FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Why don't Seventh-day Adventists drink wine or alcohol like Christians of various denominations?
The simple answer is that the scriptures tell us it is not God’s will for our lives.
Wine is a mocker, strong drink is a brawler, and whoever is led astray by it is not wise. Proverbs 20:1.
Therefore let us not sleep, as others do, but let us watch and be sober. 7 For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk are drunk at night. 8 But let us who are of the day be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love, and as a helmet the hope of salvation. 9 For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Thessalonians 5:6-9.
Is it really necessary to quote examples from the scriptures to demonstrate that drinking alcohol is harmful and leads to decreased physical and moral capacity? Is it not true that every day in the newspapers we read sad stories about wasted money, spousal abuse, beatings, adultery, robbery, fights, murders, car accidents, arguments and diseases of the body which were induced by drinking alcohol? Even small quantities of alcohol impair the ability to use a motor vehicle and effect brain cells. If Jesus’ followers drink alcohol, what kind of example will they be for unbelievers? Will they not encourage unbelievers to continue in the ways of the world and reject the moral preparation necessary for Christ’s second coming?
With this in mind you might ask Christians why they feel it is proper to drink alcohol!
If you ask most Christians why they drink alcohol many will answer that the Bible does not prohibit the use of alcoholic drinks so long as it does not lead to drunkenness. In their view moderate use of alcohol is acceptable. But science tells us that the amount of alcohol in just one glass causes impaired performance of mind and body. How many glasses of alcohol can these Christians drink before they consider themselves drunk?
If we look at the Bible texts that Christians use to defend drinking alcohol, it becomes quickly evident that there is a real problem in translation, interpretation, and understanding of those Bible texts. The writing below is by no means exhaustive but will highlight for the reader the major issues.
There are many texts in the Bible disapproving the use of alcohol (Leviticus 10:8-11; Judges 13:3, 4; Proverbs 31:4, 5; 23:31-33; 20:1; 1 Timothy 3:2, 3). At the same time there are texts that show wine as a blessing from God to be enjoyed (Genesis 27:28; 49:10-12; Psalm 104:14, 15; Isaiah 55:1; Amos 9:13; John 2:10-11). How can the Bible both condemn and approve something? If we believe that all scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16) there should be no contradiction in the teaching of scripture. How can we account for this apparent discrepancy? The answer lies in a misunderstanding of biblical terms and their translation.
In modern English, for example, the word ‘wine’ always refers to fermented fruit juice. Most modern dictionaries will reflect only this modern translation. But older English dictionaries show that at one time the word ‘wine’ in English could mean either fermented wine or unfermented grape juice. This was true in the English language when the famous King James Version of the Bible was translated in the 17th century. Therefore when the Bible text refers to unfermented grape juice or fermented wine, the translators would have simply used the word ‘wine’ to translate it into English. However, the meaning of the word changed over time. Thus, modern readers of the King James Version of the Bible, with the modern definition of ‘wine’ in their mind, can naturally think that the Bible is always talking about fermented wine. This is a mistake.
This situation was present in the Biblical languages of Hebrew (Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament). The prophets who wrote in Hebrew could have used the word tirosh to refer to unfermented grape juice. They could have also used yayin, which refers to both fermented wine or unfermented grape juice. How can a reader understand which is the correct interpretation? Only by the context.
The same situation exists in ancient Greek. A writer could have chosen to use the word gleukos for unfermented grape juice or they could have used the word oinos, which refers to both fermented wine or unfermented grape juice. How can the reader understand which is which? Again, we understand this by context.
This can be quite difficult for the modern reader because in many modern languages there are precise terms for both grape juice and fermented wine. They don’t use one word for both. However, anyone who has studied ancient Arabic knows that ancient words often had many meanings, which they understood from the context in which it was written.
Even many leading Bible scholars and Bible dictionaries take the position that there is only one kind of wine mentioned in the Bible: fermented wine. So it is quite understandable that the average reader of the Bible could be confused on the issue. If the reader wishes to examine research demonstrating that the Bible words yayin (Hebrew) and oinos (Greek) had the meaning of both unfermented grape juice and fermented wine, we refer him/her to the PhD dissertation by Robert Teachout from Dallas Theological Seminary and the book by Samuel Bacchiocchi that cover these subjects.1Robert P. Teachout, “The Use of ‘Wine’ in the Old Testament” (PhD dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1979). Samuel Bacchiocchi, Wine in the Bible (Berrien Springs, 2004).
The confusion about this issue is also found in the Turkish translation where yayin and oinos are uniformly translated as ‘wine’ (şarap). We believe that the Bible considers the consumption of alcohol as a beverage morally wrong. Texts that speak favorably about wine are referring to unfermented grape juice. Texts that speak negatively about wine are referring to fermented wine. Thus, the Bible doesn’t contradict itself and holds believers to a high standard of moral conduct.
Below we will add comments on a few commonly disputed passages, but these will be very brief.
John 2:1-11 The Wedding at Cana
As the first of many miracles, Jesus turned water into “wine” at a wedding feast in Cana . Many assume that the guests at the wedding were drinking fermented wine because the ancients didn’t know how to preserve grape juice. This is far from correct. They knew how to do this. Who do you think we got grape molasses from? Some also think that grape juice naturally turns into wine. But this is also not true. When grape juice isn’t cared for under very precise conditions, it becomes rancid and undrinkable. It took as much or more effort for the ancients to preserve fermented wine in a drinkable form than it was for them to preserve grape juice in a useable form. The ancients knew how to preserve grape juice in a useable form for up to a year and sometimes even longer!2See Bacchiocchi p. 125.
If the guests at the wedding had already drunk a lot of fermented wine, as some claim, and Jesus miraculously produced between 450 and 600 liters more of an even better wine, what would it say about Jesus’ moral character? Jesus was pure in His life, committed no sin, and taught others to reverence the scriptures. Is it conceivable that He would condone drunkenness by giving presumably drunk people even more wine to drink? It is incongruent. The proper explanation is that the word oinos here refers to unfermented grape juice.
Matthew 26:20-29; Mark 14:17-25; Luke 22:14-20: The Lord’s Supper
The expression ‘wine’ does not occur in these passages but instead the phrase ‘fruit of the vine’ appears. A first century historian named Josephus uses this exact phrase to mean unfermented grape juice.
Furthermore, Jesus established the Lord’s Supper during the Passover meal in which no leaven was permitted. The juice at the Passover Supper could not have been fermented wine because it would not have been an appropriate symbol of the pure and spotless blood of Christ!
Acts 2:13: The Day of Pentecost
Fifty days after Jesus’ death and resurrection, the disciples of Jesus received the power of the Holy Spirit which Jesus had promised them. It was during Pentecost and Jerusalem was filled with pilgrims from around the world. All of a sudden, the disciples began speaking languages they didn’t know, proclaiming Jesus’ resurrection from the grave. It was astonishing for the travelers to hear simple Galileans speaking foreign languages! But some of them did not recognize this as a miracle from God and mocked the disciples.
Others mocking said, “They are full of new wine.” Acts 2:13.
Peter challenged the mockers by declaring: “For these are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. Acts 2:15.
Some Christians today wanting to defend the use of wine say that these texts indicate that the early Christian church was drinking fermented wine. They claim that the mockers would not have challenged the disciples unless they had seen them drinking fermented wine on other occasions. They assume that the ‘new wine’ mentioned here is fermented wine. Furthermore, they claim that Peter did not respond by saying that the disciples abstained from alcohol, but only that the hour was too early to be drinking.
Mockers don’t need a basis of fact to make accusation. So the idea that the mockers had seen the disciples drinking on other occasions is just an unsustainable assumption. The word translated as ‘new wine’ is gleukos, which means grape juice. Peter’s response, that it was too early for drinking, was simply something the mockers could easily understand. If Peter said, “We don’t drink, so it is impossible that we are drunk” the mockers could just have easily responded, “You drink secretly.” Another possibility is that because the mockers used the word gleukos, Peter was unable to say, “We don’t drink.” If he had, it would have meant that the disciples didn’t drink grape juice, which of course would not be true.
Why did the mockers use the word gleukos instead of oinos if they had wanted to accuse the disciples of being drunk on fermented wine? Probably the disciples were known to be abstemious and the mockers were essentially saying, “Look, these guys who won’t even touch alcohol are drunk on grape juice!”
1 Corinthians 11:21: At the Lord’s Supper in Corinth.
First and Second Corinthians were letters written by the Apostle Paul to the believers in Corinth, Greece. It is apparent from the letters, that the believers were having some difficulties and wanted advice from the apostle Paul. One of the issues occurred during the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. This is when the believers eat unleavened bread and drink grape juice together in commemoration of Jesus’ sacrificial death. In Corinth, the Lord’s Supper was celebrated in the context of a meal, for which everyone brought food to share with everyone else. At least that was what was supposed to happen.
Apparently some people refused to share their food with others and as a result the rich had plenty and the poor had very little. The lack of sharing was contrary to the purpose and spirit of the meal. In this context Paul wrote that:
For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk. 1 Corinthians 11:21.
