|
To perform a search, click on ==> Search
How fundamental is a Six-day
Literal Creation Week?
by Nic Samojluk
Introduction. This posting was prompted by an alarming phrase contained in an E-mail from a young professional I admire for his exceptional talent and dedication both to his profession and to his fidelity to the Fundamental Beliefs of the SDA church. Here is the comment that grabbed my attention:
| Quote: |
| The literal creation week is the foundation of the Gospel itself. Certainly, if I found that such a concept was simply untenable, via evidence provided by the scientific method, I would certainly leave not only the SDA church, but Christianity as well. |
This is quite a statement of affirmation of his belief in the literal six-day creation week as recorded in the first two chapter of the first book of the Bible: Genesis.
My Initial Reaction. Could I make such a affirmation myself? Before I attempt to answer this question, let me tell you that I am a second generation SDA, and that I consider my fidelity to the Creator as of supreme concern. There is nothing more sacred to me that defending my allegiance to the one who created the heavens and the earth, and the one to whom we all owe our existence. I also do believe that the power of the Lord is unlimited, for which reason, I conclude that the theory of evolution, even in its mild theocratic version, diminishes the power and the glory of the Creator.
Nevertheless, I must confess that I would not risk my allegiance to God if I were presented with conclusive and indisputable scientific evidence that the literal six-day creation was not factual. Such a discovery would not shake my faith in the Creator. On the contrary, I would continue to worship the one who created the heavens and the earth, and the one who sustains the universe with his unlimited power. Why am saying this? Let me explain:
Why Do Certain People Believe in a Six-Days Creation Week? Let me start by analyzing the reasons certain people [most SDA's for example] believe in a literal six-days creation week? One reason is that it is described that way in Genesis 1. The other reason is the statement we find in Exodus 20, where Moses quotes the Lord as saying:
| Quote: |
| In six days days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them; but on the seventh day he rested. That is why the Lord has blessed the sabbath day and made it holy. |
Why Do Others Opt Not To Believe in a Literal Six-Days Creation Week? The majority of Christians have opted not to beldieve in a literal six-days creation week? Why is that? I will list some of the reasons: A. First: many Christians have adopted the premises of the theory of evolution, which posits millions of years for the evolution of life forms. B. Second: some Christians argue that in Deuteronomy chapter 5, where Moses repeats the Ten commandments, he gives a totally different reason for keeping the Sabbath:
| Quote: |
| Your male and female slave should rest as you do. For remember that you too were slaves in Egypt, and the Lord, your God, brought you from there with his strong hand and outstretched arm. That is why the Lord, your God, has commanded you to observe the sabbath. |
C. Third: Moses failed to acknowledge the source for his six-days creation story. The first two reasons are easy to understand, but the third one needs some explanation. I will, therefore attempt to do just that.
The Source of Moses' Creation Story. What is the source of Moses' creation account? If you are surprised by my question, your reaction will not surprise me a bit, since for half a century I did assume that Genesis 1 and 2 were the result of a direct revelation by God to Moses. You might think that I am about to introduce a heresy here, but bear with me! Why am I suggesting that the creation story might not have been the result of a direct revelation? To answer this question I need to take you to another biblical book: Luke.
An Alternative Mode of Biblical Inspiration. In the book of Luke we find an alternative mode of divine inspiration. A careful analysis of Luke's explanation for his work reveals that the information he presents in his Gospel was not the result of a vision, a dream, or ecstatic experience, but rather careful research. Notice the following:
| Quote: |
| Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us ... I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write down an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus. |
How do we then determine whether the creation story was the result of a visionary experience, a direct encounter with the Lord, or perhaps the result of careful research? The best way, I believe is to carefully examine the internal evidence we find in the five books that tradition atributes to Moses, as well as Moses' writing style and habit of crediting his sources.
