Loading...

Follow Adventist Defense League on Feedspot

Continue with Google
Continue with Facebook
or

Valid

Hosea 2:11
Does this verse prophecy the abolition of the Sabbath?

by Edwin M. Cotto
Adventist Defense League






“I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days,
her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.”
(Hosea 2:11)




All bible texts will be taken from the King James Version unless otherwise noted. Estimated reading time is 17 minutes and 10 seconds, according to Read-o-Meter.

__________________________________

THE SHORT ANSWER
Quick answer to give to a critic at the moment:

This verse does not teach that the Sabbath would be abolished forever no more than verse 9 teaches that corn, wine, wool, and linen would be abolished forever. Contextually this is a local prophecy about the impending destruction by the Assyrian army (Hosea 9:3, 10:5-6, 11:5-6) which was actually fulfilled in 722 BC (1 Chronicles 5:26, 2 Kings 18:9-12). It is in this sense that all these things would “cease,” because their culture and way of life, including their feast and Sabbath keeping, will experience a disruption. Moreover, if this is a type of a future event, it would typify the destructions by Babylon and Rome. The cross happened 39 years before Rome sacked Jerusalem in 70 AD, thus there is no parallel between Hosea 2:11 and the cross. Rather than this being a prophecy about the cross, it's a prophecy about the end of the northern kingdom of Israel (see Hosea 1:4).

THE LONG ANSWER
A more thorough study to better equip you:

This text is among a few other ones that is often used by anti-sabbatarians to claim that the seventh-day Sabbath was prophesied in the Old Testament to be abolished when Jesus comes. According to this theory, God intends to portray the message to the Israelites that, due to their constant disobedience he will get rid of the various ceremonial feasts, alongside the weekly Sabbath, presumably when the messiah expires on the cross.1

Hosea 2:11 can be seen in two separate ways. First in its local/prophetic context, and second in its typology. My goal is to examine both of these closely, believing that a proper understanding of these will help us see the true meaning behind this text.2


Hosea 2:11 within its local/prophetic context

According to chapter 1 verse 1, Hosea’s ministry ran during the time of Jeroboam II, king of the northern kingdom of Israel. This sets the time to between the years 786–746 BC.3 Despite the prophetic promises of restoration, the current condition of the kingdom during this time is deplorable. This can be seen in the surrounding context. I will quote a few examples:

-God promises revenge for the massacre done at Jezreel (1:4)
-Israel will no longer have mercy (1:6)
-Israel is so bad God says they are not his people (1:9)
-Israel is playing the harlot (2:1)
-God will not have mercy on her (2:4)
-Israel greedily goes after other gods (2:5)
-Israel is ignorant of God’s blessings (2:8)

As a result of their rebellion and wickedness, God pronounces detailed judgements upon Israel:

“And the LORD said unto him, Call his name Jezreel; for yet a little [while], and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel. And it shall come to pass at that day, that I will break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel.” (Hosea 1:4-5)

“Therefore, behold, I will hedge up thy way with thorns, and make a wall, that she shall not find her paths.” (Hosea 2:6)

“Therefore will I return, and take away my corn in the time thereof, and my wine in the season thereof, and will recover my wool and my flax given to cover her nakedness. And now will I discover her lewdness in the sight of her lovers, and none shall deliver her out of mine hand. I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts. And I will destroy her vines and her fig trees, whereof she hath said, These are my rewards that my lovers have given me: and I will make them a forest, and the beasts of the field shall eat them. And I will visit upon her the days of Baalim, wherein she burned incense to them, and she decked herself with her earrings and her jewels, and she went after her lovers, and forgat me, saith the LORD.” (Hosea 2:9-13)

Other judgements are pronounced as well. Israel’s king and prince will be taken, and their sacrificial system will come to an end (3:4). Also, its so-called prophets will be destroyed (3:5) among other things, which eventually lead to the utter destruction of the entire northern kingdom, although God’s attempt to allure Israel back (2:14) will eventually cause her to “return and seek the Lord their God, and David their king; and shall fear the Lord and his goodness in the latter days (Hosea 3:5).

But the question is, how will God bring about all these judgements upon Israel? What instrument will he use? We don’t need to go too far to see the answer. God will use the Assyrian King:

“They shall not dwell in the Lord's land; but Ephraim shall return to Egypt, and they shall eat unclean things in Assyria.”4
(Hosea 9:3)

“The inhabitants of Samaria shall fear because of the calves of Bethaven: for the people thereof shall mourn over it, and the priests thereof that rejoiced on it, for the glory thereof, because it is departed from it. It shall be also carried unto Assyria for a present to king Jareb: Ephraim shall receive shame, and Israel shall be ashamed of his own counsel.” (Hosea 10:5-6)

“He (Israel)5 shall not return into the land of Egypt, but the Assyrian shall be his king, because they refused to return. And the sword shall abide on his cities, and shall consume his branches, and devour them, because of their own counsels.” (Hosea 11:5-6)

Now let us read the account of the actual event:

“And the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, and the spirit of Tilgathpilneser king of Assyria, and he carried them away, even the Reubenites, and the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh, and brought them unto Halah, and Habor, and Hara, and to the river Gozan, unto this day.” (1 Chronicles 5:26)

“And it came to pass in the fourth year of king Hezekiah, which was the seventh year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, that Shalmaneser king of Assyria came up against Samaria, and besieged it. And at the end of three years they took it: even in the sixth year of Hezekiah, that is the ninth year of Hoshea king of Israel, Samaria was taken. And the king of Assyria did carry away Israel unto Assyria, and put them in Halah and in Habor by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes: Because they obeyed not the voice of the LORD their God, but transgressed his covenant, and all that Moses the servant of the LORD commanded, and would not hear them, nor do them.” (2 Kings 18:9-12)6

This directly fulfilled the prophecy of Hosea. Note that there are other things that would cease besides the celebrations of the feasts and the Sabbath:

-The entire nation of Israel will “cease” (Hosea 1:4).
-Also their corn, wine, wool and linen will be “taken away” (Hosea 2:9).
-There vines and fig trees will be “destroyed” (Hosea 2:12).
-There fishes also will be “taken away” (Hosea 3:3).

To discriminate against the weekly Sabbath and force it into the New Testament as an institution that would be abolished is both contextually dishonest and violates a host of other scriptures which speaks of the enduring weekly Sabbath.7

Moreover, Hosea’s message predates the books of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and may in part be contemporary with the book of Isaiah which uplift the Sabbath well after Assyria takes Israel captive, the violation of the Sabbath being one of the reasons why judgement came on the southern kingdom of Judah.8

What's really happening here is that their entire nation will be taken captive by Assyria and as a result they will experience a disruption in their Sabbath keeping. In context, rather than being a prophecy about the future abolition of the weekly Sabbath and feasts at the cross, it is a prophecy of the impending destruction of Assyria and their inability to celebrate those sacred dates any longer.

Since contextually the real problem is their sins, why is the Sabbath going to cease? In other words, if God is intending on abolishing the Sabbath because of their sins, the question is, why? Is it because the Sabbath serves them no real purpose in their lives? Or is it because the Sabbath is the cause of their sinful habits? The first question cannot be the reason because God would hardly give man a purposeless institution. The second question cannot be the reason because God would not give them something that is sinful. God’s threat that he will cause the Sabbath to cease therefore, is not because there is a problem with the Sabbath, nor because the Sabbath is temporary,9 but because Assyria will take them captive and as a corporate nation they will cease to exist.10


Therefore, of course the Sabbath will cease for them! When all is said and done, many of them will be dead (Hosea 9:6), while many more will be scattered into other cities where they will no longer be able to unite for corporate worship and festivities!11



The typology of the book of Hosea

Why is this section included in this article? Because the claim goes that Hosea 2:11 is a type of the future fulfillment and abolition of the Sabbath. On the one hand, proponents of this theory will readily admit that the overall context of Hosea is the forthcoming destruction of Israel by the Assyrian army and the removing of their abilities to celebrate the Sabbath, while on the other hand saying that it is also a type of the future demise of the Sabbath at the cross of Calvary.

To begin this section, I want to ask the obvious question: Is there typology in the book of Hosea? The answer is yes. As a matter of fact, Paul tells us that everything that occurred to the nation of Israel serves as an example for all believers.12 Let us look at a three particular areas in Hosea that I believe serve as types of future events:

“For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim: Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the LORD their God, and David their king; and shall fear the LORD and his goodness in the latter days.” (Hosea 3:4-5)

The typology is seen clearly in these texts because while it applies locally to the end of the nation’s royalty and sacrificial system, we see them getting a new king. Since David is deceased, the prophecy must apply to Christ, whom we see typified in the Psalms. For example, many of the sufferings David experienced was also experienced by Jesus.13 Additionally, Jesus is also called the “son of David.”14

“Come, and let us return unto the LORD: for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up. After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight. Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the LORD: his going forth is prepared as the morning; and he shall come unto us as the rain, as the latter and former rain unto the earth.” (Hosea 6:1-3)

Here the typology is obvious. The reference to the three days may point to the three days and three nights accomplished by Jesus in the grave after which he was raised to life, which is the reason why we can now “live in his sight. The second reference which reads that he will come, “as the latter and former rain” has obvious connection to the falling of the Holy Spirit upon the disciples on the day of Pentecost.15

“When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.” (Hosea 11:1)

The primary application of this verse is obvious; it relates to the Exodus. But Matthew helps us see the typology in this verse when he quotes it saying, “When he (Joseph) arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.”16

As we can see from these three examples, while each one applies locally to Israel's current condition, we have clear indication within them that point forward an antitype fulfillment. One thing is also clear, they tell us exactly what the antitype fulfillment will be, either within or by the help of a divinely inspired interpreter like Matthew.

Could Hosea’s prediction that the Sabbath would cease under the siege of Assyria also be a type of a future antitype fulfillment? The answer is, possibly. But if this is so then we have to ask ourselves, when? When exactly does Hosea 2:11 find its antitype fulfillment?

First, let’s find out if the destruction of Israel by Assyria is even a type of the future destructions of Judah by the Babylonians in 586 BC and the Romans in 70 AD. Consider the parallels:











(click image to enlarge)


These parallels may indicate that the Assyrian attack as predicted in Hosea probably is a type of future antitype fulfillments. Assuming this is an accurate assumption, one thing that is very important in typology is consistency. Supposing that Hosea 2:11 is in fact a type of the Roman siege and destruction which culminated in 70 AD, then that does no justice to the theory that the Sabbath ended at the cross in 31 AD, where there was no siege!

Additionally, there is no reason to make the Assyrian siege a type of the events of the cross because there is nothing at the cross that would parallel it. On the contrary, evil triumphed at the Assyrian siege while good triumphed at the cross! Note Figure B:















(click image to enlarge)


Above we asked the question, “when exactly does Hosea 2:11 find its antitype fulfillment?” Not at the cross, but at the sieges done by Babylon and Rome. Therefore, interpolating the abolition of the Sabbath at the cross into Hosea 2:11 finds no parallel and is in fact typologically inconsistent.


Conclusion

Let me now gather the three main points which I believe proves that Hosea 2:11 is in fact not a prediction of the abolition of the Sabbath.

First, it’s local context is prophetic of the impending siege and destruction of the northern kingdom of Israel by the Assyrian army. There is no indication from the immediate context that this is actually a prophecy about the events surrounding the cross. Adding that to the text is not faithful to the context. Hosea 2:11 is fulfilled when the nation experienced a disruption of their festivals through their being taken captive to Assyria.

Second, while all scripture alludes to events connected to Christ and his church, we can pinpoint specifically where exactly a past event, person or thing is a type. This can be done either by the immediate context of said passage or through its interpretation by another bible author. I provided three examples of this above.

