From my recent posts (here) and (here) discussing the clear distinction between what takes place at the synagogue versus what takes place at the Temple, it has led me to consider the Seventh Day Adventist's claims about the Sabbath. One of the SDA's central accusations is that the Catholic Church allegedly "changed God's day of worship from Saturday to Sunday". But if "worship" wasn't taking place on Saturday (particularly not at the synagogue) then the SDA's entire foundation is obviously deeply problematic.
First, let's consider the Seventh Day Adventist official website's Fundamental Belief #20 "The Sabbath" (here), and the parts which I think need to be highlighted:
The gracious Creator, after the six days of Creation, rested on the seventh day and instituted the Sabbath for all people as a memorial of Creation. The fourth commandment of God’s unchangeable law requires the observance of this seventh-day Sabbath as the day of rest, worship, and ministry in harmony with the teaching and practice of Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath. (Gen. 2:1-3; Exod. 20:8-11; 31:13-17; Lev. 23:32; Deut. 5:12-15; Isa. 56:5, 6; 58:13, 14; Ezek. 20:12, 20; Matt. 12:1-12; Mark 1:32; Luke 4:16; Heb. 4:1-11.)Notice that throughout their doctrinal explanation the SDAs use the word "worship" with regards to the Sabbath and the 4th Commandment ("Keep the Sabbath"). But what if terminology like "worship" is never to be found in any of these Biblical passages they cite as their primary proof texts, especially the 4th Commandment? That would be deeply embarrassing.
The Sabbath is a day of rest, reflection, enjoyment and worship for God’s people. It dates back to the seventh day of the creation week, when God stopped His work and took time to rest and savor it.
When God rested on the seventh day, He set for us an example. He gave the weekly Sabbath as a day of rest and worship for all of mankind.“He shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall think to change the times and the law…” Daniel 7:25
When Jesus lived here on earth He kept the seventh day Sabbath. However, just a few hundred years after His death and resurrection, early Christians began keeping Sunday as their day of worship just as Daniel foretold.
The change of the Sabbath as the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday happened in the year 321 A.D. The Roman Emperor Constantine issued a decree that all Christians were to begin observing Sunday as a day of rest.
[Seventh Day Adventists] decided they would begin to keep the biblical Sabbath even though most churches worshipped on Sunday. Keeping the 4th commandment became a distinctive part of their [SDA] worship.
You can look at all twelve proof texts they have cited above (here). Notice that the language of "rest" and "do no work" appears multiple times. Yet, nowhere does the term "worship" or related language appear in any of these passages. This is kind of a big deal. From the outset, it looks as if the Seventh Day Adventists went around inserting or projecting the idea of "worship" onto the Sabbath day, when in reality the Bible only sees the Sabbath as a time of "resting". How could they make such a blunder?
My theory is the SDAs made this serious blunder because they had originally bought into the Protestant idea of "worship" as taking place in the synagogue, namely a glorified Bible study led by a professor (as opposed to a Sacrificial Offering by a priest, as in Catholicism). The Protestant mind is conditioned to read all the Biblical passages of Jesus and the Apostles "visiting the synagogue on the Sabbath" as to mean Jesus and the Apostles attended the Jewish weekly worship service. But if the synagogue was never about "worship," as I've clearly shown in the prior posts, then Jesus and the Apostles couldn't have been attending a weekly worship service by simply visiting the synagogue. This is kind of a big deal.
Obviously, this is so severe of problem for the SDA position that the SDAs will likely have to scramble to save face. I wasn't really able to find other people discussing this from my Google searches, but I'm sure other people have brought this up. I think it needs to be made more well known. I've presented this conundrum to some SDAs already and they've been totally caught off guard. The only proof text they've been able to offer me is Leviticus 23:3, "Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation. You shall do no work. It is a Sabbath to the Lord in all your dwelling places." Their claim is that "holy convocation" means "gathering to worship," but that just begs the question. We aren't given any details on what "holy convocation" means, but the text says "you shall do no work," again emphasizing the rest aspect. The way it is used in the chapter it suggests it is tied to resting as a community, everyone on the same page with ceasing from work.
But let's say the SDA wanted to insist it means more. Well, we know they gathered at the synagogue, so we could possibly say that is a "holy convocation," but we already know the synagogue wasn't gathering to worship, so again this is all just insufficient evidence for the SDA. It is important to keep in mind that I'm arguing from an exegetical perspective here, meaning that if we're trying to stick with the Biblical text as closely as possible, then we cannot make too many assumptions, especially if they are dogmatic. We know that the Israelites gathered in different ways, including the leaders of the tribes gathering to meet, or the heads of the homes, so even these "holy convocations" do not logically amount to literally everyone got together to worship. Further, the language of "holy convocation" appears multiple times in regards to the other feasts (Lev 23:8, 24, 27, 36), where worship/sacrifice instructions are given, so we cannot just assume worship instructions if these details aren't given in 23:3.
