The Shepherd's Truth
The Great Controversy (1888)
and
other matters related to her teachings
and the claims of Seventh Day Adventists
|
The Shepherd's Truth |
The Great Controversy (1888) and other matters related to her teachings and the claims of Seventh Day Adventists |
Assumptions of E.G. White & Seventh Day
Adventists
Preface
Introductory Comments
The Early Witnesses
Comment on the Witnesses
The Critique
Critique of Assumptions
Conclusion
download txt file
Assumptions of E.G. White & Seventh Day Adventists
The writer also freely acknowledges that there are no Biblical instances commanding Christians to worship on Sunday. However, part of the following discussion will also examine equally, whether or not there are any Biblical instances commanding Christians to worship on the Sabbath. It is also affirmed that there is no Biblical warrant for changing Sunday into a "Christian Sabbath". But that is not the same thing as having no Biblical justification for worshipping God on Sunday.
Introductory Comments
It is regrettable that many Seventh Day Adventists are so willing to
allow White and themselves to quote from early Church authorities and references
outside the Bible to support their arguments, but to mockingly label any
such quotes used by others as appeals to tradition and to warn of the dangers
of Roman Catholic attitudes. This writer feels that "what is sauce
for the goose ought to also be sauce for the gander," as the saying goes.
Just because a writing by Tertullian or Justyn Martyr (for example) is
quoted does not indicate a dependence on "Traditions" of the Church.
The Gospels are every bit as much traditions of the Church, as are the
Apostolic writings found in the canon of the New Testament! (A case
in point: Luther was unwilling to acknowledge James & II Peter as Apostolic
because of their content.) When quoting a comment by such as Tertullian,
when he is making an historical observation of the contemporary condition
or belief of the Church, can hardly be considered an appeal to "tradition".
To label certain (narrative) passages of scripture as historical, while
labeling similar passages of the early Church Fathers "tradition"
is to be intellectually dishonest and unacceptably close-minded.
It also ignores the attitude of the Church as a whole that lived at the
time these men wrote: the writings and teachings of the earliest
bishops (generally those who had been taught by the Apostles or been
taught by the bishops who had been so taught) were considered just as inspired
as the Apostles--unless there was good reason to think otherwise.
And the Church then was a lot closer in time to the Apostles then we are
today, and thus in a better place to judge whether a teaching agreed or
disagreed with the Apostles' teaching. (Consider, too, that Mark
and Luke were not Apostles, yet their writings are found in the Bible.
But NOT all of Paul's letters are contained in the Bible.)
Finally, the assertion by Adventists that references to "the Lord's [day]" are actually references to the [7th day] Sabbath because Jesus said He was, "Lord of the Sabbath" or because He Himself "kept" the Sabbath, is unlikely to be true. First, it is hardly surprising that Jesus kept the Sabbath. He was after all, born a Jew, sent [initially] to the Jews, lived among and tried to minister to and convert the Jews. Also, such visits to the synagogue occurred BEFORE His crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. Secondly, it was Jewish custom to refer to the 7th day or the Sabbath by either of those two terms: the seventh day or, the Sabbath. The phrase "the Lord's [day]" only occurs once in the Bible: in John's "Revelation" (1:10). If this is a reference to the Sabbath, it is a stunning exception to normal Jewish practice.
The Early Witnesses
An examination of the following passages should establish that references
to the first day of the week are references to the day following
the Sabbath, and not to the Sabbath itself, or to any portion of
the Sabbath.
| Mt 28:1 | In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first of the week, Mary Magdalene came... |
| Mk 16:2 | very early in the morning of the first of the week, they came to the sepulchre at the rising of the sun. |
| 16:9 | Now when [Jesus] was risen early the first [day] of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene... |
| Lk 24:1 | Now upon the first [day] of the week, very early in the morning, they came to the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain [others] with them. |
| Jn 20:1 | The first [day] of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, to the sepulchre... |
| 20:19 | Then the same day at evening, being the first [day] of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and saith to them, "Peace to you." |
| Acts 20:7 | And upon the first [day] of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached to them, ready to depart on the next day; and continued his speech until midnight. |
| 1 Cor 16:2 | On the first [day] of the week let each one of you lay by him in store, as [God] has prospered him, that there be no offerings [collected] when I come. |
| Acts 2:1 | And when the day of Pentecost was fully come,
they were all with one accord...