Since neither the immediate context nor another inspired author directly connects the Assyrian siege to the Babylonian and Roman sieges, we can only connect them through parallels which seems to be permissible. Thus Hosea 2:11 is typologically fulfilled in a secondary sense when Babylon destroyed Jerusalem in 586 BC and perhaps in a third sense when Rome destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD.

But if the Assyrian siege serves as a type of the destructions done by Babylon and Rome, there is no reason to interpolate the events of the cross into the text of Hosea 2:11. It just doesn’t fit. See Figure B above.

Similarly, and finally, if indeed Hosea 2:11 is a type of the destructions that will later be brought about by Babylon and Rome, then it would not be typologically consistent to make Hosea 2:11 be fulfilled in 31 AD, which occurred 39 years before Rome sacked Jerusalem in 70 AD. To remain consistent, the verse should be fulfilled in 70 AD when Jerusalem was destroyed by Rome the same way Samaria was destroyed by Assyria.

The conclusion is that Hosea 2:11 cannot be used as an eisegetical proof-text to make the claim that the Sabbath was abolished at the cross. Bible students taking an honest look at this text would never conclude such a thing. In all contextual honesty this verse is speaking about the ceasing of the Israelites as a nation and the disruption of their Sabbath and feast keeping. To rip Hosea 2:11 out of its context and force it into a future, unrelated event, is not only being unfaithful to its plain reading but it also opens the door to doing the same with the rest of scripture.



____________________________________


Footnotes:

1. Two other texts used by the critics to say the same thing are Isaiah 1:13 and Jeremiah 3:16. The first text, contextually, is about God’s annoyance with the hypocrisy of the people. Verses 11 through 13 shows that they kept performing their outward religious services while inside they were unrepentant (verses 4-6). In verse 10 God tells them to “give ear unto the law of our God” and later actually reminds them of the importance of the Sabbath (see chapter 56). Evidently, the law and the Sabbath was not the problem. God is simply telling them that he is as much sick of their offerings (verse 11) as with their supposedly joyous festivities (verse 13) not because these services are in and of themselves detestable, but because their sins are. Regarding Jeremiah 3:16, the text is about the impending danger of an approaching Babylon to attack the southern kingdom of Judah and plunder its temple treasures (compare chapter 1:13-15, and 25:9 with 2 Chronicles 36:17-21, particularly verse 18). Among those treasure would be the Ark of the Covenant, which they’d never get back and thus would never be able to “visit it” again (verse 16). However, even though the literal Ark will be taken away, its moral contents, the Law, will remain under a new covenant, but this time in the hearts of the people (see Jeremiah 31:33) rather then on tablets of stone.
2. It should be admitted from the beginning that when this verse mentions the noun “sabbath” it is speaking about the weekly seventh-day Sabbath as written in the decalogue (Exodus 20:8-11).
4. According to the record of the actual event, it was Assyria which sacked Israel and took them captive (2 Kings 18:9-12). Apparently, however, Assyria’s destruction causes many of the Israelites to somehow end up dead in Egypt, where they were gathered up and buried (see Hosea 9:6).
5. It is generally understood that Ephraim is used in Hosea to represent the northern kingdom of Israel. This can be seen when comparing verses 1 and 3 in chapter 11, and verses 1, 5 and 8 in chapter 14. Often both are used interchangeably in the entire book of Hosea.
6. Evidently, various attempts were made by Assyria to take Israel captive. See also: 2 Kings 15:19-20, 29, 17:3.
7. See: Isaiah 66:22-23, Matthew 5:17-18.
8. See: Isaiah 58:13-14, 56:1-8, 66:22-23, Ezekiel 20:12, 20, Jeremiah 17:19-27.
9. The entire context of Hosea never even hints to the temporary nature of neither the feasts nor especially of the weekly Sabbath which goes on being observed by Judah even after Israel is taken captive and continues down to the New Testament (Luke 23:56) and onwards in the New Earth (Isaiah 66:22-23).
10. My emphasis here is strictly that “as a corporate nation” they will cease to exist. Judah, however, was originally a part of Israel and the Jews are often referred to as Israelites in the New Testament. Moreover, in a spiritual sense, Israel continues to this day as everyone who believes in and belongs to Jesus Christ (see Romans 2:28-28, 9:6-8 and Galatians 3:29). This latter sense can be seen as the fulfillment of Hosea 3:5 which says that Israel will return to seek the Lord and David their King... David, meaning Christ. It cannot mean that Israel would incorporate as a nation again since the ten tribes were scattered among the nations and forever lost from the records (compare Hosea 9:17 with 2 Kings 17:5-6, 23-24, 1 Chronicles 5:26).
11. Based on Hosea 10:11, it may be that some of them were also subjected to slavery. Additionally, based on 2 Chronicles 30:1-26, it's likely that some of those Israelites who were celebrating the Passover in Jerusalem escaped the wrath of the Assyrians.
12. 1 Corinthians 10:11. It is interesting that the word “ensamples” in this text is translated from the Greek word “τύπος” transliterated as “typos.”
13. As one example, compare Psalm 22:16-17 with Matthew 27:35 and John 19:37.
14. Matthew 1:1, 15:22, 21:19, Mark 10:48. Compared to footnote 13, it would seem like Jesus is the antitype of both David and the Son of David.
15. Compare Joel 2:23, 28-29 with Acts 2:16-21.
16. Matthew 2:14-15.


Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

Hosea 2:11
Does this text prophecy the abolition of the Sabbath?

by Edwin M. Cotto
Adventist Defense League





“I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days,
her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.”
(Hosea 2:11)




All bible texts will be taken from the King James Version unless otherwise noted. Estimated reading time is 17 minutes and 10 seconds, according to Read-o-Meter.

__________________________________

This text is among a few other ones that is often used by anti-sabbatarians to claim that the seventh-day Sabbath was prophesied in the Old Testament to be abolished when Jesus comes. According to this theory, God intends to portray the message to the Israelites that, due to their constant disobedience he will get rid of the various ceremonial feasts, alongside the weekly Sabbath, presumably when the messiah expires on the cross.1

Hosea 2:11 can be seen in two separate ways. First in its local/prophetic context, and second in its typology. My goal is to examine both of these closely, believing that a proper understanding of these will help us see the true meaning behind this text.2


Hosea 2:11 within its local/prophetic context

According to chapter 1 verse 1, Hosea’s ministry ran during the time of Jeroboam II, king of the northern kingdom of Israel. This sets the time to between the years 786–746 BC.3 Despite the prophetic promises of restoration, the current condition of the kingdom during this time is deplorable. This can be seen in the surrounding context. I will quote a few examples:

-God promises revenge for the massacre done at Jezreel (1:4)
-Israel will no longer have mercy (1:6)
-Israel is so bad God says they are not his people (1:9)
-Israel is playing the harlot (2:1)
-God will not have mercy on her (2:4)
-Israel greedily goes after other gods (2:5)
-Israel is ignorant of God’s blessings (2:8)

As a result of their rebellion and wickedness, God pronounces detailed judgements upon Israel:

“And the LORD said unto him, Call his name Jezreel; for yet a little [while], and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel. And it shall come to pass at that day, that I will break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel.” (Hosea 1:4-5)

“Therefore, behold, I will hedge up thy way with thorns, and make a wall, that she shall not find her paths.” (Hosea 2:6)

“Therefore will I return, and take away my corn in the time thereof, and my wine in the season thereof, and will recover my wool and my flax given to cover her nakedness. And now will I discover her lewdness in the sight of her lovers, and none shall deliver her out of mine hand. I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts. And I will destroy her vines and her fig trees, whereof she hath said, These are my rewards that my lovers have given me: and I will make them a forest, and the beasts of the field shall eat them. And I will visit upon her the days of Baalim, wherein she burned incense to them, and she decked herself with her earrings and her jewels, and she went after her lovers, and forgat me, saith the LORD.” (Hosea 2:9-13)

Other judgements are pronounced as well. Israel’s king and prince will be taken, and their sacrificial system will come to an end (3:4). Also, its so-called prophets will be destroyed (3:5) among other things, which eventually lead to the utter destruction of the entire northern kingdom, although God’s attempt to allure Israel back (2:14) will eventually cause her to “return and seek the Lord their God, and David their king; and shall fear the Lord and his goodness in the latter days (Hosea 3:5).

But the question is, how will God bring about all these judgements upon Israel? What instrument will he use? We don’t need to go too far to see the answer. God will use the Assyrian King:

“They shall not dwell in the Lord's land; but Ephraim shall return to Egypt, and they shall eat unclean things in Assyria.”4
(Hosea 9:3)

“The inhabitants of Samaria shall fear because of the calves of Bethaven: for the people thereof shall mourn over it, and the priests thereof that rejoiced on it, for the glory thereof, because it is departed from it. It shall be also carried unto Assyria for a present to king Jareb: Ephraim shall receive shame, and Israel shall be ashamed of his own counsel.” (Hosea 10:5-6)

“He (Israel)5 shall not return into the land of Egypt, but the Assyrian shall be his king, because they refused to return. And the sword shall abide on his cities, and shall consume his branches, and devour them, because of their own counsels.” (Hosea 11:5-6)

Now let us read the account of the actual event:

“And the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, and the spirit of Tilgathpilneser king of Assyria, and he carried them away, even the Reubenites, and the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh, and brought them unto Halah, and Habor, and Hara, and to the river Gozan, unto this day.” (1 Chronicles 5:26)

“And it came to pass in the fourth year of king Hezekiah, which was the seventh year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, that Shalmaneser king of Assyria came up against Samaria, and besieged it. And at the end of three years they took it: even in the sixth year of Hezekiah, that is the ninth year of Hoshea king of Israel, Samaria was taken. And the king of Assyria did carry away Israel unto Assyria, and put them in Halah and in Habor by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes: Because they obeyed not the voice of the LORD their God, but transgressed his covenant, and all that Moses the servant of the LORD commanded, and would not hear them, nor do them.” (2 Kings 18:9-12)6

This directly fulfilled the prophecy of Hosea. Note that there are other things that would cease besides the celebrations of the feasts and the Sabbath:

-The entire nation of Israel will “cease” (Hosea 1:4).
-Also their corn, wine, wool and linen will be “taken away” (Hosea 2:9).
-There vines and fig trees will be “destroyed” (Hosea 2:12).
-There fishes also will be “taken away” (Hosea 3:3).

To discriminate against the weekly Sabbath and force it into the New Testament as an institution that would be abolished is both contextually dishonest and violates a host of other scriptures which speaks of the enduring weekly Sabbath.7

Moreover, Hosea’s message predates the books of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and may in part be contemporary with the book of Isaiah which uplift the Sabbath well after Assyria takes Israel captive, the violation of the Sabbath being one of the reasons why judgement came on the southern kingdom of Judah.8

What's really happening here is that their entire nation will be taken captive by Assyria and as a result they will experience a disruption in their Sabbath keeping. In context, rather than being a prophecy about the future abolition of the weekly Sabbath and feasts at the cross, it is a prophecy of the impending destruction of Assyria and their inability to celebrate those sacred dates any longer.

Since contextually the real problem is their sins, why is the Sabbath going to cease? In other words, if God is intending on abolishing the Sabbath because of their sins, the question is, why? Is it because the Sabbath serves them no real purpose in their lives? Or is it because the Sabbath is the cause of their sinful habits? The first question cannot be the reason because God would hardly give man a purposeless institution. The second question cannot be the reason because God would not give them something that is sinful. God’s threat that he will cause the Sabbath to cease therefore, is not because there is a problem with the Sabbath, nor because the Sabbath is temporary,9 but because Assyria will take them captive and as a corporate nation they will cease to exist.10

Therefore, of course the Sabbath will cease for them! When all is said and done, many of them will be dead (Hosea 9:6), while many more will be scattered into other cities where they will no longer be able to unite for corporate worship and festivities!11


The typology of the book of Hosea

Why is this section included in this article? Because the claim goes that Hosea 2:11 is a type of the future fulfillment and abolition of the Sabbath. On the one hand, proponents of this theory will readily admit that the overall context of Hosea is the forthcoming destruction of Israel by the Assyrian army and the removing of their abilities to celebrate the Sabbath, while on the other hand saying that it is also a type of the future demise of the Sabbath at the cross of Calvary.