This passage of scripture says that some people were drunk. Some Christians believe that alcoholic drinks were common at these meals and that this was normal. Is that true? First of all, the Corinthians were in error and Paul was correcting them. So even if the Corinthians were drinking alcohol, it does not mean that alcohol consumption is good and normal for believers. Paul is condemning the Corinthian’s behavior. But there is a better explanation of the passage.
The Greek verbs methuo and methusko can mean to get drunk. But they also mean to be satisfied. Here the word methuo is used in contrast with the word hungry. The translation would read, “Each one takes his own supper ahead of another and one is hungry and another is completely full.” The translators of the NKJV chose to translate methuso as ‘drunk.’ If the translators simply referred to Greek dictionaries it is easy to see why they would do this.
If you look in some Greek dictionaries you will see that these two words methuo and methusko are only defined as getting drunk. Unfortunately, those dictionaries are incomplete because the words clearly have another meaning. Let’s look at some examples. In the Septuagint, the 3rd century BC Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, Psalm 23:5 is translated as follows:
You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies; You anoint my head with oil; my cup runs over. Psalm 23:5.
The expression, ‘my cup runs over’ is the Greek word methusko. No one translates this as, ‘getting drunk.’ Another example is Psalm 65:10 where the verb ‘you water,’ in the expression ‘You water its ridges abundantly,’ is the word methusko. In Jeremiah 31:14 we read:
I will satiate the soul of the priests with abundance, and My people shall be satisfied with My goodness, says the LORD.” Jeremiah 31:14.
The verb ‘I will satiate’ is methuso. In this context, it does not mean drunkenness.
While in many English translations of John 2:10 it seems as if the people were drunk, the Turkish Bible translated the word methusko correctly. ‘Drank a lot’ (çok içildikten sonra) is correct.
Therefore, the word methuo, in 1 Corinthians 11:21, should be translated as ‘full’ or ‘satiated.’ The rich people in Corinth were eating until they were full, whereas the poor were remaining hungry.
Ephesians 5:18: Do not get drunk with wine.
And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit, Ephesians 5:18.
Some people use this passage to justify moderate consumption of alcohol. They argue that Paul didn’t want to prohibit alcohol consumption or he would have said, “Do not use wine.” But since the word oinos meant both wine and grape juice, if he had said that he would have prohibited grape juice as well. Another thing we observe is that Paul is contrasting being drunk with wine and being filled with the Spirit. He doesn’t suggest a moderate filling of the Spirit or just a little bit. In the same way he doesn’t sanction a little wine. That is not the point of his statement. It is the source of the action that is being considered. He is contrasting wine with the Spirit. What does the expression “in which is dissipation” refer to? Does it refer to wine itself or the act of being drunk? It could be either one grammatically. But Paul may be saying here that it is wine itself that contains dissipation. Consistency with the rest of the teaching of the Bible shows clearly that Paul is not sanctioning a moderate use of wine.
1 Timothy 5:23: No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for your stomach’s sake…
Defenders of alcohol consumption often refer to the apostle Paul’s admonition to Timothy, a young minister, as permission for its use.
No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for your stomach’s sake and your frequent infirmities. 1 Timothy 5:23.
People suggest that there is nothing wrong in wine itself or Paul would not have counseled Timothy in this way.
First of all, Paul is not recommending believers in general to drink freely of wine for pleasure, but that Timothy himself should use a ‘little’ wine as a medicine. The Greek word is ‘use’, not ‘drink.’ We find this translation in the Kutsal İncil3Kutsal İncil Lütuf Yayıncılık İstanbul. translation of the New Testament. The word ‘use’ emphasizes that this is medicinal use of “wine” and not as a beverage. The practice of mixing one part of grape juice to two, three, five or more parts of water was common in the ancient world. Especially when we remember that grape juice was preserved in those days by boiling it into a thick syrup (molasses). When they wanted to drink juice they would simply add water. Now let’s see if the “wine” mentioned was alcoholic or non-alcoholic.
It is generally assumed by readers that the “wine” in this verse was alcoholic. As we have seen earlier, oinos can be either wine or grape juice. Which was it? First, if we want to maintain a consistency with other parts of scripture (e.g., Proverbs 20:1) it makes sense that Paul would be referring to grape juice. Timothy was a young minister and Paul advised Timothy on the subject of appointing church leaders:
This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 1 Timothy 3:1-5.
A minster who drinks wine would be acting contrary to Paul’s counsel and setting a wrong example for others. Of course, there are other reasons to understand that Paul was referring to grape juice and not wine.
There are written records from ancient times that show grape juice mixed with water as a remedy for stomach disorders. Bacchiocchi cited the author Athenaeus as saying in 280 AD, “Let him take sweet wine (glukon oinon), either mixed with water or warmed, especially that kind called protropos, the sweet Lesbian glukus, as being good for the stomach; for sweet wine does not make the head heavy.”4Samuele Bacchiochi, Wine in the Bible, Berrien Springs 2006, p. 244. He cites Athenaeus, Banquet 2, 24. The word protropos was a Latin name for unfermented grape juice. The word ‘lesbian’ is translated from the word effoeminatum, which is a sweet, unfermented grape juice.
Why did Paul use the expression, ‘no longer drink water only’? Perhaps Timothy, like priests and Nazarites had done in the Old Testament, had abstained from both fermented and unfermented grape juice. Paul may have even suggested this for him. Should a church leader be less pure than the priests of old? Timothy probably only drank water. But right here in 1 Timothy 5:22 and 23, while still counseling Timothy to remain pure, Paul Told Timothy that he should not limit himself to only drinking water for the sake of his stomach ailments. In other words, a mixture of grape juice and water would help his stomach.
Do not lay hands on anyone hastily, nor share in other people’s sins; keep yourself pure. 23No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for your stomach’s sake and your frequent infirmities. 1 Timothy 5:22-23.
We conclude that Paul was not going contrary to the testimony of scripture and condoning alcohol as a beverage for believers. He was counseling a very conscientious young minister who was perhaps only drinking water as a beverage to maintain high purity in everything, just like the priests of old. But Paul suggested that that if he drank a little grape juice with his water, it would be a good medicine for an illness.
1 Timothy 3:8: Likewise deacons must be reverent, … not given to much wine.
Some Christians refer to this verse saying it is okay to drink wine occasionally. They argue that if Paul had meant to say that deacons must not drink wine he would have simply said, ‘not given to wine’ instead of ‘much wine.’ They argue that it is the quantity of wine drunk that is the problem and not drinking wine itself. Is there any validity to this?
What does the Bible say about wine itself?
Do not look on the wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup, when it swirls around smoothly; 32 at the last it bites like a serpent, and stings like a viper. 33 Your eyes will see strange things, and your heart will utter perverse things. Proverbs 23:31-33.
When the Bible tells believers to not even look at wine, why would it turn around and say you can drink a little bit? This passage in Proverbs indicates that there is something wrong with fermented wine itself and not the quantity consumed.
1 Timothy 3:8 is part of a pericope that addresses qualifications for the leaders of the church and their wives, as well as deacons and their wives. If we examine the wider context of the passage and the terms used we can understand its full meaning.
In 1 Timothy 3:2, the Bible says that a church leader must be ‘temperate.’ Let’s ask, “What does the original Greek word mean?”
The Greek word is the adjective nephalios from the root verb nepho. Some etymologists believe that the verb comes from the prefix ne ‘not’ and the word pino ‘drink’ thus literally ‘not to drink.’ Others think the origin of the word is from ne ‘not’ and poinos (for oinos ‘wine’) thus literally ‘without wine.’ In the New King James Version cited in this article, the word is translated four times in a literal sense as ‘be sober’ (1Thessalonians 5:6, 8; 1 Peter 1;13; 5:8) and twice in a figurative sense as ‘be serious’ (1 Peter 4:7) and ‘be watchful’ (2 Timothy 4:5). So the primary meaning of the verb is ‘to not drink’ or ‘be without wine.’ What does the adjective nephalios mean?
In classical Greek literature there are numerous instances of the words nephalios as meaning ‘abstention from wine.’ In Hellenistic times (the time of the New Testament) was the word used that way? Josephus, who was a contemporary of Peter and Paul who wrote the above listed verses, wrote a document called the Antiquity of the Jews. He writes, “Those who wear the sacerdotal garments are without spot and eminent for their purity and sobriety [nephalioi], not being permitted to drink wine as long as they wear those garments.”5Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 3, 12, 2, translation William Whiston, Josephus Complete Works (Grand Rapids, 1974), p. 81. Josephus clearly used the word to mean ‘not to drink wine’ at all.
Philo was also a contemporary writer of Peter and Paul. He wrote that the priest must serve as nephalios (i.e., totally abstinent from wine.) The word nephalios was often used to describe an offering made without wine.
The primary meaning of the word nephalios is ‘to be abstinent from wine.’ It can have a secondary figurative meaning of ‘mental sobriety.’ But in the latter cases it would not eliminate the requirement for physical sobriety because abstinence is a prerequisite for mental sobriety.
