Last year my wife wrote an outstanding article on the Sabbath for Proclamation! magazine. As you might expect we received responses from readers, including some that were articulate in their reasons for disagreeing with the article. I wanted to review some of the common, articulate objections to the article along with our responses for the benefit or all readers. This post continues with responses to the common objections we received (part 3 of 4). You may read part 1 in this article and part 2 in this article.
Objection:
“The Sabbath applies to everyone because Jesus told us that ‘the Sabbath was made for man’ in Mark 2:27.”
Scripture:
Mark 2:27 And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
Response:
SDAs routinely leave off the second half of Mark 2:27 and do not even indicate in their citation that they are only quoting the first half of the verse (certainly most serious students of Scripture are aware of the practice of using citations like Mark 2:27a). The rest of the verse, and the surrounding context, greatly change the perception of what this must mean.
Mark 2:23-27 And it happened that He was passing through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples began to make their way along while picking the heads of grain. The Pharisees were saying to Him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” And He said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and his companions became hungry; how he entered the house of God in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the consecrated bread, which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests, and he also gave it to those who were with him?” Jesus said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.
Rather than discussing to whom the Sabbath command applies, as SDAs assert, Jesus is discussing why the commands regarding the day are not to be enforced on His disciples. His disciples were picking heads of grain on the Sabbath. The Pharisees accused them of breaking the Sabbath laws. Notice how Jesus defends their actions. He compares the action with a law that even SDAs acknowledge is ceremonial in nature in order to show that the hunger needs of man supersede “ceremonial” law. Then He concludes that, like this ceremonial law, the Sabbath law doesn’t supersede the basic needs, even hunger, of man because the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Man is more important than the “ceremonial” day.
Objection:
“Jesus said ‘the Sabbath was made for man’ in Mark 2:27. It was therefore given to Adam and Eve in the beginning. This is a logical deduction and requires no other proof.”
Scripture:
Mark 2:27 And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.”
Response:
This critic concluded that the Sabbath was given to Adam and Eve in the beginning based on the critic’s own reasoning and assumptions. There is nothing in the statement that Sabbath was made for man that would suggest when it was given to man. To jump to the conclusion that Adam and Eve were commanded to keep the Sabbath is an assumption, not a logical deduction. Furthermore, there is no Biblical record supporting this assumption; there is no Biblical record of any person keeping the Sabbath prior to the Exodus.
Objection:
“Exodus 5:5 demonstrates that the Sabbath existed prior to the Exodus. ‘Pharaoh complained to Moses, You make [the people] rest for their burdens!’ Satan, thru Egypt, had tried to destroy the 7th Day rest thru perpetual labor, like we do today! Moses had reminded the people of the need and responsibility of Sabbath rest.”
Scripture:
Ex 5:1-5 Afterward Moses and Aaron went and said to Pharaoh, “Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, ‘Let my people go, that they may hold a feast to me in the wilderness.’” But Pharaoh said, “Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice and let Israel go? I do not know the LORD, and moreover, I will not let Israel go.” Then they said, “The God of the Hebrews has met with us. Please let us go a three days’ journey into the wilderness that we may sacrifice to the LORD our God, lest he fall upon us with pestilence or with the sword.” But the king of Egypt said to them, “Moses and Aaron, why do you take the people away from their work? Get back to your burdens.” And Pharaoh said, “Behold, the people of the land are now many, and you make them rest from their burdens!”
Response:
SDAs present Ex 5:5 as proof of Sabbath observance prior to the Exodus, because it includes the word “rest”. But a quick look at the surrounding verses shows how incorrect this is. Pharaoh was responding to the request for a week off to journey into the wilderness and sacrifice. This has nothing to do with the Sabbath once you read the entire paragraph.
Objection:
“Paul shows that the Sabbath was for Gentiles in Acts 13:42-44.”
Scripture:
Acts 13:42-44 As they went out, the people begged that these things might be told them the next Sabbath. And after the meeting of the synagogue broke up, many Jews and devout converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas, who, as they spoke with them, urged them to continue in the grace of God. The next Sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord
Response:
Acts 13:42-44 does not contain any command or instruction about the Sabbath. It merely reports that Paul went to the best gathering of Jewish people in the city, the Sabbath meeting at the synagogue, and proclaimed Christ. His teaching was so popular that even non-Jews came to hear what He had to say.
Objection:
“James says that ‘whosoever shall keep the whole law, & yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all’ (James 2:10-11). He is talking to Christians about the law of the Sabbath. So why is the Sabbath not commanded for Christians?”
Scripture:
James 2:10-11 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.
Response:
James 2:10-11 is a very interesting verse. The church is being chastised for showing favoritism. James says that by breaking the law in showing favoritism, they are guilty of breaking the whole law. One could conclude, with some twisting, that breaking the law of favoritism was breaking the Ten Commandments or one could conclude that the point James is making is that there are no levels of sin. Some sins aren’t worse than others when it comes to God’s view of our act. Do not murder and do not steal are commands that are specifically given to Believers in the New Testament. The Sabbath is not, nor is it mentioned here. To conclude that this is talking about the Sabbath is assuming your conclusion without evidence.
Examining the immediate context further is even more revealing. Verses 8-9 tell us what Law is being transgressed here,
“If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself,’ you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.”
By showing partiality, James says that they violated the law to “Love you neighbor as yourself”.
Objection:
Scripture:
Ex 24:3, 7 3Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord and all the rules.[a] And all the people answered with one voice and said, “All the words that the Lord has spoken we will do.” 7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it in the hearing of the people. And they said, “All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient.”
Response:
The Mosaic Law, including the 10 commandments, were the Old Covenant according to:
- Ex 24:7 states the written book of laws is the “Book of the Covenant”.
- Heb 9:17-20 cites Moses declaring that the Law was the covenant that was established with blood.
- Heb 9:4 speaks about the tables of the covenant within the ark of the covenant. What tables (or tablets) were in the ark of the covenant?
- Ex 34:28 calls the Ten Commandments the “words of the covenant”.
- Gal 4:24 says that the Old Covenant was given at Sinai. Isn’t that also a clear reference to the Ten Commandments?
The evidence pointing to the Law itself as the covenant is overwhelming. You cannot deny this without denying the clear testimony of Scripture, both OT and NT.
Next time, in part 4, I will conclude our responses to objections received.
- Our Journey Out of Adventism - July 27, 2023
- 30. Adventism’s New Earth - July 27, 2023
- 29. The Adventist Millennium - July 20, 2023