What's a Judaizer?

[Ron Amnsn]

Some Bible Trivia questions:

• In the King James Version of the Bible, how many times does the word Judaize and/or Judaizer appear?
• In the Greek New Testament, how many times does the word for Judaize and/or Judaizer appear?
• In each case, who is the person described by the word Judaize and/or Judaizer?
• In each case, which Old Testament law was being taught by the person described by the word Judaize and/or Judaizer?

[DaveM1936]

I could not find either word in the concordance.

However, I found these two texts which contain the idea of being a Judaizer.

Acts 15:1: And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. (KJV)

Gal 6:15: For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. (KJV)

Dave M

[Ron Amnsn]

DaveM,

That's the correct answer to the first question. The words don't appear in the KJV.

[Robert]

A Jewish Christian who accepted Christ as the Messiah, but maintained that salvation was gained by obedience to the law.

[jasd]

Matt 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

[wicklunds]

Ju·da·ize Audio pronunciation of "judaizer" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jd-z)

v. Ju·da·ized, Ju·da·iz·ing, Ju·da·iz·es

v. tr.

To bring into conformity with Judaism.

v. intr.

To adopt Jewish customs and beliefs.

Taken from:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=judaizer

I know this is not in scripture because this word was probably made up after Bible canonization by those who perfected a hatred of Jewish customs, including Sabbath-keeping. The problem is that the Jews never made a distinction between the ceremonial and moral requirements, as many evangelicals and SDA sympathizers (of evangelical Christianity) don't. This is interesting considering the fact that they (Jews) rejected the Messiah. But I believe there are scriptural evidences that make at least a symbolic and literally physical separation between the two (10c's inside the ark and the book of written ceremonial and civic laws in the side of the ark). Food for thought.

[Ron Amnsn]

Quote:

---

Matt 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

---

Although this verse doesn't use the word "Judaize", it may shed some light on the concept of Judaizing. The Pharisees were apparently teaching their proselytes to do something different than what Jesus was doing. Jesus was faithfully obeying the Law of Moses, so the Pharisees must have been teaching something different than the Law of Moses.

Is there any Old Testament teaching that would make someone a "child of hell" if they followed it? Did God instruct his people to do something in the Old Testament, and then later turn around and have Jesus condemn people for following those instructions?

[Ron Amnsn]

Quote:

---

A Jewish Christian who accepted Christ as the Messiah, but maintained that salvation was gained by obedience to the law.

---

Robert,

I think this is a commonly used definintion of a Judaizer. But I have some questions about it:

• Is there a Scripture passage that provides or supports this definition?
• Could a Gentile Christian be a Judaizer? How about a Jew who wasn't a Christian?
• If a person taught obedience, but not for the purpose of gaining salvation, would they be a Juadaizer?

[wicklunds]

This may provide some evidence for your search. The Jewish elders and scribes and Pharisees and religious elites were doing things not supported by the word of God. Here, may lie some element to your conceptualization of the issue. I remembered when Jesus confronted the Pharisees on their laws and traditions:

Mat 15:3 And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?

Mat 15:4 "For God said, 'HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER,' and, 'HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH.'

Mat 15:5 "But you say, 'Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God,"

Mat 15:6 he is not to honor his father or his mother.' And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

Mat 15:7 "You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you:

Mat 15:8 'THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.

Mat 15:9 'BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'"

Interesting quote I think you would agree...

[wicklunds]

I found an interesting article that you might be interested in Ron about this topic at:

http://biblicalholidays.com/Excerpts/what%27s_all_the_fuss.htm

I hope this helps..

[Ron Amnsn]

Thanks Wicklunds,

The Pharisees were indeed teaching things that weren't in Scripture. Some things they taught contradicted Scripture.

That's what the Greek word for "Judaize" refers to in Gal 2:14. Peter had reverted to a Jewish tradition not found in Scripture, and by his actions he was teaching the Gentile believers that they weren't acceptable if they merely followed Scripture; they had to submit to the man-made traditions of the Jews as well if they wanted to be considered brothers in Messiah. Paul was correct in rebuking Peter as a Judaizer in that instance. What Peter was teaching by his example was contrary to the Old Testament and to the Gospel.

The article you posted is interesting. The part that refers to Judaizing is near the bottom of the article. It's true that some Christians falsely accuse Messianic Jews of being Judaizers. Of course, there are some Messianics who do teach tradition rather than Scripture, in which case the term "Judaizer" would be appropriate.

Jesus said that those who practice and teach Old Testament law "[:"red"]will be called great in the kingdom of heaven[/]" (Matt 5:19), which directly contradicts the common practice of condemning as Judaizers those who practice and teach Old Testament law today.

[wicklunds]

Amen!!

[benherndon]

Quote:

---

I know this is not in scripture because this word was probably made up after Bible canonization by those who perfected a hatred of Jewish customs, including Sabbath-keeping. The problem is that the Jews never made a distinction between the ceremonial and moral requirements, as many evangelicals and SDA sympathizers (of evangelical Christianity) don't. This is interesting considering the fact that they (Jews) rejected the Messiah. But I believe there are scriptural evidences that make at least a symbolic and literally physical separation between the two (10c's inside the ark and the book of written ceremonial and civic laws in the side of the ark). Food for thought.

