minister tells him is right. His soul's salvation is at stake, and he should search the Scriptures for himself. However strong may be his convictions, however confident he may be that the minister knows what is truth, this is not his foundation. He has a chart pointing out every waymark on the heavenward journey, and he ought not to guess at anything. -- The Great Controversy, pg. 598

GOTO PART II: "Did Jesus Break the Sabbath?

END

HOME