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.


Keith Hunt