In the case of Luke, we have already discovered that the Gospel writer specifically atributed his writing to careful investigation. His sources were human. Could it be that Moses' sources for his creation story were also human [his parents, his ancestor's oral tradition, or a record he found in the Egyptian royal library]? Before we attempt to answer this question, we need to clarify one detail that is very relevant:
Did Moses Write the Pentateuch? Jewish tradition states that Moses was the author of the first five books of the Jewish Bible, identified as the Pentateuch. I have no reason to doubt this. Archaeology has demonstrated that alpphabetical writing was available at the time of Moses. As the adopted son of Pharaoh's daughter, he did receive the highest education available at that time, and he had plenty of time to have written those books either himself, or with the assistance of scribes at his command. Not only this, but we have internal evidence that he did write, if not all, perhaps enough material for the final rendition of those books by somebody else:
| Quote: |
| Moses then wrote all the words of the Lord ... Taking the Book of Covenant, he read it aloud to the people ... [Exodus 24:4 & 7]. |
| Quote: |
| Then the Lord said to Moses, 'Write down these words ... So Moses stayed there with the Lord for forty days and forty nights, without eating food or drinking water, and he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the ten commandments ... [Exodus 34:27 & 28]. |
| Quote: |
| Then the Lord said to Moses, 'Write this down in a document as something to be remembered, and recite it in the ears of Joshua, I will completely blot the memory of Amalek.' [Exodus 17:14] |
| Quote: |
| By the Lord's command Moses recorded the starting places of the various stages ... Starting out from Rameses ... [Numbers 33:2 & 5] |
| Quote: |
| When Moses had finished writing out on a scroll the words of the law in their entirety, he gave the Levites who carry the ark of the covenant of the Lord this order: Take this scroll of the law and put it beside the ark of the covenant of the Lord ... [Deuteronomy 31:24-26] |
There is more, but I think this should suffice to support the theory that Moses must have written down, if not the entire content of the Pentateuch, at least sufficient information for the final editor of these books to be able to edit the final rendition of these documents. Those theologians who doubt this, doubt inspiration as well in most cases, and quite often they doubt the providential activity of God.
Did Moses Write the Final Version of the Pentateuch? Nevertheless, my question is: Did Moses write the final rendition of the Pentateuch we are familiar with. To answer this, we need to consider the following statement:
| Quote: |
| The following are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the Israelites ... Bela ... Jobab ... Husham ...Hadad ... Samlah ... Baal-hanan ...Hadar ... [Genesis 36:31-38] |
Here we have the names of eight Edomite kings who reigned before there was a king in Israel. Saul was the first king to reign in Israel. This means that the final version of the book of Genesis must have been written after Saul was crowned as king of the Israelites, and very likely during the reign of David, who was very prolific in writing. My next question is: Since there is a vast data in the book of Genesis, then what was the source of all this information that became available for the person who produced the final rendition of the book of Genesis? Let us examine a few additional statements we find in the same book:
| Quote: |
| This is the record of the descendants of Adam ... [Genesis 5:1] |
| Quote: |
| This is the record of the descendants of Shem ... [Genesis 11:10] |
From these statements made by the final editor of the book of Genesis, we can safely conclude that the writer was relying on some records in existence to him at the time of writing, and we are talking of human records, instead of information made available to him through a visionary experience of direct revelation from God. Thus, on the basis of internal evidence we can safely guess that those records were in existence at the time of the final rendition of this book.
The Role of Research both in Luke and Genesis. Based on the above analysis, we can confidently conclude that both Luke and Genesis were not the result of a visionary experience or a direct divine revelation received from heaven, but rather the fruit of careful research, guided--no doubt--by the Holy Spirit, who inspired the writers both to rely on sacred human records and to edit them in order to make those books available to future generation of worshippers of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
My Humble Conclusion. From all the above, and taking into consideration the undeniable fact that the final editor of the Pentateuch was relying on sacred human records, my humble conclusion is that, although reliable, the final product bears both the imprint of divine inspiration and human frailty. Very likely Moses relied on the human information available to him through the tradition of his ancestors going back all the way to Adam and Eve. Were it not the case, Moses would have--no doubt--have stated that he was relying on a direct revelation from the Lord, like he did thoughout his dealing face to face with the Lord. This means that in the transmission of this sacred tradition some innacuracies might have developed.
Therefore, if science were to discover undeniable proof that the creation of the earth and the heavens did take longer than six literal days, this would not shake my faith in the Creator of everything that exists. Besides, Genesis 1 bears the marks of poetry and drama, and it is not wise to adhere to a literal, word for word, interpretation of such writing styles. We do not interpret literally the poetic message of the sacred material we find in the Bool of the Songs of Solomon, for example. Why should we make an exemption when dealing with Genesis 1?
Does this mean that I doubt that God created life on earth in seven literal days. Not at all, but my faith does not depend on a literal interpretation of Genesis 1. I believe that most likely God did create life on our planet in seven literal days, but I cannot honestly vouch for a 100 hundred percent accuracy of a tradition that was transmitted from generation to generation throughout several centuries of human existence. And, by the way, I do keep the Sabbath because it is one of the Ten Commandments.