This raises another interesting point, which is that if these Levitical commandments are to disappear when the Mosaic Law ends, then it would logically strip away any worship regulations within the same chapter. The SDAs are fond of interpreting Col 2:16-17 as the ceremonial worship regulations of the Mosaic Law, but then if those vanish then what are the new regulations? You can't say gather in "holy convocation" per Lev 23:3 and then turn around and say the remaining verses of Lev 23 are no longer binding. This raises another point. How do we celebrate the Sabbath? The SDAs are kind of inconsistent here, because while they say the Sabbath remains eternal, none of the legally binding regulations on how it is kept are binding. So the SDAs are stuck making up their own rules, which is obviously highly problematic. They have two pitfalls: any dogmatic rules about how to celebrate (besides just resting) would basically be a blatant tradition of men; while any 'highly suggested' rules on celebrating would basically admit the Sabbath isn't really that binding anymore. So they're stuck, even if they don't want to admit it.
On a side note, it seems that historically the Jews could attend synagogue on other days of the week (e.g. Lk 13:14). But attending the synagogue on non-Saturdays is strange if the point was about a unique day of worship, because by attending other days they are worshiping/resting on non-commanded days It is especially ironic how the SDAs and other Protestants will often formally gather on Wednesday nights for fellowship, even though this isn't instructed in Scripture, and they will chalk it up to "it's a good idea to do so". Interesting how for SDAs worship on Sunday is an abomination, but worship on Wednesday nights is somehow kosher.
Lastly, I would bet that the typical devout SDA "observing" the Sabbath is greatly conflicted by the amount of traveling, food prep, spending time away from the home, etc, they do on most Saturdays. There are some Sundays where I'm honestly tired and wish I could sleep in, but I get up because it is a duty and I know it's good for me. If Mass is at 10am, then I must get up around 8am, and that likewise means I don't get back home until early afternoon. There goes most of my Sunday and I've not really taken any personal time to rest. But this just demonstrates that worship takes effort, while resting does not. The irony here is that most Christians do have Saturdays off from work, which is the day they do sleep in, rest, take it easy, etc. Thus, Christians are the real ones who rest on Saturday, and worship on Sunday. Meanwhile, the SDAs don't really get to rest on Saturday, and they "worship" when they aren't supposed to!
By falsely turning the Sabbath into the day of worship means that the SDAs have actually invented new theology, namely adding to God's Commandments, and then blaming Catholics for "breaking" what are actually SDA false teachings. If the Sabbath never commands "worship" to be done on it, then we must actually conclude the Seventh Day Adventists changed the Sabbath and are actually guilty of their (embarrassing) reading of Daniel 7:25!
Obviously, this is so severe of problem for the SDA position that the SDAs will likely have to scramble to save face. I wasn't really able to find other people discussing this from my Google searches, but I'm sure other people have brought this up. I think it needs to be made more well known. I've presented this conundrum to some SDAs already and they've been totally caught off guard. The only proof text they've been able to offer me is Leviticus 23:3, "Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation. You shall do no work. It is a Sabbath to the Lord in all your dwelling places." Their claim is that "holy convocation" means "gathering to worship," but that just begs the question. We aren't given any details on what "holy convocation" means, but the text says "you shall do no work," again emphasizing the rest aspect. The way it is used in the chapter it suggests it is tied to resting as a community, everyone on the same page with ceasing from work.
But let's say the SDA wanted to insist it means more. Well, we know they gathered at the synagogue, so we could possibly say that is a "holy convocation," but we already know the synagogue wasn't gathering to worship, so again this is all just insufficient evidence for the SDA. It is important to keep in mind that I'm arguing from an exegetical perspective here, meaning that if we're trying to stick with the Biblical text as closely as possible, then we cannot make too many assumptions, especially if they are dogmatic. We know that the Israelites gathered in different ways, including the leaders of the tribes gathering to meet, or the heads of the homes, so even these "holy convocations" do not logically amount to literally everyone got together to worship. Further, the language of "holy convocation" appears multiple times in regards to the other feasts (Lev 23:8, 24, 27, 36), where worship/sacrifice instructions are given, so we cannot just assume worship instructions if these details aren't given in 23:3.
This raises another interesting point, which is that if these Levitical commandments are to disappear when the Mosaic Law ends, then it would logically strip away any worship regulations within the same chapter. The SDAs are fond of interpreting Col 2:16-17 as the ceremonial worship regulations of the Mosaic Law, but then if those vanish then what are the new regulations? You can't say gather in "holy convocation" per Lev 23:3 and then turn around and say the remaining verses of Lev 23 are no longer binding. This raises another point. How do we celebrate the Sabbath? The SDAs are kind of inconsistent here, because while they say the Sabbath remains eternal, none of the legally binding regulations on how it is kept are binding. So the SDAs are stuck making up their own rules, which is obviously highly problematic. They have two pitfalls: any dogmatic rules about how to celebrate (besides just resting) would basically be a blatant tradition of men; while any 'highly suggested' rules on celebrating would basically admit the Sabbath isn't really that binding anymore. So they're stuck, even if they don't want to admit it.
