Posts
Many anti-Sabbatarians argue that we don't have to keep the Sabbath and dietary laws because the old covenant has passed away. Hebrews 8:13 says that the old covenant "is obsolete and growing old will soon disappear" (NRSV). And Hebrews 8:18-20 traces this covenant to God's revelation to Israel at Mount Sinai. So one anti-Sabbatarian argument runs like this:
Premise 1: The old covenant is now obsolete.
Premise 2: The old covenant was made at Sinai, when God gave his Torah to Israel.
Premise 3: This Torah is now obsolete because the old covenant has passed away.
Premise 4: The Torah contained the Sabbath and dietary laws.
Conclusion: The Sabbath and dietary laws are now obsolete, since they were part of the old covenant at Sinai, which has passed away.
Sabbatarians respond that many of these laws existed before the old covenant at Sinai, so the dissolution of the old covenant does not imply their abolition. As Ron Dart (of the Armstrongite tradition) has asked, "How can the passing away of the old covenant destroy what the old covenant did not create in the first place" (my paraphrase)? And Seventh-Day Adventists have argued that the Sabbath and dietary laws pre-dated Sinai, so they are binding on Christians today. For SDA's, the laws made at Sinai (e.g., the annual holy days, the Levitical priesthood) presumably are not obligatory, since they were God's "ceremonial law" for Israel, not all humanity. But the pre-Sinaitic laws are for all people.
Adventists apply this reasoning to the dietary laws of Leviticus 11. In Genesis 7:2, God says to Noah, "Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and its mate; and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and its mate[.]" According to many Sabbatarians, this shows that the distinction between clean and unclean meats pre-dated Mount Sinai. Therefore, in their minds, it represents God's will for all of humanity, and it is binding on Christians today.
I can somewhat understand why Sabbatarians contend that pre-Sinaitic laws are authoritative. In Mark 10:6-9, Jesus appeals to God's law at creation to argue that divorce is not an option. He basically dismisses the law of Moses on the topic, claiming that it only allowed divorce because of the Israelites' hardness of heart (v 5). But he sees something authoritative in God's commandment at creation. And Paul upholds Jesus' ruling (I Corinthians 7:10).
But where the pre-Sinaitic argument falls short is here: there is at least one pre-Sinaitic institutions that Christians don't have to do: animal sacrifices. Noah had to take seven clean animals onto the ark for sacrifices (Genesis 8:20), a practice that goes back to Cain and Abel (Genesis 4). Yet, Hebrews 9-10 is clear that Christians don't have to sacrifice animals.
And that applies to some other institutions that pre-dated Sinai. For example, Abraham had to be circumcised (Genesis 17). Yet, Acts 15 and Galatians state that Gentiles don't have to do this.
Colossians 2:16 says that the Jews' rules on eating and drinking were a shadow of things to come, yet their substance is Christ. Maybe God tried before his revelation at Sinai to foreshadow what Jesus would do. He was preparing people as early as Noah's day to discriminate between clean and unclean when they offered an animal to God. Today, however, Christians don't need to rely on such a physical ordinance, for our discrimination is primarily moral (Matthew 7:18-23). Plus, Christ has been offered on our behalf, and he is definitely a "clean" sacrifice, morally speaking! Likewise, the Old Testament required Israelites to offer sacrifices that were without blemish, and the New Testament applies that to Christ's moral and spiritual perfection (Hebrews 9:14; I Peter 1:19). Can we interpret Noah's sacrifice of clean animals in a similar way: that they foreshadowed Christ's conformity to God's standards? Can we apply the distinction between clean and unclean in a spiritual sense, not necessarily literally?
Also, could it be that, prior to Sinai, God did certain things with Israel's election in mind? When God commanded Noah to distinguish between clean and unclean animals, he was telling him that God only eats animals that conform to a particular standard. But, later on, Israel would imitate God's diet when she rejected unclean foods in favor of what's kosher (Leviticus 11), the same way that she followed God's example by resting on the Sabbath day (Exodus 20:8-11; 31:17). The Gentiles didn't follow such dietary laws, for God told Noah that "[e]very moving thing that lives shall be food for you" (Genesis 9:3). But Israel was special--she was separate, or holy. Other nations could eat whatever they wanted (provided they slaughtered it properly), but Israel had to share God's dietary restrictions by limiting themselves to clean animals. It was a sign of her chosen status. And Leviticus 11 twice says, "[Y]ou shall be holy, for I am holy" (vv 44-45). Perhaps God planned his diet with Israel's later election in mind!
But those were the days when God relied on physical ordinances to make his point! He doesn't use animal sacrifices now that Jesus has come. Maybe the kosher laws also had a temporary purpose: to foreshadow Christ and to highlight Israel's election.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Sunday, August 17, 2008
The Saddleback Forum
I watched the Saddleback Forum last night, in which Pastor Rick Warren interviewed Barack Obama and John McCain. To be honest, it wasn't entirely what I expected. Rick Warren is an evangelical who normally focuses on issues like global warming and poverty, rather than the usual evangelical hot topics of abortion and gay marriage. Yet, a lot of Rick's questions focused on abortion and gay marriage. And the audience appeared rather conservative, as it applauded Obama and McCain for affirming that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Rick's questions started off with character. He referred to a biblical passage that says leaders seek out advice and wisdom. He asked the candidates to give an example of how they changed their minds as they grew in wisdom. He also told them to talk about one of their moral failings.
At first, this part took me aback. I'm so used to voting for leaders based on their political stances, that I rarely consider what kind of people they are. I can vote for absolute scum, provided that they tow the conservative line on the issues. When Bill Clinton ran for President in 1992, and George H.W. Bush was making "character" an issue, I didn't take him all that seriously, since there are prominent Republicans who have extra-marital affairs. But the Bible doesn't just want leaders who take righteous political positions. It wants leaders who are righteous people, who seek after wisdom and advice.
As I read more and more about the current President, I see that there were a number of areas in which he did not do this. He just went with his gut feeling, which he possibly interpreted as God's direct guidance. I'm not saying the White House should be like it was in the 90's, with its continuous bull sessions that accomplished little. But the Bible emphasizes listening to advisors, especially those with age and experience.
This part of the forum was where the candidates got to be authentic. Sure, Obama was referring to Rick's Purpose Driven Life when he said "It's not all about you." But I thought he spoke from the heart when he said that, in his youth, he assumed his personal satisfaction was the most important thing in life. And that's the Obama he discusses in Dreams of My Father, whom conservatives like to point out to us: the one who was unhappy and defensive. But that selfishness hopefully lessens with maturity. I'm still waiting to reach this point myself, to be honest!
McCain said that his greatest moral failure was his divorce from his first wife. I think that McCain spoke from the heart, since no one likes to fail in marriage. But he also helped himself politically. Often, politics grades our leaders according to a standard of perfection, and it plays a game of "Gotcha!" over every mistake they've ever made. But McCain showed us he was human, and that he's not particularly happy about all of the choices he's made in life. He didn't blow his mistakes off with "I'm not perfect," as Newt Gingrich seemed to do when James Dobson inquired about his past infidelities. Nor did he beat himself up. He simply acknowledged that he should have been a better person in his first marriage, but he wasn't.
When the questions turned to faith, I thought some of the answers were pretty contrived. Obama said being a Christian means accepting Christ as his personal Savior, and that this helps him to get through life. He sounded like he was reading a script, especially considering that he doesn't mention the cross all that much when he discusses his faith in Audacity of Hope (see Obama on Faith). Rather, in his book, he said he became a Christian to ground himself in a story, and also because he liked the African-American church's emphasis on social justice and the church being a hospital for sinners. In his interaction with Rick Warren, Obama affirmed his hope that Jesus will wash his sins away. But a lot of evangelicals say that Jesus already has washed believers' sins away, after they accepted him as their Savior. Did Obama recognize this nuance? Or does he embrace a Christianity that affirms the need for continual cleansing and forgiveness? I don't know. This whole part struck me as rather inauthentic.