The Implications of a Non-Literal
Interpretation of Genesis
by Sean Pitman
I received from Dr. Sean Pitman via E-mail the following response to the above posting:
| Quote: |
|
Dear Nic,
You say that you would continue to be an SDA Christian even if you discovered that life on this planet was not created in 6 literal days? - but rather over millions and even billions of years? Consider the implications of what you are saying:
If God did not create life quickly, but rather chose to use evolutionary mechanisms over extended periods of time, it seems an inescapable conclusion that death and suffering of high level sentient creatures existed for millions upon millions of years before Adam and Eve came along. This goes completely counter to the descriptions of heaven, of the original creation of the Garden of Eden, and even of God that we find listed in the Bible - a God who is not only concerned and troubled over the sufferings of us humans, but also of the animals. The Bible states that the whole of creation travails together in pain until now, but that the old order of things will eventually be done away with - that the Earth will be made new - like it was originally, according to the original plan and purpose for us and our planet.
To argue that life on Earth evolved in any form over millions of years of time is to argue, fundamentally, against Christianity. One simply cannot be a Christian, logically, and hold such a view - a view which strikes at the very root of what the Christian view of God really is. God is seen by Christians, especially SDA Christians, as hating death and suffering - as dying Himself to do away with it. And, we aren't talking about the death of bacteria or orange peels here. We are talking about the death of intelligent sentient animals here - animals with real feelings. Note that Jesus says that God takes notice of the suffering of animals and will hold to account those who abuse his creatures. God even notices when a small sparrow falls and mentioned the animals of Nineveh as worth sparing. Evolution, on the other hand, in any form, even theistic evolution, requires both the death and suffering to sentient beings. The Bible clearly states that this was not the original order of things.
Beyond this, every inspired source that we have says the same thing. If Moses used sources, he used them under divine inspiration - just like Ellen White did. We are also told that Moses did indeed see the whole history of the world, in vision, from Adam till the very end of time. Moses heard the very words of Christ on the cross before Christ ever spoke them. Ellen White tells us that Moses did indeed write the story of Genesis and that he wrote this story under inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Jesus, several of the apostles, as well as other Biblical writers also confirm the Genesis account many times. The literal reading of the entire Genesis story simply cannot be discounted if one wishes to remain an SDA or even a Christian and be rationally consistent at the same time.
If the SDA religion is not actually falsifiable in this manner, that one should never leave it despite any evidence whatsoever, SDAism is worthless in my opinion. A non-falsifiable position is a non-helpful, even irrational, position. Consider that Christianity is supposed to be an "intelligent" religion - a religion based on the "weight of evidence".
Thanks again for all your efforts in this regard and I hope you understand why I take the position that I do.
Sincerely,
Sean
Interpreting Genesis 1by Nic Samojluk
Dear Sean,
I appreciate you taking the time from your busy schedule to respond to my posting. I will try to address several of the points you make. You state:
| Quote: |
Consider the implications of what you are saying ...
|
My answer is: I did! You further say:
| Quote: |
| If God did not create life quickly, but rather chose to use evolutionary mechanisms over extended periods of time... |
First, let me assure you that I believe that God has the power to create quicly anything he wants. To deny this would be equivalent to denying the instant resurrection of Jesus, and the instant resurrection of the saints as described by the Apostle Paul at the time of his second coming. But I need to remind you that a longer creation time frame than six literal days do not necessarily imply the other extreme: the evolution of life over billions of years.
If you take the story of Genesis literally, you have to conclude that this earth, the sun, and the moon were created in six literal days. I doubt that you believe this. If the light from distant galaxies takes millions of years to reach our planet, I conclude that they have existed before the creation of Adam and Eve. This means that I have to exempt at least the stars from a strictly literal reading of Genesis one.
Besides, I am almost ready to exempt the creation of the earth and the heavens from the creation week described in Genesis. My reason is very simple: The sacred record reads:
| Quote: |
| In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters. |
My suspicion is that this portion of the story is not included in the first day of God's creating activity. I think that God's creation of life on planet eartn begins with verse two instead of verse one. The reason is very simple: It is the only way I can reconcile my belief with what science has, I believe, amply demonstrated, namely, that the universe is much older than six or ten thousand years. Do not forget that in verse one the record states that In the beginning ... God created the heavens and the earth, and the heaven includes the stars and galaxies, which you probably would concede are much older than merely a few milleniums!
On top of this, I have the witness of dating experts like Dr. Erv Taylor who believes that the geologic evidence is in favor of a longer age for "dirt". I do believe that the Lord created Adam and Eve with an aparent age of twenty or thirty years, but I doubt that God would create planet earth and the entire universe with an aparent age of millions and billions of years. There would be no purpose in doing so, according to my understanding. Then you continue saying:
| Quote: |
| ... it seems an inescapable conclusion that death and suffering of high level sentient creatures existed for millions upon millions of years before Adam and Eve came along ... |
I think that I detect a tacit assumption behind your reluctance to accept the possibility of life existing on planet earth before the Creation of Adam and Eve, namely your rejection of the notion that suffering and death might have existed prior to Adam's sin and rebellion against God. Of course, this has serious implication for our SDA understanding of God's plan of salvation. I think that I can ease your mind by reminding you that the rebellion against God did not originate on planet earth, but rather in heaven. Sin started not with Adam, but rather with Lucifer.
