THE ENGLISH SUNDAY
LECTURE 2 (1901)
THE SABBATH OF JUDAISM
The attitude of our Lord Himself towards the Sabbath is of course a matter of high importance, and on the surface it appears hostile to a strict observance of a weekly day of rest. His teaching has been held to encourage those who desire to lay aside the precedent of the Sabbath as affecting the Christian Sunday.
But to understand His position and His language we must go back to distinguish the religion of the Old Testament from the Judaism which was developed out of it.
It was the Judaic Sabbath with which He came into conflict, ands not the original sabbath bath of the Old Testament. By Judaism I mean that phrase of the religion of Israel which had its beginning after the Return from Captivity. After the Return we no longer speak of Hebrews but odd Jews, I.e. men of Judah, because those who returned were in the main of that tribe, or at least belonged to that kingdom.
There was a moment in the history of the nation which was of the highest importance and yet is not generally recognized as such. There was a man of remarkable gifts of character and far-reaching influence of whom little is said. The man is Ezra and the moment is the reading of the Law on the first day of Tishri, with the covenant to keep it which was then ratified (Neh. viii. 1 ff). That day was the birthday of Judaism.
From that day forward the Law in its entirety became the pride of the Jewish nation, its ideal; however imperfectly observed at the outset. I do not mean to assert that the Law then first became known to the people, but only that it occupied a new position in their affections. How much of it was in existence before Ezra is a question into which we need not enter here.
Ezra the scribe (Ezra v11. 6) became the progenitor of a long line of successive Scribes who occupied themselves in the Law. These are the Scribes or layers whom we find in possession of the national conscience when the New Testament narrative begins. At the outset of the movement was a good, indeed a necessary one, which restored the national life, but it inevitably tended downwards. Ezra himself was a noble character strong in faith, an instrument in God's hand, but scribism was an occupation full of danger. The Scribe was originally a writer, or as we would say a secretary. This is the sense of the Hebrew term in the earlier books, but henceforth he becomes no longer a mere copyist.
The activity of the Scribes lay in three directions:
(1) systematizing and developing the Law
(2) teachings it to scholars
(3) giving judgment in accordance with it on cases brought before them.
We can see at once what was bound to arise from the new enthusiasm for the Law, and the activity of such a class of persons.
The Law would be developed in it details, and its application to the cases which occurred would create a vast number of precedents embodying themselves in rules.
We have already seen that the importance of the Sabbath had greatly increased in the Exile. They had to leave behind them altar and sacrifice, but they could take the Sabbath. It had been their token, their badge, their national bond. Now they came back to an opportunity of observing it without let or hindrance in their own land. To this observance Nehemiah especially devoted his efforts. And this portion of the Law naturally attracted in large measure the attention of the Scribes.
The new importance of the Law, and especially the law of the Sabbath, opened the way to the development of a new institution which may probably have had its beginnings in the Exile.
The Sabbath gave opportunity for the study of the Law. Hence arose the Synagogue.
The gatherings which took this name were primarily meetings for instructions in the Law, and not primarily for worship.
Here before we go on to consider the debasement of the Sabbath by Judaism, it will be right to acknowledge what we owe to Judaism in regard of its enrichment.
The Synagogue with its weekly gatherings for instruction in the Law, was not only a most important gain to the Jewish Church, but was also destined to influence in a remarkable degree Christian worship and the Christian Sunday.
But what was the character of this teaching on the Law which thus arose and grew down to the New Testament times? We can gather something of its character from the New Testament itself. For instance there is the teaching by which filial duty was evaded (Mark vii. 10-13).
But we have a much fuller source of information as to the nature of this development in the Mishna, a collection of treatises on the Law. Each of these treatises is itself a collection of opinions and explanations. It is true that these were probably not written down in their present form till the second century A.D., but scholars are agreed that they faithfully represent an earlier body of teaching, which must have been in existence at the coming of christ. The amazing childishness of many of its rules respecting the Sabbath almost passes belief.
For instance: if a man on the Sabbath threw anything into the air and caught it again with the same hand, this was a sin.