McCain also gave the obligatory answer to Warren's question of "What is a Christian?" His replied that it means he's been forgiven, but he didn't seem all that authentic when he said that. Overall, he didn't refer much to Christ or the Bible in the course of the interview. He did tell some heart-warming anecdotes--about choosing to stay in the POW camp so that another soldier could leave, about one of his Vietnamese captors drawing a cross in the ground, and about his adoption of a little girl from Bangladesh. He struck me as a solid man of character and conviction: as someone who believes in America and in service to others. But is he overly religious? I didn't get that impression. He probably sees religion as a good thing--as a vital part of America's fabric. And he most likely believes in God. But I'm not sure if he's committed to Christianity, per se. At the same time, I can't judge, since I don't see his heart.
The part on political issues was okay. Obama said that abortions haven't gone down under President Bush, which Fox News reported to be inaccurate, based on the Alan Guttmacher Institute's statistics. I heartily applauded when McCain acknowledged the importance of home and charter schools, in a time when California has cracked down on the right of parents to teach their children at home. I hope he's sincere on this, and isn't just throwing red meat to the base.
Obama and McCain also gave different answers on whether evil exists. Obama responded that it did, but that we need to be humble as we confront it, lest we do evil ourselves. And McCain essentially equated evil with Islamic fascism. Obama's answer struck me as more thoughtful, even though he should've been specific. I have problems limiting the label of "evil" to America's enemies, since I'm sure that our greed has hurt people in the past. At the same time, McCain did well to tell a story about Muslim extremists who strapped bombs onto ladies with mental retardation, then proceeded to blow them up. "If that's not evil, then I don't know what is," he said. And he's right.
The event started out intriguing, then it became predictable, with a few interesting parts thrown into the mix. At least it gave me a chance to do a political write-up!
Rick's questions started off with character. He referred to a biblical passage that says leaders seek out advice and wisdom. He asked the candidates to give an example of how they changed their minds as they grew in wisdom. He also told them to talk about one of their moral failings.
At first, this part took me aback. I'm so used to voting for leaders based on their political stances, that I rarely consider what kind of people they are. I can vote for absolute scum, provided that they tow the conservative line on the issues. When Bill Clinton ran for President in 1992, and George H.W. Bush was making "character" an issue, I didn't take him all that seriously, since there are prominent Republicans who have extra-marital affairs. But the Bible doesn't just want leaders who take righteous political positions. It wants leaders who are righteous people, who seek after wisdom and advice.
As I read more and more about the current President, I see that there were a number of areas in which he did not do this. He just went with his gut feeling, which he possibly interpreted as God's direct guidance. I'm not saying the White House should be like it was in the 90's, with its continuous bull sessions that accomplished little. But the Bible emphasizes listening to advisors, especially those with age and experience.
This part of the forum was where the candidates got to be authentic. Sure, Obama was referring to Rick's Purpose Driven Life when he said "It's not all about you." But I thought he spoke from the heart when he said that, in his youth, he assumed his personal satisfaction was the most important thing in life. And that's the Obama he discusses in Dreams of My Father, whom conservatives like to point out to us: the one who was unhappy and defensive. But that selfishness hopefully lessens with maturity. I'm still waiting to reach this point myself, to be honest!
McCain said that his greatest moral failure was his divorce from his first wife. I think that McCain spoke from the heart, since no one likes to fail in marriage. But he also helped himself politically. Often, politics grades our leaders according to a standard of perfection, and it plays a game of "Gotcha!" over every mistake they've ever made. But McCain showed us he was human, and that he's not particularly happy about all of the choices he's made in life. He didn't blow his mistakes off with "I'm not perfect," as Newt Gingrich seemed to do when James Dobson inquired about his past infidelities. Nor did he beat himself up. He simply acknowledged that he should have been a better person in his first marriage, but he wasn't.
When the questions turned to faith, I thought some of the answers were pretty contrived. Obama said being a Christian means accepting Christ as his personal Savior, and that this helps him to get through life. He sounded like he was reading a script, especially considering that he doesn't mention the cross all that much when he discusses his faith in Audacity of Hope (see Obama on Faith). Rather, in his book, he said he became a Christian to ground himself in a story, and also because he liked the African-American church's emphasis on social justice and the church being a hospital for sinners. In his interaction with Rick Warren, Obama affirmed his hope that Jesus will wash his sins away. But a lot of evangelicals say that Jesus already has washed believers' sins away, after they accepted him as their Savior. Did Obama recognize this nuance? Or does he embrace a Christianity that affirms the need for continual cleansing and forgiveness? I don't know. This whole part struck me as rather inauthentic.
McCain also gave the obligatory answer to Warren's question of "What is a Christian?" His replied that it means he's been forgiven, but he didn't seem all that authentic when he said that. Overall, he didn't refer much to Christ or the Bible in the course of the interview. He did tell some heart-warming anecdotes--about choosing to stay in the POW camp so that another soldier could leave, about one of his Vietnamese captors drawing a cross in the ground, and about his adoption of a little girl from Bangladesh. He struck me as a solid man of character and conviction: as someone who believes in America and in service to others. But is he overly religious? I didn't get that impression. He probably sees religion as a good thing--as a vital part of America's fabric. And he most likely believes in God. But I'm not sure if he's committed to Christianity, per se. At the same time, I can't judge, since I don't see his heart.
The part on political issues was okay. Obama said that abortions haven't gone down under President Bush, which Fox News reported to be inaccurate, based on the Alan Guttmacher Institute's statistics. I heartily applauded when McCain acknowledged the importance of home and charter schools, in a time when California has cracked down on the right of parents to teach their children at home. I hope he's sincere on this, and isn't just throwing red meat to the base.
Obama and McCain also gave different answers on whether evil exists. Obama responded that it did, but that we need to be humble as we confront it, lest we do evil ourselves. And McCain essentially equated evil with Islamic fascism. Obama's answer struck me as more thoughtful, even though he should've been specific. I have problems limiting the label of "evil" to America's enemies, since I'm sure that our greed has hurt people in the past. At the same time, McCain did well to tell a story about Muslim extremists who strapped bombs onto ladies with mental retardation, then proceeded to blow them up. "If that's not evil, then I don't know what is," he said. And he's right.
The event started out intriguing, then it became predictable, with a few interesting parts thrown into the mix. At least it gave me a chance to do a political write-up!
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Why the Sabbath Blogs?
Over the past week, I've been blogging about Sabbatarianism, the notion that God commands Christians to observe the seventh-day Sabbath. Mostly, I've been critical of this doctrine. Why?
Is it because I'm against the Sabbath? Not really. I know that I called the Mosaic law a yoke of bondage in one of my posts, but that's not entirely how I feel. In the past, I've read anti-Sabbatarian literature that mentioned the "terrors of the Jewish Sabbath." To be frank, I don't see it that way at all. Many Jews like having a day to rest, contemplate, fellowship, and leave the world outside. It's gotten them through all sorts of misery over the years.
Also, I think that people like Des Ford and Samuele Bacchiocchi have offered some pretty decent arguments in favor of the Sabbath. Granted, their exegetical defenses are rather weak (in my humble opinion), but they do well to point out that human nature is consistent with resting one day in seven. That's why even non-Sabbatarians rest on weekends. And, as Des Ford has pointed out, people need rest and worship, and the Sabbath provides an opportunity for both.
I also have problems picking just any day of the week for my Sabbath. Sabbatarians often responded to the "I can rest any day of the week" argument by saying: "Okay, suppose we put seven women in front of you. Will you be with any one of them, or with your wife?" I never understood that argument. I mean, what exactly is it saying? That I'm married to the Sabbath? It just shows how much Sabbatarians idolize Saturday!