Notice that verse one says that following the creation of the heavens and the earth the earth was a formless wasteland. My question is: Why was it a formless wasteland? Could it be that when Lucifer was banned from heaven, he was allowed to mess with life on earth? Human scientists think that they eventually might be able to create some form of life from non-living inert matter. If scientists think that someday they might be able to accomplish this, why not consider the possibility that Lucifer, who is probably much more intelligent than human beings, might have messed with life he either created or imported from elsewhere in the universe? I have no reason to negate the possibility that Lucifer might have done this, which would explain the presence of death prior to Adam's sin. Then you further state:
| Quote: |
| If Moses used sources, he used them under divine inspiration - just like Ellen White did. |
I agree. I also accept what Ellen White stated when she said that only God is infallible. If only God is infallible, then it follows that everybody else is fallible, includidng Moses and Ellen White. You remember what happened when Nathan the prophet told David that it was alright for him to build God's temple. He was a prophet of God, nevertheless he was sent by the Lord back to David with a message totally opposite to what he had given the king. I believe that on very serious matters, the Lord makes proper corrections to what prophets declare, but on minor matters he probably does not.
We have evidence that E. White, for example, did make some innaccurate historical statements. Likewise, the Bible contains some erroneus and contradictory assertions. In the Old Testament we discover that God hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and that Pharaoh hardened his heart; that God incited King David to count Israel, and that Satan incited him to do that. In each case only one of those statements is correct, and it follows that the other one must be false.
In the book of Psalms we find some passages that are morally abhorrent like the one saying happy the man who dashes your little one against the rocks. I do not think that God inspired David to say that. This is why Jesus had to correct this when he told us to love our enemies. Then you state the following:
| Quote: |
| Ellen White tells us that Moses did indeed write the story of Genesis and that he wrote this story under inspiration of the Holy Spirit. |
I think I answerd this already. We should not equate inspiration with infallibility. If only God is infallible, it follows that everybody else is fallible, including God's prophets. This is precisely why the Lord had to make so many corrections through the prophets that followed. Do not forget what Jesus meant when he said: Moses told you, but I say ... This means that even Moses, who talked to God face to face, was fallible. Had he been infallible, Jesus would have had no need to correct him. I believe that in matters of salvation, the Lord took the trouble to correct major errors. On minor details there was no need, I believe.
Finally, let me add that Hebrew experts tell me that Genesis one is poetry and drama. You are familiar, I suppose with poetic licenses. In poetry, certain things are permissible, like hyperbole, which means exageration for emphasis. This is why it is not wise to rely entirely on poetry to establish major religious dogma and impose them on the rest of Christiandom.
This is my humble opinion, since I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet.
A Different Perspective Regarding Originby Erv Taylor
Here is a copy of Dr. Erv Taylor's response to Dr. Sean Pitman's answer regarding
this controversial issue:
| Quote: |
|
Dear Sean:
I very much appreciate your statement written in response to Nic with respect to the implications of believing that “life on this planet was not created in 6 literal days—but rather over millions and even billions of years.”
Your evaluation is very helpful because I think it does clearly verbalize the deeply felt concerns of many of our fellow church members as well as that of many conservative Christians in a variety of faith traditions.
From what you have written to Nic, I take that your objections to accepting the reality of long ages in the geologic record are, at their core, theological ones--most importantly, the image God would assume in your understanding if, as you say, the “death and suffering of high level sentient creatures existed for millions upon millions of years before Adam and Eve came along” was a reality.
To you, such a view would be “to argue, fundamentally, against Christianity” since, you suggest, “God is seen by Christians, especially SDA Christians, as hating death and suffering.” You add that “every inspired source” (Bible and Ellen White) says “that death and suffering to sentient beings . . . [were] not the original order of things.” You conclude by insisting that “The literal reading of the entire Genesis story simply cannot be discounted if one wishes to remain an SDA or even a Christian and be rationally consistent at the same time.”
I’m sure you are aware of the tons of ink and paper that have been pressed into service to explore the topics you are addressing. Just one small part of this would be to examine what is meant when you use the word “literal” as in a “literal reading of the entire Genesis story” or “rationally” as in “rationally consistent.”
