40 QUESTIONS TO THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS
ANSWERED AND RETRIBUTED:24-30
Prof. Azenilto G. Brito
24. Question: If you must keep the seventh day, how come the apostles and early Christians celebrated the most important meetings, such as the Lord's Supper, on the first day instead of the seventh?ANSWER: There is no proof of this, and the proofs submitted on that respect are more interpretative "shots" that backfire. The text of Acts 20:7, for example, does not say anything that it was a Lord's Supper, but that one Saturday night Paul bid farewell to the believers in Troas, who gathered to "break bread" which is only a common meal they practiced every day (Acts 2:46) from house to house. . . Would they hold the Lord's Supper every day in the homes?
What is said additionally is that Paul, at a certain point (after resolving an emergency situation), went back to the hall where they met, (vs. 11). There isn't the least hint of a Lord's Supper celebration there. The type of language used doesn't confirm it, but to the contrary—it indicates a common meal. In the sequence it is described a long journey that Paul took ON FOOT to another city, still on the “first day of the week”, for it was just the part of the day that completed the 24-hour period, since the day began at sunset (the time count is Jewish, as can be seen by the name of the day in the Greek, mia twn sabbatwn-the first day since the Sabbath).
So, instead of remaining with the Troas brethren for the Sunday School, or equivalent, the Apostle left in that long journey, which shows that he had no special scruples as to sanctifying the day. So, to employ that text to counter Sabbath keeping is one more interpretive “shot” that backfires.
Questions for retribution: Did you know that in the original Greek the expression for "break bread" is klasai arton-a generic language applied to any food on any day of the week (Acts 2:46)? However, what is NOT mentioned in Acts 20:7 is the kind of specific language in Greek that Christians use for the Lord's Supper: "Kuriakon Deipnon" (see 1 Cor 11:20)? Can you also explain how, if Paul participated and even conducted Lord's Supper in Acts 20, there is no mention of wine, which is an integral part of such ceremonies?
1 Cor. 11:20
20 “When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.”Kuriakon Deipnon25. Question: How do you know that you really keep the seventh day? Can you be sure that there were no errors in the reckoning of time since the day when God rested? You have to take into account changes made in the calendar in the year 46 BC, when it was agreed that the year would have only 345 days, to correct errors that had accumulated. You should also think about the law in the year 1751, when to "correct the calendar," which stipulated the removal of 11 days in September. With these and other changes how can you be sure that you know to count the days since the creation in an absolutely correct manner?
ANSWER: First, God is not incompetent as a legislator, establishing a "memorial of creation" in the first Sabbath (Gen. 2:2, 3) and when He restores it to His chosen people, later on, He establishes a seventh day that had nothing to do with the original, of which the Sabbath in the Decalogue is the memorial (Exo. 20:8-11). Jesus observed the Sabbath (Luc. 4:16) not only for being Jewish, but for being the author of the principle, as creator that He is (John 1:3,14, Heb. 1:2). He called Himself "Lord of the Sabbath" and it would be amazing that he kept the wrong day, supposedly lost along history, disconected from its historical significance, as the "memorial of creation."
Luc. 4:16
16 “And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.”John 1:3,14
3 “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. ”Heb. 1:2
2 “Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; ”On the change of calendars, from the Julian to the Gregorian, the date when that occurred was 1582, and we have good data on what happened then--10 days were taken off in the reckoning of days, without affecting the sequence of the days of the week. Thus, October 4, 1582, Thursday, was followed by October 15, Friday.
Moreover, the Jews have their calendar of nearly 6,000 years, independent from the Christians calendars, and the seventh day of their calendar is exactly the same as that of the Christians! The day that the religious Jews go to their synagogues is the same on which the Seventh-day Adventist, Messianic Jews, Seventh-day Baptists meet in their congregations.
Questions for retribution: How can you engage in such attacks against the Sabbath observers, when ignoring facts so easy to check, being sufficient to simply carry out a not too complex research on the change of calendars and their relationship with the sequence of days, or simply ask a Jew on what day he goes to worship in the synagogue? Doesn't that show that you didn't accomplish your "home work" before launching this kind of silly criticism, which only reveals incompetence on your part, not only in matters biblical but also in historical ones?
26. Question: Have you by any chance read Colossians 2:14-17, which shows that the "handwritten of ordinances" was cancelled and taken "out of the way," meaning that the ceremonial rituals of the Mosaic law (including Sabbath keeping, which you advocate) were nailed to the cross?