This is not a place to bring before you what is ridiculous, nor perhaps is it right to make any religious directions a matter of ridicule, if they represent genuine conviction. If we are tempted to ridicule, let us look at another side of this same scrupulous observance. Few incidents in history are more touching than the death of the thousand men, women and children who chose to die in their "innocency" rather than break the Sabbath by defending themselves against their enemies (i Mace. ii. 34-38).
All this for good and evil was the product of Judaism. It may, no doubt, be alleged that there was somewhat in the Pentateuchal Law which resembled and encouraged these refinements and burdensome regulations but a comparison of the Mishna with the Law will show at once how far the former went beyond the letter. It cannot be too often said that it was not the actual religion of the Old covenant which which the Gospels came so strongly into collision in the Person of Christ, but something else, the religion of Israel so different from it as to be almost distinct, the inevitable result of the cessation of prophecy, which till the Return had been the countervailing force against legalism and formality.
This use of the word Judaism is justified by the language of St. Paul (Gal. I. 13, 14), and is merely the English transliteration of the single Greek word which is there translated “the Jews’ religion.”
Now to repeat what has already been said, it was natural that this development should affect what was, at the time, one of the most highly valued of all religious institutions, namely the Sabbath.
You will remember how simply the regulations as to the Sabbath in the Law and the Prophets were expressed. No work was to be done, no burden was to be borne.
But what was work, what was a burden?
The answer which h the Mishna gave to the latter inquiry is that “anything of the weight of a fig is a burden.”
Given such an answer, you will see what further question it raises. Even a stick in the hand was a burden. I will be content to refer you for details to Edersheim’s “Life and Times of the Messiah,” vol. II., appendix xvii.
Yet strange as it may appear this Judaic Sabbath with its tangled forest of prohibitions was not felt to be oppressive, but was rejoiced in as a delight. And that is the attitude of orthodox Judaism at the present day. It has found eloquent expression in Montefiore's "Hibbert Lectures," a passage from which is appended in a note. Indeed we must guard against supposing that the purpose of these prohibitions was to afflict or to darken. They were intended to secure the Sabbath rest, and the day was to be a joyful day. It was distinctly a day of festivity and social life as well as a day of instruction.
Three meals of the choicest available food were to be laid ready upon Friday for use on the Sabbath.
So our Lord excepts a Sabbath invitation (Luke xiv. 1), and it is plain from the character of the discourse then spoken that it was a great feast at which many guests were present.
Such then was the character of the Sabbath in the time of Christ, and it was with this Judaism or Scribism in some of its aspects that He came into conflict.
We may call it Scribism, for the development was the works of the Scribes. And He seems to have deliberately selected the Sabbath regulations of the Scribes as the point on which to join issue with them.
It is not accidental that no less than seven of His recorded miracles of healing were worked on the Sabbath. So far from avoiding a course which would be sure to awaken fanatical opposition, He deliberately challenges the Scribes in this particular.
And let us observe that so far as the law is the original law of the Old Testament, He shows no disposition to depart from it, but appeals to the Scripture to justify His actions. It is the Judaic development which He challenges by His works of mercy done in defiance of the Scribes.
Thus He rescues, purifies and restores the original idea of the Sabbath. Thus as F.D. Maurice has well said, “He was doing what He said He came to do, fulfilling the law, exhibiting the inmost intent of the divine day.” (Maurice, “Sermons on the Sabbath,” I. P.23).
This purpose of Christ having been so fully manifested to His disciples, we can imagine that in the divine providence, the Resurrection might have been appointed to take place on the Sabbath thus cleansed and purified. But it did not; the next day was chosen instead. There was no doubt a symbolical reason. There was to be a correspondence between the rest of Christ in the grave after the conclusion of His redemptive work, and the rest of God in the narration of Genesis after His creative work.
