Isaiah 58:12-Are SDA's the 'repairers' and is the 'breach' the Sabbath?

[NightEternal]

We've all heard this claim made in reference to Isaiah 58:12 at some point in our Adventist journey, usually in Bible prophecy seminars.

It is claimed that the SDA church is the remnant church who Isaiah is referencing here, and the commission being given here to SDA's is to repair or restore the 'breach' or 'gap' that has come about due to the neglect of the Sabbath commandment by other churches. This is assumed because the verses immediately after verse 12 discuss the Sabbath. But is this a fair assumption to make? Is this another case of Adventist arrogance reading into the verse thier own identity, or is this verse indeed speaking about SDA's and the Sabbath? If not, who and what is it referring to?

I will post the verse from a parallel translation website for in depth study and further reference:

<< Isaiah 58:12 >>

New American Standard Bible
Those from among you will rebuild the ancient ruins; You will raise up the age-old foundations; And you will be called the repairer of the breach, The restorer of the streets in which to dwell.
GOD'S WORD® Translation
Your people will rebuild the ancient ruins and restore the foundations of past generations. You will be called the Rebuilder of Broken Walls and the Restorer of Streets Where People Live.
King James Bible
And they that shall be of thee shall build the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in.
American Standard Version
And they that shall be of thee shall build the old waste places; thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in.
Bible in Basic English
And your sons will be building again the old waste places: you will make strong the bases of old generations: and you will be named, He who puts up the broken walls, and, He who makes ready the ways for use.
Douay-Rheims Bible
And the places that have been desolate for ages shall be built in thee: thou shalt raise up the foundations of generation and generation: and thou shalt be called the repairer of the fences, turning the paths into rest.
Darby Bible Translation
And they that come of thee shall build the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations that have remained from generation to generation; and thou shalt be called, Repairer of the breaches, restorer of frequented paths.
English Revised Version
And they that shall be of thee shall build the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in.
Jewish Publication Society Tanakh
And they that shall be of thee shall build the old waste places, thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called The repairer of the breach, the restorer of paths to dwell in.
Webster's Bible Translation
And they that shall be of thee shall build the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in.
World English Bible
Those who shall be of you shall build the old waste places; you shall raise up the foundations of many generations; and you shall be called The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in.
Young's Literal Translation
And they have built out of thee the wastes of old, The foundations of many generations thou raisest up, And one calleth thee, 'Repairer of the breach, Restorer of paths to rest in.

 

[NightEternal]

Isaiah 30:13 Therefore this iniquity will be to you Like a breach about to fall, A bulge in a high wall, Whose collapse comes suddenly in an instant,
Isaiah 44:28 "It is I who says of Cyrus, 'He is My shepherd! And he will perform all My desire.' And he declares of Jerusalem, 'She will be built,' And of the temple, 'Your foundation will be laid.'"
Isaiah 49:8 Thus says the LORD, "In a favorable time I have answered You, And in a day of salvation I have helped You; And I will keep You and give You for a covenant of the people, To restore the land, to make them inherit the desolate heritages;
Isaiah 61:4 Then they will rebuild the ancient ruins, They will raise up the former devastations; And they will repair the ruined cities, The desolations of many generations.
Ezekiel 36:10 'I will multiply men on you, all the house of Israel, all of it; and the cities will be inhabited and the waste places will be rebuilt.
Amos 9:11 "In that day I will raise up the fallen booth of David, And wall up its breaches; I will also raise up its ruins And rebuild it as in the days of old.

 

[NightEternal]

Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
And they that shall be of thee shall build the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in.
build Isa 61:4 Ne 2:5,17 4:1-6 Jer 31:38 Eze 36:4,8-11,33 Am 9:14
waste Isa 51:3 52:9 the repairer Ne 4:7 6:1 Da 9:25 Am 9:11

Jump to Previous Occurrence

Age-Old Ancient Bases Breach Breaches Broken Build Building Built Dwell Foundations Generation Generations Makes Paths Places Puts Raise Raisest Ready Rebuild Rebuilt Rest Restorer Ruins Streets Strong Use Walls Waste Wastes Ways

Jump to Next Occurrence

Age-Old Ancient Bases Breach Breaches Broken Build Building Built Dwell Foundations Generation Generations Makes Paths Places Puts Raise Raisest Ready Rebuild Rebuilt Rest Restorer Ruins Streets Strong Use Walls Waste Wastes Ways

 

[NightEternal]