---

>>>There are a couple of points in this paragraph that do not properly represent the situation. One is that I don't know of anybody who 'hates' the Sabbath!!

There is considerable error in stating that the 10c's are separate from the Book of the Law. Stop and reason for a few minutes. First of all the 10c's were written twice on stones. They must have been written in quite small letters for the 'box' they were placed in, the Ark, was small itself and contained also a pretty good sized jar of manna and also Aaron's rod. The Book of the Law was given basically the same time the 10c's were given. All of the other commandments, rules, regulations in the Book of Moses, written on rolls, we find were bulky and yet were of the exact same authority as the 10Cs AND were contained in 'the Law'. There wasn't room in the Ark in all probability for all the Torah to have been written on scrolls and also placed inside the Ark. When 'the Law' is spoken of in some places it refers to the 10c's as well as the entire Law. Aaron's rod signified the miraculous power of God. The manna signified His body! The Ten Cs were contextually a proxy for the holiness of the entire Law which was placed beside the Ark and inside the MOST Holy Place --- note the importance of "MOST"! It is never stated in the Bible anywhere that the TenCs were a proxy for the whole law but contextually they are bracketed together commonly by Paul contextually. In Matt 5 'the Law and the Prophets' are referred to but in context of the rest of the chapter some of the TenCs are discussed in detail. So, I have no hesitation to say the TenCs were representative of the entire Law, all of which is commanded to be just as holy as any other part. Besides in interpreting the NT in light of the old it fits beautifully to use the Ten Cs as a proxy and I, so far, can find not indication it is wrong to do so.

Now, in regard to "Judaize"----the fact that it is not in the Bible is not of major importance because Judaism IS in the Bible, references to the Party of the Pharisees and Sadducees IS in the Bible and there is reference in, for example, Acts 13 and 15 that Jews were attempting to, er!, judaize Christian teaching and were rejected. Now we know very well from several other references thoughout the NT that those who were Jews were trying to keep the law of Moses active throughout Christianity at the beginning at least. "Judaize" is a 'summarization' of this activity to make communication amongst us shorter and to the point. WE could refer to the 'party of the circumcision', we could refer to the party of the Pharisees, etc. but collectively we all know pretty much what we mean when we say there wereattempts to "judaize" Christianity and there certainly is no doubt that when one combines the Sabbath with Christianity one certainly is 'combining' a part of the Law of Moses right with Christianity.

Because I bring up that the Sabbath is not mandatory to salvation it makes most SDAs prick up their ears and get upset. I have never advised Sunday keeping. Although are you really sure from the NT at least that Sabbath IS REALLY demanded of the Gentile?? I can't find it---maybe you can. I spent most of the Sabbaths in my professional life of 48 yrs working some way or another on the Sabbath which began with the last bit of sunshine over the hill to the west Fri and ended the same time Sabbath! I worked a lot. As far as I can determine all docs who take care of sick people do at least some work on Sabbath and all other days too OR they leave town, OR, they get somebody else to 'work' for them! I do not find any modification of the formal 4th commandment Law of the Sabbath that allows man to do any work of any kind on the Sabbath except the most emergent type. Just read the 4th Command!! What's the matter with people?

So, why not let others who do good works for mankind on the Sabbath to 'work' at such and attend our church in honor if you will of that 4th command. Examine the Law, the Torah and the OT and see what is advised as to how mankind shold observe that 4th command. Yet, not only did they have trouble in those days but ever since then it has become moer and more difficult to keep the 4th commandment due to life being a whole lot different now than it was 3 to 4 thousand years or possibly since creation!! Jesus worked on the Sabbath and He and the other writers of the NT failed to ever re-command that 4th commandment for the Christian. Several texts indicate the opposite of a command.

So what's wrong with letting people who 'have' to work on Sabbath---let them worship with us when they can WITHOUT criticising them?? This cuts them off from our definition of 'salvation' if we keep them out and deny them fellowship and promise!! Further more, nobody is more interested in money than the church---as is also all churches--so why not benefit them and the church by baptizeing them like the jailer in ACT 16 and help them as well as our own churches finances?

OK, show me from scripture where I'm wrong or you, you collecively and individually, take exception.

It's too late to correct this.

Goooooodddd Niiigghhhttt!!

Love ya' ...................... Ben

[benherndon]

Quote:

---

Jesus said that those who practice and teach Old Testament law "will be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 5:19), which directly contradicts the common practice of condemning as Judaizers those who practice and teach Old Testament law today.

---

>>>May I gently and repsectfully disagree with this conclusion. I Matt 5 Matthew is apparently trying to convnice deeply devotional Jews that Jesus is/was the Messiah. Most all of his references to 'the Law' refers to the 'whole' Mosaic Law which was taught to be observed by the Jews. Matt 5 point out the Jesus came to 'fulfill' or 'complete' the predictions, the prophecies of the OT that there would be a Messiah someday. He did all those things the OT said He would do and who He was. Nothing in 'the Law' was to change 'until' all be fulfilled/accomplished. Well, He fulfilled it all!!

The people are 'shocked'!!! Some shocked nicely and some badly, so to speak. It is a transition period. We dont cross over from a long time in one form of religion and suddently make major changes in it. Mankind's nature just doesn't tolerate such. Even today some 4000yrs later here are arguing about it intently still!! So whatever is said or written in Matt 5 MUST be interpreted in the light of the entire New Testament---not JUST in the moment of a few verses. The point is clear. Jesus is the Messiah and He is changing things at least somewhat but it is in steps and it did happen in steps and it is 'looking back' at it that we can see what happened and why, perhaps.

