REFUTATIONS OF SEVEN THEOLOGICAL OBJECTIONS

Refutations of Seven Theological Objections
Questions on the Sabbath, the Law, the State of the Dead and the Sanctuary
by Edwin M. Cotto, Advent Defense League

The following are answers to the seven most common objections critics bring up against Seventh-day Adventists. I was asked these seven questions during a LIVE interview on a YouTube podcast. To watch the video, click HERE.

1. OBJECTION: If the Sabbath is a creation ordinance, why is the Hebrew word for “sabbath” as found in Exo. 20:8 not also found in Genesis 2?

RESPONSE: The reason for this claim is to make the Sabbath strictly for Israel, but the question assumes too much. It is like asking why the words Lord and God are missing from Esther and Songs of Solomon.  But the missing word shabbat in Genesis no more proves the Sabbath did not exist, anymore than the missing words God and Lord in Esther and Songs no more proves God did not exist. Missing words do not necessarily prove anything. Essentially, this is an argument from silence. It is a fallacy of reasoning. Let me provide more proof why arguing from silence does not make for a good case.

Genesis does not mention the coming of the Lord nor its subsequent destruction of the ungodly, but it was nonetheless being preached. How do we know this? Read Jude 4: “And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints.” Though Genesis does not mention this, yet it was nonetheless taking place. Similarly, Genesis does not mention many other things as well, such as:

• The command to love your neighbor.
• The command to love God with all your heart, soul, mind, strength.
• The command prohibiting idolatry.
• The command prohibiting blasphemy.
• The command prohibiting disobedience to parents.
• The command prohibiting adultery.
• The command prohibiting theft.
• The command prohibiting false witness.
• The command prohibiting covetousness.
• The command prohibiting witchcraft.
• The command prohibiting pride.

It neither mentions important doctrinal truths, such as:

• The resurrection of the body.
• The revelation of the Lord in flaming fire.
• The Judgment of the great and final day.
• The revelation of the remnant.

Evidently, the absence of mentioning these things in Genesis does not prove that they were neither true, nor enforced, nor relevant.

So, why is the word shabbat not found in Genesis? There could be various reasons for this. One of them is that since Moses wrote both Genesis and Exodus, in Exodus 20:11 he explained that the Sabbath is a creation ordinance. Since Exodus picks up directly where the Book of Genesis ended, one need only continue reading all the way until Exodus 20:11 to see this.

In Exodus 20:11, Moses gives the fundamental and original reason for man’s keeping of the Sabbath, because sabbath-ing (if you may) is a creation act. Note that although the word sabat in Genesis 2:3 is a verb, yet in Exodus 20:11 Moses speaks of that very first seventh-day and resting that God did as a shabbat, a noun. In other words, Moses inserts the noun for Sabbath into the Genesis 2 account. We need both books to explain this to us, not just one of them. In fact, we need all the Bible to speak on the matter. In the Gospel of Mark Jesus also applies the noun for Sabbath into the creation account when He said that the Sabbath was “made for man” (Mark 2:27). There are six reasons why Jesus is pointing to the beginning here, but for sake of time, suffice it to say that the word “made” juxtaposed with the word “man” points to creation, since that is where both the Sabbath (Exo. 20:11) and man (Gen. 1:27) was “made.”

2. OBJECTION: If the “commandments of God” in Rev. 12:17, 14:12 and 22:14 are the Ten Commandments, why is the Greek word for “Decalogue” missing in Revelation?

RESPONSE: The reason for this claim is to say that God’s people in the last days will not be keeping the Ten Commandments, specifically the fourth one which is to keep the Sabbath. But this is an error too hastily committed. First of all, the Greek word “entole” as used in Rev. 12:17, 14:12, 22:14 depends on context as it has a variety of usages. In Col. 4:10 it’s used to mean “instructions.” In Luke 15:29 it’s used for house-hold parental rules. But in Eph. 6:4, Rom. 7:7-11 and Luke 23:56 it is used in whole or in part of the Decalogue, even though the Greek word for Decalogue is not in those verses!