Geneva Study Bible
And they that shall be of thee shall build the old {n} waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in.
(n) Signifying that of the Jews would come such as would build again the ruins of Jerusalem and Judea: but chiefly this is meant of the spiritual Jerusalem, whose builders were the Apostles.
Wesley's Notes
58:12 They shall be of thee - Thy posterity. Waste places - Cities which have lain long waste; that shall continue for many generations to come. The breach - Breach is put for breaches, which was made by God's judgment breaking in upon them in suffering the walls of their towns and cities to be demolished. Paths - Those paths that led from city to city, which being now laid desolate, and uninhabited, were grown over with grass, and weeds. To dwell in - These accommodations being recovered, their ancient cities might be fit to be re - inhabited.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
12. they &#8230; of thee&#8212;thy people, the Israelites.
old waste places&#8212;the old ruins of Jerusalem (Isa 61:4; Eze 36:33-36).
foundations of many generations&#8212;that is, the buildings which had lain in ruins, even to their foundations, for many ages; called in the parallel passage (Isa 61:4), "the former desolations"; and in the preceding clause here, "the old waste places." The literal and spiritual restoration of Israel is meant, which shall produce like blessed results on the Gentile world (Am 9:11, 12; Ac 15:16, 17).
be called&#8212;appropriately: the name truly designating what thou shalt do.
breach&#8212;the calamity wherewith God visited Israel for their sin (Isa 30:26; 1Ch 15:13).
paths to dwell in&#8212;not that the paths were to be dwelt in, but the paths leading to their dwellings were to be restored; "paths, so as to dwell in the land" [Maurer].
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary 58:3-12 A fast is a day to afflict the soul; if it does not express true sorrow for sin, and does not promote the putting away of sin, it is not a fast. These professors had shown sorrow on stated or occasioned fasts. But they indulged pride, covetousness, and malignant passions. To be liberal and merciful is more acceptable to God than mere fasting, which, without them, is vain and hypocritical. Many who seem humble in God's house, are hard at home, and harass their families. But no man's faith justifies, which does not work by love. Yet persons, families, neighbourhoods, churches, or nations, show repentance and sorrow for sin, by keeping a fast sincerely, and, from right motives, repenting, and doing good works. The heavy yoke of sin and oppression must be removed. As sin and sorrow dry the bones and weaken the strongest human constitution; so the duties of kindness and charity strengthen and refresh both body and mind. Those who do justly and love mercy, shall have the comfort, even in this world. Good works will bring the blessing of God, provided they are done from love to God and man, and wrought in the soul by the Holy Spirit.

 

[woobadooba]

We've all heard this claim made in reference to Isaiah 58:12 at some point in our Adventist journey, usually in Bible prophecy seminars.

It is claimed that the SDA church is the remnant church who Isaiah is referencing here, and the commission being given here to SDA's is to repair or restore the 'breach' or 'gap' that has come about due to the neglect of the Sabbath commandment by other churches. This is assumed because the verses immediately after verse 12 discuss the Sabbath. But is this a fair assumption to make? Is this another case of Adventist arrogance reading into the verse thier own identity, or is this verse indeed speaking about SDA's and the Sabbath? If not,

Night, you did a pretty good job giving references of thoughts by others which pertain to this passage.

Could you provide us with some documentation that proves that the SDA church generally regards this passage in this light?

Or is such an interpretation only applicable to what some think about this passage within the SDA church? If so, do you have a list of names and quotations from any moderan day SDA Evangelists or teahers that believe this?

 

[NightEternal]

Woob, are you telling me you have never heard this interpretation in all your years in the church? I find that hard to believe.

Good grief, you sound like Conklin with your requests! Do you realize how many seminars I have been to in my lifetime?

Well, I do recall hearing this interpretation from Walter Veith, Doug Batchelor, Kenneth Cox, Shawn Boonstra as well as countless lesser known evangelists and many pastors from the pulpit. Many of the major names are not direct about it, but the insinuation is definitely there. And yes, I have heard local evangelists come right out and make the claim. Not to mention the times during Sabbath Schools, prayer meetings and Bible studies that are too numerous to document here where it has been said. As for direct quotations, you must be kidding me. I do not write down the date and time and exact thing said for every premise I hear in the many seminars I have been to.

Just trust me, I have heard this in the church and there are members that actually believe this. Why else would I ask this question if I had not heard it before? Do you think this is something I just pulled out of thin air? I'm not that creative, believe me.

 

[woobadooba]

Woob, are you telling me you have never heard this interpretation in all your years in the church? I find that hard to believe.