But I can somewhat see its point. Monday doesn't mean anything to me. Neither does Tuesday. But Judaism and Christianity have held that Saturday commemorates important religious motifs: creation, the exodus, social justice, liberation, resting in Christ, the millennium, etc., etc. When I keep the Sabbath, I can rest with those things in mind.
Why can't I switch to Sunday and keep it as a Sabbath? For one, I'm not used to doing that, for I'm accustomed to resting on the Sabbath and starting my work week on Sunday. And second, to be honest, I have a hard time getting excited about Sunday's religious themes. There's something about creation, the exodus, and the millennium that really excites me. But I don't get all that enthused about a dead person coming back to life. I know that sounds horrible, since the resurrection of Christ is a crucial Christian doctrine, which relates to new creation, our justification, Christ's exaltation, our resurrection with Christ, the defeat of death and hostile spiritual powers, and a host of other concepts. But I find that I identify more with Jewish concepts than those that are distinctly Christian.
Maybe I don't get too excited about Sunday's themes because I was raised mostly on the Old Testament, with its stories, laws, and eschatological hopes. Some of my relatives say that I identify more with Jewish ideas because of my Jewish ancestry. That could be, but I've never really been drawn to Jewish modes of worship. They don't do much for me, probably because I don't understand what's going on. And I've attended orthodox, Reform, conservative, and Messianic services. I like reading about Judaism more than actually participating in it.
And here's another point: I'm more comfortable with the Sabbath than I am with Jesus. I know that anti-Sabbatarians say the Old Testament rituals are shadows of Christ, and we don't need them now that Christ has come. And I think that they can make a solid Scriptural case for that position. But the Sabbath is tangible: it's a concrete day that comes around, and I do specific things on it for my personal edification. Christ, however, is not. I can't see him or hear him directly. I don't even feel him most of the time.
Many people argue that they don't need the Sabbath because they find rest in Christ. Personally, I don't know what that means. Some are implying that they give Christ all of their troubles. I'd like to do that, but I find that I have to deal with my problems whether I give them to Christ or not. And I still get anxious, especially around people. Others interpret it to mean that they don't strive to earn their salvation, for they are resting in God's free grace. I have a hard time doing that because the New Testament isn't all about free grace. Faith needs to be accompanied by good works for a person to receive salvation, or to show that he has salvation, or whatever (Matthew 7:21; I John 3:14; James 2:14; etc.). The only belief system that offers complete assurance is universalism, which says everyone will be saved. And the Bible isn't exactly consistent with that view!
I kind of like the Armstrongite system of righteousness: you please God if you rest on the Sabbath, keep the holy days, tithe, and avoid pork. The evangelical system, however, involves reaching out to people and being a happy, happy extrovert, and I have problems with that. I prefer to pat myself on the back for picking pepperoni off my pizza!
Rituals help me out. They are reminders. Resting in Christ is too abstract for me. Not working on the Sabbath is concrete. But I'll get more into that in another post, in which I'll discuss the religious value of ceremonies.
I'm not sure if my posts on Sabbatarianism have made a positive difference in people's lives. I mean, I wouldn't exactly get my jollies if someone read them and said, "Oh, I guess I don't have to rest on the Sabbath anymore." But writing them has helped me sort out what I believe about the Mosaic law. To be honest, I see truth and error in all sorts of positions! The Sabbatarian position was strong in that it pointed out New Testament affirmations of the law, but it ignored the fact that Gentiles were free from some regulations related to the Torah. And anti-Sabbatarians were wrong to claim that the law was "done away," for the New Testament cites the Torah as an authoritative source.
My position is not exactly original, but it preserves what's positive in both sides: the law of Moses remains in force and is binding on all people, but certain parts of it have been fulfilled in Christ. Believers don't have to do those parts literally, since they were shadows of things to come. And I conclude from Colossians 2:16 and Hebrews that these shadows include the dietary laws, the Sabbath, the holy days, the purification rituals, the sacrifices, and the Levitical priesthood.
If my posts accomplish anything positive, hopefully they will encourage Sabbatarians to cut others some slack. There's a reason that Sunday-keepers keep Sunday instead of the Sabbath, and it's not because they've never read Genesis 2 or Exodus 20. Also, I recall something an Adventist woman once said to me: "I think we're too interested in getting people to change their day of worship, and we're not concerned enough about helping them with their problems and needs." That's a problem I have with Sabbatarianism: people act like they're superior because they worship on a particular day. Aren't there more important things?
Is it because I'm against the Sabbath? Not really. I know that I called the Mosaic law a yoke of bondage in one of my posts, but that's not entirely how I feel. In the past, I've read anti-Sabbatarian literature that mentioned the "terrors of the Jewish Sabbath." To be frank, I don't see it that way at all. Many Jews like having a day to rest, contemplate, fellowship, and leave the world outside. It's gotten them through all sorts of misery over the years.
Also, I think that people like Des Ford and Samuele Bacchiocchi have offered some pretty decent arguments in favor of the Sabbath. Granted, their exegetical defenses are rather weak (in my humble opinion), but they do well to point out that human nature is consistent with resting one day in seven. That's why even non-Sabbatarians rest on weekends. And, as Des Ford has pointed out, people need rest and worship, and the Sabbath provides an opportunity for both.
I also have problems picking just any day of the week for my Sabbath. Sabbatarians often responded to the "I can rest any day of the week" argument by saying: "Okay, suppose we put seven women in front of you. Will you be with any one of them, or with your wife?" I never understood that argument. I mean, what exactly is it saying? That I'm married to the Sabbath? It just shows how much Sabbatarians idolize Saturday!
But I can somewhat see its point. Monday doesn't mean anything to me. Neither does Tuesday. But Judaism and Christianity have held that Saturday commemorates important religious motifs: creation, the exodus, social justice, liberation, resting in Christ, the millennium, etc., etc. When I keep the Sabbath, I can rest with those things in mind.
Why can't I switch to Sunday and keep it as a Sabbath? For one, I'm not used to doing that, for I'm accustomed to resting on the Sabbath and starting my work week on Sunday. And second, to be honest, I have a hard time getting excited about Sunday's religious themes. There's something about creation, the exodus, and the millennium that really excites me. But I don't get all that enthused about a dead person coming back to life. I know that sounds horrible, since the resurrection of Christ is a crucial Christian doctrine, which relates to new creation, our justification, Christ's exaltation, our resurrection with Christ, the defeat of death and hostile spiritual powers, and a host of other concepts. But I find that I identify more with Jewish concepts than those that are distinctly Christian.
Maybe I don't get too excited about Sunday's themes because I was raised mostly on the Old Testament, with its stories, laws, and eschatological hopes. Some of my relatives say that I identify more with Jewish ideas because of my Jewish ancestry. That could be, but I've never really been drawn to Jewish modes of worship. They don't do much for me, probably because I don't understand what's going on. And I've attended orthodox, Reform, conservative, and Messianic services. I like reading about Judaism more than actually participating in it.
And here's another point: I'm more comfortable with the Sabbath than I am with Jesus. I know that anti-Sabbatarians say the Old Testament rituals are shadows of Christ, and we don't need them now that Christ has come. And I think that they can make a solid Scriptural case for that position. But the Sabbath is tangible: it's a concrete day that comes around, and I do specific things on it for my personal edification. Christ, however, is not. I can't see him or hear him directly. I don't even feel him most of the time.