Now, since “enotle” depends on context, let us examine the context in Revelation. Firstly, this book is littered with allusions and references to the Decalogue. Revelation chapters 12 through 15 belong to the central portion of the book, and the introduction to this portion is the ARK OF THE COVENANT, seen by John in heaven (Rev. 11:19). The implication is that John is seeing the Most Holy Place, and the only “commandments” or “entole” in there, under the Ark, was the Decalogue… or “Ten Commandments.” Thus the reader easily has the Decalogue in mind after reading the introduction to this section when he continues reading and arrives at the “commandments” in Rev. 12:17 and 14:12. At the end of this middle section we have a reference to the tabernacle of the “TESTIMONY” (Rev. 15:5), a word typically referring to the Decalogue (See Ex. 25:20, 21; 32:15, 16, 34:28).

Moreover, we read of warnings against worshipping the beast, his image and idols (Rev. 9:20, 13:15) who blasphemes God’s name (Rev. 13:6), along with a nearly word-for-word reference to the fourth commandment (Rev. 14:7). All of these point to the first four commandments of the Decalogue. There are also references to violations of some of the remaining commandments of the Decalogue, like the 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th commandments (Rev. 9:20, 21, 13:10; 14:4-5), along with warnings against other sins which in one way or the other violate one or more of God’s Ten Commandments (like sorcery, which violates the 2nd commandment, Rev. 9:21, cf. Psa. 119:96).

In conclusion, the word “commandments” depends on context, yet the context surrounding it in Revelation always speaks of the Ten Commandments, even of the fourth commandment. By this way, what specific fallacy is the critic committing here? The same as in the first question, the “argument from silence.”

3. OBJECTION: If there is a heavenly Sanctuary, why does Rev. 21:22 say that John saw “no temple therein?”

RESPONSE: The reason for this claim is to attack the very biblical, yet distinctly Adventist understanding that there is a Heavenly Sanctuary of which the earthly one was modeled after. But the critic has not taken various things into account:

A. Moses was told to make the earthly Sanctuary “according to the pattern showed to you on the mountain” (Heb. 8:5, cf. Exo. 25:9). Since Paul said that there is a very real, or “true” Sanctuary in heaven which the Lord “erected” (Heb. 8:2), and since the heavenly Sanctuary had to also be anointed with blood (Heb. 9:19-23), it follows that there are real and true Sanctuary articles in heaven, otherwise they could not be neither “erected” nor “anointed.”

B. Revelation is littered with sanctuary imagery in heaven. For example, Jesus walks among the seven candlesticks in Revelation 1. In Revelation 4-5, Jesus is described as appearing in the Holy Place of the sanctuary in heaven (Rev. 5:6). We know this because these chapters describe the candlesticks and bowls of incense, articles which were found in the Holy Place of the earthly sanctuary (Rev. 4:5, 5:8). In Revelation 11:19, a view is given to John of the Most Holy Place in heaven where he sees the “ark of the covenant” and Rev. 15:5 literally describes a tabernacle in heaven where the testimony (Ten Commandments) are housed. Notice: “And after that I looked, and, behold, the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony in heaven was opened.”

C. Finally, there are other portions in the scriptures where a heavenly sanctuary is described. I’ll give you two. In Psalms 102:19, David wrote, “For he hath looked down from the height of his sanctuary; from heaven did the LORD behold the earth.” (see also Psa. 11:4) and in Isaiah 6, the prophet sees a vision of God in a heavenly Temple by a heavenly Altar.

So, why does John suddenly say that there was “no temple in it” in Revelation 21:22? Because the context is describing, not heaven, but New Jerusalem! See: verses 9-21, and verse 23.

