Sabbath Law According To Stephen Jones

The following statement is from the website of Stephen Jones:

"The Saturday Sabbath, as I showed, was based upon Passover. The Sunday Sabbath was based upon the presentation of the Son to the Father, followed by Pentecost."

Is this belief supported by the Bible?


Here is the link:

http://www.gods-kingdom-ministries.net/daily-weblogs/2010/05-2010/changes-in-the-sabbath-law-part-4/


This is the continuation of a discussion from Elle's thread:
"A new Global Economic Restructure in 2012"

http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=138560&page=45

Before she sidetracks on talking about 8th day laws, or 9th day laws, or even 1st day laws, she first needs to address the statement she made:
That is, how was it changed?

Tx for starting this thread and providing a study link.

What Stephen says in that study, I mostly agree with it. There is only one statement that I have trouble with. I will talk about it if someone quotes it and this discussion progress there. I do recognize my understanding of the law is still very short.

There is more than the weekly Sabbath in scriptures by which we(SDAs) ignore all other Sabbaths(Feasts days Sabbaths, yearly Sabbaths, and the Jubilee year Sabbath) and say these doesn't apply to us anymore as these are nailed to the cross. So we SDAs also say things CHANGED at the cross and have nailed most Sabbaths laws and other laws to the cross.

Whereas, Stephen has not nailed any Sabbaths laws to the cross. Nor any other laws. All laws are still relevant -- and I have long believed this before I heard anything about Stephen.

The only thing that changed at the cross is our understanding of the law as Paul expressed it: "the law is spiritual" -- meaning that the Lord used physical examples (like the death of animals in sacrifices, rituals like circumcision, the 3 Harvest season, events that He orchestrated, etc...) and establish these as "types" to teach us spiritual dimension of what is to come. Basically the law is both spiritual and prophetic, but the Israelites, the Jews, the Judazers, and the Christian of today cannot see beyond the literal aspect of the law. This "not understanding the law" was always a problem, but an intended problem that the Lord put in His plan. We will come to the understanding of all truth one day, but 'till then we have this "not understanding each other" quite often.

Here is a link of a discussion here where we discuss the relevance of the Feasts and other Sabbaths. Are the Feast Days & Sabbaths still binding?
From page 8, we got off topic, so only the previous pages address the discussion at hand.

I was re-reading the discussion "Are the Feast Days & Sabbaths still binding?" It's pretty bad when you have a hard time to follow what you said yourself. I always had difficulty with expressing thoughts. So I appologize for my short coming and I appreciate all who bear with me while I learn to express myself better.

As I mentioned in the post above, this "not understanding the law" is a major problem -- in the past, and still remain today even in our Church. By testing Stephen Jones studies and reading his blog in the past 5 years(or so), I have seen that he understand the law more than anyone I've ever read. There were things that I have disagreed with him in the past and some statements of his I thought were "way out there"; however, the Lord later shown me these by confirming them.

Even before that, it is Myron Robertson at Adventist Online(AO) who had like 10 years ahead of me in studying the law and had discovered Stephen and introduced me to him. Not immediatly thought, but after many months of studying with Myron on AO and after seeing that lots of my past personal studies were confirmed by Myron's personal studies and seeing the strenght of his position that was backed with the law....only then I ventured to read Stephen's studies. So this was the path for me.

We SDAs are so sure we understand the Sabbath and how to keep it while focussing only on one aspect of the Sabbath (the weekly) and ignoring all others Sabbaths or any portion of scriptures that express things differently then our view. To me it is a call to look at scriptures another time while putting aside our pre-conceived narrow sighted ideas.

The article you have linked is compact with concepts derived from scriptures that elaborates on the Sabbath. There's just too many for me to address them all. We can start with any of those that you(prodigalone or anyone else interested in this discussion) like to bring forth.

Another option is to read one of Myron's comments with scriptures on AO about the meaning of the Sabbath. That portion captures well what I understand.

You could start at, There is some truth in this statement : "Jones teaches that the Sabbath was changed to Sunday as part of the New Covenant"

How was the Sabbath changed to Sunday?

I have read through some of the other discussions of feast days and Sabbaths, also some of Myron's post. There is much deep study there; however, I see nothing that changes the weekly Sabbath, either in timing or intent.

The Ten Commandments were given by the hand of God in a spectacular and public fashion. If they were to be changed, I would expect an equally loud and
public announcement. "The Law of the Lord is perfect", Psalm 19:7, how does one improve on perfection?

I must agree with kland: "How was the Sabbath changed to Sunday?"

Elle wrote;

"There is more than the weekly Sabbath in scriptures by which we(SDAs) ignore all other Sabbaths(Feasts days Sabbaths, yearly Sabbaths, and the Jubilee year Sabbath) and say these doesn't apply to us anymore as these are nailed to the cross. So we SDAs also say things CHANGED at the cross and have nailed most Sabbaths laws and other laws to the cross.

Whereas, Stephen has not nailed any Sabbaths laws to the cross. Nor any other laws. All laws are still relevant -- and I have long believed this before I heard anything about Stephen. " (bold emphasis mine)

My question is; How are they relevant?

I believe the feast days are still enforce, just not on the planet earth! We are now living in the Anti-typical feast days that God keeps! Those typical feast days were to teach us what God would do for us in the future.

Such as the Day of Atonement! We are now living during the genuine Day of Atonement. The Anti-typical Day of Atonement. God is performing His duties in the atonement for our sins! And only God can do that.

For us to keep those feast days and sacrifices now would make an absolute mockery of the work of God in Heaven. We would be showing total contempt for the atonement process.

We can't do anything to atone for even one of our sins! And we shouldn't try either.

