Sabbath: The Controversy
Image © Pacific Press from GoodSalt.com
Read for This Week’s Study: Heb. 8:6, Matt. 19:17, Rev. 12:17, Leviticus 23, Acts 15:1-29, Gal. 1:1-12.
Memory Text: “The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (John 1:17).
The early church was composed mostly of Jews who never for a moment thought that by accepting the Jewish Messiah, Jesus,
they were somehow turning away from the faith of their fathers or the covenant promises that God had made to His people. As it turns out, they were right. The issue for the early Jewish believers was whether or not Jews had to become Christians in order to accept Jesus. The other issue for many of them was whether Gentiles had to become Jews before they could accept Christ.
Only later, in the Jerusalem Council, was there a firm answer. They made the decision not to trouble the Gentiles with a host of regulations and laws. That is, Gentiles didn’t need to become Jews first in order to accept Jesus.
Despite the decision, however, some teachers continued to plague the churches by insisting that Gentile converts to the faith were required to keep these rules and laws, including circumcision (not exactly a procedure that would make joining Christianity particularly appealing for an adult). That is, they thought that these Gentiles, in order to be partakers of the covenant promises, had to abide by many of the rules and regulations that were deemed a requisite for partakers of the commonwealth of Israel.
What were the issues, and how were they to be resolved?
Study this week’s lesson to prepare for Sabbath, October 14.
(52)
"The issue for the early Jewish believers was whether or not Jews had to become Christians in order to accept Jesus. The other issue for many of them was whether Gentiles had to become Jews before they could accept Christ."
Today the issues are similar although somewhat different.
What is our belief? Does someone have to become an Adventist to be saved and make it into the New Earth?
Will there be people in the New Earth who did not accept Adventism?
Are there some aspects of Adventism that are required for salvation?
I see from the Book of Acts that there was only one issue and it came from Jewish believers or converted Jews to Christianity. And that issue was for gentile Christians to "Fall in line," with old Jewish laws and practices but the main one was the rite of circumcision.
And as far as SDA similar rules of religion for non-SDAs becoming SDAs: I would say that it depends on a particular SDA Church's leadership and where they stand on what they feel a non-SDA needs to come in line with before he or she is accepted into their church membership.
Pete
Are you saying that different local churches have different beliefs? Is it up to the local church to formulate general denominational policies?
I am sincerely asking, what are our overall denominational systemic beliefs concerning these matters.
Fred, I am just going by my own SDA experience that started for me in 1965. I was a member of a Spanish Church in Indio CA and left for two years for the U.S. Army. After the Army I attended La Sierra College and tried to change my membership from Indio to the La Sierra Church and there was no record that I had ever been a member there at all. I was then accepted into the La Sierra SDA Church membership by "Profession of Faith." Since then I have been a member of three other SDA Churches and one of them went as far as to push for the NO WEDDING BAND for ALL MEMBERS and that church split right down the middle over that issue with members leaving to other SDA Churches in the area.
please help me to understand this lesson. how the ten commadment are working with the law of Moses?
Keep following the current lesson discussion and I think you will get the answers to your questions.
First i would like to point out, in the memory text is states that "The law was given by Moses....." but when reading in the NKJV it reads "the law was given through Moses....." i think it is important to get right.
Now to the point of the lesson, I think that there was a transitional phase for both Jews and Gentiles to go though. For the Jews there was the education of the new covenant through Jesus Christ as the ultimate sacrifice, removing the need for the animal sacrifices. For the Gentiles they were to experience the new life in a Redeemer from their sinful lives as do all of humankind.
But I am not sure, but hope to understand better, why the act of circumcision was not required of the Gentiles. Was that also the case for the Jews? where in scripture is it explained the reason why circumcision was no longer required?
Becoming Christian, knowing that Christ is Savior and King should be the focus not becoming Adventist. Just as in Acts Christ and becoming a Christian was the focus and not necessarily a Jew/Christian.
Japhet
The Ten Commandments were spoken by God Himself to the Children of Israel. Ex 20:1. The Israelites heard God speak to Moses Ex 19:9 and they witnessed the thunderings, the lightning flashes, the sound of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking; and they trembled and stood afar off. Then they said to Moses, “You speak with us, and we will hear; but LET NOT God speak with us, lest we die.” Ex 20:18,19.
After their plea to Moses to not let God speak to them, the Lord spoke to Moses for Moses to then convey to the people - Ex 20:22. Everything else God had to say, He spoke it to Moses. Look at every chapter from Ex 20 through Ex 24, and through Ex 31.