I want to quickly answer a follow up question I typically get from critics. How do I differentiate between what is obviously not literal and what is literal in Revelation? After all, while Revelation does describe a Heavenly Temple, it also describes a dragon with seven heads and ten horns.

First, as I just described, the scriptures indicate that what Moses was shown in heaven were to be replicated on earth in the wilderness (Heb. 8:5). Since Paul said that there is a very real, or “true” Sanctuary in heaven of which the Lord “erected” (Heb. 8:2), and since the heavenly Sanctuary had to also be anointed with blood (Heb. 9:19-23), it follows that there are real and true Sanctuary articles in heavenly, otherwise they could not be neither “erected” nor “anointed.”

The second hermeneutical point is one of logic. If I can compare what is in Revelation to actual things on earth that I myself can see and feel, they are real. For example, candlesticks are something I can see and feel, as are thrones, doors, altars, etc. But a dragon with 7 heads, souls under an altar, etc, these are obviously symbolic, as those things do not actually exist. And in this manner, we are able to decipher between that which is not literal, and that which is. Either way, it is all “symbolic,” yet real things can be symbolic. So, the attempt to make the Heavenly Sanctuary something that is not real in heaven fails against these two hermeneutical principles.

4. OBJECTION: If Jesus went into the Most Holy Place to cleanse the heavenly Sanctuary in 1844 according to Daniel 8:14, why does Hebrews 1:3 say that Jesus sat directly at the “right hand of the Father” at His ascension? 

RESPONSE: The reason for this claim is to prove that nothing took place in 1844 despite the fact that the 2300 day prophecy ended at that time. This is a whole study and I would not do it justice in the limited time I have here, but let me explain a few things regarding the ascension and the throne of God, where Jesus went to at His right hand: 

A. Yes, Jesus went to the right hand of the Father at his ascension, but it’s an assumption that this was in the Most Holy Place. As described in the previous question, Rev. 4-5 describes the HOLY PLACE, and we see a slain “lamb” appearing there.
B. There, in the HOLY PLACE, there is a throne (verse 5).
C. Jesus appears there, “in the midst of the throne” in the HOLY PLACE (5:6).
E.  There, at the throne in the Holy Place, Jesus takes a scroll from off the Father’s “RIGHT” hand (Rev. 5:1, 7). Thus, Jesus went to the right hand of the Father in the HOLY PLACE.

Note the parallel below:

Clearly, Jesus did ascend to the right hand of the Father, but in the Holy Place.

Moreover, the throne of God is described as having wheels (Dan. 7:9, Eze. 1-10). It is an assumption that His throne is stationary. In fact, we constantly see the throne of God in different locations. We see it in the New Jerusalem (Rev. 22:1), in the heavenly Holy Place (Rev. 4-5) and, as you already know, in the Most Holy Place above the Ark as described in the Old Testament. Additionally, Jesus has to follow the order of the ceremony as it was done in the earthly sanctuary service. The priests first worked the Holy Place, then the Most Holy Place once a year, in that specific order. If Jesus skipped over the Holy Place, well, first he contradicted the type, and second critics would need to prove that He can do that without jeopardizing himself as the one who would fulfill it perfectly.

But if Revelation 4-5 describes a throne in the heavenly Holy Place, why is there no throne in the earthly Holy Place? The answer is that there is good evidence that the Table of Shewbread represents God’s throne as well. Note this next parallel:

1844 is not about the Holy Place, but about Christ’s move into the Most Holy Place (cf. Daniel 7). Critics assume that the throne of God is only and permanently in the Most Holy Place, but this is false.