Many people argue that they don't need the Sabbath because they find rest in Christ. Personally, I don't know what that means. Some are implying that they give Christ all of their troubles. I'd like to do that, but I find that I have to deal with my problems whether I give them to Christ or not. And I still get anxious, especially around people. Others interpret it to mean that they don't strive to earn their salvation, for they are resting in God's free grace. I have a hard time doing that because the New Testament isn't all about free grace. Faith needs to be accompanied by good works for a person to receive salvation, or to show that he has salvation, or whatever (Matthew 7:21; I John 3:14; James 2:14; etc.). The only belief system that offers complete assurance is universalism, which says everyone will be saved. And the Bible isn't exactly consistent with that view!
I kind of like the Armstrongite system of righteousness: you please God if you rest on the Sabbath, keep the holy days, tithe, and avoid pork. The evangelical system, however, involves reaching out to people and being a happy, happy extrovert, and I have problems with that. I prefer to pat myself on the back for picking pepperoni off my pizza!
Rituals help me out. They are reminders. Resting in Christ is too abstract for me. Not working on the Sabbath is concrete. But I'll get more into that in another post, in which I'll discuss the religious value of ceremonies.
I'm not sure if my posts on Sabbatarianism have made a positive difference in people's lives. I mean, I wouldn't exactly get my jollies if someone read them and said, "Oh, I guess I don't have to rest on the Sabbath anymore." But writing them has helped me sort out what I believe about the Mosaic law. To be honest, I see truth and error in all sorts of positions! The Sabbatarian position was strong in that it pointed out New Testament affirmations of the law, but it ignored the fact that Gentiles were free from some regulations related to the Torah. And anti-Sabbatarians were wrong to claim that the law was "done away," for the New Testament cites the Torah as an authoritative source.
My position is not exactly original, but it preserves what's positive in both sides: the law of Moses remains in force and is binding on all people, but certain parts of it have been fulfilled in Christ. Believers don't have to do those parts literally, since they were shadows of things to come. And I conclude from Colossians 2:16 and Hebrews that these shadows include the dietary laws, the Sabbath, the holy days, the purification rituals, the sacrifices, and the Levitical priesthood.
If my posts accomplish anything positive, hopefully they will encourage Sabbatarians to cut others some slack. There's a reason that Sunday-keepers keep Sunday instead of the Sabbath, and it's not because they've never read Genesis 2 or Exodus 20. Also, I recall something an Adventist woman once said to me: "I think we're too interested in getting people to change their day of worship, and we're not concerned enough about helping them with their problems and needs." That's a problem I have with Sabbatarianism: people act like they're superior because they worship on a particular day. Aren't there more important things?
Friday, August 15, 2008
Eschatological Sabbath: The Literal Interpretation
Isaiah 66:23 predicts that, in the new heavens and the new earth, all flesh will worship God on the Sabbath. Sabbatarians appeal to this passage to argue that the Sabbath is an eternal (not a temporary) institution. According to the context of Isaiah 66, this event will occur after Israel's restoration to her land, which will be followed by a time of paradise. Other passages indicate that the Levitical priesthood, a physical sanctuary, animal sacrifices, and the Feast of Tabernacles will also be in effect at this time (Jeremiah 33:18-22; Ezekiel 43:20, 26; 45:15, 17, 20, 22; Zechariah 14:16-19).
This set-up seems to conflict with certain New Testament passages, which treat the Levitical priesthood and animal sacrifices as temporary shadows of Christ (e.g., Hebrews 7-10). As we saw in Eschatological Sabbath: The Spiritual Interpretation, there are many Christians who interpret those Old Testament texts spiritually, not literally. That's their solution to this whole dilemma!
But there are other Christians who maintain that the texts will have a literal fulfillment. They're called dispensationalists, and they believe that Christ will return to earth as Israel's Messiah, rule for a millennium, and set up a new temple with real-life animal sacrifices, some of them for atonement (Ezekiel 43; 45). How do they reconcile this belief with the Christian idea that Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice for sin, thereby rendering animal sacrifices unnecessary?
Many dispensationalists maintain that the millennial sacrifices will be commemorative, not effective for atonement. For them, they'll celebrate the fact that Christ died for people's sins, but they won't have atoning power in themselves. When someone points out to them the verses in Ezekiel 43 and 45 that claim the sacrifices indeed will make atonement, they have a come-back. They argue that Leviticus 4 and II Chronicles 29:23-24 also say that Israel's sin offerings atoned for sins, yet we know from Hebrews 10:4 that such was not the case. In same way that the sin offerings before Christ's coming were said to atone for sin but did not really do so, they contend, the future sacrifices of Ezekiel's temple will be "for atonement," even though they'll lack inherent atoning power. One dispensationalist lady called this "commemorative atonement." Clear as mud?
Other dispensationalists say that the millennial sin offerings will take care of sin, at least on a temporary basis. For them, the sacrifices will sweep people's sins under the rug in order to appease a just God, but they won't be totally effective, since they'll have to be offered more than once (see Hebrews 10:1-4). In this view, the sin offerings aren't as powerful as the sacrifice of Christ, but they do have some atoning value.
In any case, dispensationists think that the Old Testament law will be in force in the millennium. I once visited a Bible study at a Sunday-keeping church, and a meek little woman was asking about the Sabbath. "Why don't we keep Saturday?," she asked. "It's part of God's law! 'Remember the Sabbath day' is in the ten commandments." One of the other members (a know-it-all when it came to the Bible) had an answer: "Right now, we're under grace. When Christ comes back, we'll be back under the law again." I thought that sounded pretty absurd at the time, but I realize now what he was trying to do. He had to reconcile the different parts of Scripture in some way, and his approach was a good-faith effort.
Interestingly, Armstrongites embrace a dispensationalist approach in parts of their eschatology. They believe that Jesus Christ will return to earth and rule for a thousand years. I've heard Ron Dart interpret Ezekiel's temple in a literal sense. Sometimes, he acts like we'll have animal sacrifices because the law is still binding--all of it. I vaguely recall him saying that a big reason we don't do animal sacrifices right now is that there isn't a temple in Jerusalem, the only place one can legally offer them. (But this is from my fallible memory.)
At other times, however, Dart treats the millennial sacrifices as pedagogical, in that they will serve to teach people about God. And what better way is there to instruct people about Christ's sacrifice than to slaughter an animal right before their eyes? As Dart said in a sermon, that graphically conveyed to a person the severity of his sin! It screamed, "This animal should have been you, but, fortunately, you've got a substitute!"
I have a hard time with what that one Sunday-keeper said: Now, we're under grace, but we'll go back to being under the law once Christ returns. That presents God as so arbitrary! "Oh, you're in this category, but I'll move you here, and then I'll put you back into your original category when I so desire." Why would God herd people like rabbits?
So there has to be a reason that God will put people under the law in the millennium (assuming we should go with a literal interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies). And I think that the pedagogical explanation is pretty good.
In the millennium and hereafter, God will be teaching people who do not know him: both Jews and Gentiles (Isaiah 2:3; 30:20). To do that, he'll have to give them structure, which Sabbaths, holy days, and animal sacrifices provide. People are visual creatures. They need rituals to hold on to. They benefit from things they can do and see. The way the Old Testament presents the Egyptians, for example, they assumed that the Nile was their creation (Ezekiel 29:3). God can tell them that it's not, but what will that accomplish? It's better to show them--to give them a ritual in which they can concretely acknowledge God's provision for them. And what better way is there to do that than to make them keep the Feast of Tabernacles, a water festival, while depriving them of the Nile if they did not do so (Zechariah 14:16-19)?
Eventually, however, one needs to graduate to the next level. People can learn basic concepts about Jesus from the Sabbaths, the holy days, and the animal sacrifices, but they eventually need to focus on Christ instead of the rituals that point to him. As the KJV of Galatians 3:24-25 puts it: "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." In the same way that the Torah prepared Israel for faith in Christ, so also will the millennial Sabbaths, festivals, and sacrifices do this for people who don't know God. But they're temporary institutions in this scenario (or possibly they are), with a specific objective for their existence.