What we call the “Law of Moses” was spoken and given by God. Moses had nothing to do with the pronouncements, except to relay the words of Almighty God to the people. None of the words are “Moses’” words – all the words are straight from the mouth of God.
Sometime after the Christian church era of the New Testament, there came about a distinction making the Law of God to be the Ten Commandments, and the Law of Moses to be everything else written in the rest of Exodus through Deuteronomy.
However, in bible times the Law of God and the Law of Moses were deemed to be a homogenous set of instructions. Compare Matt 15:4 and Mark 7:10. Read Neh 8:1-18. In 1 Chron 16:40 and 2 Chron 31:3 the ceremonies and sacrifices were attributed to the “Law of God” not the Law of Moses, as we may expect. Luke 2:22,23,39 use the two terms interchangeably to refer to the same event.
When Jesus spoke of the Law, He meant the entire law – including what we today separate into the Law of God and the Law of Moses. Matt 5:17-40; Matt 8:4; Matt 12:5; Matt 22:35-40.
The Ten Commandments are a summary or an Executive Summary of the entire body of instructions in the Torah. The body of material expands on the Summary and the Summary compresses the body.
Therefore, the Ten Commandments (which are today called the Law of God) AND the rest of the instructions in the Torah (today called the Law of Moses) are all part of ONE covenant God gave to the Children of Israel. There is no biblical distinction between them. Ex 34:27,28; Deut 4:13.
Stephen
Concerning your question about circumcision:
Circumcision is first mentioned with Abraham in Genesis 17. God gave promises to Abraham in Gen 12:1-3 concerning Jesus Christ - Gal 3:16. These promises were essentially the everlasting gospel – Gal 3:8 about the death, and resurrection of the Messiah, the Savior of the world.
Abraham “corrupted” the flow of the plan by trying to produce God’s salvation plan, through his own flesh. Circumcision came about as a response to Abraham’s mistake. Gen 17:10-14. Abraham had broken the covenant. The covenant of circumcision was only for the descendants of Abraham - Gen 17:13 – meaning that non-descendants and Gentiles were not part of that covenant. In the time of the Children of Israel from Sinai, circumcision became the entrance sign into the Old Covenant.
In Isa 42:6 and Isa 49:8 we are told that Jesus became the covenant to the people and to the GENTILES. Such that His life, death and resurrection fulfilled the promise given to Abraham and fulfilled the requirement of the covenant with Abraham. Since that time, circumcision of the foreskin is no longer necessary.
By accepting Jesus as our personal and magnificent Savior, He becomes our Covenant and our circumcision, and circumcision of the heart and baptism into His death represent the cutting away of sin and bonding to Jesus our Savior, so that we may walk in newness of life.
The Old covenant and all of its requirements met their fulfillment in Christ.
Many thanks Fred, I never had it expained like that before. God bless.
Many Christians cling to what the Roman Church has taught for more than a thousand years, namely, that the Church REPLACED Israel as the object of the Lord’s supreme regard.
That contrasts sharply with the doctrine that Christianity is the true CONTINUATION of the religion of the Hebrew patriarchs and prophets of antiquity and that he not a Jew who is one outwardly but real circumcision is of the heart and physical circumcision is the God-given symbol or “sign” of circumcision. (See Romans 4:11.) It is possible for a person to be called a Christian or maybe even for him to be considered a Christian without becoming a Jew in the sense of being circumcised in his heart but it is not possible for person to be truly converted in the biblical sense without becoming a Jew in the sense of heart circumcision. Circumcision of the heart is not visible (we can only see EVIDENCE of that) and physical circumcision is not required for Christian fellowship.
It does not necessarily follow that the only appropriate requisites for voting membership in a religious association or denomination are “that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled and from fornication”. (Acts 15:29) At the same time, it is important to realize that we have not been saved, are not being saved and will not be saved when Jesus returns based on any good things we do or any sinful things we avoid doing--even if those things may be requisites for voting membership in a religious association or denomination.
Roger Metzger
Milo, Maine
Roger, Roman Catholicism's claim and promotion of itself as the singular, universal church of God is a false philosophy actually inherited from perverted Judaism (Dt 28:1; 2 Sam 7:23; Jn 11:47-48). Christ and His disciples taught that His Church would, in fact, replace "Israel as the object of the Lord's supreme regard" (Mt 23:37-39; 16:18; Acts 13:46). Roman Catholicism's documented persecution of true followers of Christ was only a segment on the continuum of satanic actions (Mt 13:27-28) prophesied from Eden (Gen 3:15) and employing various actors--religious and secular--since then, including perverted Judaism (Mt 21:37-41, 45; Gal 1:13; Act 20:29-30).
