Gently Broken

A Stake in the Heart

2008-09-12T16:30:00.000-07:00

In May of 2005, thru a series of unexpected happenings, I began to study more carefully into my personal beliefs and understandings of the Bible. My family roots reach down into the soil where Seventh-day Adventism germinated and became anchored. My great great grandparents attended meetings where Ellen White's preaching laid out in graphic detail the images of future destruction. They wanted to be part of the faithful group that stood firm to the end and gladly joined ranks with the remnant. They started an unbroken chain of adherents to the Advent faith that linked me into its culture. I felt safe in this sanctuary of certainty that allowed me to grow without "worldly" interference. Within its preserve I thrived and prospered. While it kept most of the influences of the world at bay, it was not without internal predators. The people were, after all, humans who left inconsistencies and downright wrongs behind them the way flies leave specks. Some of the picayunish squabbles that resulted simply annoyed me. For those I affected disdain and withheld approval. Other issues seemed so intolerable or grievously in error that I charged them like a crusader riding for reform. Sometimes, increments of change resulted from my crusades. Sometimes I fell off my horse and nursed my wounds; but I kept getting up and trying to effect movement.

My family provenance provided me with the proper credentials to question and challenge the potentially destructive elements from within. We had followed the trend that one of my teachers at Walla Walla College called the "sociogram of Adventism": farmer, minister, doctor. My brother and I became doctors who had grown up in the home of an Adventist minister whose father was a farmer in Texas. We gathered each evening for "worship" where we heard daily readings from Ellen White. They became so familiar to me that when I closed my eyes, I could conjure up the picture of that group of saints tiptoeing along tightrope mountain trails on their precarious journey to Heaven. I loved the cadence of her language and the rich imagery evoked in my receptive mind by her words. I felt fear-inspired resolve and not a small modicum of comfort in knowing that we were the chosen of God.

Adventism is an interesting proposition. The longer I live, the more complexity I see within its matrix. For much of my life, the church seemed quite monolithic and homogeneous. Perhaps I was just unaware of its mosaic character earlier, but I began seeing the divergence and cracks in the church during the 70's when I was a medical student at Loma Linda University. It was then that Ronald Numbers published the book that placed Southern California at the epicenter of a 6.5 tilt on the Heresy Scale. The relentless aftershocks that followed in succession eclipsed the mother quake both in intensity and magnitude. The resulting shift of the Earth under planet Adventism has spawned revisionism that would have seemed impossible thirty years ago.

In the past two years, the Adventist Church has undergone cosmic repackaging. Writers like Clifford Goldstein have been rewriting history to create a kinder, gentler Adventism. In his Adventism, the historical Investigative Judgment became metaphorical, and its definition a moving target. For Andy Nash, in Adventist Today, the church became "community" first, a place of belonging, an exercise in recovery that encourages the traumatized to tolerantly pat Adventism's infancy on the head and smile indulgently. For Samir Selmanovic the church is a forum for embracing inclusive expansion of heart in a manner reminiscent of Buddhism. For the writers of Red Books, Adventism is a family with a tree full of lovably errant characters who need to be forgiven in order to move on to maturity.

So, what is the unifying element in this newly multilithic society? What is it that prevents this evolving, confused and disparate group from fragmenting into its constituent parts? The one solid, immovable rock, the central lith, seems to be the Sabbath. It runs like a chain thru all of the keyholes and binds the separate pieces together as a whole. With all of the diverging views - liberal, traditional, and evangelical streams - which run so far apart, there is one unifying force: the Sabbath. A stake driven so deeply into the heart of Adventism that removing it would create a fatal hemorrhage.

Even the university-student generation that has heard little of the writings of Ellen White, and believe themselves unaffected by her prolific pen, plant their feet firmly on the central point of agreement within Adventism, the Sabbath. How they observe it would make their grandparents flush, but, nonetheless, its "truth" is non-negotiable - even among the young. On a more unconscious level, the state of the dead and the belief that God created the church out of the reinterpretation of William Miller's failed run at Heaven, are other subjects that remain unassailable in all of the various streams.

In pondering the "sticking" quality of those beliefs, I began to wonder why it was not the cross that occupied the place of sine qua non. The cross had always been more peripheral, more negotiable, defended with far less zeal and passion by my Sabbath School teachers, parents, ministers, and professors. I wondered why. The wondering grew into a compulsion to know. My attempts at understanding that conundrum form the core of the studies listed below. I invite you to join me in taking a closer look than you may have ventured into before. It may answer some puzzling questions you've had in the past. It may raise some questions you've never thought to ask. But if you aren't afraid to confront your core beliefs, you may find that you experience a deeper conviction and trust in the scriptures as a result. I did.

There is a section for comments at the end of each page.

Ultimate Rest is a look at the Who of the Sabbath instead of the usual "when" of the Sabbath.

Spirit explores the ways in which we are created in the image of God and how that changes the definition of "spirit."

Faith or Fear? is a juxtaposition of salvation by faith and the Investigative Judgment from a historical, but practical, Christian perspective.

Clicking on each title will take you to that study. Where you end up may surprise you. It surprised me.

Ultimate Rest (Table of Contents)

2008-09-12T11:21:00.000-07:00

Introduction
Chapter One: How It All Began
Chapter Two: Why Study?
Chapter Three: A Challenge
Chapter Four: The Everlasting Covenants
Chapter Five: The Old or Siniatic Covenant
Chapter Six: Are the Ten Commandments Immutable?
Chapter Seven: The Seventh Day In Creation
Chapter Eight: Jesus' Authority Over the Sabbath
Chapter Nine: The Contrast between the New and Old Covenants
Chapter Ten: The Christian Church and the Lord's Day
Chapter Eleven: Scripture Passages That Raise Questions
Chapter Twelve: Adventist Heritage of the Sabbath
Chapter Thirteen: The Rest That Remains
Books Consulted
Appendix 1: Herschel Hughes' Message
Appendix 2: Walter Martin's Interview
Appendix 3: Walter Martin's Questions to the General Conference
Appendix 4: Walter Martin's Position on Adventism

Introduction

2008-09-12T11:20:00.001-07:00

"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." Matt 11:28-30 (NIV)

What kind of rest is Jesus offering? Is it the kind of rest where we get a day off of work and pursue recreational activities? Is it rest that gets us away from our usual activities? Or is there a deeper rest He's calling us to? We go thru the routines of our daily lives feeling a heaviness that we have difficulty defining. The economy goes bust and we add another layer to our worry quotient. Will I be able to retire - like, ever? Our kids make stupid choices, and we feel helpless to intervene. One more layer. And so it goes.

Deeper than all of those concerns is a gnawing sense that we aren't really connected to God. We remember the times when we knew His presence, but just can't get back to that place. People talk about "intimacy with God." What does that mean? We go to church and make friends. We go on picnics, talk about who we knew in college, make the connections, talk about church politics, have a short, somewhat awkward sundown worship, and then play Rook. What's this intimacy thing? Not in my life!

Then comes a time in which we are brought face-to-face with the reality that there is more to this religion thing - and we've missed it. The child of God in the picture above, Gently Broken by Ramone Romero, has decided to take the risk of coming to Jesus with her disappointment, discouragement and weariness. She has come in her "filthy rags," carrying the tablets of stone that have become too heavy for her to carry. Not knowing what else to do, she has laid them down at Jesus' feet, hoping against hope that He can give her rest - real rest - hoping that He will accept and embrace her. She wants to feel close to Him.

As He reaches down to her with His nail-pierced hand, it triggers a memory of something she's read. "Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise." Gal 4:21-23 (NIV)

What does it mean? Suddenly, she notices that the tables of stone, that bear the indictments against her, begin to crumble - then break. Could this be true? Could it be that "He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross." Col 2:13-14 (NIV)

She sees the answer in His eyes. He did! He gently reminds her that, "the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now." Then He says to her with a sound of conviction that goes to the depths of her being, "Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son. Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman." Gal 4:29-31 (NIV)

Oh, Jesus! Take it from me. Take my weariness and my fear. Let me become obedient to Your voice. Forgive me for entering in to a covenant that was never mine to embrace. Show me what it means to be a child of the free woman.

This is the beginning of the journey into being gently broken. Come and enter into the Rest that awaits us in the New Covenant. The studies on this site contain information that can aid you in finding the closeness to God you have always desired. "Come to me all you who are weary and burdened, and I WILL give you rest."

Next Chapter: How It All Began
What is the purpose in devaluing the Sabbath? What possible good could come of it? Even if it isn't still mandatory, if I like it, why mess with it? Well, perhaps there is something better, something more in harmony with the will of God. Perhaps the Sabbath is keeping us from the Best.

Home Page

How It All Began

2008-09-12T11:20:00.000-07:00

“The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming--not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship.” Heb 10:1 (NIV)

Some time before Christmas, 2005, my mother gave me a card she got in the mail. It announced a website from a man named Herschel Hughes who felt that he had been given a message from God for the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Hughes was not only a Seventh-day Adventist, but had been on the faculty at Pacific Union College and had designed the covers for the Conflict of the Ages series of Ellen White's books. I had been on my own journey of discovery regarding some of the foundational issues of the church I inherited as a right of birth. My grandfather used to tell me stories of seeing the tower room at Elmshaven radiating an other-worldly light late into the darkest recesses of night. His mother, grandmother and great-grandmother were also Adventists.

I was in medical school in Loma Linda in the 70s when Ron Numbers and Walter Rea had made their disturbing discoveries of Ellen White’s widespread plagiarism and gross inaccuracies. Ron Numbers was one of my professors when his book was published. I watched with deep concern when their documented discoveries were labeled as disloyalty, and Ellen White was vigorously defended despite the findings. I mused over the assertion that plagiarism was a common practice in her time. In her case, the material she had "borrowed" was often presented as visions received directly from God. In my estimation, "borrowing" another's writing without attributing the source was not acceptable, but attributing the source to a supernatural "vision" from God was duplicitous. Prior to this I had always given White the benefit of the doubt, believing that she had a prophetic gift but was a mistake-prone human.

At the time these disturbing facts were unveiled, I didn’t feel any urgency to study into the allegations myself. I now wonder why I avoided doing so. I think it was probably too threatening to know the details of the claims against "our prophet." I believed the Adventist Church was the only - or at least the closest thing to - the right church on Earth and didn't see any point in dredging up dirt on it. "Tearing down instead of building up," I believe was the popular quote. Besides, I flattered myself that focusing on the "negative" was just a distraction from more important aspects of Christian life. The time of discovery passed without my seriously delving into the shaky aspects of my community of faith.

My interest and energy, during the late 80’s thru the early 2000's, took an unexpected and abrupt turn toward a quest for the Holy Spirit. I was captured by a passion that drew me like a moth to The Flame. How had I been swept into this river of beauty called the Renewal? All my life I had been trained to practice strong skepticism toward anything that would pass for direct manifestations of the Holy Spirit or the supernatural intruding into my world of the natural. But here He was. Magnificent, powerful, personal and undeniable. He came to me out of the blue, unexpected, loving, real. He opened the scriptures as if they were brand new and He enlivened my times of prayer so that there was nothing I would rather do than to be in conversation with Jesus. I had never felt this way before. I had never longed so deeply to be near to my Savior.

It was not until May of 2005 that I was drawn back to a subject I would rather have ignored. But inexorably, my eyes were turned back to my church of origin where I saw recurring themes of struggle. The dysfunctions within the church were patterned and predictable. There had to be identifiable reasons why so many people fought with the same issues of internal dissonance. It was thru Cleansing Stream (a program developed by Jack Hayford, then senior pastor of Church on the Way, Van Nuys, California. Their website can be visited at: http://www.cleansingstream.org/) that I learned about our ability as Christians to trace back and break the power of destructive patterns passed down to us from generation to generation. It has never been a secret that certain aspects of Adventist heritage are not spiritually healthy. Legalism has always been a bugaboo; uncertainty regarding salvation, and dread of the end of time are others. In 2005 I felt compelled to track down the sources of fear and discover the truths that could resolve the spiritual malaise they had evoked since the beginning of SDA church history.

The lethargy in pursuing spiritual health in these areas was disturbing. In fact, frank discussion of the knotty problems was actively suppressed, avoided.

As I studied, I began to see certain errors of teaching and belief in the formation of the church that spawned predictable spiritual angst. The lethargy in pursuing spiritual health in these areas, however, was disturbing. In fact, frank discussion of the knotty problems was actively suppressed, avoided. There was an aspect of fear associated with questioning the core belief system. I soon realized that I couldn't wait for others to do the work for me. I needed to understand for myself where the teachings had become canted. It was while I was in the process of this study, which resulted in a large compilation of material, that I first listened to Herschel Hughes' message.

The subjects of his message were areas I had already been contemplating. Soon I found others who were trying to find the way thru the maze of contradictions. It was helpful to add their findings to my own. It may be helpful to you, too, as you filter thru the information you have grappled with over the years, to read what others have concluded. Dr. Hughes’ message is included in Appendix 1 at the end of this study along with the website link to an audio presentation he gave in a local SDA church. I would encourage you to listen to the message itself. It gives a much clearer picture of the person giving the prophetic word and the circumstances of how he received it. My point in alluding to his presentation here is not really to endorse or refute it, but to use it as a stimulus for discussion and study. It summarizes areas of contention and theological uncertainty in Adventism that have been noted both from within the church and from Christian critics outside.

After a two year hiatus from a Southern California Seventh-day Adventist church, I felt that I needed to return in order to engage in dialogue regarding my areas of concern. I was reluctant to go since I was quite happy where I was, but I felt convicted to go back, so I did. This church was unique among most Adventist churches in that it acknowledged and moved in the gifts of the Spirit. The church went thru some internal trauma that provided a promising new pastor eager to pursue the Holy Spirit's presence. He instituted what he called a “prophetic council” that was patterned after the model of the early church mentored by Paul. “When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. If anyone speaks in a tongue, two--or at the most three--should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God. Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said.” 1 Cor 14:26-29 (NIV) He encouraged people to practice those principles to gain experience in hearing God.

The consensus of the council was that the earthquake would be spiritual rather than literal. As I look back now at their conclusion, I believe they were being prepared for what was coming to the church.

Sometime in September 2005, one of the young women in the church felt that she had received a message from God predicting a powerful, destructive earthquake in Southern California in October (just one month away). She was invited to present what she felt she had heard to the prophetic council to evaluate its content. The consensus of the council was that the earthquake would be spiritual rather than literal. As I look back now at their conclusion, I believe they were being prepared for what was coming to the church.

It was in October, 2005, that I listened to Hughes’ message and felt that it contained the core subjects that needed attention. It was reassuring to me that we were both drawn to look at the same issues, and I immediately wrote him an email telling him of my own journey. Since he and his wife lived within an hour of my home, I suggested that we meet and talk. I got no reply. I sent the website link to my pastor and asked him to listen to the presentation. I’m not certain that he listened, but he did make a copy of the written transcript.

The pastor announced in church that he would read the written transcript to the prophetic council on January 17– since it had come to his attention. This was now January 14, 2006. The next day, Sunday, January 15, three months after I had written to Herschel Hughes, he called and said that the Lord had highlighted my email and impressed him to call me. He had received thousands of emails, understandably many of them rather unpleasant, and had not responded to any but mine. I explained to him what was happening at church in two days and asked if he would be willing to present his message in person to the prophetic council. He agreed to, and did.

While there was some antagonism and anger evident at the meeting, for the most part, people were respectful. After a question and answer period they asked him to leave so a response could be formulated with just the church members and leadership present. No one wanted to make decisions about whether the message was from God or how to respond to it, but, to their credit, they did come to a consensus to study further into the points of conflict identified in his talk. The task of presenting that study was given to me by the pastor. It was to be accomplished on one Friday night in March, 2006.

On that evening I decided to present an overview of the problem. It was an introduction to the subjects that needed further study. At the end of the presentation, the pastor asked me if I would teach a series of classes on these subjects. I agreed to do so, and a schedule was established. God had opened a way to explore Adventism's unique doctrines in an Adventist church. I was amazed. I had never seen that done before, nor have I heard of it since.

These classes have now been completed. They resulted in much controversy and discomfort in the church, but they also provided for discussion of problems that have been largely avoided and ignored. Church members know that the inconsistencies and contradictions exist. The practice of pretending that they don't has required psychological dissociation akin to schizophrenia between intellectual honesty and intentional denial, especially among Adventist academicians.

If you have ever felt torn between loyalty and honesty, or wondered why Adventist teaching and belief are in such contrast with the rest of Christianity, I hope that you will allow yourself the intellectual freedom to investigate the reasons for those differences. The responses from those who attended the classes were like showers of refreshing rain. Surprisingly, when we had removed the faulty foundations they had trusted before, they discovered a deeper appreciation and love for the person, Jesus.
It was painful to admit that I had to subject everything I held dear to the fire of truth and allow it to separate truth from fiction. All of it had to be surrendered to God, even my very identity.

Like most SDAs who have attended church schools, I was well indoctrinated into the key texts and scriptures used to support the fundamental beliefs of Seventh-day Adventism. It came as quite a shock to me, therefore, to discover many scriptures that are in direct opposition to what I had been taught regarding the Bible. Some of you have run across scriptures that have surprised you in the same way. For others it will be a new concept that there may be problems with consonance between Adventist doctrine and the Bible. I am still being broad-sided by scriptures that I never knew were there, scriptures that would make what I was taught impossible. Commendably, part of the heritage of Adventism includes love and respect for the scriptures. We were told to test all things by the word of God. We should not be afraid to put that advice into practice.

More than once I have experienced consternation as I have attempted to find teachings from Ellen White in the Bible, just to discover that they are not there. I was certain that my spiritual belief system had its foundations in the Bible. To find that much of what I had been taught from my earliest years had its source in the writings of Ellen White and not in the Bible felt like a betrayal. I had to overcome incredible inertia to push ahead into territory that felt like foreign soil. It was painful to even admit that I was going to have to subject everything I held dear up to the fire in order to separate truth from fiction. In that fire, I had to surrender it all to God and allow Him to burn away even my identity if that identity was not a part of His kingdom and truth.
Adventism, too, is being given the opportunity to confront errors that have had a grip on us for far too long. We don't have to live with them anymore.

We are standing in a kairos (prophetically significant) time in Adventist history. From many corners of the Christian church at large, God is calling people and groups to re-investigate their foundations and clean out the debris and falsehood that have been allowed to creep into the purity of the gospel. This is a time for truth. Just as Paul was constantly calling the church back to sound doctrine, so the Holy Spirit is calling the church to worship in truth and spirit. Adventism, too, is being given the opportunity to confront errors that have had a grip on us for far too long. We don’t have to live with them anymore. We don’t have to wait for the General Conference to take an official stand in order to investigate these subjects ourselves. In fact we are commanded to come under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Himself - into His classroom where He will lead us into truth. The mistakes of our spiritual parents don’t have to affect our freedom in Christ. Though it's not an easy process, the healing and freedom are worth the effort. We stand at a crossroads. God is beckoning us toward the "road less travelled" where our pride will be sacrificed so that Jesus can be glorified.

Being an Adventist is not like being a Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, or any other evangelical denomination. The others have never been listed as cults. Adventism has been, and is, listed with the cults by a number of experts. Walter Martin, a noted authority regarding cults, held interviews in the 1950s with four Adventist theologians, one of whom was a frequent house guest of ours in Reading, PA. There was much debate, some of it rather heated between Martin, Barnhouse and the representatives from the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Those discussions resulted in the book Questions on Doctrine. It was published by Review and Herald Publishing Association in 1957, at Martin’s insistence, as a statement of orthodoxy to Christian belief. It was under the condition of the book's publication that Martin would, with provision, remove the Seventh-day Adventist Church from its cult status. Up to this time Martin had included Adventism with the cults in his well-known book The Kingdom of the Cults.

There was so much uproar from Adventist church members about Questions on Doctrine (which refuted much of what Adventists taught), that very shortly after its introduction it was removed from publication. However, Martin’s book, which gave Adventism a guarded nod as a Christian denomination, had already been published. In an interview with Doug Hackleman from Adventist Currents (Appendix 2) Walter Martin stated that he was very seriously considering reinstating the church’s cult status. He wrote a letter to the GC president asking three critical questions (Appendix 3). The decision to place the church back into cult status hinged on their answers to those three questions. The questions were never answered (Appendix 4) and shortly thereafter, in 1989, Walter Martin died. For a series of fascinating videos between Martin and William Johnsson, then editor of The Review, click here: http://search.live.com/video/results.aspx?q=%22walter+martin%22+adventist&docid=2238764098647&FORM=VIVR7

There are other experts on cults, notably David W. Cloud and Anthony Hoekema, who strongly disagreed with Walter Martin’s conclusions and felt that he had created great confusion in the body of Christ, betraying the evangelical community (Appendix 4). They continue to consider Adventism a cult. Interestingly, it is the very doctrines mentioned in the message from Dr. Hughes and covered by these studies that are cited as the offending doctrines by those questioning Adventism’s claims to Christianity. It seems reasonable to investigate why evangelical Christians would consider Adventism to be a cult and not, say, the Baptists, Assemblies of God, Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, etc. If there is validity to the charges, then the aberrant doctrines need to be corrected.

It feels threatening to question beliefs that have defined our lives. However, turning away from the challenge raises the haunting spectre of fear that the teachings won't stand if we look too closely. The group that heard Dr. Hughes present his message came to a unanimous decision to look at the problem areas thru the lens of the Bible. That decision led to the development of the studies which you are about to read. Hughes asserts that the message he delivered was given to him from God. The contents of that message will serve as a spur to look at problems we know we should have confronted long before this.

Ultimate Rest Table of Contents

The Next Chapter: Why Study?

Spending time delving into the doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventist Church probably isn't your idea of a good time. If Adventism has become primarily a culture, a community to you, it may seem completely off topic to go back and see what composes the fabric of your church. If you are a "true believer" you may think you already know everything that could possibly be brought into discussion. If you have been turned off by Adventism, you may have just walked away from everything, including Jesus. To all of you I would say, there may be questions you have yet to ask, answers you've yet to find, a Person who is calling you to come deeper into His love.

Why Study?

2008-09-12T11:19:00.000-07:00

Legitimate questions arise as we undertake the study of the foundations and doctrines unique to Adventism. “Why should we study them? Isn’t this just a distraction from the gospel and from Jesus? Is this just another form of legalism and the religious spirit? Who cares about doctrines anyway? Who ever thinks about them?”

What we believe about Jesus is what we will transmit to those we take by the hand and lead into His presence.

Can we start from a position that all who repent and call in faith on the name of Jesus as our Savior have eternal life and are seated with Him in heavenly places? That is the foundation of our salvation. Sadly, it is not a given that a person steeped in Adventism will be certain of that position for themselves. There are deep fears about "being ready" and wondering in what ways they have offended a tabulating God. The spectre of a pen-holding deity with memory greater than any computer ever imagined is not a great comfort. The fear of standing before a Holy God without the covering of Jesus is enough to make the most arrogant tremble. Is that the dread we want to instill in others? Is that the Jesus we want to portray? Is that the heritage we want to pass on? Is that what we want to reproduce? What is Jesus really like? Our task must be to search and find what He has revealed of Himself in scripture and to let those truths replace distortions we may have inadvertently incorporated into our beliefs about Him. What we believe about Jesus is what we will transmit to those we take by the hand and lead into His presence. God has given us the scriptures for the purpose of bringing us into harmony with His heart and will. That’s what sound doctrine means.

The spirit of the world says, “You have your truth and I have my truth. It’s deluded and arrogant to believe that we can arrive at The Truth.” Intellectuals from academic institutions make proclamations from purely human derivations that the best we can hope to accomplish is to try to understand each others’ perspectives and come to accept that there is validity in all beliefs. Unfortunately, many in the Adventist Church have adopted the same position. If you are unaware of the emergent church movement within Adventism, you may want to familiarize yourself with that trend. This may be a place to start. Faith House is fully authorized by the Seventh-day Adventist Church. You can find the endorsements of well- known Adventist leaders on the site. http://samirselmanovic.typepad.com/faith_house/

We are all hampered by weak and limited capacities to grasp the truth about God. But holding to a position that it is impossible for us to study the Bible and be led into “true truth," as Francis Schaeffer used to say, is denying the words and power of Jesus. When Jesus came before Pilate, that ruler reflected the same attitude of futility when he rhetorically asked Jesus, “What is truth?” There was no hesitation in Jesus' answer: “In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.” John 18:37 (NIV)

When Jesus was reassuring His disciples He told them "If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever-- the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.” John 14:15-17 (NIV) “But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.” John 16:13 (NIV)

So, is He able to do what he has promised? Does it depend on our weakness or His strength? Are all things possible in Him or not? Do we believe that we are only victims in this world or do we believe that Jesus can use us proactively to promote His kingdom? Do we join the world in saying that truth is relative and unattainable or do we agree with Jesus when He tells us that He will send the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth?

Which is easier, to believe that the Holy Spirit can lead us into all truth or to believe that the Holy Spirit can use us to heal the sick and raise the dead? Neither one. They are both impossible without the supernatural intervention of God. Faith says that both are possible despite the lack of faith revealed in the world and despite our weakness.

Our reticence to study doctrine has many roots. Our distaste for the legalistic ways and means by which the distinctive beliefs of Adventism were presented and enforced is legitimate. The last thing we want to do is to revisit those attitudes. However, the vestiges of that history remain in us unperceived. We are frequently unaware that beliefs we hold dear came from extrabiblical sources, but perceived or not, they affect our pictures of God and how we present His Son to others. I keep finding things I believed to have come from scripture just to discover they came from the writings of Ellen White and are nowhere to be found in the Bible.

The Church is being called to examine the foundations of belief and to change or cast off anything that does not stand the test of scripture.

As we undertake the task of searching the scriptures to purify our foundations, remember that God has called us to this task. As I have spoken with others outside Adventism I have discovered that we are right in line with what the Holy Spirit is doing throughout the body of Christ. The Church is being called to examine the foundations of belief and to change or cast off anything that does not stand the test of scripture. How gracious of God not to leave us out of this move, just as He will not leave us out of the powerful outpouring of His Holy Spirit if we surrender every thought and every belief to His leading. Change is uncomfortable. But then, Jesus didn’t come to make us comfortable.

Paul is a role model to us in conducting the mission of the church. As Paul was mentoring Timothy in ways to evangelize and disciple the church, he admonished him with these words: “In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage--with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.” 2 Tim 4:1-5 (NIV) “Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.” 1 Tim 4:16 (NIV)

To Titus he wrote, “You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine.” Titus 2:1 Paul was particularly zealous that people not be burdened or confused by laying on them the injunctions of the Old Covenant which he referred to as the circumcision party. He made this clear in his letter to Titus: “He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. For there are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision group. They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach.” Titus 1:9-11 (NIV) “This testimony is true. Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the commands of those who reject the truth” Titus 1:13-14 (NIV). The purity of the gospel is the essence of sound doctrine and anything that distorts that message needs to be cast off.

The strongest commendation for studying is preserved in Acts as Paul praises the people of Berea with these words, “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” Acts 17:11 (NIV) It is a noble thing to investigate whether or not the beliefs we have embraced are based on truth. It is in this spirit that we pursue the study of our Adventist foundations.

One must question any person in authority who would discourage the people under their protection from studying the foundations of their faith from the Bible.

We have a responsibility to God, and to anyone we bring to Him through Jesus, to provide a picture of God that is as close to truth as possible. We can determine to be the worshipers God is seeking, those who value both Spirit and truth. He inspired Paul to admonish us to “Study and be eager and do your utmost to present yourself to God approved (tested by trial), a workman who has no cause to be ashamed, correctly analyzing and accurately dividing [rightly handling and skillfully teaching] the Word of Truth.” 2 Tim 2:15 (AMP) Far from bringing division, the pursuit of truth brings freedom and unity around the One Truth, Jesus Christ. One must question any person in authority who would discourage the people under their protection from studying the foundations of their faith from the Bible. It is clearly a mandate from God.

Many of us have held to Seventh-day Adventist beliefs since childhood. They have become a part of our DNA engrained at a subconscious level. It will not be a quick or easy task to fully examine the teachings we have taken into the core of our belief systems. But I believe we owe it to ourselves and to God to put forth the effort to hold onto the purest picture of God we can paint. And I believe that we need to be willing to renounce anything that does not line up with the word of God. I’m excited that you have decided to put aside any discomfort or fear you may have faced to get to this point. I know that God will honor the risk you have taken with powerful blessing.

We will begin our studies with the doctrine of the Sabbath (Ultimate Rest) followed by studies on the state of the dead (Spirit), the remnant status of Adventism and the prophetic foundation of the Adventist Church including the Investigative judgment (Faith or Fear?) and the writings and leadership of Ellen White.

Ultimate Rest Table of Contents

The Next Chapter: A Challenge
A look at the topics of discussion for the remaining chapters of "Ultimate Rest"

A Challenge

2008-09-12T11:18:00.000-07:00

As mentioned earlier we will be using the message Herschel Hughes gave in a Seventh-day Adventist church as an impetus to study some of the foundations of our faith. The following was the first topic he mentioned:

“The end is near, so I give you this final warning, you must return to your Christian roots, and abandon the false teaching that it is my will that you should observe and make the Jewish Sabbath the focus of end time events, and an issue of salvation. This is wrong, for the Sabbath was part of the old covenant I made exclusively for the Jews, and as Gentiles it's not yours to claim. But I have given all people, Jews and Gentiles alike, who believe and follow me, a new covenant, which is the inheritance of eternal life, freely given by my blood, and by my grace through faith, and which also includes the guidance and empowerment of my spirit, but it includes no allowance for any legalisms from the old Jewish covenant. My Jews celebrate my creation, but my Christians celebrate my blood.”