In the texts cited above where Peter and Paul use the verb nepho, we see that those who are preparing for the Lord’s second coming should be sober, (i.e., not drinking alcohol.) This is the natural and literal sense. So it is no wonder that we see such a requirement for the leaders of the churches. The admonition is also used in 1 Timothy 3:11 for the wives of the deacons, who must also be nephalios. Wouldn’t it be strange that the Bible would instruct the leaders of the church and the wives of the deacons to be abstinent, but that the deacons could be ‘moderate’ in their use of wine? Most certainly!
It is wrong to assume that when a Bible writer forbids something in excess (e.g., not given to much wine) that we can do it in moderation. In 1 Peter 4:4 it is written:
In regard to these, they think it strange that you do not run with them in the same flood of dissipation, speaking evil of you. 1 Peter 4:4.
Is Peter saying it is permissible for you to run with them in dissipation so long as there is not a flood of it? Is a little dissipation tolerable for God?
Why do some Greek dictionaries define nephalios as a moderate use of wine? That is a good question when the evidence suggests that the word should be understood as abstinence. Why is there so much effort being made by the churches to defend the drinking of alcohol with all of its accompanying evils? Shouldn’t believers waiting for the soon coming of Jesus do what John said?
Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. 3 And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure. 1 John 3:2-3.
The Bible is consistent in its attitude toward alcohol. It teaches that we should not partake of it. Are you waiting expectantly for Jesus’ second coming? Do you want to be pure? What should you do then?
Could it be in 1 Timothy 3:2 that Paul is meaning the figurative use of nephalios (i.e., ‘be watchful, steady, serious.’) It is possible, but not likely. When we see that the next word in the list is sophron meaning self-controlled and sensible, it lends support to a literal interpretation of nephalios as abstinent. This is because abstinence from alcohol is the physical precursor to being sensible.
Some argue that if Paul had intended nephalios to mean ‘abstinent’ in 1 Timothy 3:2 that he would not have added the words ‘not given to wine’ in verse 3. There could be a very simple explanation for that.
The Greek expression me paroinos means literally ‘not near wine’ that is a place where wine is consumed. The admonition may be translated like this: Not one who attends bars or drinking parties.
We conclude that the admonition for deacons to be ‘not given to much wine’ is hyperbole and does not indicate that they can be ‘given to a little wine.’
Deuteronomy 14:26: Wine and strong drink.
In the Old Testament, God instructed Israel to remember God’s graciousness at harvest season by bringing a tithe of their harvest to the sanctuary. While there, they were to eat and drink of its goodness together with the other believers. This tithe was a second tithe in addition to the tithe used to support the Levites.
“You shall truly tithe all the increase of your grain that the field produces year by year. 23 “And you shall eat before the LORD your God, in the place where He chooses to make His name abide, the tithe of your grain and your new wine [tirosh = grape juice] and your oil, of the firstborn of your herds and your flocks, that you may learn to fear the LORD your God always. Deuteronomy 14:22-23.
Because it was harder for them to bring their tithes, there was a provision made for those who lived far away from the tabernacle. They were allowed to sell their tithe, bring the money to Jerusalem, and buy things to eat and drink to celebrate.
“But if the journey is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry the tithe, or if the place where the LORD your God chooses to put His name is too far from you, when the LORD your God has blessed you, 25 “then you shall exchange it for money, take the money in your hand, and go to the place which the LORD your God chooses. 26 “And you shall spend that money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen or sheep, for wine [yayin] or similar drink [shekar], for whatever your heart desires; you shall eat there before the LORD your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household. Deuteronomy 14:24-26.
In many English translations and in the Turkish KK we see the word shekar translated as strong drink. Some believe that God was permitting alcohol to be drunk as part of a celebration of God’s goodness. This doesn’t seem to be correct for several reasons.
First, it contradicts everything we have seen about God’s attitude toward alcohol. Why would He permit it in a holy celebration? Secondly, it seems odd that God would force the people living near the tabernacle to drink grape juice (tirosh) but would allow those who came from afar to purchase alcohol! If the Bible is to be consistent, how can we resolve the apparent discrepancy?
It is true that the word shekar in Hebrew is most often used in scripture to mean alcohol. But is that the only meaning? No. Shekar could also be a sweet drink made from dates or honey. The words in Aramaic, Syriac, and Arabic denoting palm or date wine are cognates of this word shekar. Was this date wine alcoholic? Possibly, but context would indicate which is being referred to. It makes sense that the word shekar in this context refers to a sweet, non-alcoholic drink. The English words sugar and cider can be traced to this Hebrew word. Şeker in Turkish of course means sugar or sweet not bitter like alcohol.
This same translation problem exists in Isaiah 24:9.
The new wine fails, the vine languishes, all the merry-hearted sigh. 8 The mirth of the tambourine ceases, the noise of the jubilant ends, the joy of the harp ceases. 9 They shall not drink wine with a song; strong drink [shekar] is bitter to those who drink it. Isaiah 24:7-9.
Strong drink is already bitter. Why would the prophet say this? But if we consider the word shekar here to be a sweet drink then the lamentation makes sense. Because of anguish, the people will not drink grape juice with a song. In the same context, even the sweet drink [shekar] is bitter to those who drink it.
Proverbs 31:6: Give strong drink…
The passage reads:
Give strong drink to him who is perishing, and wine to those who are bitter of heart. 7 Let him drink and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more. Proverbs 31:6-7.
Is the Bible going against itself here and recommending alcohol to those who are sorrowful? The context of the passage is just the opposite. The two verses just before are the following:
It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine, nor for princes intoxicating drink; 5 Lest they drink and forget the law, and pervert the justice of all the afflicted. Proverbs 31:4-5.
The texts are drawing a contrast. It is not appropriate for those who are decision makers to drink alcohol. Are believers in Jesus decision-makers?
But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 1 Peter 2:9.
Who is alcohol appropriate for? The Bible text may be showing an ironic contrast. If it is good for anyone it is for those who are dying. It also may indicate that alcohol could be used to relieve the pain of someone who is in excruciating pain because of dying. We don’t disparage the medical use of alcohol especially when nothing else is available. But it is interesting to note that Jesus was offered wine when He was being crucified and yet He refused it (Mark 15:23). However, he did accept vinegar (John 19:29, 30).
Thus, we see no recommendation for alcohol use as a beverage in Proverbs 31:6.
General Conclusion
The Bible is consistent. It shows alcohol to be unfit for believers. It is astonishing to see the tenacity with which the Christian community has sought to defend its use. We see this extending even to the scholars and translators. Those who are seeking purity and to be ready for Christ’s second coming will abandon its use as a social beverage. They will seek to be an example of holiness in all things.
Has the Bible Been Changed?
Sometimes people ask, “Doesn’t the fact that there are four different gospels prove that the New Testament has been changed?” The simple answer is no. But the question itself reveals that there is a misunderstanding about how God reveals scripture. Many people think that God only provides holy books by dictating exactly what He wants to say through an angel to a prophet, who then writes those exact words down. However in both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, the only words written by God are the Ten Commandments. In the rest of the Bible God communicated truth to the prophets in dreams, visions, and by verbal communication. Then those prophets wrote those truths in their own words according to their own educational and writing ability. Thus God’s perfect, absolute truth was communicated in the imperfect language of men.
Let’s say I am in the lobby of a building and a fireman comes in and says, “There is a fire, get out of here!” I run to the upper floors and say, “The fireman said to me, ‘Leave the building now because there is a fire.” Did I communicate the message faithfully? Yes. Were my words a direct quote of the fireman? No, but the intent of the message was correct. Even though the messenger is imperfect, the message is understood. Thus, four gospel writers describing the same events, and sometimes providing more details of those eventswhile at the same time using different words, does not change the message. In the same way, small changes in grammar and spelling do not affect the message. With this correct understanding of revelation we can place our trust in the message of the Bible.
Perhaps you have heard that the Bible has been changed. Suppose for a moment that the accusation is true. Suppose God permitted the revelation that He gave to the prophets to become so obscured that no one could rely on them to know the way to paradise. That would mean that God left millions of humans to perish with no hope of salvation until He corrected the error hundreds of years later. People would have had no way of knowing the right way. The accusation that the sacred scriptures were changed casts a shadow on the loving character of the Creator. From a logic standpoint it just doesn’t make sense that God would allow the way of salvation to be hidden for centuries.
Who would benefit if there was so much doubt about the reliability of the Bible? Satan has the most to gain by keeping people from reading the books. In the Bible there are detailed descriptions of Satan’s fall from heaven and his hatred toward the human race. The books explain the way Satan works and why he does what he does. The Bible shows God’s people what they must do to protect themselves from Satan’s attacks. The book of Revelation, the last book of the New Testament, reveals Satan’s activities just before the final day and what the believers must do at that time. Clearly Satan does not want his purposes exposed and he has the most to gain by diverting people’s minds from the Bible.
If you carefully read the sources used to show that the Bible has been changed, you will notice that a majority of the texts indicate that people would obscure, not the words themselves, but the meaning of the words. This can certainly be true. Throughout history, many people have falsely interpreted the Bible.