I endorse your statement that, "Christianity is the true CONTINUATION of the religion of the Hebrew patriarchs and prophets of antiquity and that he not a Jew who is one outwardly but real circumcision is of the heart and physical circumcision is the God-given symbol or “sign” of circumcision. (See Romans 4:11.)", because it highlights the truth that TRUE Christianity is NOT A DENOMINATION (Lk 17:21)! Rather, TRUE Christianity is the REAL person's REAL experience of REAL transformation from our REAL state of indifference or active non-conformity to our Creator's will (Jn 4:23). It forces the focus on every individual's need to be saved from our starting state of carnality (Rm 8:7) dictated by the "law of sin" stamped within us (Rm 7:23).
Your interesting quote of Rm 4:11 further emphasizes humanity's greatest need--our need of separation from the innate sin in our procreative place...our minds--symbolized in circumcision (Dt 30:6; 10:16). Christ's sacrifice has provided a REAL way to overcome in the struggle with our own uncircumcised selves (1 Pt 2:11; Gal 5:17, 16), as well as in our interactions with the uncircumcised selves of others (Act 7:51-53; Gal 4:29; Rev 12:13, 17).
Pete
It is unfortunate that they “lost” your membership. But I am glad everything worked out anyway.
What I was asking was a sincere desire to know what we believe versus what we practice, as I was pondering what was happening in the church back in the time of the apostles in Acts.
My understanding of our practice today is that we feel that everyone should become an Adventist to make it into the kingdom. I recently heard some evangelistic meetings where the pastor was not content to see folks just accept Jesus. To be baptized they had to give assent to the question “Are you willing to be baptized and join God’s remnant commandment keeping people?”
What do we say to someone who has accepted Jesus as their Savior, and is walking daily in the faith they have developed? Their salvation by faith is not enough? Even if they keep the seventh-day Sabbath, that is not enough unless they join our particular denomination – not Seventh Day Baptists, Seventh Day Reform Movement, etc?
The apostles only required one thing of the Gentiles. In Acts 15:24-27, the official verdict was that the Gentiles were not required to be circumcised, nor were they required to KEEP THE LAW. Acts 15:28,29 summarizes the apostles’ instruction – “abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.”
No mention of keeping the law.
Personally, Fred, I feel that our SDA church should be named something like "Grace, faith, 10 commandment, Adventist church," and not the name given to it about 100 years ago of "Seventh day Adventist church." I know that would be a much longer name than the current one but this name is really what we should be about and not to focus on the fourth commandment but to focus on all the ten by grace through faith in Jesus.
Does the word “Adventist” in SDA have any significance?
Fred,
I think I understand your question and would offer the following:
The "official" position of the church regarding membership according to the church manual is that it is entirely up to the local church body as to who is and who is not accepted into the Adventist church as a member of that local church. This requires no official input or approval from any conference or union (although they may think or even "encourage" differently). The Seventh-day Adventist manual is clear. If a local church body decides that someone can be a member of their church then they may become a member of that church and therefore a member of the SDA church at large. There are details around baptism vs. profession of faith that need to be understood but I dont want to get sidetracked. If that person ever wants to transfer their membership to another church then the new church has the right to interview the individual and decide whether or not to accept them into the new local church body.
As far as what is required for salvation I would offer this:
In no official document of the Adventist Church have I been able to find an official position regarding the thought that salvation would be contingent on membership in the Adventist church. Although I believe that you have heard this from individual members (as have I) and it has, sadly, become your "understanding of our practice today", that is not an official church position. That level of unfortunate elitism certainly exist but (to my knowledge) not with direct sanction by the church at large.
In addition, I would offer the following biblical examples of what is "required" for salvation. If it is something that we need to do behaviorally then you would need to doubt that the criminal on the cross was immediately saved upon accepting the sacrifice of Christ for his sins. Granted, had he lived beyond that point we would have expected his personal relationship with Christ to change his behavior significantly and we would have recognized this Power in his life to change his behavior. But this behavioral change would have been a RESULT of his relationship, not a requirement for salvation. The only way to have true, meaningful behavioral change is NOT by trying harder to please God because you think you should but by constantly submitting your will to the power of the Holy Spirit and allowing His power to change your desire to sin.