The subject of the Sabbath is important enough to the purpose and foundations of the Seventh-day Adventist church that it is incorporated into its very name. Here’s what Ellen White had to say about the name chosen for the group: “The name Seventh-day Adventist is a standing rebuke to the Protestant world. Here is the line of distinction between the worshippers of God and those who worship the beast and receive his mark. The great conflict is between the commandments of God (i.e. Sabbath-keeping) and the requirements of the beast.” SG Vol 4, p. 54

How do we decide what to believe and what to discard? Our supposition is that we decide by scripture alone. It's time to test that theory.

Because the Adventist Church has stated that none of its beliefs come from Ellen White but from the Bible alone, I believe it is very important to investigate this claim and to be clear on what scriptures actually teach. Are any of the above assertions true? If the beliefs of Adventists that contradict the teachings of most of the evangelical church come from God, how is it that mainstream Christians also base their doctrines on scripture and they have not been listed as cults? How many of the SDA doctrines do we actually believe? How do we decide what to believe and what to discard? Our supposition is that we decide by scripture alone. It’s time to test that theory.

Pressing questions present themselves to members and even ex-members of Adventism: Is it the desire of God that we continue to observe the Sabbath? Even when a person leaves Adventism it seems that there is a deeply rooted belief that they had better not give up the Sabbath – just in case. Is this what the Bible says of the New Testament church? Are we in God’s will to continue saying, “What’s wrong with meeting on the Sabbath, what does it matter?” instead of asking,“What does the Word of God say?” and “Does it matter to God?” Is it valid to act contrary to the Bible so as not to offend other Adventists, especially family and Adventist employers, in the hopes of influencing them to seek the Holy Spirit? What will we be bringing them to when we, ourselves, have not gotten off the bridge and into the New Covenant? Do Adventists actually keep the Sabbath? And, if not, why continue to hold onto it when it creates division from the body of Christ and confusion to new believers?

Let's push on to answer those questions.

Ultimate Rest Table of Contents

The Next Chapter: The Everlasting Covenants

Are all of the covenants in the Bible everlasting covenants? If God is the same yesterday, today and forever, could any of His covenants be temporary? Which ones are which? There are four covenants that are spoken of as being everlasting. Do you know which ones they are?

The Everlasting Covenants

2008-09-12T11:17:00.000-07:00

One morning, as I was getting ready for work, I was struck with a revelation. It had to do with this obscure text I had never understood:

“What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one. ” Gal 3:19-20 (NIV)

Often, EGW refers to the Ten Commandments as the everlasting covenant. That text all of a sudden came clear to me and I finally understood something important. I ran to my computer and opened Bible Explorer to see if my thoughts were valid. Here is what I discovered: there is a distinction made in the covenants on the basis of the parties involved. The old covenant required two parties as evidenced by a mediator and therefore, because one of the parties was human it could be, and was, broken almost immediately and therefore could not be everlasting and, it was not made with all humanity, just with Israel. I then discovered that this subject is further explored by other writers as well.^{10, 14}

The New International Version Study Bible has and excellent table explaining the major covenants of the Old Testament. The covenants in the Ancient Near East were differentiated by the conditions associated with their fulfillment. A Royal Grant was unconditional. It was a covenant made by a king to a subject of his kingdom. A Suzerain-vassal covenant was conditional and could be revoked upon non-compliance of the servant with the requirements. The Suzerain was the king. The vassal was a servant or slave. All of the major covenants of the Old Testament can be identified as one or the other of these categories.

The Noahic Covenant:

“Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth." Gen 9:16 This covenant carried no requirements of those with whom it was made. It was unconditional and therefore, a Royal Grant. The fulfillment required no response from humanity.

The Abrahamic Covenant:

This is the statement of the covenant that God spoke to Abraham: “Then God said, 'Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him'” Gen 17:19 (NIV)

As we go to the New Testament we see that it included all nations:
“The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: ‘All nations will be blessed through you.’ So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.” Gal 3:8-9 (NIV) and, of course this was a prophetic promise of the Savior for all the world.

Again, this covenant had only One covenant-maker, God. It would happen without Abraham’s input. In fact, Abraham’s input was a singular failure and resulted in the very illustration of the old Ten Commandment covenant of slavery.

“These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar.” Gal 4:24 (NIV)

Therefore, this covenant was a Royal Grant and was unconditional and unbreakable.

The Davidic Covenant:

"'I will also give you rest from all your enemies. The Lord also declares to you that the Lord will make a house for you.'When your days are complete and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your descendant after you, who will come forth from you , and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever... But my love will never be taken away from him...Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will beestablished forever.'" 2 Sam 7:11-16 (NASB)

This is the covenant God made with David: 'Give ear and come to me; hear me, that your soul may live. I will make an everlasting covenant with you, my faithful love promised to David.'” Isaiah 55:3 (NIV)

"Hear now, you house of David! … Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.” Isaiah 7:13-14 (NIV)

This is a reiteration of the promise of the Savior. David was a type of Jesus, and it was promised that there would always and eternally be a king who will sit on the throne of David. Again, though David failed and failed, the covenant did not, because it was not dependant on David. It was an unconditional Royal Grant.

The New Covenant:

As we will see later, the New Covenant is the everlasting replacement for the Old Covenant that was put in place as a stopgap measure. Listen to the terms of this covenant: "'The time is coming,' declares the LORD, 'when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,' declares the LORD. 'This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,' declares the LORD. 'I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, "Know the LORD," because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,' declares the LORD. 'For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.'" Jer 31:31-34 (NIV)

"This is what the Sovereign LORD says: 'I will deal with you as you deserve, because you have despised my oath by breaking the covenant. Yet I will remember the covenant I made with you in the days of your youth, (the everlasting covenant through Abraham) and I will establish an everlasting covenant with you (looking forward to the New Covenant).'" Ezek 16:59-61 (NIV) The Old Covenant here is contrasted with the new, everlasting, covenant. Israel broke the old one they had promised to keep. Theirs was a Suzerain-vassal covenant. It was conditonal. The condition was that they would keep all of the rules, regulations and laws of the covenant or suffer the consequences. It was broken from the beginning and nothing could restore it. So God promised to make a new and everlasting covenant. The old was never intended to be everlasting.

What’s different between the unconditional covenants and those that were conditional? The mediator of the everlasting covenants was the covenant-maker and keeper. He is the king Who's word is sure and everlasting. They were promises made sovereignly by God and did not depend on another party keeping up their end. There were no conditions.

“For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance--now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.” Heb 9:15 (NIV) The party involved here is Jesus as priest, intercessor and judge.

The Old Covenant was conditional on Israel's capacity to comply with the requirements of the covenant. They entered into the covenant and affirmed “All you have said we will do.” It was ratified by a mediator, and the conditions were not met by the people nearly as soon as they had made the agreement. The unconditional Royal Grant covenant made with Abraham spanned the time when the temporary Old Covenant was in effect. It preceded the Old and it was in place after the Old was no longer in effect. It had no condtions and will never end.

“What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God (with Abraham) and thus do away with the promise. For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.” Gal 3:17-18 (NIV) This is contrasting the Ten Commandments and entire Book of the Law, or Old Covenant, with the Abrahamic covenant promise of a Savior which depended on an unconditional promise from God and not laws that would be broken. The Ten Commandments were added 430 years after the time of the Royal Grant covenant with Abraham so they did not exist prior to Sinai, which was at least 2500 years after Adam.

“The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless…and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him: The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: 'You are a priest forever.' Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.” Heb 7:18-22 (NIV) He will not change His mind. This one was not temporary like the other. It is not conditional on our behavior. The Old Covenant was set aside when Jesus came because Jesus was what the former covenant pointed toward. But it had only ever been a shadow. In itself, it was "weak and useless." Pretty strong words.

With Christ, a whole new order was ushered in. We are his new creation. “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!” 2 Cor 5:17 (NIV) And Christ became the mediator of the New Covenant. This is a mirror to the statement in Ex. 20:8-11 “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 (for this reason) the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” The authority God gave for making the covenant with Israel was His creatorship. In the New Covenant we are a new creation. God’s authority to make the New Covenant with humanity is the blood of Christ who has become the mediator of the New Covenant. While we were yet sinners He came, strings free, without conditions to offer the free gift of salvation.

“Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation.” Gal 6:15 (NIV) The Old Covenant with all of its laws, signs and regulations is now trumped by the new order.

“But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises. For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.” Heb 8:6-7 (NIV) Something was wrong with the Old Covenant. Does that sound like an eternal, unbreakable, immutable covenant?

How does one enter the New Covenant? "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." Mark 16:16 (NIV) " That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved." Romans 10:9-10 (NIV)

Summary of the Everlasting Covenants:

1) The four major Royal Grant (unconditional) covenants mentioned in the Old Testament are: the Noahic Covenant, the Abrahamic Covenant, the Davidic Covenant and the New Covenant.

2) The Old Covenant was a condtional Suzerain-vassal covenant who's conditions were not met nearly from the beginning. It was, therefore, broken and weak. It was only intended to be a shadow pointing to the real Covenant, Jesus.

3) The Royal Grant covenants depend on God alone for their fulfillment. They are unconditional and, therefore, everlasting.

4) The Old Covenant was conditional and temporary from the beginning. It was called weak and useless. God and Israel entered into the covenant together. Israel broke the covenant. There was something wrong with it.

5) The Old Covenant was replaced by the New Covenant. The New Covenant is a Royal Grant (unconditional and everlasting).

6) The authority of the covenant-Maker for the Old Covenant was creation. The authority for the New is the blood of Christ. He is the new mediator; we are the new creation.

Ultimate Rest Table of Contents

The Next Chapter: The Old or Siniatic Covenant
Was the Old Covenant ever intended to be everlasting? If it was, why is there a New Covenant? Was the Old Covenant made with us? All that God does is good. What was the purpose of the Old Covenant?

The Old or Sinaitic Covenant

2008-09-12T11:16:00.000-07:00

The Sinaitic, or Old Covenant, made with Israel was in keeping with the covenants made between kings and their subjects. It was of the Suzerain-vassal type and came with conditions that had to be maintained in order for the covenant to remain in effect. Israel confidently boasted, "All you have said, we will do." Before the ink was dry on the tables of stone, the conditions had already been broken. Symbolic of the nullified covenant, Moses threw the tablets to the ground, physically echoing the metaphysical chards they had made of their promises to God.

The Old Covenant: The Ten Commandments and the Entire Book of the Law

The following scriptures will define what is included in the Old Covenant. Adventists have been taught that there are two parts of the Old Covenant, the Ten Commandments (which Ellen White said is everlasting) and the rest of the Book of the Law (which she calls the ceremonial law). Those distinctions are never used in scripture. They are an artificial separation. If you are going to teach that the Ten Commandments (and therefore the Sabbath) are still in effect since the death of Jesus, then you must somehow separate them out of the law since Paul clearly states that the law was nailed to the cross. Col. 2:15 So we will go to scripture to see what was included in the Old Covenant.

“There was nothing in the ark except the two stone tablets that Moses had placed in it at Horeb, where the LORD made a covenant with the Israelites after they came out of Egypt. I have provided a place there for the ark, in which is the covenant of the LORD that he made with our fathers when he brought them out of Egypt." 1 Kings 8:9 & 21 (NIV)

Notice that it is the Ark of the Covenant and that the covenant was made with the Israelites after God brought them out of Egypt. Therefore it did not exist before that time. And what was in the Ark of the Covenant? The Ten Commandments.

“Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant--the Ten Commandments.” Ex 34:28 (NIV) So, here we see that the Ten Commandments are the very words of the covenant, so they cannot be separated out from the law or the Old Covenant.

“He declared to you his covenant, the Ten Commandments, which he commanded you to follow and then wrote them on two stones.” Deut 4:13 (NIV). Keep this in mind as we will be seeing a repeat of this statement by Paul in 2 Corinthians.

“When I went up on the mountain to receive the tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant that the LORD had made with you…” Deut 9:9 (NIV)

“At the end of the forty days and forty nights, the LORD gave me the two stone tablets, the tablets of the covenant.” Deut 9:11 (NIV)

“So I turned and went down from the mountain while it was ablaze with fire. And the two tablets of the covenant were in my hands.” Deut 9:15 (NIV)

Paul recognized the Law to include the Ten Commandments, “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.’” Romans 7:7 (NIV)

“The king contributed from his own possessions for the morning and evening burnt offerings and for the burnt offerings on the Sabbaths, New Moons and appointed feasts as written in the Law of the LORD.” 2 Chron 31:3 (NIV) So the Law included all of the regulations given to Moses including the festivals and sacrificial system.

“So … Ezra the priest brought the Law before the assembly… He read it aloud from daybreak till noon …and all the people listened attentively to the Book of the Law.” Neh 8:2-3 (NIV) It doesn’t take six hours to read the Ten Commandments.

“They found written in the Law, which the LORD had commanded through Moses, that the Israelites were to live in booths during the feast of the seventh month.” Neh 8:14 (NIV) Festivals were being described as coming from the law.

"Remember the law of my servant Moses, the decrees and laws I gave him at Horeb for all Israel.” Mal 4:4 (NIV)

“Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone…” 2 Cor 3:7 (NIV) If the Ten Commandments were gloriously highlighted in Heaven as Ellen White said, with the fourth commandment being more glorious than the rest, would Paul refer to them as a ministry that brought death and say that they were fading away?

“Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary. Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered Ark of the Covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron's staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant.” Heb 9:1-4 (NIV) So the first covenant included the regulations for worship, the sanctuary with the sacrificial system and the Ten Commandments.

Jesus understood this: “One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied, “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment and the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'” Matt 22:35-40 (NIV) In answer, Jesus quotes Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:13, not one of the Ten Commandments showing, that He understood the Old Covenant to include the whole Book of the Law. In other places he quoted the Ten Commandments as in His discussion with the rich young ruler. So the Ten Commandments along with the rest of the law are considered the Old Covenant. There is nowhere in scripture where the Old Covenant is broken into the Ten Commandments and the ceremonial law. In fact that term is never used; it was an invention of Ellen White.

The Old Covenant Was Made Only With Israel

One of the notable aspects of the Old Covenant is that it was not made with any other people group or nation. It was designed specifically for Israel and was designed to turn a rag-tag bunch of slaves into a nation that would represent God to the other nations. One day they were building the pyramids, the next they had become God’s chosen people. They had no laws, no rules, no organization and after 400 years in captivity the people had nearly lost all knowledge of the God of their father Abraham. And so God, with a majesty that made the people tremble, took Moses onto the mountain and dictated to him the constitution for this new nation.

However, it was not just a constitution. They were the people God had selected to be the ancestors of His Son. He wanted them to recognize Him when He came. He wanted them to understand His mission and to be able to move with Him into the ministry He had destined for them. So every detail of every law, festival, and regulation - even the sanctuary itself -pointed to Him. God put everything in place to lead them to know His Son. When Jesus came all of those models that were just mock-ups of Him would have no function because the real thing would be here. Even in the Old Testament the prophets realized that the Old Covenant had been broken and would require a new covenant that would recognize a new order of things. This covenant was tailor-made for the people who would give birth to the Savior of the World. No other nation could fill this role. No other nation could be given this covenant.⁵

“And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today?” Deut 4:8 (NIV) Moses then goes on to identify the decrees and laws: “Then the LORD spoke to you out of the fire. You heard the sound of words but saw no form; there was only a voice. He declared to you his covenant, the Ten Commandments, which he commanded you to follow and then wrote them on two stone tablets. And the LORD directed me at that time to teach you the decrees and laws you are to follow in the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess.” Deut 4:12-14 (NIV) Only Israel qualifies here.

Before delivering the Ten Commandments, God identified the group to whom they applied: “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.” Ex 20:2 (NIV) No other people qualify here either.

"'Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people. For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death. The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant.” Ex 31:14-16 (NIV)The word 'owlam has been translated here as "lasting," not "everlasting." Its definition in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says it is “used often of time indefinitely long.”

"You came down on Mount Sinai; you spoke to them from heaven. You gave them regulations and laws that are just and right, and decrees and commands that are good. You made known to them your holy Sabbath and gave them commands, decrees and laws through your servant Moses.” Neh 9:13-14 (NIV) This speaks exclusively of the Israelites. “Remember the law of my servant Moses, the decrees and laws I gave him at Horeb for all Israel.” Mal 4:4 (NIV)

“Hear, O Israel, the decrees and laws I declare in your hearing today. Learn them and be sure to follow them. The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. It was not with our fathers that the LORD made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today. The LORD spoke to you face to face out of the fire on the mountain.” Deut 5:1-4 (NIV) Not only was the covenant made solely with Israel, it was made with them at the time of Moses, not before. The Ten Commandments, the law, did not exist before that time.

“I have provided a place there for the ark, in which is the covenant of the LORD that he made with our fathers when he brought them out of Egypt." 1 Kings 8:21 (NIV) When? The fact that no other nation had the law was fully understood and confirmed by Paul: “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law…” Romans 2:14 (NIV)

“For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenant, the receiving of the law, the temple worship...” Romans 9:3-4 (NIV)

Notice how Ellen White has to resort to replacement theology to claim otherwise. “I am instructed to say to our people, Gather together from the Scriptures the proofs that God has sanctified the Sabbath and let the words of the Lord be read before the congregations, showing that all who turn aside from a plain ‘Thus saith the Lord’ will be condemned. The Sabbath has been the test of the loyalty of God's people in all ages. ‘It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever,’ the Lord declares.” {RH, March 26, 1908 par. 7} Only Israel of old received this covenant.

This point was brought forcefully to my understanding in 1993 as I stood overlooking the men's section of the wailing wall in Jerusalem. A Hassidic Jew, complete with side curls, was prayng nearby. I struck up a conversation with him out of interest in making contact with someone so far out of my sphere of experience. He asked me to tell him about myself. With a bit of pride and misguided evangelistic zeal I replied that I was a Sabbath-keeping Christian. He gave me an unamused look and what sounded suspiciously like a scoff as he told me, "That's impossible. You gentiles are free from the Law, that was given only to Israel. You have no obligations to keep the Sabbath. It was never your Law, but ours." Many years later, as I related this story to one of my Jewish partners, he quipped, "So, it took a Hassid to set you free." Indeed. It stuck, like a seed caught in soil until the time for germination had come.

The Sign of the Sinaitic Covenant is the Sabbath

Every covenant had a sign. You will remember that with Noah it was the rainbow, with Abraham it was circumcision, with David it was the virgin birth. In the new covenant baptism is the entrance sign and the Lord’s Supper is the repeating sign that brings remembrance. Circumcision is the entrance sign to the Old Covenant. It was clear that unless someone had been circumcised they could not take part in any of the Old Covenant or be a part of the covenant people. Sabbath was the repeating sign of remembrance in the Old Covenant.¹⁰

"An alien living among you who wants to celebrate the Lord’s Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land. No uncircumcised male may eat of it. The same law applies to the native-born and to the alien living among you." Ex 12:48-49 (NIV) So when there is such controversy about circumcision in the early church, the significance is that with circumcision one enters into all of the regulations and practices in the Book of the Law. Circumcision stood for the whole package. Unless one was circumcised they couldn’t take part in any of it. After circumcision they qualified to be a part of the nation of Israel and participate in all of their constitution and practices.¹⁰

“It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested." Ex 31:17 (NIV). This identifies the covenant partners: Israel and the God who also made the Earth in six days. There were not seven creation days. Seven represents God Himself and is repeated throughout the Old Covenant. There was the weekly Sabbath, there were seven seasonal festivals, every seven years there was a Sabbatical year and there was the year of Jubilee, which was the seventh occurrence of the Sabbatical year, or seven sevens.⁶

"Say to the Israelites, you must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign between me and you for the generations to come, so you may know that I am the LORD, who makes you holy.” Ex 31:13 (NIV)

“The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting (‘owlam, indefinite period of time) covenant. It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever (‘owlam), for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested.” Ex 31:16-17 (NIV)

Summary of Old Covenant Chapter

1) The Old Covenant is everything that God gave Moses on Mount Sinai.

2) The Ark of the Covenant contained the Ten Commandments.

3) The Ten Commandments make up the words of the Old Covenant.

4) The Law includes the Ten Commandments and everything included in the Book of the Law along with the whole sacrificial system.

5) God could not make this covenant with any other nation than Israel, because this covenant pointed to the coming Savior Who would come only through Israel.

6) Circumcision and was mandatory for participation as a member of the nation.

7) The Sabbath was given as proof of God's authority to make a covenant with Israel.

8) All of the religious practices of Israel revolved around the number seven. Seven is the number of completion and represents God, the Creator who put the world into place with perfect completion symbolized by the number seven.

9) The Old Covenant was of the Suzerain-vassal type that came with conditions that were broken almost immediately.

Ultimate Rest Table of Contents

The Next Chapter: Are the Ten Commandments Immutable?

What does immutable mean? It means unchangeable, everlasting. The argument is that God never changes, ergo, the Ten Commandments cannot change. Is that a valid theorum?

Are the Ten Commandments Immutable?

2008-09-12T11:14:00.000-07:00

There is a teaching in Adventism that alleges that the Ten Commandments are eternal and unchanging. We were taught, “they are a transcript of God’s character.” And since God never changes this law can never change. Even speaking those words seems to carry with them the weight of cannon truth. The difficulty comes when one tries to find that teaching in the Bible. In fact it teaches just the opposite. It’s hard to wash those words out of your thinking when they were spoken as if from the very mouth of God. But let’s look at the words that we know did come from the mouth of God in the Bible.

“Yet I will remember the covenant I made with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish an everlasting covenant with you.” Ezek 16:60 (NIV) In context this is referring to the New Covenant.

"’The time is coming,’ declares the LORD, ‘when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant…’”Jer 31:31-32 (NIV) Even the prophets of the Old Testament were told that the Old Covenant was not permanent and that it would be replaced with a covenant that was not like the one they had.

Something added certainly could not have existed from the creation of the world nor would it exist after the Seed had come.

“What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come.” Gal 3:19 (NIV) Something added certainly could not have existed from the creation of the world nor would it exist after the Seed had come.

“For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law.” Heb 7:12 (NIV) God didn’t change. He never intended the covenant He made on Mount Sinai to be everlasting. It was a temporary measure from the first and was changed to the New Covenant when the Savior had come. When Jesus had the disciples prepare for the Last Supper they went in to celebrate the Passover and left having made the transition into the New Covenant. It was there that Jesus announced the change from the Old to the New figuratively on His way to the cross. Instead of celebrating the Passover, they celebrated the first communion and remembrance sign of the New Covenant.

“Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). “Then he said, ‘Here I am, I have come to do your will.’ He sets aside the first to establish the second.” Heb 10:8-9 (NIV) He sets it aside, does away with it, replaces it with something better. Don’t let anyone confuse you that the New Covenant is a rehash or renewal of the Old Covenant. That is a trap and a deception that cannot stand against the weight of scripture.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” Matt 5:17-18 (NIV)

“It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors' ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment." Luke 22:37 (NIV)

So, when it was accomplished it would pass away. And when did the shadows of the law become substance?

"After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, "I thirst!" John 19:28 (NKJV)

“The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming--not the realities themselves.” Heb 10:1 (NIV) The Sabbath was the shadow; Jesus is the substance. So, continuing to keep the Sabbath is like continuing to participate in a weekly re-enactment of the Civil War but not living in the time of civil rights every day.

“Christ is the end (telos) of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.” Romans 10:4 (NIV)

The Greek word for “end” is telos. It has these meanings: “1a) termination, the limit at which a thing ceases to be (always of the end of some act or state, but not of the end of a period of time, 1b) the end 1b1) the last in any succession or series, 1b2) eternally terminated, 1c) that by which a thing is finished, its close…1d) the end to which all things relate, the aim, purpose” —Strong's Greek & Hebrew Dictionary (Bible Explorer)

The following scriptures show that the apostles understood that after Christ had come, the law came to an end. “So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.” Gal 3:24-25 (NIV)

The writer of Hebrews says it this way: “By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.” Heb 8:13 (NIV) An obsolete computer is virtually useless and is cast off.

“The former regulation is set aside (not re-newed) because it was weak and useless...” Heb 7:18-19 (NIV) These are strong and even insulting words to describe the law if it was a glorious eternal transcript of God’s character.

“For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.” Heb 8:7 (NIV) Again, if the law was to be honored and obeyed for all time, the writer of Hebrews was being very disrespectful to say that there was something wrong with it. And he does not suggest that the first covenant was kept and revamped, repackaging it by now writing the “weak and useless” covenant on our hearts.

Summary: Are the Ten Commandments Immutable?

1) The Seventh-day Adventist Church teaches that the Ten Commandments are the “transcript” of God’s character and therefore unchanging.

2) God didn’t change. The Old Covenant was a temporary measure from the beginning for the purpose of pointing forward to Christ.

3) When Christ had come there was no longer any purpose for the shadows. The Son was here.

4) The writers of the Bible both in the Old and New Testaments affirm that the Law came to an end when the New Covenant came into being in Christ.

5) The words used by the New Testament writers (weak, useless, ministry of death, something wrong with it, schoolmaster, a shadow, obsolete) could not be describing an eternal, glorious transcript of the character of God.

Ultimate Rest Table of Contents

The Next Chapter: The Seventh Day in Creation
When one finally understands that the Sabbath is not a salvation issue - praise God when that happens! - then creation becomes the reason for continued Sabbath-keeping. The argument goes something like this: the Sabbath was "created" at the foundation of the Earth. How could it be uncreated? From the very beginning of the world's history there was a weekly Sabbath. Is that true?

The Seventh Day In Creation

2008-09-12T11:13:00.000-07:00

The 8th Fundamental Belief of Adventism states: “God is Creator of all things, and has revealed in Scripture the authentic account of His creative activity. In six days the Lord made ‘the heaven and the earth’ and all living things upon the earth, and rested on the seventh day of that first week. Thus He established the Sabbath as a perpetual memorial of His completed creative work.” Then it points to the presentation of the Ten Commandments in Exodus that says, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy” as proof that the Sabbath had existed before the giving of the law.

For this section of our study I am going to ask you to step outside of your presuppositions about what you have been told regarding the Bible and look at the biblical account of creation, the exodus, and Moses’ experience on Sinai as if you had never heard it before. To set the stage, let me remind you of a few details.

Most biblal scholars (Jewish and Christian) believe that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible. History supports a birth date for Moses around 1526 BC with the exodus beginning around 1446 BC. The dates the Adventist Church uses for creation are based on a very outdated chronology developed by James Ussher, an Anglican Archbishop of Armagh in Northern Ireland, which he published around 1640 AD. There were a number of other chronologies floating around during that period in history and all of them were based on the day-for-year principle proposed in the eleventh century. This sprang from the scripture that says that with the Lord a day is a thousand years. Therefore, they surmised, if God created the world in six days then the history of Earth would be six thousand years (four thousand before Christ and two thousand after Christ). They all expected that when the earth reached the six thousand year point, Christ would return and the earth would move into the seventh day of rest.

Ussher worked backward from his point in history and used the account of male lineage given in Genesis to arrive at the year 4004 BC for the actual creation week. He further used the Jewish calendar, thereby concluding that creation started on Sunday. Even more interesting for Adventists is that he pegged the day as the evening before October 23 (or October 22 which does not have the best track record for date-setting). “In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth: Gen. 1, v. 1. Which beginning of time, according to our Chronologie, fell upon the entrance of the night preceding the twenty third day of Octob[er] in the year of the Julian [Period] 710. The year before Christ 4004. The Julian Period 710.” Annals of the World, 1658.

From 1700 AD onward his chronology was included in many influential translations and editions of the Bible including the KJV and Scofield Reference Bibles. This was the accepted view of historical dating that existed when Adventism came into being. Therefore, his dating of world events made their way into Adventist theology. Since then, Ussher’s chronology has largely been discarded as fatally flawed even by conservative biblical scholars. Modern discoveries have made his theories untenable. It is widely accepted that no dating can be done with any accuracy before the time of Abraham.

By 1890 some very influential and conservative theologians were giving conclusive evidence that Ussher’s chronology should be abandoned. William Henry Green, professor of theology at Princeton, wrote an article in Bibliotheca Sacra entitled “Primeval Chronology” in which he stated, “We conclude that the Scriptures furnish no data for a chronological computation prior to the life of Abraham; and that the Mosaic records do not fix and were not intended to fix the precise date either of the Flood or of the creation of the world.”

Methodological Flaws

Most of the chronologies in the Bible have large gaps, some of them omitting as much as 1500 years from Adam to Solomon. From Solomon to the Babylonian captivity there is no continuity in linear timelines. From Ezra to the birth of Jesus there are no time periods established at all in the biblical record. From Jesus forward, the historical record takes over and events can be pinpointed fairly accurately. It was not the purpose of the accounting to establish a timeline that went back to creation.

The genealogies were given to emphasize various points the authors, under the inspiration of God, were making in that particular passage. Today, all but Adventist and other fundamentalist young Earth creationists have abandoned Ussher’s conclusions. If you take out your study Bible you will most likely find that any chronological tables printed there start with Abraham and give time-indefinite biblical events correlated with approximate Mesopotamian and Egyptian chronologies prior to his life.

Contextual Fantasy

Now, come with me to the time of Moses and imagine that you are, in fact, Moses. Your own mother nursed you until you could be weaned (perhaps until the age of four). At that time you were taken into the Pharaoh’s (probably Thutmose III from which your name may have been derived) household where you were raised and educated. You knew little or nothing about Israeli history and for all intents and purposes were Egyptian. According to the Bible it was not until you “had grown up” that you went to the place where your genetic people of origin were working. After killing the Egyptian who was beating an Israeli slave you flee to the desert of Midian where you marry the daughter of a Midianite (not Israelite) priest. You live there with her family for forty years before God sends you back to Egypt to lead the Israeli nation to freedom.