To begin this section, I want to ask the obvious question: Is there typology in the book of Hosea? The answer is yes. As a matter of fact, Paul tells us that everything that occurred to the nation of Israel serves as an example for all believers.12 Let us look at a three particular areas in Hosea that I believe serve as types of future events:

“For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim: Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the LORD their God, and David their king; and shall fear the LORD and his goodness in the latter days.” (Hosea 3:4-5)

The typology is seen clearly in these texts because while it applies locally to the end of the nation’s royalty and sacrificial system, we see them getting a new king. Since David is deceased, the prophecy must apply to Christ, whom we see typified in the Psalms. For example, many of the sufferings David experienced was also experienced by Jesus.13 Additionally, Jesus is also called the “son of David.”14

“Come, and let us return unto the LORD: for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up. After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight. Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the LORD: his going forth is prepared as the morning; and he shall come unto us as the rain, as the latter and former rain unto the earth.” (Hosea 6:1-3)

Here the typology is obvious. The reference to the three days may point to the three days and three nights accomplished by Jesus in the grave after which he was raised to life, which is the reason why we can now “live in his sight. The second reference which reads that he will come, “as the latter and former rain” has obvious connection to the falling of the Holy Spirit upon the disciples on the day of Pentecost.15

“When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.” (Hosea 11:1)

The primary application of this verse is obvious; it relates to the Exodus. But Matthew helps us see the typology in this verse when he quotes it saying, “When he (Joseph) arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.”16

As we can see from these three examples, while each one applies locally to Israel's current condition, we have clear indication within them that point forward an antitype fulfillment. One thing is also clear, they tell us exactly what the antitype fulfillment will be, either within or by the help of a divinely inspired interpreter like Matthew.

Could Hosea’s prediction that the Sabbath would cease under the siege of Assyria also be a type of a future antitype fulfillment? The answer is, possibly. But if this is so then we have to ask ourselves, when? When exactly does Hosea 2:11 find its antitype fulfillment?

First, let’s find out if the destruction of Israel by Assyria is even a type of the future destructions of Judah by the Babylonians in 586 BC and the Romans in 70 AD. Consider the parallels:


(click image to enlarge)


These parallels may indicate that the Assyrian attack as predicted in Hosea probably is a type of future antitype fulfillments. Assuming this is an accurate assumption, one thing that is very important in typology is consistency. Supposing that Hosea 2:11 is in fact a type of the Roman siege and destruction which culminated in 70 AD, then that does no justice to the theory that the Sabbath ended at the cross in 31 AD, where there was no siege!

Additionally, there is no reason to make the Assyrian siege a type of the events of the cross because there is nothing at the cross that would parallel it. On the contrary, evil triumphed at the Assyrian siege while good triumphed at the cross! Note Figure B:













(click image to enlarge)


Above we asked the question, “when exactly does Hosea 2:11 find its antitype fulfillment?” Not at the cross, but at the sieges done by Babylon and Rome. Therefore, interpolating the abolition of the Sabbath at the cross into Hosea 2:11 finds no parallel and is in fact typologically inconsistent.


Conclusion

Let me now gather the three main points which I believe proves that Hosea 2:11 is in fact not a prediction of the abolition of the Sabbath.

First, it’s local context is prophetic of the impending siege and destruction of the northern kingdom of Israel by the Assyrian army. There is no indication from the immediate context that this is actually a prophecy about the events surrounding the cross. Adding that to the text is not faithful to the context. Hosea 2:11 is fulfilled when the nation experienced a disruption of their festivals through their being taken captive to Assyria.

Second, while all scripture alludes to events connected to Christ and his church, we can pinpoint specifically where exactly a past event, person or thing is a type. This can be done either by the immediate context of said passage or through its interpretation by another bible author. I provided three examples of this above.

Since neither the immediate context nor another inspired author directly connects the Assyrian siege to the Babylonian and Roman sieges, we can only connect them through parallels which seems to be permissible. Thus Hosea 2:11 is typologically fulfilled in a secondary sense when Babylon destroyed Jerusalem in 586 BC and perhaps in a third sense when Rome destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD.
But if the Assyrian siege serves as a type of the destructions done by Babylon and Rome, there is no reason to interpolate the events of the cross into the text of Hosea 2:11. It just doesn’t fit. See Figure B above.

Similarly, and finally, if indeed Hosea 2:11 is a type of the destructions that will later be brought about by Babylon and Rome, then it would not be typologically consistent to make Hosea 2:11 be fulfilled in 31 AD, which occurred 39 years before Rome sacked Jerusalem in 70 AD. To remain consistent, the verse should be fulfilled in 70 AD when Jerusalem was destroyed by Rome the same way Samaria was destroyed by Assyria.

The conclusion is that Hosea 2:11 cannot be used as an eisegetical proof-text to make the claim that the Sabbath was abolished at the cross. Bible students taking an honest look at this text would never conclude such a thing. In all contextual honesty this verse is speaking about the ceasing of the Israelites as a nation and the disruption of their Sabbath and feast keeping. To rip Hosea 2:11 out of its context and force it into a future, unrelated event, is not only being unfaithful to its plain reading but it also opens the door to doing the same with the rest of scripture.





____________________________________


Footnotes:

1. Two other texts used by the critics to say the same thing are Isaiah 1:13 and Jeremiah 3:16. The first text, contextually, is about God’s annoyance with the hypocrisy of the people. Verses 11 through 13 shows that they kept performing their outward religious services while inside they were unrepentant (verses 4-6). In verse 10 God tells them to “give ear unto the law of our God” and later actually reminds them of the importance of the Sabbath (see chapter 56). Evidently, the law and the Sabbath was not the problem. God is simply telling them that he is as much sick of their offerings (verse 11) as with their supposedly joyous festivities (verse 13) not because these services are in and of themselves detestable, but because their sins are. Regarding Jeremiah 3:16, the text is about the impending danger of an approaching Babylon to attack the southern kingdom of Judah and plunder its temple treasures (compare chapter 1:13-15, and 25:9 with 2 Chronicles 36:17-21, particularly verse 18). Among those treasure would be the Ark of the Covenant, which they’d never get back and thus would never be able to “visit it” again (verse 16). However, even though the literal Ark will be taken away, its moral contents, the Law, will remain under a new covenant, but this time in the hearts of the people (see Jeremiah 31:33) rather then on tablets of stone.
2. It should be admitted from the beginning that when this verse mentions the noun “sabbath” it is speaking about the weekly seventh-day Sabbath as written in the decalogue (Exodus 20:8-11).
4. According to the record of the actual event, it was Assyria which sacked Israel and took them captive (2 Kings 18:9-12). Apparently, however, Assyria’s destruction causes many of the Israelites to somehow end up dead in Egypt, where they were gathered up and buried (see Hosea 9:6).
5. It is generally understood that Ephraim is used in Hosea to represent the northern kingdom of Israel. This can be seen when comparing verses 1 and 3 in chapter 11, and verses 1, 5 and 8 in chapter 14. Often both are used interchangeably in the entire book of Hosea.
6. Evidently, various attempts were made by Assyria to take Israel captive. See also: 2 Kings 15:19-20, 29, 17:3.
7. See: Isaiah 66:22-23, Matthew 5:17-18.
8. See: Isaiah 58:13-14, 56:1-8, 66:22-23, Ezekiel 20:12, 20, Jeremiah 17:19-27.
9. The entire context of Hosea never even hints to the temporary nature of neither the feasts nor especially of the weekly Sabbath which goes on being observed by Judah even after Israel is taken captive and continues down to the New Testament (Luke 23:56) and onwards in the New Earth (Isaiah 66:22-23).
10. My emphasis here is strictly that “as a corporate nation” they will cease to exist. Judah, however, was originally a part of Israel and the Jews are often referred to as Israelites in the New Testament. Moreover, in a spiritual sense, Israel continues to this day as everyone who believes in and belongs to Jesus Christ (see Romans 2:28-28, 9:6-8 and Galatians 3:29). This latter sense can be seen as the fulfillment of Hosea 3:5 which says that Israel will return to seek the Lord and David their King... David, meaning Christ. It cannot mean that Israel would incorporate as a nation again since the ten tribes were scattered among the nations and forever lost from the records (compare Hosea 9:17 with 2 Kings 17:5-6, 23-24, 1 Chronicles 5:26).
11. Based on Hosea 10:11, it may be that some of them were also subjected to slavery. Additionally, based on 2 Chronicles 30:1-26, it's likely that some of those Israelites who were celebrating the Passover in Jerusalem escaped the wrath of the Assyrians.
12. 1 Corinthians 10:11. It is interesting that the word “ensamples” in this text is translated from the Greek word “τύπος” transliterated as “typos.”
13. As one example, compare Psalm 22:16-17 with Matthew 27:35 and John 19:37.
14. Matthew 1:1, 15:22, 21:19, Mark 10:48. Compared to footnote 13, it would seem like Jesus is the antitype of both David and the Son of David.
15. Compare Joel 2:23, 28-29 with Acts 2:16-21.
16. Matthew 2:14-15.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 
Mark 2:27: Was the Sabbath
made for Adam and Eve?


Our opponents often challenge us by saying that there is no command anywhere in the book of Genesis where the Sabbath was given to Adam and Eve. “The one who rested on the seventh day,” they say, “was God, and not man.” Then, when we bring up what Jesus said in Mark 2:27, that the Sabbath was made for man, we’re accused of not reading in context, and that the word “man” here does not mean “all of mankind.” So let’s begin by tackling each one of these, beginning with…


The context of Mark 2:27.

We quote:

Mark 2:23-28
(23) And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.
(24) And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?
(25) And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?
(26) How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
(27) And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
(28) Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.


It’s clear that the Sabbath here is not the sabbath feasts, but the seventh day Sabbath of the fourth commandment. In the immediate context, the disciples begin picking corn on the Sabbath day, and the Pharisees are the first to accuse them of breaking it. How does Jesus defend their act? He reminds them of David and how he went into the temple and ate that which only the priests could eat. But why was David justified in this? Notice carefully:

Mark 2:25
(25) And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?

It was because he was in “need.” Jesus is teaching that to do things on the Sabbath which are needed is permitted. Although preparation day had passed, the disciples were following Jesus as he walked and preached through the streets for days. This preaching was a work that needed to get done, and they needed energy to continue doing it. It was a “need” for them to eat. All such work was permitted on the Sabbath. The fourth commandment did not prohibit works of necessity; it rather prohibited secular work:

Exodus 20:8-10
(8) Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
(9) Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
(10) But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates.


The Hebrew word translated “work” in verse 10 literally means “occupation, work, business” and being that animals are included in this law, it is not talking about missionary work. The act of picking corn to eat to continue in the work of the Lord was hardly secular.

Although the Jews made the Sabbath to be such a burden, it was always meant to be the very opposite:

Isaiah 58:13-14
(13) If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:
(14) Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.


The Sabbath was to be a “delight” unto the people of God.

In Matthew’s gospel, Matthew recounts this story as well, but he adds an extra detail; something Jesus said which helps us understand his point a bit more:

Matthew 12:12
(12) How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.


Notice the definition of the word “well” that Strong’s Greek Definitions gives us:

kalōs
Adverb from G2570; well (usually morally): - (in a) good (place), honestly, + recover, (full) well.