We mustn't hang much of any highly important belief, doctrine, reproof or teaching on one sentence or two--it my point. I do not mean to be lecturing anybody, particularly you, Ron Ammundson! But it is late and, please excuse me, but we surgeons are rather too blunt at times. Our MO of work is to make decisions and act on them at the risk of our patients so when we see what needs to be done we don't mess around with it very much. We say it, do it or whatever and explain later when the patient's interest demand such, even though the patient may not appreciate such action until after it has been done.

Many texts in the NT make it pretty clear to me, at least, that the Jews tried to prevent the rise and success of Christianity. Many of them attempted to 'get along' IF the Christians would accept at least some of the Jewish traditional teachings and perform certain acts and functions. That is what we have been, rightly or wrongly, referring to Judaizing. It seems to me that Paul and Peter and the Gospel writers didn't approve of mixing any of Judaism with Christianity. Some common behaviors of mankind were also common to both the Jewish Religion and with Christian Religion. Those non-unique-to-the-Jewish Religion-principles of life existed long before 'the Law' was given to the Jews at Sinai. Archeology alone reveals that if I can believe what we've been told by archeologists and historians. Like the Laws of Hammarabbi, and, now the Noachic laws have been mentioned and gentiles had principls to live by long before they were invited into Christainity.

Do I make any sense at all to those who know the Bible well or better than me?

Again it's late---so what you see is what you get from me tonight.

Ben

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I know this is not in scripture because this word was probably made up after Bible canonization by those who perfected a hatred of Jewish customs, including Sabbath-keeping. The problem is that the Jews never made a distinction between the ceremonial and moral requirements, as many evangelicals and SDA sympathizers (of evangelical Christianity) don't. This is interesting considering the fact that they (Jews) rejected the Messiah. But I believe there are scriptural evidences that make at least a symbolic and literally physical separation between the two (10c's inside the ark and the book of written ceremonial and civic laws in the side of the ark). Food for thought.

---

>>>There are a couple of points in this paragraph that do not properly represent the situation. One is that I don't know of anybody who 'hates' the Sabbath!!

There is considerable error in stating that the 10c's are separate from the Book of the Law. Stop and reason for a few minutes. First of all the 10c's were written twice on stones. They must have been written in quite small letters for the 'box' they were placed in, the Ark, was small itself and contained also a pretty good sized jar of manna and also Aaron's rod. The Book of the Law was given basically the same time the 10c's were given. All of the other commandments, rules, regulations in the Book of Moses, written on rolls, we find were bulky and yet were of the exact same authority as the 10Cs AND were contained in 'the Law'. There wasn't room in the Ark in all probability for all the Torah to have been written on scrolls and also placed inside the Ark. When 'the Law' is spoken of in some places it refers to the 10c's as well as the entire Law. Aaron's rod signified the miraculous power of God. The manna signified His body! The Ten Cs were contextually a proxy for the holiness of the entire Law which was placed beside the Ark and inside the MOST Holy Place --- note the importance of "MOST"! It is never stated in the Bible anywhere that the TenCs were a proxy for the whole law but contextually they are bracketed together commonly by Paul contextually. In Matt 5 'the Law and the Prophets' are referred to but in context of the rest of the chapter some of the TenCs are discussed in detail. So, I have no hesitation to say the TenCs were representative of the entire Law, all of which is commanded to be just as holy as any other part. Besides in interpreting the NT in light of the old it fits beautifully to use the Ten Cs as a proxy and I, so far, can find not indication it is wrong to do so.

Now, in regard to "Judaize"----the fact that it is not in the Bible is not of major importance because Judaism IS in the Bible, references to the Party of the Pharisees and Sadducees IS in the Bible and there is reference in, for example, Acts 13 and 15 that Jews were attempting to, er!, judaize Christian teaching and were rejected. Now we know very well from several other references thoughout the NT that those who were Jews were trying to keep the law of Moses active throughout Christianity at the beginning at least. "Judaize" is a 'summarization' of this activity to make communication amongst us shorter and to the point. WE could refer to the 'party of the circumcision', we could refer to the party of the Pharisees, etc. but collectively we all know pretty much what we mean when we say there wereattempts to "judaize" Christianity and there certainly is no doubt that when one combines the Sabbath with Christianity one certainly is 'combining' a part of the Law of Moses right with Christianity.

Because I bring up that the Sabbath is not mandatory to salvation it makes most SDAs prick up their ears and get upset. I have never advised Sunday keeping. Although are you really sure from the NT at least that Sabbath IS REALLY demanded of the Gentile?? I can't find it---maybe you can. I spent most of the Sabbaths in my professional life of 48 yrs working some way or another on the Sabbath which began with the last bit of sunshine over the hill to the west Fri and ended the same time Sabbath! I worked a lot. As far as I can determine all docs who take care of sick people do at least some work on Sabbath and all other days too OR they leave town, OR, they get somebody else to 'work' for them! I do not find any modification of the formal 4th commandment Law of the Sabbath that allows man to do any work of any kind on the Sabbath except the most emergent type. Just read the 4th Command!! What's the matter with people?