But I have questions even about this scenario. For example, why didn't the Gentiles in New Testament times have to obey the laws regarding the Sabbath, holy days, and animal sacrifices? They didn't know much about God when they became Christians, did they? Why were they able to bypass the schoolmaster as they went on to spiritual maturity?
Maybe the answer is that they already knew things about God before their conversions, since there were Jews in the Diaspora who could teach them. Perhaps, but isn't our culture saturated with the Bible? Even non-believers know things about it! If Christ's coming is soon, why would they need to go through a millennial elementary school in order to learn the basics of Christianity? But what's true now may not always be the case. Perhaps the time before the Second Advent will be one of gross spiritual ignorance, so people will need to learn the basics during Christ's millennial reign.
It's something to think about!
This set-up seems to conflict with certain New Testament passages, which treat the Levitical priesthood and animal sacrifices as temporary shadows of Christ (e.g., Hebrews 7-10). As we saw in Eschatological Sabbath: The Spiritual Interpretation, there are many Christians who interpret those Old Testament texts spiritually, not literally. That's their solution to this whole dilemma!
But there are other Christians who maintain that the texts will have a literal fulfillment. They're called dispensationalists, and they believe that Christ will return to earth as Israel's Messiah, rule for a millennium, and set up a new temple with real-life animal sacrifices, some of them for atonement (Ezekiel 43; 45). How do they reconcile this belief with the Christian idea that Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice for sin, thereby rendering animal sacrifices unnecessary?
Many dispensationalists maintain that the millennial sacrifices will be commemorative, not effective for atonement. For them, they'll celebrate the fact that Christ died for people's sins, but they won't have atoning power in themselves. When someone points out to them the verses in Ezekiel 43 and 45 that claim the sacrifices indeed will make atonement, they have a come-back. They argue that Leviticus 4 and II Chronicles 29:23-24 also say that Israel's sin offerings atoned for sins, yet we know from Hebrews 10:4 that such was not the case. In same way that the sin offerings before Christ's coming were said to atone for sin but did not really do so, they contend, the future sacrifices of Ezekiel's temple will be "for atonement," even though they'll lack inherent atoning power. One dispensationalist lady called this "commemorative atonement." Clear as mud?
Other dispensationalists say that the millennial sin offerings will take care of sin, at least on a temporary basis. For them, the sacrifices will sweep people's sins under the rug in order to appease a just God, but they won't be totally effective, since they'll have to be offered more than once (see Hebrews 10:1-4). In this view, the sin offerings aren't as powerful as the sacrifice of Christ, but they do have some atoning value.
In any case, dispensationists think that the Old Testament law will be in force in the millennium. I once visited a Bible study at a Sunday-keeping church, and a meek little woman was asking about the Sabbath. "Why don't we keep Saturday?," she asked. "It's part of God's law! 'Remember the Sabbath day' is in the ten commandments." One of the other members (a know-it-all when it came to the Bible) had an answer: "Right now, we're under grace. When Christ comes back, we'll be back under the law again." I thought that sounded pretty absurd at the time, but I realize now what he was trying to do. He had to reconcile the different parts of Scripture in some way, and his approach was a good-faith effort.
Interestingly, Armstrongites embrace a dispensationalist approach in parts of their eschatology. They believe that Jesus Christ will return to earth and rule for a thousand years. I've heard Ron Dart interpret Ezekiel's temple in a literal sense. Sometimes, he acts like we'll have animal sacrifices because the law is still binding--all of it. I vaguely recall him saying that a big reason we don't do animal sacrifices right now is that there isn't a temple in Jerusalem, the only place one can legally offer them. (But this is from my fallible memory.)
At other times, however, Dart treats the millennial sacrifices as pedagogical, in that they will serve to teach people about God. And what better way is there to instruct people about Christ's sacrifice than to slaughter an animal right before their eyes? As Dart said in a sermon, that graphically conveyed to a person the severity of his sin! It screamed, "This animal should have been you, but, fortunately, you've got a substitute!"
I have a hard time with what that one Sunday-keeper said: Now, we're under grace, but we'll go back to being under the law once Christ returns. That presents God as so arbitrary! "Oh, you're in this category, but I'll move you here, and then I'll put you back into your original category when I so desire." Why would God herd people like rabbits?
So there has to be a reason that God will put people under the law in the millennium (assuming we should go with a literal interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies). And I think that the pedagogical explanation is pretty good.
In the millennium and hereafter, God will be teaching people who do not know him: both Jews and Gentiles (Isaiah 2:3; 30:20). To do that, he'll have to give them structure, which Sabbaths, holy days, and animal sacrifices provide. People are visual creatures. They need rituals to hold on to. They benefit from things they can do and see. The way the Old Testament presents the Egyptians, for example, they assumed that the Nile was their creation (Ezekiel 29:3). God can tell them that it's not, but what will that accomplish? It's better to show them--to give them a ritual in which they can concretely acknowledge God's provision for them. And what better way is there to do that than to make them keep the Feast of Tabernacles, a water festival, while depriving them of the Nile if they did not do so (Zechariah 14:16-19)?
Eventually, however, one needs to graduate to the next level. People can learn basic concepts about Jesus from the Sabbaths, the holy days, and the animal sacrifices, but they eventually need to focus on Christ instead of the rituals that point to him. As the KJV of Galatians 3:24-25 puts it: "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." In the same way that the Torah prepared Israel for faith in Christ, so also will the millennial Sabbaths, festivals, and sacrifices do this for people who don't know God. But they're temporary institutions in this scenario (or possibly they are), with a specific objective for their existence.
But I have questions even about this scenario. For example, why didn't the Gentiles in New Testament times have to obey the laws regarding the Sabbath, holy days, and animal sacrifices? They didn't know much about God when they became Christians, did they? Why were they able to bypass the schoolmaster as they went on to spiritual maturity?
Maybe the answer is that they already knew things about God before their conversions, since there were Jews in the Diaspora who could teach them. Perhaps, but isn't our culture saturated with the Bible? Even non-believers know things about it! If Christ's coming is soon, why would they need to go through a millennial elementary school in order to learn the basics of Christianity? But what's true now may not always be the case. Perhaps the time before the Second Advent will be one of gross spiritual ignorance, so people will need to learn the basics during Christ's millennial reign.
It's something to think about!
Eschatological Sabbath: The Spiritual Interpretation
In Isaiah 66:22-24, we read about the Sabbath in the new heavens and the new earth. It states:
"For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, says the LORD; so shall your descendants and your name remain. From new moon to new moon, and from sabbath to sabbath, all flesh shall come to worship before me, says the LORD. And they shall go out and look at the dead bodies of the people who have rebelled against me; for their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh" (NRSV).
For many Sabbatarians, this passage proves two things: (a.) that the Sabbath command is to be observed by both Jews and Gentiles, and (b.) that the Sabbath is an eternal institution, since it will exist in the new heavens and the new earth. As one Seventh-Day Adventist pastor said, "You better get used to keeping the Sabbath, since you'll be doing that when you get to heaven!"
My problem with this statement is that it disregards the context of the passage. Isaiah 66:22-24 is not about what Christians will be doing in heaven; rather, it concerns God's restoration of Israel from exile. This is made clear in v 20: "[The Gentiles] shall bring all your kindred from all the nations as an offering to the LORD, on horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and on mules, and on dromedaries, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, says the LORD, just as the Israelites bring a grain offering in a clean vessel to the house of the LORD." According to Isaiah 66, God will restore Israel from her exile in Gentile lands, after which everyone--Jews and their Gentile captors--will worship God on the Sabbath and new moons.
