FAMILY RADIO AND THE SABBATH
by Richard Burkard
I vividly remember the first time I heard the network "Family Radio." It was a Monday night in 1993, as I rolled across the moonlit empty marshland near Jekyll Island, Georgia in a rented top-down convertible. It was Feast time, and I stopped at this perennial Feast site for the night on the way to Daytona Beach. As I drove toward dinner in Brunswick, I heard a man on the radio say something that sounded unbelievable - yet strangely familiar.
"It's hard to believe we are now about one year away from the return of Jesus Christ," declared MISTER (as the network loves to call him) Harold Camping at the start of an "Open Forum" program. I didn't know what station I'd stumbled upon - but I made sure I knew. For someone to declare on U.S. radio that Jesus would return in 1994 was news. In fact, when I returned to my job at the CNN networks, I left the comment in the network computer's "Stories -Suggestions" file. Within weeks, CNN did a full report on Harold Camping and his claim.
As I recall, CNN did NOT return in the fall of 1994 when Harold Camping's statement proved wrong. No doubt he had to "eat some crow." Yet he continues to head Family Radio - and while his network plays a lot of worshipful and beautiful Christian music, it also still presents Bible teachings that are a mix of accuracy and misleading error. So when a member of my old Worldwide Church of God congregation began embracing a lot of Family Radio beliefs - often going the opposite direction from what the "new WCG" seemed to teach -- I became both curious and concerned.
One major claim of Family Radio is that Sunday is "the Lord's Day," or the Sabbath. The WCG, as you may know, has wrestled with this issue quite a bit over the last decade. So when Family Radio offered an online article called "Sunday: The Sabbath?" I jumped at the opportunity to download it for Bible study - and see if the WCG's pressure toward Sunday worship had a scriptural basis. It ended with the conclusion that Family Radio's arguments were seriously flawed. In fact, the article took 86 KB of computer space, and my notes of disagreement took 43 KB, or half as much! (Hint: you're looking at a lengthy posting!)
This posting will quote from "Sunday: The Sabbath," and follow the quote with my thoughts of response. If you'd like to follow along, download the Family Radio article from the web site's "Online Literature" section and see if your thoughts agree with mine. (Family Radio quotes from the King James Version; I'll use New International unless noted.)
"An argument is made that the use of the plural 'Sabbaths' as it is found in Matthew 28:1 somehow means 'between the Sabbaths,' which then allows a change from 'Sabbaths' to 'week.' But there are only six days between the Sabbaths."
WHAT ABOUT "ANNUAL SABBATHS?" This is how the WCG explained parallel passages of the Passion story for decades -- e.g., John 19:31: "....that sabbath day was an high day...." (KJV/NASB) or "....a special Sabbath...." (NIV) The New Bible Commentary explains this verse, however, as meaning it was BOTH a "sabbath," implying weekly, AND a festival. (p. 965) The CEV dares to put in the text: "The next day would be both a Sabbath and the Passover. It was a special day for the Jewish people...."
A clue to the right answer may lie in the women who bought and prepared spices for Jesus's body. Mark 16:1 says, "When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body." Did they go out and buy spices in Jerusalem on a Saturday night? Admittedly, I'm not a scholar on business hours of New Testament times, but this seems unlikely -- especially in light of Luke 23:56: "Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment." The only logical way to reconcile these verses is to conclude an ANNUAL Sabbath occurred prior to the WEEKLY one. Perhaps the first fell on Thursday, with the women buying spices on Friday before resting on Saturday.
"Luke 18:12 should be translated, 'I fast twice in the Sabbath'.... The pharisee skipped not one but two meals on the Sabbath. He fasted for two meals and there is a possibility that the Jews ate only two meals on the Sabbath. Therefore, it appeared that he was a very holy man in that he ate neither of these meals."