[OH YES INDEED THERE WAS A SYMBOLIC MEANING TO CHRIST BEING RAISED ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK. CHRIST WAS THE FIRST OF THE FIRST-FRUITS AS PAUL EXPLAINED IN 1 COR. 15. THE WAVE-SHEAF WAS CUT AFTER THE WEEKLY SABBATH SUNDOWN CAME. ON WHAT WE CALL SATURDAY EVENING. THE WAVE-SHEAF CUT BY THE SADDUCEES, WHO WERE CORRECT AS OPPOSED TO THE PHARISEES WHO WERE INCORRECT ON THIS MATTER. JESUS WAS PLACED IN THE TOMB THE EVENING OF THE HIGH SABBATH DAY OF THE FEAST OF UNLEAVENED BREAD; THAT YEAR 30 A.D. THE PASSOVER FELL ON TUESDAY EVENING; JESUS DIED ABOUT 3 P.M. WEDNESDAY; JOSEPH AND NICODEMUS DID NOT COME TILL “EVENING” HAD ARRIVED, AND WENT TO REQUEST THE BODY OF JESUS. HE WAS PLACED IN THE TOMB WEDNESDAY EVENING—— PROVED IN MY OTHER STUDIES—— AND SO WAS RESURRECTED SATURDAY EVENING AFTER THE WEEKLY SABBATH HAD ENDED, SO BEING 3 DAYS AND 3 NIGHT IN THE HEART OF THE EARTH. AND SO ALSO BEING THE TRUE FIRST OF THE FIRST-FRUITS, RISING ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK—— YES VERY SYMBOLIC! BUT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MAKING THE FIRST DAY A HOLY DAY OR THE “CHRISTIAN” SABBATH. CHRIST NOR THE APOSTLES EVER TOLD US TO CELEBRATE THE RESURRECTION BY MAKING THE FIRST DAY THE HOLY CHRISTIAN SABBATH - Keith Hunt]
Again by this rest in the grave on the sabbath, the obedience of Christ to the law which was so marked a feature in His life on earth was completed in a striking symbol.
[YES INDEED SO! NO PROBLEM! BUT I’VE EXPLAINED WHY ABOVE. THE RESURRECTION DID NOT MAKE THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK A HOLY DAY OR TRANSFERRED THE 7TH DAY SABBATH TO THE FIRST DAY - Keith Hunt]
But besides these considerations there was a practical aim which may well have been taken into account. Though the emergence of the Christian Church after the Resurrection from the bosom of Judaism was to be very slow and gradual, yet the ground was to be cleared for it; all that might delay or hinder the process was to be removed, and the Sabbath as the Christian weekly festival would have been a hindrance. Further, we may say that, notwithstanding Christ's teaching on the subject, the Sabbath was overlaid with superstitious observances, which would have been extremely difficult to dislodge if the day had been adopted by the Christian Church.
The divine method then was that a fresh day should be taken side by side with the old one, starting on its career with its own contents and special associations, into which might gradually be transferred all that was best in the Jewish Sabbath as cleansed and elevated by the teaching of Christ.
[HOGWASH MAN MADE GOOBAGOO THEOLOGY!!! THERE IS NOT ONE WORD OF THE FIRST DAY EVER BEING SAID BY ANYONE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT THAT IT WOULD BE SIDE BY SIDE AS IMPORTANT IN SOME HOLY OBSERVANCE WAY, AS THE ORIGINAL 4TH COMMANDMENT SABBATH OF THE GREAT TEN COMMANDMENTS. THE IDEA IT WAS IS JUST BUMBO-JUMBO FROM A THEOLOGY FROM PLANET PLUTO - Keith Hunt]
And this was exactly what happened. For a considerable time the two days were observed side by side.
[NOT AT ALL IN THE LIVES OF THE FIRST APOSTLES, THEY NEVER OBSERVED TWO HOLY DAYS, OR GAVE ANY INFERENCE THAT WE SHOULD OBSERVE IN SOME WAY, LIKE A CHURCH SERVICE, ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK. THERE IS NOT ONE WORD ABOUT KEEPING A RESURRECTION DAY BY A CHURCH SERVICE OR NOT WORKING ON THAT FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK - Keith Hunt]
Writers on the subject have ventured, without evidence, to say that the observance of the Sabbath ceased for the disciples of Christ immediately after the Resurrection. Even Dr. Hessey, who has treated the subject with so much learning, is more or less possessed with this idea.