Surprisingly, Adventist scholar Samuele Bacchiocchi acknowledges this point, for he states:
"It is important to note that Isaiah speaks of 'the new heavens and the new earth' in the context of the restoration of Jerusalem and the regathering of the Jews 'from all the nations . . . to my holy mountain Jerusalem' (Is 66:20). This means that the description of all flesh coming to worship 'from new moon to new moon and from sabbath to sabbath' refers first of all to the hoped-for political restoration of Jerusalem and its religious services, and second, to the End-time restoration of this earth, of which the former was a type" (see here).
For Bacchiocchi, Isaiah 66 has a two-fold application: first, to the historical restoration of Jerusalem (presumably in the sixth century B.C.E.), and second, to the new heavens and new earth of the future. We'll see that Bacchiocchi's approach is not entirely consistent, but at least he's faithful to the literal context of Isaiah 66 (unlike a lot of Adventists)!
When I was living in New York, I often listened to Harold Camping's radio program, "Open Forum." Harold Camping is a Protestant preacher who is critical of Sabbatarianism. There was one incident in which he decided to ban Seventh-Day Adventists from calling his show. He was so fed up with them! But I wasn't trying to argue with him or convert him to the Sabbath: I just wanted to see how he addressed certain texts. And I heard some pretty creative interpretations out of his mouth, let me tell you!
I asked Brother Camping how he interpreted Isaiah 66:23, and he answered that the Sabbath there is spiritual, not literal. Hebrews 4:1-11 describes the rest that believers have in Christ, after all, and that will exist in the new heavens and the new earth. Consequently, as far as Camping was concerned, Isaiah 66:23 doesn't mean that people will literally honor Saturday after Christ comes back.
Camping's approach may not be far-fetched, for the New Testament itself does not always interpret the prophets in a literal, contextual manner. For example, in John 7:37-39, we read: "On the last day of the festival, the great day, while Jesus was standing there, he cried out, 'Let anyone who is thirsty come to me, and let the one who believes in me drink. As the scripture has said, 'Out of the believer's heart shall flow rivers of living water.' Now he said this about the Spirit, which believers in him were to receive; for as yet there was no Spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified."
Where did Jesus get the Scripture about living water flowing from the believer's heart? There are a few possibilities. According to Zechariah 14:8, after God's restoration of Israel, "living waters shall flow out from Jerusalem, half of them to the eastern sea and half of them to the western sea; it shall continue in summer as in winter." Similarly, Ezekiel 47:1-11 describes a river of living water flowing from a new, eschatological temple. Is Jesus equating the believer with the temple in Jerusalem, as Paul seems to do when he calls Christians the temple of God (I Corinthians 3:16-17; 6:19)? Could be. One thing we can see, though, is that Jesus isn't treating Zechariah 14:8 and Ezekiel 47:1-11 as literal. In John 7:37-39, his hermeneutic is spiritual and symbolic.
Now we come to my problem with Adventists. Let me go through this step-by-step. The Old Testament predicts that a lot of Jewish rituals will be observed after Israel's eschatological restoration. The Levitical priesthood and animal sacrifices will be reconstituted (Jeremiah 33:18-22), including offerings for atonement (Ezekiel 43:20, 26; 45:15, 17, 20). You know that prince in Ezekiel's temple whom some say is Jesus? Well, he'll "provide for himself and all the people of the land a young bull for a sin offering" (Ezekiel 45:22). Does a sinless person like Jesus need to offer an animal for his own sins? In Zechariah 14:16-19, we read that Gentiles will make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles.
Adventists and a lot of other Christians really struggle with these passages. Hebrews, after all, says that the Levitical priesthood and sacrifices are now null and void, since Christ has atoned for sin (Hebrews 7-10). Although Bacchiocchi keeps the annual holy days, many Adventists hold that Colossians 2:16 abolishes them (see here). Yet, the Old Testament prophesies that people will obey these laws after Israel's future restoration. How do Adventists deal with this dilemma?
There are at least two approaches that they take:
1. Some say that the prophecies were conditional on Israel's obedience to God. Because Israel sinned, however, the prophecies are now null-and-void. Adventist Tim Crosby states:
"Conditionalism helps us to understand why many of the prophecies of the Old Testament, such as the description of the new Temple in the last nine chapters of Ezekiel, were never literally fulfilled. Some prophecies will never be literally fulfilled on earth because their fulfillment was conditional upon the Jews' remaining faithful in their covenant relationship with God. The promise that Israel would inherit the land of Canaan was clearly conditional on their obedience (Deut. 4:25-31; 11:13-17,22-28; 28:1-68; 29:22-30:10; 30:15-20; 31:16-29; Jeremiah 7; 17:24-27)" (see here).
In this view, God will not restore animal sacrifices and the Levitical priesthood in the future, for God was only saying that he would have done that had Israel gotten her act together! But she didn't.
2. Then there are Adventists who don't think we should interpret the Old Testament prophecies literally. Here is what Bacchiocchi says in his critique of dispensationalism, which embraces a literal interpretation of the Old Testament:
"On the basis of the principle of consistent literalism, Old Testament prophecies regarding the restoration of Israel, the rebuilding of the temple, and the reinstitution of animal sacrifices must be fulfilled in a literal way to the Jewish nation in Palestine during the 'terminal generation' which began in 1948, and especially during the last seven-year countdown...My study shows that the principle of consistent literalism fails adequately to interpret Biblical prophecy because it ignores the progressive nature of God’s revelation; it disregards the Messianic and expanding fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies; and it contradicts itself through its inconsistent interpretation of Biblical prophecies" (see here).
Here, Bacchiocchi is anti-literal in his approach to the Bible, for he doesn't believe we should expect a real physical temple with real animal sacrifices in the millennium (Christ's thousand year reign after his return). But didn't we see above that Bacchiocchi interprets Isaiah 66 in reference to Israel's political restoration? Isn't that a literal hermeneutic? Even in that article, he doesn't stick with a literalist method. He denies that Isaiah 66 means people will literally observe new moons in the new heavens and the new earth, even though that's what the passage explicitly says. For him, the passage was just saying that to convey that Israel will find stability, or to describe what would happen in the sixth century B.C.E. rather than after the last days (here).
Bacchiocchi seems to treat the new moons the same way that many Protestants address the animal sacrifices in Ezekiel: God was trying to communicate a spiritual message to Israel, and he did that by referring to concepts that they understood, such as a temple building, animal sacrifices, etc. In this scenario, when God talked about animal sacrifices in a new temple, he really meant that Christ would atone for sin, not that there'd be literal animal sacrifices in a physical building. God just had to use that kind of language to get his point across!
My problem with the Adventist approach is that it's inconsistent. For View #1 (conditionalism), if Ezekiel's prophecy about a restored temple was conditional on Israel's obedience, then why isn't Isaiah 66's vision about Gentiles keeping the Sabbath likewise conditional? They're the same kind of prophecy, for both discuss Israel's restoration from exile. For View #2, if we're supposed to interpret Ezekiel's new temple and the new moons symbolically, then why shouldn't we do the same with the Sabbath in Isaiah 66? Why is Harold Camping wrong to view the Sabbath in that chapter as spiritual and symbolic, rather than literal? That's the way Adventists treat other aspects of Israel's eschatological restoration (e.g., animal sacrifices, a new temple, a restored Levitical priesthood, the restoration itself).
In a coming post, I'll interact with dispensationalist approaches, which are more literal in their interpretation of Scripture. Interestingly, while Armstrongites are not dispensationalist, their treatment of Old Testament prophecies is similar to that method.
Stay tuned!
"For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, says the LORD; so shall your descendants and your name remain. From new moon to new moon, and from sabbath to sabbath, all flesh shall come to worship before me, says the LORD. And they shall go out and look at the dead bodies of the people who have rebelled against me; for their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh" (NRSV).