POOR UNDERSTANDING of fasting! First of all, most Bible commentaries explain this as two DAYS of the week -- and several even name which days! "The Pharisees made much of fasting and regarded it as a meritorious work. It became the custom of the pious to fast on Mondays and Thursday...." (Wycliffe's Bible Dictionary, 1998, pg. 594; see also Interpreter's Bible, 1952, vol. 8, pg 309; and New Bible Commentary, 1970, pg. 915) NO commentary we saw explained this verse as a "twice on Saturday" situation. KEY POINT #1: Given the apparently KNOWN record of Pharisaical history, this would suggest "week" and "Sabbath" CAN be interchangeable!
Further: The Old Testament, from which this tradition apparently comes, suggests "fasts" often were DAY-LONG affairs! Consider these examples:
* I Kings 21:9 -- "Proclaim a day of fasting" ("go without eating today" -- CEV) - although admittedly, the KJV says only "a fast."
* Esther 4:16 -- A three-day fast was specified as not eating "night or day."
* Jeremiah 36:6, 9 -- "The fasting day" (KJV); ".... a day.... to pray and go without eating." (CEV)
* Joel 1:14 and 2:15 -- "Such a day, for instance, was the annual observance of the fall of Solomon's Temple (cf. Zech. 7:5). Lev. 16:29 shows how fasting was associated with the forgiveness of sins, in connection with the Day of Atonement." (N.B.C., pg. 720)
Note also Leviticus 23:26-32 -- the Day of Atonement, which Jews traditionally mark with 24 hours of fasting. To be fair, though, the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Judaica notes that many other traditional Jewish fasts were and are observed from sunrise to sunset. (1974, p. 186)
And lest we forget, what about Matthew 4:2 -- where Jesus fasted "40 days and 40 nights"? (Luke 4:2 has "40 days.") Are we to reason this away, as today's WCG might do, as merely 40 MEALS -- which in the typical U.S. mindset might reduce the fast to about two weeks? (The parallels between that and "three days and three nights" in Matthew 12:40 are thought-provoking -- but that's a whole different article!)
"This truth is further emphasized when we realize that the first day of the seventh month as well as the Day of Atonement, which was the tenth day of the seventh month, were called Sabbaths in Leviticus 23."
ANOTHER ALL-DAY FAST example, as Lev. 23:27, 32 makes clear about Atonement: "Hold a sacred assembly and deny yourselves [margin: "and fast"].... From the evening of the ninth day of the month until the following evening you are to observe your sabbath."
"Thus, the Hebrew word 'Sabbath' is also a Hebrew word for 'rest.' It ordinarily is used to focus our attention on the spiritual rest we receive in salvation."
TRUE, BUT.... As I think the author would agree, Hebrew has MANY words for rest; "shabbath" is simply one of them. Check "rest" in Strong's Concordance for the, well, "rest" of the story.
".... As we read in Numbers 15, when a man picked up a few sticks, Moses went to God and asked what to do to the man. God said he was to be stoned to death for picking up a few sticks! And he was stoned to death. Through this God illustrates the dynamic principle that the only way to be saved is to trust in the coming Messiah, Who was typified by the seventh day Sabbath. We are to look only to Him, and the moment we trust our work in the slightest degree as a basis for salvation (even though we believe we are saved by God's grace), we are still under the wrath of God."
IMPRECISE MESSAGE?! Isn't the real lesson here to obey God, by obeying his laws and commandments? KEY POINT #2: Family Radio has a tendency to "force the Gospel" into texts where it might not always logically apply -- which is as much looking at the Bible through a distorted "set of glasses" as is looking for prophecy, or some other theological bias.
"On the last Sabbath of the Old Testament era, Christ, Who is our Sabbath, had in one sense completed the work God had assigned to Him.... And on that last Sabbath His body rested in the tomb."
