Observing the Sabbath

General Christian Theology
Post Reply
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14445
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Observing the Sabbath

Post by Bootstrap »

I'm glad that helped clarify.

Let me add one thing: I think it's really important to make room for Gentile believers, and that's a useful litmus test. When a teaching seeks to bring back Old Testament practices or laws that were not taught by Jesus or the disciples, I get nervous. Galatians is the book that convinced me on this.

In Christ there is no Jew nor Greek - but there still might be distinctly Jewish or Greek practices among believers, as there were in the earliest church. Let's not divide or condemn each other over those kinds of things.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
User avatar
JohnHurt
Posts: 823
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 8:04 pm
Location: Buffalo Valley, TN
Affiliation: Primitive Christian
Contact:

Re: Observing the Sabbath

Post by JohnHurt »

Adam wrote:
Josh wrote:The proper question is when Gentiles were expected to start observing the Sabbath, dietary laws, or any of the rest of the old law.
So do we ignore the teachings of Jesus since they were mostly aimed at setting forth the proper interpretation and observance of the law of Moses and the Prophets? Do they not apply to us since we, as Gentiles, are not part of the covenant God made with Israel? Or do the teachings of Jesus represent a New Covenant that we are bound to follow as Gentiles who are grafted in? These are actual questions that I am asking...not rhetorical questions.
Adam,

Here is my understanding of how God's Law is to be used in the New Covenant, and how it is to be applied to "Gentiles":

Christ said that the Law would never be abolished, and was essential to enter the kingdom of heaven:


Matthew 5:(17) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

(18) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

(19) Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

(20) For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.


For the Law is central to the New Covenant established by the death of Christ:

Hebrews 8:(8) For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

(9) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

(10) For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:


The word "laws" in Hebrew 8:10 is "nomos", but if you look at the original quotation in Jeremiah 31:33, the word for the "law" that is written in our hearts is the Hebrew word "torah". So there is no doubt that the 10 Commandments, including the 4th, have been written on our hearts.


So what about circumcision? Why do some not consider it to be mandatory? Here is the answer:

Circumcision was only given to Abraham and Abraham's children. It was never given to as a covenant to the entire world.

Genesis 17:(9) And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.

(10) This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

So what about people who are not of the seed of Abraham, but are Christians? If you read Paul's writings, he addresses this in a positive way in Romans 2:25-29, and a negative way in Galatians 6:15 and elsewhere.

Circumcision as a means of salvation was the question of Acts 15:1, not the sabbath day.

For many will only quote one verse from Acts 15:20 to say that only 4 commandments (not the Sabbath) were given to the "Gentiles", and not the following verse (Acts 15:21), as this following verse helps to establish the sabbath day as the day of worship:

Acts 15:(20) But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

(21) For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

What is stated here in verse 21, is that everyone in the world should know what was written by Moses, as it is preached every sabbath day. So the rest of the Law is not a problem, only meat offered to idols, fornication, and the dietary laws against eating blood (which is never taught today, so still a problem).

So the discussion of Acts 15 said that Circumcision is not necessary for salvation, the reason that was understood is circumcision is only a commandment for those who are the physical descendants of Abraham. But it was expected by the Apostles that the new Christians would read what Moses wrote on the Sabbath day. And so, even after Acts 15, the sabbath applies to all creation, as it was initiated in Genesis 2:2 and so predates Moses.

Circumcision and the Sabbath are not tied together in Acts 15, that I can read.

But that the Gentile Christians met on the Sabbath is evident in Acts 13:42-44:

(42) And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.

(43) Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.

(44) And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.


I have heard the argument that only because the Jews were meeting in the synagogues on the Sabbath is why Paul was drawn to give his sermons on the sabbath. (Acts 17:2, Acts 18:4)

Yet, in Philippi, in Macedonia, the early church met on the sabbath day by a river side, and not in a synagogue:

Acts 16:(13) And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither.

So, it is obvious that the 1st Century church met on the sabbath day.

And whatever Ignatius and other "church fathers" have said, Christ is superior to them all in Matthew 5:17-20. Christ changed nothing, it is the minds of the "church fathers" that have conceived something out of wedlock.

The question of which day is the "Lord's day" that John had his vision in Revelation 1:10 is evident from the words of our Lord:

Mark 2:(28) Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

Christ called Himself the Lord of the Sabbath, so the Sabbath is the Lord's day.

For the sabbath was the day when our Lord did His greatest miracles, so it would be called by John and those that walked with Him as "the Lord's day." His 12 Apostles knew what day was most important to Christ, for He did only what His Father had commanded, nothing more.

Hebrews 3:7 to 4:9 - this entire narrative is based on the premise that sabbath was still in existence at the time the book of Hebrews was written. If the sabbath had been abolished at the death of Christ, then this passage does not have a foundation.

Hebrews 9:15-17 said that the New Covenant came into effect at the death of Christ. Yet after the death of Christ, his disciples still kept the Sabbath (Luke 23:56), for Christ had predicted the Sabbath would still be in effect long after His death. (Matthew 24:20)

Now, it is correct that Sunday is the "first day of the week" as written in Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:2. But the actual Greek wording is "first of Sabbaths", not "first day of the week". It is the start of counting seven sabbaths, or weeks, until the day of Pentecost, which is the 50th day. (Leviticus 23:15-16). And the "first of Sabbaths" begins on the "morrow after the sabbath, so it is "Sunday" :

Leviticus 23:
(15) And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven sabbaths shall be complete:

(16) Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meat offering unto the LORD.