For many Sabbatarians, this passage proves two things: (a.) that the Sabbath command is to be observed by both Jews and Gentiles, and (b.) that the Sabbath is an eternal institution, since it will exist in the new heavens and the new earth. As one Seventh-Day Adventist pastor said, "You better get used to keeping the Sabbath, since you'll be doing that when you get to heaven!"
My problem with this statement is that it disregards the context of the passage. Isaiah 66:22-24 is not about what Christians will be doing in heaven; rather, it concerns God's restoration of Israel from exile. This is made clear in v 20: "[The Gentiles] shall bring all your kindred from all the nations as an offering to the LORD, on horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and on mules, and on dromedaries, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, says the LORD, just as the Israelites bring a grain offering in a clean vessel to the house of the LORD." According to Isaiah 66, God will restore Israel from her exile in Gentile lands, after which everyone--Jews and their Gentile captors--will worship God on the Sabbath and new moons.
Surprisingly, Adventist scholar Samuele Bacchiocchi acknowledges this point, for he states:
"It is important to note that Isaiah speaks of 'the new heavens and the new earth' in the context of the restoration of Jerusalem and the regathering of the Jews 'from all the nations . . . to my holy mountain Jerusalem' (Is 66:20). This means that the description of all flesh coming to worship 'from new moon to new moon and from sabbath to sabbath' refers first of all to the hoped-for political restoration of Jerusalem and its religious services, and second, to the End-time restoration of this earth, of which the former was a type" (see here).
For Bacchiocchi, Isaiah 66 has a two-fold application: first, to the historical restoration of Jerusalem (presumably in the sixth century B.C.E.), and second, to the new heavens and new earth of the future. We'll see that Bacchiocchi's approach is not entirely consistent, but at least he's faithful to the literal context of Isaiah 66 (unlike a lot of Adventists)!
When I was living in New York, I often listened to Harold Camping's radio program, "Open Forum." Harold Camping is a Protestant preacher who is critical of Sabbatarianism. There was one incident in which he decided to ban Seventh-Day Adventists from calling his show. He was so fed up with them! But I wasn't trying to argue with him or convert him to the Sabbath: I just wanted to see how he addressed certain texts. And I heard some pretty creative interpretations out of his mouth, let me tell you!
I asked Brother Camping how he interpreted Isaiah 66:23, and he answered that the Sabbath there is spiritual, not literal. Hebrews 4:1-11 describes the rest that believers have in Christ, after all, and that will exist in the new heavens and the new earth. Consequently, as far as Camping was concerned, Isaiah 66:23 doesn't mean that people will literally honor Saturday after Christ comes back.
Camping's approach may not be far-fetched, for the New Testament itself does not always interpret the prophets in a literal, contextual manner. For example, in John 7:37-39, we read: "On the last day of the festival, the great day, while Jesus was standing there, he cried out, 'Let anyone who is thirsty come to me, and let the one who believes in me drink. As the scripture has said, 'Out of the believer's heart shall flow rivers of living water.' Now he said this about the Spirit, which believers in him were to receive; for as yet there was no Spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified."
Where did Jesus get the Scripture about living water flowing from the believer's heart? There are a few possibilities. According to Zechariah 14:8, after God's restoration of Israel, "living waters shall flow out from Jerusalem, half of them to the eastern sea and half of them to the western sea; it shall continue in summer as in winter." Similarly, Ezekiel 47:1-11 describes a river of living water flowing from a new, eschatological temple. Is Jesus equating the believer with the temple in Jerusalem, as Paul seems to do when he calls Christians the temple of God (I Corinthians 3:16-17; 6:19)? Could be. One thing we can see, though, is that Jesus isn't treating Zechariah 14:8 and Ezekiel 47:1-11 as literal. In John 7:37-39, his hermeneutic is spiritual and symbolic.
Now we come to my problem with Adventists. Let me go through this step-by-step. The Old Testament predicts that a lot of Jewish rituals will be observed after Israel's eschatological restoration. The Levitical priesthood and animal sacrifices will be reconstituted (Jeremiah 33:18-22), including offerings for atonement (Ezekiel 43:20, 26; 45:15, 17, 20). You know that prince in Ezekiel's temple whom some say is Jesus? Well, he'll "provide for himself and all the people of the land a young bull for a sin offering" (Ezekiel 45:22). Does a sinless person like Jesus need to offer an animal for his own sins? In Zechariah 14:16-19, we read that Gentiles will make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles.
Adventists and a lot of other Christians really struggle with these passages. Hebrews, after all, says that the Levitical priesthood and sacrifices are now null and void, since Christ has atoned for sin (Hebrews 7-10). Although Bacchiocchi keeps the annual holy days, many Adventists hold that Colossians 2:16 abolishes them (see here). Yet, the Old Testament prophesies that people will obey these laws after Israel's future restoration. How do Adventists deal with this dilemma?
There are at least two approaches that they take:
1. Some say that the prophecies were conditional on Israel's obedience to God. Because Israel sinned, however, the prophecies are now null-and-void. Adventist Tim Crosby states:
"Conditionalism helps us to understand why many of the prophecies of the Old Testament, such as the description of the new Temple in the last nine chapters of Ezekiel, were never literally fulfilled. Some prophecies will never be literally fulfilled on earth because their fulfillment was conditional upon the Jews' remaining faithful in their covenant relationship with God. The promise that Israel would inherit the land of Canaan was clearly conditional on their obedience (Deut. 4:25-31; 11:13-17,22-28; 28:1-68; 29:22-30:10; 30:15-20; 31:16-29; Jeremiah 7; 17:24-27)" (see here).
In this view, God will not restore animal sacrifices and the Levitical priesthood in the future, for God was only saying that he would have done that had Israel gotten her act together! But she didn't.
2. Then there are Adventists who don't think we should interpret the Old Testament prophecies literally. Here is what Bacchiocchi says in his critique of dispensationalism, which embraces a literal interpretation of the Old Testament:
"On the basis of the principle of consistent literalism, Old Testament prophecies regarding the restoration of Israel, the rebuilding of the temple, and the reinstitution of animal sacrifices must be fulfilled in a literal way to the Jewish nation in Palestine during the 'terminal generation' which began in 1948, and especially during the last seven-year countdown...My study shows that the principle of consistent literalism fails adequately to interpret Biblical prophecy because it ignores the progressive nature of God’s revelation; it disregards the Messianic and expanding fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies; and it contradicts itself through its inconsistent interpretation of Biblical prophecies" (see here).
Here, Bacchiocchi is anti-literal in his approach to the Bible, for he doesn't believe we should expect a real physical temple with real animal sacrifices in the millennium (Christ's thousand year reign after his return). But didn't we see above that Bacchiocchi interprets Isaiah 66 in reference to Israel's political restoration? Isn't that a literal hermeneutic? Even in that article, he doesn't stick with a literalist method. He denies that Isaiah 66 means people will literally observe new moons in the new heavens and the new earth, even though that's what the passage explicitly says. For him, the passage was just saying that to convey that Israel will find stability, or to describe what would happen in the sixth century B.C.E. rather than after the last days (here).
Bacchiocchi seems to treat the new moons the same way that many Protestants address the animal sacrifices in Ezekiel: God was trying to communicate a spiritual message to Israel, and he did that by referring to concepts that they understood, such as a temple building, animal sacrifices, etc. In this scenario, when God talked about animal sacrifices in a new temple, he really meant that Christ would atone for sin, not that there'd be literal animal sacrifices in a physical building. God just had to use that kind of language to get his point across!