I might want to suggest that the Genesis account was constructed by its authors and editors to accomplish something very different from how you are employing it. However, such a line of argumentation is in my view not helpful in the present context since the way you wish to understand Genesis is your way and you have every right as a church member to see it in that light.
My only question is to ask you if you would extend that right to other Adventist members who read Genesis from a different perspective and set of assumptions. Given my assumptions, I think that I am “rationally consistent.” I am also an Adventist in good and regular standing who happens to disagree with another Adventist in good and regular standing (you).
The LLU Church (where I have my membership) does not see any purpose in inquiring too closely or not at all as to the theological orthodoxy or lack thereof of its members. Would you not agree that we can both celebrate the maturity that this reflects?
Should Evolution be Taught in SDA Schools?by Sean Pitman
I want to share with the readers of this forum a copy of Sean Pitman's response to Erv Taylor:
|
|
Are the Creation Days Literal 24 Hours Days?
Hey Sean,
I understand now that you are a "young life creationist". Now I have tried to explain in detail, from the Scriptures, why I think that the days of creation are more than literal 24 hour days. It seem that the terms "evening and morning" are basically why you think that they had to be literal. I found something interesting regarding these Hebrew words (as I do not read Hebrew, and rely on other researcher's work for that) here: http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/day.html
-
Not convincing. Consider, for example, that several of the references describe the fact that Jesus arose "in three days" after His death (this is described as rebuilding the temple, but John 2:21,22 clearly states that the temple referred to was Jesus' body and the fulfillment was Jesus' resurrection). Do we believe that Jesus literally arose "in three days," or not? The statement is clearly intended to convey the fact that, before the end of a time span of three literal, consecutive days, the event of Jesus' resurrection had been completed.
-
Add to this the expression "in X days" is used ten times in Scripture. Every time, without exception, it refers to literal days. Never - not once - does it refer to longer periods when used in this particular format. Add to this format the specific qualifier "evenings and mornings" to define a day, and it is very hard to get more specific when it comes to a description of a literal day than that in the Scriptures. To take the two references to creation to be long periods of time would be to argue for a meaning which is entirely foreign to Scripture. To take them to refer to billions of years should simply be incredible to anyone who chooses to take the Bible seriously.
-
As noted below, the 7th-day Sabbath, as noted in the Ten Commandments, affirms this by again noting that God created everything on this planet "in six days". All of these positive statements stand in stark contrast to the complete lack of positive statements to the contrary - - there isn't even a remote suggestion that the days of creation should actually be taken to mean long periods of time. This interpretation is a modern interpretation that was not in existence until the Theory of Evolution became prominent. It is truly an effort to harmonize the otherwise plain meaning of the Scriptural text with modern mainstream assumptions of science.
-
You may still feel that because the Hebrews had a seven day week, this must mean that the seven days of creation are literal. However, consider this: The history of a weekly 24-hour sabbath observance begins with the nation of Israel in the wilderness in the second month after their Exodus from Egypt in 1513 B.C.E. (Ex 16:1) God had told Moses that the miraculous provision of the manna would be double on the sixth day. When this proved true, the chieftains of the assembly reported the matter to Moses and then the arrangement for the weekly Sabbath was announced. (Ex 16:22, 23) That Israel was obligated from that time forward is shown by Jehovah's words at Exodus 16:28, 29.
-
The 7-day weekly cycle started well before Moses came on the scene. It most certainly did not start, like you suggest, during the Exodus.
-
That the Sabbath was not enjoined upon any of God's servants until after the Exodus is evident from the testimony of Deuteronomy 5:2, 3 and Exodus 31:16, 17: "It was not with our forefathers that Jehovah concluded this covenant, but with us." "The sons of Israel must keep the sabbath . . . during their generations. . . . Between me and the sons of Israel it is a sign to time indefinite." If Israel had already been observing the Sabbath, it could not have served as a reminder of their deliverance from Egypt by Jehovah, as shown at Deuteronomy 5:15. The fact that some of the Israelites went out to pick up manna on the seventh day, in spite of direct instruction to the contrary, indicates that Sabbath observance was something new.. (Ex 16:11-30) That there was uncertainty in handling the case of the first recorded Sabbath breaker after the Law had been given at Sinai also shows that the Sabbath had only recently been instituted. (Nu 15:32-36) While in Egypt the Israelites, being slaves, could not have kept the Sabbath even if they had been under such law at the time. Pharaoh complained that Moses was interfering even when he asked for a three-day period to make a sacrifice to God. How much more so if the Israelites had tried to rest one day out of every seven. (Ex 5:1-5) While it is true that the patriarchs apparently measured time in a week of seven days, there is no evidence that any distinction was made as to the seventh day. Seven was prominent, however, as a number that often denoted completeness. (Ge 4:15, 23, 24; 21:28-32) The Hebrew word "swear" (sha‧va‛’) is evidently from the same root as thhe word meaning "seven."