So, why not let others who do good works for mankind on the Sabbath to 'work' at such and attend our church in honor if you will of that 4th command. Examine the Law, the Torah and the OT and see what is advised as to how mankind shold observe that 4th command. Yet, not only did they have trouble in those days but ever since then it has become moer and more difficult to keep the 4th commandment due to life being a whole lot different now than it was 3 to 4 thousand years or possibly since creation!! Jesus worked on the Sabbath and He and the other writers of the NT failed to ever re-command that 4th commandment for the Christian. Several texts indicate the opposite of a command.

So what's wrong with letting people who 'have' to work on Sabbath---let them worship with us when they can WITHOUT criticising them?? This cuts them off from our definition of 'salvation' if we keep them out and deny them fellowship and promise!! Further more, nobody is more interested in money than the church---as is also all churches--so why not benefit them and the church by baptizeing them like the jailer in ACT 16 and help them as well as our own churches finances?

OK, show me from scripture where I'm wrong or you, you collecively and individually, take exception.

It's too late to correct this.

Goooooodddd Niiigghhhttt!!

Love ya' ...................... Ben

---

Hello Ben

I think that the problem I have with maintaining that keeping the Sabbath is not necessary for salvation is that you are saying there is a distinction between the moral requirements in the Old Testament and the New. I believe this to be a mistake of the highest order. Would you say the same thing about murder? Or adultery? Or putting another God before the one true God? Then why is the

Sabbath commandment all of the sudden optional? It was not a Jewish-specific commandment and we, even as SDA's, are acting and preaching like it is. Where is our loyalty? I think we make exceptions because of a problematic few who refuse to sanction proper reverence for the law of God. This is akin to allowing Achans in the camp.

Even though we don't have an express restatement of the fourth commandment in the N.T. does that mean it is not binding? Not one jot or tittle right? Till all be fulfilled. If we rationalize and say that keeping the Sabbath is optional for some because their job requires it, then we will start making exceptions across the board, and before you know it, our whole church is switching to Sunday worship. This is exactly the kind of thing that we must avoid. I do realize that the medical field requires key personell to be working during Sabbath hours, but I bet I could go into every Adventist hospital on the Sabbath and identify tasks that are being performed that could be done after the Sabbath. And with salaried positions it becomes extra work to separate Sabbath pay from the rest of the month's weekly pay. Also a problem. We have come to the point of making more exceptions to the rule than finding exceptions in order to keep the rule, do you know what I mean? I am concerned about this.

Thanks,

Dennis

[benherndon]

Quote:

---

I think that the problem I have with maintaining that keeping the Sabbath is not necessary for salvation is that you are saying there is a distinction between the moral requirements in the Old Testament and the New. I believe this to be a mistake of the highest order. Would you say the same thing about murder? Or adultery? Or putting another God before the one true God? Then why is the

Sabbath commandment all of the sudden optional? It was not a Jewish-specific commandment and we, even as SDA's, are acting and preaching like it is. Where is our loyalty? I think we make exceptions because of a problematic few who refuse to sanction proper reverence for the law of God. This is akin to allowing Achans in the camp.

---

>>>>wick, what makes you think that morality didn't exist before 'the Law' was given to the Israelites? I thought you were among those that thought 'the Law' was commanded by God at Creation!--if so, wouldn't there have been morality rules? And, just where does one get the idea that the Sabbath is 'moral' issue anyhow, like murder, adultery, etc?

People apparently by their very nature or at least from observation knew that some order was necessary amongst the human race. They formed groups and wherever groups of people are there is some sort of government or ruler. It is common among SDAs to think that before man was given 'the Law' mankind just naturally killed and ate or whatever each other. Sure it happened to Cain and Abel but if I watch TV for a few minutes I will find it is still being done (not eating---although Jeff Daumer did that, too---sooo sad!!)

The Sabbath, wick, is listed right with the ceremonial feasts.ONE example is Lev 23. Murder is never mentioned with them. Paul said, if you recall, that even though 'the Law' wasn't given nor did it apply to the gentiles, they, nevertheless, had 'laws'unto themselves.

The Sabbath optional? Well, Yes, wick! The Sabbath was obviously a problem wasn't it. Achan stole some stuff even after his confession he and his family was stoned to death and their bodies burned! That was an age, not very complimentary to God, IMO, in which the innocent were killed in the name of God by ruling men---the head of which was Joshua. Just because they stole something once???---the entire family, animals and all stoned to death and burned up? Have you missed something that Jesus, God Himself in human form, didn't or wouldn't have done anything like that?

So the Sabbath is optional? Yes, it is in NT times. It was not in Jewish times.

Note NT times:

**Jesus worked on the Sabbath allegedly using His own words! John 5 This is Jesus Himself, God in human form living on earth in person, associating, eating, and sleeping with a lot of other humans. No intermediary between them! Significant? I think so. Moses never saw God. MOses was allowed to see His back only and at best if at all for 40 days only.

**Jesus failed to observe the cleanliness laws in keeping with 'the Law' which included the Ten Commandments. He touched the lepers and told them to not tell anybody---why did He tell them that? Why did Jesus disregard those laws which Moses said God said were important? Ever think of that?