THE WCG CHALLENGES this argument in its online study paper, "Why the Seventh Day?" Reviewing a series of articles by a Seventh Day Adventist scholar, the Church writes: "Does he really think that being dead or comatose is the way to keep the Sabbath? Is this what 'rest' means? That seems far removed from the intentions of the Gospel writers.... This is reading things into the text." As I studied that WCG article, I noted Revelation. 14:13 refers to dead saints receiving "rest from their labor." So I guess I side with Family Radio here, at least regarding the body "resting.".
"The phrase 'In the end of the Sabbaths' [Matt. 28:1] could be expanded to read, 'Now that the era of the Old Testament Sabbaths has come to an end inasmuch as Jesus Who was typified by those Sabbaths had finished His work and was now resting from His labors.'"
MISINTERPRETATION -- especially of the word "end." The article notes earlier that the "end" of the Sabbath referred to "even," or evening. (It's also used that way in Mark 13:35.) But at NO point in the New Testament does this Greek word opse refer to a final completion of something! The usage is connected with a time of day, such as evening. Other Greek words are used for phrases such as, "the end of the world," or "the end of the law."
"God is instructing us that never again are we to observe the Sabbath on the seventh day of the week."
NO DIRECT STATEMENT! We must infer this from the author's flawed interpretation, as opposed to a plan Scriptural command.
"All the Sabbaths that had come before now have come to an end. The burnt offerings, the blood sacrifices, the Passover, and all the other ceremonial laws were no longer to be observed because they were completed in Christ, and the seventh day Sabbath had been completed in Christ and was never again to be observed."
THIS IS BASED on Colossians 2:16-17 -- which is a pivotal passage in understanding many of the WCG changes. The old WCG relied on the King James wording, which suggests meats and special days are to be judged by the body of Christ. The NIV translation reflects the new WCG teaching the "the reality" of such things "is found in Christ," and that the passage is not really about human judgmentalism at all. (Moffatt says: "the substance belongs to Christ.")
"God has a new era of Sabbaths. It is Sunday morning; it is the dawning of a new era of Sabbaths."
NOT NECESSARILY -- based on whether "Sabbath" can be defined as "week" based on the Greek. See the note above regarding fasting.
"Occasional references to Sunday as the Sabbath day were made; for example, the Westminster Confession refers to the Sunday Sabbath but invalid reasons are given. They indicate that in the New Testament it is called the Lord's Day."
MISLEADING. Only Revelation 1:10 has that exact phrase in the KJV New Testament -- and indeed many presume that to mean Sunday. BUT notice:
1> The Greek usage is similar to I Cor. 11:20, about the "Lord's supper." This Greek word, kuriakos, means "belonging to the Lord." (Strong's #2960) Perhaps Mr. Armstrong oversimplified this with his "Bank of Morgan is Morgan's bank" explanation (after all, did "Chemical Bank" belong to chemicals?) -- but which day belongs to the Lord NOW? Perhaps the overall Church has given Him ownership of Sunday, but to presume that here seems to put "God in a box," limiting His abilities.
(However, note N.B.C. pg. 1282, which argues this was a common second-century synonym for Sunday.)
2> The more logical understanding of this phrase, "day of the Lord," appears several times in the New Testament -- but NONE relate to Sunday!
* I Corinthians 1:8 -- The context is the end of this age, when Christ's return is revealed.
* I Corinthians 5:5 -- Men of sinful nature may have their spirits saved "on the day of the Lord" -- apparently the judgment day
* II Corinthians 1:14 -- Was this boasting done on SUNDAY?! "WILL boast" implies a future event.
* Philippians 1:6, 10 -- Does God finish good works on SUNDAY only?! What if I die Saturday night?
* Philippians. 2:16 -- See note on II Cor 1:14.
* I Thessalonians 5:2 -- Will SUNDAY come suddenly?!?!?
* II Thessalonians 2:2 -- Why would people spread false reports about Sunday having "already come?" This is obviously about MORE than one day of a week!
* II Peter 3:10 -- To what Sunday does the destruction of heaven and earth refer?