=> => Fifty [7 * 7 + 1] days after the Passover
Sabbath,
Pentecost
was celebrated.
Similarly, the Year of Jubilee occurred every 7 * 7 + 1 years, i.e. on the year after the seven Sabbath years |
A study should also be made of Old Testament references to worship on
the eighth day as precursors to what God would do through
Christ on the first day.
Following are five quotations written very early in the Church's history to offer instruction to believers, and explanations & descriptions of Church practice to unbelieving questioners. The five quotations are taken from the ten volume set: The AnteNicene Fathers.
A. Pliny (the Younger) to Trajan concerning Christians in Bithynia - dated 112 a.d.
7. ...they
declared that the sum of their guilt or error had amounted only to this,
that on an appointed day they had been accustomed to meet before daybreak,
and
to recite a hymn antiphonally to Christ, as to a god, and to bind themselves
by
a sacrament...to abstain from theft, robbery, adultery and breach of faith,
and
not to deny a deposit when it was claimed. After the conclusion of
this ceremony
it was their custom to depart and meet again to take food;
B. Ignatius to the Magnesians (9:1)
If,
therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have
come
to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath,
but living in the
observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung
up again by Him and
by His death...
Let
us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner,
and rejoice in
days of idleness; for "he that does not work, let him not eat." For
say the oracles,
"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread." But let every
one of you keep
the Sabbath after a spiritual manner, rejoicing in meditation on
the law, not in relaxation
of the body, admiring the workmanship of God, and not eating things prepared
the
day before, nor using lukewarm drinks, and walking within a prescribed
space, nor
finding delight in dancing and plaudits which have no sense in them.
And after the
observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's
Day as a festival,
the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days [of the week].
Looking
forward to this, the prophet declared, "To the end, for the eighth day,"
on which our
life both sprang up again, and the victory over death was obtained in Christ,
C. Teaching of the Twelve (Apostles) [also called The
Didache] - dated to about 120 a.d. and considered to be one
of the earliest, non-Biblical, Church
documents in existence:
2. The apostles
further appointed: On the first [day] of the week let there
be
service, and the reading of the holy scriptures, and the oblation
[i.e. Communion]:
because on the first day of the week our lord rose from the place
of the dead,
and on the first day of the week he arose upon the world, and on
the first day of
the week he ascended up to heaven, and on the first day of the week
he will ap-
pear at last with the angels of heaven.
4. The apostles
further appointed: On the evening [of the Sabbath], at the ninth
hour, let there be service: because that which had been spoken on the fourth
day
of the week about the suffering of the Savior was brought to pass on the
[same]
evening [i.e. the evening of the Sabbath--before sundown on Friday]; the
worlds
and creatures trembling, and the luminaries in the heavens being darkened.
D. The First Apology of Justin (Martyr) - dated at about 150 a.d.
Chapter 67 - And on the day called Sun's day (translated literally
from the
Greek), ALL who live in cities or in the country gather together to one
place,
and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read,
as long
as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally
instructs,
and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise
together and
pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine
and water
are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings,
according to his ability, and the people assent, saying: Amen...
E. [Tertullian] To the Nations - dated at about 190 a.d.
Others...suppose that the sun is the god of the Christians, because it
is a well-
known fact that we pray towards the east, or because we make Sunday
a day of
celebration. ...For the JEWISH feasts are the Sabbath
and "the Purification," and
Jewish also are the ceremonies of the lamps [Hanukah], and the fasts of
unleavened
bread...Wherefore, that I may return from this digression, you who reproach
us with
the sun and Sunday should consider your proximity to us [i.e. in
practice]. We are
not far off from your Saturn and your days of rest.