Implementation

OK, so you know the history. Why are we retracing these steps? To point out that Moses had not had much immersion into Israeli oral tradition, culture or even folklore. He was an Egyptian by adoption, culture and training. Now return to our assertion that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible and let’s draw all the parts together and evaluate them. Somewhere around 1445 BC Moses led over two million people on an unprecedented journey by command of God.

Two and a half months into the journey God tells Moses that He is instituting a routine that will govern their lives as they make their way to the land He has promised to give them as their own. He will provide food for them since the pickings in the desert would be pretty slim for a long time to come. They would go out in the morning and there it would be. Each day they were to gather enough for that day only. This would begin the next morning and would continue every day for six days. On the sixth day they would gather enough for two days because on the seventh day there would be no provision of manna from God.

Supernaturally, the food gathered days one thru five would be spoiled by morning, but the food gathered on the sixth day would last thru the sixth and the seventh days. ‘This is what the LORD commanded: 'Tomorrow is to be a day of rest, a holy Sabbath to the LORD. So bake what you want to bake and boil what you want to boil. Save whatever is left and keep it until morning.'" Ex 16:21-23 (NIV) Moses must have puzzled over the instructions about the sixth day. Why was God instituting this pattern? There is no evidence in extant literature that a seven-day week cycle existed outside of this biblical account, and there is no mention of the Sabbath in the Bible until Ex. 16:21-23. Have you noticed that in the creation account?

D.A. Carson has this to say, “The biblical view is unequivocal: the Sabbath originated in Israel as God’s special institution for His people…On this question, the evidence is unequivocal; only the ancient Hebrew literature speaks definitely about a seven-day week and a Sabbath.”^{6 p. 23} The only reason given to Moses at this time is, “In this way I will test them and see whether they will follow my instructions.” Ex 16:4 (NIV)

They were all learning a pattern of obedience to a God whom they had lost sight of during the 400 years of Israeli slavery. Moses was learning along with them since he had not been raised with the expectations and practices of the Jews since babyhood. The scripture tells us that even though they may not have understood, and had obviously not been keeping any Sabbath routine, most of them complied. Moses reiterates God’s command to them, “’Bear in mind that the LORD has given you the Sabbath; that is why on the sixth day he gives you bread for two days. Everyone is to stay where he is on the seventh day; no one is to go out.’ So the people rested on the seventh day.” Ex 16:29-30 (NIV) Notice the last sentence, “So (for that reason) the people rested on the seventh day.” It is obvious from the context that it was not until that time that the Lord had “given” them the Sabbath, and until that time they had not known about, nor observed it.

Life began for Israel with God's redemptive act of deliverance from Egypt. Other cultures began their yearly calendars with respect to nature, the phases of the moon, the sun or the stars. The seven-day week doesn't fit into any of those cycles.

God was establishing them as a nation “under God” and He began by giving them their own unique history. Even their calendar was to be unique. “This month is to be for you the first month, the first month of your year.” Ex 12:2 (NIV) Life began for Israel with God’s redemptive act of deliverance from Egypt. Other cultures began their yearly calendars with respect to nature, the phases of the moon, the sun or the stars. The seven-day week doesn’t fit into any of those cycles. It is unique and stands alone as a mark of God’s authority over them. It was a sign between them and God that they were His people and it did not extend to the rest of the world.

Moving ahead fourteen days from the establishment of the seven day cycle with the seventh day of their new calendar as “a Sabbath to the Lord," we come to Mt. Sinai. Moses walks up into the fire and lightening to meet with God for forty days and nights. The frightened on-lookers are not sure that he will come back alive. But there is a lot that God has to share with His friend. Perhaps it was during those forty days that God recited to Moses all of the stories and history he wrote out over the next eighty years. God selected Moses to be the His storyteller and historian for all of the events of Earth's history from creation to the establishment of Israel. Up until this time there was no such written record. One of the results of that magnificent encounter, unparalleled in history before or after, was the covenant God drew up with His chosen people. That covenant became known as “the law” and within it was a bare bones summary version, the Ten Commandments. During the forty days, God had the leisure of telling Moses the reasons behind some of His actions which must have seemed unfathomable and mysterious to him.

God explained why He had chosen to set up the Sabbath in giving them the miracle of the manna, why it was to be a sign between Him and His people. He was the Creator. He had created the world in six days. At the end of the sixth day all that He intended to create was complete, so He ceased the work of creation. The next day, the seventh, He stopped His work. It was not one of the days of creation. His people were to live out the pattern of God on Earth to draw attention to His authority and His ownership of all creation. By setting up this seven day pattern that did not correlate with nature, the knowledge of the one true God would be preserved. We know that He told Moses this because we have a record of it in Exodus 20:8-12. “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 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.”

So that was why he had given the pattern of six days of manna and the seventh with no gathering or work. Yes, that was why. “Therefore (that's why) the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” Ex 20:8-11 (NIV) Now Moses understood. Now the people of Israel would understand also. The world, observing them, would know too. Within all the world they alone kept time based on the God who had chosen them. God gave them the Sabbath as a sign between Him and His people. As His people, they were to live out before the world the number of the Lord, seven: His number and symbol of authority.

The Pentateuch

The first five books of the Bible, written by Moses, are known as the Pentateuch. Since we know that Moses had his hands full with this bunch of complainers we can surmise that he wrote Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy over a period of many years. We know that he couldn’t have written all of Exodus until after the tabernacle had been set up because it hadn’t happened yet. We know that he couldn’t have written all of Exodus until nearly forty years after Sinai because the events at the end of the book didn’t happen until just before he died. And, obviously, someone else had to finish the last few verses of that book because they look back at Moses’ death. So, you get the point.

Now, we come to Genesis. We don’t know when that was written along the way. It seems logical that Exodus may have been written first since Moses had to come down the hill and put into writing all of the information of the covenant God had given him in order to read it to the people and establish it. So, at the earliest, Genesis could not have been written until some time after Moses descended from Sinai in the mid-1400s BC.

By the shortest possible chronology, and not to add any argument to this proposal, Genesis could not have been written any closer to the creation event than 2500 years. If you were writing a history of what happened 2500 years ago how much would you be able to write without having been informed either in writing or by God? Nothing. So, because we believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God, we also conclude that Moses wrote what God revealed to him either on Sinai or on route in the desert. That would include the account of creation in Genesis.
As we come to the end of the account of the six days of creation we find this account, “Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.” Gen 2:1-2 (NIV) Thus ends the account of creation. 2500 years later and after having been given the instructions on gathering the manna; after God’s establishment of the seven-day week; the Jewish calendar and the Israeli covenant constitution; Moses sees the bigger picture.

God has revealed to him the vast expanse of His love from the creation of the universe to the selection of Israel as the bearers of God’s image on Earth. Now it is clear to him why God established the Sabbath for Israel and why He set it apart as a sign between them and God. As he concludes his account of creation from his 20/20 retrospective vision, he understands and adds these words to the end of the story, “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 2:3 (NIV) Now it makes sense. He was not saying that it was a part of creation, but was commenting on the establishment of the seventh-day Sabbath for Israel at least 2500 years later.

One can also see this aspect of his writing when he speaks of Eve and calls her the mother of all living. He only knew to write that from a distant perspective that had seen history prove it true. In the same way, Moses wrote, “The man named his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all living.” Gen 3:20 (NRSV) When Adam named Eve she wasn’t the mother of anyone. It was Moses who added, “because she was the mother of all living” since he already knew what had happened and was speaking to his readers. Just so, when he added the phrase “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 2:3 (NIV) He was making an editorial comment.

Further Purpose In the Sabbath

So far we have been given two of God’s reasons for establishing the Sabbath for Israel. The first reason given was as a test of their willingness to obey what He commanded them regarding the manna. “In this way I will test them and see whether they will follow my instructions.” Ex 16:4 (NIV) The second was an acknowledgment of His role as Creator. “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested (ceased work, stopped creating—Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words) on the seventh day. Keep this purpose in mind, as we will see later its significance as a shadow of the Sabbath rest that remains in the New Covenant, a cessation of our work toward salvation beautifully described in Hebrews.⁴

A third purpose for giving the Sabbath to Israel is given in Deuteronomy, “Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.” Deut 5:12-15 (NIV) Here the Sabbath represents a testimony to freedom and redemption because God, the creator of the world, is also the one who released Israel from Egyptian bondage. He gave the Sabbath not only as a reminder of their redemption but also started their national calendar with that event as if time for them had not existed until then. On that day He became their Redeemer; therefore, they were to keep a calendar and a holy day in honor of Him for all the world to see.

The Creation Event

There are a number of other indications that the Sabbath did not exist prior to its establishment as a sign between God and Israel. “Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from (ceased from) all his work.” Gen 2:1-2 (NIV) Creation was finished at the end of the sixth day. Most scholars agree that the word Sabbath is most closely associated with the word "cessation" rather than our usage of the word "rest." ⁶ There was not a seventh day of creation. There was no morning or evening though all of the others days have the repeating liturgy of “there was evening and there was morning, the...day." This suggests that we are still in God’s seventh day since He has not created anything in this universe since that time. He continues to "sabbath" or remain in a cessation of creating.

In agreement with this assertion, though there were at least 2500 years of history by the time Genesis was written, that history is recorded by Moses with intricate detail. But in all of that history there is nothing said about Adam and Eve being commanded to keep a Sabbath any more than the creation of the moon mandated the observance of new moon celebrations. After six days of bringing the universe into being, God ceased creating. That cessation of God's work in creating was not given the significance of being set apart for humanity until it became symbolic of His redemptive purpose thru Israel as a sign of covenant with them.⁵

The SDA church points to the Ten Commandments as the mandate for keeping the Sabbath. I have heard some say that no, our injunction to keep the Sabbath isn't based on the law, but on creation. I would challenge you to formulate a justification for Sabbath-keeping, armed with just the account of creation in Genesis, the Biblical record before Israel’s deliverance, and the New Testament. I would submit that it couldn’t be done. Other Christians do not make a connection between the creation account and a belief that God “created” the Sabbath. There is no evidence that a Sabbath was ever observed before it was “given” to the Israelites.

Other Clues

What other evidence is there that the Ten Commandments, and therefore the Sabbath, did not exist from creation? After the creation is completed on the sixth day, there is not one mention of God’s commanding, requiring or even asking Adam and Eve to keep the Sabbath. They didn’t need that ordinance because they lived in The Sabbath every day. The purpose of the Sabbath became evident after sin came. It was a promise of the Savior who would be the Sabbath rest and pointed even further ahead to the time when a new Earth would be created and they would be restored back to the state of sinlessness and perfection that Adam and Eve entered into from the beginning. There is no mention of Cain or Abel ever keeping the Sabbath, or holy Enoch or faultless Job. And even though the covenant of promise made with Abraham is carefully spelled out, there is no mention made of commanding him to keep the Sabbath.¹¹ There is no mention at all of the Sabbath. The Bible never records a single instance or allusion to Sabbath-keeping with Isaac, Jacob, or his 12 sons. In fact, the very first mention of the Sabbath in scripture is with respect to the Israelites after they are brought out of Egypt in establishment of the manna cycle. It had been two and a half months since they left Egypt and were in the Desert of Sin between Elim and Sinai when God began teaching them obedience to His will.

It’s obvious from the way he announced the Sabbath to them that they had never heard of it before and didn’t have a clue what He was talking about. God had to “establish” it by telling them what it was and how He wanted them to observe it. “This is what the LORD has commanded: 'Each one is to gather as much as he needs. Take an omer for each person you have in your tent.'" Ex 16:16 (NIV) “Each morning everyone gathered as much as he needed, and when the sun grew hot, it melted away. On the sixth day, they gathered twice as much--two omers for each person--and the leaders of the community came and reported this to Moses. He said to them, ‘This is what the LORD commanded: 'Tomorrow is to be a day of rest, a holy Sabbath to the LORD. So bake what you want to bake and boil what you want to boil. Save whatever is left and keep it until morning.'" Ex 16:21-23 (NIV) ⁵

Notice here that God commanded them to rest on the Sabbath. So, that makes the Sabbath a commandment of God. He also commanded them to gather twice the manna on the sixth day, to cook everything before the Sabbath and not to leave their tents. That makes manna-gathering, not leaving one’s dwelling and cooking everything ahead of time, commandments. God was testing them to see if they would obey this new command. But this does not suggest that any of these “commandments” existed before this time. Nor does it suggest that they remain in effect for us. It does show conclusively, however, that one must define what commands are being spoken of when the word “commandment” is used.

Moving on to evidence in the New Testament, Paul says, “The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say ‘and to seeds,’ meaning many people, but ‘and to your seed,’ meaning one person, who is Christ. What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant (with Abraham) previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.” Gal 3:16-17 (NIV) Therefore, there was no law given by God before Moses.

“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command.” Romans 5:12-14 (NIV)

There was sin without the law including the Ten Commandments. Adam sinned, therefore, without “The Law”, so there was moral obligation before the law and the termination of that law did not terminate or change moral obligation.5 So, when Jesus spoke out the foundation for the Jewish Law He said it was “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.” And “Love your neighbor as your self.” In identifying these laws He was speaking out the immutable law of God that was there before the Jewish Law was instituted and is still there since the Jewish Law has come to an end.

A Day is a Day?

Another legitimate discussion revolves around what is meant by a day in the Genesis account. Because I had read Genesis primarily in the New International Version of the Bible I failed to see that Genesis 2:4 may hold a clue to the creation of the universe. Let's read it in the New American Standard Bible: "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." Gen 2:4 (NASB) The Hebrew word for day (yom) used in this verse is the same word used in the creation narrative of genesis one. Obviously, in Genesis 2 the word is not referring to a 24 hour period of time.

Other related questions arise in this discussion. If one holds to a literal 24-hour six day creation event that would necessitate the existence of the earth with no other heavenly bodies (stars, planets, sun, moon) for a period of time. The account in Genesis does not preclude the possibility of the earth being present in a chaotic state prior to the six creation days. It simply describes it as being without form and void. So, supposing that it pre-existed Genesis 1, did it do so in isolation, without any supporting or accompanying structures? If so, for how long? If it is true, even for three litereral days that the earth existed before the sun existed, what would have marked a 24-hour day?

Many creationists have come to believe that the days spoken of in both Genesis 1 and 2 refer to epoch or periods of time, and describe an orderly, meticulously careful Creator in no rush to construct the home for the creatures made in His own image. This is not a new thought. Augustine (354-430 AD) took note that the Bible does not mention an evening or a morning for the day after creation was completed (the seventh day). It was his deduction that God set aside all time following creation as an epoch that would be sanctified and blessed on into eternity. (The Confessions, Book XIII, Section 51)

This, of course, is a subject too vast to explore adequately in this study. But, if you are interested there is a wonderful study written by Hugh Ross in his book, A Matter of Days, that sheds some fascinating light on possibilites you may never have considered before.

Summary of The Seventh Day in Creation:
1) The SDA Church points to creation and the Ten Commandments as the basis for Sabbath-keeping.

2) God established a new and unique calendar for Israel that began on the day He delivered them from Egypt.

3) He first established the Sabbath with the weekly cycle of the manna.

4) The first reason given for Sabbath-keeping in this instance was to test whether Israel would obey what He commanded.

5) The second reason given for Sabbath-keeping was to commemorate His role as creator of all things.

6) Moses wrote the creation account in Genesis at least 2500 years after creation. By the time he wrote it he had already been shown why God established the Sabbath for Israel and pointed it out at the end of the creation story.

7) The third time the Sabbath command is recorded, its stated purpose is to remind Israel that the Lord is their redeemer and deliverer.

8) The Sabbath points to God’s authority to make covenants and to command His people: His roles as Creator and Savior (Redeemer, Deliverer).

9) The creation account states that creation was finished by the end of the sixth day.

10) Nowhere is Sabbath commanded in the account of creation.

11) There is no account of anyone keeping, observing or celebrating the Sabbath until it was established in the manna command.

12) The Sabbath is never mentioned with respect to Adam, Eve, Job, Enoch, Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob.

13) On the seventh day God ceased or “Sabbathed” creating.

14) God's rest is mirrored in the New Covenant by our ceasing our own works toward salvation. The Sabbath was a shadow pointing to the Substance.

15) Paul clearly states that the law was not given until 430 years after Abraham.

16) Sin existed before the law. So moral obligation preceded the law and still exists after the law ceases to exist.

17) The Hebrew word yom can also be interpreted as epoch allowing for a completely different take on the creation narrative of Genesis, rendering the seventh day as an ongoing epoch of blessing over our planet.

Ultimate Rest Table of Contents

The Next Chapter: Jesus' Authority Over the Sabbath

When the New Testament speaks of Jesus being the Lord of the Sabbath, is it suggesting that He reigns over a day? Could He be standing up to declare, "I AM the Sabbath"?

Jesus' Authority Over the Sabbath

2008-09-12T11:11:00.000-07:00

Jesus’ actions regarding the Sabbath seem to point toward making the transition from the Old to the New Covenant. He went out of His way to heal on Sabbath, to “thresh” grain on the Sabbath and to call attention to those acts. Let’s take a look at some of those Sabbath encounters and see what we can learn from them.

“At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples became hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat. But when the Pharisees saw this, they said to Him, ‘Look, Your disciples do what is not lawful to do on a Sabbath.’ But He said to them, ‘Have you not read what David did when he became hungry, he and his companions, how he entered the house of God, and they ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him to eat nor for those with him, but for the priests alone? Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent? But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here. But if you had known what this means, “I desire mercy and not a sacrifice,” you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.’" Matt 12:1-8 (NASB)

Jesus was equating shewbread with the Sabbath, the priesthood, and circumcision all of which were at the same level. They were all temporary shadows of what was to come. The Pharisees rightly accused Jesus and His disciples of breaking (the Greek word luo is also translated: destroy, destroyer, destruction, destructive, dissolve, loose, unloose—Strong's Greek & Hebrew Dictionary) the Sabbath. They were outraged because His actions were destroying the authority of the Sabbath of the Law and replacing it with the Sabbath Himself. The disciples were threshing, they weren’t resting and they hadn’t prepared their food on Friday. Jesus’ arguments did not institute Sabbath reform.¹⁰ He took authority over the Sabbath by saying that He was Lord of, He was the Sabbath and He defined what Sabbath meant. He was loosing the people from the shadow so they could come to the Substance. The shadow has to give way to the Reality. Remember that the Pharisees were applying the very laws that God had given them regarding the Sabbath. They were not making up added burdens that they annexed onto God’s instructions.

Christ’s arguments in response were that:

1) David had not been condemned a number of times for breaking ritual law (which includes the Sabbath and all other portions of the law that were shadows of the reality, Jesus) but had been condemned for breaking moral law.

2) David was exempt from the rituals because he was the king and his men were exempt because they were associated with him – a foreshadowing of the New Covenant. If the Sabbath were a moral law, Jesus would not have broken it.

3) His statement that the “Son of Man” (Jesus incarnate, the redeemer, Emanuel) is Lord of the Sabbath can be equated with Heb. 10:1 “The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming--not the realities themselves.” Just as His statement that something greater than the temple was there was not a reformation of the rituals surrounding the temple but a replacement of those shadows with the reality, so the statement that the Lord of the Sabbath had come replaced the shadow with the substance.

If the Sabbath were a moral obligation or immutable moral law, then if Jesus had broken it He would have sinned and could not be our Savior.

“Then He said to them, ‘The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.’" Mark 2:27-28 (NIV) He is Lord of the Sabbath because He made the Sabbath for Israel. In saying that He made it He was showing that it had to be “made”. An immutable, everlasting principle of God’s character does not have to be made, it “is." This was obvious, because it could be set aside without consequences or sin by both David and Jesus. A moral obligation could not.¹⁰

Does the New Covenant Have Commandments?

The primary fear and objection raised when it is stated that the Ten Commandments are no longer binding on Christians is that it will result in lawlessness. The arguments are usually these: 1) Then does that mean that we can go out and steal and kill with impunity? 2) We do not keep the Ten Commandments in order to be saved, we keep them because we love the Lord and want to please Him. 3) If the Sabbath commandment is null and void, so are all the others. But listen to the New Covenant:

"The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant…This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more." Heb 8:8-12 (NIV)

What laws are being referred to here?

“Do you not know, brothers--for I am speaking to men who know the law--that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives? For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man. So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead…we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.” Romans 7:1-6 (NIV)

So, it can’t be the Ten Commandments, which are the words of the Old Covenant Law, because Paul says that to continue to hold onto the Old Covenant while moving into the New Covenant is equivalent to committing adultery. That’s a serious charge and suggests that it does matter to God whether or not we cast off the old in order to belong to another. It is unfaithfulness.5

Adventism has continued to hold onto the Sabbath in spite of its protestations that the New Covenant is understood and practiced. The statements in defense of the Sabbath are:

1) Why not keep the Sabbath? It isn’t sin. We can keep Monday or Tuesday or Friday.

2) We know that our salvation isn’t linked to Sabbath-keeping.

3) We do it as a response of love.

4) We keep it as a sign that we are saved.

5) I love the Sabbath. I feel close to God when I keep the Sabbath. I’ve done it all my life.

6) We don’t need to unnecessarily offend other Adventists. If we don’t keep the Sabbath we can’t have any influence with them.

But what is not acknowledged in such arguments is that Sabbath-keeping is strange fire before the Lord. When Cain brought fruit to the altar, the Lord was displeased enough to send him away. There is nothing wrong with fruit. Cain figured that if he loved and valued fruit and brought it as his offering then God would welcome it as a love offering.

“But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor.” Gen 4:4-5 (NIV) Why? Because the lamb gave the clearest picture of the coming Savior. It was what God had ordained. Abel brought the lamb and God accepted his sacrifice of praise. But Cain didn’t see anything wrong with his offering and brought it anyway. It was not a true representation of the gospel to come. Continuing to honor the Old Covenant denies the completed work of Jesus on the cross. It is the shadow; the New Covenant is the substance. It is the slave woman; the New Covenant is the free woman.

Jesus told the Pharisees that they were spurning God’s heart by continuing to observe the traditions of man. When we hold onto the practices of the Old Covenant because of our tradition and the tradition of our parents we are in opposition to the move of God into the New Covenant. Paul calls the Ten Commandments a ministry of death and slavery, and the writer of Hebrews clearly calls it obsolete. Jesus says if you love me keep MY commands.

In keeping the Sabbath we are presenting an offering to God that He has not asked for and does not want. We are putting strange fire on the altar. “Aaron's sons Nadab and Abihu took their censers, put fire in them and added incense; and they offered unauthorized fire before the LORD, contrary to his command.“ Lev 10:1-2 (NIV) In the name of God, we are offering the traditions of our parents and our church instead of what He has desired.

A new order began with the announcement of Jesus’ ministry. “From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it. For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John.” Matt 11:12-13 (NIV) All of the Old Testament foreshadows the Messiah. The prophecies iterated in the Law and the Prophets all stopped when John came onto the scene. They were no longer adequate to portray the Lord. When Jesus became incarnate the previous writings became pale next to the living reality of “God with us.” Paul put it this way: “Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.” Romans 10:4 (NIV)

So what laws are referred to in the New Covenant? Jesus introduced a new order by becoming the New Covenant, and endowed the New Covenant with His commandments, “the law of Christ.” They are better and more inclusive laws accomplished by faith thru the Holy Spirit and still based on the immutable law of love for God and humanity.

Isaiah foresaw this day in the book of the prophets. "I, the LORD, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles, to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness.” Isaiah 42:6-7 (NIV) Jesus Himself is the New Covenant.

On the Mount of transfiguration Moses, standing for the law, and Elijah, representing the prophets (the entire Bible at that point in time), appeared. Peter offered to build three tents to enshrine Jesus, Moses and Elijah. In his mind Moses and Elijah probably took precedence over Jesus. But God wanted to change that. While he was still speaking, God overshadowed them with a bright cloud so that the disciples fell face down. From that cloud God spoke the essence of the new covenant: “This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!" Matt 17:5 (NASB) And when they looked again Moses and Elijah were gone and “they saw no one except Jesus Himself alone.”

Throughout the New Testament Jesus and His followers call on their hearers to establish the Law of Christ in contrast to the Old Law.

“Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.” Gal 6:2 (NIV)

While here, Jesus began delivering the new laws of the New Covenant. God the Father had said, “This is my son, listen to him.” And as we listen to and obey the laws written in our hearts by the Holy Spirit in the New Covenant, God says of us “Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and hold fast to the faith of Jesus.” Rev 14:12 (NRSV)

“If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love. I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.” John 15:10-12 (NIV)

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.” John 13:34 (NIV)

Jesus quotes six of the Ten Commandments and other commandments from the book of the law in a pattern that shows that He is introducing a new order of things. In each He says, “You have heard it said…” and then says, “But I tell you…”

"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.” Matt 5:21-22 (NIV)

"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Matt 5:27-28 (NIV)

"Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, ' You shall not make false vows but shall fulfill your vows to the lord.' But I say to you, make no oath at all…” Matt 5:33-35 (NASB)

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Matt 5:38-39 (NIV)

"If you love me, you will obey what I command.” John 14:15 (NIV)

“Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him." John 14:21 (NIV)

“You are my friends if you do what I command.” John 15:14 (NIV)

“This is my command: Love each other.” John 15:17 (NIV)

“And this commandment we have from Him, that the one who loves God should love his brother also.” 1 John 4:21 (NASB)

"As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love. I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.” John 15:9-12

“Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God and receive from him anything we ask, because we obey his commands and do what pleases him. And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us.” 1 John 3:21-23 (NIV)

"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you.” Matt 28:19-20 (NASB)

The nine moral commands that existed before the Old Covenant and still exist since its demise are reiterated multiple times in the New Testament, but never is the Sabbath presented as a duty or obligation or expectation by Jesus or by the apostles or in any other New Testament text.

Not Slaves or Servants but Heirs and Friends

As slaves we owe a tax: One dollar out of ten, one day out of seven, the keeping of laws that have specified borders. As sons and daughters, as heirs, we do not owe a tax. We are heirs and the kingdom is ours; we completely belong to the kingdom. When the rich young ruler asked Jesus what he must do to be saved, Jesus rattled off several of the Ten Commandments, the dues of a slave. Conspicuously absent is the Sabbath commandment. The young man had always done those things but knew that they had not brought him salvation. Jesus then made the contrast between the two covenants by saying, in essence, “the law says… but I tell you go sell everything, because all you have and all you are belong to the kingdom in which you are an heir. By giving it up you inherit all things.” One tenth is no longer enough. It’s all His.

The Old Covenant sets out multiple and specific rules about sexual conduct but Jesus’ commandments say that to even look and wish does not fit with being an heir to the kingdom. “The law says… but I tell you.” This is the kingdom mentality and it can only be achieved by becoming a new creation. This is the New Covenant. These are the commands that Jesus writes on our hearts. The old is just enough to get by. One dollar out of ten, one day out of seven. The new is all that we are and all that we have. It is more, not less. The new is freedom; the old is slavery.

“After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma tax came to Peter and asked, ‘Doesn't your teacher pay the temple tax ?’ ‘Yes, he does,’ he replied. When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. ‘What do you think, Simon?’ he asked. ‘From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes--from their own sons or from others?’ ‘From others,’ Peter answered.” Matt 17:24-26 (NIV) Jesus was revealing to Peter that He did not owe the temple tax because He was greater than the temple, He IS the temple, He is the King of kings and Peter is heir to the kingdom. They were both sons of God.

“For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, ‘Abba! Father!’ The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ...” Romans 8:14-17 (NASB) Jesus is our brother.

“You are my friends if you do what I command. I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.” John 15:13-15 (NIV)

We are seated with Christ in heavenly places and only from that place can we take the authority that He intends for His brothers and sisters to use to crush the head of the enemy under our feet. Does it matter? Yes, it is everything. Because those who remain under the old covenant “will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son." Gal 4:30 (NIV)

“What I am saying is that as long as the heir is a child, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. He is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. So also, when we were children, we were in slavery under the basic principles of the world. But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, ‘Abba, Father.’ So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son; God has made you also an heir.” Gal 4:1-7 (NIV)

Summary of Jesus' Authority Over the Sabbath:

1) Jesus went out of His way to demonstrate that He had taken authority or precedence over the Sabbath by breaking or destroying the Sabbath. The religious leaders understood this to the point that they set about to kill Him.

2) The Sabbath was “made” so it couldn’t be an eternal, moral law.

3) The New Covenant speaks of laws written in our hearts by the Holy Spirit.

4) The New Covenant law is the “law of Christ” which He established during His life on Earth. He replaces the old with the new. “Christ is the end of the law.”

5) Jesus Himself is the New Covenant.

6) The Old Covenant is the covenant of slavery. Slaves owe a tax.

7) The New Covenant makes us sons and daughters of God, heirs of the kingdom who are seated with Christ in Heavenly places.

8) Sons and daughters do not owe a tax, "for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven."

Ultimate Rest Table of Contents

The Next Chapter: The Contrast Between the New and Old Covenants
Paul uses strong language when he contrasts the two covenants. He calls one a covenant of slavery (mind you, this is a covenant made by God) and the other a covenant of freedom. Why? Have we moved on into the New Covenant or are we trying to keep one foot on each side of the divide?

The Contrast Between the Old and New Covenants

2008-09-12T11:10:00.000-07:00

Now, let’s bring all of this together and apply it to our lives. How do we respond to the information we’ve studied? Can the subject of whether or not we move in the power and freedom of the New Covenant be reduced to calling it “doctrine” and then dismissing it as unimportant? Can we neglect diligent study to understand what God has put in scripture for us because we have become jaded regarding the subject of doctrine? Paul expended a lot of energy spelling out the distinctions between the old and the new. He patiently and painstakingly taught the Galatians how to serve God in the New Covenant when he said: “For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come…” Gal 3:18 & 19 If the law was added it suggests that an immutable law of moral obligation existed before the Jewish Law or there would have been no transgression. And moral obligation did not include the Sabbath because it is never mentioned before Moses. This understanding will be made clear below in the statements made during the 2nd century AD by the early church fathers. A law that was added could not have been eternal and unchanging.