One text says that people would write things and claim they were from God. This also happened. If you look at books like the gospel of Barnabas, it is easy to understand that it is a forgery and not written by a true prophet. For example, the gospel of Barnabas contains many errors proving it was written centuries after the time it was claimed to have been written.
If God had permitted the Bible to be changed to the point that it was an unreliable source of truth for salvation, it would be like a father who deceived his son after promising him a home. On the son’s wedding day, the bride and groom were looking forward with great anticipation to live in their new house. But during the wedding, the father informs them that he has given the use of the house to the enemy that their family had been at war with for 600 years. Unfortunately, the young couple will never live in the house. Does that seem fair? Is the father in this story just? Do you believe that God is just? God has revealed the way of salvation in the Bible and promised it to the believers. God would not allow the enemy, Satan, to corrupt the holy scriptures and make them untrue. The true heirs, those who believe, can be confident that the way of salvation is found in the Bible.
Evidence from Archaeology and Paleography
In the early 1900’s one of the oldest known manuscripts of the Old Testament was the Codex6A codex is an early manuscript book. Made from parchment or papyrus it was in a format resembling a modern book as opposed to a scroll. of the Prophets, now located in a Cairo synagogue. This was a manuscript copied in 895 AD. Skeptics said that the manuscript was corrupt and did not reflect earlier copies of the Old Testament. They said the writings had been changed. It was a clever accusation to try to discredit the scriptures. How can you prove that something has not been altered? It is nearly impossible. Then in 1947, copies of 38 out of the 39 books of the Old Testament were found in the Judean desert at Qumran. These copies were more than 1000 years older than any existing manuscript. It was the archaeological find of the century! These are commonly known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Among the Dead Sea Scrolls was a complete copy of the book of Isaiah written 100 years before Christ. Skeptics and believers alike waited with anticipation for the unrolling of the scroll. What did it reveal? Had the words of the prophet Isaiah been altered between 100 BC and 895 AD? There were a few spelling differences. But they had no significant impact on doctrine. There was also an occasional interchange words or the addition or absence of a phrase. For example, in Isaiah chapter 1:15 the copies we use now say, “Your, hands are full of blood.” In the version found at Qumran it says, “Your hands are full of blood and your fingers with crime.” In another text, the version we have today for Isaiah 2:3 reads, “…let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob…” In the Qumran version the phrase, “to the mountain of the Lord” is missing. These variations are rare and they have no impact on the doctrine of the books. The conclusion that scholars came to was that the copy we have in our hands today is the same as the one Jesus read!
Scholars have investigated thousands of manuscripts of non-biblical writings and found large variations and discrepancies. The Bible however has been translated with amazing accuracy. Should we expect anything less from God who gave the way of salvation to the prophets to give to the people? It is interesting to note that Jesus constantly directed His listeners to the Old Testament. (Remember that the New Testament was written after Jesus.) As a prophet, if Jesus knew that it had been changed He would have never done that. We can be certain about what the Old Testament looked like in Jesus’ day because we have an actual copy of it that predates Jesus’ time.
What about the New Testament? Has it been altered? Again, why would God allow people to have no knowledge of the way of salvation for hundreds of years? That doesn’t seem like something a just and loving God would do. Consider too that there are more than 5700 existing manuscripts of the books of the New Testament. The earliest known portion is called the Rylands papyrus and is dated between 97 and 150 AD. It contains a portion of the gospel of John. It is believed that John wrote the gospel toward the end of his life in the late first century. This means that the Rylands papyrus may have been copied within 10-60 years after being written by the apostle John. Let’s compare that to other, non-religious manuscripts from antiquity.
Scholars believe that the Iliad was written in the eighth century BC. Only 2000 manuscripts of the Iliad exist compared to 5700 for the New Testament. The oldest Iliad manuscript comes from the late 9th century AD. That is more than 1500 years after it was written down! In spite of many variations between copies, how many people do you think refuse to read the Iliad saying, “It has been changed! There are no original manuscripts therefore it is not reliable!” The message of the Iliad is clear despite differences. The same can be said of most ancient manuscripts. Plato lived in the 5th century BC. There are only 250 manuscripts of his works in existence, the oldest is from the 9th century AD, more than 1200 years after Plato lived. How many people reject Plato’s writings as invalid because there are minor differences between some copies and because there are no early copies extant? In contrast we have a piece of the gospel of John copied just 10-60 years after it was originally written!
In fact, large portions of the New Testament exist from the second and third century (designated for example as P45, P46, P47,P66, P72, P74 and P75), meaning that they were copied within 70 to 150 years after the books were first written. From a paleography standpoint this shows amazing reliability.
Do an internet search and compare that time span of 10-150 years with the manuscripts of other religious books. How much time elapsed between the originals of those other relgious books and the earliest existing copies? You will see that the existing copies of the New Testament are as early as any other religious books you will find. You will also see that the New Testament is one of the best preserved manuscripts from ancient times. In other religious books were there spelling variations? Were there slight variations in texts? Yes, you will find slight variations in spelling and text in non-biblical religious manuscripts. This does not mean that the manuscripts are unreliable or that the message is corrupted.
The New Testament was copied so that everyone could read God’s revelation. In the early days, there weren’t that many professional scribes copying the New Testament and yes, occasionally, words were misspelled. Sometimes people’s eyes were tired and they skipped a line when copying it. In other cases they wrote the same line twice. Sometimes, several scribes copied the New Testament while one person read it out loud. Some vowels like omicron and omega in the Greek language sound alike and so the scribes put an omicron instead of an omega. Admittedly, there are minor variations in manuscripts but they do not cause doctrinal problems. If you said that any change in spelling makes the manuscript unreliable, you could not rely on any ancient religious manuscript of any religion because they all contain these slight differences. But this does not mean their content or doctrine is changed or unreliable.
The New Testament was translated into many languages and quoted tens of thousands of times in other people’s writings. By comparing these manuscripts with each other and with the quotations from the New Testament in contemporary writers, scholars have been able to identify all variations or additions made at a later time. Modern translations either omit added words or make a footnote about variations so that the reader is aware of the situation. Are there variations in manuscripts? Yes. But we know what the variations are because of the multitude of manuscripts and quotations. Once again, the truths found in the Bible including the way of salvation were not lost, confused, or changed.
We noted above that people in our culture often think that God only provides holy books by dictating exactly what He wants to say through an angel to a prophet, who then writes those exact words down. But is this the only way that God reveals Holy Scripture? Not at all! Let’s review and expand on the topic.
The Bible consists of 66 books. The 66 books have approximately 40 authors. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek experts can see the differences in style between the 40 authors. The education and writing ability of the authors was different. Some of them were shepherds, some were priests, and some were kings. If God had chosen each and every word then there would not have been differences in writing ability or style.
While God guided the prophets regarding the content of what they would say or write, God did not choose each and every word. God let the prophets express the truths revealed to them with their own writing skills and abilities. Some prophets wrote in such a way that in later years scribes in a few places corrected their grammar! The writers of the New Testament books wrote in Greek, which for some was not their mother tongue. Their grammar and ability of expression was not always of the highest literary quality in their second or third language. Nevertheless they faithfully communicated the message of God correctly. When we understand that most revelation is not a word-for-word dictation by God then we are not alarmed if a later scribe corrected the grammar of a sentence without losing the meaning of the sentence. We are not alarmed if the spelling of a word was copied incorrectly. God’s message is not lost because He did not permit it to be lost.
When God communicates with a prophet through a dream or vision, He does not always specify how the prophet must express the vision or dream to others. Of course God will not permit the prophet to teach falsehood, but how the prophet chooses to express truth given to him is largely up to him. We call this thought-inspiration, which is different than verbal-inspiration. Verbal inspiration is also called word-for-word dictation. In the Bible only the Ten Commandments can be considered verbal inspiration. The rest is thought-inspiration which may include quotations of God’s words. Because God is giving the thoughts and the prophet is choosing the words, the Holy Scriptures are the product of God speaking through the prophets. Although human hands write the words of the Bible, and the prophet chooses which words to use, the will of God is communicated faithfully. The prophets themselves understood this and when referring to their own writings they repeatedly wrote, “The word of the Lord…” The Bible is this: God’s perfect message in imperfect human language.
When a person reads through the four gospel accounts and only knows about verbal inspiration, it is natural for them to think that the writings are not trustworthy. They think that all four gospels should express things in exactly the same way. But in actuality the differences prove their trustworthiness. The writers of the gospels considered themselves witnesses. They risked their reputations and even their lives on their testimonies.
Today, in a court of law, if two witnesses have the exact same testimony (i.e., word for word,) their testimony will be considered invalid. Why? Because experience has shown that no two people see an event in exactly the same way. One point influences a witness in one way. Another witness is more impressed by another point. Even though they saw the same event they use different words to express themselves. As long as the testimonies do not contradict one another, their testimonies are considered valid. If the witnesses’ testimonies are exactly the same however, the witnesses are considered liars. They have colluded together.