F. Constantine to Elpidius, Codex Justinianus, III, xii, 3 - dated 7th March 321 a.d.
All judges, city-people and craftsmen shall rest on the venerable day
of the sun.
But countrymen may without hindrance attend to agriculture, since it often
happens
that this is the most suitable day for sowing grain or planting vines,
so that the
opportunity afforded by divine providence may not be lost, for the right
season is
of short duration.
Even if the 1 Corinthian 16 passage should be interpreted to mean that the believers were each week, to privately collect a portion of their earnings so that when Paul came they would all be ready to deliver to him what they had put aside, (as contrasted to a weekly, public collection), such an interpretation could NOT explain why Paul emphasized the first day of the week on which to make the collection. Since the custom of that time was to pay wages daily, the reference to the FIRST day could not have been to a weekly pay-day. On the other hand, if Christians of that time were accustomed to regard the first day as special in commemoration and honor of the Creator (Jn 3:3) who died for our sins and arose to give us life (Rom 5:10) on the FIRST day of the week, Paul's reference is easily understood.
Note that all of the extra-Biblical references clearly describe the rule and practice of the early Church concerning worship as occurring on Sunday. This is NOT an "erroneous conclusion" for it merely summarizes what the writers said. Note also that they are all dated well before Constantine, let alone before Rome and its bishop gained the preeminence in the Western Church.
In Pliny's letter to Trajan (both of whom persecuted the Church) is recorded a description by Christians of their worship practice. True, it MAY have occurred before sunrise on Saturday morning, but if so, it was no normal Sabbath observance. There is absolutely NO record of any Israelite at any time worshipping on the Sabbath in such a manner as is recorded in Pliny's letter! This letter also makes abundantly clear that Christians did NOT "distance themselves" from the Jews "by keeping Sunday" in order to avoid persecution. It is clear from the first part of the letter (unquoted), that the true Christians in no way sought to avoid being killed for their beliefs by compromising them in ANY way!
Ignatius' statement is interesting since it seems to reflect a period when the Church still had a large percentage of Jewish Christians. However, even though he advises an observance of the Sabbath, such observance is set in contrast to the usual Jewish practices. Ignatius' continuation in Chapter 10 is even more damaging to White's and the Adventist position, since he emphatically directs Christians, after keeping the Sabbath "spiritually" to go on and keep the Lord's [day] as a celebration. And, lest there be any doubt about which day was "the Lord's", Igatius calls it, "the resurrection-day" and "the eighth day".
Now, note that, even though a Sabbath service is enjoined in the 4th statement of the Didache, the reason given has nothing remotely to do with any statement in the Law, or as concerning God's resting on the first Sabbath of the Creation! Just as the omitted 3rd statement enjoins a service on the 4th day (Thursday) because Jesus then revealed his impending death on that day. On the other hand, the service enjoined on the first of the week honors the Creator by commemorating His victory on that (first) day of the week.
Secondly, it is highly unlikely that Constantine--even with the
Roman bishop's blessing--could have gotten away with passing such a law
from scratch, without some prior basis of related activity already in practice.
To have tried such a novelty-- as some emperors before him had tried--would
have produced enough protest that there would be some indication in history.
If the Church from Apostolic days had only met on the Sabbath, then for
the emperor and/or Roman bishop to even attempt such an innovation would
have brought protest across the empire from dedicated Christians.
But we find silence instead. Rather we find celebration that the
emperor would agree to pass an edict that was thought to be so favorable
to the Church. Certainly, Rome could have destroyed some evidence
of such a protest, but then, if she could be so thorough as to destroy
it completely, why not also eradicate all references to any Christians
keeping the Sabbath? Since a multitude of such references exist,
either Rome was very efficient on the one hand and peculiarly inept on
the other, or the record as it exists represents historical reality.
There were also sources of quotations from her own century that she failed to relate, that give other reasons for meeting on Sunday, the 1st day of the week. These sources are to be found among the writings of what was then known as the Restoration Movement. Begun essentially in 1804, this movement was, and is, neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant. Their simple call was to reform the practice and structure of the Church to that of New Testament times. They opposed both the Papal system of Rome and the hierarchical systems of Protestants, not to mention their beliefs and practices concerning baptism.