“For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised (through the Abrahamic covenant), being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ (a law that was “put in place” did not exist from creation) that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.” Gal 3:21b-25 (NIV)

"One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves... Get rid of the slave woman and her child."

The clearest teaching about the contrast between the New and Old Covenants is given in Galatians and leaves no doubt about God’s view on the matter. “Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise. These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai... and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem (old Jerusalem where there is a temple, temple services, rituals, sun and moon above: the shadows of things to come), because she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free (this is the New Jerusalem where there is no temple or rituals, no sun or moon, because there, Jesus is the reality - the shadows are replaced with the substance), and she is our mother. For it is written: Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. But what does the Scripture say? ‘Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son.’ Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.” Gal 4:21-31 (NIV)

“But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.” Heb 8:6 (NIV)

"Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone..." The ministry that brought death is the Ten Commandments.

“He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, (the ministry that brought death is the Ten Commandments) came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. And if what was fading away came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!” 2 Cor 3:6-11 (NIV)

Paul is using the description from Deuteronomy to draw comparisons between the Old and New Covenants. “So I turned and went down from the mountain while it was ablaze with fire. And the two tablets of the covenant were in my hands.” Deut 9:15 (NIV) That was the giving of the Ten Commandments. Paul is saying in the text above that the New Covenant was not of the letter. The text in Deuteronomy identifies the Old Covenant as the Ten Commandments (the letters written on stone). As the two thoughts are put together it is clear that the Old Covenant is excluded from the New.

Paul says: “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day (singular, not plural, in the Greek). These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.” Col 2:16-17 (NIV)

This scripture was spoken to new gentile Christians and was telling them not to fear or worry if the Jewish Christians Paul had encountered in Jerusalem criticized them because they were not following any of the Jewish covenant laws such as the weekly Sabbath, the monthly new moon celebrations or the yearly seasonal festivals.

These criticisms became so troublesome that a council was convened in Jerusalem to resolve the issue. And this was the conclusion: “Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, ‘You must be circumcised and keep the law’--to whom we gave no such commandment-- it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen …men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." Acts 15:24-26

Obviously, the Holy Spirit did not think that Sabbath keeping was important enough to be mentioned. Nor was it necessary.

“For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you 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. Farewell.” Acts 15:27-29 (NKJV) It was not required of them to be circumcised and, as noted earlier, unless a person was circumcised they could not take part in any of the rest of the covenant. And, in agreement with that there is no mention of the Sabbath. Obviously, the Holy Spirit did not think that Sabbath-keeping was important enough to be mentioned, nor was it necessary.

In fact, there was a bit of a row because Paul was teaching the Jews, who lived among the gentiles to whom he was sent, that they did not need to keep the Jewish Law. “Then they said to Paul: ‘You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs [which included Sabbath-keeping].’” Acts 21:20-21 (NIV) Interesting to note: Paul did not consider it enough to just leave them alone to continue to practice the Old Covenant law. He was actively teaching them to turn away from it.

"But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read." Could that covering still be over our hearts?

“Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold. We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts.” 2 Cor 3:12-18 (NIV) Could that covering still be over our hearts?

“You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.” 2 Cor 3:3 (NIV)

Summary of The Contrast Between the New and Old Covenants:

1) The Law (including the Ten Commandments) was added (not present since creation).

2) The Law was put in place temporarily until when? Until Jesus came.

3) The Law was put in place to lead us to Christ. But since Christ has come we are no longer under its supervision.

4) Now the Holy Spirit leads us to Jesus.

5) The Old Covenant (including the Ten Commandments) is represented by Hagar and produces children of slavery.

6) The New Covenant is represented by Sarah and produces free children.

7) Paul says, “Get rid of the slave woman and her children."

8) Paul spells out those things that are no longer required including the weekly Sabbath, the monthly new moon and yearly festivals. They are only misty shadows that evaporated with the rising of the Son.

9) The Jerusalem Council and the Holy Spirit did not think it necessary for the gentiles to keep the Sabbath.

10) Paul actively taught the Jews to turn away from the Law.

11) The Law results in spiritual bondage that must be broken if the veils are to be removed from our hearts. It was true for those in Paul's time and it is true for us.

Ultimate Rest Table of Contents

The Next Chapter: The Christian Church and The Lord's Day

The allegation in Adventism is that the Catholic Church changed the Sabbath to Sunday. When Christians meet on Sunday, they are not keeping a sabbath. They are celebrating the resurrection of our Lord. Samuel Bacchiochi further states that Ellen White was incorrect in her accusation that Constantine legislated Sunday keeping. The history is fascinating.

The Christian Church and The Lord's Day

2008-09-12T11:09:00.000-07:00

The Lord’s Day did not begin as a combination of pagan and Christian observances. The Christian church, by meeting on Sunday - The Lord’s Day - is not keeping a Sabbath. A true understanding of meeting on Sunday is that of assembling together to celebrate the resurrection of the Lord. That practice can be traced from the current time clear back thru each century to the early church as recorded in the Bible even though Adventists make loud objections to that assertion. Let me take you thru the history.

History of the "Lord’s Day," the First Day of the Week

Whether or not one believes that the first day of the week had any special meaning to the early church, it’s interesting to note that the only times a specific day is mentioned after the resurrection it is the first day of the week. Here they are:⁵

There are seven recorded appearances of Christ after the resurrection. Whenever a day is mentioned (five times out of seven) it is the first day of the week.

Mary on the morning of the resurrection:
“When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons.” Mark 16:9 (NIV), Matt. 28:8, John 20:11-18

The two disciples on the road to Emmaus:
“Now that same day (in reference to the resurrection day) two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem. They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; but they were kept from recognizing him.” Luke 24:13-16 (NIV), Mark 16:12-13

To Peter:
“The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon." Luke 24:34 (NIV)

To the eleven disciples:
“On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them.” John 20:19 (NIV)

To the eleven a week later:
“A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" John 20:26 (NIV) This text follows the text above, and therefore refers to the first day of the week also.

“Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating;” Mark 16:14 (NIV) The evening of the resurrection.

“While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you." Luke 24:36 (NIV) The same day Jesus appeared to the men on the road to Emmaus.

Other post resurrection occurrences on the first day of the week:
The Spirit was poured out on the 120 on Pentecost, which, by historical record, was on the first day of the week, fifty days after Passover.⁵

Luke, Asia Minor 60 AD: “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them." Acts. 20:7

Paul 55-58 AD: “On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made.” 1 Cor 16:2 (NIV)

St. John on Patmos around 90 AD: “I was in the spirit on the Lord’s Day.” Rev. 1:10 Neither in scripture nor in history can one instance be cited where the term “the Lord’s Day” is used for the seventh-day Sabbath. In every instance it is used to indicate the first day of the week.

The Lord's Day in Early Church Literature

By the beginning of the 2nd century, the early church writers made it very clear that the first day of the week (Sunday) had become widely recognized as a special day for Christians to engage in public, congregational assemblies. It was called “The Lord’s Day.” ^5,6,9,10,11

Ignatius of Antioch (a disciple of the apostle John) (107-110 AD): described Jewish Christians with these words: "They have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him" (Letter to the Magnesians 9:1-3).

Barnabas, companion of Paul (120 AD): “We keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead.” Barnabas, Ch XVII

In The Teaching of the Twelve (120 - 190 AD): the following statement is found: "But every Lord's day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread." This statement harmonizes with the text above from Acts: “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them.” Acts. 20:7

Justin Martyr (150 AD): “But Sunday is the day on which we hold our common assembly, because it is the first day of the week and Jesus our saviour on the same day rose from the dead.” First Apology of Justin, Ch 68

Justin Martyr (150 AD): as quoted by Eusebius. “And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read as long as time permits.”

From a recorded discussion between Justin Martyr and Trypho (a noted Jew of the day) come the following revealing statements:

Justin M: “Is there any other matter, my friend, in which we are blamed than this, that we (Christians) live not after the law, and we are not circumcised in the flesh as your forefathers were, and do not observe Sabbaths as ye do?”

Trypho: “I am aware that your precepts in the so-called gospel are so wonderful that…you observe no festivals or Sabbaths, and do not have the rite of circumcision; and further, resting your hopes on a man that was crucified, you yet expect to obtain some good thing from God while you do not obey his commandments.”

Justin M: “There will be no other God, O Trypho...But we do not trust through Moses, or through the law…for I have read that there shall be a final law, and a covenant, the cheifest of all, which it is now incumbent on all men to observe. For the law promulgated on Horeb (Sinai) is old, and belongs to yourselves alone; but this (covenant) is for all universally…and has put an end to the previous one…The new law requires you to keep perpetual Sabbath, and you, because you are idle for one day, suppose you are pious, not discerning why this has been commanded you…The Lord our God does not take pleasure in such observances. For we too would observe the Sabbath if we did not know for what reason they were enjoined on you, namely on account of your transgressions and the hardness of your heart. Sabbaths were instituted on account of the people’s sins, and not for a work of righteousness. But if we do not admit this, we shall be liable to fall into foolish opinions, as if it were not the same God who existed in the times of Enoch and all the rest, who neither were circumcised after the flesh, nor observed Sabbaths, nor any other rites, seeing that Moses enjoined such observances. For if there was no need of circumcision before Abraham, or the observance of Sabbaths, or feasts and sacrifices before Moses, no more need is there of them now, after that, according to the will of God, Jesus Christ the Son of God has been born without sin.”

Tertullian (160 - 220 AD): was the first writer to urge the cessation of labor on Sunday. "We, on the day of the Lord's resurrection, ought to...defer even our businesses lest we give any place to the devil.”

Clement of Alexandria, Egypt (194 AD): says that we are to "keep the Lord's day" and thus "glorify the Lord's resurrection." The Constitution of the Holy Apostles says that on this day we are to "meet more diligently...assembling ourselves together, without fail." And “He, in fulfillment of the precept, according to the gospel, keeps the Lord’s Day, when he abandons an evil disposition… glorifying the Lord’s resurrection in himself.”^{7 Ch XII}

As Christianity spread throughout the world, and as more and more non-Jews entered the church, observance of the Sabbath faded out. However, some of the distinguishing features of the Jewish Sabbath came to be incorporated into the Lord's Day observance. Like the Sabbath, Sunday was regarded as a day of joy, festivity, and praise. Fasting was forbidden. During the centuries that followed, a great many church councils, imperial laws, and renowned religious leaders sought to enforce the proper (as they deemed it) observance of the Lord's Day. It was not until the 300s that the Lord’s Day became confused with the Sabbath. Until that time it was simply a time to assemble in remembrance of the resurrection.

The Lord's Day Thru the Centuries

Going on thru each century to the present time (beginning with the Council of Nicea), we have these allusions to the Lord’s Day, or First Day of the week, as the Christian day of worship:

1) Council of Nicea (325 AD): called by Emperor Constantine to bring together the fragmented doctrines of Christianity and resulted in the famous Nicene Creed that affirmed Jesus as fully divine. It commanded that one must stand up during prayers on the Lord's Day (the 20th Canon). See above.

2) Council of Gangra (c. 350 AD): Fasting on the Lord's Day is condemned; also staying away from the "House of God" and attending any non-Christian assembly.

3) Council of Laodicea (363 AD): Observing the Jewish Sabbath is condemned; Sunday is commanded to be a day of rest from labor: "That Christians must not act as Jews by refraining from work on the Sabbath, but must rather work on that day, and, if they can, as Christians they must cease work on the Lord's Day, so giving it the greater honor." The 29th Canon

4) The Apostolic Constitutions (c. 375 AD): Worshippers are commanded to assemble twice on the Lord's Day -- morning and evening.

5) The 4th Council of Carthage (436 AD): Anyone who left church services during the preaching was to be excommunicated. Fasting was again forbidden. Attendance at public games or the circus was forbidden on the Lord's day. (NOTE: In 425 AD, Theodosius the Younger passed a law forbidding all games on Sunday (or any other church festival day). In 469 AD this law was strengthened to say that even if the Emperor's birthday fell on Sunday, no games would be allowed.)

6) The 3rd Council of Orleans (538 AD): All agricultural work is forbidden on Sunday. However, those who refuse to travel or prepare meals on this day are condemned as being "Judaistic."

7) The 2nd Council of Macon (585 AD): Work of any kind is prohibited on this day, and it is commanded that Christians worship God on this day.

8) Gregory the Great (became Bishop of Rome in 590 AD): He condemned Sabbath observance as a "doctrine of Antichrist" (also the applying of Sabbath laws & rituals to the Lord's day). In spite of this, however, Christendom increasingly during the time of the Middle Ages observed Sunday as a Christian Sabbath.

9) Alcuin (735 - 804 AD): He wrote, "Christian custom has transferred the observance of the Sabbath to the Lord's Day." Peter Alphonsus (12th century AD) was the first writer to actually use the term "Christian Sabbath" in connection with the Lord's Day.

10) Council of Clovishoff (747 AD): This council, which was held in England, decreed that travel is forbidden on the Lord's Day.

11) The Constitutions of Egbert (749 AD): Severe penalties are levied against anyone who works on Sunday.

12) Charlemagne (789 AD): In France he issued a decree prohibiting all ordinary labor on Sunday as a breach of the 4th Commandment.

13) The Archbishop of Canterbury (14th century) He ordered "abstinence from secular works on the sacred day of the Lord." However, he warned the people not to meet on Saturdays lest they "partake in the Jewish profession."

14) Martin Luther (1483 - 1546): By the time of the Reformation, the Lord's Day had "deteriorated into a mere holiday devoted to idleness and dissipation." It had been reduced to oppressive laws and ceremonies. Luther insisted that the believer was not to be bound by such legalism, and advocated revolt against it. In his Table Talk he says, "If anywhere the day is made holy for the mere day's sake---if anywhere anyone sets up its observance on a Jewish foundation, then I order you to work on it, to ride on it, to dance on it, to feast on it, to do anything that shall remove this encroachment on Christian liberty."

15) Huldreych (Ulrich) Zwingli (1484 - 1531): He taught that worship to God should not be tied down to any one day, for by doing so it "would impose on us a ceremony." John Calvin (1509 - 1564) agreed with Zwingli, saying worship of God was a daily and life-long activity. "Christians, therefore, should have nothing to do with a superstitious observance of days." Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 2, Chapter 8

16) John Knox (1505 - 1572): This reformer agreed with the above two men, but felt observance of Sunday should be maintained as a matter of expediency, "for it afforded rest for the body and an opportunity for united worship of God."

17) The Augsburg Confession (1530 AD): This was produced by Luther and Malancthon. It says in part: "For they that think that the observation of the Lord's Day was appointed by the authority of the Church, instead of the Sabbath, as necessary (unto salvation), are greatly deceived. The Scripture has abrogated the Sabbath. And yet, because it was requisite to appoint a certain day that the people might know when they ought to come together, it appears that the Church did for that purpose appoint the Lord's Day."

18) The 2nd Helvetic Confession (1566 AD): "Although religion be not tied unto time," yet they felt it expedient to set aside a day (the Lord's day) and "consecrate it to religious exercises and to a holy rest."

19) The Westminster Confession (1643 AD): "As it is of the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in His word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men in all ages, He hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto Him; which, from the beginning of the world to the Resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and from the Resurrection of Christ was changed into the first day of the week, which in Scripture is called the Lord's Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath."

The above historical information was all gathered and quoted from various places on the internet and can easily be verified.

Ellen White's Statements Not Historically Accurate

The allegation that is voiced in Ellen White’s writings that the Pope was the first to “change Sabbath to Sunday” is a distortion of reality. This is one of such statements:

“When Sunday observance shall be enforced by law, and the world shall be enlightened concerning the obligation of the true Sabbath, then whoever shall transgress the command of God to obey a precept which has no higher authority than that of Rome, will thereby honor popery above God. He is paying homage to Rome, and to the power which enforces the institution ordained by Rome. He is worshiping the beast and his image.” {LDE 226.1}

Christians, as seen before, had already been meeting for three centuries on the first day of the week, the Lord’s Day. I was taught from my earliest memories in Adventist education that Constantine, in 321 AD, changed the Sabbath from the seventh day of the week to the first.

Constantine was the emperor of Rome who became sympathetic to Christians. Until that time Rome had persecuted Christians and fed them to the lions in the coliseum. Constantine’s conversion was a mixed blessing to Christians. In addition to a cessation of the persecution, he is also charged with institutionalizing Christianity in such a way as to rob it of its power.

The law that Constantine (who was not a pope but a Roman Emperor, by the way) enacted in 321 AD was to alleviate the persecution of the Christians and allow them the freedom to continue to meet on the Lord’s Day without provocation or repercussions. Here is that law:

“Let all the judges and town people, and the occupation of all trades, rest on the venerable day of the sun, but let those who are situated in the country, freely and at full liberty, attend to the business of agriculture; because it often happens that no other day is so fit for sowing corn and planting vines; lest, the critical moment being let slip, and men should lose the commodities granted by Heaven.”

There Was No Pope Until 606 AD

There it is. And that’s all that there is. At the time of Constantine there were only Bishops over Rome who had no jurisdiction over other bishops in other cities or countries. It was not until 606 AD that there was a Pope.⁵

At the beginning of this period, we have five equal "mother churches." At the end of the period, we have the bishop of Rome claiming to be the "Pope" or "Universal Bishop" who alone controlled the church world wide in the west.

Pope Leo, in protesting the fourth ecumenical council (held at Chalcedon in 451) started to make bold claims of Papal power that were ignored by most.

In 590 AD, Gregory acted like a Pope but denounced the title of Universal Bishop. Two popes later, in 606 AD, Boniface III is the first Roman bishop to both act like a Pope and take the name Universal Bishop.

Here is what EGW claimed that God had shown her in vision:

“Said the angel…Then I saw those whose hands are engaged in making up the breach and are standing in the gap, that have formerly since 1844 broken the commandments, and have so far followed the pope as to keep the first day instead of the seventh, and who have since the light shone out of the Most Holy Place, changed their course, given up the institution of the pope, and are keeping God's Sabbath, would have to go down into the water, and be baptized in the faith of the sanctuary, and keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.” {Special Messages 3.6-7}

Ellen White's "Vision" Disputed

Considering that EGW claimed God had shown her this in vision, the following statements should be taken into account.

An early SDA church leader and contemporary of Ellen White who presented the message of righteousness by faith at the Minneapolis Conference of 1888, J.H. Waggoner, has this to say: “Constantine, in his decrees, said not one word either for or against keeping the Sabbath of the Bible. It is safe to affirm that there was nothing done in the time of Constantine, either by himself or any other, that has the least appearance of changing the Sabbath.”

Even the much-quoted author, Samuele Bacchiocchi, in his book From Sabbath to Sunday,² disputes White's assertion that the Pope changed the day of Christian worship and admits that Christians were meeting on Sunday as early as 135 AD: “I differ from Ellen White, for example, on the origin of Sunday. She teaches that in the first centuries all Christians observed the Sabbath and it was largely through the efforts of Constantine that many Christians adopted Sunday-keeping in the fourth century. My research shows otherwise…you will notice that I place the origin of Sunday-keeping by the time of the Emperor Hadrian, in 135 AD.” In the same book he admits, “There exists a legitimate possibility that the Sabbath could be included among the ordinances nailed to the cross.” ^{p 348}

Bacchiocchi’s book also brings up some other puzzles about Sabbath-keeping. If one keeps the Sabbath in the New Covenant, what does that mean? If one keeps it because the Ten Commandments are everlasting, then what are the guidelines of Sabbath-keeping? The Ten Commandments are only the "Reader’s Digest condensed version" of the entire covenant that commanded death for breaking the carefully specified rules for observing Sabbath. Bacchiocchi, in his book The Sabbath in the New Testament³ proceeds to become an arbiter of appropriate Sabbath observance by devoting twenty-one pages to the subject, laying out all the "do’s and don’ts" he deems appropriate.

Summary of The Christian Church and The Lord's Day:

1) Christians don’t keep the Sabbath on Sunday. They are celebrating the resurrection on the Lord’s Day.

2) There are multiple allusions to the first day of the week, or "the Lord’s Day," in the New Testament.

3) Barnabas (who traveled with Paul) and Ignatius of Antioch (a disciple of the apostle John) both made statements that the early church had stopped observing the Sabbath and were now gathering on the Lord’s Day.

4) From that time to the present, the observance of the Lord’s Day can be traced throughout the history of the Christian church.

5) The Pope didn’t change the Sabbath to Sunday. Christians had already been meeting on Sunday, the Lord’s Day, for over 600 years before there even was a Pope.

6) Samuel Bacchiocchi agrees that Christians were observing the Lord’s Day (Sunday) as early as 135 AD and that Constantine had nothing to do with changing the day of Christian worship.

Ultimate Rest Table of Contents

The Next Chapter: Scripture Passages That Raise Questions

If you have been around Adventism for any significant length of time, there must be texts popping up in your head as you've been reading along in this study. Most, if not all of them, are dealt with in the next chapter.

Scripture Passages that Raise Questions

2008-09-12T11:08:00.000-07:00

A number of scriptures are used to buttress the rationale for continued observance of the Ten Commandment Sabbath. We will look at the most often used texts and see if that is what they are really saying.

Matthew 24:20

"But pray that your flight will not be in the winter, or on a Sabbath." Matt 24:20 (NASB)

Matthew was writing to Jewish believers and is the only one who includes this phrase. Jesus knew that in AD 70 there would be many Jews who would not be believers and that there would be some Jewish Christians (called the sect of the Pharisees) that still followed the Jewish traditions. “Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, ‘The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the Law of Moses.’" Acts 15:5 (NIV) Both of the concerns, winter and Sabbath, were from mercy.

He knew that those who kept the Book of the Law would not do what was necessary to flee from the attackers. Just as the mention of winter is not a religious or law-based concern, the same is true of the Sabbath. In fact there is good corroboration of the validity of this prayer. For during the abomination that caused desolation, likened to the destruction of Jerusalem, there were reports of tragedies that occurred because of Sabbath observance. One is recorded in 1 Maccabees 1:57. A large group of Jews had hidden in the desert but a detachment of soldiers pursued them “preparing to attack them on the Sabbath day…’ enough of this! Come out and do as the king orders and you shall be spared’ But they answered, ‘We refuse to come out, and we are not going to obey the king’s orders and so profane the Sabbath day.’ The attack was pressed home on the Sabbath itself, and they were slaughtered, with their wives and children and cattle, to the number of one thousand persons.” ^{10 Ch 24}

Another factor was that from the time of Nehemiah the gates of the city were closed on the Sabbath to prevent trade with gentiles and to keep others from carrying loads in and out, thereby desecrating the Sabbath. “When evening shadows fell on the gates of Jerusalem before the Sabbath, I ordered the doors to be shut and not opened until the Sabbath was over.” Neh 13:19 (NIV) That tradition persisted until the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

And, possibly because of the warning of Jesus, the Christians all escaped to Pella before the actual attack on Jerusalem in AD 70. The historian Eusebius records this fact: “For thence it originated after the migration from Jerusalem of all the disciples who resided at Pella, Christ having instructed them to leave Jerusalem and retire from it on account of the impending siege. It was owing to this counsel that they went away, as I have said, to reside for a while at Pella." Haer 29:7¹¹

If this warning from Jesus supported Sabbath-keeping in an eternal declaration, what does it say to us today? Are you keeping the Sabbath in such a way that you would refuse to run if soldiers bent on your destruction were pursuing you? He is obviously cognizant of all of the regulations connected with Sabbath-keeping given by God to Moses. The instructions for Sabbath-keeping in the Book of the Law are the only accurate interpretation for Sabbath observance. Because James points out that “whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.” James 2:10 (NIV) And Paul agrees by saying, “But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.” Gal 3:10 (NIV) “All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.’” Gal 5:18 (NIV)

So, if we are keeping the Sabbath because of the Ten Commandments - as the SDA Fundamental Beliefs and Ellen White say - then we are obligated to do everything written in the Book of the Law, which includes not going out of your house, not baking or boiling, not doing any work, not kindling a fire, not carrying a load, not buying or selling at all. And the penalty for doing any of the above, which constitute breaking the Sabbath, is death.¹⁰ Are Adventists keeping the Sabbath? If not, then what are the new rules of Sabbath-keeping. Who devised them? When Christ went out of His way, by example, to show that He intended to "break" or "destroy" the Sabbath, why would we want to preserve it?

Summary:
a) Matthew is the only gospel that includes this passage and was written to a primarily Jewish Christian church.
b) The early Jewish Christians continued to observe all of the customs of the Old Covenant for quite a while. Jesus knew that would be the case and was warning them to "get out of Dodge" before the destruction.
c) Probably because of Jesus’ warnings, all of the Christians escaped to the town of Pella, avoiding the siege on Jerusalem.

Isaiah 66:22-23

"As the new heavens and the new earth that I make will endure before me," declares the LORD, "so will your name and descendants endure. 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 66:22-23 (NIV)

Does this scripture, written by an Old Covenant prophet, teach that New Covenant Christians should be keeping the Sabbath now?

It is interesting to note that not once is the Sabbath mentioned by John in Revelation. He was one who had a New Covenant understanding and wrote extensively about the new heavens and new earth.¹⁴ In fact, what he says would make that impossible. “I did not see a temple in the city, (speaking of the New Jerusalem) because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp.” Rev 21:22-23 (NIV) Just as there was no temple because the Lord IS the temple, there is no sun or moon because the Lord IS its light. And without a sun or moon there cannot be a weekly or a monthly cycle.

Furthermore, if Isaiah’s statement commands Sabbath-keeping for Christians, it must follow that it also commands the keeping of the new moon festivals and therefore the entire Book of the Law, including the entire sabbatical festival system and priesthood.

For New Covenant confirmation, listen again to Paul: “He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. …Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.” Col 2:13-17 (NIV)

Summary:
a) If this text teaches that Christians should be keeping the Sabbath now, then it also teaches that we should be keeping the new moon festivals and all of the other customs in the Old Covenant.
b) Revelation does not mention the Sabbath even once. But it does say that in the new earth there will be no sun or moon, suggesting that the weekly and monthly cycles will have no significance. It says there is no need for the sun because Jesus is its light. In the same way, there is no need for the Sabbath day because Jesus is the Sabbath rest.
c) Paul’s teachings are in harmony with these conclusions when he says “do not let any one judge you” regarding the Sabbath day.
Romans 14:1-5

“Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him…One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.” Romans 14:1-5 (NIV)

The Christian church in Rome included many Jewish Christians who continued to practice the customs of the Old Covenant. There were also gentile Christians who did not follow those practices, including the Sabbath. Paul’s tone in dealing with the differences in Rome was much softer than his treatment of the church in Galatia, where he left no doubt that the Old Covenant was not incumbent on them. In Galatia the Judaizers were trying to impose the Book of the Law on the almost exclusively gentile believers. But even so, Paul’s own stand, in this passage to the church in Rome, is obvious when he says that those who continue in the Old Covenant observances have weak faith.

This certainly is not a strong endorsement of the necessity of eating only vegetables or observing certain days such as the Sabbath as sacred. It simply asks for grace until those weak in faith can mature. Paul was saying that He was willing to set aside his freedom in Christ in order to reach the Jews for the gospel. By the wording Paul used, it is obvious he is indicating that eating just vegetables and considering one day more sacred than another to be the positions that are weak in faith.

Praise God, we are saved by faith in Jesus Christ – so, yes, you can still keep the Sabbath and be saved. But is that living in the fullness of the New Covenant? According to Paul, apparently not, since he indicates that the weak in faith continued with those practices. He is the apostle of grace and is saying to the others, “give them a break, they don’t get it just yet. They are still clinging to the shadows, but they’ll get there. Accept them even though their faith is still not fully grounded.” Why are we still there two thousand years later? Why have we taken a giant leap backward to embrace something for which Paul was pleading forbearance toward those weak in faith? Can we use that faint praise to justify our position?

The implications of this scripture are clear. Paul is not making a plea for Sabbath-keeping. He is'nt asking the gentiles to refrain from reviling the Jews for keeping Sabbath. It was quite the other way around. The Jews couldn’t conceive of its being OK not to keep the Sabbath. Paul made his stand obvious when he tried to get the Jews, living among the gentiles, to give up their Jewish practices, as we saw in the Jerusalem Council. Furthermore, he told the Colossians not to let the Jews come in and judge them for not keeping the Sabbath, or any other Jewish holy day, certainly not the other way around. “Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day — things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.” Col 2:16-17 (NASB) This scripture makes it clear which position he considered to be the one indicating weak faith, or at the least incomplete revelation on the subject up to that point.

It is impossible to successfully assert that Sabbath-keeping does not belong to the Old Covenant. There is no record in scripture of anyone keeping or being instructed to keep the Sabbath until Israel was on the way to Sinai. The Sabbath is the exclusive sign of the Old Covenant. It is the very heart and essence of it. Even in the account of creation, God does not suggest any sort of observance of the Sabbath, nor are we given any examples or information of anyone keeping, observing or even regarding the Sabbath as holy or blessed until the establishment of it as the sign of the Old Covenant. If Adam and Eve had kept the Sabbath and it was of great importance, would it not have been mentioned? Instead, when we enter the New Covenant, we are told specifically (as in the text from Col. 2 above) that the Sabbath was “a mere shadow” of what was to come; the reality is Christ. Hebrews 4 underscores the poignant truth that even though the Jews had kept the Sabbath from Sinai thru the Advent, they had never truly entered the rest of the Sabbath. It was never about a day. It was always about Jesus.