"Furthermore, in Luke 23:56 we read: 'They returned [that is, from where Christ had been buried], and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the Sabbath [not the Sabbath Day], according to the commandment.'"
WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? KJV is the only major translation that has the word "day" after "Sabbath" -- and admittedly the Greek word for "day" does not appear in the original text. But how ELSE are we to understand this mention of Sabbath? (Perhaps as ANNUAL?! See comments above)
"The Passover and the Lord's Supper have a lot of things in common.... and yet they are vastly different. The Old Testament Passover was eaten by the whole family, whether the people were saved or not.... In the Lord's Supper, the whole family does not partake, only the believers do."
WELLLLLL.... The old WCG probably would have agreed with this; only baptized members could even attend the Passover service years ago, while the rest might be put on the parking crew. Today's WCG suggests (although I haven't seen it spelled out anywhere) that communion is open to all, just as it can be taken at all times of year. But I can see the article's point in terms of how it should be done.
"Thus, we have two signs an Old Testament sign and a New Testament sign and they are intimately related and yet they are quite different. At the cross, the atonement was accomplished and something dramatically changed...."
YES, BUT.... The article implies the "Passover" ended when the "Lord's Supper" was instituted. But Jesus' words in Luke 22:15-18 indicate he considered them one and the same.
"In the Old Testament, in a family in which the father believed, all the males were to be circumcised. It involved cutting off the skin of the reproductive organ, which pointed to the seed Who would come. It pointed to the fact that the blood of this seed Who is the Lord Jesus had to be shed; it pointed to the fact that their sins had to be cut off."
WOW! NEW UNDERSTANDING -- at least for me! The Missing Dimension in Sex never mentioned this "missing dimension" in the importance of circumcision.
What's more, look at the quote we found when we consulted that old book for what it said about circumcision: "God instructs that it be done on the eighth day -- the day the baby is eight days old -- which is eight days after birth, or actually the ninth day of his life. The baby is one day old on the second day of his life, not the first, which is the day he is born (Gen. 17:12)!" (Sex, pg. 129) Some could call this an argument FOR a "Friday-Sunday" crucifixion-resurrection -- since "on the THIRD day" could be taken to mean two days after the death!
But hold on: Luke 1:59 in the King James says: "....on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child...." To properly follow Old Testament custom, "on the eighth day" here must mean "eight days after" birth. (See also Acts 7:8; Phil. 3:5) And by extension, a resurrection "on the third day" can occur "three days after" the death!
Confusing? Perhaps, but it shows there's inconsistency in how days and dates are reported in Bible translations. The 'bottom line" seems to be that the hard line of today's WCG and other ministries is NOT the only explanation -- and may not be the most acceptable one! (That's a topic for a separate article as well -- and it's coming.)
"On the last of the Old Testament Sabbath days, Christ was lying in the tomb. In His spirit essence, He was in heaven."
HUH?!?! It's significant that the article offers no Scripture to back this claim. From a strictly doctrinal viewpoint, this statement would challenge the line in the "Apostles' Creed" that Jesus "descended into hell." How would the author explain ANYONE, much less Jesus, being in hell and heaven at the same time?
From a Biblical standpoint, this claim brings to mind Jesus's words to Mary Magdalene after the resurrection: "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father." (John 20:17) Why would He say this if His "spirit essence" is already WITH the Father in heaven? Especially presuming Jesus was resurrected with a "spiritual body?" (I Cor. 15:44)
"We do not understand all the implications of this, but there was nothing active going on that day; it was the Sabbath day, it was a day of rest. God is rigorously applying that principle as Christ was resting in the tomb."
TODAY'S WCG DISAGREES with this, arguing "God does not keep the Sabbath." Yet much of the case on BOTH sides seems to be built on presumption and conjecture. On the one hand, what about the women who "rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment?" (Lk. 23:56) Are we to assume that on that Saturday Sabbath (or was this an ANNUAL Sabbath earlier in that week?!), they received no benefit from it -- since God was resting?