To take it a step further you would have to prove that the requirements for salvation would have CHANGED in order to claim that Adventist church membership is a requirement as the church has not existed for that long. For example, if membership is a requirement you would need to question whether or not the apostles will be in heaven. Or Moses. Or Enoch. All non-Adventists.... Becasue we know that God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, making the argument that the requirements for salvation had changed when the Adventist church was officially formed would be difficult to prove.
As far as what the apostles "required" of the gentiles I would offer this:
As Doreen states so well below Jesus answered this question of the law himself. If you really are in a relationship with Christ that allows HIM to change your sinful nature enough to love the Lord your God with all your heart and mind and strength and to love your neighbor as yourself then none of these other behavioral "do's" and "don'ts" are part of the discussion. Just think about that for a few minutes. Which of the Ten Commandments can you break while keeping the "Greatest Commandment" from Christ? NONE. We are the ones that make this process so difficult. Not God. We are constantly in a position where we are trying to "help" God save us. We want to know what it "looks" like to be a good Adventist Christian. We want a checklist. We want to be worth it. We want to earn it. This is not possible. We are not salvageable. We have nothing to offer God. Our righteousness is as filthy rags. The beauty of the Message is that, although this is true about us, Jesus died for us anyway. Cling to that when you are discouraged. Cling to that when other people tell you that you are not doing enough. Be wary of people who feel "good enough" to be saved. Remember how the apostle Paul described himself. After all of the devotion to taking the message to the Gentiles, after all of the evidence of God working in his life, after all the people that he introduced into a relationship with Christ, he described himself as "Chief among sinners". Never as someone who had salvation figured out or as someone who belonged to the correct group and therefore worthy of salvation. A good lesson in humility for all of us.
P.S. - Sorry that this comment was not "considerably shorter than the original post". Tough topic to cover both briefly and coherently....
This is Lesson good, it helps us to grow in Christianity.
Amen.
Yes in that particular verse stated by you three is no mentioning of the law. However, let’s not forget Mat. 22:39-40 Jesus said … Love the Lord with all your heart and your neighbors as yourself. All the Law and Prophets hang on these two commandments. Therefore if we keep those two, and we truly love, then automatically all the other law and its keeping would come naturally to us . For if you love your brother you will do him no harm, no lying, no stealing, no adultery, no covetousness and we would honor the Lord by keeping the law because we love him.
Yes! The first step in serving the Lord is to accept Jesus by faith, and be obedient to him. Being obedient to God means keeping his law, no not the “letter law “but by having the laws written on our hearts that we might not sin against him (Romans 2:15 and Jeremiah 31:33.
Religion will never save any man but when we are born again we must be obedient to God’s law by putting on the breast plate of righteousness and having his law written in our hearts. As we grow and take on the characteristics of Christ we will be naturally keep his law.
Doreen, I agree with you, except that I would amen your statement:
to
There re no exceptions. The new birth begins a character transformation that results in being in harmony with God's will.
However, when we focus on keeping the law -as in "we must keep the law" - we take our eyes off Christ, and we fail. It's like Peter walking on water. He could only do it as long as he kept his eyes on Jesus. When he took his eyes off Jesus, he sank into the water.
So it is with us, when we focus on Jesus and His will for us, He will keep the Law within us, but when we focus on the Law in order to keep it, we will fail and sink back into sin.
Paul tells us in Romans 3:20,21 the reason for the law is it identifies sin. He also tells us in verse 27 that faith is a necessary law. There is often the impulse to make works important to ones salvation by observing the law.
Seventh Day Adventist sometimes, tend to focus on trivial matter. The name Adventist won't saved us, it's faith through Jesus Christ, his righteousness and our personal relationship with him.
The Jews believed that accepting Jesus Christ, by faith was not enough for the Gentiles.Their traditions and false teachings were very crucial to salvation. It was more of being saved by works and not faith. They totally missed the point that Paul and the other Apostles were bringing across to them. Paul didn't want what the Galatians practiced (false teachings) disseminate to the Romans, that is why he wrote the letter to the Romans.
That is why we as Christians, must be careful not to allow traditions to be a stumbling block in the ways of sinners.Let us practice the teachings of Christ only.
A very simple example of Fred's question. The name Seventh Day Adventist was designed for a particular purpose. It continues to draw attention primarily because it is different than nearly any other denomination. It explains the fundamental purpose and message with few words. The three angles message fills in most of the empty spaces. As mentioned there were no Seventh Day Adventist during the first two centuries. With tongue in cheek one of our noted leaders commented that we make very good Pharisees. The requirements to become a Seventh Day Adventist in the 1800 were very few in comparison. The Bible has always been the source of important questions that affect our salvation.