Ellen White wrote something similar regarding Passover:

This ordinance does not speak so largely to man's intellectual capacity as to his heart. His moral and spiritual nature needs it. If his disciples had not needed this, it would not have been left for them as Christ's last established ordinance in connection with, and including, the last supper. It was Christ's desire to leave to his disciples an ordinance that would do for them the very thing they needed,--that would serve to disentangle them from the rites and ceremonies which they had hitherto engaged in as essential, and which the reception of the gospel made no longer of any force. To continue these rites would be an insult to Jehovah. Eating of the body, and drinking of the blood, of Christ, not merely at the sacramental service, but daily partaking of the bread of life to satisfy the soul's hunger, would be in receiving his word and doing his will. {RH, June 14, 1898 par. 16}

Reading through the link in the OP, it seems the author believes the Sabbath law is continually being changed????

There really is no "definite" Sabbath day according to what he seems to be saying. It all rotates on a gnostic evolution of increasing spirituality. Some of the statements sound a lot like those made when Sunday replaced Saturday in early Christianity. Like his reference to -- a Sabbath change being built on the 1st and 8th day of a feast.
That lays the very foundation that can easily lead people into accepting "Sunday" as the Sabbath.

Now I believe the Sabbath is far more than an outward cessation of labour, it definitely has spiritual meaning. And true -- it points to the heavenly rest of the redeemed.

But the spiritual does NOT replace the literal of God's definite Sabbath day. To change that day for whatever reason, be it spiritual "advancement" or eighth day philosophies or whatever, is a human attempt at CHANGING the law of God.

The feasts did present an outline of Christ's work of redemption and deserve serious study, but the weekly Sabbath DAY is not based on those feasts. The weekly Sabbath is/was a continuous cycle of seven days from Creation - verified at Sinai, and confirmed by Christ Himself.

Good question.

Strangely interesting as it appears that some people who base their idea of the Sabbath on a feast, thinking the 7th day is based on Passover, which usually leads them to observe lunar Sabbaths, claiming Sabbaths fall on the 8th, 15th, 22nd, and 29th days of the lunar cycle, -- a cycle which rearranges the seven day cycle every month, placing the Sabbath on a different modern day calendar every month, YET, when it comes to SUNDAY, and the "eighth day, first day" philosophies, they have no problem keeping Sunday as it comes on our modern calendar on consistent basis????

Probably that is possible ONLY when everything is "spiritualized" and there is nothing really definite about God's law????

All seems to be philosophies to undermine people's convictions concerning the Sabbath, preparing them to be swept away in the final crises.

The change of Sabbath to Sunday was done from the understanding of a definite seven week cycle.
The Jewish people were keeping Saturday, it was a distinctive mark of being Jewish, while certain Gentiles, not wanting to be identified with the Jews, started keeping Sunday which they called both the "eighth" or "first" day to distinguish them from the Jews.

None of this weekly Sabbath keeping was based on the feasts. If it was the Gentiles would have been keeping the 9th, 16th, 23rd, and 30th day of each lunar month, not Sunday.

I say Amen! to that statement.

Stephen Jones:

"The Saturday Sabbath, as I showed, was based upon Passover. The Sunday Sabbath was based upon the presentation of the Son to the Father, followed by Pentecost."



How is it possible that the Sabbath, "sanctified" at the conclusion of Creation before the entrance of sin, can be "based upon Passover"?

Was Passover not instituted many centuries later in response to sin?

This false doctrine seeks to cast a shadow over the six literal days of Creation and turn the Word of God on its head!

And there are some saying that all the feast days were at creation. I'm not sure how they support it, though.

Since, Passover commemorates the firstborn of Israel being saved from death in Egypt, it is difficult to fathom how such a feast could exist before humanity sinned?

Gods Law doesn't change no matter what man comes up with...

I would like to address many comments expressed in this thread, but time is not available right now.

I agree that God's Law didn't change, but you probably have narrowed down the Law to the 10Cs whereas I'm (&Stephen) talking about the Pentateuch. In the Pentateuch there's more than the weekly Sabbath, there's the Feasts Sabbaths, the yearly, and the Jubilee Sabbath. The 10Cs was a "introductory-summary of the whole Law". We need to look at the whole law to understand more deeply the 10Cs.

I know elle rejects EGW, but for others, EGW has categories of Laws in Torah - Moral, Ceremonial, Political and Social.

The Sabbath is of divine appointment. It stands in the center of a list of divine requirements. What right has man to drop out one of these rules of life? Who has authorized the blotting out of the fourth any more than the second or the eighth? If the fourth commandment is not binding upon man, how then can the law of murder be binding? The moral law is not exclusively Jewish. The ceremonial, the social, and the political laws delivered to Moses when he was in secret council with God on the mount were for Israel; but the moral law, spoken in awful grandeur from the smoking mount, in the hearing of all the people, and written on the tables of stone, was for all men who should live upon the earth till the close of time. {Lt35a-1877 1.21}

I think it was about 10 years ago the church took the position that observing the feasts is optional, and I think that is a good position. The statement above refers to giving offence to God by blood sacrifices as far as I can see. Ellen White makes some fairly positive statements about holding sacred gatherings like Tabernacles. I don't keep the feasts but I view myself as a brother to anyone who does keep them. In heaven we'll be keeping the New Moons right along with the Sabbaths. Is 66.

For the OP

No.

The Saturday 7th day Sabbath comes from Creation on a continuous seven day cycle and runs totally independent of any feast "Sabbaths".

The concept of the "lunar Sabbaths" idea (a strange new idea rather recently presented to Adventists) is drawn from the Passover concept. So one would FIRST have to dislocate the Sabbath from God's ordained continuous seven day weekly cycle of creation, and adapt it to the lunar Sabbaths. This of course messes up the recurring Saturday connection as well.
Passover was actually first introduced to Israel as a memorial of their deliverance from Egypt.
Passover "Sabbath" was not set on Saturday, but every year would fall on a different week day.