What Jesus is doing is answering the charge of the Pharisees who said that his disciples were doing something unlawful on the Sabbath day (verse 2). Jesus fires back with David's example (verses 3-4), and the example of the priests in the temple (verse 5, cf. Numbers 28:9-10), and tells them that actually that which was necessary for service or need is lawful to do on the Sabbath day. As David was in need and as the Priests were doing a service in the temple, so he and his disciples were engaged in service and at that moment were in need. Likewise as the priests working the temple on the Sabbath did not constitute Sabbath breaking, so his disciples fulfilling their needs while engaged in missionary work did not break the Sabbath either. Both are "blameless" (verse 5).

To further drive this point, Jesus then makes the following remark:

Mark 2:27
(27) And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.


Indeed the Sabbath was made “for” (or in favor of) man, for it was made for his benefit, not the other way around. If it was that man was made for the Sabbath, then those Pharisees would have had a point. But the Sabbath is to be a delight, not a burden. We were not made to serve it; it was made to serve us. Since it was made “for” us, then fulfilling our needs while engaged in missionary work is permissible.


Now that we have examined the context, and learned that the Sabbath was made for us, we will now exegete closely verse 27 to find out…


What is meant by “man?”


Let’s break verse 27 apart. Note first that when it says “sabbath” it is speaking of the Sabbath of creation week. This is important because it directs his audience’s attention back to creation week. The verse continues saying that the Sabbath was "made." These words are translated from one Greek word which literally means “to come, or cause into being or existence.” When was the Sabbath made? In Exodus 16 we are told that the Sabbath was "given" to the Israelites:

Exodus 16:29
(29) See, for that the LORD hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.

The language of this chapter speaks of it as an institution already in existence, even if they were not aware of it yet. It is likely that they were slowly being introduced to God's laws, including the Sabbath, as they came closer to the moment God speaks it from the top of Mount Sinai. We see this implication in the previous verse, where they are asked, "how long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?"

When the Sabbath was made is made crystal clear in the book of Genesis:

Genesis 2:1-3
(1) Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
(2) And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
(3) And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

It was at this time when the seventh day was set aside as “blessed and sanctified” day. In fact, the word “sanctified” in the Hebrew literally means:

qadash
A primitive root; to be (causatively make, pronounce or observe as) clean (ceremonially or morally): - appoint, bid, consecrate, dedicate, defile, hallow, (be, keep) holy (-er, place), keep, prepare, proclaim, purify, sanctify (-ied one, self), X wholly.

Here we learn that the seventh day was “made” (or make) or pronounced, or observed as clean. The word “clean” holds a figurative meaning of holiness throughout the scriptures. It was in creation week when the seventh day was set aside as holy. Upon this day, God “rested” (verses 2-3). 


That the technical term "sabbath" is missing no more means the Sabbath did not exist anymore then the technical term "sun" is missing means that the sun did not exist. As in Genesis 1:16, with its use of the terms "greater light," alludes to the Sun (compare with Psalm 74:16), so the the word "rest" in Genesis 2:2-3 alludes to the "sabbath." As Samuele Bacchiocchi observed: "It is true that the name “Sabbath” does not occur in the passage, but the cognate verbal form shabat (to cease, to stop, to rest) is used and the latter, as noted by U. Cassuto, 'contains an allusion to the name ‘the Sabbath day.’'" (Samuele Bacchiocchi, “Divine Rest for Human Restlessness, page 28).

Moreover, Exodus 20:11 points to the Genesis 2:2-3 account and literally calls it the "Sabbath." Notice:

"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the SABBATH day, and hallowed it."


Thus we see that the Sabbath has been in existence since creation week and it was there that the Sabbath was "made."


By saying that the Sabbath was “made” Jesus directs the people to creation week and since it was made for "man" then Jesus is speaking about mankind during that time. The name "Adam" represents both Adam and Eve (Genesis 5:2) and all of mankind (Acts 17:26). Jesus uses of the Greek word anthropos which according to Thayer’s Greek Definitions is a word whose primary definition is, "a human being, whether male or female, generically, to include all human beings."


Of course, critics appeal to context to claim that it does not mean mankind in general. But claiming that it means one individual man in nonsensical. Moreover, in the context, it was more then one man that was accused (disciples, plural -verse 23-24).

The fact of the matter is that the Sabbath was "made" for all of mankind at the time of creation. It is important for Jesus to appeal to creation as he did with marriage (Matthew 19:8) because he wants them to see the Sabbath's original intent. As marriage was created to serve man (see 1 Cor. 7:3-5) so also the Sabbath was made to serve man, and not the other way around. This adds force to his defence because their needs were being met while doing missionary work and the Sabbath should provide for those needs.

But the question may be asked…

Why doesn’t Genesis say that Adam and Eve rested?


The answer to this question is very simple. In the context of the description of creation (Genesis 1, 2:1-3) the focus is on God, and not man. He is the main character. “God made… and God created… God said… God created… etc” Now the Sabbath commandment specifically says that the person is to first work six days, and then rest the seventh day (see Exodus 20:9-10). How can Adam keep the seventh day as a Sabbath (or, how can he rest) when he did not work the first six days? He was created on day six!

On the other hand, God worked the first six days. He created all things; he worked, therefore he rests. That’s why it does not have to say that Adam kept the first Sabbath of that first week, because the first Sabbath was for God to rest. The focus is on God.


Now this does not mean that Adam and Eve did not observe that first seventh day along side with the creator. Although they were given work to do on the sixth day, its a bit speculative to say that they actually worked enough to have to rest on the next day. However it can be said that they observed the seventh day along side the Lord as he rested from all the work which he had performed. A specific command, therefore, is unnecessary, and an example by the Lord would suffice. As brother Bacchiocchi said,

"What is it that makes any divine precept moral and universal? Do we not regard a law moral when it reflects God’s nature? Could God have given any stronger revelation of the moral nature of the Sabbath than by making it a rule of His divine conduct? Is a principle established by divine example less binding than one enunciated by a divine command? Do not actions speak louder than words? “God’s mode of operation,” as noted by John Murray, “is the exemplar on the basis of which the sequence for man is patterned. There can be little doubt that in Genesis 2: 3 there is at least an allusion to the blessing of the seventh day in man’s week."

"The fact that the Sabbath is presented in the creation story as a divine example rather than a commandment for mankind could well reflect what God intended the Sabbath to be in a sinless world, namely, not an alienating imposition but a free response to a gracious Creator. By freely choosing to make himself available to his Creator on the Sabbath, man was to experience physical, mental and spiritual renewal and enrichment. Since these needs have not been eliminated but heightened by the fall, the moral, universal and perpetual functions of the Sabbath precept were repeated later in the form of a commandment." (See; Divine Rest for Human Restlessness, page 29)

That the days of creation week were 24 hour periods, and that therefore there was a weekly cycle, is made obvious by the context of Genesis 1 and 2 and has been proven elsewhere at this website (click here). First of all, if the week did not start all over after the first Sabbath, how could Adam have understood God when he gave him the following warning:

Genesis 2:17
(17) But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Here God mentions the word “day.” Adam could not have understood this, unless he had experienced more then one consecutive day, or better, a weekly cycle.

Furthermore, God made the “lights of heaven,” the Sun, Moon and Stars to be able to tell time:

Genesis 1:14
(14) And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years.
Notice it says they were made to be able to read “days.” These heavenly elements did not cease to exist after God finished creating everything (as is evidenced today), therefore they continued to serve their purpose of helping to tell “days” (plural) even while Adam and Eve abode in the Garden.

The point is that Adam and Eve had to experience the weekly cycle, and since God had given them work to perform (remember, the Sabbath was made for him as proven already) they could therefore do as the commandment says, work six, and rest the seventh day. What do you suppose they did with the many Sabbaths which followed there after? They followed after the example of their creator and rested!

Hence we summarize with…


The conclusion.


-First, the context of Mark 2:27 is on the seventh day Sabbath of the fourth commandment.

-Second, Jesus directs us through his use of the word “made” to creation week, and thereby tells us that it was then made for “man.”

-Third, the only “man” at the time of creation week was Adam and Eve who represent all of mankind.

-Finally, although Genesis 2:1-3 says that it was God who rested, this was because the context is about God and his work, and not man who was created on day six. However Adam and Eve observed the first Sabbath along side the creator and, following his example, began working for six days and resting every seventh day thereafter.


Your Thought Questions Answered


Question 1: It might be true that there was a consecutive flow of “days” after the first created week, but why does it have to be a cycle? Couldn’t it have simply been a flow of days without it returning to a “weekly” seven day cycle? As in, day 1, day 2, day 3, day 4, day 5, day 6, day 7, and then day 8, day 9, day 10, and so on?

Answer: No, because it still reads that it was made “for” man. It does not make sense for it to have been made “for” Adam and Eve and yet Adam and Eve did not experience it. There must have been a weekly cycle so that the seventh day Sabbath could come around again for them to experience it in the fullest sense, by working for six days and resting on the seventh day as their divine exemplar did.

Question 2: But wasn’t the rest that they experienced a spiritual rest?

Answer: Yes, the Sabbath contains within it a spiritual rest which we believe Adam and Eve lived under. This connection is made in Hebrews 4:3-4. However this does not do away with the literal seventh day no more then having Jesus in us as the bread of life do away with the necessity to partake of literal bread during communion. The outward sign is a manifestation of the inward rest, and this is why Adam abide in spiritual rest while observing also the seventh day Sabbath on a weekly basis.

Question 3: How do you explain verse 28, which says that Jesus is Lord over the Sabbath?

Answer: In context the accused was Jesus. How does he prove he has authority to defend himself the way? By claiming to have authority to do so. He made this claim of authority by saying that he is “Lord even of (does not say over) the Sabbath.”

For further study, see:
Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

Notice: The following is an online debate which took place in 2016 between myself and a Catholic apologist by the name of Paul Newcombe. Due to the business of life, my friend and opponent could not continue the debate, and it has been placed on hold until further notice. This was not a capitulation on his part. I am well acquainted with the circumstances of life that leads a person to dedicated more time on things more important.

Nevertheless, I am sharing the debate that has taken place for the benefit of my readers. I hope that this would be a blessing to you. When I review my own contents I realize areas I could have improved upon, but for sake of honesty, I left everything intact as originally posted.

The following links lead to another website where the debates took place. If this debate ever resumes, I will notify the public here. Happy reading!

_______________________________________________________________

THE CATHOLIC MASS AND EUCHARIST DEBATE
Edwin M. Cotto vs. Paul Newcombe




This debate has been paused due to family and other circumstances deemed by both parties as of more importance. As mentioned above, if and when it resumes, I will place a notice here.

Edwin M. Cotto
Adventist Defense League

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 
www.adventistdefenseleague.com

_________________________________

HELP SUPPORT THIS MINISTRY:
Your donation helps this ministry continue its goals!

click here:
DONATE!

___________________________________________


Welcome to the Adventist Defense League. There have been an increase of attacks on Adventism over the past few years. Yet there has also been a simultaneous increase of websites defending the truth and setting the record straight. This website is one of them.