Jesus spoke in Aramaic. The four gospel writers wrote in Greek. Any two translators choose different words but both communicate the message faithfully.
As shown in the illustration in the introduction, the message of the fireman was correct. Even though the messenger calling people to leave the building is imperfect, the message is understood.
What is the conclusion of the matter? The Bible is the most widely copied and best-preserved document from ancient times. Slight variations in spelling, word order, added words, or corrected grammar can all be identified by comparing the multitude of manuscripts and quotations. The message of the scriptures, the doctrines, and truths are not changed. The books are reliable. Don’t let Satan keep you from learning what you need to know about the end time by believing slander about the sacred writings. Believe in the Bible. The message is from God. He preserved it so that you would know the way of salvation.
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1:20, 21.
What is the Old Testament and the New Testament and the Bible? Also, what are the Gospels?
There are 39 books that make up the collection of the writings of Hebrew prophets before Jesus. Christians call this collection of Hebrew prophetic writings the Old Testament. It is believed that Moses wrote the first five of the 39 books of the Old Testament. Those five books are also known as the Torah and include: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.
In addition to the Torah, the other 34 books of the Old Testament contain the Psalms and the writings of many other prophets including Daniel, Jeremiah, and King Solomon. In Turkish some people refer to the entire Old Testament as the Tevrat and attribute all these prophetic writings to Moses. But Moses did not write them all. Some people refer to only the first five books (Torah) as the Tevrat. So when conversing on these subjects in Turkey one needs to be careful about how someone is using the terms.
There is likewise confusion in Turkey regarding what writings constitute the New Testament. Many people in Turkey, when they refer to the New Testament, are thinking about the four stories about Jesus’ life that were written by four of his followers. These four books were named after the authors: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. These are known as the four gospels. Each gospel describes the life and ministry of Jesus from their perspective and include the actual words that Jesus spoke. If you read through a New Testament you will notice that it also contains letters written by other followers of Jesus who received revelations from God. These include Paul, James, Peter, and Jude. In total, there are 27 books in the New Testament.
In a modern translation of the Old and New Testaments called the Kutsal Kitap, it sometimes says on the cover: Tevrat, Zebur and İncil. The reader should understand that the Kutsal Kitap contains all 66 books of the Old and New Testaments. They are not restricted to the books of Moses (Torah) and the four gospels. The reader should be aware of these differences in terminology. In this writing when we say, “Tevrat, Zebur and İncil” we are refering to the complete collection of Old and New Testament prophetic writings. We also call these the Bible (Kutsal Kitap) or the holy scriptures. In Turkish there is an older translation of the Old and New Testaments called Kitabı Mukaddes.
Why don't Seventh-day Adventist eat pork like Christians of various denominations?
Quite simply, the holy scriptures tell us that this is not God’s will for our lives.
“Also the swine is unclean for you, because it has cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud; you shall not eat their flesh or touch their dead carcasses.” Deuteronomy 14:8.
The mind and the body are so intricately connected that if one is injured the other also suffers. If a person is strong and healthy they are better able to make proper moral decisions. One of the main purposes for all the instructions that God gives us in the holy scriptures is to help us make moral decisions. Additionally, Jesus is coming soon and we must be morally prepared for His coming. This will be more difficult if we eat foods that God has clearly shown us to be of poor quality and unhealthy. So, if we want to glorify God in our bodies and be ready for Jesus’ coming, we must be healthy.
With this in mind you might ask Christians why they feel it is okay to eat pork, which is both unhealthy and of poor quality!
If you ask Christians why they eat pork, many will say that God only prohibited the Jews from eating pork. That is a valid argument if only the bodies of Jewish people are harmed by poor quality food! Obviously, that isn’t the case. If Christians believe that they are God’s people, and should glorify God in body and spirit, shouldn’t they eat the best foods possible?
Others might say that God instituted the dietary prohibitions, and Sabbath-keeping for that matter, as a form of punishment for the Jews’ disobedience. Nonsense! God was blessing Israel with this knowledge, not punishing them.
If you ask Christians why they eat pork, still others will point to a statement that Jesus made in Mark 7:19: “because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?”
Christians feel that the statement, “purifying all foods” means that Jesus was eliminating the distinction between clean and unclean animals. But Jesus was not talking about the distinction between clean and unclean animals at all! He was talking about a tradition of the Jewish elders that held that any bread, milk, oil or any animal flesh that had been touched by a Gentile or an unclean animal would make a Jewish person spiritually unclean before God. Contrary to popular opinion, Jesus said that this was not the teaching of scripture. It is not possible to become spiritually or physically unclean by touching things that have come in contact with a non-Jew or an unclean animal. In short, He declared that all foods in the market were “clean” in the sense that they are unable to spiritually defile us. We will give a more detailed explanation of this text below, but the explanation will be useful mostly for those with a more detailed knowledge of the issue. In short, the text used to justify eating pork is a highly misunderstood text.
Seventh-day Adventists refrain from eating pork because God has revealed that it is not good for food. It is important to understand that Seventh-day Adventists do not teach that a person becomes morally unclean by eating pork unless the eating is done as an act of defiance and rebellion against God. Eating unhealthy food does not make someone spiritually unclean before God in and of itself. As Jesus taught, the food goes in the body and then out. Rather, it is evil thoughts and actions that make someone unclean before God. However, those who love God and want to serve Him will seek the best in life and God has given valuable instruction in His word on how we should live.
The teachings in the both the Old and New Testaments regarding proper diet for believers are best understood in the context of God’s purposes. So let’s begin with God’s purposes as revealed in scripture.
God’s Purposes for Maintaining a Proper Diet
In the beginning God made the world perfect, and He gave to man and animals a perfect diet. And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30 “Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so. Genesis 1:29-30.
In the beginning, humans didn’t eat animals and animals didn’t eat animals. We were all vegetarians! God knows the structure of our bodies and what is nutritionally best for them. But, things changed after sin entered the world and some people began eating meat. Finally, after destroying the world with a flood God gave permission to man to eat certain animals. But that permission came with a warning. Meat eating would affect our health!
“Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs.” Genesis 9:3. Now when the Bible uses the word “all” some people think that means everything. But the word “all” needs to be understood in its context. The writer of this article is a “moving thing that lives.” Did God give permission for Noah to eat other humans? No! Can we eat any plant? No! Some are poisonous. Before the flood, God distinguished the animals according to cleanness. He told Noah to bring two each of unclean animals and seven each of clean animals. See Genesis 7:2. Thus, humanity was given permission to eat clean animals.
Do you remember that warning? It just so happens that meat eating coincided with a decrease in life expectancy. Before the flood man lived to be very old, even hundreds of years. But after the flood, most people died before they were 125 years old.
When God brought the Israelites out of Egypt He intended to make them a holy nation that would share the knowledge of the true God with all the people of the earth. See Exodus 19:6. He put them on the central trade routes of the world and gave them His laws and commandments so they could witness to the world about God’s ways.
“Surely I have taught you statutes and judgments, just as the LORD my God commanded me, that you should act according to them in the land which you go to possess. 6 “Therefore be careful to observe them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples who will hear all these statutes, and say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’ 7 “For what great nation is there that has God so near to it, as the LORD our God is to us, for whatever reason we may call upon Him? 8 “And what great nation is there that has such statutes and righteous judgments as are in all this law which I set before you this day?” Deuteronomy 4:5-8.
Unbelievers would learn of God through the Israelite nation. To make this happen properly the Israelites needed to obey God and keep the laws of health. When they left Egypt, God gave the Israelites a vegetarian diet. But the Israelites rebelled against it. In His mercy, God did not forsake the Israelite nation, which had been released from the bondage and ignorance of slavery. Instead, He regulated their diet. God gave them permission to eat certain animals if they raised them and killed them properly. There was a reason given for the Israelites to be careful with their diet, good health.
“And the LORD will take away from you all sickness, and will afflict you with none of the terrible diseases of Egypt which you have known, but will lay them on all those who hate you. Deuteronomy 7:15.
Closely linked to healthy eating is holiness. It is in the section of the Old Testament where God gave instruction about clean and unclean animals that we read the following:
‘For I am the LORD your God. You shall therefore consecrate yourselves, and you shall be holy; for I am holy. Neither shall you defile yourselves with any creeping thing that creeps on the earth. 45 ‘For I am the LORD who brings you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God. You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.’ Leviticus 11:44-45.
This concept of holiness is called for in the New Testament:
but as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, 16 because it is written, “Be holy, for I am holy.” 1 Peter 1:15-16 . As we can see from the scriptures, God is very much concerned with our holiness. He wants us to be a light in a dark world, so that we can exhibit truth in our lives instead of error. For this reason, He wants us to eat foods that will keep our bodies healthy and our minds clear.
We see this principle at play in the life of the prophet Daniel. After being taken to Babylon, Daniel refused to eat the luxurious and unhealthy foods provided by the king. See Daniel chapter 1. He chose to eat vegetables and as a result the king found Daniel and his friends to be healthier and 10 times wiser than anyone else. This should not escape our attention. There is a link between proper eating and good mental performance and spiritual discernment. Daniel is highlighted in scripture as a man of extreme moral integrity.