Biblical months are based on the moon, and they begin at the first appearance of the visible crescent new moon. To connect the 7th day Sabbath to Passover "Sabbath", the contention is -- since Passover Sabbath is counted from the new moon, so should the weekly Sabbaths. Thus, according to their reasoning, Sabbaths should coincide with these feast Sabbaths fall on the 8th, , 15th , 22nd, 29th day of each lunar month. The seven day cycle then needing adjustment at the end of each month.

This of course is NOT Biblical.
Consider how the manna was regularly provided each week. When Israel was in the wilderness Exodus plainly teaches that the manna fell for six days, with a double portion falling on the sixth day because none would fall on the seventh-day Sabbath. This went on continuously for 40 years, Exodus 16:35.
Nothing is said about a big interruption of this weekly manna cycle every fourth week by a couple of additional days at the end of the month when the new moon resets the week.


THUS -- the first part of your question is answered --
NO -- Saturday Sabbaths were not set by any lunar, or feast, or Passover day precedents. The Saturday Sabbaths follow a seven day, weekly pattern totally independent of feast days, or moon phases.



The second part of the question is built on the first part, thus already it is unsustainable.
For the seven day continuous weekly cycle, whether it is Saturday the seventh day, or Sunday the first day, runs totally independent of the feast days or moon phases.

The 7th day Sabbath does NOT shift from one feast day to another.

Excellent response, dedication!
Thank-you.

My understanding from scriptures is that all the law(Pentateuch) is prophetic and spiritual by which the Lord will fulfill all of these including the sacrificial laws in our body temple for we are His body. What Christ went thru, we are to go thru the same path(passover,pentecost, and Tabernacle) to become "Sons of God".

Tell me APL, in your understanding of the law by spltting it into categories as "Moral, Ceremonial, Political and social" do you believe it is ok to break the Lords political an social laws? Or do you believe the ceremonial laws are the only laws that are made VOID?

Do we still have priests? Do we still conduct sacrifice of animals? Do we still have the tribe of Levi? Who are they? Circumcision - was it for all mankind or only Abraham and is it required today?

The Moral law remains and was for all men and is very encompassing.

Please answer the question APL -- do you believe it is ok to break the Lords political and social laws?

Are you saying you disagree with Ellen White?

Are you saying the "introductory-summary of the whole Law", which does state the 7th day, does not change but the full details do change the 7th day?

First, I'm not sure that "keeping the Passover" could be kept without sacrificing the lamb. The definition.

Second, do you really feel her statement implies that communion substitutes only place of the lamb, but she intended everything else of the rite to continue?

Can you find any statements she makes of the subject where she is not talking about campmeeting, and that is campmeeting happening at various and multiple times throughout the year including December or January? Where she says come to the feast of Tabernacles meaning solely to come to campmeeting which happens different times for different conferences?

Isa 66:23 (KJV) And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

Isa 66:23 (YLT) And it hath been from month to month, And from sabbath to sabbath, Come do all flesh to bow themselves before Me, Said Jehovah.

Was that prophesied for their day, how does that fit in with dual applications, how is the proper way for understanding dual applications? Does everything else fit in the chapter?

If the text were intended to mean that everyone would worship Him from month to month and Sabbath to Sabbath, how would it be stated differently?

Sorry for the delayed respond Alchemy. I had already answered this in another discussion here(where you and Kland participated). I hope the below will help further.


This is the same problem the Israelites had, the Jews had at the time of Jesus and the Judaizers had in the early Church. This same problem is still very prominent today in all denominations. The problem is only seeing the law literally – only seeing the WORD and not understanding the SPIRIT and the greater thing that it is pointing to.

Kland and Alchemy you “kept” the Passover when you were baptized. Your heart was already circumcised sometime before and you had put the blood of the lamb on the “lintel”(forehead) and “2 posts”(ears) of your “house”(body temple).


Circumcision is only for those that wants to become a citizen of the Kingdom of God (want to become baptized and pledge allegience to the Lord). Circumcision is a Passover Level of faith requirement. The law(Pentateuch) illustrates a litteral circumcision to TEACH us the spiritual CONNECTION. The spiritual dimension (which is a heart circumcision that Moses understood clearly) is what makes us eligible to enter the Kingdom of God.

The physical(literal) circumcision of the flesh has no validity and never had any validity in the Lord's eyes. He required Abraham and the Israelites to be circumcized physically for the sake to "illustrate" and to teach the following generations what took place "spiritually". Paul spent a lot of his ministry to teach us this that “the law is SPIRITUAL”.

Our Church at the corporate level, we are a Passover Type of Church that hasn’t entered the Pentecost level of faith yet. We did the same thing as the Church in the Wilderness – they(&we) refuse to hear the Lord’s voice for themselves and they(&we) wanted to rely on a “Man”(we rely on a woman) to tell us how to interpret the Lord’s words. However, there’s some individual in our Church that has entered the Pentecost level of faith which rely on the Holy Spirit to teach them the truth.

Only a very very few in our Church has entered the Tabernacle level of faith. I have describe this level in this post here with Jacob when he left Laban. His journey to Canaan was a Tabernacle Type.

Do you think that a person that is in the Passover level of Faith, who continuously refuses to hear God’s voice for themselves, can understand the Law and specifically the Sabbath Law? No, they cannot. It is an impossibility. Even if the Man you are hearing the law from is Moses himself. All the Israelites died in the wilderness but 2. You need to enter Pentecost and let the Holy Spirit teach you what Jesus meant with any portion of the law.

Alchemy, the other thread was nothing but confusion and add this last confusion doesn't make any clearness. If you can figure out what she actually means by "SPIRITUAL", what she actually believes and does, how she can switch from literal to "SPIRITUAL" all in the same sentence, please inform me. Nothing but confusion here, and you know what that means.

Yes, kland!

