Adventist Sabbath Argument #6
The Sabbath is mentioned in Isaiah as being kept in the new earth. Since the Sabbath will be kept in the new earth, that means it should be kept now.
My Response:
This assertion finds its ground in Isaiah chapter 66:22-23 which reads as follows:
“’As the new heavens and the new earth that I make will endure before me,’ declares the LORD, ‘so will your name and descendants endure. From one New Moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, all mankind will come and bow down before me,’ says the LORD.”
There are several things that can be said about this passage:
1. The phrase, “From one New Moon to another and from one Sabbath to another”. Adventists are quick to jump on the Sabbath reference in this passage, but when one brings up the New Moon portion of it, they become oddly quite, or conveniently change the subject. This is picking and choosing what you want while leaving that which you do not.
Adventists use this passage to justify the continued keeping of the Sabbath, and that would be fine except for the fact that they also use it to tell others that they’re keeping the wrong day. But in order for Adventists to be wholly consistent with the passage they must begin observing the New Moons as well. To fail to do this is to be found a hypocrite.
2. The focus of the passage is not on ritualistic observance of days and times, but rather worship. Instead of reading it as keeping New Moons and Sabbaths in the new earth, one can understand it as teaching that worship in the new earth will be continual, never ceasing. After all, "from one New Moon to another and from one Sabbath to another", which literally means from month to month and week to week, can symbolically mean all the time, never ceasing. This is the kind of worship we find in God's presence (cf. Rev. 4:8-11).
3. The context that this passage is found within, namely verses 19-21, forbids any literal interpretation of it. For example, no Adventist would claim that God's people will arrive at New Jerusalem in the new earth "on horses, in chariots and wagons, and on mules and camels" (vs. 20). Also, what Adventist would maintain that God will begin again the Old Testament levitical priesthood (cf. vs. 21)? It is quite evident that Isaiah is expressing God's message in an old covenant way. For the new covenant believer, this passage has significance, but only through a spiritual interpretation of it. Therefore, the reference to New Moons and Sabbaths should not be understood in a literal way, but rather as expressing the mysteries of God's kingdom figuratively while utilizing old covenant terminology.
11 comments:
Isaiah 65:17-20 also adds additional preceding context to its following passage in Isaiah chapter 66. Notice what the verses in Isaiah 65 say.
17For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
18But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
19And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.
20There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.
Certainly no Adventists will maintain that in the new heavens and earth that people will die, but that is exactly what the bible says here.
Once again these texts were meant to be understood from an OLD covenant context specifically for Israel and the passage in Isaiah 66 which David has already elaborated on so eloquently must ALSO be understood in the same fashion. We as Christians need to look at these verses from a spiritual standpoint and not a literal interpretation.
To anonymous,
Good point bringing up 65:17-20. It should definitely be considered as contextual for 66:19-23.
Isa. 66:22-23 has been such a strong passage for Adventists to turn to in order to show that the Sabbath will be kept in the future. However, the context and language forbid any literal interpretation for the Christian under the new covenant.
Blessings!
You said it best in your original post.
The writer of Isaiah is "expressing the mysteries of God's kingdom figuratively while utilizing old covenant terminology."
So basically when we read "all flesh shall come before me from one new moon to another and from one sabbath to another" what that means for the new covenant christian is that worship will be continual. It does not mean that the old covennant sabbath will be in force nor that the feasts of the new moons will be in force either.
The new moons and even the sabbath were types in the old testament which pointed forward to the fulfillment which is Christ. They were part of the old covenant which Israel broke therefore God had this to say.
Hosea 2:11
I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.
And then later in the chapter we get a pointing forward to what God had planned...
Hosea 2:23
And I will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God.
In other words God was hinting even in the old testament that he was going to gather the gentiles in and perform a new covenant and the the things from the old covenent such as new moons AND the sabbaths would be done away with.
Christ is the sabbath of the new covenant(see Heb4). He is also the fulfillment of the new moons as well.
Colosians 2:16-17
16Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
David,
It is good not to mix up issues when speaking about a subject. Concerning the Sabbath and the New Moons in Isaiah 66, there are two questions that you put together while, in fact, they are distinct:
1. is the text speaking of literal Sabbath and New Moon, or not?