So, what do we want to teach unbelievers? If what we really want to do is to reach the lost with salvation thru Jesus then what kind of confusion would we be bringing unbelievers into? How would we be able to explain that we honor the Sabbath even though the Bible teaches that the New Covenant doesn’t suggest we do so, but we continue do it anyway because it is the tradition of the church we grew up in? What on Earth could be the rationale for that kind of scrambled message? Do we want to make them weak in faith right from the beginning? Do we want to bring confusion into their lives with our traditions that are not incumbent on Christians? Do we want to put on them the yoke of elemental, weak, and worthless shadows? Or do we want to bring them into the true Sabbath who now dwells in us seven days out of seven. Isn’t that far better than just one day out of Seven? Other Christians do not receive less blessing for meeting together on the Lord’s Day.

Continuing to elevate the Sabbath as if we are a cut above and are more blessed because we keep the Sabbath (which in reality we do not keep) is another example of the arrogance that has marked the Adventist Church from the beginning. Besides, it continues to serve to separate us from the rest of the Body of Christ. Is that identity more important to us than compelling unbelievers into the Kingdom of God thru the beauty, sacrifice and freedom of the gospel? Re-asserting the law thru Sabbath-observance will establish in their Christian experiences the very barriers we have struggled to tear down for years. On several occasions I have invited people to church who have expressed reticence to come because of the Sabbath. They have not wanted to get involved with a questionable church that is not truly Christian. I have seen the question on their faces: “Do they teach other things that are ‘off’ too?”

Summary:
a) Paul was writing to a church with nearly equal numbers of Jewish and gentile Christians, so his words were chosen with care.
b) He was not, however, endorsing the practices of the Law. He said those who were still holding onto them had a weak faith.
c) Paul is asking for clemency for those who had not yet moved into the New Covenant.

Romans 3:27-31 (NASB)

“Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one. Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.”

“We establish the law – Both the authority, purity, and the end of it; by defending that which the law attests; by pointing out Christ, the end of it; and by showing how it may be fulfilled in its purity.” Wesley's Commentary. In other words, God put the law into place as a tutor to bring us to Christ. It was a witness to the New Covenant. Therefore, it served its purpose.

Follow thru Paul’s logic. Chapter one of Romans says that gentiles will be saved without the Jewish Law thru faith. Chapter two states that Jews, even though they have their Law, are under condemnation because they haven’t - and can’t - keep it. Then in Chapter 4, he reveals to them the truth - buried in the everlasting covenant to Abraham - that their salvation has always been by faith. “’Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.’ Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness.” Romans 4:3-5 (NASB)

I’m going to resort to the Message Bible for the rest of this text because otherwise you will get lost in all the circumcisions. Women reading the more traditional version may lose sight of any application to them at all, losing the meaning altogether. “Now think: Was that declaration made before or after he was marked by the covenant rite of circumcision? That's right, before he was marked. That means that he underwent circumcision as evidence and confirmation of what God had done long before to bring him into this acceptable standing with himself, an act of God… And it means further that Abraham is father of all people who embrace what God does for them while they are still on the "outs" with God… It is precisely these people in this condition who are called "set right by God and with God"!

Abraham is also, of course, father of those who have undergone the religious rite of circumcision not just because of the ritual but because they were willing to live in the risky faith-embrace of God's action for them, the way Abraham lived long before he was marked by circumcision. That famous promise God gave Abraham— that he and his children would possess the earth— was not given because of something Abraham did or would do. It was based on God's decision to put everything together for him, which Abraham then entered when he believed.” Romans 4:10-13 (MSG)

So what is his conclusion for both Jew and gentile? “But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.” Romans 7:6 (NIV)

Summary:
a) In Romans Paul builds his argument by establishing that both gentiles and Jews have always been saved by faith apart from the law.
b) His conclusion comes in Romans 7: Jews and gentiles have both been released from the law to serve in the new way of the Spirit.
c) God put the law in place as a tutor to bring us to Christ. It was a witness to the New Covenant, thereby serving its purpose.

Ultimate Rest Table of Contents

The Next Chapter: Adventist Heritage of the Sabbath

The Sabbath has taken on a life of its own within Adventism. How did it start? Where did the attitudes, practices, habits, and beliefs begin? Why has it gained such power and strength in this group of people while the Christian world has little or no focus on the seventh day of the week?

Adventist Heritage of the Sabbath

2008-09-12T11:07:00.000-07:00

The reason it has been worth all of this study is that the Sabbath is at the heart of Adventist belief and practice. So much so that, as noted before, it is incorporated into the name of the group:

“The name Seventh-day Adventist is a standing rebuke to the Protestant world. Here is the line of distinction between the worshippers of God and those who worship the beast and receive his mark. The great conflict is between the commandments of God (i.e. Sabbath-keeping) and the requirements of the beast.” Spiritual Gifts Vol 4, p. 54

To keep the Sabbath you would need to get all of your food ready on Friday, do no cooking or boiling on the Sabbath, not go out from your place, not buy or sell, not carry anything. And the penalty for infraction of these rules would be a death penalty. It is interesting that the Sabbath is always associated with a death sentence both in the Old Covenant and in Adventist eschatology. Could that be because it is from “the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone?” 2 Cor 3:7 (NIV)

Do Adventists who “believe the Sabbath” keep the Sabbath? No. In fact, there has been something of a role reversal. Sabbath-keeping for many has become vespers on Friday night, going to church on Saturday morning and attending meetings on Saturday afternoon. That is much closer to how Christian’s observe the Lord’s Day. But this is not a treatise to say that Sunday is the Sabbath. It is a plea to break the bondage of loyalty to Sabbath that amounts to idolatry. It is a teaching to show that Sabbath-keeping is not a part of the New Covenant and those who observe it do not please the Lord any more than those Christians who do not.

I would direct these paraphrased questions that Paul addressed to the Jews (who felt superior to the gentiles because they kept the Ten Commandments) to ourselves: “Now you, if you call yourself an Adventist; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God; if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth-- you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who feel superior to others because you observe the Sabbath, Do you actually keep the Sabbath? You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?” Romans 2:17-23 (CRV)

Sabbath-keeping from an Adventist perspective would be unrecognizable to the original Sabbath-keeping ordained by God for the Jews. It has its own set of rules, its own rights and wrongs, and its own meaning. It has become an identifying mark of membership in a specific subculture. These group-specific tags were born out of the writings of Ellen White. Here are some examples of her teachings which she claimed to have been shown in vision:

"Here is the life-insurance policy for every soul that shall strive in the right way and upon the right principles. They shall never fall, but shall have their eternal life insurance papers in the sign given in Exodus 31:12-18, in the obervance of the Lord's Sabbath." Life-insurance policy? I thought that was the cross.

“Here is the life-insurance policy for every soul that shall strive in the right way and upon the right principles. They shall never fall, but shall have their eternal life insurance papers in the sign given in Exodus 31:12-18, in the observance of the Lord's Sabbath. This means obedience to all His commandments, for the keeping of the Sabbath, which God has sanctified and blessed at Creation, ‘is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations’ ‘for ever,’ ‘that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you.’(Verses 13, 17.)" {5 Manuscript Release 88.3}

Here were some of those commands for Sabbath-keeping that would have to be obeyed. "Whoever does any work on it must be put to death. Do not light a fire in any of your dwellings on the Sabbath day." Ex 35:2-3 (NIV) "Everyone is to stay where he is on the seventh day; no one is to go out." Ex 16:29 (NIV) Nowhere in scripture have those rules been modified or relaxed. So if Sabbath obedience is to be followed, who makes the rules and sets up the parameters? What does it even mean if the original intent and practice has been completely lost? Even the injunction against work has been modified. Where does the authority for that come from?

“While the observance of the false Sabbath in compliance with the law of the state, contrary to the fourth commandment, will be an avowal of allegiance to a power that is in opposition to God, the keeping of the true Sabbath, in obedience to God's law, is an evidence of loyalty to the Creator. While one class, by accepting the sign of submission to earthly powers, receive the mark of the beast, the other, choosing the token of allegiance to divine authority, receive the seal of God.”--Great Controversy 605 (1911).

“I saw the leading men of the earth consulting together, and Satan and his angels busy around them. I saw a writing, copies of which were scattered in different parts of the land, giving orders that unless the saints should yield their peculiar faith, give up the Sabbath, and observe the first day of the week, the people were at liberty after a certain time to put them to death.” {Maranatha 268.3}

“When there shall be a ‘restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began’ (Acts 3:21), the creation Sabbath, the day on which Jesus lay at rest in Joseph's tomb, will still be a day of rest and rejoicing. Heaven and earth will unite in praise, as ‘from one Sabbath to another’ (Isa. 66:23) the nations of the saved shall bow in joyful worship to God and the Lamb.’” {Desire of Ages 769.2} So that’s where that came from.

“The Sabbath of the fourth commandment, sanctified by God, was given to man as the memorial of the creation of the world and all things therein. Ever since the institution of the Sabbath in Eden, Satan has made a determined effort to destroy this memorial, and in its stead to institute a spurious sabbath, in order that the memorial of God's great and wonderful works might be lost from the mind, and there be brought about a worldwide apostasy against God's law. He well knows that, by leading men and women to disregard the fourth commandment, he has placed them on his side of the controversy; for God says, "Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.’” (Manuscript 24, 1891, p. 7) Read in context, this scripture is an injunction to get rid of the Old Covenant but is twisted here to mean the opposite.

Isn’t it provocative to see that other Christians do not believe this? So, why would Adventists believe this if it has nothing to do with Ellen White or her teachings?
"Here is God's great test, and the sign of our loyalty to Him. We must either observe the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, or repudiate the word, and accept a day that He has not sanctified and set apart for our observance." Our great test of loyalty is not to the gospel, not to Jesus, not to the cross, but to the Sabbath? Isn't it interesting that Jesus never spoke such words? When He was asked, He spoke of love for God and love for others.

“Here is God's great test, and the sign of our loyalty to Him. We must either observe the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, or repudiate the word, and accept a day that He has not sanctified and set apart for our observance. In the day when every case is decided, these charges of the word of God will be brought forth, and men will be judged by them. Those who have not searched the Scriptures to know what God has commanded, and who have observed a day that He has not blessed, will not be excused for their ignorance…” (Manuscript 99, 1908, p. 3) The strange fire kindled by her words make me tremble as the day for her accountability draws near.

In an imagined conversation of Satan with his evil hosts: “Now that we are bringing the Protestant churches and the world into harmony with this right arm of our strength, we will finally have a law to exterminate all who will not submit to our authority. When death shall be made the penalty of violating our sabbath (meaning Sunday), then many who are now ranked with commandment keepers will come over to our side.” {Maranatha 163.4}

“A mark is placed upon every one of God's people, just as verily as a mark was placed over the doors of the Hebrew dwellings to preserve the people from the general ruin. God declares, ‘I gave them My Sabbaths, to be a sign between Me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them.’" [Eze. 20:12].--V 7 SDA Bible Commentary 969 (1900).

Ellen White goes on in A Word to the Little Flock (WLF) to relate a supposed vision:

“Soon I was lost to earthly things, and was wrapped up in a vision of God's glory. I saw an angel swiftly flying to me. He quickly carried me from the earth to the Holy City. In the city I saw a temple… After viewing the glory of the Holy, Jesus raised the second veil, and I passed into the Holy of Holies. [HEB. 9:1-24.] {WLF 18.2}

“In the Holiest I saw an ark… Jesus stood by the ark. … In the ark, was the golden pot of manna, Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of stone which folded together like a book. [HEB. 9:4.] Jesus opened them, and I saw the Ten Commandments written on them with the finger of God. [EX. 31:18.] On one table was four, and on the other six. The four on the first table shone brighter than the other six. But the fourth (the Sabbath commandment,) shone above them all; for the Sabbath was set apart to be kept in honor of God's holy name. [ISA. 58:13,14.] The holy Sabbath looked glorious--a halo of glory was all around it. I saw that the Sabbath was not nailed to the cross. If it was, the other nine commandments were; and we are at liberty to go forth and break them all, as well as to break the fourth. I saw that God had not changed the Sabbath, for He never changes. [MAL. 3:6.] But the Pope had changed it from the seventh to the first day of the week; for he was to change times and laws. [DAN. 7:25.] {WLF 18.3}
"I saw that the holy Sabbath is, and will be, the separating wall between the true Israel of God and unbelievers..." Isn't Jesus the rock on which people fall or stand? Isn't Jesus the stumbling block? But in Adventism that loyalty has been transferred to a day instead of to The Sabbath - Jesus.

“ … I saw that the holy Sabbath is, and will be, the separating wall between the true Israel of God and unbelievers; and that the Sabbath is the great question, to unite the hearts of God's dear waiting saints. And if one believed, and kept the Sabbath, and received the blessing attending it, and then gave it up, and broke the holy commandment, they would shut the gates of the Holy City against themselves, as sure as there was a God that rules in heaven above…And at the commencement of the time of trouble, …God's chosen, all saw clearly that we had the truth, and they came out and endured the persecution with us…

“ I saw all that ‘would not receive the mark of the Beast, and of his Image, in their foreheads or in their hands,’ could not buy or sell. [REV. 13:15-17.] I saw that the number (666) of the Image Beast was made up; [REV. 13:18.] and that it was the Beast that changed the Sabbath, and the Image Beast had followed on after, and kept the Pope's, and not God's Sabbath. And all we were required to do was to give up God's Sabbath, and keep the Pope's, and then we should have the mark of the Beast, and of his image. {WLF 19.1}

“{We} were pursued by the wicked, who entered the houses of the saints with the sword. They raised the sword to kill us, but it broke, and fell, as powerless as a straw…God spoke the day and hour of Jesus' coming, [EZE. 12:25. MARK 13:32.] and delivered the everlasting covenant to His people…Their countenances were lighted up with the glory of God; and they shone with the glory as Moses' face did when he came down from Sinai. The wicked could not look on them, for the glory. [Wisdom of Solomon. 5:1-5.]” I found it surprising that Ellen White quoted from the apocrapha.

Her comments above are interesting in relation to 2 Cor 3:5-15, “He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. And if what was fading away came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!“ 2 Cor 3:6-11 (NIV))

“And when the never ending blessing was pronounced on those who had honored God, in keeping His Sabbath holy, there was a mighty shout of victory over the Beast, and over his Image.” {WLF 19.2}

As you well know, there are hundreds of other quotations from Ellen White - and teachings from others - that continue to have a grip on hearts. Because these beliefs have not been confessed as sin, their power remains in place. These words are curses that extend over our families and over us and must be broken. Isn’t it time to disconnect from the deceptions that continue to have power over us and move into the New Covenant? Why do we insist on remaining at odds with the body of Christ when there is no biblical support for that position?

Summary of Adventist Heritage of the Sabbath

1) The Ten Commandments are the words of the Old Covenant Law.

2) According to the Old Covenant, anyone who does not do everything written in the law is cursed.

3) To keep the Sabbath you would need to get all of your food ready on Friday, do no cooking or boiling on the Sabbath, not go out from your place, not buy or sell, not carry anything.

4) The penalty for breaking any of these requirements is the death penalty.

5) Do Adventists keep the Sabbath? No.

6) Adventism continues to hold onto the Old Covenant teaching of the Sabbath, but it is strange fire on the altar that God has not asked for nor desired.

Ultimate Rest Table of Contents

The Next Chapter: The Rest That Remains

There is a Sabbath rest that remains for the people of God - the ultimate rest - the Sabbatismos: Jesus.

The Rest That Remains

2008-09-12T11:06:00.000-07:00

There are clues in the Old Testament that point forward to the gospel through symbol, prophecy, feast, Sabbath, regulation and revelation. One that I love is this, “…keep the Sabbath day holy by not carrying any load as you come through the gates…” Jer 17:27 (NIV). This is the shadow and meaning of the true Sabbath. We hear the answer to that law in John 10:9, “I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture.” So this is how we keep the Sabbath, by laying down our heavy burdens at the foot of the cross. “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.” Matt 11:28 (NIV) Immediately after that is the story of Jesus and the disciples picking and eating wheat in a field on the Sabbath. Here Jesus broke or destroyed the Sabbath day and declared that The Sabbath had come. Imagine how blasphemous that must have sounded to the people when this man who lived among them asserted Lordship over the Sabbath day. But the writer of Hebrews must have pondered all of the acts of Jesus with regard to the Sabbath and come to the conclusion that there did remain a Sabbath rest in the New Covenant. I can imagine the dawning of understanding as this author saw, for the first time, the true meaning of the Sabbath. The pieces of scripture must have snapped together like a puzzle with the unveiling of the risen Savior. I would love to have been there to see the lights go on when he wrote Hebrews 4:1-10.

“Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it. For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith.” From Jeremiah, we saw that there was a law forbidding anyone to enter the gates of the city with a heavy burden. At that point in history they didn’t have a clue why that rule had been made or to Whom it pointed.

“Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said, ’So I declared on oath in my anger, 'They shall never enter my rest.'" The Israelites had the Sabbath during the exodus, but they did not enter into the rest to which the Sabbath pointed. That could only be entered by faith thru the gospel of Jesus. In Joshua’s time “there was rest on every side” but that was rest from their enemies. They also had the Sabbath but did not enter into the rest God spoke about as “today.” “It still remains that some will enter that rest. Therefore God again set a certain day, calling it ‘Today.’” (The Greek word that is translated, today, carries the meaning, "as long as it is called Today." Not one day out of seven.)

“For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day. There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from His.” The word for "Sabbath-rest" in this text is Sabbatismos This is the only instance where this word is used in scripture. In fact, it is the first known use of the word anywhere. It was probably coined by the author to connote a new Sabbath rest for the New Covenant. He was highlighting a distinction between the weekly time-based Sabbath of the Old Covenant, with the new relationship-based Sabbath of the New Covenant. In the New, the Sabbath lasts for as long as it is today, every day. This is a higher rest, a better rest, the reality of rest. In adopting this rest we are not giving up anything, but gaining everything.

So, finally, in Jesus, the shadow meets substance; the ritual meets reality. This is what the Sabbath was intended to teach from its inception on Mount Sinai. Just as God rested from His work in creation, so the Christian rests from his or her work toward salvation. Remember the two reasons given for the Sabbath commandment in the Old Covenant? Creation (the rest from work) and deliverance from Egypt (salvation). Egypt in scripture symbolizes sin. So, Sabbath rest for the Christian is rest from works toward salvation because Jesus is the Sabbatismos! “There remains therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God” and it is called “Today.” That is the day God has blessed in the New Covenant, Today, every day. Just like the seventh day in creation, it has no end, no sunset table - just as God intended our Sabbath rest to be from creation. Sin brought the shortening of the Sabbath to one day out of seven with an exact beginning and an exact end. Even though the Israelites kept the Sabbath clear up to the time of Jesus, we are told that they did not enter into the rest God intends.

We don’t belong to the covenant that leads to slavery and requires a tax of one day out of seven, however blessed it was. We can choose the greater blessing of living in the Sabbath every day since Jesus is the Sabbath. The one day can be swallowed up into the seven, the number of completeness. This doesn’t do away with setting aside time to worship and gather. Christians have always done that. But there is a far greater blessing since Jesus’ resurrection and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The Sabbatismos - the highest, the best - now dwells within, and there is no sundown marking the beginning or the end because His gifts are never pulled back, they are always expanded and deepened and enriched. What will we choose? Sabbatan or Sabbatismos? The Sabbath of enough, or the Sabbath of more than enough? The shadows are gone. The Substance has come: Sabbatismos! JESUS!

“Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest…”

Summary of The Rest That Remains:

1) The Old Testament contains rich symbolism that describes the ministry and redemption of which Jesus is the reality.

2) The Sabbath was endowed with the concept of completion and rest as people were prevented from carrying heavy burdens as they entered thru the gate of the city.

3) Jesus helped them make the connection by saying that He was the gate. He invited people to come in and find pasture or rest from their heavy burdens.

4) The writer of Hebrews made the connections, too, when he realized that even though Israel (under both Moses and Joshua) had the Sabbath they did not enter the rest that God had waiting for them.

5) He understood the connection of the creation allusion in the Sabbath commandment: Just as God rested from His work in creation so are we to rest from our works toward salvation.

6) How much blessing do we want? One out of seven, or seven out of seven? We can make the choice.

7) He coined a new word, Sabbatismos, the ultimate rest, Jesus, The Sabbath.

Ultimate Rest Table of Contents

A Prayer of Freedom For the Adventist Heart

A Prayer of Freedom for the Adventist Heart

2008-09-12T11:05:00.000-07:00

Father in Heaven, I come to you in the name of Jesus, who has purchased my salvation on the cross by becoming a curse for me and fulfilling the law on my behalf. I acknowledge that you are present and that you will hear and answer this prayer. I stand in the truth that all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to the resurrected Christ. I ask You to fill me with Your Holy Spirit and lead me into all truth. I pray for Your complete protection over my life and the lives of my family members.

As a child of God seated with Christ in heavenly places, and in the name and authority of the Lord Jesus Christ, I command Satan and all evil spirits to release me in order that I can be free to know and choose to do the will of God. I refuse to be intimidated by Satan’s lies whether they have been passed down to me thru my heritage or I have chosen to believe them myself.

Lord, I ask You to guard my heart and renew my mind, clearly revealing to me any and all involvement I have had either knowingly or unknowingly with cultic or occult practices or beliefs, false religions, false doctrines and false teachers. Then give me the courage to confess them and renounce any ongoing affiliation or assent to their power over me.

Lord, I confess that I have been guilty of idolatry with respect to the Sabbath and have lifted it above Jesus. I confess my sin of pride, with respect to the Sabbath, in that I have considered myself to be more highly esteemed by God than other members of the body of Christ by revering it. I confess that I have not pursued a knowledge of the truth with respect to the Sabbath and have been stiff-necked in responding to the Holy Spirit’s attempts to reveal those truths to my heart. I take responsibility for accepting what others have taught me regarding the Sabbath, instead of coming to the Spirit of Truth for myself. I repent of these sins and ask for Your forgiveness. Pause and go over these words and let the Holy Spirit show you your own involvement.

I repent of any words I have spoken that have brought harm or deception to others because of my false understanding of the Sabbath. I repent of my participation in the sins of my church in any and all harmful statements, attitudes and policies against other believers and ask that you would repair the damage I have inflicted on them whether knowingly or unknowingly. I renounce the assertion that those who meet on the Lord’s Day, Sunday, are Babylon. I repent of my duplicity in asserting that those who do not keep the Sabbath will receive the mark of the beast. I ask Your forgiveness for my own culpability in condemning other believers - whether they are Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant - for not believing Adventist doctrines. Take a moment here to repent of things that you have been convicted about in the course of this study on the Sabbath.

I know that You desire truth in the inner being and that squarely acknowledging and facing this truth is the way to liberation from false doctrines. I acknowledge that the father of lies has deceived me and that I have participated in allowing the deception. I pray in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ that You will rebuke all deceiving spirits by virtue of the blood of Christ. I command all deceiving spirits to depart from me whether I perceive your lies or not and I ask You, Holy Spirit, to come and fill those vacated places with truth. Holy Spirit, search me and cleanse me of any lurking religious spirits that have laid claim to my life. I give You full permission to continue to expose other falsehoods that I have incorporated into my belief system that are still unrecognized by me. And with the revelation, bring conviction, repentance and truth.

I renounce all known and unknown sins that I have committed against You by trusting in Sabbath-keeping as a substitute for the death of Christ in my place. I declare that Jesus has become my “Sabbatismos,” my rest from keeping the law for salvation. I declare that for me, Jesus has become “the end of the law” toward righteousness. I confess that I am a sinner and that no amount of law keeping can pay my debt of sin. I believe that Jesus Christ has died for my sins and I receive Him as my Savior and the Lord of my life. I receive the joyous truth of the New Covenant with the better promise that because of the death of Jesus You “will forgive my wickedness and remember my sins no more.” I surrender to the working of the Holy Spirit in my heart to fill me to overflowing with all the fullness of God, to lead me into all truth, to fill me with His gifts and fruit, and to write the “law of Christ” on my heart. This is what I now believe regarding the commandments of God in the New Covenant: “And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. Those who obey his commands live in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.” 1 John 3:23-24 (NIV)

By these declarations I am also attesting that I am now a full member of the body of Christ and not separate from Your Church. I embrace the body and commit myself to working together with other believers in furthering the kingdom of God. Now, Father, seal this work in me by the power of the name of Jesus. In faith I believe that You have loved me with an everlasting love and that nothing and no one can snatch me out of Your hand.

All praise and honor be to the name above all names, Jesus Christ, Amen.

Home Page Table of Contents for all studies can be accessed from the Home Page.

Books Consulted

2008-09-12T11:04:00.000-07:00

Over the past several years I have read quite extensively to see what is taught by others in the body of Christ regarding the subjects in this study. There are probably more sources I could cite, but am unable to bring back any more than these. Any quotations or contributions that I got directly from others are attributed to their sources. The books noted below influenced the direction of my study and thought processes. I am so appreciative of these writers and of all of the hapless Christians I have accosted over the years who have patiently answered my incessant questions. For those in that category I thank you for so generously sharing your experiences and insights.

1. Anderson, Neil T., Miller, Rich and Travis, Paul. When Trying Harder Isn’t Enough Breaking the Bondage of Legalism. Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers. 2003.

2. Bacchiocchi, Samuele. From Sabbath To Sunday. Rome: The Pontifical Gregorian University Press. 1977

3. Bacchiocchi, Samuele. The Sabbath In The New Testament, Answers To Questions. Berrien Springs, Michigan: 1985.

4. Canright, D.M. Life of Mrs. E.G. White Seventh-day Adventist Prophet, Her False Claims Refuted. Salt Lake City, Utah: Grant Shurliff, Publisher, Sterling Press. 1998.

5. Canright, D.M. Seventh-day Adventism Renounced. Nashville, Tennessee: Gospel Advocate Company. 1914, Reprint 2001.

6. Carson, D.A, Editor. From Sabbath To Lord’s Day. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers. 1999, Previously published by Zondervan, 1982.

7. Cloud, David W. Avoiding The Snare Of Seventh-day Adventism. Port Huron, Michigan: Way Of Life Literature. 1999.

8. Hoekema, Anthony A. The Four Major Cults, Christian Science, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormonism, Seventh-day Adventism. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 1986.

9. Jewett, Paul K. The Lord’s Day. Pasadena, California: Fuller Theological Seminary. 1978

10. Ratzlaff, Dale. Sabbath In Christ. Glendale, Arizona: Life Assurance Ministries. 2003.

11. Riggle, H.M. The Sabbath and the Lord’s Day. Glendale, Arizona: Life Assurance Ministries. Originally published 1922. Reprint.

12. Slattery, Wallace D. Are Seventh-day Adventists False Prophets? Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P & R Publishing. 1990.

13. Tucker, Ruth A. Another Gospel, Cults, Alternative Religions and the New Age Movement. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House. 1989.

14. Wright, Gerald N. Sabbatarian Concordance and Commentary. Grapevine, Texas: Star Bible Publications, Inc. 1977, 2001.

Ultimate Rest Table of Contents

Appendix 1: Herschel Hughes’ Message

2008-09-12T11:03:00.000-07:00

An audio presentation by Herschel Hughes of this message to a Southern California SDA church can be heard at this website: http://www.amessagefromgodtothesdachurch.com/.

“I am the Lord thy God and those of you from the Seventh-day Adventist Church are dearly loved by me, but you are a stiff-necked, prideful people, who have provoked my wrath. For I have sent to you many messengers of truth. But you have stubbornly refused to respond to their testimony and you are arrogantly continuing to defy my will. The end is near, so I give you this final warning. You must return to your Christian roots and abandon the false teaching that it is my will that you should observe and make the Jewish Sabbath the focus of end-time events and an issue of salvation. This is wrong, for the Sabbath was part of the old covenant I made exclusively for the Jews and as Gentiles it is not yours to claim.

“But I have given all people (Jews and Gentiles alike) who believe and follow me, a new covenant, which is the inheritance of eternal life, freely given, by my blood and by my grace, through faith, and which also includes the guidance and empowerment of my Spirit but includes no allowance for any legalisms from the old Jewish covenant. My JEWS celebrate my creation but my Christians celebrate my blood. You must also abandon the false teaching that you call the investigative judgment, as it denies the completed redemption of my cross; it denies my grace and without my grace, there is no salvation. You must reject your false views about death as I am the Creator of life and the immortality of the soul and at the moment of death, I call home to be with me, all the souls of my true believers. You must embrace my truth regarding the indwelling work of my Holy Spirit, which begins at the moment you are born again, and you are sealed by Me. You have scorned my rapture throughout your entire brief existence as a church and thus you have chosen not to be included in it. You have altered my truths regarding this Earth's final events, so that your people will not be prepared for my coming and you deceive my Christians with your heretical Sunday laws and mark of the beast deceptions. You teach contempt and condemnation toward my Jews and you claim to have replaced them and call yourselves spiritual Israel. Such thinking led to the tortuous murder of millions of my chosen people; for they will be restored and they, not you, will do my work during the tribulation. There is a judgment of fire for all people who have demeaned my Jews. You have even altered my truth of eternal damnation. I will no longer tolerate these and other of your heresies. You are not my remnant church, or my chosen people; and most of you are not even part of the body of Christ. I want to anoint and empower this church, DO NOT REMAIN A CULT. You must reject these untruths and become a genuine Christian church now; the Adventist Christian Church. You have the potential of becoming a mighty force for my cause, but you have chosen to follow a false prophet who is leading you to your own demise. Harken my words before it is too late. REPENT! REPENT! REPENT! And follow only me, and I will abundantly bless you; otherwise I will ultimately focus my wrath against this church and its people.”

Ultimate Rest Table of Contents

Appendix 2: Walter Martin Interview

2008-09-12T11:02:00.000-07:00

From Adventist Currents, Vol. 1, No. 1, July, 1983 (This article is reproduced exactly as printed. No corrections of grammar, spelling, capitalization, or punctuation have been made.)
Walter Martin, Christianity's cult-watcher discusses Adventism in trouble - including his fear that SDA leaders are on Masada and they don't know it.