On the other hand, how literally do we take Jesus's words in John 5:17? "My Father is ALWAYS at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." Moffatt translates this, "As my Father has continued working to this hour...." Most Christians of all denominations would probably agree that God doesn't NEED a "rest day." So is this verse necessarily about time -- or about "divine activity, which supersedes human regulations?" (N.B.C., pg. 941)
(Besides, is not God powerful enough that He can put the orbits of the planets on "auto-Pilot" for 24 hours?)
"We read in Acts 2:26(-)27: 'Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope....' If His body had decayed in the tomb, it would have indicated that in His identification with believers, whom He had come to save, there was still some active work going on by Christ. But the Bible says 'He rested,' His body did not become corrupt."
POOR INTERPRETATION. WHOSE body "rested" in these verses? The context clearly shows it was NOT that of Jesus -- but DAVID! The verses quote David from Psalm 16 -- and only change the focus from David to Jesus for the last part of verse 27: "....neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption."
"On Sunday morning, the first of the Sunday Sabbaths, God observed that day as He did the work that is to be featured on that day. It is on that day that Christ rose from the grave."
NOT NECESSARILY. While today's WCG teaches this, and claims "all Christians agree" on this point, including Messianic Jewish ones, many spinoffs from the "old WCG" argue for a Saturday afternoon-evening resurrection, three days after a Wednesday crucifixion. (Or is the new, "nonjudgmental" WCG implying the spinoff groups are NOT Christian?)
Note also Hebrews 4:3: "....And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world." The Worldwide News cited this verse in a May 1995 study paper to justify entering into God's rest. If the work was "finished" thousands of years ago, why would God have to work anew on this particular Sunday?
"In Acts 20:6(-)7, we read of the church at Troas gathering together on the first of the week to break bread."
NOT SO FAST! What does the first part of verse 6 say? "But we sailed from Philippi after the Feast of Unleavened Bread...." Today's WCG might argue that was merely a time reference. But other mentions of "holy days" in the New Testament strongly suggest the days had MEANING for the believers in Jesus, and they apparently WERE kept to some extent!
"[God] has given all kinds of rules concerning the New Testament church, and in Acts 20 He tells us when that church is to come together. When? On one of the Sabbaths.... The new era of Sabbaths, which calls for Sunday to be the Sabbath.... they have been following the edict of the Bible."
THIS IS AN EDICT?!? Acts 20:7 says, "On the first day of the week we came together to break bread." Words such as "command," "edict" and "order" aren't here anywhere! The text states what a congregation in Troas did one weekend, but to call this an edict for eternity from God seems to force the issue from the text.
"Significantly, God instructs us that on this Sabbath Paul preached until midnight. This strongly implies that even as the seventh day Sabbath was to be observed as a 24hour period, so is the Sunday Sabbath to be a 24hour period."
POTENTIALLY MISLEADING. One person's "strong implication" can be another person's interesting detail of a text. Besides, what about Acts 20:11? "Then he went upstairs again and broke bread and ate. After talking until daylight, he left." Based on the author's explanation of verse 7, the Troas congregation actually broke bread on Monday morning before dawn -- and the "Sunday Sabbath" could start at sunrise, NOT the "midnight" Family Radio suggests!
(The NIV and NASB indicate Paul merely TALKED all night. The King James has him preaching, then talking. Strong's Concordance reveals two separate words ARE used. The word in verses 7 and 9 is a "one-of-a-kind" Greek word that could be understood as "to say thoroughly," "discuss" OR "preach.")
"The phrase 'the second sabbath after the first' has greatly puzzled theologians.... But when we realize that Jesus is beginning to give us rules concerning the Sunday Sabbath, this phrase is easily understood. It is a warning instructing us that a Sabbath other than the first Sabbath should be kept in mind in understanding the spiritual meaning of Luke 6. The first Sabbath is the Old Testament seventh day Sabbath. The second Sabbath is the New Testament Sunday Sabbath."