2. are Adventists consistent is the application of the text?
It is illogical to use the supposedly inconsistent of SDA concerning the observance of the New Moons (that is, question 2) to judge upon the meaning of Sabbath and News Moons (question 1). Even if it can be proven that SDA are inconsistent is their application, this doesn't prove that the Sabbath and the New Moons are not literal. Again, these are two different questions.
Second, the text says that "all flesh shall come before Me, says the Lord". It is a holy convocation for the people of God. God is calling His people to worship. The text explicitly says the Sabbath and the New Moons will be worship days. There is nothing in the text indicating it is an image or an allegory. After all, we know that we will be worshipping God when we are in His kingdom, right? So even if the text is not about "ritualistic observance" as you said, we don't want to arbitrarily dismiss what the text indeed says, that is, that every Sabbath and New Moon will be the time of a holy convocation. And being written by a Jew in a Jewish context, we know that the Sabbath here is understood as the Seventh day Sabbath and the New Moon as the usual New Moon that they celebrated each month (let's think about it another way: if the text had said that every first day of the week there would be a convocation, I am sure that everybody would have taken "first day of the week" at face value, that is, everybody would have said that that text is a proof that we would be meeting on Sunday on the new Earth).
Concerning point 3, that is, the question of whether or not it is literal or not, why not take what the text says? No one, you included, knows how it will be on the new earth. Is it too difficult to imagine that, maybe, there will be no car on the new earth? One thing I am sure is that there will be no pollution in heaven and everything will be natural. So it is possible to imagine that verse 20 is indeed a true picture of what would be in the future (at least, there is nothing shocking in that idea). But even in the case verse 20 is an image, this doesn't prove that the convocation will not happens on Sabbath and on the New Moons. It could be that God was using terms understandable to people at the time of Isaiah (for example, Jesus said that whoever lived by the sword would perish by the sword. Now, does this principle untrue today just because we don't use swords any longer? No, we know that the principle is true, we just replace swords by machine guns).
Now concerning verse 21, it is possible that some of us will have some special functions on the new earth. Don't forget that the New Jerusalem will be on Earth with Jesus. Maybe some people will do something special with Him (I am just speculating here). Anyhow, even if some words may be images, there is nothing in the text that allows you to say that the entire chapter is just symbolic. For example, is the new earth just symbolic? No, there will be a new earth. The Bible is clear about it.
As for Isaiah 65:20, I know that there are a lot of debates about this (myself I have my own little theory about it) but it is not possible to use this verse as a excuse to arbitrarily spiritualize away all the chapter and also the following chapter. If we start doing that, we can spiritualize away any text we choose in the Bible and make it say whatever we want.
Clearly Still you did not read the preceding context nor consider the immediate context of this verse. I'll repeat...
Isaiah 65:17-20 also adds additional preceding context to its following passage in Isaiah chapter 66. Notice what the verses in Isaiah 65 say.
17For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
18But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
19And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.
20There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.
Certainly no Adventists will maintain that in the new heavens and earth that people will die, but that is exactly what the bible says here.
ALSO...
Isaiah 66:20,21
20 And they will bring all your brothers, from all the nations, to my holy mountain in Jerusalem as an offering to the LORD -on horses, in chariots and wagons, and on mules and camels," says the LORD. "They will bring them, as the Israelites bring their grain offerings, to the temple of the LORD in ceremonially clean vessels. 21 And I will select some of them also to be priests and Levites," says the LORD.
Certainly you're not going to maintain that the levitical priesthood will be in effect nor that we will ride mules, camels etc. on the way there.
Sorry to burst your bubble Still but these texts are meant to be spiritually interpreted.
And furthermore it IS absolute hypocrisy to maintain sabbath observance is necessary due to Isaiah 66 while at the same time passing over the new moon observance. Both are mentioned.
anonymous said:
"these texts are meant to be spiritually interpreted."
There is absolutly no proof that this text has to be spiritually interpreted. And by the way, what does it mean "spiritually interpreted". Also, does it mean that all the text has to be "spiritually interpreted" or just a portion? How to decide? If chapter 65 and 66 have to be considered as an spiritual allegory, why not chapter 64, and 63, and 62....?