Among the many accusations, there is one list we have spent much time investigating. It's a list compiled by critics Dirk Anderson and Robert K. Sanders where they claim that Ellen White contradicted the bible at least eight times. The following is our response to these allegations:


1. Did Satan Deceive Adam?

At one point Ellen White said that Adam "was deceived in a simular way." The claim is that she went against 1 Timothy 2:14, which says that Adam was not deceived. But was everything she said considered? Response



2. Was Israel destroyed by Gluttony?


Is there a difference between gluttony and lust? Our critic seems to think so. Find out for yourselves. Response



3. Can we be certain of our salvation?


Was Ellen White really saying that we can not be certian of our salvation? Or was she trying to teach something else? Those who believe in "once saved always saved" seem to be the ones who mostly have a problem with this one. Let's read what she meant together. Response



4. A sin to be sick?


Ellen White said that it is a sin to be sick... but, what did she mean by that? Could it be that she was talking about our sinful choices, which will produce sickness? Response



5. Christians to make trespass offerings?


Our critics use Hebrews 10:12,18 against a comment made by Ellen White in an article addressed to women and the way they dressed in her days. Why did she end her article with this comment? Response


6. Who spoke to Cain?


Sometimes Ellen White reffered to Jesus as an Angel, as the bible has often done as well. What exactly was our critic trying to tell us with this one? Response



7. Is Jesus the Almighty God?


In a half-quoted sentence penned by Ellen White, it seems like she is saying that Jesus was not God. But, what happens when we quote the entire sentance? Response



8. Does God hate wicked children?

In a couple of letters written to her children from countries like Australia, Ellen White urged her children to maintain their relationship with Jesus. Find out what she meant when she made the above comment. Response

Please Note: Dirk Anderson has two versions of the above list. His second version includes another suppossed contradiction called "Is Slavery a Sin?" Click Here for a Response.

______________________________________________


Other topics of interest:

-80 Questions by Steve Rudd ANSWERED!


Here is a list compiled by an opponent of the Adventist faith which claims to be questions that Sabbath keepers are afraid to answer. Of course, we took them, and answered them one by one. Click on the link above to see their 80 questions, and to see the bible responses we provided. Unfortunately for them, Sabbath keepers are not afraid to answer them, and their are answers.

By the way, they responded to an email we sent them about how we answered each question. No they didn't send us a rebuttel. They said something else. Find out here!


-Point by Point Response to TD Jake's R.S.V.P.

We added TD Jakes to our list or critics because in his sermon he called us out by name. We took the time in listening to his sermon. We heard it dozens of times, and slowed it down to grasp every relevant point he was making against the Sabbath. Then, we put together this article responding to every point. We even made a short video clip to advertise our response, hoping to get his followers attention. Take a look at this response by clicking on the link above. Let us know what you think.

The video we made about this article is called "A Response to T.D. Jake's R.S.V.P. Want to see it? Click here. It's also available at the bottom of the article.


-Online Debate with a Former Adventist


One of our friends from an internet chat room which we've known for some years, read our response to TD Jake's R.S.V.P Sabbath sermon, and took it upon himself to send us a written response to our own points. We read and considered every response he made, and provided a rebuttal hoping he can see that there are responses to his arguments. We got a great reply. He told he us likes what he read, and although he still has many questions, and is not fully decided, is considering his current position against adventist teachings. Take a look at the link provided above. The original responses to TD Jakes are in bold/italic. His responses are in normal type, and our rebuttals are in blue.


-Response to Pastor J. Mark Martin
You know how Adventists have always offered a reward to any evangelical who could cough up a bible verse where it specifically says that Christians should keep the first day of the week holy as a Sabbath? Well, former adventist Pastor J. Mark Martin seems to have taken up this challenge. Although he is not claiming any rewards, he is trying to provide such a verse. But, there's something wrong with the verses he used. Can you guess what that is? Find out by clicking on the link above! You'll learn that the true Sabbath was never replaced or abolished.

There is another page we have where we examine another charge by Pastor J. Mark Martin. He tells us that we Sabbath keepers should stone our members if they break the Sabbath! Really? Find out what we discovered by clicking here.


-Response to Elder Olson's The Bible and Ellen G. White

Here we examine 59 questions which are meant to show that Ellen White contradicted the bible those 59 times. These questions are simular to those compiled by critics Sydney Cleveland and Robert K. Sanders (click here). The biggest difference, however, is how Elder Olson's primery attack is on our Health Message and what Ellen White had to say about it. Click on the above link to see his questions, along with our response, and let us know what you think!


-A Critique of Desmond Ford's critique of the Sabbath School Lesson
Dr. Desmond Ford is most famous for his attacks on our 1844 Investigative Judgment. Following in his foot steps, critics like Dale Ratzlaff have also taken up some of his arguments and have promoted them on their websites and books. In this article, we examine a critique which Desmond Ford did on the 2006 Sabbath School Lesson, which dealt primarily with the Investigative Judgment.

_________________________________________________



All of the articles appearing at this website are ours. None of them have been either reviewed or approved by the General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist church and thus all articles should be considered the research and opinions of the authors alone... READ MORE.

Contact us via email at: adl.qanda@gmail.com. Emails with attachments will not be opened. Please, do not reproduce in any form any of the materials on this website without permission and proper credit. To do so is not nice. Contrary to popular opinion, "thou shalt not steal" has not been abolished! © 2018. Sign our Guestbook!
Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 
Join our bi-monthly Newsletter!


____________________________________

Email us and we will add you as soon as possible. As a member, be the first to:

-Know when an article has been added to the site!

We try to add a new article at least once a month.

-Know when an article has been updated on the site!

We are constantly updated our articles with new contents and new images.

-See any new videos we've created!

We have created a few videos dealing with prophecy, doctrine and criticism. But we will be creating many more. Be the first to watch any video we release.

-Learn if one of us is having a debate with a critic!

Sometimes our critics email us and and try to debunk what we say on this site. If the critic gives us permission, we'll probably forward some of our email exchanges to our subscribers.

-Receive our newsletters!

Every once and a while we send out a Newsletter about current prophetic events, current activities of our critics, sermons, teachings, and more.

-Learn of our activities!

We are also an evangelistic/training ministry (visit our ministry website: Beyond Pews Outreach Training Institute). When we travel to hold events, visits churches, or conduct a training seminar, we'll let you know in case your in the area and would like to be involved.

If you'd like to subscribe, just send us an email with the words "subscribe" in the title field and we will add you right away!

Our email address is:
adl.qanda@gmail.com
(please allow up to two weeks for a response)
____________________________________
Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 



New Article !!!
A REPLY TO "LYING FOR GOD"
by Brendon Knudson
__________________________________
HELP SUPPORT THIS MINISTRY:
Donate at our GoFundMe account!

click here:
SEND ME TO AFCOE!

___________________________________________


Welcome to the Adventist Defense League. Across the internet many have taken it upon themselves to  try and prove that Ellen G. White was a false prophetess, and that Adventism teaches error. Among the many accusations, there is one list we have spent much time investigating. It's a list compiled by critics Dirk Anderson and Robert K. Sanders, claiming that Ellen White contradicted the bible at least eight times. The following is our response to these allegations:


1. Did Satan Deceive Adam?

At one point Ellen White said that Adam "was deceived in a simular way." The claim is that she went against 1 Timothy 2:14, which says that Adam was not deceived. But was everything she said considered? Response



2. Was Israel destroyed by Gluttony?


Is there a difference between gluttony and lust? Our critic seems to think so. Find out for yourselves. Response



3. Can we be certain of our salvation?


Was Ellen White really saying that we can not be certian of our salvation? Or was she trying to teach something else? Those who believe in "once saved always saved" seem to be the ones who mostly have a problem with this one. Let's read what she meant together. Response



4. A sin to be sick?


Ellen White said that it is a sin to be sick... but, what did she mean by that? Could it be that she was talking about our sinful choices, which will produce sickness? Response



5. Christians to make trespass offerings?


Our critics use Hebrews 10:12,18 against a comment made by Ellen White in an article addressed to women and the way they dressed in her days. Why did she end her article with this comment? Response


6. Who spoke to Cain?


Sometimes Ellen White reffered to Jesus as an Angel, as the bible has often done as well. What exactly was our critic trying to tell us with this one? Response



7. Is Jesus the Almighty God?


In a half-quoted sentence penned by Ellen White, it seems like she is saying that Jesus was not God. But, what happens when we quote the entire sentance? Response



8. Does God hate wicked children?

In a couple of letters written to her children from countries like Australia, Ellen White urged her children to maintain their relationship with Jesus. Find out what she meant when she made the above comment. Response

Please Note: Dirk Anderson has two versions of the above list. His second version includes another suppossed contradiction called "Is Slavery a Sin?" Click Here for a Response.

______________________________________________


Other topics of interest:

-80 Questions by Steve Rudd ANSWERED!


Here is a list compiled by an opponent of the Adventist faith which claims to be questions that Sabbath keepers are afraid to answer. Of course, we took them, and answered them one by one. Click on the link above to see their 80 questions, and to see the bible responses we provided. Unfortunately for them, Sabbath keepers are not afraid to answer them, and their are answers.

By the way, they responded to an email we sent them about how we answered each question. No they didn't send us a rebuttel. They said something else. Find out here!


-Point by Point Response to TD Jake's R.S.V.P.

We added TD Jakes to our list or critics because in his sermon he called us out by name. We took the time in listening to his sermon. We heard it dozens of times, and slowed it down to grasp every relevant point he was making against the Sabbath. Then, we put together this article responding to every point. We even made a short video clip to advertise our response, hoping to get his followers attention. Take a look at this response by clicking on the link above. Let us know what you think.

The video we made about this article is called "A Response to T.D. Jake's R.S.V.P. Want to see it? Click here. It's also available at the bottom of the article.


-Online Debate with a Former Adventist


One of our friends from an internet chat room which we've known for some years, read our response to TD Jake's R.S.V.P Sabbath sermon, and took it upon himself to send us a written response to our own points. We read and considered every response he made, and provided a rebuttal hoping he can see that there are responses to his arguments. We got a great reply. He told he us likes what he read, and although he still has many questions, and is not fully decided, is considering his current position against adventist teachings. Take a look at the link provided above. The original responses to TD Jakes are in bold/italic. His responses are in normal type, and our rebuttals are in blue.


-Response to Pastor J. Mark Martin
You know how Adventists have always offered a reward to any evangelical who could cough up a bible verse where it specifically says that Christians should keep the first day of the week holy as a Sabbath? Well, former adventist Pastor J. Mark Martin seems to have taken up this challenge. Although he is not claiming any rewards, he is trying to provide such a verse. But, there's something wrong with the verses he used. Can you guess what that is? Find out by clicking on the link above! You'll learn that the true Sabbath was never replaced or abolished.

There is another page we have where we examine another charge by Pastor J. Mark Martin. He tells us that we Sabbath keepers should stone our members if they break the Sabbath! Really? Find out what we discovered by clicking here.


-Response to Elder Olson's The Bible and Ellen G. White

Here we examine 59 questions which are meant to show that Ellen White contradicted the bible those 59 times. These questions are simular to those compiled by critics Sydney Cleveland and Robert K. Sanders (click here). The biggest difference, however, is how Elder Olson's primery attack is on our Health Message and what Ellen White had to say about it. Click on the above link to see his questions, along with our response, and let us know what you think!


-A Critique of Desmond Ford's critique of the Sabbath School Lesson
Dr. Desmond Ford is most famous for his attacks on our 1844 Investigative Judgment. Following in his foot steps, critics like Dale Ratzlaff have also taken up some of his arguments and have promoted them on their websites and books. In this article, we examine a critique which Desmond Ford did on the 2006 Sabbath School Lesson, which dealt primarily with the Investigative Judgment.

_________________________________________________



All of the articles appearing at this website are ours. None of them have been either reviewed or approved by the General Conferance of the Seventh-day Adventist church and thus all articles should be considered the research and opinions of the authors alone... READ MORE. Contact: adl_qanda(at)yahoo.com *replace the (at) with an @. Emails with attachments will not be opened No material can be reproduced in any form without permission. copyright © 2010-2014. Sign our Guestbook!
Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

HELP SEND ONE OF US TO AFCOE! 
CLICK HERE to donate! 
direct link: www.gofundme.com/sendmetoafcoe 


AFCOE stands for Amazing Facts Center Of Evangelism (www.afcoe.org)


"He who strives to obtain knowledge in order that he may labor for the ignorant and perishing, is acting his part in fulfilling God's great purpose for mankind. In unselfish service for the blessing of others he is meeting the high ideal of Christian education... The Lord calls for strong, devoted, self-sacrificing young men and women, who will press to the front, and who, after a short time spent in school, will go forth prepared to give the message to the world."
-Counsels to Teachers, p. 549. 