Good grief, you sound like Conklin with your requests! Do you realize how many seminars I have been to in my lifetime?

Well, I do recall hearing this interpretation from Walter Veith, Doug Batchelor, Kenneth Cox, Shawn Boonstra as well as countless lesser known evangelists and many pastors from the pulpit. Not to mention Sabbath Schools, prayer meetings and Bible studies that are too numerous to document here. As for direct quotations, you must be kidding me. I do not write down the date and time and exact thing said for every premise I hear in many seminars I have been to.

Just trust me, I have heard this in the church and there are members that actually believe this. Why else would I ask this question if I had not heard it before? Do you think this is something I just pulled out of thin air? I'm not that creative, believe me.

The point that I am trying to make is that it isn't an interpretation that is held by the church to be an official belief.

As to why I had asked for references, I think it is important to provide proof when a claim is made about what a person teaches. For, people have often been accused of teaching things that they never really taught.

But what I'm really getting at here has to do with what I had shared with you before. Try to be more careful with how you put things when talking about the SDA church or Adventists.

There is a way to say something wherein you could make it look like the whole lump is bad to a person that doesn't read very carefully, and thus give that person a wrong impression about our church; and there is a way that you could say the same thing without giving off such an impression.

 

[NightEternal]

The point that I am trying to make is that it isn't an interpretation that is held by the church to be an official belief.

That isn't stopping people in the church from putting it forward as truth, believe me.

As to why I had asked for references, I think it is important to provide proof when a claim is made about what a person teaches. For, people have often been accused of teaching things that they never really taught.

I have heard with my own ears this premise directly and indirectly being taught as truth. Don't kill me, I'm just the messenger!

But what I'm really getting at here has to do with what I had shared with you before. Try to be more careful with how you put things when talking about the SDA church or Adventists.

I don't know what you are talking about here. Nowhere did I say the whole church across the board accepts this interpretation of the text. Since I have not done so, there is no reason at all someone would assume such a thing. I don't think you give people enough common sense credit Woob.

Every little thing need not be spelled out as if I were talking to gullible children. It's pretty easy to figure out that the whole church 100% could not possibly believe this, much less in any official capacity. We are not mindless robots who consume the party line indiscriminately and cannot think for ourselves.

There is a way to say something wherein you could make it look like the whole lump is bad to a person that doesn't read very carefully, and thus give that person a wrong impression about our church; and there is a way that you could say the same thing without giving off such an impression.

Do I need to put a disclaimer with every one of my posts?! Good grief.

NO I am not saying the whole church believes this! Alright? But there are some that do. Whatever bad impression people get from that is not my concern.

Woob, I am not in the business of positive P.R. for the church, okay? There are enough spin artists at the GC for such a task. I am in the business of finding the truth of the matter and not just accepting what is fed to me from the stage or the pulpit. If the truth looks bad or is ugly to outsiders, than maybe it should. That perception right there should tell us there are problems. No one likes to see the squirming maggots when the shiny white rock is turned over, but they are there regardless. I will not sacrifice addressing the maggots in favor of an Adventist pep-rally.

Am I the only one who has heard this interpretation of Isaiah 58:12?! Come on you seasoned veterans, help me out here. I know I cannot be the only one!

 

[Eila]

Am I the only one who has heard this interpretation of Isaiah 58:12?! Come on you seasoned veterans, help me out here. I know I cannot be the only one!

I don't think I would qualify as a seasoned veteran, but I haven't heard that before. Given some of the names you listed I wouldn't have been surprised to hear them say that though. Maybe I was just "out of the loop" though

 

[NightEternal]

I can already see this thread heading into the weeds.

I really wasn't intending to spend my whole time trying to establish wether this is believed by some in the church or not. It is, I have heard it. That is not under question here.

Will someone please address the text and give me your take on it? That was supposed to be the whole point of this after all.

 

[woobadooba]

I have heard with my own ears this premise directly and indirectly being taught as truth. Don't kill me, I'm just the messenger!

I don't doubt that you have.

I don't know what you are talking about here. Nowhere did I say the whole church across the board accepts this interpretation of the text. Since I have not done so, there is no reason at all someone would assume such a thing. I don't think you give people enough common sense credit Woob.

Here is what you had said:
"It is claimed that the SDA church is the remnant church who Isaiah is referencing here, and the commission being given here to SDA's is to repair or restore the 'breach' or 'gap' that has come about due to the neglect of the Sabbath commandment by other churches. This is assumed because the verses immediately after verse 12 discuss the Sabbath. But is this a fair assumption to make? Is this another case of Adventist arrogance reading into the verse thier own identity, or is this verse indeed speaking about SDA's and the Sabbath? If not, who and what is it referring to?"