Most people don't know for sure what the phrase "for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed" means (personally, I believe it is a kind of idiomatic expression). So we cannot go one way or another, meaning that we cannot say it has to be taken only spiritually only (whatever this means). Also, even if a part can be considered as an allegory, it doesn't mean that all the text is an allegory. After all, when we speak in English, we use expressions that are not to be taken literally. Let's suppose that we speak about someone and, at one moment, we say that this person is a pain in the neck. We know that "pain in the neck" is just an expression, an image. Does it mean now that, just because we used an image at one moment, the entire speech is an allegory? In a same manner, even if there are some images used in Isaiah 65 or 66(which has to be proven anyway) we cannot say that the entire chapters are allegories.
Concerning the new moon observance, there is a good reason why it is not observed today: it is not part of the Ten Commandments while the Sabbath is. But there is a good reason why the new moon could be observed again on the new earth (this is my own interpretation here). When we read the book of Revelation chapter 22, we see the tree of life yielding its fruit every month. It is possible that when the people of God come to eat the fruit of the tree of life, it is also the time of celebration and worship of the Life Giver, that is, God, and this, every new moon. Again, it is my own interpretation here but it is interesting to notice that, in the new earth, the new moon happens once a month and the tree of life yields fruits every month too. Could it be that the new moon corresponds to the time where the tree of life produces its fruit? It is not impossible. At least, it is something to investigate.
Still said...
Most people don't know for sure what the phrase "for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed" means
My reply...
Actually many Christians DO know what's going on here. In God's original plan for the Israelites He was going to establish an EARTHLY kingdom in which the Iraelites would have special favor as yes the levitical priesthood and such was going to be a part of it.
The problem here is that Adventists are taking texts that were clearly meant as promises to Old Covenant Israel and trying to interpret them LITERALLY for us today under the new covenant.
These promises of a new earth and heavens were for an EARTHLY kingdom in which Israel would take special prominence. However because of Israel's constant shortcomings and rebellion they forfeited these promises.
There most certainly is not going to be a levitical priesthood in the new earth and there will also be no death. That's why Adventists are wrong to look to these passages literally.
In fact, this may shock you but GOD was even going to allow the heathen to live in this new earthly kingdom and get this...serve their gods.
Micah 4
1But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it.
2And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths:(sound familiar? All flesh shall come to worship before me?...Isaiah 66:23) for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
3And he shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
4But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of the LORD of hosts hath spoken it.
5For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we [the Israelites] will walk in the name of the LORD our God for ever and ever.
That's why when you read "for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed" it means this...The child is a reference to those who serve the real GOD and the sinner is a reference to those who do not. They are accursed the bible says.
Anonymous said:
Actually many Christians DO know what's going on here.
I don't doubt that many have their own interpretation (as I have mine). Beside the fact that not everybody (I am speaking of non SDA here) agrees with your interpretation, the problem remains to know which one is correct.
What makes the search challenging (but also interesting) is that we need to have the right perspective before interpreting the text. If, like SDA, one believes that the expression "new earth and new heaven" is literal, that is, the history of sin is over and the redeemed are with Jesus, then one has to wrestle with verses such as "for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed" (verse 20).
If, in the contrary, one believes that verse 20 is literal, then we have to wrestle with verses such as verse 17,"For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth".
Spiritualizing texts is not a good strategy because it is often arbitrarily. For example, there is nothing in verse 17 that shows that God is speaking allegorically. God is the Creator and we know that things will be renewed. So it is not unreasonable to think that verse 17 is literal. But if it is the case, what about verse 20? This is an interesting and challenging question (but again, the other interpretations also raised unresolved questions).
What I'm saying Still is that we have to make a spiritual application of the text for New covenant Christians.
If we take as literal one part of the passage then we must take as literal ALL parts of the passage. You can't pick and choose which parts you want to literally interpret while on the same hand which parts you want to allegorize. Consistency is what I am advocating
Here's the deal. You run into problems when you literally interpret those passages in Isaiah.