**Jesus healed chronic non-emergent 38 yr-old conditions on the Sabbath---they could easily have been told to wait for a few hours and then they would be healed when the sun had gone down. Read about all the things in the various gospels about Jesus' and the disciples doing things that were not exactly Adventist-like on Sabbath AND eating and feeding flesh foods and declaring all food clean etc etc. (let's not open up another subject on food right now, OK? Forget I said that--- )

**Paul wrote that we are not under 'the Law' but under 'faith/grace' when we believe in Him. 2Cor 3===the Law is done away and abolished (meaning in authority) Gal 3====we are no longer supervision of the law when we accept Christ as our Saviour. Gal 4---Hagar, representing the Old Covenant is 'cast out'! Eph 2, Christ abolished the law with its commandments!! How strong would you like it said? Col 2---the record of condemnation and the law that caused it was nailed to the cross. How much more plain would you like it said, wick?

**Paul also wrote that everyman should decide this matter of the Sabbath and foods for himself. The kingdom of God is not matter of food and drink.Rom 14

**Note those texts I gave Gerry--- Acts 13 and 15, 2Cor 3, Gal 3, Gal 4, Eph 2, 1Tim 1, all of Romans and Hebrews!! How in the world Sr. White could make a major mistake when reading the NT is only explained by the fact that she just didn't understand it in the light of her day and what she had witnessed and gone through, and, through the influence of others about her such as James. All those texts agree with each other and show that 'the Law' which obviously includes the Ten Commandments was not obligatory upon the gentile Christian. Christ's words and that of His chosen writers of the NT (we assume--I don't like it but we DO assume---and certainly EGW accepted the entire Bible as being the 'word' of God!!)-----Christ's words and that of His apostles reduced and took away the burdensome parts of 'the Law' and placed us under the state of forgiveness for all the sins of the past, the present and future---WHEN one accepts the story of God and HIs Son. We are to listen to Jesus--NOT to Moses!!! Check out the Transfiguration episode. Only Jesus remained, finally, and the voice from heaven said "This is my Son------listen to HIm!!!"

Wick, I note you have a little baby child. You are a dyed in the wool SDA believer in God and the Ten Commandments and Ellen White! Now fast forward down to someday when your little boy gets a fever and won't eat and has a tender belly. He's got appendicitis probably. He's going to die if something isn't done quickly. Some poor person has to call the doc or go to the ER. Somebody is sitting in the ER planning for someone to come in sick. He's brought in by the ambulance driver cause you called 911. Who was watching the 911 line? Mercifully he gets picked up. The Doc in the ER placed there because people get sick on Sabbath, too, sees your boy. You used your car that was nearly out of gas to follow the ambulance to the ER---but you for fear of running out of gas stopped on Sabbath at an open 'gas' station---or maybe you had a flat tire instead! The guy at the 'gas' station can quickly fix the tire. In the hospital the child vomits. Some janitor working on Sabbath has to come clean it up. Somebody is running the electrical generating station that makes light, various diagnostic equipment and the machines in the lab to work figuring out the blood count on your little boy. The surgeon comes to see your kid. X-rays are ordered--and other things have to be done. Radiology technichians and docs availble in the hospital by civil law! The telephones work so we can call the OR crew to come in and get ready for a surgery.Who runs the telephone system on Sabbath? The anesthesiologist has to come 25 miles. He has an accident. He calls on his cell phone--somebody has to be running the cell phone business for him to be able to call. Tow truck drive and police are standing by and respond on Sabbath? Another anesthesiologist is called as a fill-in relief guy. Somebody has to get the medicine over from the Hospital supply room for the anesthesiologist to use.

This can go on and on and on. Don't you want the loud speaker system to work where you preach? Who runs that sort of thing?

The Sabbath is a real big problem specially in this age. Did God know that this age was going to happen? You guess.

Well, sadly your child dies. You call the undertaker who is standing by on the Sabbath, too. (This is all very possible, BTW)

Wick---keeping the Sabbath is hopeless!! It cannot be kept by more than a few narrow minded SDAs because IF the whole world kept the Sabbath it would just stop and great harm would occur to billions of people!!

Who do you think was guiding and operating the ship that brought EGW to San Francisco from Sydney, Australia, on the Sabbath, providing her very plush accomodations, food, bed making, safety, her and Sara McEnterfer (who slept in a bunk while EGW slept in Presidential or HOneymoon luxury bed.)?? THINK!!! Reason!!! EGW travelled a lot on Sabbaths!

That is why the writer of Hebrews, wise as he was, came out with the Today which was started, incidentally, by King David who wasn't a very good example of being 'a man after God's own heart' when you think about it as a human being.

The NT requirement by Jesus when asked what laws should govern the attention of mankind, was (1) worship God and believe in Him, acknowledge Him and HIs Son who has reconciled us to Him and (2) observe a loving relationship with all other people. That's IT!!!! Leave off the details that have been such a burden. Live & love for God and others and .....that's it!!

I have looked looked for evidence in the NT that the Sabbath is now or ever will be a big factor in people's acceptance by God. I can find nothing that even hints at it. No, the Book of Revelation, does not say the Sabbath will be the final test!!! That is an asssumption that we SDAs have placed on it speculatively and, then, improperly made it into a 'big' thing! It just is a huge mistake.