Col. 2:14-17:
14 “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.”ANSWER: The text of Colossians 2:14-17 seems like an "one-note anti-sabbatarian samba" for the enemies of the Sabbath commandment. Unfortunately many do not know how to interpret the Bible as it is, taking only one or two texts that have a language seemingly "favorable" to some idea, neglecting to read the entire context and other texts that address the same subject. So the Catholics are set on Matthew 16:18, 19 to "prove" the primacy of Peter, the Mormons utilize 1 Corinthians 15:29 to "prove" the baptism for the dead and the "Jehovah's Witnesses" use John 14:19 to deny that Christ will come again visibly
The fact is that in the entire epistle of Paul to the Colossians the word "law" never appears. The theme of the epistle is NOT abolition of laws. It is now well known that the cheirographon, was the written document that recorded the accusations attributed to a culprit in a court. What Paul says is that those who were forgiven by Christ have their guilt eliminated. After speaking of baptism and death to sin (vs. 12) in the vs. 13 he says “having forgiven you all traspasses ”, then he refers to the decrees, which is the manner of forgiving sins. These are not eliminated through the abolition of the law that point to them (see Rom. 7:7, 8). Thus, what was nailed to the cross was not the law, but the record of guilt.
Rom. 7:7, 8
7 “What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. ”The entire tenor of the chapter shows that Paul, beside these reflections, discusses a local problem. He has no intention to establish rules of universal character. There were extremists in Colossae who wished to impose their understanding of how to practice religion, full of ideas of In vs. 18 Paul clearly indicates what was his real preoccupation, as he says: .
Col. 2:21
21 “Touch not; taste not; handle not;”Col. 2:18
18 “Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,”Rom. 7:7, 8:
7 “What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.”Questions for retribution: If in Colossians 2:14-17 Paul is teaching the end of the Sabbath commandment, what did he leave in its place? Nothing is indicated that he thinks in terms of Sunday replacing the seventh-day. So, would Paul be contradicting Jesus, who said that "the Sabbath was made because of man", acting on his own to end the principle of a day of rest to be dedicated to the Lord?
27. Question: In verses 16 and 17 of the same chapter, we see that certain things required under the law of Moses, including the observance of the Sabbath, are not but mere shadow of the future--the spiritual body of Christ. To keep the Sabbath is cling to a shadow.
ANSWER: As it would be expected, anti-Sabbatarian invest heavily on a text whose language seems favorable to them, ignoring its logic context. The weekly Sabbath is not a ceremonial precept, and regarding this we have the study "10 Reasons Why the Sabbath IS NOT a Ceremonial Precept", which anti-Sabbatarian never refuted point by point. To facilitate the search of said study, this is the link that leads directly to it:
Even though the Sabbath is in a sense a symbol of the future eternal rest of salvation, as the scholarly commentary by the Baptists Jamieson, Fausset and Brown discusses, the symbol disappears only when the reality it anticipates is met. Since we haven't reached the eternal Sabbath, the weekly Sabbath that points typologically to it remains in full force. And these scholars says more specifically on the text of Colossians 2:16:
“SABBATHS” of the day of atonement and feast of tabernacles have come to an end with the Jewish services to which they belonged (Lev. 23:32, Lev. 23:37-39). (not “the sabbaths”) The weekly sabbath rests on a more permanent foundation, having been instituted in Paradise to commemorate the completion of creation in six days. Lev. 23:38 expressly distinguished “the sabbath of the Lord” from the other sabbaths. A positive precept is right because it is commanded, and ceases to be obligatory when abrogated; a moral precept is commanded eternally, because it is eternally right. If we could keep a perpetual sabbath, as we shall hereafter, the positive precept of the sabbath, one in each week, would not be needed. Heb. 4:9, “rests,” Greek, “keeping of sabbath” (Isa. 66:23). But we cannot, since even Adam, in innocence, needed one amidst his earthly employments; therefore the sabbath is still needed and is therefore still linked with the other nine commandments, as obligatory in the spirit, though the letter of the law has been superseded by that higher spirit of love which is the essence of law and Gospel alike (Rom. 13:8-10). – Commentary by Jamieson, Fausset and Brown.
Questions for retribution: How would Jesus refer to the Sabbath as "made because of man" if it was only a shadow amidst others from the Jewish religion, which would cease at some time, without further serving man to grant him physical, mental and spiritual benefits?
28. Question: Have you ever read Romans 14:5, 6 that show that some make a difference between day and day, but others judge all days the same? It is said: "Each one is safe in your own mind." Why didn't the Apostle Paul insist that those who think all days are equal should estimate the seventh day as superior to all the other days and "sanctify" it, as advocated by the Adventists?