We've taken a long break from the many online debates and rebuttals we used to post on our site. God has been calling us to a higher calling, one of witnessing and outreach to souls dying for truth. While not neglecting the sometimes necessary responses to critics, ADL is committed more now then ever to the preaching of the present truth and reaching others, so that all may know, and the Advent message can help reach the entire world.

The Adventist Defense League has reconnected with Our Higher Calling Ministry (click here to see their website) in an effort to commence, once more, evangelistic campaigns and outreach. To begin, we started a GoFundMe account to send one of our brethren to AFCOE. This trip will both equip and help connect our ministry with other like-minded individuals.


WHY GO TO A TRAINING SCHOOL?

 All individuals should seek education in evangelism. The Holy Spirit, being the main instructor, leads men and women to training institutions that can help equip them with the tools needed to help in their goals of reaching souls. Our brother has experience in evangelism, but going to a school such as AFCOE will be of benefit and will open up opportunities for more outreach.


WHY GO TO AFCOE, AND NOT TO AN INSTITUTE OF HIGHER LEARNING?

 While not downgrading institutes of higher learning, we've chosen AFCOE because it offers both convenience and affordability.

Convenience, because it is an intensive yet shorter training in evangelism:

"The Lord calls for strong, devoted, self-sacrificing young men and women, who will press to the front, and who, after a short time spent in school, will go forth prepared to give the message to the world." -Counsels to Teachers, p. 549.

 And networking, because AFCOE is a popular ministry connected with our church and many other independent ministries around the world.


WHY ASK FOR DONATIONS?

 The Adventist Defense League has never really been fond of asking for donations, nor charging for their services. This message is too urgent and precious. We'd hate for money to be the factor that stops people from encountering it. However, some things do need to be paid for, such as an event like this. Which is why we are asking for help. Consider that your donation won't only help kick start our goals, but the money paid to AFCOE will also help support them in continuing their powerful!


WHO CAN DONATE?

Anyone! Have you been blessed by our ministry for the past 10 years since it began? Has it helped you remove doubts, strengthen your faith, and/or given you ideas on how you can help in your area? We hope so! That was and is our goal all along. Donating even $1 will help in this cause, and you can be a part of a move that may reach many people with the gospel of Christ and the final message of Revelation 14.

Help should especially come from the churches and its members:

"There are persons who would do good service in the Lord's vineyard, but many are too poor to obtain without assistance the education that they require. The churches should feel it a privilege to take a part in defraying the expenses of such... if there are some who should have the benefit of the school, but who cannot pay full price for their tuition, let the churches show their liberality by helping them." -Child Guidance, p. 313-114. 

If 12,000 people donates at least $1-$50, our goal can be reached in no time. We hope you can help! And if you can't, the next best thing (and actually the most important thing) if prayer!

Hope you are blessed!
 Adventist Defense League

 To donate, CLICK HERE or click this "DONATE NOW" button below:

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

Were Ellen White and the Pioneers Freemasons?
Does Adventism have a Freemason Background?

by Marcos C. Thaler
 


The following paper is written to expose the ludicrous and nefarious charges against Ellen White and Seventh-day Adventism that Freemasonry was a part of its beginnings. In fact, it will be demonstrated that everything to do with the foundations of Seventh-day Adventism is just the exact opposite. The very nemesis of Freemasonry.

What can be better than going to the horses' mouths? Let's start with what Ellen White herself had to see concerning Secret Societies and Freemasonry:

Ellen White on Secret Societies and Freemasonry

The Perils of the Secret Societies.--"The Lord's injunction, 'Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers,' refers not only to the marriage of Christians with the ungodly, but to all alliances in which the parties are brought into intimate association, and in which there is need of harmony in spirit and action. . . . 

The Lord declares through the prophet Isaiah: 'Associate yourselves, O ye people, and ye shall be broken in pieces; and give ear, all ye of far countries: gird yourselves, and ye shall be broken in pieces; gird yourselves, and ye shall be broken in pieces. Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought; speak the word, and it shall not stand: for God is with us. For the Lord spake thus to me with a strong hand, and instructed me that I should not walk in the way of this people, saying, Say ye not, A confederacy, to all them to whom this people shall say, A confederacy; neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid. Sanctify the Lord of hosts Himself; and let Him be your fear, and let Him be your dread.' Isaiah 8:9-13.

There are those who question whether it is right for Christians to belong to the Free Masons and other secret societies. Let all such consider the scriptures just quoted. If we are Christians at all, we must be Christians everywhere, and must consider and heed the counsel given to make us Christians according to the standard of God's Word. . . ." (Ellen Gould White, Evangelism p. 618)

She states elsewhere:

"Those who stand under the blood-stained banner of Prince Immanuel cannot be united with the Free Masons or with any secret organizationThe seal of the living God will not be placed upon anyone who maintains such a connection after the light of truth has shone upon his pathway. Christ is not divided, and Christians cannot serve God and mammon. The Lord says, "Come out from among them, and be ye separate, . . . and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and I will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be My sons and My daughters, saith the Lord Almighty."--Letter 21, 1893. {Ellen Gould White, Evangelism p. 622.1}

And continuing:

Deceptions Through Secret Societies.--"The world is a theater; the actors, its inhabitants, are preparing to act their part in the last great drama. With the great masses of mankind, there is no unity, except as men confederate to accomplish their selfish purposes. God is looking on. His purposes in regard to His rebellious subjects will be fulfilled. The world has not been given into the hands of men, though God is permitting the elements of confusion and disorder to bear sway for a season. A power from beneath is working to bring about the last great scenes in the drama,--Satan coming as Christ, and working with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in those who are binding themselves together in secret societies. Those who are yielding to the passion for confederation are working out the plans of the enemy. The cause will be followed by the effect.

Transgression has almost reached its limit. Confusion fills the world, and a great terror is soon to come upon human beings. The end is very near. We who know the truth should be preparing for what is soon to break upon the world as an overwhelming surprise. --Testimonies, vol. 8, pp. 27-28. (1904) {Ev 622-623.1}

And again:

"I repeated to him the words spoken by my guide in reference to these associations. Giving a certain movement that was made by my guide, I said, "I cannot relate all that was given to me." Brother Faulkhead told Elder Daniells and others that I gave the particular sign known only by the highest order of Masons, which he had just entered. He said that I did not know the sign , and that I was not aware that I was giving the sign to him. This was special evidence to him that the Lord was working through me to save his soul."--Letter 46, 1892. {3SM 85.5} 

As a result of this, he left the lodge. Such fruit would not have transpired had Ellen White not been of God. Only God made her made that hand-movement so that the Mason would know she was inspired, and that he should heed her words to leave the socieity.

So what have some of the other SDA Pioneers stated concerning Freemasonry and Secret Societies?

William Miller and the Pioneers of the Seventh-day Adventist Church on Freemasonry & Secret Societies

Before we go further, we should start with William Miller.  After all, he was the one that got the ball rolling concerning the soon coming of Christ and the return of our Lord at the terminus of the 2300 year prophecy found in Daniel 8:14. So the question is asked, was William Miller a Freemason? The answer would be yes, but before he was converted.

The fact is, William Miller left the lodge, and gave up every shred of Free Masonry after he began to study the Bible.

Miller resigned his Masonic membership in 1831, stating that he did so to "avoid fellowship with any practice that may be incompatible with the word of God among masons". (William Miller letter dated September 10, 1831 quoted in David L. Rowe, God's Strange Work: William Miller and the End of the World (Eerdmans: 2008), p94.)

By 1833 he wrote in a letter to his friends to treat Freemasonry "as they would any other evil". (God's Strange Work: William Miller and the End of the World William Miller letter dated April 10, 1833 quoted in David L. Rowe, God's Strange Work: William Miller and the End of the World (Eerdmans: 2008), p94.)

So what about the pioneers of the Adventist Church following 1844?

Uriah Smith stated in 1857:

"One willfully believes in just such a God as he forms in his imagination and as pleases his own depraved heart. Another willfully adheres to a religion consisting in a loose set of morals, no more strict than to accord with his own loose conduct. Another willfully sustains a religion that saves all, let their characters be ever so bad. Another willfully sustains the pantomime of puseyistic folly as his religion. Another willfully cleaves to free-masonry in more or less of its various formalities as his religion. Another willfully cleaves to all the items, right or wrong, of his sect, for the sake of sustaining the sect. Another as slave to the principle, that he must abide in the sect where he was bred, and it is shameful to assume that children can ever know more than parents. He therefore willfully adheres to the religion in which he was bred, for the sake of his reputation with associates, who annoy him with that principle." {December 3, 1857 UrSe, ARSH 27.10}

As we can see, Uriah Smith was completely opposed to any form of freemasonry.

In 1859, J. H. Waggoner stated,

"The boasted universality of masonry makes it necessary to exclude the name of Christ from prayers, otherwise they would be fitted only for a class, and hence be local and not general. He who joins in a prayer where the name of Christ is intentionally omitted to gratify another whodenies Christ, certainly compromises his christianity, and "has denied the faith." This should lead every Christian to avoid such a connection." J. H. W.   {September 15, 1859 UrSe, ARSH 132.14}

On August 9, 1864, at a meeting at Battle Creek, MI, it was affirmed once again that Secret Societies or Freemasonry of any kind were incompatible with the Christian faith, and that we are to have NO association with them whatsoever.

The Conclusion of that Meeting concerning Secret Societies is as follows:

"Such to us are secret societies. The only safe position we see to avoid this net of Satan, is to flee from the first step in that direction, enter not the first of these secret associations, lest you sin against God and are drawn deeper and deeper into the allurements and follies of the world. We would say in conclusion that we have consulted with many of the ministers and leading brethren of Seventh-day Adventists, and the view of secret societies herein advanced, so far as we can learn, is that invariably entertained by them." (John. Byington, J. N. Loughborough, Geo. W. Amadon. General Conference Comittee) {August 9, 1864 UrSe, The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 87.19} 

Several more periodicals can be produced which practically state the same thing following the 1860s.  In 1866 another conference was held, and Uriah Smith who edited the discussions of those meetings wrote a lengthy documentation in 1866 entitled, "Shall Christians Join Secret Societies?"

The lengthy document concluded the following 9 points. Each point is greatly expanded upon in the original document, but for the sake of brevity, I shall only quote the heading of each:

"First. Christ, our Master, neither instituted nor countenanced these Orders.

Secondly. In those rites, proceedings, and regalia which do appear, these Orders are frivolous, belittling, and unworthy of respect.

Thirdly. These Orders stand convicted of deceit and falsehood.

Fourthly. These Orders are unfriendly to domestic happiness and well-being.

Fifthly. These Orders are hostile to the heavenly mindedness, to the spirituality of those who join them.

Sixthly. These Orders tend to destroy Christian fellowship.

Seventhly. These Orders tend to subject the Church to "the world" in some of its dearest interests. 

Eighthly. These Orders dishonor Christ.
 