I know this will not set well with you, wick, but...I'm an old SDA of many many years. I've been through most of it that any man can go through. I have rubbed elbows a long time with SDAs like you and SDAs like me. You won't like it when I tell you, you have a whole lot---A WHOLE LOT-- to learn yet and you need to find some balanced-mind honest and perceptive 'guru' to help you adjust to this very difficult religion to follow. For example---who do you know that really keeps the SAbbath according to the instructions given when the Commandment was given?? Who?? Be careful now.

God bless you as you are about to embark upon many years of preaching. I am opposed to preachers that preach 'the Law' because salvation is NOT in 'the Law' in any way shape or form. Salvation is in Jesus Christ only, or, it doesn't exist at all. Sure we should be nice people---but we shouldn't demand anymore for them than we sensibly demand of ourselves.

Ben

[wicklunds]

With all due respect Ben, I think that you have given up on the mission and challenge set forth by God for end-time, SDA Christians. Too many years of trying in our own strength will only help us to take the "easy" way out of religious commitment. I think this is why the scriptures say and the WHOLE WORLD wondered after the beast!!!! Because the human family has always gone from the stumbling block to foolishness, never finding the Christian equilibrium that Christ lived through faith.

The only reason a person would stop believing perfection was possible would be because they have lost faith. FAITH! FAITH! FAITH! with men this is impossible, but with God how many things are possible?? You havent listened or heeded the words of the prophet to the remnant Ben. You have let popular opinions and pet doctrines influence your walk to such an extent that there is never a rule of faith that leads to righteousness. Righteousness by faith! And how do we know there is a standard of righteousness?? JESUS! JESUS! JESUS! and did Jesus ever fault the law for our incapacities like you and others who agree with you? NOT EVEN ONCE!!! He did, however, say that people nullify the law by teaching for commandments the traditions of men.

It is not the fault of the law that we cannot keep them, but the fault of exercising a defiled human will. We must be colaborers with God and worry not that our salvation is through faith alone. I think your view of the Sabbath needs much work Ben. Why would God place, on tablets of stone, a list of moral commandments, with one in the middle seeming to be non-moral? Maybe to help us remember to keep the one day of the week holy that HE has set apart and sanctified (made holy) through His own divine power from creation. Listen to what you are saying Ben.

You said in your own words that if everyone kept the Sabbath that the world would fall down in shambles and chaos. is that God's fault? Or man's? If we were to take God at His word and truly, from our heart, keep His Sabbath, I believe there would be not a feeble one amongst us, just as it is written about the Israelites in the wilderness. But we love our mega hospitals and centers for disease and expensive treatments and pharmeceuticals that keep us on the tether to hell. But we make exception after exception. Too many exceptions and not enough heartfelt love for God and His divine day of rest. The reason we have not been blessed in our pursuit of holiness, is because the church is being lead by halfway committed individuals. SDA's need to have people who are not partial in the law. Too many Achans Ben!!!

Lets go home to heaven now and stop pussyfooting around and parlaying with earthly pleasures. This failed world will never bring complete happiness that is why the scriptures say love not the world neither the things that are in the world!!! The problem is that our Church is too afraid to be separate from what it has been for years coveting...The mammon of the WORLD. We need divine rest Ben. The divine Sabbath and its divine sanction. NOW! not in ten years when the world will be irreversibly polluted. But right now while the door of mercy is still open.

Yours in Christ Jesus,

Dennis

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "So, why not let others who do good works for mankind on the Sabbath to 'work' at such and attend our church in honor. . . ?

Dr. Ben that is exactly what is being done in many SDA Chruches today. There are those here who will argue whether it is right, or wrong. But, it is being done.

[Gregory Matthews]

wicklunds:

Re: "[1] I bet I could go into every Adventist hospital on the Sabbath and identify tasks that are being performed that could be done after the Sabbath. [2] And with salaried positions it becomes extra work to separate Sabbath pay from the rest of the month's weekly pay."

1. Do you know enough about medecine to know which tests could be done after the Sabbath? Then there is the question as to what it means to be able to do the tests later. If a person lies in pain for an extra 10 hours to simply wait until the Sabbath is over, is that what God wants?

2. Why would you want to seperate out Sabbath pay from Monday pay? The Sabbath command talks about not doing unnecesary work, not about whether or not one was paid for doing it. i.e. The lack of payment does not make a specific job permissable to perform on Sabbath. Payment does not mean that a job can not be done on the Sabbath. If it is necesary/permissable for a doctor to operate on the Sabbath, why should not thta doctor be paid for doing so?

[Ron Amnsn]

Hello Ben,

You have brought up some interesting points, some of which I agree with. Don't be appologetic about lecturing about me Scripture, I'm still just learning it. A paradigm shift in recent years has made me realize I didn't know much about Scripture. I come here to discuss what I think I'm learning now to see if the new paradigm holds up to scrutiny.

Quote:

---

In Matt 5 Matthew is apparently trying to convnice deeply devotional Jews that Jesus is/was the Messiah. Most all of his references to 'the Law' refers to the 'whole' Mosaic Law which was taught to be observed by the Jews.

---

I agree that the references to 'the Law' refer to the whole Mosiac Law. Not only that, when the Jewish authors say 'the Law' they are often refering to the Torah (books of Moses) together with the oral law (traditions) that the Jewish sages had added to God's law. When the Jews talked about 'the Law' they often did not distinguish between what God actually instructed in the Old Testament and what their sages taught about God's instructions.