The New Testament outlines the principle this way:
Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. 1 Corinthians 10:31. Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? 20 For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s. 1 Corinthians 6:19-20.
If we are seeking God’s glory we shall seek to keep our bodies in good condition. Our bodies are the temple of God. Now with God’s purpose for proper diet in mind we are better prepared to look at various texts in the New Testament, many of which are misunderstood and wrongly applied.
Mark 7:18-19
So He said to them, “Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, 19 “because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?” Mark 7:18-19.
This statement has been used by many to support the idea that Jesus cancelled all distinctions between clean and unclean foods in scripture. As a result, they say that Christians can eat whatever they want. Is this what Jesus is really saying? To properly interpret scripture, we must learn the context of the statements. Let’s look at Mark 7:3-5.
For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands in a special way, holding the tradition of the elders. 4 When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches. 5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?” Mark 7:3-5.
The context of Jesus’ statement is the tradition of the elders. The scribes and Pharisees want to know why the disciples do not wash their hands before eating according to the tradition of the elders. Jesus said the tradition of the elders was used to put aside the commands of God. He goes on to give an example. Let’s read Mark 7:6-13.
He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. 7 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ 8 “For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men — the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.” 9 ¶ He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 10 “For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ 11 “But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban” — ‘ (that is, a gift to God), 12 “then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, 13 “making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.” Mark 7:6-13.
The fifth commandment requires that we honor our father and our mother. This would include taking care of them financially. Some Jews were pronouncing the word “Corban” over their material possessions and dedicating them to God. This sounded very pious. But there was a hidden hypocrisy in the action. The people dedicating these items to God would continue using them their whole lives and then surrender them to God when they died. Their motive was clear, they didn’t want to sell their goods and use the money to support their parents in the case of hardship and illness. The person could keep the use of the goods all their life with the excuse that it was dedicated to God. Jesus said that this was a tradition of men set up for the purpose of violating the commandments of God.
Now let’s go back to Mark 7:1-2.
Then the Pharisees and some of the scribes came together to Him, having come from Jerusalem. 2 Now when they saw some of His disciples eat bread with defiled, that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault. Mark 7:1-2.
The scribes and Pharisees accused the disciples of eating with ‘defiled,’ that is, ‘unwashed hands.’ This was a technical term not found in the Old Testament but was developed in the years before Jesus’ birth. The Greek word used here for ‘defiled’ or ‘unclean’ is ‘koinos’ which is an adjective. The verb form of this word is used later. Let’s return to Mark 7:18-19.
So He said to them, “Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, 19 “because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?” Mark 7:18-19.
Here the verb form of ‘defile’ is from the Greek word ‘koinoo.’ In the Old Testament, when making a distinction between ‘clean’ and ‘unclean’ animals to be used as food, the Hebrew word is ‘tame.’ This is an adjective. When the Jews translated the Old Testament into Greek they did not use the word ‘koinos’ to translate the word ‘unclean’ as in the phrase ‘unclean animals.’ They used the word, ‘akatharton.’ In the texts in Mark chapter 7 neither Jesus nor the Jews use the word ‘akatharton’ when talking about ‘defiled’ hands. They weren’t talking about the distinction between clean and unclean animals to be used as food. They were talking about something else.
During the intertestamental times (420 BC to 26 AD), the religious Jews determined to keep themselves from all uncleanness, including anything to do with the Gentiles. Jews were instructed by their religious leaders to refrain from buying oil, bread, milk, or meat from a Gentile (T.C. Smith, “Acts,” The Broadman Bible Commentary (Nashville: Broadman, 1970) , p. 67. The tradition of the elders held that a Jew’s hands would become ‘defiled’ by the commonness (koinos) of their daily activities. The tradition of the elders held that ‘clean’ animals could become ‘common’ by contact with ‘unclean’ animals. This, of course, was in direct opposition to the Old Testament where unclean animals made nothing unclean by contact (unless it was the carcass of an animal that died by itself). The tradition of the elders held that if the disciples touched ‘common food,’ the resulting defilement would cause them to become ‘unclean’ and they would be spiritually unacceptable to God. Jesus denied that such a thing is possible. He said that spiritual defilement can only come from the evil within each of us. This spiritual evil results in outward acts of rebellion. This event in the book of Mark is not about eating clean and unclean animals. It is about certain Jewish traditions contradicting the revealed word of God. The scriptures do not say that foods become common by contact with non-Jews or unclean animals. It never said that. But the Jews made it a rule. They even went so far as to say that this contact with items touching non-Jews and unclean meats would defile a person spiritually.
Ironically, when Christians say that Jesus was declaring unclean meat including pork to be clean, those Christians basically accuse Jesus of setting aside the commandments of God for His own rule. But this is what Jesus was fighting against! Jesus was always upholding Scripture.
Leviticus 11 recognizes two types of ‘unclean animals. The first is that which is unfit for food. There is no method for making them ‘clean’ because their ‘uncleanness’ was not due to a distinction in religious ritual, but because they were unfit to be food. The second kind of ‘uncleanness’ is a temporary one resulting from inadvertent contact with the carcasses of dead animals. Those who touched them could wash their clothes and they would become ‘clean’ again after a period of time. No live animal, whether ‘clean’ or ‘unclean’ brings impurity to people by contact. When Jesus says, ‘all foods are clean,’ He means that contact with foods considered common (koinos) by the tradition of the elders does not make a person ‘unclean.’ (Contact with any food does not make a person unclean, except ceremonially if the animal was a dead carcass which had died of itself). So Jesus’ statement regarding ‘clean’ and ‘unclean’ here is not in regard to the dietary laws of ‘clean’ and ‘unclean’ animals. To further underscore this point, Jesus does not say that all ‘flesh meats’ are ‘clean,’ which is the issue in Leviticus 11. Rather, He says all ‘foods’ are clean. The word ‘food’ here is the Greek ‘bromata.’ This word is not used to distinguish clean and unclean meats or even flesh meats in scripture. It is used of all foods. In conclusion, Jesus always upheld scripture and didn’t introduce any new teaching in Mark chapter 7. He was simply combating the tradition of the elders, which was not scriptural.
Acts 10:10-16
Many use Peter’s vision experience to justify the idea that all distinctions between clean and unclean meats have been eliminated. Is this the case?
Then he became very hungry and wanted to eat; but while they made ready, he fell into a trance 11 and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. 13 And a voice came to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.” 15 And a voice spoke to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.” 16 This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again. Acts 10:10-16
The first thing we notice is that this is a vision. In the vision, Peter said that he had never eaten anything unclean. If he believed that Jesus had given them permission to eat all foods, why is he still distinguishing between clean and unclean animals? Peter sees two types of animals in the vision. One group is unclean, a word translated from the Greek word “akathartos.” The Hebrew to Greek Old Testament translators chose to use this word to describe unclean animals in Leviticus chapter 11. Peter sees animals that God had designated as unfit for food. The other group of animals Peters sees is common, translated from the Greek word “koinos.” This is a word rarely used in the Old Testament. During the period between the Old Testament and the New Testament, religious Jews tried to keep themselves from everything they believed to be unclean, including Gentiles. Jews were taught not to buy oil, milk, , bread or meat from a Gentile. According to the tradition of the elders, if a clean animal came in contact with an unclean animal, the clean animal would become “common (koinos)”. The clean animals in Peter’s vision became “common (koinos)” because of their contact with the unclean animals. This, of course, was in direct opposition to the Old Testament where unclean animals made nothing unclean by contact. The tradition of the elders taught that human contact with a “common (koinos)” animal made a person spiritually unacceptable before God. Jesus combated the tradition of the elders on this point in Mark chapter 7.
And a voice spoke to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.” Acts 10:15. The voice from heaven told Peter, “What God has cleansed, stop making “common (koinos).” The word here is not “akathartos.” God is not addressing the issue of the “unclean” versus “clean” animals of Leviticus chapter 11, but with the tradition of the elders regarding the “common (koinos)” condition of people and animals.
Now while Peter wondered within himself what this vision which he had seen meant, behold, the men who had been sent from Cornelius had made inquiry for Simon’s house, and stood before the gate. 18 And they called and asked whether Simon, whose surname was Peter, was lodging there. 19 While Peter thought about the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Behold, three men are seeking you. 20 “Arise therefore, go down and go with them, doubting nothing; for I have sent them.” 21 Then Peter went down to the men who had been sent to him from Cornelius, and said, “Yes, I am he whom you seek. For what reason have you come?” 22 And they said, “Cornelius the centurion, a just man, one who fears God and has a good reputation among all the nation of the Jews, was divinely instructed by a holy angel to summon you to his house, and to hear words from you.” 23 ¶ Then he invited them in and lodged them. On the next day Peter went away with them, and some brethren from Joppa accompanied him. 24 And the following day they entered Caesarea. Now Cornelius was waiting for them, and had called together his relatives and close friends. 25 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.” 27 And as he talked with him, he went in and found many who had come together. 28 Then he said to them, “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean. Acts 10:17-28.