HUH? If we take this argument and apply it to Luke 6:1, the phrase would seem to say: "the Sunday Sabbath after the Saturday Sabbath." This makes no sense because:
a> Jesus was still on Earth, so the presumed "Sunday Sabbath" had not begun;
b> The Pharisees' question in 6:2 would seem rather stupid: "Why are you doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?" Why would they ask Him this on a Sunday, when such actions would be LAWFUL? (After all, these were Pharisees, and you'd think they'd keep good track of what day of the week it was.)
It must be noted that the King James and Revised Standard are the ONLY translations we found that use the phrase, "second sabbath after the first." Four other translations we checked simply call it a Sabbath. Strong's Concordance reveals the word "second" here refers to "the Sabbath immediately after the Paschal week (being the second after Passover day, and the first of the seven Sabbaths intervening before Pentecost)...." (Greek #1207) Of course, today's WCG would disqualify this definition as an improper use of the concordance -- but it's the most logical explanation I've seen for the phrase!
"We know that picking and eating corn has nothing to do with the Gospel. We also know that everything in the Bible does relate to the Gospel. Therefore, the phrases that appear to have no relationship to the Gospel must be understood as parabolic or allegorical phrases."
SAYS WHO? We mentioned above concerning Numbers 15 that Family Radio tends to take this "forced interpretation" approach to the Bible. Perhaps they base this on II Timothy 3:16 -- but is this a case where "all scripture" doesn't REALLY mean all?
"God established the congregation, and we learned from Acts 20:6(-)7 that the congregation met together on one of the Sabbaths to break bread. That is, the congregation is to meet together on Sunday to hear the Word of God."
FORCED INTERPRETATION. Some in today's WCG would argue "break bread" really means taking communion; the N.B.C. takes that approach as well.
"Likewise, in connection with the healing of the man with the withered hand, God uses the phrase in Luke 6:6 'on another sabbath.' The word 'another,' too, is surely a clue that points to another era of Sabbaths...."
PRESUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. Luke may have simply written about a different weekend, so readers don't get the idea that all of this happened on the same Saturday.
"We are all acquainted with the pouring out of the Holy Spirit as this event is recorded in Acts 2.... 3,000 people from many different nations were saved that afternoon."
AFTERNOON? The only time reference given here is Peter's comment, "It's only nine in the morning." (Acts 2:15) Some have timed the delivery of the sermon printed in Acts 2 as lasting only a few minutes. (Note verse 40, though, about "many other words.") While the baptisms very likely DID occur that afternoon, there's nothing specifically in the text to say that.
"What day was this when the Holy Spirit was poured out? It was Pentecost, and Pentecost was the eighth Sunday after the cross."
TRUE, BUT.... It was also an "Old Testament" Holy Day! Why don't established churches make a connection with that as well?
"God gives us further instruction concerning the Sunday Sabbath in I Corinthians 16 [vs. 1-2].... The Greek word that has been translated 'upon' (Greek 'kata') followed by a word of the accusative case, should be translated as a preposition of succession (throughout)."
NOT SO FAST! The Strong's concordance puts words such as "upon" in its appendix because of their frequent occurrence in the text -- and it indicates the Greek for "upon" is epi. To be fair, that also could be understood as "upon" -- but Strong's suggests it does NOT mean "every."
"Do you know of any church services that are held on Sunday where they do not pass the offering plate? They do it because it is commanded here."
YES! I personally don't know if Sunday-keeping WCG congregations take weekly offerings, but some in other denominations ask you on occasion to leave an offering in a box near the exit. One example of this is a church whose broadcast airs each week on Family Radio -- Tenth Presbyterian in Philadelphia.