Your silence obviously says the answer is no -- thus the law is the whole Pentateuch which includes Feasts Sabbaths, yearly Sabbath, and the Jubilee Sabbath. We are to understand the Sabbath with the whole law not just a narrow portion of it.

You believe everyone will be saved, so what does any of the Bible matter to you? Are you afraid of loosing your pavement, I mean gold?

There are many who try to blend these two systems, using the texts that speak of the ceremonial law to prove that the moral law has been abolished; but this is a perversion of the Scriptures. The distinction between the two systems is broad and clear. The ceremonial system was made up of symbols pointing to Christ, to His sacrifice and His priesthood. This ritual law, with its sacrifices and ordinances, was to be performed by the Hebrews until type met antitype in the death of Christ, the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. Then all the sacrificial offerings were to cease. It is this law that Christ "took . . . out of the way, nailing it to His cross." Colossians 2:14. But concerning the law of Ten Commandments the psalmist declares, "Forever, O Lord, Thy word is settled in heaven." Psalm 119:89. And Christ Himself says, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law. . . . Verily I say unto you"--making the assertion as emphatic as possible--"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:17, 18. Here He teaches, not merely what the claims of God's law had been, and were then, but that these claims should hold as long as the heavens and the earth remain. The law of God is as immutable as His throne. It will maintain its claims upon mankind in all ages. {PP 365.1}

Doesn't the Bible tell us that Jesus was slain before the foundation of the earth? Doesn't this show that the Lord had a plan already in place before He created Man?

Just because it was given to Moses very explicitly and was commanded to write these down (as opposed to the pre-passing down verbally the knowledge of the Lord to their children)...doesn't mean that the law didn’t exist previously to Moses.

We read in Exodus 18:20 (before the 10Cs and judgments were given) that Moses was already teaching the people the Lord’s laws, and ordinances. “AV Ex 18:20 “And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do.” So Moses already had some pre-knowledge of some laws and judgments before the Sinai event in Exodus 19-23.

If we are to do a study, we would see the Lord applying laws and judgments throughout history before the Exodus.

It is true that the Lord commanded Israel to keep the Passover that commemorated the Exodus, but there were sacrifices before the Exodus that pointed forward to Christ's death(=passover).

At the Exodus it was a corporate(the Church in the Wilderness) Passover experience; whereas before the Exodus individuals like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had experienced personally and gone thru the Passover(spiritual birth), Pentecost(hearing the Lord's voice and learning obedience), and the Tabernacle(overcame, ceased their own words and entered the Lord's rest) experience.

Also other sacrificial services and rituals were practiced by the Patriarch before the laws was given.

My understanding is all the laws(Pentateuch) describes the ways of the Lord (His character) -- Isn't He the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow? It beats me how anyone in our Church would believe that the law only existed after the Exodus????

Elle, there were sacrifices after the Exodus that pointed forward to Christ's death which was NOT Passover.


Could this be why?
There are many who try to blend these two systems, using the texts that speak of the ceremonial law to prove that the moral law has been abolished; but this is a perversion of the Scriptures. The distinction between the two systems is broad and clear. The ceremonial system was made up of symbols pointing to Christ, to His sacrifice and His priesthood. This ritual law, with its sacrifices and ordinances, was to be performed by the Hebrews until type met antitype in the death of Christ, the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. Then all the sacrificial offerings were to cease. It is this law that Christ "took . . . out of the way, nailing it to His cross." Colossians 2:14. But concerning the law of Ten Commandments the psalmist declares, "Forever, O Lord, Thy word is settled in heaven." Psalm 119:89. And Christ Himself says, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law. . . . Verily I say unto you"--making the assertion as emphatic as possible--"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:17, 18. Here He teaches, not merely what the claims of God's law had been, and were then, but that these claims should hold as long as the heavens and the earth remain. The law of God is as immutable as His throne. It will maintain its claims upon mankind in all ages. {PP 365.1}

And that's why you wish to deny her?

Elle, that is quite the strawman argument you have constructed.
Jesus is indeed "the Lamb slain FROM the foundation of the world."
God's foreknowledge of the need for a sacrifice for sin hardly equates to Passover
being instituted in Eden!

In any case, how exactly does the existence of ceremonial, civil, or any other law previous to Moses, alter or negate the Ten Commandments?

Let's look at a few facts that show how God views His Ten Commandments as opposed to the ceremonial laws:

The Ten Commandments - Written by the finger of God TWICE!

The Ceremonial Law - Written by Moses once.

The Ten Commandments - Placed inside of the Ark of the Covenant!

The Ceremonial Law - Placed on the outside of the Ark of the Covenant.

The Ten Commandments - Rested directly beneath the Mercy Seat, the very foundation of the Throne of God!

The Ceremonial Law - Rested on the outside of the Mercy Seat, beside the Throne of God.

The Ten Commandments - never to be destroyed, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from. Matthew 5: 17-18


The Ceremonial Law - Handwriting of ordinances blotted out and nailed to the Cross. Colossians 2:14


The Bible is absolutely clear. God considers His Ten Commandments to be holy and separate, the measure of His eternal character, the very foundation of His throne.

There can be no meaningful comparison between the two. The ceremonial laws are merely a means of dealing with the transgression of humanity against God's sacred Ten Commandments. To suggest that the shadow changes the substance is ridiculous.

I do agree with the above that we shouldn’t be sacrificing animals today and those were types and shadows.

As I said many times to you in the past, we are the BODY of Christ and we are to follow His steps to the cross too and become “living sacrifices” as He was and “die” too. Paul even said we are to “die” daily.

I agree Jesus was the “anti-type” but it doesn’t stop there and he’s not the only “anti-type”. What was fulfilled by Jesus was the fulfillment of the HEAD part.