Peter declares here in verse 28 that the tradition of the elders was very clear. If Peter came in contact with or visited a Gentile, he would become “common (koinos)” and would be in need of ceremonial cleansing. Again, this tradition of the elders was in opposition to the teaching of scripture. God is correcting this idea in verse 15 by telling Peter that no man has ever been common if God has not called it common. In verse 28, Peter realizes that the meaning of the vision is that God or the scriptures have never called a man either “akathartos (unclean),” or “koinos (common).” The tradition of the elders is once again rebuffed, just like in Mark chapter 7. God is not addressing the issue of “clean” versus “unclean” meats. He is breaking down Jewish traditions that restrict the Gentiles from coming to God.
Romans 14:1-3, 13-15.
Many Christians point to Romans 14:1-3, 13-15 as evidence that God makes no distinction between clean and unclean foods and therefore it is permissible to eat pork. Let’s examine these passages more carefully.
Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. 2 For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. 3 Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. Romans 14:1-3.
Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way. 14 I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died. Romans 14:13-15.
Two Greek words are sometimes translated as “unclean” in the New Testament, “akathartos” and “koinos”. Refer to the discussions above for their meaning. Here in verse 14, Paul is saying that nothing is “koinos” of itself, which is in agreement with Mark chapter 7 and Acts chapter 10. Refrain from eating “common” foods in the presence of a weak brother if it bothers him, but otherwise, it doesn’t matter. Paul does not use the word, “akathartos.” He is not talking here about the distinction between clean and unclean meats as outlined in Leviticus chapter 11.
The situation might be broader here because the “common” things he is speaking about may include food offered to idols as in 1 Corinthians chapter 8. See the discussion below. The expressions “weak brothers” and “food” are common to both passages. Why would a “weak” brother eat only vegetables? That brother may be conscientiously avoiding eating any meat sacrificed to an idol. Paul is not disparaging a vegetarian diet!
1 Corinthians 8:1-13.
Now concerning things offered to idols: We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. 2 And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know. 3 But if anyone loves God, this one is known by Him. 4 ¶ Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live. 7 ¶ However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 8 But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse. 9 But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. 10 For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? 11 And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12 But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble. 1 Corinthians 8:1-13.
Here Paul is talking about food sacrificed to idols. He is not talking about eating clean or unclean meats outlined in Leviticus chapter 11. Paul isn’t using the word “akathartos” here. Paul is not saying, “Forget the Old Testament, you can eat what you want.” When animals were sacrificed to gods in pagan temples, part of the animal was given to the officiating priest. When the priest sold the meat it might go to the market place. Was it proper for a believer to eat food that had been sacrificed to an idol? Was it proper to eat such meat when visiting a pagan acquaintance? Paul is saying that an idol is nothing and food sacrificed to an idol cannot defile a person if he eats it. Again, the admonition to be careful about offending the weaker brother is stated.
Colossians 2:16
So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, Colossians 2:16.
This text is used by Christians to say that all distinctions between food and drink were eliminated when Jesus established the New Covenant. This subject is very large and will not be dealt with in detail here but we will outline some general principles.
Many Christians believe that there is an abrupt discontinuity between the covenant that God made with Israel and the New Covenant that God established with New Testament believers. They think that the two covenants are totally unrelated and that the Old Covenant was a covenant of salvation-by-works and that New Covenant is a covenant of salvation by grace. There is a confusion here that needs to be clarified.
First of all, God never made a covenant with anyone whereby a sinful human being could, by doing some ceremonies and regulations, guarantee eternal life in heaven. That is a treasonous statement against the kingdom of God and belittles the value of God’s holiness and therefore His law. The wages of sin is eternal death (Romans 6:23). No amount of supposedly good deeds can meet the penalty of the law and restore a sinful person to a moral state of purity to be able to enter heaven (Romans 3:20). That is impossible. A sacrificial animal cannot remove the penalty of sin (Hebrews 10:4). A finite human cannot do enough good deeds to earn eternal life. That also is impossible. So the idea that people were saved by law under the Old Covenant is an utter impossibility. That is a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of scripture. If man could save himself from eternal death by his own deeds then Jesus need not have died.
God has one way of saving mankind from eternal death called the everlasting covenant.
“Nevertheless I will remember My covenant with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish an everlasting covenant with you. Ezekiel 16:60.
In the everlasting covenant, Jesus Christ becomes the sin-offering for man. His sacrifice is of infinite value because He is infinite. When Jesus entered the human race He became the head and representative for the human race. God joins the Spirit of Christ with the sinner when the sinner believes. The sinner becomes joined to Jesus’ perfect life and perfect sacrifice. The sinner is then free from the condemnation of the law. The Spirit of Christ in the believer gives the believer power over his or her own sinful nature and the believer can perform works of service acceptable to God because they are motivated by the Spirit of Christ in them. Therefore salvation is an experience where the Spirit of Christ lives in the believer.
God was trying to enter into the everlasting covenant with Israel at Sinai. God gave them a system of sacrifices that would model and predict the sacrifice of Christ. Unfortunately the Israelites by their disobedience and lack of faith behaved as if the system of sacrifices themselves was sufficient to provide the holiness that God was expecting from them. They turned the sacrificial system into a system of salvation-by-works. But from the beginning it was not valid. Only the blood of Christ could take away sins.
The Bible predicted that when the Messiah would come, there would be a new sanctuary and a new priesthood.
The LORD has sworn And will not relent, “You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.” Psalm 110:4.
This is the priesthood and sanctuary of the everlasting covenant. It is called the New Covenant simply because it was ratified after the covenant at Sinai. But it was not a new covenant of grace. Abraham was saved by grace (Genesis 15:6). So was David (Psalm 32:1). Salvation has always been and always will be by grace alone.
So when Jesus came the Old Testament sanctuary rites came to an end. That is what Colossians 2:16 is all about. But that does not mean that the New Covenant has no laws.
“This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,” Hebrews 10:16.
Which laws will be written in the heart? Well the Ten Commandments of course. That is the moral law. The Ten Commandments were written on tables of stone and put in the ark of the covenant. Now those laws are written in our hearts. But there is also a sanctuary in heaven where those Ten Commandments are written. See Hebrews 8:1-2; Revelation 11:19. Are these the only laws that are still important for the Christian? Read the sermon on the mount (Matthew 5, 6, 7) and see that Jesus refers both to the Ten Commandments and other laws of relationship and civil duty. In short, it is true that the sanctuary system of offerings as described in Colossians 2:16 came to an end when Jesus died. But it is not true that the Ten Commandments and laws governing correct living, relationships and civil duty and responsibility were eliminated at the cross. The principles in these other laws are valid in our lives today.
The principles of God’s instructions to Israel are to carry over into the faith of believers in Jesus because the laws communicate divine wisdom. See how Paul applies a Jewish law to followers of Jesus:
Do I say these things as a mere man? Or does not the law say the same also? 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.” Is it oxen God is concerned about? 10 Or does He say it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he who plows should plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope. 11 If we have sown spiritual things for you, is it a great thing if we reap your material things? 1 Corinthians 9:8-11.
Paul applied a Jewish law about letting oxen that tread out grain eat of the grain to the New Testament concept that those who work in full time gospel ministry should be paid from the tithes! Look at the Jerusalem council in Acts chapter 15 where the Gentiles were counseled, “…to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. Acts 15:20. Why were these three things listed as particularly important for the Gentiles? If we look in Leviticus 17:10-13 we see a law concerning both the Jew and the stranger among them prohibiting the eating of blood, ostensibly not for health reasons but because it represented the life of the animal which makes atonement.
There were further laws in Leviticus 18 that related to sexual morality that were for both Jew and strangers living among the Jews. In addition we see in Leviticus 20 a prohibition against idolatry for both Jews and those strangers living among them.
Colossians 2:16 will be dealt with more extensively when we talk about the Sabbath. But for now, we should understand that the symbolic and predictive rites and ceremonies of the sanctuary ended with the cross but that the principles of right living communicated in civil and moral laws in Israel are universal principles that find application today.
Doesn't Colossians 2:16-17 show that the 7th-day Sabbath was a part of the Jewish ceremonial law and made obsolete when Jesus died on the cross?
The temple sacrifices and festivals were elaborate models of the plan of salvation. Rightly understood they predicted and explained the work of the Messiah. We are thrilled to read in the New Testament how Jesus is the Passover lamb that takes away the sin of the world. He is our high priest in the heavenly sanctuary. Entire books have been written outlining the details of the sacrifices and ceremonies of the temple services and how they find fulfillment in Christ. After Jesus died on the cross, those temple sacrifices and festivals were no longer necessary. Christ had come and His sacrifice was complete. New Covenant believers ask an important question: Was the 7th-day Sabbath a part of those festivals that became obsolete when Jesus died? Many honest believers think this is true based on the texts in Colossians 2:16-17.
Colossians 2:16-17 is as follows:
So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. Colossians 2:16-17.