There can however, be no doubt that the Apostles and their followers in Jerusalem continued to observe the Sabbath as well as the first day of the week.
[NOW WHERE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT IS IT STATED BY PAUL OR ANYONE, THAT THE APOSTLES AND THEIR FOLLOWERS OBSERVED IN SOME WAY (CHURCH GATHERING, WORSHIP SERVICE, BIBLE STUDY) ON A WEEKLY BASIS, THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK? IT IS NOT THERE, NOT ONE SINGLE WORD. THE APOSTLE PAUL HAD ONE SUPER CHANCE, THE HOLY SPIRIT COULD HAVE EASILY INSPIRED HIM ON THE MATTER, IN THE WONDERFUL RESURRECTION CHAPTER…. 1 CORINTHIANS 15. THE HOLY SPIRIT COULD HAVE EASILY INSPIRED PAUL TO SAY SOMETHING LIKE: “AND SO WONDERFUL IS OUR LORD’S RESURRECTION THAT WE NOW GATHER TOGETHER ON THE RESURRECTION DAY, THE FIRST DAY, AS WE DO ON THE WEEKLY SABBATH, SO REMEMBER ONE WHILE WE REMEMBER THE OTHER.” OR “THE RESURRECTION IS SO FUNDAMENTAL IN OUR SALVATION, WE NOW GATHER AND WORSHIP GOD ON THAT DAY, BEING THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, AS WE DO ON THE SABBATH.” I MEAN IT IS JUST CRAZY TO TEACH BOTH DAYS WERE BEING OBSERVED BY THE APOSTLES AND THEIR FOLLOWERS, AND YET WITH ALL THE WORDS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, NONE CAN BE FOUND TO UPHOLD THIS TEACHING. OH YES LIKE THE COMING OF EASTER TO REPLACE THE PASSOVER IN THE 2ND CENTURY, AND THE DEBATE OVER IT ALL, SO WAS THE COMING OF OBSERVING THE FIRST DAY AND THE SABBATH DAY ALSO, FOUGHT WITH A SLOW WIN FOR ROME OVER THE FIRST CENTURIES OF TESTAMENT CHRISTIANITY - Keith Hunt]
St. James (Acts xxi. 20) speaks of thousands of Jews who believe, who are all zealous for the law. Is it conceivable that these thousands of zealots for the law of Moses, would have attached themselves to a sect that had ceased to observe the Sabbath?
For it was a sect of Judaism that the Church of God presented itself to the Jewish mind, and not another religion.
The mention of St. James suggests another consideration pointing in the same direction. We know from a fragment quoted by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. ii. 23) that St. James was held in reverence bye Jews who were not Christian, and received from them the title of “the just” - a title implying g strict observance of the law.
Could this have been the case if he had not observed the Sabbath?
The truth is that the supposition of the immediate disuse of the Sabbath among Christian Jews implies a total failure to realize the character of the early church, and the dominant position of the sabbath in Jewish faith and practice.
[EXACTLY WHAT I’VE BEEN SAYING! THE THREE MOST IMPORTANT PRACTICES IN JEWISH RELIGION WAS CIRCUMCISION, PRIESTHOOD AND TEMPLE RITUALS, SABBATH OBSERVANCE. TEMPLE RITUALS COULD BE DONE BUT IT WAS NOT NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. THE PHYSICAL CIRCUMCISION WAS BROUGHT BEFORE A CHURCH CONFERENCE….ACTS 15. THE WEEKLY SABBATH WAS NEVER BROUGHT BEFORE A CHURCH CONFERENCE TO DECIDE IF IT WOULD CONTINUE WITH THE ADDED FIRST DAY OBSERVANCE FOR THE RESURRECTION, OR DONE AWAY WITH COMPLETELY AND ONLY HAVE FIRST DAY OBSERVANCE. THERE WAS NO ISSUE WHATSOEVER WITH THE APOSTLES ON 7TH DAY SABBATH OBSERVANCE—— IT WAS A NON-ISSUE SUBJECT FOR ANYONE; NOT EVEN ANY GENTILE BROUGHT UP THE TOPIC IN ALL OF THE WRITINGS OF THE APOSTLES—— IT WAS A NON-ISSUE - Keith Hunt]
It was only through GRADUAL EXTENSION AND PREPONDERANCE of the Gentile element in the Churches of Greece and Asia Minor that the disuse of the Sabbath by Christians began…….