The fulfillment of the sacrificial laws needs to be also fulfilled in His BODY part too --- which is US His Church -- The “anti-type” of what all the sacrificial services is pointing to still needs to be fulfilled in US.

---->Every time someone since Adam’s fall till today, who accepts Jesus(=circumcised), gets out of “Mama Egypt”(=bondage of sin), and are baptized(=dies), is fulfilling the “anti-type” of Passover.

---->Every time someone since Adams till today, who listen to the Holy Spirit and receives His teachings and gets the law written on his HEART instead of having it outside on STONES is fulfilling the “anti-type” of Pentecost.

---->Every time someone since Adam’s fall till today, overcome and cease their own works, is fulfilling the “anti-type” of Tabernacle.

There’s too much to address up there. But simply said, ask yourself the same question I asked APL – do you believe it is ok to break the political and social laws given outside of the 10Cs?

Concerning your proof text to say that the ceremonial laws and other laws are nail to the cross with Col 2:14, read below what I replied to Rosangela.
===============================================================================


I don't think this is saying that the law was nail to the cross, but instead the decree that was issued against us because we transgressed the law. The law is necessary for teaching purposes and to show us our sins and how far we are from the Lord's perfect righteousness.

Paul also said this about the cross : God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; (2col 5:18). I now see Col 2:14 saying what 2cor 5:18 says of not imputing our tresspasses by cancelling the charge or decree that was against us.

Here's many other translations that suggest this understanding:

Elle wrote: But simply said, ask yourself the same question I asked APL – do you believe it is ok to break the political and social laws given outside of the 10Cs?
----

The literal political laws, no we do not follow them.
The principles behind those laws -- yes they are still valid.

The social laws? If they are of moral type, yes they are to be followed for they magnify God's moral law.

Many however, are more culturally related, and while their principle still holds, they are no longer followed to the letter. (Example --Unclean laws requiring sometimes weeks of isolation especially for women) The necessity for personal hygiene and home cleanliness is the principle to be maintained.

The suspected unfaithfulness of a wife having to drink water mixed with temple dust -- Such laws were a protection for women in a male dominated society so God could protect falsely accused wives from obnoxious husbands. I don't think anyone follows that any more-- especially as there is no temple dust around.


Political laws
Israel was a sacral society -- a theocracy.

Since NT times there has been no Divine theocracy society or country. Thus those laws are no longer in force, though the principles behind those laws are still valid.

We follow the social and political laws of the nation under which we live as long as they do not violate God's moral law.

We do NOT stone people who curse God, commit adultery, or break the Sabbath. Though the principle still holds that those who do not repent of these and other sins will suffer eternal death.

People who have skin problems (possible leprous) don't go to the priest, nor are they cast out to live in caves away from society. Instead they go to a doctor and receive treatment.
Though the principle of limiting the exposure of the healthy to infectious disease still holds.

What was nailed to the cross?

I tend to agree with Elle that it was our sins.
The whole context of Col. 2:14 indicates it was our sins that were nailed to cross, not law.

2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, has he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
2:14 Blotting out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

However, also in the context is the thought of the "obligations" those sins imposed -- which was the obligation to slay a sacrificial substitute. Christ was that substitute that took away our sins, thus the sacrificial system ended and with it all the ceremonial things that were part of those sacrifices.

Nicely stated, dedication!

I would add that the tearing of the Temple veil from top to bottom (Mark 15:38) is a pretty good indication that the Father considered the sacrificial system over when type met anti type at the offering of the Lamb of God.

Elle said:

"There’s too much to address up there. But simply said, ask yourself the same question I asked APL – do you believe it is ok to break the political and social laws given outside of the 10Cs?"


Dedication has more than adequately answered you on this point.

My question is, what difference does it make? Whether I believe it is ok to break the political and social laws or not has absolutely no bearing on the requirement that the Moral Law of God's Ten Commandments is to be obeyed.

Breaking God's Ten Commandments is the definition sin. That definition can never be changed, what was sin yesterday is sin today and will remain sin tomorrow.

The Fourth Commandment can never be changed, no matter how many new moons or feasts you may celebrate. The Sabbath remains every Seventh Day, just as Jesus kept it, just as the Jews have continued to keep it, just as Ellen White kept it, just as God wrote it twice in solid stone with His own hand.

Do you stone sabbath breakers? Glutinous kids? Adulterers? If not, why now?

Not a if not, but a if so. Again no law is nail to the cross. So my answer is Yes. These laws are also a Types and Shaddow of things to come as other laws. So you can put your literal application aside for awhile and this to be understood and applied SPIRITUALLY (or in another word to come to know the mind of Christ for what He meant when He gave this law). Find out what is the stone symbolism means in the Bible and you will have a good chunk of your answer. Also we have the case of David who was guilty of adultery and murder that will reveal to us how the Lord apply this law on Him.

So we should SPIRITUALLY stone those that pick up sticks, and the case of Cozbi should have been treated more like David. Or perhaps we need to understand the Old and New Covenants better...

Intead of making fun of the law...put some effort in trying to understand it by first figuring out what the symbolic meaning of stone is. Remember that the Lord told us in Number 12:8 that he speaks in "DARK SPEECHES" (in riddles that needs to be solve). The whole law is also written in "Dark Speeches" -- that Paul describes as Types and shadows.

Great! Glad to see this.


You are twisting things here again in the attempt to keep your pre-conceived idea and to make the Lord’s laws void. The “obligations” we were under was to pay the debt note -- not to offer a substitute sacrifice. Offering substitute sacrifices for our sins is a Pagan ritual and is not part of God’s way of justice. Read Col 2:14 again it was the “certificate of debt” that Jesus took away by His death. In another word He is our Redeemer who came to pay for our debt that our sins has incurred.