"We must not think that because we go to a prayer meeting on a Wednesday night, and we have something else on Friday night, and we have a Bible study on Tuesday morning, and so on, and we listen to the 'Open Forum,' that we do not have to worship and observe Sunday as the Sabbath. Christ has ordained it as the Sabbath."
YES AND NO. I don't agree with the choice of days here, but I DO agree with the concept. Today's WCG argues we can worship on any day, and "days don't matter." The Family Radio article calls such thinking "reasonable but not Biblical." Hmmmm....
"....While the Hebrew word for 'Sabbath' is identical to a word for 'rest,' the Greek words 'Sabbaton' and 'Sabbata' are never translated 'rest.' The Greek words that are translated 'rest' are always different words. Therefore, the idea of rest has nothing to do with the Sunday Sabbath."
PERHAPS, BUT.... Strong's Concordance indicates the Greek word can mean either "the Sabbath" OR "day of weekly repose from secular avocations (also the observance or institution itself)...." My dictionaries define "repose" as a rest!
"If the translators had realized that God had named Sunday as the Sabbath, they would have understood what was being declared in [Acts 13:]42."
HUH? The King James was translated in the early 17th century, at a time when Sunday was accepted by most "Christians" as the Sabbath!
"The Jews were still rigorously observing the seventhday Saturday Sabbaths. Between these Sabbaths there was another Sabbath on which the Jews were not worshipping. It was the Sabbath that immediately followed the Jewish Sabbath. It was the Sunday Sabbath. And so on Saturday, Paul preached to the Jews in their synagogue, but on the next day the Sunday Sabbath that was between the Jewish Sabbaths Paul preached to almost the whole city."
PRESUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. The author tries to make a case that Acts 13 42 refers in Greek to a "between" Sabbath. This is true, but every translation we found called it "next" Sabbath -- implying a Saturday. And besides, why would "almost the whole city" gather to hear Paul preach (v. 44) on a SUNDAY when the "religion" of the area was predominantly Judaism? Christianity, remember, was a brand-new concept that Paul was bringing to the area.
"In His encounter with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus [Lk. 24:13],God assures us it took place on this first Sunday Sabbath.... The threescore furlongs, which was a distance of more than seven miles, assures us that great physical energy was being expended in walking. It is a much longer distance than a Sabbath Day's journey, which was under two miles (Acts 1:12).... Again our Lord has given us superb instruction concerning the activity the believers should be engaged in on the Sunday Sabbath."
SO? The distance of "about seven miles," as the NIV puts it, is indeed a good one-day hike on foot. (And since verse 33 says they "returned at once to Jerusalem," that makes a 14-mile round-trip!) But did these disciples even KNOW it was a "Sunday Sabbath?" After all, Jesus had to verbally bring them to their senses about who HE was! (vs. 25-27)
"Unfortunately, many seem to think: 'But on the other hand, Sunday is such a wonderful day for me! It is my day!....' These dear people have a total misunderstanding of what it means to be under the law."
GOOD ARGUMENT, BUT.... His article does NOT address a key verse that many Christians might use to justify doing their chores, errands and play on ANY "Sabbath" day, whether Saturday or Sunday: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." (Mk. 2:27)
"....Every sin that I have ever committed, past, present, future, has already been carried by the Lord Jesus on my behalf. He was found guilty on my behalf. He fully met the demands of the law. He endured hell for me. He, as it were, spent an eternity in hell in my place, so that the penalty has been fully paid."
IS THIS LITERAL? If the author means it that way, this leads to one of the big Family Radio interpretive questions: what do you mean, "heart of the earth?" Family Radio argues that when Jesus spent "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth," (Mt. 12:40) he did NOT mean the grave or tomb -- but apparently meant going to Hell, where Satan is!