[AND HISTORY SHOWS IT TOOK WELL INTO THE SECOND CENTURY TO MAKE A LARGE INROAD, WITH PARTS OF CHRISTIANITY WHO WANTED NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING THAT COULD COME CLOSE TO BEING REGARDED AS “JEWISH”—— SO LIKEWISE IT WAS FOR THE EASTER/PASSOVER DEBATE WITH THE CHURCHES OF ASIA MINOR AND ROME——DIFFERENCES THAT COULD NOT BE BROUGHT TOGETHER. AS TIME WENT ON ROME AFTER THREE CENTURIES, WHEN CONSTANTINE BECAME EMPEROR OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, DID WIN THE FINAL PROMINENCE OF BEING THE EMPIRE’S OFFICIAL RELIGION IN THE CIRCLE OF CHRISTIANITY - Keith Hunt]
To this influence was added the growing conviction of St. Paul, that all the ceremonial ordinances of the law were but shadows of the Gospel, and the value only for their typical and preparatory character, ordinances which might, indeed must, be completely laid aside now that men had received the substance instead of the shadow.
[THE AUTHOR WANTS TO PUT THE WEEKLY SABBATH AS WITH “CEREMONIAL” LAWS—— UTTER SILLY AND STUPID THEOLOGY. THERE IS NOTHING “CEREMONIAL” ABOUT THE 4TH OF THE GREAT TEN COMMANDMENTS; IT WAS FROM THE BEGINNING AS THE VERY WORDS IN IT TELL YOU, TAKING YOU BACK TO GENESIS 2. HOW SIMPLER CAN YOU GET, A CHILD CAN UNDERSTAND THE 4TH COMMANDMENT, I SURE DID AS A CHILD WITHOUT ANY PRE-CONCEIVED TEACHING DRUMED INTO MY HEAD. THE VERY COMMANDMENT TAKES YOU BACK TO GENESIS 2, BEFORE ANY CEREMONIAL LAWS EXISTED. THE SABBATH LAW IS PART OF THE LAW THAT TELLS YOU WHAT SIN IS, THAT YOU NEED TO REPENT OF BREAKING, AND BE CONVERTED TO A MIND-SET THAT WILL WANT AND DESIRE TO OBEY THE LAW OF GOD. ALL THAT IS COVERED IN DEPTH UDER THE “SALVATION” SECTION OF THIS WEBSITE. THIS TALK ABOUT “SHADOW” AND “SUBSTANCE” IS THE TALK OF MANY USING COL. 2:16; ALSO ANSWERED FULLY IN ONE OF MY STUDIES, THAT ANSWER BEING THE TRUTH OF THE CONTEXT OF COL. 2:16 - Keith Hunt]
Bearing in mind the attitude of our Lord Himself towards the law, and the difficult saying, “till heaven and earth pass away one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all things be accomplished” (Matt. v. 18).
[NOT DIFFICULT AT ALL WHEN YOU KNOW THE TRUTH OF LAW AND GRACE AS TAUGHT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT - Keith Hunt]
It is absurd to suppose that a sudden consciousness of the abrogation of the Mosaic law, whether to the Sabbath or in any other respect, dawned upon the disciples at the Resurrection or at Pentecost.
The relation of the Christian Church to the law was a matter which was slowly thought out, and fought out. It is uncritical to take utterances of St Paul in his Epistles to the Galatians, Romans and Colossians, and to represent them as expressing not only St Paul's conviction twenty years earlier, but also the conviction of the Apostles of the Circumcision who were far from seeing eye to eye with the Apostle of the Gentiles. Which of the two was right is another question, and we have no hesitation in assenting to the view of St Paul.