This brings up three main Biblical principle :

1)sin = debt;

2)Jesus death was a covering(atonement) which is further define as a redemption of debt;

3)The Law of Jubilee defines
--->a) how debts are dealt with
--->b)the rights of the Redeemer to pay for the debt
--->c)the debt is transferred to the Redeemer
--->d)the sinner now works for the Redeemer to pay its debt
--->e)forgiveness of all debts after 7x7 (on the 50th year).

1) Sin is Equated as a debt.

When we break the law(=sin), the judge in the earthly court usually sentence us a fine(=debt). We find the same principle in the Bible. Sin is equated as a debt in both the law and in the NT. Jesus taught us a base prayer that shows us this in Mat 6:12 “ And forgive us our DEBTS, as we also have forgiven our DEBTORS.". Luke records the same prayer a little differently: “And forgive us our SINS; for we ourselves also forgive everyone who is INDEBTED to us…” Luk 11:4

This is because in the law, a sin is a debt that is owed to the victim. Ex 22:3 says “3 … He shall surely make restitution; if he owns nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. 4 If what he stole is actually found alive in his possession, whether an ox or a donkey or a sheep, he shall pay double.”

This law say if he stole something, the judgment is that he owes two time the item. However in the case "the sheep" was sold or killed, the law requires he pays the victim 4 times.

So we see that sin = a debt note. Here’s an example where we find the Lord applying this law. First a little background of the sin-debt that Israel incurred. The nation of Israel was given land(Canaan) and failed to deliver the good fruits of the Kingdom that was owed to the Lord. We read in the vineyard song in Is 5:1-7 that the Lord expected to receive from Israel some good fruits. What He received was sour and unedible fruits. Jesus applies Is 5 to the nation of Judah in Mat 21:33-43 saying the fruits were stolen – either way in both cases the Lord was deprived of the good fruits due to Him from His own work in establishing the vineyard.

So Israel failed to deliver the good fruits expected(=theft) so we see that the Lord applied the Ex 22:3 theft law to Israel. We read in Judges 4:2 saying “The Lord SOLD them to Jabin, King of Canaan” (another example in Judges 10:7). Basically Israel was found guilty of sin by not delivering the good fruits of the Kingdom that was owed to the Lord in the Divine Court. Since Israel “owns nothing” they “were sold for their theft” as according to Ex 22:3. We find that Israel were sold to another nation 6 times in the book of Judges.

In these SALE transactions, Israel became the servant of that foreign nation. It also means that the foreign nation, had “bought” Israel debt note and were now responsible to pay it by delivering the good fruits of the Kingdom. In essence this other nation had “redeemed” Israel’s debt note and the responsibility to pay (to produce the good fruits the Lord’s requires) fell on them. Not necessarily a blessing but a curse if you cannot deliver. Of course they couldn't delliver and were judge also. Not a good thing for any foreign nation that redeemed the debt; but for Israel, having a redeemer they received mercy for it liberated them from the responsibility of the debt and gave them time to repent.


2)Sin-Debt covered by the Redeemer

The above is the basic law-principle how sin-debt is dealt with. A Redeemer is necessary to pay for the debt note. This is what Christ did for us by taking our obligation of the debt note away from us. However, as noted in the example above, the debt note was not cancelled but it was only transferred to the Redeemer who has to pay for it. Israel was to work for its Redeemer(the foreign nation or as applied to us we work for Christ our Redeemer) as it is also described in this way in the Law of Jubilee.

The Law of Jubilee is the only place in the Bible that clearly defines a Redeemer.

Jesus, the second Adam, will deliver the good fruits of the Kingdom on earth. This responsibility was first given to the First Adam who was commanded to subdue the earth and be fruitful. He failed…and incurred a big debt. Jesus refers to this in Mathew 18:25 where the man who couldn’t pay that large debt, its judgment was that the man, his wife, his children and all that he had were sold to pay for the debt. The responsibility to pay the debt kept on being passed down. It went to Abraham who was prophetically promised that his seed(pointing to Christ) will bless all the families of the earth. In the time being, the responsibility of the debt was pass down to the nation of Israel and so on and so forth… until it went to Christ.

3)The Law of Jubilee – defines the ultimate Sabbath rest after 7 years x 7 + 1 year = 50th year

It defines how a debt is legally dealt with. Basically the law of Jubilee is the foundation where all other laws rest upon. It gives the complete picture of the plan of salvation by which we have the 7th year Sabbath(only a forebearance of debt) pointing to and climaxing to the Jubilee year Sabbath rest(forgiveness of all debts) where everyone is restored back to their inheritance after the maximum time allotted to pay for the debt by producing the good fruits(thru the ministry of Christ) the Lord has required from the beginning of time.

Hmmm...

Excellent post Elle.

Although, I would have thought circumcision instead of Pentecost.

Elle said:

"Offering substitute sacrifices for our sins is a Pagan ritual and is not part of God’s way of justice."


Are you saying the Old Testament sacrificial system instituted by God was "a Pagan ritual"?

Jesus, the Lamb of God, offered Himself in our place. He took our punishment, paid our debt. Was His "substitute sacrifice" "a Pagan ritual"???

By the way Elle, what does any of this have to do with Stephen Jones' claim:

"The Saturday Sabbath, as I showed, was based upon Passover. The Sunday Sabbath was based upon the presentation of the Son to the Father, followed by Pentecost."

"Is this belief supported by the Bible?"



You have led us on a merry chase, but isn't it time you got back to the OP?
How exactly does all of this spiritualization of the law change the Seventh Day Sabbath to Sunday?

As you are so fond of saying: "get back to the topic, please"!

From my own studies(and this doesn’t come from Stephen at all as he never address this), this “substitution” notion stem from mis-understanding Isaiah 53:5 and from not understanding the meaning of the law of redemption or the sacrifices.

I made it very clear it my explanation my view why(read it again) and I never said nor even closely implied that Jesus sacrifice was pagan.