There are no qualifiers to indicate that you are referring to only a few within our church that teach this. Thus it does give the impression that this is a generally accepted interpretation of the SDA church.

Perhaps you could have started it off by saying, 'It has been said by a certain few within our church', or, 'some hold to the belief', etc...

And it really wasn't necessary to say the following:

"Is this another case of Adventist arrogance"

This comment makes it sound like Adventists generally disclose ignorance when it comes to interpreting the Bible.

I'm just trying to help you to be less offensive, and more effective at gettig your point across. As they say, you can catch more bees with honey.

 

[NightEternal]

I think it has been pretty much established that I was not referrring to the whole church, so we can leave that one alone.

Woob, I'm not going to tangle myself in a mass of semantic red tape just to please the easily offended ones here. I will not allow hyper-sensitive people to turn my forum experience into a painstaking ordeal of worrying about how every little thing is worded. Forget that. They can just deal with it or not, it makes no difference to me either way.

Let's get our priorities straight here: We have a serious case of a Bible text being horribly twisted to fit Adventist dogma. That is not acceptable and it needs to be addressed. I am certainly not going to concern myself with people who can't handle how I word things when this matter is much more urgent.

As for the 'arrogance' comment, I feel no need to retract the truth. If you have any doubts as to the denominational arrogance that is rampant in the church, you need only dialogue with the formers. They will enlighten you very quickly.

You know, this all reminds me of a sermon by Tony Compolo I watched recently. He was speaking to a church and was talking about the famine conditions he had experienced while visiting a third world country. He wrapped up his story with this statement: "This s*** should not be happening!!"

The congregation looked at him in dumbfounded silence, shocked at his vulgarity. Compolo looked right back at them and said: "And you are probably more outraged by the fact I used the term s*** than by the fact that thousands of children die daily from malnutrition!"

Indeed. Preach it Tony.

 

[freeindeed2]

I think it has been pretty much established that I was not referrring to the whole church, so we can leave that one alone.

Woob, I'm not going to tangle myself in a mass of semantic red tape just to please the easily offended ones here. I will not allow hyper-sensitive people to turn my forum experience into a painstaking ordeal of worrying about how every little thing is worded. Forget that. They can just deal with it or not, it makes no difference to me either way.

Let's get our priorities straight here: We have a serious case of a Bible text being horribly twisted to fit Adventist dogma. That is not acceptable and it needs to be addressed. I am certainly not going to concern myself with people who can't handle how I word things when this matter is much more urgent.

As for the 'arrogance' comment, I feel no need to retract the truth. If you have any doubts as to the denominational arrogance that is rampant in the church, you need only dialogue with the formers. They will enlighten you very quickly.

You know, this all reminds me of a sermon by Tony Compolo I watched recently. He was speaking to a church and was talking about the famine conditions he had experienced while visiting a third world country. He wrapped up his story with this statement: "This s*** should not be happening!!"

The congregation looked at him in dumbfounded silence, shocked at his vulgarity. Compolo looked right back at them and said: "And you are probably more outraged by the fact I used the term s*** than by the fact that thousands of children die daily from malnutrition!"

Indeed. Preach it Tony.

It is my opinion that any denomination that claims to be the 'true church' isn't by default. There is only ONE true church, and it isn't an organization/denomination. It's made up of ALL who believe in Christ ALONE for salvation.

 

[woobadooba]

It is my opinion that any denomination that claims to be the 'true church' isn't by default. There is only ONE true church, and it isn't an organization/denomination. It's made up of ALL who believe in Christ ALONE for salvation.

But the SDA denomination isn't making that claim.

Granted, there are some within it that do. But we have no official teaching that states that we are THE CHURCH.

 

[freeindeed2]

But the SDA denomination isn't making that claim.

Granted, there are some within it that do. But we have no official teaching that states that we are THE CHURCH.

Really. So you're saying that the SDA church does NOT consider itself to be the 'remnant' church, or 'God's true church'? Please enlighten me...

 

[woobadooba]

Really. So you're saying that the SDA church does NOT consider itself to be the 'remnant' church, or 'God's true church'? Please enlighten me...

We consider ourselves to be a part of God's True Church, but not the True Church itself, as if to suggest that we have arrived, and everyone that desires to give his life to Jesus must become a member of the SDA church in order to be a part of His body.

Free, we have come a long way. You are spending too much time focussing on doctrines of the past that only a minority within our church still adhere to.