Ninthly. These Orders-the things note alleged against them being true-impede the cause and kingdom of God, and are, therefore, hostile to the largest, best, and deepest interests of mankind." (May 8, 1866 UrSe, ARSH 178.4)

The above statement led to the following conclusion:

"Shall Christians join secret societies? Will it pay? Are they under obligation to do so? Is it right? Fellow-disciple, brother man, have you doubt on these questions? If it will not pay; if you are under no obligation to do it; if you have any doubt of its rightfulness, it is most assuredly your duty to refuse any connection with them." {May 8, 1866 UrSe, ARSH 178.6} 

Joseph Bates confesses he knew nothing of Masonry

Joseph Bates was a cofounder of the SDA Church along with Ellen White and her husband. In a letter to James White, he was discussing a problem over how certain meetings needed to be conducted in a church. He stated:

"The church then proceeded to transact their business. But did not come to a decision until the morning. If this was a secret meeting, then all church meetings are such. Mr. H. says, that one of "our number told him that it was too much like masonry." As I never was acquainted with masonry I am unable to make the comparison, but this I will venture to say, that not one of the members who labored to have things made right during that church meeting, ever made such a remark to Mr. H."  {July 4, 1854 JWe, The Adventist Review and Sabbath Herald 175.14}


E. J. Waggoner, a great expositor whom was respected by Ellen White, had this to say in 1894 in the negative in The Present Truth paper:

"A new Spiritualist journal called The Unknown World, has just made its appearance. In order that our readers may know from its adherents just what Spiritualism embraces, we make the following extract from the prospectus of the journal, most of the words of which we think they will be able to comprehend:-

'The department of occult science embraced by the present editorial scheme are: White and Black Magic, Necromancy, Divination, Astrology, Alchemy, Witchcraft, Crystallomancy, Elementals and Elementaries, the Rosicrucians, the Illuminati, Esoteric, Freemasonry, the Mysteries, the Mystics, Hermetic Philosophy, the Arch?ology of the Secret Sciences.'

We do not know if the above is the whole of the Spiritualist family, but it is sufficiently large." {September 6, 1894 EJW, PTUK 562.3} 



As we have seen, Seventh-day Adventism "embodies" the epidomy of an "anti-Freemasonry movement". 


Ploy of Devilry to Make Adventism Part of Freemasonry:

I IMPLORE the reader to do their due diligence and research these matters out more thoroughly before swalling what all the critics have to say on the internet. Also, watch the videos that have been made that expose the foolish notion Ellen White or the Adventist Pioneers had ANY connections or affiliations with Freemasonry whatsoever.

It is with deep regret that I say, that those who have laid such false charges against Seventh-day Adventism's foundations, and who have created unsubstaniated claims in videos and internet articles, I can assure are nothing but the servants of Hermeticism (the symbol of serpent, the Devil) trying to distract you from the real issues. The real issue is that Adventism and all its pioneers were the NEMESIS to Freemasonry! The number one champions AGAINST it. NO other body exposes it and the Papacy (which is behind Freemasonry) so much. In fact, the real pawns of Freemasonry are Dispensationalists, Supposed Torah Keepers [feast-keepers], Anti-Paulinests, and all those who give any fancy toward Zionism. Zionism, and all notions of a rebuilt-third temple in the Middle East and restoration of the literal land of Israel---IS a fabrication of the Jesuit Illuminati and Freemasonry.

In order for Adventism's enemies to have a chance at bucking Adventism, they are forced to adopt a new ploy of Devilry. That is, to try and TURN the argument BACK against Adventism and accuse THEM of being part of the VERY SYSTEM IT EXPOSES! Satan is truly running out of options, so we see. He is more desperate than we can imagine.

I'll tell you with unreserved straight truth. The critics are dead-wrong about Ellen White, or any of our pioneers being Freemasons after their conversion. It was actually some of the pioneer's past affiliation with these societies that armed and ENABLED them with the ability and credibility to expose it. I know a new Adventist who was once a part of the Illuminati and God delivered him from it. He is now a brave evangelist in the ranks of Adventism exposing Masonry's deceptions.

Satan has many wrapped about his little finger, dismantling their ability to view issues in their proper lenses. He njoys distorting issues in our mind. But many let him.

It is our earnest plea to those who have fabricated such charges to humble themselves before God, and be willing to give up these idols in their life that they have been cherishing, and be willing to accept correction and be hewed and squared by the evidence.


Didn't Ellen White make some statements about the "All-Seeing-Eye"? Isn't this proof that she had connections with Freemasonry?
Once again, this is another unfounded charge:

Let's look at some Bible verses relating to the All-Seeing Eye:

Matthew 6:22 – “The Light of the body is the eye. If therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light”

Pslams 19:8 – “The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes”

Psalms 47:2 – “For the Lord MOST High is terrible: He is a great king over ALL the earth.”

The fact is, Ellen White was not a Mason, a Freemason, or a 33-degree Freemason. That is a lie, and unsubstantial. No such proof exists. It is sheer garbage, utter foolishness, and beyond stupidity.

Notice: The bible also uses the "all-seeing eye" language:

- "Behold, the EYE of the LORD is UPON THEM that fear him" (Ps. 33:18)

- "For his EYES are upon the ways of man, and he SEETH ALL his goings." (Job 34:21)

- “The LORD is in his holy temple, the LORD'S throne is in heaven: HIS EYES BEHOLD, his EYELIDS try, the CHILDREN OF MEN. “ (Psalms 11:4)

- "he led him about, he instructed him, he kept him as the apple of his eye." (Zech. 2:8)

- "now mine EYE SEETH THEE." (Job 42:5)

- "But the EYE OF THEIR GOD was UPON the elders of the Jews" (Ezra 5:5)

The "all-seeing eye" of Lucifer is a counterfeit.

But there is more:

- “For the EYES OF THE LORD ARE OVER THE RIGHTEOUS, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.” (1 Peter 3:2)

- “These things saith the Son of God, who hath HIS EYES like unto a flame of fire.” (Revelation 2:18)

- “and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and SEVEN EYES, which are the seven Spirits of God SENT FORTH INTO ALL THE EARTH.” (Rev. 5:6)

The whole reason Lucifer borrowed the "all-seeing eye" in the first place, is because He was trying to be "like the Most High" (Isaiah 14:14), because He wanted to see "all things" like God could.


____________________________________

FURTHER STUDY:
-Were the founders of Seventh day Adventism Free Masons, by Jud Lake (part 1)
-Were the founders of Seventh day Adventism Free Masons, by Jud Lake (part 2)
Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

The Sabbath up to 40 years after the cross!
A reply to critics regarding Matthew 24:20

by Edwin M. Cotto



The following text proves that the Sabbath will still be both present and relevant to believers after the crucifixion:

Matthew 24:20
'Pray ye that your flight be not in the winter; neither on the Sabbath day.

While admitting the context of Matthew 24:20 is not regarding the Sabbath specifically, Adventists see in this text a hint that the Sabbath would still be relevant and sacred to believers up to forty years after the cross of Christ. Even some of the brightest of the critics of the seventh day Sabbath admit that early Christians kept the Sabbath after the cross. In talking about the book of Acts, D.A. Carson as editor of the book “From Sabbath to Lord’s Day,” a book against Sabbath keeping, admits:

"The Sabbath was an institution too central to Judaism for it to have been tampered with without provoking hostile reaction ad persecution, but there's no record of persecution on this account. Instead, the early Jewish Christians appeared to have taken advantage of Sabbath observance to preach Jesus the Messiah" -A.T. Lincoln, "From Sabbath to Lord's Day: a Biblical and Theological Perspective," From Sabbath to Lord's Day, ed. Carson, p. 365.

Now, D.M. Canright in his book renouncing Adventism wrote an objection to this that we see regurgitated by Anti-SDAs all over the internet. Consequently therefore, refuting his claims will simultaneously refute everyone else’s.

Canright argues that the reference is about not being able to leave Jerusalem because the gates were always closed on the Sabbath. And that is the only reason why Jesus referenced the Sabbath. We quote from his book:


“On that day the gates of the city would be shut and so hinder them greatly of not detain them entirely. The gates of all the villages through which they must pass would be closed. The Jews would suspect them and arrest them as traitors. Hence it would be dangerous, almost impossible, to flee on that day. A candid person can see that this is all there is to that text.” –Seventh Day Adventism Renounced, page 149.

Canright, as do many anti-Adventist websites on the internet, base the idea from Nehemiah, where he commands the gates of Jerusalem be shut throughout the Sabbath day:

Nehemiah 13:9
And it came to pass, that when the gates of Jerusalem began to be dark before the sabbath, I commanded that the gates should be shut, and charged that they should not be opened till after the sabbath: and some of my servants set I at the gates, that there should no burden be brought in on the sabbath day.

Former Seventh Day Adventist, Dirk Anderson says:
“Furthermore, it is likely that most, if not all, of the gates to the city would have been closed on the Sabbath day. The practice of closing the gates of Jerusalemduring the Sabbath and having authorities stationed at the gates to check for loads was established during the days of Nehemiah and still practiced, to some extent, after the death of Christ.”

Let us now proceed with examining this claim by providing THREE reasons why this argument just will not work:

FIRST REASON: ALL OF JUDEA: As Jesus began his prediction regarding the Temple, his warning to flee was for believers also in Judea, who were outsidethe city gates. How then could city gates hinder their flight?
SECOND REASON: THE GATES WERE OPEN: In context, Jesus was talking about both the Temple and also Jerusalem and Judea. With regards to the Temple however, if closed gates would have been his concern, he’d have had the Temple gates in mind as well, not just the city gates. But actually to the detriment of our critics, the Temple gates were miraculously OPENNING during the siege and before, and also the gates of the city walls.
THIRD REASON: NO GUARDS AT THE CITY GATES: When Cestius the Roman chief had approach the City for battle he suddenly withdrew his army. The Jews left the city in pursuit of them, which in turn gave the Christians the liberty to flee without any enemies to hinder their flight. Thus in the providence of God, a way was made for them to flee at liberty and NO GATES were closed nor guarded when this took place! Did not Jesus see that this is how it would take place, especially throughout his prophecy wherein he was already looking down the future? If he did, then that would explain why he didn’t specifically warn against closed gates.|


Finally we will answer the ultimate question which all critics ask:

How could observing the Sabbath hinder believers from fleeing?


 We will now begin to expound on the FIRST REASON. So far, we see that Jesus was speaking about believers who would have to flee from the Temple. However, he was also concerned with believers in…
ALL OF JUDEA.

Canright has assumed that Jesus’ prophecy will affect only those inside the city gates. But that isn’t the case at all. In fact, the Lord’s prophecy warns believers to flee from all over, from Jerusalem to all of Judea. Note the following verses:

Matthew 24:
(15) When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
(16) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains.

After seeing the sign spoken of by Daniel, then believers in Judea must flee, along with all those in their homes (verse 17) and those on the field (verse 18). To say that all those in their “homes” and in the “fields” must only be those inside the gates of Jerusalem is quite the assumption. The reality is that verses 16 through 18 encompass ALL of both Jerusalem and Judea!

Now, it would not make any sense for Jesus to have been worried about the JERUSALEM gates being closed, when his warning to flee was ALSO for believers OUTSIDE the gates of Jerusalem. How would those outside the city gates be hindered by the city gates?

J.N. Andrews in “History of the Sabbath and the First Day of the week” says:

“An assertion so often and so confidently uttered should be well founded in truth; yet a brief examination will show that such is not the case. 1. The Saviour's language has reference to the whole land of Judea, and not to Jerusalem only: "Let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains." The closing of the city gates could not therefore affect the flight of but a part of the disciples.” -page 74 (LINK: http://www.sabbathtruth.com/portals/20/documents/History_of_the_Sabbath.pdf)

We move forward to the SECOND REASON, that, in case our critics assume it would be the gates of the Temple that would be closed, pointing to the verses that show believers within the Temple gates, we will see that…
THE GATES WERE OPEN.

When Jesus made his prophecy he was talking about ALL of Jerusalem including its Temple, and as we have seen above, Judea. We get this impression most profoundly from the parallel passages in Luke 19:

Luke 19:41-44 (compare verse 44 with Matthew 24:2 to see parallel)
(41) And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
(42) Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
(43) For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
(44) And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.