Quote:

---

Matt 5 points out that Jesus came to 'fulfill' or 'complete' the predictions, the prophecies of the OT that there would be a Messiah someday. He did all those things the OT said He would do and who He was. Nothing in 'the Law' was to change 'until' all be fulfilled/accomplished. Well, He fulfilled it all!!

---

I disagree. It is true that Jesus did fulfill the prophecies regarding the first coming of Messiah. He fulfilled the prophetic types of the Spring Feasts (Passover, Unleavened Bread, Firstfruits, and Pentecost). However, there are many prophetic symbols in the Fall Feasts (Trumpets, Day of Atonement, and Tabernacles) that will not be fulfilled until the second coming of Jesus. There are numerous Old Testament prophecies that are not yet fulfilled. Also, some things in the Law and the Prophets can not be fulfilled by one-time events -- they require an ongoing fulfillment. Just as a marriage vow can not be fulfilled as a one-time event, but rather it is fulfilled through ongoing daily life, so also will the Law and the Prophets be fulfilled as God demonstrates that he is fulfilling the promises that he made to his people. For example, at what point in earth's history will the promise contained in the rainbow be fulfilled? (Gen 9) Even if Jesus had "fulfilled it all" (which he didn't), we still have heaven and earth with us at this point, so the jots and tittles of the law must still be valid as well.

Quote:

---

It is a transition period. We don't cross over from a long time in one form of religion and suddenly make major changes in it. Mankind's nature just doesn't tolerate such.

---

I used to believe this theory about a slow "transition period" during the life of Jesus and the book of Acts. However, when I went looking for Scriptures that actually teach that God intended for there to be a transition away from the teachings of the Old Testament, I found the theory was very poorly supported in Scripture. Consider the words of Jesus to Ephesus, the first church in Revelation 2:5 "[:"red"]Therefore remember from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds you did at first; or else I am coming to you and will remove your lampstand out of its place—unless you repent.[/]" Does that sound like Jesus was expecting the Ephesians to make a slow transition away from the Gospel as it was first preached to them? No, the first thing they did was the right thing.

Quote:

---

We mustn't hang much of any highly important belief, doctrine, reproof or teaching on one sentence or two--it my point.

---

You're right about this. If Matt 5:17-19 had not been included in the Bible we would still have all of the Old Testament, which teaches the same thing as Matt 5:17-19. Paul wrote, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness" (2 Tim 3:16) The New Testament wasn't published yet, so we know Paul was endorsing the Old Testament. How would you reprove or correct someone using the Old Testament, unless it was still a valid guide for Christian believers? How would you use the Old Testament for training in righteousness, unless the Old Testament definition of righteousness was still valid?

Quote:

---

It seems to me that Paul and Peter and the Gospel writers didn't approve of mixing any of Judaism with Christianity.

---

Because we are so far removed from the events of the New Testament, it is difficult to understand what the actual issues were that caused controversy in the emerging churches. In one place Paul says, "[:"blue"]Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you.[/]" (Gal 5:2). Yet Paul really seems to muddle the issue in Acts 15 and 16. In Acts 15 Paul wins a landmark decision against those Jewish believers who wanted to continue converting Gentiles into Jews when they became believers in Messiah. But then when Paul sets out to travel around to the Gentiles in Acts 16 "[:"blue"]delivering the decrees which had been decided upon by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem, for them to observe[/]", the first thing we see Paul doing is circumcising Timothy himself (Acts 16:3-4). As the son of a Christian mother and a Greek father, Timothy was to travel around with Paul as "Exhibit A" showing how the decision of Jerusalem Council would be put into practice. So why then did Paul circumcise Timothy? Did Christ at that point become of no benefit to Timothy, as Paul told the Galatians? Obviously, there were some issues there that aren't apparent to modern readers unless they do some serious digging. Have modern readers really understood the New Testament if they don't study deep enough to resolve the contradictions in Paul's own words, and between his words and actions? The standard Christian interpretation of Acts 15 is so superficial that it claims Peter told the Jerusalem congregation something that everyone listening would have known was flatly not true. Did Peter lie? Not at all. But interpreting the story superficially in that manner and leaving the issues muddled is convenient for Christians who don't want to know the real message of the New Testament.

[Gregory Matthews]

If the entire world truely kept the Sabbath, would the modern world fall apart?

I do not think so.

What is the Biblical picture of the Sabbath command?

a) It begins with the 4th Commandment. This sets out some basic principles in a literary style adapted to a nation of slaves who had not had the time to develop intellectually. I tend to include principles such as: 1) There is work that should not be done on the Sabbath. 2) The Sabbath-keeper should not cause others to perform work on the Sabbath that the Sabbath-keeper does not do.

It continues with much more explicit applications of those principles applied directly to the Children of Israel in the situation in which they were in at the time the 10 commandments were given. e.g. Do not pick up manna on the Sabbath.

c) The teachings of Christ as He responded to the multitude of applications that had become attached to the Sabbath. e.g. a "Sabbath-days" journey.

The bottom line for me is that the principles of Sabbath observance can always be applied to any geographic or social situation in which we live.