 

[Sophia7]

we have come a long way.

Have we?

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]Among other issues that I believe must be specifically attended to in our development as a church is the very question "What is the church?" Is it identical to the question "What is the Seventh-day Adventist Church?" We have made some very generous statements about other Christian communions, some even written into our policy book. These are genuine and sincere statements. They surface particularly when we sit in conversation with other Christian groups. And I believe that we have been sincere in affirming that God is not ours and that we are not His exclusive family. We state that those who affirm the name of Christ and bring Him as a witness to peoples and nations are indeed instruments of God in his efforts to bring salvation to all.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]And yet we hold that we are something special. The remnant language comes into use, although often with hesitancy--we are not sure just how we should say it. I suspect there are many in our church who are not at ease with this idea, and who have not reconciled it in their own minds. We shun the perception of being arrogant, and we don't want to come across as being overly exclusive, but at the same time we believe that being Seventh-day Adventists has direct bearing on our salvation; that while a believer can be saved as a Catholic, I would risk my whole spiritual life and salvation were I to leave what I am now and join any other community.

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]Also we hold that the Adventist community is an instrument for salvation in God's hands such as no other. We hold these things, but we stop short of saying that you have to be a Seventh-day Adventist in order to be saved. And if you don't have to be a Seventh-day Adventist, why bother? some will ask. Is there something cloudy about this? My point here is, Do we seriously talk about this--particularly with our workers?[/FONT]

http://www.adventistreview.org/2002-1524/story3.html

 

[freeindeed2]

Have we?

http://www.adventistreview.org/2002-1524/story3.html

Exactly, Sophia. Just last week I heard a reference to the SDA church being the 'remnant' and having 'the truth' from the pulpit. This is not some 'has-been', 'in-the-past' teaching. The SDA church sees itself as the 'true church', period.

 

[woobadooba]

Let's take a closer look at what Sophia posted. But please note that she only quoted part of what he had said. To see the portion that I am addressing here you can go here for the entire article: http://www.adventistreview.org/2002-1524/story3.html :

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]"We shun the perception of being arrogant, and we don't want to come across as being overly exclusive, but at the same time we believe that being Seventh-day Adventists has direct bearing on our salvation; that while a believer can be saved as a Catholic, I would risk my whole spiritual life and salvation were I to leave what I am now and join any other community.

What does he mean by this?

First of all, he is suggesting that one doesn't have to be an SDA in order to be saved. Thus one could be a part of the body of Christ without being an SDA.

Secondly, it's a matter of truth. You see, what he is saying is that we (the SDA church) have more truth than anyone else. I agree with this by the way. And so to walk away from the SDA church in order to join another denomination that espouses views that are contrary to what our church is in direct harmony with God on, is the same as walking away from the truth.

So he is making it clear that he doesn't believe that one could be saved if he intentionally walks away from the truth, because to do so is to live in disobedience to God. For, we are judged according to the light that has been given to us.
[/FONT]
He further clarifies this point here:

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]"Very little is written on the subject of ecclesiology in our church. The linkage between a member's growth in knowledge and understanding and the uncompromising responsibility of discipleship is not pursued as it should be. Under-standing requires response. The fact is that one cannot as a disciple step out of what one is today and go back into a state of less knowing and less understanding. One is constantly moving forward, constantly building on what was there yesterday. Anything other than that would be disobedience and would, in my view, jeopardize one's life with the Lord. Obedience to the Lord is always obedience where one is--in time, in culture, in experience, and in history. And salvation is contingent on that obedience."[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]And here he makes it clear again that anyone could be a part of the body of Christ regardless of their affiliation with the SDA church. It's a matter of accepting the truth that God has given us. That is what determines if we are true believers or not.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]"This should temper any inclination to be judgmental both toward other Christian communities and toward other experiences and cultures within our own church. One has to consider where they are in their knowledge of the Lord and His truth, and in their experience with Him."

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]And then at the end of his statement he makes it clear that we must continually grow into what constitutes the Body of Christ. Thus he is making it clear that even though we have more light, we haven't arrived yet.

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]"So, in a sense, the "remnant" church both is and is in a constant process of becoming.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]"[/FONT]

 

[woobadooba]

Exactly, Sophia. Just last week I heard a reference to the SDA church being the 'remnant' and having 'the truth' from the pulpit. This is not some 'has-been', 'in-the-past' teaching. The SDA church sees itself as the 'true church', period.

There is no denying that some still think this way. But some doesn't = the whole.