Yet in the immediate context, we note he first talks about the Temple. Notice:


Matthew 24:1
(1) And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
(2) And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

So if gates were a concern for Jesus, he would have had not only the city gates in mind, but also the Temple Gates in mind. Now according to history, the Temple gates were OPENING, and this causes a direct problem with the notion that Jesus was concerned with closed Temple gates. As you know, his prophecy in Matthew 24 was of him seeing 40 years down the future, and no doubt he would have seen that these gates would be miraculously opened. This may explain why he didn’t even specifically mention any gates!

Now let us look at the historical record. Prior to the destruction in 70 AD, we read of the following:


“Moreover, the eastern gate of the inner [court of the] temple, which was of brass, and vastly heavy, and had been with difficulty shut by twenty men, and rested upon a basis armed with iron, and had bolts fastened very deep into the firm floor, which was there made of one entire stone, WAS SEEN TO BE OPENED OF ITS OWN ACCORDabout the sixth hour of the night. Now those that kept watch in the temple came hereupon running to the captain of the temple, and told him of it; who then came up thither, and not without great difficulty was able to shut the gate again. This also appeared to the vulgar to be a very happy prodigy, as if God did thereby open them the gate of happiness. But the men of learning understood it, that the security of their holy house was dissolved of its own accord, AND THAT THE GATE WAS OPENED FOR THE ADVANTAGE OF THEIR ENEMIES. So these publicly declared that the signal foreshowed the desolation that was coming upon them. (LINK: http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/war-6.htm

The historian Josephus records the report of the people that miracles began taking place some time before the temple was destroyed. One of those miracles was the gates of the temple being opened.

Here is more from another historical document saying the same thing, the talmud:
“The doors [gates] of the Hekal [temple] would OPEN BY THEMSELVES, until R. Johanan b.Zakkai rebuked them, saying: Hekal, Hekal, why wilt thou be the alarmer thyself? I know about thee THAT THOU WILT BE DESTROYED, for Zechariah ben Ido has already prophesiedconcerning thee:6 Open thy doors, OLebanon, that the fire may devour thycedars.” –Talmud, 39b. (LINK: http://halakhah.com/rst/moed/15b%20-%20Yoma%20-%2028a-61b.pdf)


The miracles of gates being opened were happening all the time before the destruction. We note that the bible itself records an instance when a gate was opened for the apostle Peter. To make matters worse for our critics, this was not the Temple gate… it was one of the CITY gates!

Acts 12:10
When they were past the first and the second ward, they came unto the iron gate that leadeth unto the city; which opened to them of his own accord: and they went out, and passed on through one street; and forthwith the angel departed from him.

Now if gates were being opened all the time, is it reasonable for our critics to think that closed gates was really Jesus’ concern? Moreover, as we have mentioned above, Jesus was looking at the future when he was predicting his Matthew 24 prophecy. And no doubt he saw also that gates would be miraculously opened prior to the destruction.

The gates, therefore, were not an issue in Jesus’ mind when he referenced the Sabbath, because Jesus knows the future, and knew very well that those gates would soon be opened to help fulfill aspects of his prophecy. Do we assume every gate was being opened? We make no assumptions. But the evidence suggests that closed gates would not be a factor for believers during that time.

The third and final reason why our critic’s objection does not work is because when the flight actually did take place, there were…

NO GUARDS AT THE CITY GATES

And if there were no Jewish guards guarding the gates, those gates were not closed or locked. Notice the following historical accounts. First, when the Roman general Gaius Cestius Gallus began marching towards Jerusalem with his army of about 30,000 men and encamped but a few miles from it, he noticed there were no Jewish men in the country sides, for they had all left to Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles, which required the presence of every male in Jerusalem (Deuteronomy 12:12):
“But when Cestius had marched from Antipatris to Lydda, he found the city empty of its men, for the whole multitude were gone up to Jerusalem to the feast of tabernacles; yet did he destroy fifty of those that showed themselves, and burnt the city, and so marched forwards; and ascending by Betboron, he pitched his camp at a certain place called Gabao, fifty furlongs distant from Jerusalem.” - http://www.ccel.org/ccel/josephus/works/files/war-2.htm

There were no Jews that could hinder the flight of the Christians in these areas as they saw the army approaching, for the Jews had all gone to Jerusalem. But most remarkable is that when the Jews in Jerusalem saw the army camped not too far from the city, the Jewish soldiers LEFT Jerusalem to fight against the army! And this was the sign for the believers of Christ to at that moment flee the city without the hindrance of the Jews guarding the gates! Notice the next paragraph following the quote above:
“But as for the Jews, when they saw the war approaching to their metropolis, they left the feast, and betook themselves to their arms; and taking courage greatly from their multitude, went in a sudden and disorderly manner to the fight, with a great noise, and without any consideration had of the rest of the seventh day, although the Sabbath was the day to which they had the greatest regard; but that rage which made them forget the religious observation [of the sabbath] made them too hard for their enemies in the fight: with such violence therefore did they fall upon the Romans, as to break into their ranks, and to march through the midst of them, making a great slaughter as they went” - if holy men had entirely abandoned the royal city itself…”

 The Roman army was about “fifty furlongs distant from Jerusalem” and in order to get to them to battle the Jews had to LEAVE Jerusalem. This was the opportunity for the Christians to leave unhindered by them or the gates. And yet another opportunity arose:

" It then happened that Cestius was not conscious either how the besieged despaired of success, nor how courageous the people were for him; and so he recalled his soldiers from the place, and by despairing of any expectation of taking it, without having received any disgrace, he retired from the city, without any reason in the world. But when the robbers perceived this unexpected retreat of his, they resumed their courage, and ran after the hinder parts of his army, and destroyed a considerable number of both their horsemen and footmen: and now Cestius lay all night at the camp which was at Scopus, and as he went off farther next day, he thereby invited the enemy to follow him, who still fell upon the hindmost and destroyed them." - http://www.ccel.org/ccel/josephus/works/files/war-2.htm

Again they left the city going after Cestius and his army when he had suddenly “retired from the city, without any reason in the world.” Josephus may not have known the reason, but we know the reason. It was in the providence of God that this took place; that the city may be left empty of zealous Jews and the believers may see the sigh of the retreat, see that the gates were abandoned, and take flight!


Note the following from yet another historian who comments on Josephus’s account of the events:
“The whole body, however, of the church at Jerusalem, having been commanded by a divine revelation, given to men of approved piety there before the war, removed from the city, and dwelt at a certain town beyond the Jordan, called Pella. Here, those that believed in Christ, having removed from Jerusalem, as if holy men had entirely abandoned the royal city itself, and the whole land of Judea: the divine justice, for their crimes against Christ and his apostles, finally overtook them, totally destroying the whole generation of these evil-doers from the earth.” -Ecclesiastical History by Eusebius ofCaesarea, Bishop of Caesarea.

A the moment when the believers of Christ saw the sign of the army as foretold by Jesus, the Jewish zealots abandoned the city and its gates, and the believers saw opportunity to leave the city UNHINDERED BY CLOSED GATES. As a result, not one Christian perished in the entire siege that took place.The real question critics do not want to be asked is: If closed gates were to be a factor, why didn’t Jesus just say so? Why didn’t he specifically mention the gates, even though he gave so many details about other things?
They cannot answer these questions, but we can. Jesus knew full well how everything was going to transpire, and he knew that closed gates would not be a factor! And as we have seen from the historical accounts, it truly wasn’t!
LET US SUMMERIZE BRIEFLY THE THREE REASONS WHY CLOSED GATES WERE NOT A FACTOR FOR BELIEVERS:

_________________________________________

SIMPLY PUT:

-THE PROPHECY encompassed all of Jerusalem and Judea. Jesus could not have been worried about closed gates at believers in Judea would be outside the city gates

-THE BIBLE AND HISTORY records the accounts of gates being miraculously opened both in the Temple and in Jerusalem. Jesus knew this would take place.

-HISTORY RECORDS that the Jews would leave the towns and the city of Jerusalem while battling the Roman army, and that while they were away from the City the believers would flee without any Jew guarding or keeping closed the city gates.

_________________________________________

Now that we have dismantled the objection, we will now answer the following question:



WE KNOW JESUS REFERANCED THE SABBATH,
BUT DO WE KNOW WHY?


Yes, we do know why. Jesus referenced the Sabbath, along with the winter and with pregnant women, because during those THREE THINGS it would certainly be difficult to escape. But the REASON why it would be difficult to escape during the siege on the Sabbath was not because of closed gates… it was because of a more important reason: The sacredness of Sabbath observance.

But the critic would ask, "yet how can sacredness hinder their flight?" We answer. Keeping the Sabbath sacred entitled three things:

1) Not working, resting.
2) Worship
3) Assembly

Of the first may be seen directly from the commandment itself:

Exodus 20:8-9
(8) Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
(9) Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
(10) But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. In it thou shalt not do any work...

Believers would be "resting." Yet further revelation from the scriptures reveals that keeping it holy meant also worshiping. King David, in writing a Psalm about the Sabbath, stated:

Psalm 92:1
A Psalm orSong for the sabbath day. It is a good thing to give thanks unto the LORD, and to sing praises unto thy name, O most High.
And in the same Psalm, he speaks about God’s people flourishing “in the house of the Lord” and “in the courts of our God” –verse 13. Which leads us to the third way of keeping is sacred, or holy. The Lord commanded that upon his holy day his people were to worship together in a “holy convocation” which means “holy assembly.”
 
Leviticus 23:3
Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of rest, an holy convocation. Ye shall do no work therein: it is the Sabbath of the Lord in all your dwellings.

It’s the reason why in the New Testament, the Jews, along with Jesus, the disciples and Paul, gathered together on the seventh day in synagogues. Now note it says HOLYconvocation, meaning that gathering together was sacred, it was to be a SACRED GATHEREING.

Here we see how Sabbath observance could hinder their flight:

1) Keeping the Sabbath "sacred" meant to not work, but rest. Sabbath keeping believers in Judea and Jerusalem would there be home, in Jerusalem, when the siege took place. They would not be away from their home town working. They'd be home resting with their families.

2) Keeping the Sabbath "sacred" meant also to worship upon that day, which in turn would have them together, in their homes in Jerusalem with friends and families, when the siege took place.

3) Finally, not only would they be home, in their home towns upon the Sabbath, but keeping the Sabbath "sacred" meant also that for a few hours during the Sabbath they'd be gathered together in an assembly as a church. If the siege took place upon the Sabbath, believers would have been found in Jerusalem assembled reading from the Torah and praising the Lord as a church.

All of this could prevent them from fleeing successfully upon the Sabbath day without hindrance as the Romans would have easily found them gathered in their homes and swept them away in within
their crusade against the Jews. Imagine they had been caught in the midst of the siege on the Sabbath. THEN perhaps gates would stop their flee, as well as Jewish and Roman soldiers.
Canright argued that the issue was that they would have to violate the sacredness of the Sabbath day during the flight. That is correct. If the believers were caught in the midst of the siege gathered together as a church, the sacredness of their assembly would be interrupted and it would be a higher death toll! It is less risky if the siege takes place on another day other than the day where they’d all be gathered together!

Interestingly enough, critics always argue from Exodus 16:29 that one of the requirements was actually to stay home during the Sabbath, but even if this was the case (although as stated above, we do not agree. See Question #4 below) it only provides yet ANOTHER reason why Sabbath observance could hinder their flight because they would all be inside their homes in Jerusalem if the siege happens on the Sabbath! THEREFORE, in light of the reasons why closed gates were not a factor, the critics now have two dilemmas. If they were to choose either one of these, which are the only two options, it would force them to admit that Sabbath “observance” would hinder their flight:

FIRST DILLEMA: Either claim..
Read Full Article

Read for later

Articles marked as Favorite are saved for later viewing.
close
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

Separate tags by commas
To access this feature, please upgrade your account.
Start your free month
Free Preview