In the mid 1950's, a theologian and cult-watcher named Walter R. Martin began an investigation into Seventh-day Adventism, which led the church to publish the book QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE, and which led Martin to write THE TRUTH ABOUT SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISM. In his book and the articles that preceded it, Martin holds that Adventists are not a cult, subscribing to extrabiblical authority, but are in fact biblical - and thus genuine Christian brethren, worthy of respect and unreserved fellowship. During an interview in February 1983, Martin told CURRENTS his feelings regarding the fate of QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE and gave his evaluation of SDA theological developments subsequent to 1955.

Because nearly three decades have passed since Martin spent hundreds of hours in dialogue with General Conference officers, we expected to interview an unsteady octogenarian. But Martin is barely into his fifties.

He was a mere boy when he confronted FREDA, an acronym given by some on Eastern Avenue to Froom, Read, and Anderson [FRAN is another acronym used]. L.E. Froom, whom Martin had asked to meet, was Adventism's reigning historian-apologist. W.E. Read, General Conference field- secretary, entered the discussions at Froom's suggestion. And Roy Allan Anderson, also included at Froom's request, was Ministerial Association secretary and MINISTRY Magazine editor.

Martin was already a contributing editor for ETERNITY Magazine and had published a book exposing the cults (his life's cynosure) when he persuaded his mentor-boss, Eternity editor Donald Grey Barnhouse, to join him in a conversation with his new friends from the General Conference.

General Conference president R.R. Figuhr gave his blessing to the meetings in the summer of 1955 and more than once after his retirement told R.A. Anderson that the book SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS ANSWER QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE, which resulted directly from the discussions with Martin and Barnhouse, was the most meaningful accomplishment of his administration. Not everyone agreed, however; and evidence of the sound and fury that followed publication of Questions on Doctrine is illustrated in "Questions on Doctrine: a Theological 'Sting'?" [which follows the interview].

Dr. Martin was interviewed at his Christian Research Institute offices in El Toro, California, where he employs an engaging staff of research assistants. Martin has invested much of himself in Seventh-day Adventism, and his reputation with the evangelical Christian community is on the line as he maintains that Adventists are Christian brethren rather than a cult. Consequently, he remains intensely interested in the status of our internal doctrinal debates.

When discussing his interaction with Seventh-day Adventist leaders past and present, Martin becomes very much involved. Interview becomes monologue. And, given the continuing vicissitudes in Adventist doctrine and policy, Adventists can expect to hear more from this self-appointed monitor of cults.

CURRENTS: I understand that you have recently solicited from the General Conference President, Neal Wilson, a statement affirming the validity of Adventist doctrine as presented in the 1957 publication Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine. Could you tell us why you are looking for such a statement at this time from the General Conference president? Have you received any response?

MARTIN: The request has been sent to Mr. Wilson. The reason for it is that increasingly, over the last few years, I have met Adventists pastors, teachers, and evangelists around the country who felt that the denomination had taken such a powerful stand in Questions on Doctrine, with such good scholarship behind them - amassing some of the best brains they had at the time - and really trying to come to grips with the issues which were facing the denomination and separating them from fellowship with other evangelicals. And they could not understand why there was a muffling of the book, why it was taken out of circulation; many felt that I was being misled. The men who dealt with me dealt with me in integrity and in honor, and I believe that. But afterwards, a "Pharaoh arose who knew not Joseph." (Neil Wilson and other GC Presidents) And as a result of that, the "old guard" - some of whom followed the school of Uriah Smith on Christology, M.L. Andreason on sanctuary doctrine, and some of Mrs. White's earlier unfortunate statements (which need not be defended as infallible) - were in a position to influence the publication of the book and the continued dialogue with evangelicals on which it is based. After 150,000 copies, Questions on Doctrine was permitted to go out of print. That was a bad mistake. It was a very popular book.

CURRENTS: "Permitted" as euphemism here?
MARTIN: I am being kind. I believe it was deliberately removed by people who felt that it was a thorn in their theological flesh.

CURRENTS: Maybe we ought to flash back about 30 years to the time when, as a young graduate student studying the history of American religions at New York University, you first initiated contact with the General Conference brethren. T.E. Unruh, one of the men you met, said, "This first meeting can be described as a confrontation." You had already written about Adventists, perhaps negatively, in a book called The Rise of the Cults. What occasion did you have to contact the Adventist leadership, and how do you remember the initial confrontation?

MARTIN: Well, I received literature critical of the position I had taken in The Rise of the Cults, where I listed Adventism as a cult. T.E. Unruh contacted me in Reading, Pennsylvania, where I believe he was a Conference president or had some official position there. He was a very winsome and loving man. But he was quite upset by the fact that I had taken this very strong position, that so many people read my material, and that Adventism would suffer as a result - unjustly, he felt. We had a confrontation, which was the best thing. I said to him that I had a considerable amount of evidence from Adventist publications which are heretical. I said, "It does not have anything to do with like or dislike of Adventists as people, or their accomplishments, or their zeal - the cults are very accomplished; they are very zealous. I can introduce you to marvelous Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses who are moral, ethical, tithe-giving people who imitate Christian ethics and Christian morality. The fact that you do these things doesn't make you a Christian. What makes you a Christian is whether or not you really are in accord with biblical theology and whether you know Jesus Christ as your Saviour."
"Well, I do," said Unruh.
Then I said, "I am not challenging you, but your literature is a hodge- podge of contradictions. I am a logician. I am a student of comparative religions, and I intend to make it my life work. I collect data. I am a documentary research man."
"Well," Unruh said, "I propose we have some dialogue in this matter and talk about this."
And I said, "All right. I will talk to Dr. Barnhouse of Eternity Magazine (I was contributing editor at the time); and if he is interested, we could make this a joint project with the General Conference and the Evangelical Foundation. We will discuss, we will go into dialogue, and I'll be happy to represent the Foundation. And if my position is in error, I'll be happy to correct it. If it is not in error, then you will sustain that what I have said is true."

CURRENTS: Were you under contract by Zondervan at that time to write another book?

MARTIN: No. In fact, the General Conference was not really too warm to the entire project initially. Anderson, Froom, Read and Unruh paid some of the expenses from their own pockets. And we, out of our own pockets, did the same thing, because I came to the realization that there was a real area of conflict that had to be resolved. After all, if Seventh-day Adventists were in essence Christians, then to classify them as a cult would be a great sin. If they were really cultists, and didn't even know that they were, then we could do them a great service by pointing it out to them. And if we could deal with all of the issues that had been raised from the Adventists' controversies of Canright, all the way through to that particular day, then perhaps we could set the record straight once and for all. Just exactly what did they believe?
You have to understand that 30 years ago there was great confusion. As a matter of fact, today there is still in many areas of Adventism. They had strains of Arian Christology; there were men in positions of authority who denied the deity of Christ and the Trinity. For all I know, some of them may still be there today. There were people who were absolute legalists, who believed that any person who kept Sunday - even in good conscience before God - right at that moment had the mark of the beast. And they were printing and distributing it under official Adventist logos.

CURRENTS: Can you put a handle on the copiousness of that discussion and how long it went on?
MARTIN: What you really have to understand is that when we first decided we would explore this, Barnhouse wouldn't buy it. He and the General Conference had a complete agreement: they were anathema. Barnhouse, you see, had come out against Adventism so strongly in the past and had such a vast ministry of influence that it was unthinkable for him to even consider these people from Mountain View, California, who had stamped him with the mark of the beast. He ran into some of the Adventist "lunatic fringe." And, of course, that turned him off, as it would turn off any normal person. So, Barnhouse said, "No. We won't go into it."

The General Conference would say (I later learned), "This Martin, how can we really trust him? Look what he has done to the Jehovah's Witnesses and to the Mormons. He'll come after us. If we let him in, if we open anything up to him, who knows what he will say?"

So, Roy Anderson said to them and the others, "He is a man of integrity, and we believe he will tell the truth. If we tell him the truth, and we don't hold anything back, he will tell the truth. We will break down the walls that separate fellowship between evangelicals and Adventists all over the world. We will begin something that will go on and on in the denomination, that will help people understand that we are brothers and sisters in Christ. We can perform such a great service if we are willing to take the risk."

To his eternal credit, Reuben Figuhr said, "We will take the risk." So they financed the conferences in Washington, and Barnhouse financed our part of whatever we had to do in Philadelphia or wherever we went.

CURRENTS: You are talking about hundreds of hours of contact.

MARTIN: Ha! You are talking thousands of hours of research. What I did was, I went and collected every bit of information from Adventist publishing houses in the basic areas of doctrine covered in the book Questions on Doctrine. Do you have any idea how much time it took to read the material? I didn't have a research staff (I have 20 people now.) It was George Cannon and I, with some of the other people I could trust, who had good theological orientation to check out the material.

After I started doing the research, I saw definite division in Adventist theology. There were people who really were believers and held to the foundations of the Gospel. Then there were those who were downright legalists - worshippers of Ellen White… They were hardly ever hearing the conservative Adventists. They were hearing these people who were stamping [them] with the mark of the beast and telling them that the atonement wasn't finished and all kinds of other things.

So I distilled all this information over a period of months. I mean months and months of just checking it. I had carte blanche to go ahead as soon as Barnhouse was convinced. And I convinced Barnhouse by sitting down with him and saying, "You taught me that unity of the body of Christ was the primary task of Christians and that we were to maintain that unity."
He said, "Correct."

I said, "Now, if these people are members of the body of Christ and we treat them as enemies, God can't bless us."

And he said, "That's true."

And I said, "Let's find out (let me find out). Do you trust me?"

"Absolutely," he said.

I said, "Then let me find out."

He said, "Do it."

Well that was Barnhouse and Figuhr. They had both agreed, having never met.
So, we started. I collected all the material and I noticed the division in Adventist theology. A lot of what Canright said was right. He had it absolutely accurate in the early days. A lot of other people - Herbert, Bird - had some good criticisms, which came out after my material. Then there were others down the line, E.B. Jones and others, who had made observations from their own experiences within Adventism - a lot of which were valid. But times had changed in certain areas, and they had not caught up with this. So I met E.B. Jones, and he told me the Adventists would deceive me and I shouldn't listen to them - that they were experts at manipulation…

We met in Washington and it was a confrontation. Froom thought he was an apologist - though he was a great church historian, he was not an apologist. And Froom was convinced that he wasn't going to give me one inch. Obviously, I was a young man and he was a great historian - and he was. I would controvert him in specific dialogue, he would shout at me, and we would really get going. I would shout back, too. We had a couple of sessions there that were really something. Poor Roy Anderson sat there and would say, "Now brethren, we must be calm here." He is a dear, dear soul. He was editor of Ministry then. And he'd calm Froom down.

W.E. Read, great old servant of God, said, "We've go to get back to the basic issue here, Froom. Never mind the differences. We can argue about 'soul sleep' forever. This has nothing to do with the basic issue. That's not going to separate our fellowship. We've got to get back to these basic things. These are real concerns." And, we would get back.
Unruh didn't quite know what to make of either Cannon or me. I brought Cannon along because he was working on his doctorate in Greek. He is brilliant, as history has now shown us; he is one of the best Greek scholars the Church has. And he was convinced, as I was in the beginning, that Adventism was a cult because we had materials which were just flagrantly disobedient to exegesis, to Scripture; and we knew it was wrong, and we could put it out very simply. I mean, a first-year Greek student could point it out. So we thought, "Hey, you know, we really ought to put our heads together on this." George was a Christian Missionary Alliance professor and I was a teacher. "OK, let's go at it; you take the Greek and I'll take the apologetics. We'll put them together and see what we can come up with." So, that is how we approached it.

Back to the meeting in Washington. George and I started pointing out that there were differences in Adventist publications. Well, the men who were there were largely unaware of how really bad the publications had become. Froom was vigorously denying some of the things I was quoting. I had brought a large suitcase, and I opened it on the conference table and spread out the papers before them. I'll never forget this! "Read it," I said; and they read it and were appalled!

Anderson said, "I've never believed that!"

Froom said, "I certainly never have."

Unruh said, "Never."

And Read said, "Certainly not!"

So I said, "Fine. Here are four Adventists, the best brains around, in this committee - the editor of the Ministry Magazine, the head of your Hebrew Research Department, your best historian, and one of the most prominent conference presidents - and you are sitting here with how many total years in Adventism? And you didn't know?"

CURRENTS: I don't know how Froom could not have been aware of all that?

MARTIN: Well, you have to understand Froom's mind. He was selective in his work. He was really a great historian. He spent most of his time in history archives digging out material. He would seldom ever get involved in basic theological issues. Read was aware of some of it because of some of the material that crossed his desk. Anderson was too busy running the ministers and ministerial associations throughout the world; he had work for ten men. He didn't have time to go through what I did. And then, men underneath him apparently were never assigned any projects of that nature.

I think perhaps what I was able to do was focus their attention for the first time on the fact: "Hey! You guys are talking out of both sides of your mouth and you don't even know it." That is when I think they woke up. They weren't just denying it to impress me; they honestly were in shock! Then they started reading the mark of the beast material, the uncompleted atonement with all kinds of stuff in there, and some of the early things in Mrs. White. I said, "We just simply have got to get to the place where we recognize that Ellen White may very well have exercised the gift of prophecy, as in 1 Corinthians 12 and 14. She may very well have had words of wisdom and knowledge from the Lord. This has been going on down through the centuries; it's nothing new. But you have to be extremely careful when you talk about these things that you do not place them in the area of canonicity; and secondly, you have to be careful that you don't end up with a female pope who is going to tell you what the text says, when that's the work of the Holy Spirit.
"You are right," they said.

And I said, "Well, what we have to do is try to get to the real Ellen and what she thought of herself. Then, even if she made mistakes in judgment about herself, let's assume it's on the side of the angels. That she wasn't a ravenous wolf or false prophet who set out to deceive the church and that she was not manipulating the people around her and that she did not have phony visions. Let's assume that she had a genuine manifestation of spiritual gifts. With that also goes fallibility. With that goes the fact that one can misinterpret, that one can make mistakes." Well, that was the first major breakthrough we got.

At that juncture, I ran into F.D. Nichol. Nichol was an absolute worshipper of Ellen White. If he were here now (F.D. was a friend of mine), I would say it to his face. And we got to that place in our dialogues (just a couple I had with Nichol, independent of these men). I met with Nichol over in Illinois when we were covering a conference and we spent a day together.

It was before 1960, of historical value. Nichol said that he was very glad he did not have to defend the writers of the Scripture but only Mrs. White. And I said, "Brother Nichol, have you lost your reason?" I wasn't as tactful as I am today. "Have you lost your reason? Do you realize what you have just said? Do you realize that you have elevated Mrs. White over Scripture without even thinking about it? You said you are glad you only have to defend her and not the Scriptures, as if the Scriptures were more fallible than Ellen White.

He just paused and looked at me.

I told him, "You can't say that. You say something like that publicly and Adventism is a cult. They have exalted the leaders' interpretations of capabilities and gifts over those of the Church, the Holy Spirit, the ministry of the Word. You can't do that." Well, the General Conference wisely separated Nichol and me. He was prohibited from making contact with me.

CURRENTS: He had already written Ellen G. White and Her Critics. MARTIN: Answers to Objections and Ellen G. White and Her Critics, which I read. So he had to know its difficulties.

MARTIN: Well, I went through his arguments. I didn't just ignore F.D. Nichol. He had a good mind. He made a lot of points in favor of Mrs. White in areas that were, let's say, questionable. OK, I could see his position. But there were areas where there just wasn't any way any human mind, rationally operating, was going to be able to get out. "God showed me, 'Build the Health Institute'." James White comes home, tears it down! I don't care who you are and what kind of machinations you go through; Papa [James White] made the decision, not God. And I said to the guys at the table, "There is no way out of this."

"Well, let's not really get into it," they said.
"All right, let's not really get into it," I replied. "But you understand from an evangelistic perspective, there's no way out of this."

CURRENTS: Nichol would have been better off if he had said it was a sexist generation and let it go at that.

MARTIN: He would have been better off to have just ignored the thing or said, "There are areas in which, perhaps, we cannot understand why Mrs. White did this..." or whatever, but to defend it!

CURRENTS: You may not be aware how much Arthur White helped him with that book.

MARTIN: All right. Now, we had a problem there. I met Arthur White, who was very gracious but extremely determined not to give me any information other than what he absolutely had to give. I said to the committee, "I do not want to do business with Arthur White or the White Estate. Are you going to represent the Adventist denomination to me or is Mr. White going to?"

They replied, "The General Conference represents the denomination."
"Good," I said. "You are representatives, a committee appointed by the president of the General Conference."

"Yes."

"Then," I replied, "we are going to do the Lord's business together, not Mr. White. You just get me the information I want from Mr. White because I am not going back again." And they gave me whatever I asked for. I asked for a lot of material - they were fair; they gave it to me. As we progressed they came to trust me.

Cannon and I came to have great respect for their integrity and great trust in them.
To this day I don't think I have met four finer men of Christian integrity than R.A. Anderson, T.E. Unruh, L.E. Froom and W.E. Read or, for that matter, Ted Heppenstall - men of God who really worked earnestly trying to find answers. They realized that separation between members of the body of Christ on peripheral theology is sin and this sin had to be cleared away. The debris had to be cleaned up. And, if there was a real basis then, there should be fellowship.

So, I went back to Barnhouse and presented the evidence I had. He said, "Are you absolutely certain?"

"Yes," I said, "I am absolutely certain. Now the question is the denomination itself. It is a mixed bag of people. If the General Conference takes a strong stand with the book, Questions on Doctrine, and really puts it in all their publishing houses, and if the General Conference puts my book, which I am now going to write, into the publishing houses so that they get both aspects of our discussion, then we have a fighting chance to influence the denomination towards evangelical fellowship; we can have rapport and there is a chance that we can start binding up some of the wounds in the body of Christ."

CURRENTS: Now Questions on Doctrine was the written answers to the questions you and Barnhouse submitted.

MARTIN: I submitted them and I worked with Froom on some of them too because Froom wanted them placed in such a way that Adventists would understand exactly what we were saying.

CURRENTS: And the manuscript of that book went to 250 Adventist leaders around the world and had apparently unanimous support before publication.

MARTIN: Almost complete. I wrote my book in 1960, three years after Questions on Doctrine. I had already done the articles for Eternity Magazine. They read the articles. We went over them together. Not that they were going to censure what I had said (they wouldn't even suggest that). They wanted to be certain what I said was such that Adventists who read Eternity, and read the reprints of the articles, would understand where we were coming from because we had two different vocabularies. And - this was a terribly important point historically - we were actually at that juncture synchronizing vocabulary between Adventism and evangelical Christianity, which had never been done before. That was a major semantic breakthrough. You have no idea how much time went into making sure we used terms that were mutually understandable.

CURRENTS: Give one or two examples just for fun, of terms that both sides could use but use differently.

MARTIN: Well, in Adventist theology "Remnant Church" meant the Seventh-day Adventist denomination - the General Conference when in session - was the highest governing body on earth, that they were a special people called out by God with the Third Angel's Message, and that the seal of this was the fact that they kept the seventh day Sabbath. And that set them apart as the "Remnant Church."
All right now, that view gradually had been altered and expanded through the years in the thinking of moderate Adventists so that they did not come out and say it in publications; it was sort of a tacit agreement. They weren't back in the 1870's and '80's anymore with, "We are the only church." They were recognizing other members of the body of Christ, even though they worshipped on Sunday rather than on Saturday. For the first time we got out in the open this new tolerance. I asked, "What do you mean by 'Remnant Church?' To our people it means that you are the only Christians. To some of your people that is what it means, too. And to other members of your church it means, well, we are special people - God marked us out but we are not the only Christians. Now, how do we get these strings tied together?" So we tried to deal with it in Questions on Doctrine, where we spelled out that there were other members of the body of Christ. The Adventists considered themselves unique because of what they believed were revelations from Mrs. White to the church. I didn't buy the basic argument, but we printed the argument, perhaps for the first time, where Adventists and non-Adventists could at least see where each of them was coming from.

CURRENTS: You were willing to learn that we were unique although you weren't sure we were right?

MARTIN: Sure. … some of Mrs. White's statements in the early days, as I pointed out to the General Conference representatives, were theologically off the wall. They just wouldn't stand up. These men were very tactful. They were true to their convictions, but they were not intransigent. They were willing to look at biblical evidence, exegesis, and facts. The resulting book, Questions on Doctrine, was a landmark because it said what so many Adventists had believed for so long but had never had in print as a reference.

CURRENTS: So two books came out of these discussions: one from the Adventists and one that you wrote in 1960?

MARTIN: Right. At this juncture something unique happened. Roy Anderson can confirm this for you; he knows the inner working of it. Somehow, when my book came out, they got an advance copy.

CURRENTS: Was there a prior agreement as to what would happen to your book when it came out?

MARTIN: Oh, yes. We would distribute their book and promote it through Christian bookstores, through Eternity Magazine, and anyplace else we could.

CURRENTS: Even though you had been doing that for a few years?

MARTIN: I have faithfully done that. And they were to take my book and get it into all the Adventist bookstores and publishing houses so that the Adventists could see the work I had done. They reneged on that. The General Conference reneged on that, and Anderson was very upset.

CURRENTS: Do you know whom to define as General Conference in that case?

MARTIN: I don't, and I wouldn't make an accusation. But they did not keep their word. As a result, only Questions on Doctrine came out in Seventh-day Adventist bookstores. The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism did not. In addition to that, they wrote a book to answer my book without giving my book a hearing. That was wrong. The book is called Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine, I don't object to their answering my arguments in The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism; that's only fair. But at least let the people read [for themselves] what I said!

What they did was censure the Adventist people. That's what they did.
CURRENTS: What explanation was given you for not meeting the agreement?

MARTIN: Hung heads and deep apologies from the four men I worked with, who felt that they, themselves, had not been treated fairly in that respect. I cannot say enough for the integrity of these men. They never backed down on their positions.
About my book, The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism - when I got ready to print, I went to Zondervan who said, "This is explosive stuff. Do you realize what you are saying?"

I said, "Yes. It's true; we should print it. I am an expert on cults; you printed my other books, right? I am the director of the division of cult apologetics for the largest Christian publishing company. Are you going to believe me or not?" The Zondervan brothers said, "We believe you." "Fine," I said, "print it."

Well, about two months after that I received a call. "Walter, will you fly to Grand Rapids? We are having some problems."

I previously had problems with Louis Talbert, at the Theological Seminary. I met with Talbert and presented the evidence I had uncovered. He was very impressed by it and said he would wait and see what the outcome of the final research was before he said anything. Well, when we published the Eternity Magazine articles he blew his cork and attacked Barnhouse.

CURRENTS: You lost about 11,000 subscribers, right?

MARTIN: Yes, that's correct. But God gave us all those subscribers back again and more.

CURRENTS: What fraction was the 11,000 of the total?

MARTIN: We only had 33,000.

CURRENTS: Almost a third of your subscribers were lost?

MARTIN: I believe that was the figure. But to Barnhouse’s credit, when we were faced with this, he said: "It doesn't make any difference how many we lose. If it's the truth, God will see us through." That's courage - more courage than the General Conference ever had. They didn't even have the backbone to face their own constituency.
Back to the problems at Zondervan. M.R. De Haan, a popular Zondervan author, was objecting to my book. I flew to Grand Rapids and met with him. De Haan chewed me out for 45 minutes as only De Haan could. He said I was betraying the church. I had been taken in by the Adventists and he didn't want me to get hurt. He didn't want to see my reputation hurt. Finally he said to Pat and Bernie Zondervan, "If you print this book, I'll take all of my books out of here and I'll never give you another book."

He was their biggest seller. This was 1957. Pat and Bernie Zondervan said, "Well, M.R., we don't want to lose you; we love you and that means a great deal to us. But if Walter is telling the truth, this is a landmark issue. We want to get out there and tell the truth about it. It is really a breakthrough and we're going to print it." And they did. I think the book sold between 25,000 and 50,000 copies, which, in those days, was a very good sale.
But if the General Conference had kept its promise, which it didn't, the book would have gone to all Adventist groups. Then a lot of the seeding that has taken place through the years would have been an instantaneous type of event, and Adventist laity would have seen that there were other legitimate doctrinal perspectives. But they didn't get the chance. The "old guard, - whoever they are - apparently have enough power, probably dominated largely by the interest of the White Estate. And I feel that the White Estate and the denomination itself have got themselves into a spiritually compromising position they're going to have to face. It's revenue versus repentance. And Mrs. White cannot be defended against the charges of plagiarism. She cannot be defended against certain specific theological errors. …

Unfortunately, what you just said introduces the problem of ethical and moral integrity in her publications. Now, all of us, I have done it myself, quote sections of books. Usually I try to footnote them unless I paraphrase something and I am not even aware that I've paraphrased it; in which case, if it is brought to my attention, I'd change it. I can understand how it is possible. But not pages and pages and pages!

So, I feel that there is a compromise, revenue-wise. I think the General Conference leaders are compromising with the White Estate. I think they are trying to preserve the entire fabric and structure of the denomination historically. It can't be done. There are too many holes in everybody's denominational history and structure to try to preserve it in its entirety. Everybody has made mistakes. And they have got to come to a genuine repentance because they are trying to cover up facts. They are trying to cover up truth. If they will stand with Questions on Doctrine, and if they will answer my questions - and I have only asked three questions - directly and truthfully, then I am going to defend them as my brothers in Christ and try to work with them and pray with them towards a position that really will reflect the truth.

CURRENTS: What are the three questions? Will you articulate them?

MARTIN: I prefer not to articulate them now because I think the General Conference has a right to see them first and respond to them before I talk about them publicly. But the questions are very pointed and direct. There is no possibility of mistaking what I am saying. I am not trying to be an inquisitor. I did not come to the Adventists as an inquisitor 30 years ago. I am a brother. But if men will suppress truth and hold down the truth in unrighteousness, then the Scripture says, "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against this." In other words, you cannot survive this. You will not receive the blessing of God.

CURRENTS: One of your research consultants recently wrote a letter [in the summer of 1982] to an Adventist, and I quote: "We do expect Professor Martin will be making some form of public statement concerning his findings and recent dialogue with the SDA leadership in the very near future." Have you made a statement somewhere or would you care to say something about it now for the readers of the Adventist Currents?

MARTIN: I am going to be printing, as I told Brother Wilson, a booklet discussing some of the things we are talking about now, plus more. A large amount of what I have to say is going to be conditioned by the response I get from the General Conference, and the answer to the important question, "Why did you let the most singularly influential book of the last 30 years in your denomination go out of print? Who was responsible for it going out of print? Why? Does the Adventist denomination, in fact, really hold to what it originally said, or is the Adventist denomination playing games with us? Have they changed their position or were they always playing games with us? I believe these are fair questions.

CURRENTS: Can you expect a truthful answer after what happened 30 years ago?

MARTIN: I have ways of making sure that the answer is truthful... You see, 30 years ago I didn't have near the audience I have now. My tapes on the cults have reached a circulation of 15 million. those are not my figures but the figures of the people who distribute them.

Secondly, The Kingdom of the Cults is in print as a standard textbook and is used all over the world. It is now in its 37th printing, coming up for revision and expansion; and in there is a chapter on Adventism, which I put in deliberately. The book will be a classic for years. The chapter has got to be in there spelling out that Adventists are not a cult, because they are already classified that way. What better place to deal with it than in a classic book? Anthony Hoekoma came after me with a hammer and tongs; he is a friend of mine. And M.R. De Haan came after me, among other people because of the position I took. I haven't recanted my position, but if the Seventh-day Adventist denomination will not back up its answers with actions and put Questions on Doctrine back in print - and, in effect, take a strong stand against people in your denomination who are a very vocal and powerful group and who very well can bring the judgment of God on up - then they're in real trouble that I can't help them out of; and nobody else can either.

E. Schuyler English, I should tell you, was the first to print, along with Eternity, the material on Seventh-day Adventism. He agreed with me that it was something we should do, regardless of whatever flack we got. Others picked up the same thing. We pretty much split the evangelical world. But through the years, I can say this without hesitation, the position Barnhouse took - and I took - and Questions on Doctrine took - prevailed in the evangelical world, so that a whole new climate exists. The General Conference is now jeopardizing that whole new climate. They will throw themselves back half a century if they do not clarify these issues.

CURRENTS: You wrote a review of The White Lie, Walter Rea's book about Ellen White. In it you stated, "...another defense put forth by the SDA hierarchy is that Ellen's writings were compiled in the same manner as that of the biblical writers. Rea presents a concise, thorough refutation of this premise." There is a whole lot behind that. I am not confident Rea did a good job of parsing the difference between the problems of source usage in Ellen White and the problems of source usage in Scripture.

MARTIN: I didn't write this review.

CURRENTS: Oh! I'm sorry.

MARTIN: This was done by Lynne Scheffer, a researcher I put on the project for five months, to sift all the materials. I have cartons of material. The article was published in Forward. Walter Rea I know personally. I knew him in Washington. He was down there when I first went down to the Conference to meet with the brethren. He was working with the Conference at the time and I met him later on in northern California. He did a thorough, Herculean job of compiling data. The thing I told him at the time, lovingly, was that I thought if I were writing it, I would not become emotionally involved to the place where people might get turned off by my emotion and by my frustration and anger at what had gone on and what I had discovered. I think that Rea's position in terms of documentation is irrefutable, largely. I think the material I have compiled and others, independently of Rea, is very strong material and will stand up. But I think the denomination has to come to grips with the fact that if they don't face it, it will not go away; it will not be swept under the rug or die. It is going to keep generating more and more problems and foment difficulties.

CURRENTS: Walter feels that you sometimes need a two by four to get a donkey's attention, and he hasn't been able to be persuaded away from that.