[NOW THE AUTHOR WANTS TO CONFUSE THE MATTER IN YOUR MIND BY TRYING TO MAKE OUT THERE WAS CONTRADICTIONS AND BIG DIFFERENCES, BETWEEN PAUL AND SOME OTHER APOSTLES, THOSE AT THE JERUSALEM CHURCH ETC. NO THERE WAS NEVER ANY CONTRADICTIONS OF THEOLOGY TEACHING AMONG THE APOSTLES, AS I SHOW IN ALL OF MY STUDIES ON THIS WEBSITE. THE TRUE SERVANTS OF GOD IN THAT FIRST CENTURY WERE IN HARMONY WITH EACH OTHER. SURE PETER SAID THERE WERE SOME THINGS OF PAUL’S WRITING, THAT WERE HARD TO UNDERSTAND, THAT THOSE WHO WERE UNLEARNED TWISTED TO THEIR OWN DESTRUCTION - Keith Hunt]
But at first as I have said, Sabbath and First Day held their course together. This we shall see more clearly in the next lecture.
[NOPE JUST NO SO, SO WE’LL SEE AND COMMENT ON YOUR NEXT LECTURE - Keith Hunt]
The point at which we have arrived today is that it was not primitive, but the Judaic Sabbath against which our Lord strove. He did not by any recorded word of His, weaken the authority of the Mosaic Sabbath, if we may dismiss as apocryphal, and I think we may, the addition1 which one manuscript
1 Codex D inserts after Luke vi. 4, the following words: "on the same day beholding a certain man working on the Sabbath He said to him, Man if thou knowest what thou doest, thou art blessed, but if thou knowest not, thou art cursed and a transgressor of the law." On critical grounds which need not be stated here, the passage may, without doubt, be regarded as an insertion and no part of the original narrative of St Luke. It is possible, however, that the insertion may represent with more or less accuracy a genuine tradition. If so, we may conjecture that some such words may have been spoken by Him to a person engaged in necessary work, such as the spirit of the law permitted though its letter did not. Our Lord refers to cases of necessity for Sabbath work as actually occurring (Matt. xii. 5, John vii. 22).
makes to His words in Luke vi. 4.
His claim to lordship over the Sabbath as Son of Man is partially the claim of one who was exercising a divine office, and fulfilling a divine commission, not as has sometimes been supposed the claim of one who represented humanity, and could for that reason control what was “made for man.” He DID NOT ABOLISH the Sabbath, but He claimed it just as He had cleansed the Temple. Both were to pass away, but neither of them immediately. Both still had some work to do.
[THIS IS UTTER NONSENSE AS FOR THE SABBATH, THAT IT WAS TO PASS AWAY; THERE IS NO SCRIPTURE ANYWHERE THAT SAYS SUCH A THING ABOUT THE 4TH COMMANDMENT OF THE GREAT TEN. THE BOOK OF HEBREWS CERTAINLY WAS WRITTEN TO ANSWER ALL THE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TEMPLE, LEVI PRIESTHOOD, AND SACRIFICES PASSING AWAY, BUT THAT BOOK TELLS US, CHAPTER 4: 9 “BUT THERE REMAINS A KEEPING OF SABBATH TO THE PEOPLE OPF GOD” (SEE MARGIN IN KJV) AND THAT CHAPTER TALKS ABOUT GOD RESTING THE SEVENTH DAY FROM ALL HIS WORK. NOT ONE SINGLE VERSE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT TALKS ABOUT THE FIRST DAY EVENTUALLY SUPERSEDING THE 7TH DAY. THAT IDEA IS FROM THE MIND OF MEN WHO WILL NOT SERVE GOD IN THE BASIC WAYS OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. THEY WOULD BE OUT OF A JOB PRETTY QUICKLY, IF THEY EVER TOLD THE CHRISTIAN WORLD THAT IT WAS VERY VERY WRONG, ON THIS MATTER OF SUNDAY CHURCH SERVICES, AND SATURDAY IS TO BE KEPT HOLY; THAT THE WEEKLY SABBATH HAS NEVER BEEN CHANGED FROM SABBATH TO SUNDAY—— THEIR FOLLOWING WOULD BE ALL GONE IN VERY SHORT ORDER, SO ALSO THEIR PAY CHECK - Keith Hunt]
He restored the sabbath to its primitive pattern, so that it might exercise the influence which it undoubtedly did exercise on the feast which was in course of time to supersede it. So the spirit of the Sabbath as the day for works of mercy, the day for common worship, the day of joyful rest, passed over insensibly into the day which followed it, leaving behind it the formalism and legalism which had been the work of the Scribes. For Christians the Sabbath came to an end just because all its best contents had passed out of it into the Sunday, and nothing remained but an empty shell.