Let me add a final detail. The Bible describes that Moses, who represents Christ, entered the entire earthly Sanctuary to inaugurate ALL its vessels before the official service began, including the Ark in the Most Holy Place. See this in Heb. 9:8, 18-23 (note the word “all” in verse 21). According to Hebrews 9:23-24, the heavenly Sanctuary had to also be inaugurated by Christ. Thus, in a sense He did enter throughout the entire Sanctuary to anoint it, but He began His heavenly priestly ministry in the Holy Place first, according to the earthly type and according to Revelation 4-5, where He appears there dressed in His own blood before the Father. This explains Hebrews 6:19-20, a text often used by the critics to say that Jesus skipped over the Holy Place to begin working “within the veil,” the Most Holy Place. They forget this first part of the service, that the entire Sanctuary had to be inaugurated by Christ first, including the Most Holy Place.

5. OBJECTION: The Rich Man and Lazarus is not a parable because Jesus uses a real name!

RESPONSE: The reason for this next argument is to claim that our understanding regarding Hell and the grave is false since parables, according to them, don’t use real people. This is despite the fact that:

A. The Bible nowhere establishes a rule that parables must never use real names.
B. The story is obviously figurative. Abraham’s bosom is not heaven, the request to merely cool the tongue is not realistic, neither is the ability to have a normal, logical and rational conversation.
C. It follows and is in the midst of a series of parables (Luke 12:16, 13:6, 16:1, 19:11-12, 20:9).
D. It begins like the typical parables in the book of Luke begins:

Additionally, we have an example in the Old Testament of a parable using real names. Ezekiel 23:2-4:

“Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother: And they committed whoredoms in Egypt; they committed whoredoms in their youth: there were their breasts pressed, and there they bruised the teats of their virginity. And the names of them were Oholah the elder, and Oholibah her sister: and they were mine, and they bare sons and daughters. Thus were their names; Samaria is Aholah, and Jerusalem Aholibah.

Moreover, if this is a story of an actual event that took place, it would supposedly prove that dead people do not stay in their grave at death, and that they are actually still alive elsewhere. But that contradicts the scriptures, which say that the “dead know nothing” (Eccl. 9:5) and also that people stay in a state of “sleep” awaiting the resurrection in the last days ( 1 Thess. 4:13-15).

In conclusion, a closer examination proves the error in the critic’s reasoning. The story is clearly a parable, and parables by definition are metaphors not to be taken literally. The meaning of the parable is simple. Jesus was addressing the money-loving Pharisees (verse 14) and uses this story to illustrate that if they won’t be convicted of their sins through the scriptures, they will not be convicted even if someone came back from the dead (verse 31). Incidentally, when a real Lazarus was later resurrected, they still did not believe! Notice that right after the resurrection of Lazarus in Luke 11, we read this:

John 11:45-47 -Then many of the Jews … went their ways to the Pharisees… And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.

6. OBJECTION: If the word “sabbath” in Col. 2:16 is not the “seventh-day” Sabbath, why is it the “seventh-day” Sabbath in every other use in the NT?

RESPONSE: Since Adventists can prove that there are differences between ceremonial sabbaths and the seventh-day Sabbath (Lev. 23:38), one needs to ask which Sabbath is Paul referring to in Col. 2:16. And since contextually what was nailed to the cross was the record of our debts (verse 14 ESV), which was “against us… contrary to us,” and since the ceremonial law was what was previously used to collect that debt (like any good debt does, it reminds you of something, just like the ceremonial laws reminded believers of their sins, see: Heb.10:1-4), it follows that the ordinances described in verse 16 are ceremonial sabbaths and not the seventh-day Sabbath, since the Sabbath is a creation ordinance, not dependent on the ceremonial system and was certainly not “against us… contrary to us (see Mark 2:27, where Jesus said the Sabbath was FOR man). In other words, the Sabbath could not be included as a “shadow of things to come,” because the Sabbath was a creation ordinance and not a ceremonial law.