MARTIN: I know. We talked about this in great detail. He drove over to see me and showed me the original manuscript of The White Lie before they ever published it. I got in touch immediately with Roy Allen Anderson and with a committee [Kenneth Vine, Robert Olson, Robert Spangler, Bert Beach, and R.A. Anderson] that met at Loma Linda in January of 1982. I asked the questions I am asking the General Conference and I specifically made clear-cut statements to them about the dangers involved. There was a consensus of opinion among the brethren that something very definite had to be done of a positive nature to offset a lot of the statements that were coming out. And I left it there until my recent letter, since I am getting ready to publish. I sent my letter to Wilson. This is not my review, but I am substantially in agreement with him. I would go one step further. As I told F.D. Nichol, "You are trying to defend Mrs. White at the expense of Scripture. You can't do that."

CURRENTS: If you are going to use source criticism on one though, it's legitimate to use source criticism on the other.

MARTIN: Sure, if you are going to assume that you can use a source criticism, fine. Writers of the Bible drew upon pagan sources. Paul quoted from uninspired authors in Acts 17. Revelation has quotations from secular sources. Nobody is denying that, but that's not plagiarism.

CURRENTS: The phenomenon is different in that culture or in that context, perhaps, than it was is the 19th century. Plus the readers knew that the writer knew that the readers knew.

MARTIN: But, there is a circular reasoning involved in defending Mrs. White. You have probably already detected it - "The writers of the Bible did the same thing as Mrs. White. Mrs. White is permitted to do it also." That holds if one assumes, circularly, that Mrs. White is to be considered as one of the writers of the Bible. And then you are right back to square one.

Let me read you something that's really of a cultic mentality and dangerous, that you may not be aware of. I'm quoting an Adventist official:

"This is a statement I like very much. Speaking of Christ, the originator of all truth. This is found in Manuscript 25 that Ellen White wrote:

EGW: "In his discourse Christ did not bring many things before them at once lest He might confuse their minds. He made every point clear and distinct. He did not disdain a repetition of old and familiar truths and prophecies if they would serve His purpose to inculcate ideas. Christ was the originator of all the ancient gems of truth."

"Now I believe there are ancient gems of truth in Hindu writings, in Buddha's writings, and ancient gems of truth in Mohammed's writings, in the Islam world. I don't doubt this at all. Through the work of the enemy, these truths have been displaced; they have been disconnected from the true position, placed in the framework of error. Christ's work was to readjust and establish the precious gems in the framework of truth. The principles of truth which have been given by Himself to bless the world, had through Satan's agency been buried and had apparently become extinct."

Now you're really in trouble. You've got Christ drawing upon pagan religious sources as a means of restating truth - this is directly contradicted by Scripture. Actually, Jesus said, "The words that I speak unto you my Father gave me, what I should say, what I should speak." The Father was not gleaning the ancient writings of religion in order to instruct His Son.

EGW: "Christ rescued them from the rubbish of error, gave them a new vital force and commanded them to shine as precious jewels and stand fast forever."

"I am convinced that if someone took the time, you could find every single parable in some ancient writing that Jesus used."
This is absolute nonsense. I am a professor of comparative religions; I find this absolute, utter nonsense.
CURRENTS: Who is the Adventist official who said that?

MARTIN: Let's keep going. I'll tell you. [Martin forgets to say he is quoting from Ministry Magazine editor and General Conference Ministerial Association secretary Robert Spangler]

"He [Christ] gave it to begin with, He took it, changed it around and adapted it to what He wanted to teach the people. He was the originator of it to begin with, maybe a thousand years before. Who knows? First it shook me, like I told you before, but it no longer bothers me to understand that Ellen White borrowed passages, words, sentences, paragraphs from other writings, but she put it into a different framework than the original author who used it. Never forget that. And therefore, I am convinced that God is speaking to us through the Spirit of Prophecy. He speaks to us through the Word of God, and no matter where they may have gotten the words from or of some other language, the beautiful words, whatever, that does not bother me as long as I know it is the truth...

"Walter Martin who is a good friend of R.A. Anderson met us in Loma Linda in the month of January and we spent about two and a half hours together discussing the relationship of Ellen White to the Scriptures in our church. He had gotten hold of some materials; he felt that we ought to come out with some kind of statement. That's in brief what this whole meeting was all about. So I went back to the General Conference along with Brother Robert Olson, and also Bert Beach, who was on this committee along with Kenneth Vine who is the head of the theology department from Loma Linda, four of us, and R.A. Anderson. We met with Martin for two and a half hours and he was concerned over all this talk about Ellen White being put above the Scriptures and so forth. So, as a result of that, I brought with me a tentative statement; the trouble is it's going to take some time to go through all this but let me give it to you quickly."

And he gives a statement which I think avoids it. But the gentleman [Spangler] said he had seen so much good, in Seventh-day Adventism, come out of the movement, he didn't think there was anything that could be shown to him that would shake his faith in the inspiration of Mrs. White! Now, this is the perfect cultic mentality - circular, self authenticating, experiential, no basis in objective fact. If that's going to be the party line, my brothers, kiss it good-bye with the evangelical world. They will descend on this.

CURRENTS: Dr. Martin, doesn't their behavior - in regard to your book and their own book, Questions on Doctrine, basically suppress it and make sure they distance themselves from it - prove it was not really representative of the church as they led you to believe?

MARTIN: I think, as I said before, that the men who spoke to me [in the 1950's] represented a conservative Adventism, which wanted fellowship with the body of Christ. The acceptance of Questions on Doctrine, when it was published, by so many of the leadership of the church and by people all around the world who were Adventist, hailing it as a major landmark - a bridge to fellowship and so forth - indicates that a great body of Adventists, this amorphous body, are eager for fellowship with other members of the body of Christ and welcome something like this as a means of communication. I think there is now a group of powerful individuals in positions of authority in the denomination who, because the denomination is very authoritarian, are able to control large segments of the populace, simply by being their voice. And I don't think the average Seventh-day Adventist would deny Questions on Doctrine, if they went through it point by point. And I don't think they would be hostile to it. But I think people would who are conditioned by the mentality we are now seeing come out of the leadership. Yes, definitely. But to say the whole denomination was misrepresented by Anderson and Froom and everyone else - I don't think the evidence would support that. Reuben Figuhr was about as conservative a president as the Adventists ever had. He has been questioned in this are, and is adamant that Questions on Doctrine had the major support of leadership in the denomination. After all, they sent the book out all over the world to their top people, prior to publication, and they only received minor flack.

CURRENTS: But perhaps the near unanimity with which it was hailed was the result of that authoritarian administration saying, "We want to publish this... It is going to be good for us."

MARTIN: What you are saying is maybe the people didn't buy it.

CURRENTS: But they felt obligated to because of the authoritarian structure that came from the highest levels. Have you considered that possibility?

MARTIN: It's always a possibility. Who knows the minds of men and how they reason and what their methodology is? But I am not going to extrapolate from the General Conference backing out on my book and make it a personal issue.

I am not saying we are categorizing Ellen White in the biblical context of a false prophet. I'm saying that's an ideal way to protect yourself. Joseph Smith said the same thing: "The time will come when they will challenge what I said; that only proves that I am telling the truth." That's logical madness.

CURRENTS: But really, do you think Adventists care if they are classified as a cult? Wouldn't they look at this as a good sign?

MARTIN: If the mentality has degenerated to the place where they are willing to say, "For our convictions we will be called a cult," without ever really considering the possibility that their convictions are erroneous, then what you are saying could happen.

CURRENTS: Cast out for Christ.

MARTIN: The mentality would dictate that kind of behavior pattern. Now, I don't know the mind of the General Conference. I don't know the mind of Neal Wilson. I haven't talked with him. I have received correspondence. Some of the material I have - there are boxes full of it here - I'm not supposed to have. It doesn't inspire much confidence in me regarding how they deal with their people. And when a minister asks for a hearing, and a committee comes together, the guy blows them away; then the committee walks away from that and blows him away. I have to believe things are not the way they ought to be biblically. What I think is happening in the echelons of leadership right now is that they have gotten to the place where they have elevated Ellen White to be the infallible interpreter of Scripture. By doing so they have painted themselves into a theological corner. They are on Masada and they don't know it. If Ellen White is an infallible interpreter of Scripture, then what they've preached against all these years has finally come to pass - the self-fulfilled prophecy; they have a pope. And if what she says infallibly interprets the Scriptures, might I ask the next logical question? How is it that we test her infallibility?

I never met D.M. Canright, but he was a personal friend of Mrs. White's. A lot of his personal reminiscences are very revealing about her personality. She was an ill-educated person; she was a person given to religious reveries, some of which her own husband didn't buy. She was a person who believed absolutely that she had received some messages from God; and in some instances I think maybe she did. That doesn't guarantee you are going to be an infallible prophet, and that whatever you say about Scripture and interpreting Scripture is going to guarantee it for other people.

CURRENTS: Have you read the material on the injury to her head and the hypothesis that she was just suffering from partial complex seizures?

MARTIN: I read the medical material on the possible diagnosis of her in this area. Although I have not read anyone's rebuttal of that. But I'll say something; it's very difficult to diagnose certain mental or emotional disturbances with the patient in the room and the machines hooked up and all the sophistication of modern medicine. I am, therefore, a little bit suspicious of the smell of roses, the color purple, and these things being connected with specific mental disorders and to fix them to her, or any person, historically. It might make a good case to chase down in a great detective story, but if you are talking about hard evidence, forget it.

I believe Ellen White had an extremely complex personality, and I think she plagiarized materials because she believed the Lord had shown her what the sources said was the truth. She simply appropriated material and gave it out. I think she wanted the credit for it and that's why she didn't footnote. She was mortal; she was a sinner like anyone else.

CURRENTS: So she was a commandment breaker - which to her was one of the worst sins. If you were a commandment breaker, how terrible. Where does that leave us?

MARTIN: When I was once seated with a group of Seventh-day Adventist theologians and we got on the subject of commandment breaking, I said, "I am going to sound heretical to you, but we do know each other pretty well and therefore I am speaking as your brother." And they all laughed. I continued, "None of us in this room is a commandment keeper. Because the Scripture says, 'If we say we have not sinned, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. Sin is the transgression of the law, and all unrighteousness is sin.' Please tell me if anyone in this room considers himself, for a 24-hour period, totally righteous?

No one said, "Boo." "We are all commandment breakers." I said. Now, we don't begin our day saying, "Today I am going to make the effort to keep the Ten Commandments." We begin our day saying, "Lord Jesus, give me the grace that I may walk with you." Because if I am going to walk with Christ, I'll be obeying the will of God and the law of God. Now, I'm not going to make it all day. Maybe I might one day, but I miss the hours of 2, 4, 6 and 8 on Thursday, and 2, 5, 7 and 9 on Wednesday, whatever it may be. That's what the Pharisees were into - the idea of how they were going to keep the law perfectly. They missed the whole point of the law.

CURRENTS: But that's her point. She would make that point in a very stern way and then turn around and break the same commandment.

MARTIN: I know. D.M. Canright said she was whipped up in lather about the slaughterhouse techniques and how the meat was bad to eat, etc. Of course this is a well-known fact of the time and she picked it up from Kellogg and others, not through divine revelation. It was a fact in the newspapers, but Mrs. White turns around and has a pork sandwich in Canright ‘s presence. Canright almost choked. I believe Canright. I believe she ate a pork sandwich in his presence when she got through telling people they shouldn't eat pork, because she was a sinner.

CURRENTS: I can't corroborate the pork story but I can provide you with a letter in which she writes to her daughter-in-law, in the eighties, and orders some fresh snails.

MARTIN: And it's forbidden under Mosaic Law. But anyway, we don't want to get into straining at the gnat and swallowing the camel. I am not an enemy of Adventism. I am a friend of Adventist people and a lover of truth. I did my level best at great risk - in 1956 and from then on - to take a strong position on the basis of Questions on Doctrine. If they are going to repudiate the book and turn back the pages, I have no other alternative but to rewrite the chapter in The Kingdom of the Cults. And I'll have no other alternative but to come out and do another tape or series of tapes. I mean, just lay the whole thing out. I don't want to do that. I'd much rather see them come around to a solid position.

CURRENTS: Haven't they repudiated it already in the Review during the last couple of years? Haven't they condemned Questions on Doctrine as a terrible heresy?

MARTIN: Well, now...this is an important point. Is that the General Conference's position or of that an editor of the Review? Are we talking about a person? People high in Adventism have told me that Wood was an unfortunate choice for the position and they are very happy he is not there. It is possible that Wood got away in the authoritarian structure with saying lots of things because no one could get to him or get at him. Well, the next editor of the Review might come along and do a complete about-face. I'm waiting to see what they're going to do. You see, one magazine knocking a book doesn't bother me. One prominent Adventist knocking it, or a group of them, doesn't bother me. What bothers me is the possibility that the governing body of the denomination has really taken it out of print because they don't want to believe it. Well, if they no longer want to believe, I want them to answer more questions.

CURRENTS: Is there any documentation from any General Conference leadership in the 1960's when they officially stopped publication of Questions on Doctrine?

MARTIN: I was told by a high authority it was scheduled for republication. They wanted to make a few minor changes, nothing really to do with answers; and I was to see it before they did it. He was enthusiastic about it going ahead.

CURRENTS: The 1960's?

MARTIN: When it was going out of print. I don't know what the date was, but he knows. He said he Okayed it and it was going to be done. Then the powers that be, dominating the publication committee, whoever they were at that time, decided just to simply let it go out of print because there was pressure being placed on them from other sources. I suspect the White Estate and other people, zealous of preserving the image of an Ellen White they had created, did not like Questions on Doctrine, because it was honest.

I don't know the inner workings of it. And I am not too impressed with the integrity of how they deal in-house with a lot of their problems. I have enough correspondence here from people - a lot of palaver that goes out: "Now, Brothers, we've got to resolve this issue," and "Brothers, we've got to sit down and talk." After the brothers sit down and talk and the Scripture speaks on the subject, they go right ahead and disfellowship him. I mean, this is not scriptural. So, I am not criticizing the denomination as a Baptist. I am criticizing things that ought to be criticized as a member of the body of Christ and trying, as a brother, to say, "Look, there are a lot of evangelicals out there with good will towards you. Do you want to throw everything overboard for a position that simply will not stand up?" I said that at the meeting in Loma Linda - which is detailed in the letter to Wilson. And I have yet to receive a response.
I have yet to receive a response to questions that went back to the General Conference - two representatives [Robert Olson and Robert Spangler] took them back. I have yet to receive a response.

CURRENTS: You have talked about what you perceive to be several of Ellen White's documentable shortcomings or sins, if you want to call them that, and plagiarism or what not. However, you have not brought up the perjury issue. I am not sure how much you are aware of the recent information concerning her involvement with the Shut Door idea, which was subsequently obscured by her statements essentially denying any involvement with the spreading of that heresy, if you will.

MARTIN: I think she believed it.

CURRENTS: The White Estate has admitted she misunderstood her early visions which seemed to teach it.

MARTIN: We knew a long time ago but they wouldn't admit it.

CURRENTS: But it involves her, essentially, perjuring herself in order to save her credibility. I read your account of Jehovah's Witnesses in the Kingdom of the Cults and the part where you are detailing the perjury committed by Russell, which totally destroys his credibility and his worthiness as a Christian leader. How would you apply that same reasoning and argument to Ellen White?

MARTIN: I think she made a mistake. I think she committed a sin. I think she panicked and tried to cover it up. I think those around her aided and abetted her in this. Also, I think the White Estate had it in conspiracy for years. About that, I don't think there is any doubt at all.

The difference between her and the Jehovah's Witnesses is not the crime itself. That was wrong. Whether Russell did it or whether Mrs. White did it is irrelevant. It's the nature of the person we are talking about. Was Charles Russell a Christian? Did Charles Russell hold to the foundations of the gospel? Did Charles Russell promulgate the things of Christianity and stand in their defense? No. Did Ellen White? Yes. Therefore, though she committed the same crime he did, I cannot judge her on the same basis I am going to judge Charles Russell. She is a Christian who committed a sin. That should be brought out and spelled out clearly so it will show that Christians do these things. You have to be very careful about what they say, and even more careful in the light of something like that. …

CURRENTS: Should a distinction be made between what are just sins and those acts committed under the guise of inspiration and absolute authority? Such as saying, "The angel has shown me..." or saying, "In the name of God, I swear, I never had those kind of visions," and publish that under the name of God? Is there a difference between that and, say, committing adultery in private?

MARTIN: Sin is the transgression of the law. There are sins that are greater in magnitude and there are greater punishments for them. Christ taught that there were degrees of sin and there were degrees of punishment. It is an even greater sin when someone in a position of authority, who is looked to and respected, deliberately does something with full knowledge, and covers it up or perjures himself. Yes. Or plagiarizes or something like that. Yes. That is a great sin, and we cannot ignore sin. But I've got to make a distinction here that may not make some people happy. I have been pressed and pressed by people to get me to say Ellen White is a false prophet.
The logic used is, "But she said God told her something and it didn't come to pass or it wasn't true, and, she claimed to be speaking prophetically; that makes her a false prophet."

Let me make an important distinction at this juncture. A biblical false prophet - that's what they are really getting at - was not a believer. A biblical false prophet was a servant of the devil attempting to lead people away from the truth. You will find that in Exodus and Deuteronomy: "He hath spoken for the purpose of turning you away from the Lord your God." It's a prime characteristic of a biblical false prophet in the Scripture. You don't have a believer on your hands, you've got an unbeliever. And this person is deceiving the church.

Mrs. White, in my opinion, made false statements. She misused what she claimed was the prophetic gift she had. I believe this, in certain instances. But if you're going to try to say that makes Ellen White the same as the false prophecy prohibited in Exodus and Deuteronomy, then you have to demonstrate that Ellen White was an unbeliever and that it was a deliberate and willful perversion of truth regarding salvation and revelation. That's a very fine line.

Of course, technically, I would have to say that the person who prophesies in the name of God and turns out to be wrong, has prophesied falsely. You have to say that. But they want to go further than that. They want to make Mrs. White a biblical false prophet which means she is not a Christian. I cannot endorse that.

CURRENTS: I don't think anyone familiar with the history would deny she felt she was right and felt she had some kind of mission to fulfill. In that sense I don't think anyone would attempt to say she was a false prophet, in the sense you just described.

MARTIN: I am just talking about people who have left the denomination and people who are hostile to Adventism generally. They are picking this line up and I am getting flack on the subject of false prophets. So I have to be very careful when I talk about a false prophet. We do admit that anyone who says something in the name of God, and it doesn't come to pass, is prophesying falsely. But there is a deeper level to this. Is it a person who has fallen into sin and is a believer, or is it a person who is a total unbeliever? That's your biblical part - deliberately attempting to lead people away from God.

CURRENTS: I find among disenchanted Adventists more of the charge that she was a fraud than that she was a false prophet.

MARTIN: Well, considering that 90% of her writings allegedly have been tainted by secular or religious sources, even if it was good material, one does get quite suspicious of her ethics and of her genuine commitment to truth.

CURRENTS: What about Mrs. White's view of the atonement - that it wasn't completed until 1844? Doesn't that fall under the category you are talking about?

MARTIN: The doctrine of the incomplete atonement is heretical. It was later changed into a modified Armenian device with the investigative judgment and was nothing more than a poor face-saving technique - as Dr. Barnhouse pointed out to Dr. Froom, to his great chagrin. It was just a way out of a nasty situation. She really bought the idea that this was the proper interpretation of Hebrews. She believed it. She was wrong. The people around her were wrong. She thought God had shown this to her because, I think, she tried to imbue a lot of her statements and doctrines with the divine seal of authority to get people to pay attention to her. Yes, I think she did that and I think that was sinful. However, I don't believe the intent of Mrs. White, in anything she taught, was to dishonor Christ or to turn against the gospel, as she understood it.

CURRENTS: It would seem that the Christian has a lot of leeway in what he believes; and if there are some mistakes in his viewpoint, in some things he does....

MARTIN: That doesn't make him a non-Christian. It makes him a Christian - uninformed, ignorant, or sinful; but still a redeemed person. Paul says, "Mark has forsaken me; Demetrius has loved this world." Does he send them off to hell? The man in 1 Corinthians 5, did he send them to hell? No. I therefore think Christians are capable of terribly stupid acts and statements, even dishonest and sinful acts. But they are also capable of repenting. That's what the General Conference should be doing right now, repenting. Repenting of these things and saying, "We just cannot sustain this any longer. The church is built on Christ, not on Mrs. White or her prophetic gift, or the revenue generated from her resources."

CURRENTS: Three Seventh-day Adventist will have to repent for keeping you from you lunch if we don't thank you right now and get out of your hair.

Ultimate Rest Table of Contents

Appendix 3: Walter Martin's Questions to General Conference

2008-09-12T11:01:00.000-07:00

The three questions [referred to in the interview] that Walter Martin asked the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists are:
1. Why is the book Seventh-day Adventist's Answer Questions on Doctrine no longer available?
2. Does the Seventh-day Adventist church still hold to the answers it gave in that book to the doctrinal questions non-Adventists have posed?
3. Do you regard the interpretations of the Bible by Ellen G. White to be infallible, that is, to be the infallible rule of interpreting Scripture? For instance: if an issue comes up where you are debating something and Mrs. White speaks on it; is that the infallible voice?
[This third question was left unanswered.]

GENERAL CONFERENCE REPLIES TO WALTER MARTIN'S QUESTIONS
When Currents originally taped the interview (17 February 1983) with Walter Martin that later appeared in the magazine's first (Jul/Aug) issue, he had already written Neal Wilson certain specific questions. Among those questions were two that Currents is aware of:

1. Why is the book Seventh-day Adventist's Answer Questions on Doctrine no longer available?
2. Does the Seventh-day Adventist church still hold to the answers it gave in that book to the doctrinal questions non-Adventists have posed?

Currents queried General Conference officers and discovered that Neal Wilson's assistant, Arthur Patzer, had written Martin - on Wilson's behalf - informing him that his questions were being referred to the Biblical Research Institute for answer by its chief officer W. Richard Lesher.

When Lesher's office was contacted (26 August 1983), Lesher was out of town; but his associate, Frank Holbrook, answered the two questions posed above.

In answer to the first question, Holbrook said that Questions on Doctrine "went out of print for the same reason that any book goes out of print; there was no call for it." He added the astonishing statistic - and repeated it - that there had been four copies of Questions on Doctrine printed for every North American Division member! When asked where they all were, he said, "in libraries."

Told of Holbrook's answer, retired General Conference Ministerial Association secretary and former Ministry Magazine editor R. Allan Anderson found it preposterous. Anderson has repeatedly said that the total of all Questions on Doctrine copies ever published is 147,000.
Responding to the second question from Martin regarding our present faithfulness to the answers given back in 1957, Holbrook said vaguely, "We answered him consistent with our 27-point Statement of Fundamental Beliefs."

Holbrook would not elaborate on answer number two; but he did say that Questions on Doctrine was, in a sense, passé; that it had outlived its usefulness; and that a special volume (number eleven) of the SDA Bible Commentary series was being prepared to deal with various doctrinal issues (such as the nature of Christ). Fortunately or unfortunately, the new book will not be published for several years.
[Adventist Currents, October 1983]

Ultimate Rest Table of Contents

Appendix 4: Walter Martin’s Position on Adventism

2008-09-12T11:00:00.000-07:00

by David Cloud

Why Walter Martin Considered Seventh-day Adventism Evangelical*
In the book Kingdom of the Cults, the late Dr. Walter Martin [founder of the Christian Research Institute (CRI) who died in 1989] defended the Seventh-Day Adventist Church as orthodox and refused to label this group as a cult. Martin's position in this influential book has resulted in widespread confusion on this subject. Martin's approach to Seventh-Day Adventism is contrasted with that of those who view this group as a dangerous cult.

WALTER MARTIN ACCEPTED THE STATEMENTS OF ONE PARTICULAR SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST PUBLICATION, QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE, AS THE BASIS FOR HIS EVALUATION
The book Questions on Doctrine was published by the SDA denomination especially for general public use to answer charges of heresy that had been leveled at them. Martin thought it wrong that other contenders for the faith had based their evaluation of Seventh-Day Adventism on a variety of SDA literature, arguing that these were not an official representation of SDA doctrine. He even contended that Ellen G. White's writings were not a fair representation of SDA teaching. Consider the following statement from The Kingdom of the Cults by Walter Martin:

"In 1957 the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists released the first definitive and comprehensive explanation of their faith, an authoritative volume entitled Questions on Doctrine. This book truthfully presents the theology and doctrine, which the leaders of Seventh-day Adventism affirm they have always held. ... It is therefore unfair to quote any one Adventist writer or a group of writers as representing 'the position of our denomination in the area of church doctrine and prophetic interpretation ...'" (Kingdom of the Cults, p. 369).

What Is Wrong with Martin's View?
Questions on Doctrine was not any longer in print at the time of Martin's writing. The Seventh-Day Adventists must not have considered it too important as an authoritative statement of their doctrine or they would not have allowed it to go out of print. In 1977, David Cloud visited the bookstore at the large Adventist Bible College in Collegedale, Tennessee, in search of this book. He was told that the book was out of print and would not again be available.

Ellen White's writings are presented by the Adventists as inspired. The following statements are from an Adventist correspondence course offered in the mid-1970s titled "Prophetic Guidance in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.” Two books were given with this course: Ellen G. White: Messenger to the Remnant and The Spirit of Prophecy Treasure Chest. All of these materials were produced by the Adventist publisher Review and Herald. These books were still available in Adventist bookstores when last checked in the early-1990s. This correspondence course exalts Ellen White as a prophetess of God and her writings as inspired revelation:

"These inspired books, such as Desire of Ages, Great Controversy, and Patriarchs and Prophets, are indeed divine revelations of truth upon which we may place full dependence" (Prophetic Guidance in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, p. 20).

"The Messages for these days shall be written in books and shall stand immortalized" (Prophetic Guidance, p. 50).

"These messages, we believe, should be faithfully followed by every believer" (Prophetic Guidance, p. 60).

"Consistency calls for acceptance of the Spirit of Prophecy [Ellen White's] writings as a whole. We cannot justify accepting part and rejecting part" (Prophetic Guidance, p. 70).

"We recognize that the principles set forth in the Spirit of Prophecy writings do not change with the passage of the years ... and are of equal value to the church in all lands" (Spirit of Prophecy Treasure Chest, p. 125).

"The Messages [Ellen White's writings] themselves are worthy of a different kind of consideration from that given to other modern writings. They are messages from God and must always be treated as such" (Treasure Chest, p. 142).

Ellen White's books are sold by Adventist ministries, bookstores, and colporteurs worldwide and are advertised as inspired counsel of God. Since Ellen White's writings are thus regarded by the Adventist denomination, why would they protest the evaluation of her writings as representative of SDA doctrine?

3. Their own books continually site Ellen White's writings as authoritative, and it is certainly not wrong for an outside researcher to do the same. If Ellen White's writings are not accurate representations of Adventist doctrine, their entire foundation is washed away. The Seventh-day Adventists have themselves stated that their authorized publications are reliable:

"Denominationally-authorized productions carry the official imprint of the issuing organization, and may be relied upon" (Prophetic Guidance, p. 82).

In light of this statement, it certainly would be proper to study any of the publications of the major Adventist presses in order to know Adventist beliefs. They have told us these materials are reliable. We are not, therefore, confined to any one publication for official SDA doctrine. All of the publications used in Avoiding the Snare of Seventh-day Adventism are either Ellen White's writings or are publications of the official Adventist publishing houses. It is very strange for the Adventist Church to publish books and then to protest because we use those books to evaluate their beliefs. There is something that appears very deceitful here.

Dr. Martin did not treat other groups like he demanded the Seventh-day Adventists be treated. In his research of other groups, such as the Mormons, Martin did not draw back from using any authoritative material necessary to draw an accurate conclusion about the doctrinal position of the group. He did not base his research of other groups strictly upon one volume provided by those groups. He is, thus, being extremely inconsistent in this matter.

Dr. Martin failed to apply his knowledge of cultic deceitfulness to the Seventh-day Adventist denomination. He well knew the chameleon nature of false teachers. Frequently in critiques of various false groups, Walter Martin warned that they tend to be less than honest in their presentation of doctrine, especially in their materials designed for general public consumption.

One entire chapter of Dr. Martin's booklet Jehovah's Witnesses deals with this reality. The chapter is entitled "The Watchtower Chameleon." Martin shows how the Witnesses have a history of attempting to hide their heretical nature. They say one thing on one hand and something completely different on the other hand. The wise investigator must learn to dig through this deception in order to arrive at the truth.
It is not difficult to see this trait in Seventh-Day Adventism. In an attempt to appear orthodox they sometimes dilute, even alter their beliefs. Sometimes, for example, they proudly and boldly teach that Ellen White's writings are inspired revelation from God and that they should be accepted as authoritative by all Christians. They do this in the aforementioned correspondence course, Prophetic Guidance in the Adventist Movement. On other occasions, they will deny the charge that they revere Ellen White's writings as divine revelation.

Dr. Martin also admitted that there is confusion and "conflicting statements" among SDA publications:
"There can be no doubt of the fact that there are conflicting statements in Adventist publications and diverse opinions about certain areas of Adventist theology and interpretation, some of which is quite the opposite of classical orthodox Christianity" (Kingdom of the Cults, p. 369).

It is very sad that Dr. Martin did not discern this as apostate deceitfulness instead of overlooking it. Consider some of the contradictions between quotations Dr. Martin uses from Questions on Doctrine and quotes from other books produced by the same official Adventist publishers:

Example # 1: Inspiration of Ellen White's Writings

Dr. Martin's Statements: "If Seventh-day Adventists did indeed claim for Mrs. White inspiration in every area of her writings, then we might well be cautious about having fellowship with them. However, this they do not do, as I have amply demonstrated from official sources" (Kingdom of the Cults, p. 383).