Unlike White and her followers, and her quoted sources, they WERE able to find scriptural evidence for an Apostolically sanctioned change for worship on the first day of the week. Acts 20:7 and its surrounding story is one such case. 1 Cor 16:2 is one other. If the observation be made that these are only two scriptures and neither one represent a command to worship on the 1st day, the response will be offered: So what? If there is only ONE scripture which clearly represents God's will, none other is necessary. There are NO New Testament examples of Christians being COMMANDED to worship on the Sabbath. It may be argued that Christians are commanded to obey Christ's commandments, which are also God's, and that these commands include the 4th of the Decalogue given to Moses and the Israelites. Such is only conjecture, for there is no specific instance in the whole Bible where Christians are commanded to keep the Sabbath! To be intellectually honest--which White is not--it must be acknowledged that there is likewise no command to "keep" the 1st day, either. Likewise, there are Biblical examples of the Apostles meeting in synagogues on the Sabbath, but there is absolutely NO clear statement that it was for the purpose of worship, as we now think of that activity. A more plausible speculation, and one that is sustained by the record of the Acts, is that they were there and at that time, because that is where and when the Jews were gathered, presenting the perfect opportunity to preach the gospel--and not to worship with the Jews. This assertion is even more clearly sustained when we consider that after Paul determines to no longer wrestle with the Jews (Acts 18:6) there is absolutely NO further mention of any meeting on a Sabbath or in a synagogue.
On the other hand, the two Biblical references to the 1st day already mentioned DO specifically mention activities of worship as we now think of that term. There was preaching and teaching, there was "breaking of bread", there was praise, there was a gathering of offerings. The only specific activity mentioned in connection with the synagogue meetings was the proclamation of the gospel and the exposition of scriptures to demonstrate the truth of that proclamation. Where in those accounts is the exhortation to holy living? The warning to persevere in the face of the coming persecutions? The sharing of the Eucharist? The collection of offerings?
However, the Acts 20 episode has been explained as merely a "going away" supper meeting for Paul and his companions. It was certainly at least that, but was it more? Paul and his companions had been there for seven days, including the Sabbath. Why is there no mention of a meeting on any of those days, especially on the Sabbath. Why is specific mention made of "the first day"? Appeal has also been made to Acts 2:46 to explain the "breaking of bread" as (perhaps) just a common meal. Perhaps. But in that case, if this was to be a "going away" supper, why did the people wait "until midnight" to share the food?
The admittedly brief picture given by the two scriptures, however, is exactly duplicated and expanded in descriptions by the five early accounts mentioned above.
It is therefore remarkable that such a diligent search of scriptures as White presents us with as taking place, should fail to notice this evidence. The obvious explanation is that the searchers were not looking to discover what the truth actually was, but to see if they could discover their own view of things represented there. As is usually the case when someone brings a point of view to the scriptures to prove it so, they were successful--but at the expense of the truth. In this, they are in the good company of such large names as Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and Wesley, not to mention Graf, Welhausen, Witgenstein, Bultmann, Walvoord, and others.
White also states dogmatically, as if proven, that "the Sabbath was kept by Adam in his innocence in holy Eden...It was kept by all the patriarchs, from Abel to righteous Noah, to Abraham, to Jacob." Now this is indeed a matter that one may search the scriptures in vain to discover any evidence for. The editors, in the index of at least of the 1939 edition of her book, even refer to each of these holy men as keeping the Sabbath! She does not offer this statement as being a probability, but as an established fact. Nor does she offer any scriptural or extra-Biblical support for her contention. Where in the Bible does it say that these men "kept the Sabbath"? Adventists claim to obtain their beliefs ONLY from the Bible; maybe they consider White's writings as Biblical???