ProdigalOne, this is the third time(even 4th or more as I let many of them pass by) I catch you misrepresenting what I said (false witness). Be careful OK.

Again if you want to dig more into it, it would require to open another discussion because this type of study will require to go all over the Bible.

To understand what Stephen said above and see what Biblical basis he has to come to this, we need to recognize the whole law is still relevant like he (& I) does. This cannot be explained without looking at the other Sabbath laws and the Feasts Sabbath laws.

To repeat myself, I personally don't view everything like he does. The article you brought forth in the OP, I understand & agree with most(98%) what he said. I also recognize he understand the law much much more than I.

However Stephen (or anyone that speaks biblical stuff like I'm doing and all others here is doing on this forum) is only an "unclean" man that whatever proceeds from our mouth is “unclean” or “carnal”. Everything heard has to be filtered and confirmed by the Holy Spirit to the hearers himself. We should never accepts anything from anyone without this work of the Holy Spirit. If we do we are eating unclean spiritual foods -- even if the food comes from Moses himself and everything he says is the pure Word of God.

The Holy Spirit has not confirm this to me yet. Confirmation does not always happens emmediatly, actually most of the time it takes time for the law requires that the spiritual food be “chewed”(meditated) upon before hand and be confirmed by the Holy spirit.

Stephen could have a heart idol in that area, that’s possible. He never claims infallibility and always acknowledge that he still has some heart idols like any of us.

I do hope for myself that this study will help shed some more light on this.

I don't know if everyone is ready to move forward yet or even wants to go any further. Maybe some time is needed. I don’t know.

Did we established that the whole law is still relevant? Which means the other Sabbaths (All feasts Sabbaths, the yearly Sabbath, and the Jubilee Sabbath) are relevant.

Are we ready to look now what the Bible says about these other Sabbaths and what they mean?

If you look at my last long post above, I did attempt to stear this discussion back to the topic by linking the debt note to the yearly & Jubilee Sabbath. Did you read it?

Elle, you keep jumping from literal to spiritual without every explaining why and what you mean.

Please restate your sentence here to address "The distinction between the two systems is broad and clear". What are the two systems, how are they distinct, and what does that have to with your comment or how does your comment include and cover that distinction?

Elle, I have never intentionally misrepresented what you said! Your accusations are unfounded. I will admit that sometimes it is difficult to understand exactly what you are saying. Our exchange on your "A New Global Economics Restructure" thread is a prime example.

If you will carefully read my previous post, you will see that I was asking for clarification of your view:

"ARE YOU SAYING the Old Testament sacrificial system instituted by God was "a Pagan ritual"?"

By the way Elle, while we are on the topic of "misrepresenting" and "false witness". I'm wondering when you are going to change your profile to match your actual beliefs?

On your profile page, you claim to be a Seventh Day Adventist.
This is clearly not true!

The following is part of a comment I posted on your "Should We Quote EGW?" thread.

You did not reply to me there, perhaps you will do so here?


"Of course, I'm sure you realize that occasionally attending a Seventh Day Adventist Church does not make you a Seventh Day Adventist, anymore than spending time with Christians would qualify as salvation. It is a matter of matching the definition of a Seventh Day Adventist. In this case one must be in agreement with our Fundamental Beliefs. I know back in the eighties, agreement with the Fundamental Beliefs was a requirement for being a baptized member. To my knowledge, this has not changed.

I have just looked over the 28 Fundamental Beliefs with what I have gathered is your doctrinal system in mind. It is now apparent to me that you are not a Seventh Day Adventist. I do apologize for assuming you were.

Here are some of the doctrinal differences you appear to have with the Seventh Day Adventist Church:


Fundamental Belief #18 - Gift of Prophesy

Fundamental Belief #20 - Sabbath

Fundamental Belief #27 - Millenium In Heaven

Please forgive me if I have this wrong as I am not certain about your views on salvation. From what I have seen in some of your other discussions, you appear to believe that everyone will eventually be saved? This conflicts with Fundamental Belief #10 - Experience of Salvation."


I do hope that you decide to rectify your profile's false claim of being a Seventh Day Adventist, Elle. After all, misrepresenting one's faith is one of the worst forms of false witness.

You are an intelligent man who have shown much capacity of comprehension in a discussion. I don't believe one bit that it is a case of mis-comprehension of what I've said.

I had supply a lenghty explanation with scriptures why I don't view Christ sacrifice as a "substitution" but rather a "covering" aka a "redemption of the debt note". There's a big difference between these two systems and its legal implication. I understand that "substitution sacrifice" is a widespread concept in Christiandom, however it doesn't mean that it is Biblical as many other concepts aren't.

Also you are very eloquent in your writings skills. I see no lack there either.

-- Thus you could of formulated your question more accuratly reflecting what I have said without shedding any false light. You could of counter my points and scriptures I gave. You could of brought other texts to show why you believe Jesus sacrifice was a "substitution". This would of shown your good intentions.

But no -- none of that was shown but instead you have said what you have said that was a mis-representation and twisting of what I have said -- for a very specific goal.

Sorry but it doesn't fly at all.

You are in a bad habit of breaking discussion rules. You are making a mess in the discussions when you go off-topic like this or when your focuss is on the individual instead on the topic.

I have answered you in the other more appropriate discussion here. In the futur, I will not answer these anymore. Let's stick to the discussion at hand .... shall we?

I have explained to you why in a many lenghty ways with many different laws as examples for about the last 3 or 4 years.

Alchemy only been here for what about 4 months(?), and he understood what I meant. It doesn't mean he agree with me, but at least he understood my point.

I have been consistent in my explanation and I do not jump from literal to spiritual. We all need to examine the literal to solve the "riddle" or "dark speeches" =the language the Lord speaks with (see Num 12:8 -- look at the meaning of chiydah --h2420 and its root h2330) to try to understand what Jesus meant when He gave the law(Torah). Paul says these are types shaddows pointing to a spiritual realm. Paul says the LAW IS SPIRITUAL.