Both linguistically and contextually we can demonstrate that the Greek word translated ‘sabbaths’ here does not refer to the seventh-day Sabbath but to two annual feasts (Feast of Trumpets and the Day of Atonement) and to septennial sabbaths, that is, sabbatical years.
The word translated ‘festival’ in the passage refers specifically to the three pilgrimage feasts of Passover, Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles. Thus in this verse the apostle Paul is outlining the entire system of festival and sacrifice as being a ‘shadow’ of things to come. Paul said that Jesus is the Messiah who was to come, and the shadow cast by Him is the sacrificial and festival system of the tabernacle. The seventh-day Sabbath however is not part of the ceremonial law. It is part of the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments are not transitory but permanent. In the Old Covenant the commandments were written on tables of stone. In the New Covenant, which is also the everlasting covenant, the Ten Commandments are written on the believers’ hearts. This is clearly shown in the book of Hebrews:
“This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,” 17 then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” Hebrews 10:16-17.
Seventh-day Adventists are New Covenant believers. The law of Ten Commandments, including the 7th-day Sabbath, is written on our hearts. We seek to keep it in spirit and in truth.
If that is so, why do almost all commentators and translators consider the word ‘sabbaths’ in the text to be the 7th-day Sabbath?
It is easy to understand why most commentators would think that the word translated ‘sabbaths’ in Colossians 2:16 is the Seventh-day Sabbath. There were two Greek words in common use for ‘sabbath’ in New Testament times. One of them was sabbaton and the other was sabbata. These words appear a total of 69 times in the New Testament. Besides the one passage in Colossians 2:16, they are translated as the 7th-day ‘Sabbath’ fifty nine times and as ‘week’ nine times. Many people think that the Greek word in Colossians 2:16 must be translated as the seventh-day ‘Sabbath’ to maintain consistency. But is that true? We have already seen that the words sabbaton and sabbata can also mean ‘week.’ How does a translator understand if the word should mean the seventh-day ‘Sabbath’ or ‘week’?
here are two ways: linguistic markers and context. Linguistic markers are words that are used in conjunction with a phrase that would indicate which meaning is intended. For example, in the New Testament when the word is meant to be the seventh-day ‘Sabbath’ 88% of the time one or more of the following words appear with the phrase: the definite article ‘the’, day, lawful, synagogue, keep, and every. The word should be translated ‘week’ if a numeral appears between the definite article and the Greek term for ‘sabbath.’ Whenever the definite article appears without a number it means the seventh-day ‘Sabbath.’
Another way to determine the meaning of a word is to look at the situation or immediate context of the word. What is the subject at hand in the surrounding paragraphs?
The Greek word in Colossians 2:16 lacks any of the linguistic markers for either the seventh-day ‘Sabbath’ or ‘week’ as a possible translation. Is it possible there were other meanings for this word? Indeed there are, and we don’t have to search very hard to find them. Let’s examine the Septuagint, the 3rd century B.C. translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek. There we will see usages of the word that the apostle Paul and his hearers would have found very familiar.
Before we give some examples of other meanings from the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint) we need to clarify which word was used in Colossians 2:16, sabbaton or sabbata? Believe it or not, that is part of the difficulty of translating this passage. Sabbata was a loanword from Aramaic and it had the same form as the plural of the Greek word sabbaton! So deciding which word is being used is not so simple!
Sabbaton = singular ‘sabbath’
Sabbata = singular ‘sabbath’ (Aramaic loan word) or plural of the Greek sabbaton ‘sabbaths’
The Greek word in Colossians 2:16 is either a genitive plural of sabbaton or a genitive singular of sabbata. The forms of these two words are exactly the same (sabba,twn). So which is it? Most commentators believe that it is the singular genitive of sabbata because the other words in the sequence, ‘feast’ and ‘new moon’ are in the singular.
With this in mind, we look at the Septuagint and see if the word sabbata had any other meanings besides the seventh-day ‘Sabbath’ and ‘week.’ We can start by reading what was used to describe the Day of Atonement, a festival that had a ceremonial sabbath.
“It shall be to you a sabbath of solemn rest, and you shall afflict your souls; on the ninth day of the month at evening, from evening to evening, you shall celebrate your sabbath.” Leviticus 23:32.
sa,bbata sabba,twn e;stai u`mi/n kai. tapeinw,sete ta.j yuca.j u`mw/n avpo. evna,thj tou/ mhno.j avpo. e`spe,raj e[wj e`spe,raj sabbatiei/te ta. sa,bbata u`mw/n. Leviticus 23:32.
This was not the seventh-day Sabbath. For the second occurrence of the word ‘sabbath’ in this verse, the Greek Septuagint used the word sabbata. It is in bold letters above in the Greek. It is either the plural of sabbaton or the singular of sabbata. Which is it? The Hebrew original and the context confirm that it is a singular of sabbata. So the word sabbata, the same word used in Colossians 2:16, was used for the Day of Atonement ceremonial sabbath. Was this the only use of the word? No, there is more.
In the Hebrew tabernacle ceremonies and festivals there were sabbatical years. Every seventh year the people were not allowed to sow new crops so the land could lay fallow or rest. What word was used to describe these sabbatical years? Sabbata.
“Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘When you come into the land which I give you, then the land shall keep a sabbath to the LORD. Leviticus 25:2.
la,lhson toi/j ui`oi/j Israhl kai. evrei/j pro.j auvtou,j eva.n eivse,lqhte eivj th.n gh/n h]n evgw. di,dwmi u`mi/n kai. avnapau,setai h` gh/ h]n evgw. di,dwmi u`mi/n sa,bbata tw/| kuri,w|. Leviticus 25:2.
The same word used in Colossians 2:16 is used to describe sabbatical, that is septennial, years. Is that all? No, there is more.
At some point in time, the Feast of Trumpets was also designated by the same genitive form that we see in Colossians 2:16 (sabba,twn). This appears in some miniscule (lower case writing) manuscripts of the Septuagint.
Some people claim that the word ‘sabbath’ is never used in the Bible to refer to a ceremonial sabbath. This is not true as we have seen. The word sabbath is used for ceremonial sabbaths in both the original Hebrew and the Greek translation, the Septuagint.
Let’s move on to another term in the sequence of words in Colossians 2:16. What is meant by the word ‘festival’? The Greek word heorte has a specific meaning. The word heorte in the Septuagint was used when translating the Hebrew word hag. Hag only referred to the three pilgrimage feasts when the all Israelite males were required to go to Jerusalem to worship. Those feasts were: Passover, Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles. Neither the Feast of Trumpets nor the Day of Atonement, which were ceremonial sabbaths, were called heorte in the Septuagint. What about the New Testament?
In the New Testament the word heorte is used for the Passover/Unleavened Bread Festival and for the Feast of Tabernacles. The verb form of the word (heortazo) is used for Pentecost. In contrast, the Feast of Trumpets is strongly alluded to in Revelation 8:6-11:15 but the word does not appear there. The Day of Atonement (called the Fast in Acts 27:9) is strongly alluded to in Revelation 11:19, but the word does not appear there. The Sabbatical years are never referred to by name in the New Testament. Just as the word hag was used to refer only to the three pilgrim feasts in the Hebrew Old Testament, , so to the Greek equivalent heorte in the New Testament is found similarly to refer to these same three pilgrim feasts. The word heorte is never used in the New Testament to refer to the Feast of Trumpets, Day of Atonement, or the Sabbatical years.
Some people argue that the word translated ‘festival’ in Colossians 2:16 included all the tabernacle feasts and therefore the word translated ‘sabbath’ must therefore refer to the seventh-day Sabbath. They argue that if the word translated ‘sabbath’ meant ceremonial sabbaths it would be an undue repetition. But we see that this argument is invalid. The Greek word heorte should be translated as ‘pilgrimages’ or ‘pilgrim feasts.’ Additionally, the word sabbata is not the seventh-day Sabbath. It refers to the Feast of Trumpets, Day of Atonement, and the Sabbatical years.
In conclusion, Colossians 2:16 is not saying that the seventh-day Sabbath was a ceremonial sabbath that became obsolete when Jesus died for our sins. The seventh-day Sabbath is a part of the Ten Commandments, which are a fundamental aspect of the New Covenant. But the text does make abundantly clear that the tabernacle sacrifices and festivals became obsolete at that time. Those festivals and sacrifices pointed to the work and ministry of Jesus.
It is still valuable to study the meaning of those sacrifices for four important reasons. The first is that the sacrificial system, rightly understood, shows the predictive nature of the tabernacle services. That is, the tabernacle services were acted-out prophecies. Second, it establishes faith in the Old And New Testaments as a unit, not as two disconnected, unrelated documents. Third, Jesus is still ministering for us in the heavenly sanctuary right now. If we study the tabernacle festival/prophecies, we can understand where we are in prophetic history and what Jesus is doing and what He is about to do in the heavenly sanctuary. Fourth, the book of Revelation is completely full of tabernacle scenes and imagery. If we want to correctly interpret the book and understand events that will take place just before Jesus comes, we must study the sanctuary model.