On a side note, it seems that historically the Jews could attend synagogue on other days of the week (e.g. Lk 13:14). But attending the synagogue on non-Saturdays is strange if the point was about a unique day of worship, because by attending other days they are worshiping/resting on non-commanded days It is especially ironic how the SDAs and other Protestants will often formally gather on Wednesday nights for fellowship, even though this isn't instructed in Scripture, and they will chalk it up to "it's a good idea to do so". Interesting how for SDAs worship on Sunday is an abomination, but worship on Wednesday nights is somehow kosher.
Lastly, I would bet that the typical devout SDA "observing" the Sabbath is greatly conflicted by the amount of traveling, food prep, spending time away from the home, etc, they do on most Saturdays. There are some Sundays where I'm honestly tired and wish I could sleep in, but I get up because it is a duty and I know it's good for me. If Mass is at 10am, then I must get up around 8am, and that likewise means I don't get back home until early afternoon. There goes most of my Sunday and I've not really taken any personal time to rest. But this just demonstrates that worship takes effort, while resting does not. The irony here is that most Christians do have Saturdays off from work, which is the day they do sleep in, rest, take it easy, etc. Thus, Christians are the real ones who rest on Saturday, and worship on Sunday. Meanwhile, the SDAs don't really get to rest on Saturday, and they "worship" when they aren't supposed to!
By falsely turning the Sabbath into the day of worship means that the SDAs have actually invented new theology, namely adding to God's Commandments, and then blaming Catholics for "breaking" what are actually SDA false teachings. If the Sabbath never commands "worship" to be done on it, then we must actually conclude the Seventh Day Adventists changed the Sabbath and are actually guilty of their (embarrassing) reading of Daniel 7:25!
 |
| Seventh Day Adventist church advertising their Wednesday night "prayer fellowship" even though this isn't the Sabbath Day and six days you're supposed to work. Many SDAs have mid-week "prayer fellowship" gatherings. |
6 comments:
Good discussion that begs the question: did the ancient jews even had a weekly day of worship together before the exile? From what i can see on the OT they mostly got together on the feast days and only did sacrifices on the days required, after sinning or on important ocasions.
As you mentioned before, the saturday sinagogue started precisely because they could not worship anymore after losing the temple.
It is a very fascinating thing to consider. We are so 'indoctrinated' into how things are now that we project it back onto the OT. It is very possible the Israelites did not have a 'weekly day of worship' as we think of it, e.g., going to church to worship on Sunday. The evidence seems to suggest No, and thus the SDA entire foundation is completely erroneous.
"There are some Sundays where I'm honestly tired and wish I could sleep in, but I get up because it is a duty and I know it's good for me. If Mass is at 10am, then I must get up around 8am, and that likewise means I don't get back home until early afternoon."
This seems odd to me; I can understand having to get up around 8am if you want to give yourself a lot of time to get ready and such (such as showering), but why would you only be back home in the early afternoon? Your typical mass lasts an hour, maybe even if it's a bit longer than that, it should give you 45 or more minutes to drive back home before it becomes noon. Do you just live really far from your church?
My parish has good community time after Mass, including lunch in the parish hall. It is important for Catholics to spend time together after Mass instead of just rushing back home.
I want to add on to the "holy convocation" thing some more because someone brought it up today against me. I looked into the term more deeply and it more specifically means "to call out" or "to proclaim" (see link below). Thus, the "holy convocation" could simply mean "holy announcement," kind of like issuing a public proclamation that the Sabbath is tomorrow so everyone needs to prepare for it. If that is the case, then "gathering" isn't even the main focus. The English term "convocation" could be implying more than what the Hebrew is suggesting. Or the "convocation" could be more focused on gathering for a family meal.
Numbers 10:2 says Moses commanded 2 special trumpets be made to "call out" to the tribes when to assemble or when to journey. So again the focus might be more on the 'announcing' and less on the 'assembling' itself. Nehemiah 8:8 says that the prophet 'called out' the meaning of the Scriptures he just read, which again isn't about assembling. The frequent need to 'announce' that tomorrow is a special day, especially of legally required rest, is a big deal in that it is a sacred duty to rest and people can easily forget or make excuses. The Greek term used in the LXX and NT is the term "called," which even less emphasizes the "gathering" aspect.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h4744/esv/wlc/0-1/
Looking into the "convocation" of Lev 23:3 more, it does seem like "calling out" is most specifically about "calling people to assemble," as it is used in parallel passages "solemn assembly" (e.g. Lev 23:36 for Booths; Deut 16:8 for Passover). I am not seeing any evidence this means "each person go to their local synagogue," as the synagogue system did not exist until after Babylon, and the "assembly" indicated is for everyone to gather as one united body (whether heads of tribes or literally every individual).
Post a Comment