ANSWER: Again the opponents of the Sabbath commandment don't take into account the full context and complete tenor of the biblical teaching. Paul only discusses another local problem regarding those who still thought it was necessary to celebrate special dates in Israel, as the Feast of Trumpets, the Feast of the Tabernacle, the Purim Feast, etc. As they were Christians ethnically and nationally Jews, they imagined that they were still under such obligation, but Paul tells them that even though they had freedom to celebrate them (and for the Jews these were national holidays) they should not impose such rules on all.
Questions for retribution: Since it is clear that the Christian community has not decided that the Sabbath should be replaced either by Sunday, or by the nodayism/anydayism/everydayism notion soon after the death of Christ on the cross, what day did they observe in the meantime--the Sabbath, Sunday or no day at all? What Biblical evidence is there, be it for one thing or the other?
29. Question: The main theme in Adventism is the keeping of the law, especially the Sabbath law. Now, in the New Testament we find 50 times mention to preach the gospel, 17 times to preach the Word, 23 times to preach Christ, and 8 times to preach the Kingdom. Not one single time anything is said about preaching the Sabbath law, as you folks so much defend. How do you explain that?
ANSWER: Here again the fallacious “argument from silence” which is worth a zero on the left side. It doesn’t prove anything on nothing. There is no order to preach against take God's name in vain, or about not manufacturing sculpted images, or the prohibition of communicating with the dead, while Jesus recommended Sabbath keeping: in Mat. 23:1-3 He recommended His hearers--disciples and the multitude--that they obeyed ALL that their religious chiefs taught in harmony with the divine law, only not being hyppocrites as they were, in their do-what-I-say-but-not-what-I-do attitude.
And one of the things they taught in harmony with the law was the faithful observance of the Sabbath (Luke 13:14). Therefore, we have Christ recommending the Sabbath, along with all the other rules of the law! The fact that there were only Jews present in the occasion is no excuse, because there were also only Jews when He preached the principles of the Sermon on the Mountain, and even when He transmitted the “golden rule” of love to God and to the neighbor. These things were said only to Jews. . . So, by the reasoning of these opponents, these principles also would just apply to the Jews!. . .
Questions for retribution: Have you read topics 9, 10 and 18 of the 28 topics of the confessional document of Seventh-day Adventists? If you did, then you are just giving false witness against your neighbor as you allege that “The main theme in Adventism is the keeping of the law, especially the Sabbath law.” In case you haven’t read it, please, do so that you don’t engage in saying things that are untrue, because that is an act of intellectual dishonesty. Even the church’s name, “Adventist”, highlights that the Second Advent of Jesus is one of the chief preoccupations of the Adventist preaching, which is an essentially Christ-centered subject. To speak about the second coming of Christ it is necessary to explain what happened in His first coming, and the reason why He is supposed to return. Isn’t that the basic theme of the gospel?
30. Question: In the New Testament the word 'Sabbath' is found 70 times. You folks admit that in every case, but for one, reference is made to the Sabbath day according to the Jewish ceremonial principles, with no problem. However, in this sole case, i. e., the Colossians 2:16 verse, where the word is the same in the Greek texts, you try to lead us to believe that is has a different meaning. Why? Wouldn’t it be because you are aware that Colossians 2:16,17 topples down your doctrinal arguments that we Christians are bound to keep the ceremonial Mosaic law, of which the Sabbath commandment is a part?
ANSWER: We have demonstrated through the answers to questions 26 and 27 how this “one-note anti-Sabbatarian samba”, as the text of Colossians 2:16 is used, only shows the exegetical incapacity of those who capitalize so much on a text that brings a language that seems favorable to their presuppositions, ignoring the context and the whole tenor of the Biblical teaching regarding the theme of God’s law and the rest day. All that has been very well explained in the answers to the questions indicated.
Questions for retribution: If the Sabbath is a ceremonial precept that later would be abolished (which would be reflected in Col. 2:16), why does the author of Hebrews dedicate to the Sabbath a very special treatment in chaps. 3 and 4, instead of dealing with the Sabbath question in chaps. 7 through 10, dedicated to a discussion of the Jewish ceremonies and their meaning? Now, since Sabbath keeping was so rooted in the religious, even secular, life of the Jews, isn’t strange that, being the Sabbath a Jewish ceremonial institution, it was not the object of a detailed discussions on its typological role, as was the case with so many of the other features of the ritual law?
Click here to go to the next page