White follows in the footsteps of so many others who wish to establish their new ideas as being bonafide, when she only partially quotes certain scriptures. She does indeed quote accurately, the parts she includes. It is what she omits that is a danger to her position and that of her followers (especially those who read her books more than they read the Bible for themselves, and deceive themselves that they are studying God's word). On pgs 515-516 she quotes Isa 56:1,2,6,7 and then dogmatically states that, "These words apply in the Christian age, as shown by the context...Thus the OBLIGATION of the fourth commandment extends past the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Christ..." But she leaves off the last part of verse 7, which says, "...their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all people." According to White, then, and strictly according to the context of the WHOLE passage, burnt offerings and sacrifices "apply in the Christian age." Whose burnt offerings and sacrifices shall be acceptable? "The sons of the stranger that join themselves to Yahveh...every one that keeps the Sabbath from polluting it, and keeps his hand from doing any evil, and takes hold of my covenant." (Isa 56:2,6) If White is correct about "the obligation of the fourth commandment" then Adventists better be finding themselves a proper altar to offer the also obligated burnt offerings and sacrifices! [Oh! But those are PART of the (whole) Ceremonial Law (like circumcision - cf Gal 5:3) which has passed away!]
In like manner she continues on page 516, interpreting Isa 8:16 & 20. "The seal of God's law" she says, "is found in the fourth commandment." (Where is THAT found in the Bible?) After quoting verse 20, she jumps clear over to Isa 58. But before we travel with her there, let us back up to Isa 8. What is the "this word" mentioned by the prophet? Who are the "they" who if they "speak not according to this word, there is no light in them"? White would have us believe the word is concerning keeping the Sabbath and "they" are Christians. But a look at Isa 8, starting from verse 1 will show that the "testimony" concerned Isaiah's son and the coming attack by Assyria. The words of vs 16 are Isaiah's, not God's, although what Isaiah commands is according to God's wishes. The disciples of vs 16 are the prophet's. Verse 20 is a continuation of Isaiah's question begun in verse 19: "...should not a people seek...?" This is the "word" by which if the people (of both houses of Israel - vs 14) do not speak, they have no light.
On page 517, concerning Isa 58:1-2, White writes, "The prophet thus points out the ordinance which has been forsaken: jumping suddenly to vs 12b) 'Thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, ... If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath...' This prophecy also applies in our time. The breach was made in the law of God when the Sabbath was changed by the Roman power." But the whole of Isa 58:1-12 is concerning the uncaring injustice of the house of Jacob! They fasted and considered such a holy act as acceptable to God. Meanwhile, there were fellow Israelites in their neighborhood in oppressed by unrighteous judges and the rich (cf Jeremiah); some were hungry, some were naked, some were homeless and destitute. Verse 10 describes who it is who shall be called "the repairer of the breach, the restorer of paths to dwell in," NOT verse 13! Those who keep the Sabbath have their own, separate promise of blessing, found in verse 14.
It is clear from reading Ellen G. White's Testimonies for the Church, Volume 1, that the major tenets of the SDA belief which are peculiar to them were derived, not from study of the Bible, but from ecstatic visions. It is equally clear that she and her followers were sincere and devout believers, honestly seeking God's will and rightly looking for the final return of Jesus. It is just as clear that she and her followers accepted the visions as being from God and, therefore, accepted the interpretations delivered through the visions as being from Him and true.
It is truly lamentable that no one of her time was knowledgeable enough in both history (natural, human, and Christian) and the Bible to refute the errors of the Adventist interpretations of Daniel & Revelation, and contemporary events. By her own testimony, some did try to refute her viewpoint from Scriptures, but unsuccessfully. There is more than a hint in even Volume One of her Testimonies, that those who did rationally (as contrasted with vituperatively) oppose her views were branded as unrepentant hardheads. The power of her ecstatic experiences fully persuaded her that hers was the right interpretation and that those who did not agree were inevitably in the wrong. That is not to say she did not worry about whether or not she was right; she did. But ultimately, experience won out over knowledge and reason, as it did with Augustine and Calvin, and as it has in our day with the Existentialists and Charismatics. To be sure, she was not--in her time--and is not in ours, alone in the use of questionable Biblical hermeneutics to derive a plausible, hoped for interpretation of Scripture. But Paul did not without cause say, "I do not allow a woman to teach." And in another place, "It is not permitted for your women to speak in the church." Of course he himself excepted the teaching of younger women by older women, and praying or prophecying under the influence of a spirit (as long as a veil is worn, covering the head). By her own testimony, White and her followers ignored his warning mandate.