[THIS COMMENT IS OUTRAGEOUSLY FALSE AND IS THE TWISTED WILD THEOLOGY, OF SOMEONE WHO THINKS GOD WAS BEHIND THOSE IN THE SECOND CENTURY, WHO ADVOCATED GETTING AWAY FROM ANYTHING “JEWISH” AND WERE AS PROPHESIED IN DANIEL TO “CHANGE LAWS AND TIMES”—— THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN CHANGED AS THIS WEBSITE PROVES OVER AND OVER AGAIN. WITH FALSE TEACHINGS AND COMMANDMENTS OF MEN, WHICH CAPTURE THE CONTEXT OF COL. 2:16 BEFORE AND AFTER VERSE 16, THE TRUTH CAN BE FOUND ON THIS PASSAGE. THE WEEKLY SABBATH NEVER AT ANY TIME CAME TO BE ABOLISHED AND BECAME BUT AN EMPTY SHELL. IT WAS ALWAYS THE WEEKLY SABBATH THAT REMAINED STRONG, COULD NOT TEAR DOWN AND ABOLISH; IT WAS THE 7TH DAY OF THE WEEK THAT JESUS CAME TO MAGNIFY AND RESTORE TO ITS PROPER PLACE IN THE LIFE OF GOD’S CHILDREN. HE MAGNIFIED THE 4TH COMMANDMENT BY SHOWING HOW IT WAS TO BE LIVED, AND NOT AS THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES HAD MADE IT INTO. JESUS HAD ALL KINDS OF TIME TO TEACH HOW AFTER HE WAS GONE BACK TO HEAVEN, THE SABBATH WOULD EVENTUALLY BE TRANSFERRED TO SUNDAY; SO ALSO ALL OF CHRIST’S APOSTLES; NONE OF THEM EVER DID PERIOD! AND THE TWO SECTIONS PEOPLE TAKE (ROMANS 14 AND COLOSSIANS 2: 16); ARE USED IN CONTRADICTION TO EACH OTHER—— PICK ANY DAY YOU LIKE AS SABBATH OR THE SABBATH IS DONE AWAY WITH PERIOD. YEP IF SO BEING THAT PAUL GIVES TWO DIFFERENT SABBATH RULES, TO DIFFERENT CHURCHES, THEN PAUL CONTRADICTS HIMSELF, AND IS PROVED A FALSE PROPHET NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY; SADLY SOME HAVE DONE JUST THAT, TAKEN PAUL RIGHT OUT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT AS VERY UNINSPIRED WRITING, AND CONTRADICTING HIMSELF; SUCH IS THE SAD STATE OF PARTS OF CHRISTIAN RELIGION TODAY - Keith Hunt]
NOTE.—Orthodox Jewish feeling with regard to the law, and especially the law of the Sabbath.
"On the one side," he says, "we hear the opinions of so many learned professors, proclaiming ex cathedra that the law was a most terrible burden, and the life under it the most unbearable slavery, deadening body and soul.
On the other side we have the testimony of a literature extending over about twenty-five centuries, and including all sorts and conditions of men — scholars, poets, mystics, lawyers, casuists, schoolmen, tradesmen, workmen, women, simpletons—who all, from the author of the 119th Psalm to the last pre-Mendelssohnian writer, with a small exception which does not deserve the name of a minority—give unanimous evidence in favour of this law, and of the bliss and happiness of living and dying under it; and this, the testimony of people who were actually living under the law, not merely theorising upon it, and who experienced it in all its difficulties and inconveniences.