I respect and understand your LITERAL point of view, but don't agree with it.

As with ProdigalOne, I view you are not lacking of intellect or ability of comprehension or communication skills.

I think the issue is not that you lack understanding of my point, but rather a violation of Lev 3:17; Lev 17:12,14; Lev 19:26; Deut 12:16,23; and Deut 15:23. These are all the same law. Of course being consistent, my understanding of Jesus' meaning of this is not what the Jews and the Johovah witness have "literally" have interprete this to be.

I will no longer address your comments or questions if I see that your goal is only to violate the law I pointed to you above. Because by answering you, I am putting myself in a position to have cause you to sin further. I think I am already guilty of that and I should of done this awhile back. Forgive me for that.

I didn't see that he did.

Consistent? Not so. Another time I was questioning you on flip-flopping and you said you were busy and couldn't answer.

You say SPIRITUAL but the next breath you'll be advocating a literal keeping of feast days. Or in this thread, literal keeping of Sunday. Remember, that's what this thread is about?

Are you insulting Alchemy, is that what you're saying?

Elle, that's a false accusation! And you have no basis for such. I have not eaten meat, fat, blood, nor even sugar for years. Why you would say this I don't know! Uncalled for.

I catch you misrepresenting what I said (false witness). Be careful OK. Where do you get my goal is to violate a law you made up?

I do think you are showing the colors of the feast-keeping movement....

By chance have you ever read the following?
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/201...h.aSVr9kaM.dpuf

The principles do seem to apply to the current situation. Only way I can make sense out of it.

Especially when she accuses you of going off topic when she totally side railed your topic claiming it was necessary for understanding. Yet without addressing and clarifying all the side topics she brings up.

Elle, this is the topic, right? Talking about a literal Sabbath to a literal Sunday.

Elle, sometimes your apparent obtuseness leaves me breathless. You accuse me of misrepresenting you and of bearing false witness. When I defend myself in the same thread, you further accuse me of breaking discussion rules by going off topic!

Part of my defense was to reluctantly point out your hypocrisy: you accuse me of bearing false witness, (which I was not doing, as I have already shown) while you misrepresent yourself as a Seventh Day Adventist! The repost from our other discussion was only because you were not answering me there. Again, I think you know that.
According to your wishes, I will reply to your post on your attack on the Spirit of Prophesy thread, "Should We Quote EGW".

You are remarkably adept at deflecting blame for your own actions onto others.
Is kland correct about your motives? The link he provided to a self confessed paid Shill does seem to describe your behavior and patterns of attack quite accurately. Is your quaint lack of articulation some sort of a cloak? I am really beginning to wonder.

Excellent link, kland!

I must confess, I have long suspected such paid shills were stalking the Internet, but this is the first evidence, albeit anecdotal evidence, that I have seen.

I have come across several trolls on this site, now I am thinking some of them may be professionals. I am also beginning to wonder about our "sister" Elle...

So Elle, you know precisely why I "formulate" my questions as I do?

Wow! On top of your "special" biblical insight, you are also a mind reader! Amazing!
It must be wonderful to have the ability to know what someone else is thinking when they write a response to one of your posts! You are to be congratulated for such unique gifts!



As for your claim that "Christ's sacrifice (is not) a "substitution" but rather a "covering" aka a "redemption of the debt note". It sounds like semantic juggling, in order to introduce more of your prosperity gospel terminology, to me.

When Jesus paid my debt, He took my place as the debtor! He was NOT some sort of banker drawing a line through a number. He humbled Himself and BECAME the object of God's wrath!

"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that hangeth on a tree"! Galations 3:13

Jesus did not write some sort of cheque to cover my debt! He took my place! He suffered the punishment that was mine! He died the second death IN MY PLACE! "By His stripes we are healed!"

He did not merely pay for the sin of Adam, He became the Second Adam!

Elle, as the Original Poster, I request that you get back on topic.

As kland stated: "How was the Sabbath changed to Sunday?"

Since we are talking about literally keeping Sabbath or literally keeping Sunday, let's not muddy the water with anymore "spiritual" Old Testament Laws.
We are talking about LITERAL Sabbath keeping versus LITERAL Sunday keeping.

No more endless Old Testament meandering and head-scratching logic, get to the point, if you have one. Please, present some cogent evidence or admit that your view is unbiblical!

Sometimes I have to wonder if some of these differences have more to do with semantics. So, if my post in redundant, I apologize.

But, I heard a Pastor speaking recently on keeping the law and he made a very insightful analogy.

He talked about law and principle. And he used the example of speed limits. And he asked what is the purpose of speed limits. And the accepted answer for why there are speed limits was "Safety"!

Consequently, he said that if you live by the law, or legalistic, as long as you sense a chance of getting caught you obey the speed limit. But, as soon as you sense there isn't much threat of getting caught, you speed like a bandit.

But, if you live by principle, because of your care for other people and animals and such, even if you know there aren't any police around, you won't speed. You care too much about yourself and others and animals to risk a few moments of recklessness.

I must say, I agree with this assessment.

Yes, that instance could very well be a made up thing. But the first I had ever seen it presented, and there's no reason to believe such things cannot and are not happening. Of the present instance, the last few posts just struck me as the direct following of a template script.


I'm just speculating here, but perhaps the reaction was to strong with the previous thread and by the initiation of this thread, I doubt she will bring up or address the topic for a long time. Hence, these side trips. The thinking, the goal was approached to fast.

Yes, I too have noticed a tendency to divert intense lines of debate into new threads. I just finished reading the "are the Feast Days and Sabbaths still Binding?" thread. I lost count of how many times this strategy was employed!