My problem with the Adventist approach is that it's inconsistent. For View #1 (conditionalism), if Ezekiel's prophecy about a restored temple was conditional on Israel's obedience, then why isn't Isaiah 66's vision about Gentiles keeping the Sabbath likewise conditional? They're the same kind of prophecy, for both discuss Israel's restoration from exile. For View #2, if we're supposed to interpret Ezekiel's new temple and the new moons symbolically, then why shouldn't we do the same with the Sabbath in Isaiah 66? Why is Harold Camping wrong to view the Sabbath in that chapter as spiritual and symbolic, rather than literal? That's the way Adventists treat other aspects of Israel's eschatological restoration (e.g., animal sacrifices, a new temple, a restored Levitical priesthood, the restoration itself).
In a coming post, I'll interact with dispensationalist approaches, which are more literal in their interpretation of Scripture. Interestingly, while Armstrongites are not dispensationalist, their treatment of Old Testament prophecies is similar to that method.
Stay tuned!
The Next Few Posts
I want to update you all on what the next few posts will be about.
I'm going to continue my series on Sabbatarianism. One post will be on eschatological Sabbath-keeping, and it will deal with Isaiah 66, which presents Gentiles keeping the Sabbath in the new heaven and the new earth. This is a strong Sabbatarian argument, depending on what Sabbatarian group is making it. You'll see what I mean in the post!
I'd like to write something on the religious function of ceremonies: their service as something tangible for people to hold on to. Some see reliance on rituals as a human weakness, and this is one criticism that anti-Sabbatarians make of Sabbathkeepers. Others maintain that we all need rituals. I'll be bringing in a lot of stories and personal anecdotes for this post. And, since I haven't written much about my Latin mass lately, I'll refer to a sermon that the priest gave on the Mosaic law and Catholic rituals.
Paul Newman is not looking too good, so I'll most likely do a commemoration of him if he passes away. I've not seen too many of his movies, but the ones I have seen were really good. Plus, my family always enjoyed his salad dressing and "fig Newmans."
Stay tuned!
I'm going to continue my series on Sabbatarianism. One post will be on eschatological Sabbath-keeping, and it will deal with Isaiah 66, which presents Gentiles keeping the Sabbath in the new heaven and the new earth. This is a strong Sabbatarian argument, depending on what Sabbatarian group is making it. You'll see what I mean in the post!
I'd like to write something on the religious function of ceremonies: their service as something tangible for people to hold on to. Some see reliance on rituals as a human weakness, and this is one criticism that anti-Sabbatarians make of Sabbathkeepers. Others maintain that we all need rituals. I'll be bringing in a lot of stories and personal anecdotes for this post. And, since I haven't written much about my Latin mass lately, I'll refer to a sermon that the priest gave on the Mosaic law and Catholic rituals.
Paul Newman is not looking too good, so I'll most likely do a commemoration of him if he passes away. I've not seen too many of his movies, but the ones I have seen were really good. Plus, my family always enjoyed his salad dressing and "fig Newmans."
Stay tuned!
Victoria Osteen's Victory
Victoria Osteen, wife of Pastor Joel Osteen, has been exonerated by a Houston jury. A flight attendant accused her of assault, demanding 10 per cent of Victoria's net worth as punitive damages for her psychological trauma. But three witnesses testified that Victoria did not assault the flight attendant, even though there was a clash of wills between the two. And I heard on the O' Riley Factor last night that this flight attendant has sued another person for assault, so this is something she's done more than once.
I was recently listening to Joel Osteen's Become a Better You while catching up on some schoolwork. Joel talked about being willing to let things go instead of getting into arguments, and the need to have peace in the midst of life's difficulties.
Victoria could have done a better job on the first lesson. The dispute was over a spill on Victoria's seat, which Victoria wanted the flight attendant to clean up. When the attendant handed her some napkins, Victoria responded, "That's not my job." But Victoria eventually cleaned up the spill.
Victoria should have just cleaned it up in the first place, without demanding special treatment or getting into an altercation. But nobody's perfect. I know that I haven't mastered all the principles that Joel talks about. It's a process, and life will always present me with opportunities to act with patience and love. Sometimes, I'll succeed. Sometimes, I'll fail. That's just life.
For the second lesson, being patient amidst life's difficulties, Joel and Victoria shined. This whole experience must have been hard for them. Here's a high-profile preacher, and he's getting bad publicity because of a lawsuit. How embarrassing! What would that do to his ministry? But Joel kept on smiling throughout the whole ordeal, and I don't think it was just for the cameras. He didn't look like he was posing at all, for his face displayed a sense of inner peace. I'll bet he was truly leaving this to God! He had an opportunity to practice some of the principles that he talks and writes about.
Don't we all?
Another thing I read: When the court was selecting jury members, it ran into a little snag, as they tried to pick people who were impartial. Many of the potential jurors said that they liked Joel, since his messages helped them a lot. This tells me that Joel's advice really can work. It's easy to watch Joel and think, "This guy talks about positive thinking. Well, I'd be positive too, if I had tons of money and a hot babe for a wife. He doesn't know about my struggles." But the fact is that real people in real, everyday life try out what Joel says and succeed as a result.
Also, as I was listening to Joel on those CDs yesterday, I thought, "This is a guy who really wants to help people." He's not just trying to draw attention to himself; rather, he has something valuable to offer, and so he shares it. I don't always feel spiritually fed by his messages, since they tend to focus a lot on positive thinking and success, not really on knowing Jesus Christ. Paul said, "I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death" (Philippians 3:10), and Joel doesn't talk much about that. But he still offers valuable, practical advice, and he draws much of it from the Bible. He also bases it on experience, both his own and that of his friends, family, and acquaintances. You really can't argue with that.
I'm glad that this lawsuit is behind us. Keep up the good work, Joel and Victoria!
I was recently listening to Joel Osteen's Become a Better You while catching up on some schoolwork. Joel talked about being willing to let things go instead of getting into arguments, and the need to have peace in the midst of life's difficulties.
Victoria could have done a better job on the first lesson. The dispute was over a spill on Victoria's seat, which Victoria wanted the flight attendant to clean up. When the attendant handed her some napkins, Victoria responded, "That's not my job." But Victoria eventually cleaned up the spill.
Victoria should have just cleaned it up in the first place, without demanding special treatment or getting into an altercation. But nobody's perfect. I know that I haven't mastered all the principles that Joel talks about. It's a process, and life will always present me with opportunities to act with patience and love. Sometimes, I'll succeed. Sometimes, I'll fail. That's just life.
For the second lesson, being patient amidst life's difficulties, Joel and Victoria shined. This whole experience must have been hard for them. Here's a high-profile preacher, and he's getting bad publicity because of a lawsuit. How embarrassing! What would that do to his ministry? But Joel kept on smiling throughout the whole ordeal, and I don't think it was just for the cameras. He didn't look like he was posing at all, for his face displayed a sense of inner peace. I'll bet he was truly leaving this to God! He had an opportunity to practice some of the principles that he talks and writes about.
Don't we all?
Another thing I read: When the court was selecting jury members, it ran into a little snag, as they tried to pick people who were impartial. Many of the potential jurors said that they liked Joel, since his messages helped them a lot. This tells me that Joel's advice really can work. It's easy to watch Joel and think, "This guy talks about positive thinking. Well, I'd be positive too, if I had tons of money and a hot babe for a wife. He doesn't know about my struggles." But the fact is that real people in real, everyday life try out what Joel says and succeed as a result.
Also, as I was listening to Joel on those CDs yesterday, I thought, "This is a guy who really wants to help people." He's not just trying to draw attention to himself; rather, he has something valuable to offer, and so he shares it. I don't always feel spiritually fed by his messages, since they tend to focus a lot on positive thinking and success, not really on knowing Jesus Christ. Paul said, "I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death" (Philippians 3:10), and Joel doesn't talk much about that. But he still offers valuable, practical advice, and he draws much of it from the Bible. He also bases it on experience, both his own and that of his friends, family, and acquaintances. You really can't argue with that.
I'm glad that this lawsuit is behind us. Keep up the good work, Joel and Victoria!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)