To prove this further, note how Hebrews 10 uses the same language in the context of ceremonial laws:

On to the particular question. The critic uses this argument to claim that if the word “sabbath” (Greek σάββατον) means the seventh-day Sabbath in 59 other verses, it must also mean “sabbath” in the 60th verse. But this is not a proper way of reasoning because some words hold various meanings. For example, the definition of the word frog is, “a tailless amphibian with a short squat body, moist smooth skin, and very long hind legs for leaping” (Google). However, frog can also mean:

• The triangular shape of the bottom of a horse’s hoof. 
• the crossing point of two rails on a train tracks to divert a train from one track to another.
• A frog fastener, which is an ornamental braiding, consisting of a loop and sometimes a button.
• The inability to speak normally because one’s throat is dry and hoarse, as when a person says:
  “I have a frog in my throat.”

Clearly, to argue that because fifty-nine times the word means a four-legged amphibian it must mean the same in the statement ‘I have a frog in my throat’ is nonsense. Meaning must always be decided by CONTEXT. Every Christian who truly studies the bible knows this rule.

The same is true of the word σάββατον. It actually has four meanings:

• The sacred 7th day of each week (Mark 2:27-28).
• The interval between two Sabbaths, i.e. the week (Luke 18:12).
• The Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:31, 23:32 LXX)
• Septennial Sabbaths (Lev. 25:1-6 LXX).
  

Each occurrence has to be studied carefully to determine how sabbaton is being used. In the New Testament, σάββατον is used either in:

• Historical Context
  Example: Example: “And very early in the morning the first day of the week (σάββατον), they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.” (Mark 16:2).
• Prophetic Context
  Example: “Pray that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath (σάββατον) day.” (Matt. 24:20).
• Theological Context
  Example: “Let no man therefore judge you in… sabbath (σάββατον) days.” (Colossians 2:14-17).

Why is σάββατον Col. 2:16 an exception? Because of the context it is being used in. Just as Mark 16:2 is the exception of σάββατον in that context, so also Colossians 2:16 is the exception of σάββατον being used in a theological context. Again, σάββατον has up to four meanings, and determining its meaning depends on context.

7. OBJECTION: Why is there no actual “command” in the New Testament to observe the seventh-day Sabbath?

RESPONSE: Critics typically ask this question to claim that the Sabbath is not enforced because New Testament contains no command to keep it. But there are several points that refute this argument:

1. THE SABBATH IS PART OF THE NEW COVENANT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 

The New Testament is the story of the beginning of the New Covenant, which began when Jesus would shed His blood upon the cross. In the New Covenant, we read that God would place His Law into the heart of believers (Jer. 31:31-33, Heb. 10:16). Note, it’s not some of the Law, nor a portion of the Law, and neither is it an updated or edited version of the Law. No, “the Law” would be placed in the heart and mind, and this is what took place in the NEW TESTAMENT. Thus, the Sabbath, which was the fourth commandment of the Law, was there in the New Testament as well, in their hearts.

This is why we see that Sabbath keeping is practiced and assumed by New Testament Christians. Which leads to the second point:

2. THE SABBATH IS ASSUMED AND PRACTICED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

We read in Acts 15 is a council that took place among the early church to deal with Judaizers who sought to expose mosaic laws as a necessary thing to be saved. Four rules are suggested by the apostle James to impose upon Gentile converts, to “abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.” (Verse 20). But evidently this was not a complete list as it lacked many other important things to stay away from. So, no sooner then he said this, he suggests that anything else they’d need to learn, they’d learn as they continued ON THE SABBATH to listen to the Law of Moses:

Acts 15:21 – For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

And incidentally, Gentiles would be found “in every city” in the synagogues, worshipping on the Sabbath along side their Jewish brethren (Acts 17:2-4, 18:4). Thus, the New Testament assumes Sabbath keeping, and also demonstrates its observance by both Jewish and Gentile believers in the New Covenant. 