Contradicting Adventist Statements: "These inspired books, such as Desire of Ages, The Great Controversy, and Patriarchs and Prophets, are indeed divine revelations of truth upon which we may place full dependence" (Prophetic Guidance in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, p. 20); "The Messages for these days shall be written in books and shall stand immortalized" (Prophetic Guidance, p. 50); "Consistency calls for acceptance of the Spirit of Prophecy [Ellen White's] writings as a whole. We cannot justify accepting part and rejecting part" (Prophetic Guidance, p. 70); "The Messages [Ellen White's writings] themselves are worthy of a different kind of consideration from that given to other modern writings. They are messages from God and must always be treated as such" (Treasure Chest, p. 142).

Example #2: Universality of Ellen White's Writings
Dr. Martin's Statements: "These counsels are primarily for the Seventh-day Adventist denominations" (Kingdom of the Cults, p. 380); "We do not think of them [Ellen White's writings] as of universal application, as is the Bible ..." (Kingdom of the Cults, p. 380).

Contradicting Adventist Statements: "She was ever mindful that she was writing for the world as well as for the church" (Prophetic Guidance, p. 50); "These messages, we believe, should be faithfully followed by every believer" (Prophetic Guidance, p. 60); "We recognize that the principles set forth in the Spirit of Prophecy writings do not change with the passage of the years ... and are of equal value to the church in all lands" (Spirit of Prophecy Treasure Chest, p. 125).

Example #3: Ellen White's Role in the Development of Adventist Doctrine
Dr. Martin's Statements: "If they interpreted the Bible in the light of her writings, and not the reverse, if they willingly admitted this and owned it as their position, then his criticism would be justified, but they do not do so" (Kingdom of the Cults, p. 378).

Contradicting Adventist Statements: "When they came to the point in their study where they said, 'We can do nothing more,' the Spirit of the Lord would come to me, I would be taken off in vision, and a clear explanation of the passages we had been studying would be given me. ... Thus light was given that helped us to understand the Scriptures ... they accepted as light direct from heaven the revelations given [to Ellen White]" (Ellen G. White Messenger to the Remnant, pp. 34,38,39).

It is true that Adventist leaders often deny that their doctrine was developed through Ellen White's visions, but in the above statement Ellen White herself admitted that her visions played a definitive role in how the early leaders understood Bible doctrine. A cult researcher like Walter Martin should have known that it would be impossible to develop from the Bible alone Adventist doctrines such as Investigative Judgment, Satan as sin bearer, Sunday worship the mark of the beast, Seventh-Day Adventism as the fulfillment of Revelation 14:6, and Satan bound on earth for 1,000 years. He should have realized, therefore, that there would have to be duplicity involved in any such claim. Again, for some reason he failed to apply his knowledge of cultic deception to Seventh-Day Adventism. When the Jehovah's Witnesses play games with theological terms and appear in different colors according to different situations, Dr. Martin judged them as heretical chameleons. When the Seventh-day Adventists play similar games, he alleged that it is only because they "are handicapped by the lack of a comprehensive volume which adequately defines their doctrinal position."
Could it have been that Dr. Martin had developed close relationships with Adventist leaders in California, and therefore, became blinded to the reality of Adventism? We believe this is exactly what happened. He admitted such friendships in his writings (Calvary Contender, October 1, 1995).
"Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners" (1 Corinthians 15:33).

Example #4: Salvation by Grace Alone
Dr. Martin's Statements: "Literally scores of times in their book Questions on Doctrine and in various other publications the Adventists affirm that salvation comes only by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ's sacrifice upon the cross" (Kingdom of the Cults, p. 378).

Contradicting Adventist Statements: "So we have clearly outlined the steps that we need to take in order to become a Christian: to believe in God, to repent of and to confess our sins, to be baptized, and to obey all the commandments of the Lord" (New Life Voice of Prophecy Guide #12); "Christ says to every man in this world what He said to the rich young ruler: 'If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments' ... In other words, the standards for admission into heaven is a character built according to the ten specifications, or commandments, of God's law" (Charles Everson, Saved by Grace, Review and Herald Publishing, pp. 45,46).

These are quotes from two Adventist publications written specifically to explain to the public their doctrine of salvation. Dr. Martin quoted only one publication, Questions on Doctrine. On the one hand, they do claim to believe that salvation is by grace alone without works; but on the other hand, they redefine grace to include works and the deeds of the law. Their New Life correspondence course plainly states that to be saved one must believe in God, repent of sins, be baptized, and obey all the commandments of the Lord. This is what every cult does. They claim to believe in salvation by grace, but they cleverly redefine grace to include works.

THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS ARE THE ONES WHO SEPARATED FROM AND DERIDED OTHER CHURCHES. IT IS STRANGE THAT THEY NOW APPEAR HURT BECAUSE THESE SAME CHURCHES CONSIDER THEM HERETICAL
Consider the following statements from SDA publications attacking the orthodox doctrines of the Christian faith:

The Doctrine of Conscious Existence after Death Is Called the Devil's Lie: "And today from pulpits all across the nation we hear the devil's great lie upheld each time a minister assures us that the soul of man lives on after death ..." (These Times, November 1976, p. 5).

The Doctrine of Eternal Torment Is Called Blasphemy Against God: "It is beyond the power of the human mind to estimate the evil which has been wrought by the heresy of eternal torment. The appalling views of God which have spread over the world from the teachings of the pulpit have made thousands, yes, millions, of skeptics and infidels" (Ellen White, The Great Controversy, p. 470).

Sunday Worship Will Be the Mark of the Beast: "While the observance of the false Sabbath in compliance to the fourth commandment, will be an avowal of allegiance to a power that is in opposition to God, the keeping of the true Sabbath, in obedience to God's law is an evidence of loyalty to the Creator. While one class, by accepting the sign of submission to earthly powers, receive the mark of the beast, the other, choosing the token of allegiance to divine authority, receive the seal of God" (Ellen White, The Great Controversy, p. 531).

Churches That Observe Sunday Worship Are Part of the Great Religious Whore of Revelation 17: "In amazement they hear the testimony that Babylon is the church, fallen because of her errors and sins, because of her rejection of the truth sent to her from heaven [this refers to Adventist doctrines of Sabbath worship, soul sleep, etc.]. As the people go to their former teachers with the eager inquiry, are these things so? The ministers present fables, prophesy smooth things, to soothe their fears and quiet the awakened conscience" (Ellen White, The Great Controversy, pp. 531,532).

Quotes such as these demonstrate that it is the Seventh-Day Adventist denomination itself that has stood apart from other churches and caused divisions by its heretical views. Is it not strange now that they want to be accepted as orthodox Bible-believers by the very churches from which they willfully separated and which they have condemned? These are the subtle games that false teachers play.

ONE OF DR. MARTIN'S PRIMARY REASONS FOR ACCEPTING SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISM AS NON-HERETICAL IS THAT THEY HOLD MANY MAJOR DOCTRINAL TRUTHS, SUCH AS THE TRINITY, THE DEITY OF CHRIST, AND THE INFALLIBILITY OF SCRIPTURE

"It is puzzling to me, as a student of non-Christian cult systems, how any group can hold the above doctrines in their proper Biblical context which Dr. Hoekema admits the Adventists do and still be a non-Christian cult -- suffice it to say that the Adventists do have a clean bill of health where the major doctrines of Christian theology are involved" (Kingdom of the Cults, p. 370). (Emphasis added.)

One error here is in Martin's use of the man-made term "cult." It can be defined in numerous ways. By Martin's definition, perhaps, Seventh-Day Adventism was not a cult. By Dr. Hoekema's definition, Seventh-Day Adventism is a cult. Whether or not Seventh-day Adventism is a cult, though, is not as important as whether or not Seventh-day Adventism is faithful to the Bible and the New Testament faith.
The Apostle Paul, in his condemnation of the Galatian heretics, mentions only one error: the perversion of the gospel. The Galatian legalizers were apparently sound in such major doctrines as God, Christ, and the Scriptures. In fact, they were almost sound in their doctrine of salvation, yet they were under God's curse! They Seventh-Day Adventists are modern-day Galatian heretics. They believe the cross leads the believer to the law, not to perfect, once-for-all and eternal liberty in Christ entirely outside the law of Moses.
The warning of Romans 16:17 is to mark and separate from those "which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned." Paul does not say to mark and avoid those which cause divisions contrary to only some of the doctrines we have learned. The Seventh-day Adventist denomination teaches many doctrines that are contrary to those taught by the Apostles. God's Word commands that we mark them as false teachers and separate from them. That is not what Walter Martin did, though:

The Doctrine We Have Learned: "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" (Romans 3;28).

Seventh-Day Adventist Doctrinal Offences: "Christ says to every man in this world what He said to the rich young ruler: 'If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments'" (Saved By Grace, pp. 45,46).

The Doctrine We Have Learned: "Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" (Romans 5:9).

Seventh-Day Adventist Doctrinal Offences: "Ellen White ... she was a fellow Seventh-day Adventist with no assurance of salvation except as she was faithful and trusted in the merits of her risen Savior" (Messenger to the Remnant, p. 127).

The Doctrine We Have Learned: "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster" (Galatians 3:24,25); "And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work" (Romans 11:6).

Seventh-Day Adventist Doctrinal Offences: "The fact that all who are redeemed are saved by grace does not dispense with the law of God any more in the one dispensation than in the other. The law is not against grace, and grace is not against the law. It is very evident, then, that in the new covenant we do not see the law as a thing of no consequence, but we find it occupying the center of the covenant" (Saved by Grace, pp. 11,36).

The Doctrine We Have Learned: "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ" (Colossians 2:16,17).

Seventh-Day Adventist Doctrinal Offences: "... it is evident that all ten commandments are binding in the Christian dispensation ... One of these commands is the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath" (Bible Footlights, p. 37).

The Doctrine We Have Learned: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life" (John 5:24).

Seventh-Day Adventist Doctrinal Offences: "As the books of record are opened in the judgment, the lives of all who have believed on Jesus come into review before God ... every case closely investigated. Names are accepted, names rejected" (Ellen White, The Great Controversy, p. 425).

The Doctrine We Have Learned: "We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord" (2 Corinthians 5:8).

Seventh-Day Adventist Doctrinal Offences: "To be dead does not mean to go to heaven; it does not mean to go to hell ... Indeed, it does not mean to go anywhere at all. It means simply an end of life" (When a Man Dies, p. 20).

The Doctrine We Have Learned: "If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire" (1 Corinthians 3:14,15).

Seventh-Day Adventist Doctrinal Offences: "When any have sins remaining upon the books of record, unrepented of and unforgiven, their names will be blotted out of the book of life, and the record of their good deeds will be erased from the book of God's remembrance" (Ellen White, The Great Controversy, p. 425).

The Doctrine We Have Learned: "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. ... And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire" (Revelation 20:10,15).

Seventh-Day Adventist Doctrinal Offences: "The plain doctrine of the Bible is that the devil and all his works will be destroyed, utterly destroyed. ... How repugnant to every emotion of love and mercy, and even to our sense of justice, is the doctrine that the wicked dead are tormented with fire and brimstone in an eternally burning hell" (When a Man Dies, p. 58; The Great Controversy, p. 469).
These quotes show how the Seventh-day Adventist denomination contradicts many clear apostolic doctrines. There are many other Adventist doctrinal heresies, of course. Upon the command and authority of Romans 16:17, and contrary to Walter Martin's misguided advice, Bible-believing Christians must mark the Adventist Church as false and avoid associations with the group.

The same idea is in Jude 3. We are commanded to "earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints." The faith is that body of truth delivered to us by divine inspiration through the Apostles. If we obey this verse and earnestly contend for the New Testament faith with Seventh-Day Adventists, it will quickly be evident that there can be no close fellowship. The doctrinal differences are too great and too serious.
Another relevant passage is 2 Timothy 2:16-18. Here two men are condemned as heretics, yet only one error is mentioned -- their view of the resurrection. If Paul warned Timothy to avoid these men because of their false doctrine of the resurrection, should we not more warn Christians today to avoid the Seventh-Day Adventist Church based on their many heresies?

The truth is that the Bible does not give Christians the liberty of basing fellowship merely upon two or three major doctrines. The New Testament requires separation based on such things as a false gospel (Galatians 1), a false view of death or resurrection (2 Timothy 2:16-18), a denial of true holiness (1 Timothy 6:3-5), and a denial of the supernatural power of Christianity (2 Timothy 3:5). We are to separate even from true Christians if they refuse to follow the teachings of the apostles (2 Thess. 3:6).
Walter Martin's chief error about Seventh-Day Adventism was his refusal to practice Biblical separation. He had a New Evangelical type ministry that focused on unity based on a lowest-common denominator of doctrine. This is why he also did not separate from the Roman Catholic Church, but instead taught that it had some aberrant doctrine, but was still orthodox.
WALTER MARTIN CONTENDED THAT MODERN SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISM IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF ITS EARLIER DAYS

"For over a century Adventism has borne a stigma of being called a non-Christian cult system. Whether or not this was justified in the early development of Adventism, I have already discussed at length in my earlier book, but it should be carefully remembered that the Adventism of 1965 is different in not a few places from Adventism of 1845, and with that change the necessity of re-evaluation comes naturally" (Walter Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults, p. 360).

Though we have no doubt that there have been changes in the Seventh-Day Adventist denomination during the past 150 years, we must ask whether these changes have affected the basic doctrinal position -- the answer is NO. "Prophetess" Ellen White believed the Adventist system of doctrine was finalized in the early days of her ministry and that this particular system was to be used from then on as the test of truth worldwide. It was not to be changed. Carefully consider the words of Mrs. White herself concerning the possibility of future changes in Adventist doctrine:

"When the power of God testifies as to what is truth, that truth is to stand forever as the truth. No after suppositions, contrary to the light God has given, are to be entertained. ... The truth for this time God has given us as the foundation for our faith. He Himself has taught us what is truth. One will arise, and still another, with new light which contradicts the light that God has given under the demonstration of His Holy Spirit. We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God's Word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake..." (Ellen G. White Letter 329, 1905, quoted in Messenger to the Remnant, p. 40).

The truth is that Seventh-Day Adventism today does not differ in any significant doctrinal way from the Seventh-Day Adventism of Ellen White's day, except that it presents its doctrines in a more subtle manner today. If the Seventh-day Adventist leaders were to change their major distinctive doctrines as outlined by Ellen White, they would be denying their prophetess and pulling the pillars from under themselves. The Adventist Church admits this in the following statement from one of their recent publications:

"Great lines of truth were gradually unfolding before them [Ellen White and early Adventist leaders]. Now the time had come for the convergence of these truths into one body of doctrine. This was brought about in 1848, through a series of Sabbath conferences. Five in all were held. At the earlier of these, the doctrines were clarified and bound together as a unity of truth; the later conferences served largely as teaching and unifying agencies.
"A careful study of documents of the time reveals what was denominated 'present truth' in this formative period ... made up of vital 'essentials,' 'pillars,' 'foundations.' These may be listed as: 1. The second advent of Christ. 2. The binding claims of the seventh-day Sabbath. 3. The third angel's message in its fullness, in correct relationship to the first and second angel's messages. 4. The ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary, which ministry would cease not long before the second advent (with emphasis on the work beginning the tenth day of the seventh month, 1844). 5. The non-immortality of the soul.

"These structural doctrines formed the 'firm platform' which, in 1858, was described by Ellen White, upon which 'nearly all stood firm' ... These constituted the 'landmarks' enumerated by Ellen White thirty years later..." (Messenger to the Remnant, pp. 39,40).

Since Mrs. White and the Adventist Church teach that their major doctrinal platform was finalized in their early days (and since the Adventist Church tells us that Mrs. White was an inspired prophetess), there is no need for re-evaluation of this group as Walter Martin required. A study of recent Seventh-day Adventist publications confirms this judgment, since they continue to teach the same heresies promulgated by Ellen White and other early Adventist leaders.

As a group, the Seventh-day Adventists today are the same divisive heretics they have been from their origin. To deserve a re-evaluation and re-labeling, they would have to denounce and turn away from every one of their heresies, including the foundational heresy that Ellen White was a prophetess of God.

Note: Between 1976 and 1981, David Cloud completed four official correspondence courses on Seventh-day Adventism produced by the Adventist Church itself. These courses promote the very same doctrinal platform that was laid down by Ellen White and the early Adventist leaders. Until such time as the Adventist Church denounces its heresies, Christians who follow the faith of the New Testament must mark avoid this group in obedience to Romans 16:17.

The Adventist denomination is the same heretical entity that was so plainly and firmly condemned by Bible-believing churches in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It is the once Bible-believing churches that have changed. Popular evangelicalism today has become too blind to discern truth from error and too weak to condemn error when it is found. Just a few decades ago men such as A. Hoekema, John R. Rice, and M.R. DeHaan, who considered Seventh-Day Adventism a dangerous false group, were in the overwhelming majority among those who professed to be evangelical Bible-believing preachers. This is not so today. Most major evangelical publishing houses, for example, will no longer publish material derogatory toward Adventism or Catholicism. [See also BDM's Back to the Bible report for documentation of its reclassification of Catholicism and SDA from cult to orthodox.]
It is not that the Adventist Church has moved closer to the Bible in the past 50 years, it is that the evangelicals have moved farther away from the Bible in that period.

* The above report has been adapted from a 9/5/99 report by David Cloud (Fundamental Baptist Information Service, 1701 Harns Rd., Oak Harbor, WA 98277); the complete report is in the Cults section of the End Time Apostasy Database at the Way of Life Literature web site. The original report is from Mr. Cloud's book Avoiding the Snare of Seventh-day Adventism. The two major divisions of the book are: "Adventist History Proves It is Heretical" and "Adventist Doctrine Proves It Is Heretical." The book analyzes Adventist doctrines such as Sabbath-keeping, Soul-sleep, Annihilation of the wicked, Ellen White as a Prophetess, Investigative Judgment, and Misuse of the Mosaic Law. Another chapter is titled "Why Some Have Considered Seventh-day Adventism Evangelical." This analyzes Walter Martin's (author of Kingdom of the Cults) faulty view of Adventism. The 2nd edition (1999) includes selections from D.M. Canright’s 1898 book Seventh-day Adventism Renounced. Canright was an early leader in Adventism who left and became a Baptist pastor. The 2nd edition also includes a chapter entitled "Adventists Wanted Me to Revise This Book," describing the attempt by the Seventh-day Adventist denomination to have Mr. Cloud change the book.

Ultimate Rest Table of Contents

Spirit (Table of Contents)

2008-09-11T11:50:00.000-07:00

Introduction
A Mystery
Adventist Teaching on Soul Sleep
The Human Spirit
Made In the Image of God
Separate But Not Equal
The Immortality of the Soul
Spiritual Implications
The Intermediate State
What Do the Proof Texts Prove?
The Final Outcome
What of the Lost?
The Search For Hell
Redeeming Hell
Appendix: What Languages Did Paul Speak?
Books Consulted

Introduction

2008-09-11T11:47:00.000-07:00

"So God created human beings in his own image. In the image of God he created them." Gen 1:27 (NLT)

What a mystery! What can it mean? God is a trinity - whatever that really means. There is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. The only one of those who seems anything like us is God the Son. So which part of God are we like? What if it is all three? Here's a puzzling statement: "How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live!" Heb 12:9 (NIV) I have done CPR on people many times. When they have come to consciousness, I certainly didn't consider myself to be the mother of their spirits. To be the Father of our spirits, God would have to be speaking of something other than breath.

Take this one: "Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak." Matt 26:41 (NIV) A willing spirit is also something other than breath or animating life spark. The mother of Jesus said, "My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior." Luke 1:46-47 (NIV) Hmm. Her spirit rejoiced. Could it be that we are actually created in the image of all three persons of the Trinity in that we have spirits akin to His? Is it true that the great I AM is the Father of our spirits? If so, then we, too, are spirit.

The discovery of human spirit has far-reaching implications. It brings to life nearly incomprehensible possibilities of relationship with our God. It also opens up scriptures (such as the following) that have seemed obscure and difficult before. "Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. ...We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. So we make it our goal to please him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it." 2 Cor 5:6, 8-9 (NIV) Have you ever even noticed this scripture before? Have you wondered what it could mean?

Jesus, stir up a hunger from you to discover your creation in us.

The Next Chapter: A Mystery
This is a very personal story that started a quest in my life to discover the essence of the human spirit. I've shared it because it may answer some questions you didn't know to ask.

Home Page

A Mystery

2008-09-11T11:46:00.000-07:00

Fly Free, Spirit?
It was 1985 while sitting beside my brother, Keith, in the Kettering Seventh-day Adventist Church that a preformed verse came to my mind. I pulled out the bulletin beside me and quickly wrote it down:

Unbounded
Body cask, treasure held.
Earthen jar
Presuming to hold the wind.
Air, perhaps, but not the wind.
Starlight caught
But not for long.
Fly free, spirit, and know
No bounds.
Body, forms, and expectations
Cannot hold thee.

-by Cherry Brandstater

What did it mean? I was a sixth generation Adventist who had been raised with the belief that when one dies all consciousness ceases, awaiting reconstruction at the second coming of Christ. Keith wanted to read what I had written - since we often passed notes back and forth to invest the usually dry church services with some redemptive humor. I remember the feeling of discomfort when I relinquished my bit of heresy. He took it, held it, and made no comment - no sign that he had even read it. I was afraid to ask what he thought. He handed it back and never mentioned it until 1988 when I was going thru a crisis in my life.

Funny how hard times and vulnerability will open up lines of communication that have long been clogged with family history and just living. Perhaps it is a gift of love to become equally vulnerable when one we love faces pain and suffering. I know that Keith offered me a great gift of openness when he confided in me an experience from 20 years earlier. He had kept this story secret since it involved risk to divulge something he so deeply cherished, knowing it would be ridiculed if shared. My own weakness and pain made me seem, somehow, a safer confidant. This is the experience he shared.

Not In My Family!

My brother, Keith, was born with the absence of his right main pulmonary artery. In addition, he ingested and aspirated kerosene when he was three years old. The result was impaired pulmonary function. But instead of acquiescing to the limitations, he overcompensated. He seemed pulled like a magnet to activities that required strong lungs. He studied the oboe and became first chair in the orchestra. He took up scuba diving and pushed it to the limits. He became a pilot and got his instrument rating.

It was while he was in his anesthesiology residency at Loma Linda University that some of his colleagues began noticing how easily he got winded. Someone talked him into getting an arterial contrast study of his heart and pulmonary arteries. It was then they discovered the congenital absence of the right main pulmonary artery that meant a functionally absent right lung. But more significantly, it was during that procedure that his heart straight-lined for ten minutes. The doctors tried valiantly, without success, to revive him and finally conceded that further attempts would be futile. I don’t know how long after they had given up that his heart began to beat spontaneously – one beat at a time. He began breathing on his own, bringing in the needed oxygen. Life had returned.

He had never related this event to any of us in the family. Now he felt it important to tell me not only about the observable episode but what had happened internally during those critical minutes when he was left for dead. He, himself, had been taught to have a healthy suspicion of accounts like he was about to tell me. He knew that we would immediately reject his story. He took a deep breath and launched in as he told me with some apprehension, “I felt myself moving upward and was able to look down on the whole scene and to see, with detail, my body lying on the table.

"I remember wondering vaguely why they weren’t doing something to bring me back to life when I saw an angel who invited me to follow. It was a magnificent being and I felt a burst of joy knowing that I was finally seeing what I had always believed by faith alone. I gave one last look toward my body and it was no contest. I turned my face toward Heaven and ascended with no effort at all. I passed over a threshold and entered in. Everything changed. Everything was alive. The colors themselves were alive. I have no words to describe what I saw. The ground lived and praised God. The flowers emitted a fragrance that lived to worship. But most compelling of all was The Light. The Light seemed to be the essence of life itself. It danced and swirled and soaked all that it touched with joy and power and love. Once I saw The Light everything else lost its appeal. I knew that everything I had ever desired was in that light. Everything I had longed for was an imitation of this glorious light. My walk turned to a run as I abandoned every other pursuit but this."

He Turned Back

"As I got closer I began making out some form, indistinct but noticeable. And at the same time the thought came to me that my family needed me. I set the thought aside and continued to run. Then I remembered tasks God had given me to do that were unfinished and my run became a walk. My heart was struggling with duty, obedience and desire. Even my walking stopped as I stood, weighing my choices. I was torn between two choices. Perhaps by revelation I knew that I was going to Christ prematurely and it was not time for me to enter into the direct presence of God. And so, with a heavy heart, I turned and slowly walked away from The Light. I felt like I was hundreds of pounds heavier. It became harder and harder to go back to the threshold. By the time I got there my shoulders were drooping and I was bent over weeping. I began to turn in order to take one more look at The Light. But the angel at the gate took ahold of me and said, ‘Don’t look back. You won’t be able to leave. But it won't be long. You can come back when you are 47.’”

Keith stepped thru the gate and back into his body. He began to breathe the air of Earth and it felt polluted and heavy. He opened his eyes and everything looked indescribably dark. For awhile he felt panicked that he had made the wrong choice. He wanted to go back to where mortality is swallowed up by life.

Over the next twenty years Keith had a full and productive life. He was on the faculty in the Anesthesiology Department at Wright State University and Chairman of the Anesthesiology Department at Kettering Memorial Medical Center. He founded the Pain Clinic at Kettering with a heart of compassion for his patients that brought them to faith in the mercy of God. Along with his plethora of interests and professional satisfaction, he also experienced suffering. His pulmonary function deteriorated so that he had to give up the oboe and scuba diving. He developed lumbar disk disease and had a total of five back surgeries, all unsuccessful. He was never without pain, a fact that gave him a close kinship with the patients he treated. He also developed alopecia universalis, the total loss of all body hair. The prednisone he took gave him the characteristic moon face and he was nearly unrecognizable to us.

As he finished his story I could see the impact it had on every aspect of his life. He told me that knowing he could soon return to the Lord was all that kept him going. He couldn’t wait. Apparently he had been given a choice, like Paul had, and he had chosen obedience and responsibility. But soon, he could legitimately be free.

Predictable Response
What was my response? I was spitting mad, and I told him so. To my best memory, I shot back something like this: “Keith, don’t believe that lie. It is from Satan. You know those near-death experiences are just neurochemical aberrations that trigger things in your brain like a psychedelic trip. Don’t think about it. You will make it a self-fulfilling prophecy.” I couldn’t even hear it. Instead of feeling comfort about his peace, I felt frantic. I couldn’t bear to lose anyone else right then. I was scared, morally outraged, and angry - just what he had expected. How I wish now I could take back those words. How I wish I had understood and could have held that secret, that promise, as a joyful hope with him. How I wish I had known what I know now and could have rejoiced with him.

Five years later on June 10, 1993 as I landed at the airport in Sydney, Australia with my mother and kids, to celebrate my parents’ fiftieth wedding anniversary, my name was called over the intercom. I was told to meet the attendant, who took us to the Red Carpet Room. My father had left a message for me to call him. He had to take a different flight and was to arrive several hours later. When I heard his voice on the other end of the line I knew that he was devastated.

Keith had been taking his sons, Sean and Scott, on a picnic to celebrate Scott's being named valedictorian of his eighth grade class. Keith was driving his motorcyle; Scott was riding on the back. Sean followed on a second bike. With no warning, a woman decided to turn left, plowing right into Keith and Scott. The impact sent Scott flying into the air, causing serious injuries. Though there were eight cars at the scene of the accident, no one got out to help. Sean tried valiantly to resuscitate Keith, but this time, he didn't come back. Keith had been killed - three months after his 47th birthday.

We stayed in the airport until we could catch a flight to Ohio for his funeral. We were in shock. But on the long, anguished flight, the story he had told me five years before flooded my memories and I began to wonder.

Passive Student

Most of what I have come to understand about life after death, about the state of the dead, about annihilation and other related subjects has emerged tangentially. I didn’t really pursue the information. It seems to have pursued me. I still find it hard to be content with what has been revealed. But the truth is that there is much more mystery in the Biblical accounts on this subject than certainty. Where the Bible is silent, I believe it is wise for us to remain silent. Perhaps most of the seeming void of information has to do with our inability to conceive of the realities of the spiritual realm. We have no reference point, no fund of experience from which to draw.

A brilliant astrophysicist named Hugh Ross, based near Pasadena, teaches from scripture that God exists in a minimum of eleven physical dimensions. We exist in three and a half: length, width, height and half of time. We can only go from this time forward, not backward into eternity. How could we possibly understand the realities of the spiritual realm even if He told us? I want the answers. I want to know, and for me, the hidden mysteries are like putting a rabbit in front of a race dog with a solid plate of glass in between. But there are things we will have to wait to discover in the other part of our eternity.

Having said that, there are things God has revealed which are our privilege to search out. This study is an attempt to unearth what we can in order to better understand what God desires for us to know about the nature of life and death. If it weren’t important, God wouldn’t have revealed these things in His word. I have discovered that what we believe and understand about life, death, and what lies beyond, has a direct bearing on our ability to live and move in the spiritual realm.

Sleep Song

Ere thou hadst known my
name
I called thee.
From the glad darkness
of misty morning
and velvet sunset I bade
thee
come and revel in the
soothing
of my satin shining softness.
Ere thou hadst known Me
I knew thee
and gladly did I rock thee
in the cradle of my solace
protecting thee in silence
from the perils from without.
Come frighted ones
my name is sleep and
always have I been thy mother
thy protector and thy friend.
in feather pillows scented
with the triumph
of submission to my ken.
And justly offered in return
peace and health and
waking
to the promise of the dawn.

--A. Keith Callender, my brother

Spirit Table of Contents

The Next Chapter: Adventist Teaching On Soul Sleep
You may be more familiar with the term "state of the dead". It has a number of names, but the next part of the study deals with the origins of the doctrine and its history in Adventism.