-
You forget that the Sabbath was instituted at creation as the holy seventh day.
By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done (Gen 2:2,3).
Because of this, the Sabbath was given as a blessing to all mankind, not just the Israelites. It is just that much of mankind has forgotten this original commandment. The Jews also, during their captivity, could not keep the Sabbath over their 400 years of bondage in Egypt and therefore forgot the Sabbath commandment, to a large degree, over that time.
The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath". (Mark 2:27)
It was also not just made for the Jews.
-
Furthermore, the weekly Sabbath was made an integral part of a system of sabbaths when the Law covenant was formally inaugurated at Mount Sinai a short time later. (Ex 19:1; 20:8-10; 24:5-8) This sabbatical system was composed of many types of sabbaths: the 7th day, the 7th year, the 50th year (Jubilee year), Nisan 14 (Passover), Nisan 15, Nisan 21, Sivan 6 (Pentecost), Ethanim 1, Ethanim 10 (Atonement Day), Ethanim 15, and Ethanim 22. So we can see here, that the Law Covenant was a pattern, not that it necessarily indicated that the days of creation were literal. For instance, how do we know they weren't the 7-year lengths of time, or the 50-year lengths of time of the Jubilee? We don't, as the Law Covenant was a representation of unseen realities.
-
The weekly Sabbath was held in higher esteem than all of the other "Sabbaths" of Jewish law. It is the only Sabbath mentioned in the Ten Commandments - the "Moral Law" written by God himself "with His own finger". In this special command, God specifically says that the Sabbath is a memorial of creation, a creation that was created "in six days" with God's rest from the act of creation "on the seventh-day."
"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." (Ex. 20:11).
Again, it is hard to get much more specific than that.
It is also interesting that the Sabbath Day was not enjoined upon Christians. Jesus, being a Jew under the Law, observed the Sabbath as God's Word (not the Pharisees) directed. He knew it was lawful to do fine things on the Sabbath. (Mt 12:12) However, the inspired Christian writings state that "Christ is the end of the Law" (Ro 10:4), which results in Christians' being "discharged from the Law." (Ro 7:6) Neither Jesus nor his disciples made any distinction between so-called moral and ceremonial laws. They quoted from the other parts of the Law as well as from the Ten Commandments and considered all of it equally binding on those under the Law. (Mt 5:21-48; 22:37-40; Ro 13:8-10; Jas 2:10, 11) The Scriptures plainly state that Christ's sacrifice "abolished . . . the Law of commandments consisting in decrees" and that God "blotted out the handwritten document against us, which consisted of decrees . . .. and He has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the torture stake." It was the complete Mosaic Law that was "abolished," "blotted out," taken "out of the way." (Eph 2:13-15; Col 2:13, 14) Consequently, the whole system of Sabbaths, be they days or years, was brought to its end with the rest of the Law by the sacrifice of Christ Jesus. This explains why Christians can esteem "one day as all others," whether it be a sabbath or any other day, with no fear of judgment by another. (Ro 14:4-6; Col 2:16) Paul made the following expression concerning those scrupulously observing "days and months and seasons and years": "I fear for you, that somehow I have toiled to no purpose respecting you."—Ga 4:10, 11..
-
The ceremonial laws were "fulfilled" by the life and death of Jesus because they were a "shadow of things that were to come". (Col. 2:17). The moral law, i.e., the Ten Commandments, are not a shadow of anything to come - unless you mean their perfect demonstration in the life and death of Jesus? That perfect demonstration doesn't do away with the binding nature of the moral law over us. It only magnifies the position of the moral law and makes its importance even more clear and emphatic. It is just that the power of God is the only power available to us that can enable us to actually keep the moral law perfectly - like Jesus kept it. Therefore, since it is God that works in us to "will and to do" of his good pleasure in keeping the Royal Law (i.e., same as the moral law), we have no room to boast about being good people as Christians or servants of God. All the credit for any goodness that might be found within us goes to God.
-
After the death of Christ, St. John says that the love of Jesus is expressed in the keeping of His commandments. Which commandments? John says that "we have had the commandments from the beginning". He is not talking about anything new here. John must be thinking of the Ten Commandments or the Royal Law of God which are none other than love to God and to man.
Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of god is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. He who says he abides in Him ought also to walk just as he walked. Brethren, I write no new commandment to you, but an old commandment which you have had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which you heard from the beginning. (1 John 2: 3 - 7 & 5: 2, 3)
These Ten Commandments make up the eternal moral law; an expression of the eternal "Royal Law" of Love to both God and man. In fact, there would be no sin without the moral law. It would be impossible to tell the difference between right and wrong without it. Paul himself writes about this in the following passages of Romans 7:
Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."
So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.
That is why the moral law was written by God's own finger on tablets of stone - as a symbol of its permanence. Jesus did not come to destroy the moral law, but to "magnify the law and make it honorable" (Isaiah 42:21) and emphasize its importance to the order of the heavenly government. That is why it is also referred to as the "Royal Law" (James 2:8). That is why it will always be wrong to steal, murder, covet, give false witness against one's neighbor, etc.
-
As far as the Sabbath commandment being observed by the early Christian Church, there is overwhelming evidence that it was - to include the apostles themselves. (see Link)
-
Jesus also predicted and recommend its observance for a time many years after his own death and resurrection. In discussing the future of the world, and of the destruction of Jerusalem some 35 years following his own death, Christ Himself says that the Sabbath should be observed. Why would He say these things if the Sabbath would be done away with by His death? It is obvious that the Sabbath He is talking about here is the Sabbath of the Ten Commandments.
Pray that your flight will not take place in the winter or on the Sabbath. (Matt. 24:20)
Why would Jesus ask the future Christians to pray such a prayer if they would no longer be observing the Sabbath as a memorial of Creation?
After Jesus' death, his apostles at no time commanded Sabbath observance. The Sabbath was not included as a Christian requirement at Acts 15:28, 29, or later. Nor did they institute a new sabbath, a "day of the Lord." Even though Jesus was resurrected on the day now called Sunday, nowhere does the Bible indicate that this day of his resurrection should be commemorated as a "new" sabbath or in any other way.
-
That's true - because the old Sabbath was still in force. The reason why a great deal of time was not given to discussing it in the post-Gospel books of the New Testament is because it is taken as a given. No one argued about it because everyone already agreed. Jesus himself rested on the Sabbath day after his death on the Cross on Friday afternoon. He respected the Sabbath even in death. If it was no longer in force after his death, shouldn't he be the very first to demonstrate its obsolescence?
-
First Corinthians 16:2 and Acts 20:7 have been appealed to by some as a basis for observing Sunday as a sabbath. However, the former text merely indicates that Paul instructed Christians to lay aside in their homes for their needy brothers at Jerusalem a certain amount each first day of the week. The money was not to be turned in at their place of meeting but was to be retained until Paul's arrival. As for the latter text, it was only logical that Paul would meet with the brothers in Troas on the first day of the week, since he was leaving the very next day.
-
Exactly . . .
-
From the foregoing it is clear that literal observance of Sabbath days and years was not a part of first-century Christianity. It was not until 321 C.E. that Constantine decreed Sunday (Latin: dies Solis, an old title associated with astrology and sun worship, not Sabbatum [Sabbath] or dies Domini [Lord's day]) to be a day of rest for all but the farmers.
-
Again, you are mistaken here. You need to do a bit more research into the history of Sabbath observance by the early Christian Church. To start off, perhaps you'd be interested in the following ( Link).
-
But what about the command to "enter into God's rest"? According to Genesis 2:2, 3, following the sixth creative day, or period, God "proceeded to rest on the seventh day," desisting from creative works with respect to the earth, as described in Genesis chapter 1.
The apostle Paul shows in Hebrews, chapters 3 and 4, that the Jews in the wilderness failed to enter into God's rest, or sabbath, because of disobedience and lack of faith. (Heb 3:18, 19; Ps 95:7-11; Nu 14:28-35) Those who did enter the Promised Land under Joshua experienced a rest, but not the full rest to be enjoyed under the Messiah. It was only typical, or a shadow of the reality. (Jos 21:44; Heb 4:8; 10:1) However, Paul explains, "there remains a sabbath resting for the people of God." (Heb 4:9)
-
Yes. But, did you miss Hebrews 4:4? - where Paul specifically notes that this Sabbath rest is designated to take place on "the seventh-day".
-
It is always interesting to me to note that no one has any problem upholding any of the Ten Commandments of the moral law - except for the 4th commandment. Why do you think that might be?
-
Those who are obedient and exercise faith in Christ thereby enjoy "a sabbath resting" from their "own works," works by means of which they formerly sought to prove themselves righteous. (Compare Ro 10:3.) Thus Paul shows that God's sabbath, or rest, was still continuing in his day and Christians were entering into it, indicating that God's rest day is thousands of years long.—Heb 4:3, 6, 10. Again, the internal biblicall evidence indicates that the creative days were not literal 24-hour periods in length, but possibly hundreds, or even thousands, of years long. Now notice that I say "possibly", as I am not going to be dogmatic on this, however, again, it seems to be more in harmony with various types of scientific evidence, than for them to be literal 24-hour days.