3. THE SABBATH IS ENFORCED THROUGH THE EMPHASIS THE NEW TESTAMENT PLACES ON ITS DEEP SIGNIFICANCE 

The New Testament may not contain a direct command to keep the Sabbath like we find in the Decalogue, but it does contain a command to keep the spiritual element of the Sabbath which necessitates the keeping of the physical aspect as well. All throughout the New Testament, we learn that the physical always accompanies the physical. For example, one must not physically commit adultery, but keeping the spiritual aspect of not lusting does not negate that physical aspect (Matt. 5:27-28). Likewise, one must not hate a person for no reason because it is the same as killing them (ibid, 5:21-22). Yet this spiritual aspect does not negate the physical aspect either. This is a constant theme throughout the New Testament. Physical bread and wine to help solidify the spiritual meaning of Communion. Real water to help conceptualize the spiritual meaning of baptism. A very real and physical spouse in marriage, though marriage also has deep spiritual significance, etc. On one occasion, Jesus said emphasized and explained the spiritual aspect of the law of tithing but was careful to tell them not to neglect the physical aspect either:

Matt. 23:23 – Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

The Sabbath receives the same treatment in the New Testament. Hebrews 4 explains the deep spiritual meaning of the Sabbath, that it contains a spiritual rest available from the moment it was instituted in creation (verses 3-4, cf. Gen. 2:2-3), and that this rest was offered to the Israelites via the physical rest of the promised land, yet they rejected it. Since they did not enter in, neither to the land, nor to the Sabbath (not physically since they were transgressors, and subsequently not spiritually), therefore, that spiritual rest “remains” and is available “today” to anyone who wills (verses 6-7).

The author, however, is careful to do the same thing Jesus did. Note verses 9-11:

Heb. 4:9-11 – There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. (10) For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God [did] from his. (11) Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

The Greek word “rest” in verse 9 is “sabbatismos” which literally means the keeping of the seventh-day Sabbath. In most ancient Greek texts it is used in the context of the seventh-day, except in one where it is used spiritually. Since the context of Hebrews 4 is emphasizing that spiritual rest, sabbatismos may be a term used to represent the Sabbath holistically, both its physical and spiritual aspects. This is evident from verse 10:

“For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.”

Note the words, “as God did from His.” God’s rest was a very real and physical rest on a very real and literal seventh day (verse 4, cf. Gen. 2:2-3). Note also the conjunction “also.” In other words, whoever enters into that spiritual rest, will also rest physically on the seventh-day as God rested physically on the seventh-day. And the command to do this? It is in verse 11:

“Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.”

We are seeing here the Sabbath being treated the way tithing was treated by Jesus in Matt. 23:23. One is to be done without leaving the other undone. A deeper look into the original Sabbath commandment reveals that God was interested in directing man’s activities, not once a week, but every day of the week. God said to rest on the seventh day, but also said to work on the previous six days. God is interested in a relationship with His people that guides them every day of the week, culminating on the seventh-day. Thus it represents creation (Exo. 20:11), redemption (Deut. 5:15), and sanctification (Exo. 31:13), and thus the author of Hebrews exhorts his readers to enter into the Sabbath’s spiritual rest “today.” When God asked His people to keep the seventh day holy, He also told them to be holy people (Exo. 22:31, Lev. 20:26). After all, the only way for man to keep a day holy is by being holy. And that is something God has to do for His people every day of the week, the Sabbath being a sign of it.

In conclusion, the New Testament does more then command the keeping of the seventh day. It places the Sabbath commandment, along with the other 9 commandments, in the heart, it assumes that believers would observe it under this new covenant experience, and it goes deeper with the Sabbath then the Old Testament has done, demonstrating an even stronger impetus to observe it. In essence, the New Testament commands a “holistic” keeping of the Sabbath and its deep spiritual significance, which means keeping it physically and spiritually. Thus the physical keeping of every seventh-day reminds us of this meaning, and helps us conceptualize and internalize that spiritual rest we find in Jesus Christ our saviour.

May the Lord bless us to go deep into His Word and draw closer to him. Maranatha.

Edwin M. Cotto
Advent Defense League