Christ spoke about doing good by pulling an Ox out of the pit into which the Ox had fallen. To me, this allows the doctor to take an elderly person into surgery on the Sabbath to pin a broken hip. Yes, I know that such a surgery could wait. As one who works in a hospital, I have experienced situations in which we had to wait for such a surgery to be done. e.g. A major snow storm a couple of years ago prevented staff from comming to work, and those in the hospital from going home for a couple days. We canceled scheduled surgery because the docs could not come in to do them, and the OR personnel could not get in to work. We kept people alive. No one died because of it.

But, the Sabbath commend does NOT require that a person with a broken hip wait for 10+ hours until the Sabbath is over.

This same idea can be carried over into our times and places today. If a storm knocks out the electricity of a community in Alaska, one hour after sundown on Friday evening, it is doing good, preserving life, etc. to begin immediately to restore that electricity to that community. The Sabbath commandment does not require that the power company wait until an hour after sundown on Saturday.

The world would not fall apart if every person truely kept the Sabbath.

[Robert]

• Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses.”

1] Note that they were "believers"

2] Since they are requiring "the Gentiles" to be circumcised and obey the Torah, then logic states that they were Jews.

Hence believing Jews who believed in salvation partially by Christ and partially by works. That to me is a Judaizer!

Believe me when I say that the local Adventist's church that I use to attend was full of such individuals...except they were Gentiles!

[Ron Amnsn]

Quote:

---

Hence believing Jews who believed in salvation partially by Christ and partially by works. That to me is a Judaizer!

---

Robert. It sounds like you've created your own definition for Judaizer, which is okay as long as you realize that your definition isn't the same as the way the word is used in Scripture.

According to your definition it seems that Jesus would also be a Judaizer. Notice the following exchange:

Quote:

---

And a certain ruler asked Him, saying, Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? And Jesus said to him, [:"red"]Why do you call Me good? None is good except One, God. You know the commandments: Do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, do not bear false witness, honor your father and your mother.[/] And he said, I have kept all these from my youth up. And when Jesus heard these things, He said to him, [:"red"]

Yet you lack one thing

. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you shall have treasure in Heaven. And come, follow Me.[/] (Luke 18:18-22)

---

What if the issue in Acts 15 wasn't salvation by works? Peter makes it clear in Acts 15:11 that all the Jewish believers (who were circumcised and who were obeying Torah) were saved by grace. So if the Jewish believers who did those two things were saved by grace, couldn't the Gentile believers also do those same two things and still be saved by grace? Of course they could.

What was the issue then? I believe the issue was "Salvation by ethnic status". There were Jews who believed that the Jews were the only people God would save. Hence they taught that the only hope for Gentiles was for them to become Jewish through the (non-scriptural) formal conversion rituals invented by the rabbis for Gentile proselytes That process included circumcision, instruction in both the written Torah and the oral torah (traditions), and a commitment by the proselyte to follow that whole body of law.

Those Christian Pharisees weren't trying to start something new in regard to the way Gentile converts were handled. They were just trying to maintain the status quo, so that the Gentile converts would continue to be handled in the same way as they had previously been handled both in the Judaism and in the church.

Since the necessity of that ritual conversion process was the platform of the "circumcision party", it would make sense that the term "circumcision" would sometimes be used as a shorthand term to refer to that whole ritual conversion process required by the Jewish rabbis, even though it involved much more than just simple scriptural circumcision. If the word "circumcision" was used in that way in Paul's writings as a summary of the whole "platform" of the circumcision party, then it helps to make sense out of Paul's seemingly contradictory stance on circumcision.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Hence believing Jews who believed in salvation partially by Christ and partially by works. That to me is a Judaizer!

---

Robert. It sounds like you've created your own definition for Judaizer, which is okay as long as you realize that your definition isn't the same as the way the word is used in Scripture.

According to your definition it seems that Jesus would also be a Judaizer. Notice the following exchange:

Quote:

---

And a certain ruler asked Him, saying, Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? And Jesus said to him, [:"red"]Why do you call Me good? None is good except One, God. You know the commandments: Do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, do not bear false witness, honor your father and your mother.[/] And he said, I have kept all these from my youth up. And when Jesus heard these things, He said to him, [:"red"]

Yet you lack one thing

. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you shall have treasure in Heaven. And come, follow Me.[/] (Luke 18:18-22)

---

---

I've been over this one many times....Jesus simply answered the man's question:

"What good thing must I do to gain heaven?"

First Jesus corrects his theology:

BTW, there's none good, but one - i.e., God!

Then He answers his question:

If you want heaven by being good, keep the commandments!

The young man replies:

Which ones?

Note that Jesus gives the last 6, but He replaces "you shall not covet" with, "you shall love your neighbor as you love yourself." [see Matt 19:18,19] In other words Christ proved that "coveting" is the opposite of loving your neighbor as you naturally love yourself. Just think if there was no coveting and self-seeking we would be in paradise.

So Jesus isn't teaching the message of the Judaizers...rather He is giving OC demands to an OC person still under the law. Those who see the impossibility of gaining heaven by anything other than faith are ready to disregard the OC....They have left Babylon.

[Bravus]

TIC:

A Judaizer is a secret weapon developed by the US Air Force at Area 51 for the Illuminati using alien technology. When fired it fits the target with a yarmulka and temple locks and infuses him (only hims, no hers) with a deep knowledge of the mitzvot.