Though the SDA's will undoubtedly accuse this writer of "nitpicking," there is at least one reference in Volume One of her Testimonies, pg. 107 ("The Death of My Husband") where she relates that, "We had an appointment to attend a tent meeting at Charlotte, Sabbath and Sunday, July 23 and 24." She goes on to relate the keeping of that appointment, on both days. Quite aside from the snobbery evidenced by calling Saturday, "Sabbath" and then calling First Day, "Sunday" (as she does most other places), is the fact that her holding a meeting on Sunday--which no doubt included what God Himself would label worship--violates the very principles she taught concerning the message of the third angel of Rev 14. Did she not, by her own standards--which she repeatedly proclaims in the Great Controversy--by attending that meeting, confirm the Pope's and Roman church's claim of authority to "change times and laws"? And if she did not, then how is it that she agrees with the Roman church's claim that Protestants, by meeting for worship on Sunday give tacit acknowledgment to the Pope's and Roman church's claim of such authority? If meeting on Sunday after receiving the third angel's message is "the Mark of the Beast" how can it be said, she (and those who met with her) now lacks that mark?
The whole matter is essentially a "straw-man argument" anyway. A man of straw would be an easy fellow to knock down. He is put forward merely for the sake of having something there. The whole Roman-Church-&-Pope-changing-the-Sabbath-to-Sunday issue is such. White and her colleagues and all the sources she and they quote miss one very important point. (Such is usually the case with complicated deceptions.) What point? Why, merely that all the laws so far passed mandating resting and/or worship on Sunday sayABSOLUTELY NOTHING about prohibiting observance of the Sabbath! All believers, or nonbelievers, everywhere, and in every time have always been free to assemble for worship on the Sabbath! Nor does White anywhere indicate that the Beast's future mandate concerning Sunday observance will prohibit Sabbath observance. Praise God that He always provides at least one glaring hole in the fabric of Satan's lies, to warn us when someone is being led too far astray.
It is true that the Adventists of the 19th and 20th centuries have been one of the sources of additional repentance and reform among believers. Ellen G. White and her followers have performed the world a service in demonstrating the connections between health and the foods we eat. (Kellogg, for example, was an Adventist.) But nothing of positive value and truth that have come from her efforts are lacking in the Bible. That is, we could study the Bible ourselves and arrive at the same conclusions regarding food & health and moral reform in the Church. It is equally true that White and her followers have been one of the sources of additional doctrinal error concerning the return of Christ. Not in turning again the attention of believers to the expectation, but in redefining what God is supposedly doing in heaven and what is God's will for believers. Unwittingly, they have contradicted the Bible in its message of what Christ has ALREADY accomplished. This is a more serious matter than merely misleading people as to when Jesus will return.
Much, much more could be written showing the errors of this system of belief, but if the foundation pillars are shown to be insubstantial, what chance have the walls of standing? The Adventist and non-Adventist alike are admonished and exhorted to study the Bible still more and rely on visions and supposedly Divine prophetic pronouncements still less. Along with the bible, study History and the Creation. In the one you shall discover the errors already made and uncovered in the past; in the other you shall discover what may be known of the God who created (Rom 1:19-20).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For comments or for more information, you may contact:
David L. Mohn
Block 9, Flat 18C
Aldrich Garden
Saukeiwan, Hong Kong
phone/fax: (852) 2561-8459
email: mohn.fong@alumni.cityu.edu.hk
This page and WebSite authored and maintained wholly
by Light Creations.
Please direct all questions, queries and comments to
David
L. Mohn.
Copyright Light Creations 1995-2005 - All Rights Reserved.
This page last updated 13-Sep-2001.