The Sabbath will give a fair example. This day is described by almost every modern writer in the most gloomy colours, and long lists are given of the minute observances connected with it, easily to be transgressed, which would necessarily make of the Sabbath, instead of a day of rest, a day of sorrow and anxiety, almost worse than the Scotch Sunday as depicted by continental writers.
But, on the other hand, the Sabbath is celebrated by the very people who did observe it, in hundreds of hymns, which would fill volumes, as a day of rest and joy, of pleasure and delight, a day in which man enjoys some presentiment of the pure bliss and happiness which are stored up for the righteous in the world to come. To it such tender names were applied as the "Queen Sabbath," the "Bride Sabbath," and the “holy, dear, beloved Sabbath.” Somebody, either the learned Professors or the millions of the Jewish people, must be under an illusion.
Which it is I leave to the reader to decide.”
—Montefiore, "Hibbert Lectures," lect. ix. pp. 506 ff (the passage is not actually Mr Montefiore's own words, but is a quotation by him from an article by Dr Schechter in the Jewish Quarterly Review).
THE ANSWER SHOULD BE SIMPLE TO THE PERSON WHO HUNGERS ANND THIRSTS FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS; WHO LOVES AND WANTS THE TRUTH.
JESUS CAME TO MAGNIFY THE LAW NOT DIMINISH IT, OR CUT IT TO PIECES, OR PUT ONE MASSIVE HOLE IN THE MIDDLE OF IT.
JESUS BROUGHT THE LAWS OF GOD INTO, BACK INTO, THE REALM WHERE THEY WERE FROM THE BEGINNING, AND THAT INCLUDES THE WEEKLY SABBATH, FREED FROM THE 600 PLUS RULES OF THE SCRIBES.
JESUS HAS 3 AND 1/2 YEARS TO TELL HIS DISCIPLES THE SABBATH WOULD BE CHANGED TO SUNDAY…. AS THIS WRITER HERE SAYS EVENTUALLY. BUT CHRIST NEVER SO MUCH AS GAVE THE TINIEST HINT ABOUT AN IMPORTANT THEOLOGY AS THE 4TH COMMANDMENT SABBATH CHANGING BEING CHANGED EVENTUALLY!
HE TOLD THE WOMAN AT THE WELL THAT JERUSALEM WOULD NOT BE THE CENTRAL PLACE TO WORSHIP GOD; JESUS KNEW CHRISTIANITY WAS GOING TO GO TO ALL THE WORLD; JERUSALEM WAS NOT IMPORTANT UNDER THE NEW COVENANT. WHY IF THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK WAS GOING TO TAKE OVER FROM THE SABBATH OF THE 7TH DAY; WHY DID JESUS NOT AT SOME POINT MENTION IT, TO MAKE SURE THERE WAS NO MISUNDERSTANDING.
THE APOSTLE JOHN WRITING AT THE END OF THE FIRST CENTURY, WHY DID HE NOT STATE SOMEWHERE IN HIS WRITINGS THAT THE CHURCH WAS NO LONGER OBSERVING THE OLD SABBATH, BUT THE NEW SABBATH OF THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK; OR THAT THE CHURCH WAS OBSERVING TWO SABBATHS—— SATURDAY AND SUNDAY, BUT GOD WANTED THE OLD SABBATH TO DIMINISH AND VANISH, WHILE SUNDAY WOULD NOW BE HOLY AND THE WEEKLY SABBATH. NO SUCH WORDS CAN BE FOUND IN THE WRITINGS OF THE APOSTLE JOHN, WHO LIVED TO VERY NEAR THE END OF THE FIRST CENTURY.
THERE ARE SO MANY THINGS WRONG WITH THOSE WHO WANT TO HOLD ON TO THE “SUNDAY THEOLOGY”—— WELL THEY HAVE BEEN COVERED AND ANSWERED IN MANY MANY STUDIES UNDER THIS SECTION OF THIS WEBSITE.