1)When you literally interpret the passage, how do you explain Isaiah 66:20,21?
Isaiah 66:20,21
20 And they will bring all your brothers, from all the nations, to my holy mountain in Jerusalem as an offering to the LORD -on horses, in chariots and wagons, and on mules and camels," says the LORD. "They will bring them, as the Israelites bring their grain offerings, to the temple of the LORD in ceremonially clean vessels. 21 And I will select some of them also to be priests and Levites," says the LORD.
First of all, I don't think any SDA will make the claim that the levitical priesthood will be in effect in the new heavens and the new earth. Secondly, Do any SDA's honestly believe that we will arrive to New Jerusalem riding on mules, camels, wagons, etc.?
2)Furthermore, as you said we have to deal with Isaiah 65:20. If we are interpreting everything else literally then it is imperative that we also interpret this verse as literal also. Again consistency.
Isaiah 65:20
20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.
If we take a literal approach, we are forced to come to the conclusion that there will be death in the new earth. Thankfully we know from the New Testament that death has been conquered already. So again, a literal interpretation causes problems.
Also, Isaiah 66:23 says this...
23And 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.
Now you can't have it both ways. Either we take this verse as literal across the board or not. What I mean is this. If you want to literally interpret the sabbath as being in effect then you must ALSO interpret the feast of the new moons literally as well. You can't spiritualize the new moon while on the same hand taking the sabbath part as literal. Again, that's very inconsistent.
Do you believe we will be keeping the feast of the new moon in the new earth?
You see what I'm really getting at is this. When you try to interpret the passage literally you run into a heap of problems. That's why these passages MUST be given a spiritual application and not a literal one.
A spiritual application across the board erases all problems and does not run into inconsistency problems.
That's why David is correct when he interprets Isaiah 66:23 as meaning "continual worship" from week to week and month to month.
Anonymus said:
"If we take as literal one part of the passage then we must take as literal ALL parts of the passage"
This is incorrect, above all when dealing with prophecies where not everything in a text is literal. For example, in Revelation 3:14-19, Jesus rebukes the church of Laodicea because they are lukewarm. This is the literal condition of that church described in literal terms ("You are lukewarm"). But then Jesus said that if they stay that way, He will spit them out of his mouth. Now, is this literal? No, we know it is an image. Jesus is not about to literally put them in His mouth.
So it is possible to have a literal language mixed with images, expressions or allegories.
You asked:
"Do you believe we will be keeping the feast of the new moon in the new earth"?
The text doesn't say it is the feast of the new moon. It says that at each new moon we will go and worship God, which is different.
But let's imagine that the text is speaking about continual worship. What is then the meaning of the text? Does it speak about earth after the Restoration or not? Does "continual worship" implies a day of worship? According to your answers, some more questions will arise.
Now, there are dangers in spiritualizing texts too much without a good reason to do so. First of all, it is a way to disobey God by, in essence, saying that "the text says that but it is not really what God means".
Second, we can misinterprate a text.
Also, let's examine our motives. If the text had said that every Sunday would be a time to worship God, would have people said anything or said that it was not literal?
I doubt it.
Still said...
"Do you believe we will be keeping the feast of the new moon in the new earth"?
The text doesn't say it is the feast of the new moon. It says that at each new moon we will go and worship God, which is different.
My reply: actuallly EVERY time in the Old Testament when the term new moon is used in conjunction with sabbaths, it ALWAYS means the feast. So why then are we to take this particular usage as meaning anything different?
Furthermore, I am not a sunday keeper. I don't keep any day as holy. And frankly I would not have a problem if the text did say from sunday to sunday.
What I have noticed in my years as an SDA is that they like to use the proof text method. Pulling texts from here and there OUT OF CONTEXT to support a belief.
The bible gives us a clear way to interpret.
First, line upon line(immediate context) see Isaiah 28:10
THEN, here a little there a little, but SDA's like to skip that and go straight to "here a little there a little" BEFORE considering line upon line.
Secondly you're using the book of REVELATION as justification for for mixing literal and symbolical language. You can't do that. Isaiah is NOT a highly symbolical book like Revelation and Daniel are.
Post a Comment