-
You confuse the symbolism Paul is trying to explain regarding the work of God on man's behalf vs. the vain efforts of man on his own behalf. This has nothing to do with the fact that the commandment to keep the seventh-day Sabbath rest, as a memorial of creation and God's creative power to create the physical as well as recreate the moral creature, has been and will always been in force for all mankind.
From one New Moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, all mankind will come and bow down before me," says the LORD. (Isaiah 66:23)
Similarly, while on earth, Jesus Christ referred to himself as "Lord of the sabbath.." (Mt 12:8) The literal Sabbath day, which was meant to bring the Israelites relief from their labors, was "a shadow of the things to come, but the reality belongs to the Christ." (Col 2:16, 17)
-
The weekly Sabbath was not just a shadow or symbol of the rest the soul may find in God, but was and always will be a reminder of God's creative power of the original creation as well. That is why it is not just a shadow that was fulfilled in the life and death of Jesus, but is a memorial as well - an everlasting memorial and sign of God's power and authority. The Sabbath Commandment is the only commandment of the 10 that contains the Seal of God (i.e., Name, Title, and Dominion).
-
In connection with those "things to come," there is a sabbath of which Jesus is to be the Lord. As Lord of lords, Christ will rule all the earth for a thousand years. (Re 19:16; 20:6) During his earthly ministry, Jesus performed some of his most outstanding miraculous works on the Sabbath. (Lu 13:10-13; Joh 5:5-9; 9:1-14) This evidently shows the kind of relief that he will bring as he raises mankind to spiritual and physical perfection during his coming Millennial Rule, which thus will be like a period of sabbath rest for the earth and mankind.—Re 21:1-4.
-
That's true, but it won't do away with the observance of the weekly Sabbath for mankind.
-
It should also be noted that God had warned Adam that if he disobediently ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad he would positively die "in the day" of his eating. (Gen. 2:17) True to God's word, on the very day of Adam's sinning God called the transgressors to account and pronounced sentence of death. The punishment was inescapable. Judicially, from God's standpoint, Adam and Eve died that day. (Compare Luke 20:37, 38.) But so as to carry out his own stated purpose regarding the populating of the earth, Jehovah allowed them to produce a family before they literally died. Nevertheless, from the standpoint of God's viewing 1,000 years as one day, when Adam's life ended at 930 years, this was within one "day." (Gen. 5:3-5; compare Psalm 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8.) Thus Jehovah's truthfulness was upheld as to the time when punishment would be executed, and his purpose to populate the earth with Adam's offspring was not thwarted.
-
This argument doesn't follow. God has to speak to us in our own language if we are to be expected to understand what he is talking about. The statement that 1000 years is like a day to God only means that God does not live in our space-time continuum, but is "outside of time". Our time is does not restrain or contain God. That's all it means.
-
And, if God had not stepped in immediately with an offer of substitution, Adam would have instantly died when he decided to rebel against the only source of life. He separated himself from the source of life and would therefore have died had God not made provision with the promise to trade his own life for the life of mankind.
-
Adam died spiritually in an instant and would have died physically in the same instant as well. It is only through the death of Christ that we are provided time to gain an additional appreciation of God to be healed spiritually and eventually to be healed physically as well.
-
I find this last paragraph particularly pertinent to our discusion, because you have said that we cannot necessarily take the "1,000 years as one day" literally. However, it seems that in Adam's case it is literal, as it is in Jesus' Millennial Reign, that constitutes Judgment Day. It seems reasonable, then, to believe, that even if each day was not a literal 1,000 years, it could still be a relatively long time, as indicated also by a study of the Sabbath.
-
Again, you confuse areas where literal interpretation are clear with those areas that given clear internal evidence of their symbolic meaning. You simply can't do that with the Bible. You can't simply decide what must be symbolic and what must be literal yourself. You have to consider the author's view and how he presents the text - in a literal or symbolic manner?
-
Hope this explains my position better,
-
Likewise . . .
-
Sean
-
P.S.: I don't have time right now to address this, but I will soon address some more questions on the Flood, and animal suffering. As I think I may have given an unclear explanation of my position.
-
That's fine. Take your time . . .
-
 Free Mailing List Club!
If you would like to be on our SDA Forum Mailing List, please take a minute to sign up today and join hundreds of others who have done already so. It is free, and you will have the choice of unsuscribing at will. We do not share, nor do we sell your E-mail to others.
|