Some commentaries agree with this approach (e.g. 20th Century Bible Commentary, 1955, pg. 394), but Family Radio's "take the whole Bible" approach to understanding phrases in Scripture comes back to hurt it here. Exodus 15:8 describes the Red Sea miracle with these words: "The surging waters stood firm like a wall; the deep waters congealed in the heart of the sea." Would Mr. Camping dare say this means waters were blocked in Hell? Perhaps he might, but the reference seems to clearly mean the earthly sea.
Others take "heart of the earth" another way, in terms of a CENTRAL location -- "the seat of physical, mental and spiritual life." (Wycliffe's Bible Dictionary, pg. 767) Some in today's WCG theorize this can refer to Jesus in Jerusalem -- BUT keep in mind he entered that city FIVE days before Passover, so the "three days" timeframe doesn't really work! (John 12:1, 12)
"Isaiah 58:13 declares: 'If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable; and shalt honour Him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words.' We know that this verse is speaking of the Sunday Sabbath because the whole chapter in which it is found is speaking of the New Testament activity of bringing the Gospel."
NOT SO FAST! If we consider the context of the entire book of Isaiah, couldn't this refer to Saturday? The Sabbath is also mentioned in chapter 56 -- and links it to those "who hold fast to my covenant." (vs. 4, 6) Should we automatically assume this means the new covenant? Some might see a millennial prophecy in verse 7, about the Lord bringing them "to my holy mountain." But then it adds: "Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar." This is a distinctively old covenant practice!
I agree that the language of Isaiah 58 can have physical and spiritual parallels. But to make a flat statement that this speaks of a "Sunday Sabbath" seems to leap to a conclusion. Besides, cannot the Gospel be brought on ANY day of the week -- as Family Radio does?
"Verse 12 of Isaiah 58 speaks of the building of the old waste places, and raising up the foundations. This is the same kind of language used in Acts 15:16...."
TRUE, BUT.... Acts 15:16-18 actually is taken from the book of Amos! (9:11-12)
"The setting of this verse [Acts 15:16] is that the Gospel is being preached to the Gentiles, and they are being saved. The tabernacle that is being built is none other than the body of believers who are the temple of God (II Corinthians 6:16)."
IS IT? Some in the Churches of God might argue this refers to rebuilding a war-damaged Jerusalem after Jesus returns. In fact, this "old WCG" argument is in keeping with the entire book of Isaiah! (2:1-3; 27:13) It should be noted that based on my conversations with big Family Radio fans, the network seems to be amillennial in its viewpoint -- out of the "four views on the millennium" that the WCG listed a few years ago. I tend to lean more toward the premillennial view.
"....Isaiah 58:13. It is noteworthy that there is no expression of rest in this verse. 'Rest' is the great emphasis of the seventh day Sabbath as it pointed to the salvation that would be provided by Jesus our Savior."
DOUBLE-TALK. Remember this quote earlier in the article? "Thus, the Hebrew word 'Sabbath' is also a Hebrew word for 'rest.'" This "Sabbath" is Isa. 58:13 is the SAME Hebrew word -- so how can he say the verse has "no expression of rest" in it?
"Never in the history of the New Testament church has Sunday been used as it is today for man's pleasure, to serve man's will, to satisfy man's ways. Sunday is a day when the restaurants are overrun with 'Christians' who seek the pleasure of fine food (thus causing many others to violate this day as they prepare and serve food). It is a day for paying homage to professional sports as so many 'Christians' watch their favorite and notsofavorite teams play. It is a day for hobbies and for picnics. It is a day when very few seriously ask the question: What is God's good pleasure for this day?"
WE AGREE.... except I would substitute "Saturday" for Sunday. I fear by becoming "less strict," and even holding Sunday services, the Worldwide Church of God is falling into the habit described here.
An old song reminds us to, "Take time to be holy." There's no better time to do that than on a Sabbath -- and here's hoping the WCG, or for that matter ANY "Church of God," doesn't let that time slip by.
To respond to this article, e-mail: wwwcg
© 2000-02 Richard Burkard/LaughLine.com, All Rights Reserved.