Pentecost is also on a Sunday, after 7 complete weeks have been accomplished.


Here we see in Luke 6, where the second of the 7 sabbaths was indicated:

(1) And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.


So, they had the "first of sabbaths", then the second sabbath after the first, then the third, until they got to the 7th, after which was Pentecost. Since there were 7 weeks, this is also called the "feast of weeks" (Deut 16:9-11) when a freewill offering was given to the poor in Jerusalem, which is where God had chosen to place His Name:

Deuteronomy 16:
(9) Seven weeks shalt thou number unto thee: begin to number the seven weeks from such time as thou beginnest to put the sickle to the corn.

(10) And thou shalt keep the feast of weeks unto the LORD thy God with a tribute of a freewill offering of thine hand, which thou shalt give unto the LORD thy God, according as the LORD thy God hath blessed thee:

(11) And thou shalt rejoice before the LORD thy God, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy manservant, and thy maidservant, and the Levite that is within thy gates, and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, that are among you, in the place which the LORD thy God hath chosen to place his name there.

Jerusalem is the place where the LORD has placed His name.

Paul is following this instruction in Deuteronomy 16 by taking up a collection for the saints in Jerusalem on the "first of sabbaths":

1 Corinthians 16:(2) Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

(3) And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem.

This "first day of the week", or more correctly, the "first of Sabbaths" was a yearly festival in the spring, and in every scriptural reference, it was always followed by Pentecost (1 Cor 16:8, Acts 20:16), which occurred 7 weeks later.

The "first of sabbaths" is the day of the old wave sheaf offering, when the first fruits were presented to God. Christ is our first fruits from the dead, and it was on this day that He was not to be touched until after He had been presented to the Father. (John 20:17, 19-27)

We no longer keep the old feast days in honor of Israel, but in honor of Christ. For we cannot keep them in the old Temple, for that has been destroyed. Christ said that we would no longer worship Him in Jerusalem (John 4:21), but worship in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). So we honor Christ's death with Passover, Christ's resurrection with the Sabbath, and Christ's presentation to the Father with the "first of sabbaths", which actually is a Sunday, once a year.

The writings of Paul on the sabbath and other issues are greatly misunderstood. If you are in doubt, look at what Christ has said, especially in the Gospels of Matthew and John, as they were the actual eye witnesses to Christ's ministry and are two of His chosen 12 Apostles.

The words of Christ is superior to all other doctrines. For only Christ tells us to "bless our enemies" (Matt 5:44) or "turn the other cheek". (Matt 5:39). It is a misunderstanding that one could ever be a soldier (2 Tim 2:3-4) or wear armor and kill with the sword (Eph 6:13-17). If we are in doubt, we must find the words of Christ superior to all others.

In the same manner, we must look for what Christ said about the Sabbath day, and find that He liberated us from the bondage caused by the doctrines of men, and gave us freedom to worship Him in Spirit and in Truth.

Blessings to you.

John
0 x
"He replaced the teachings of Christ with his own opinions, and gave us a religion based on the doctrines of men."
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14445
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Observing the Sabbath

Post by Bootstrap »

Hi John,

I disagree with your understanding of the Greek phrase behind "first day of the week", μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων.

When your understanding disagrees with all translations generally considered reliable, the translations are usually correct. In this case, we're dealing with an idiom that is described well on Bill Mounce's site here: Sabbath(s) and Sunday (σάββατον). See also BDAG or any standard lexicon of New Testament Greek.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
User avatar
JohnHurt
Posts: 823
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 8:04 pm
Location: Buffalo Valley, TN
Affiliation: Primitive Christian
Contact:

Re: Observing the Sabbath

Post by JohnHurt »

Bootstrap wrote:Hi John,

I disagree with your understanding of the Greek phrase behind "first day of the week", μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων.

When your understanding disagrees with all translations generally considered reliable, the translations are usually correct. In this case, we're dealing with an idiom that is described well on Bill Mounce's site here: Sabbath(s) and Sunday (σάββατον). See also BDAG or any standard lexicon of New Testament Greek.
Hello Bootstrap,

Bible translators also put their own understanding into their works. For example, the word "Gentile" comes from either "goy" in Hebrew or "ethnos" in Greek. When used to speak of a non-Israelite, these words are translated as "Gentile", but when these same words are applied to Abraham as the father of many "goy" (Gen 17:4, or that "two goy are in Rebekah's womb" (Gen 25:23) they are translated as "nations", based entirely upon the viewpoint of the Bible translator. Where this gets us into trouble is that many of the prophecies concerning "gentiles" being regathered (such as Isaiah 60:3, or compare Isaiah 9:1 to Matt 4:15), that these prophecies are really speaking of the reunification of the scattered nations of Israel, and not non-Israel, as it is prophesied that all 12 tribes of Israel are to be gathered under Christ. (Ezekiel 37, Mt 19:28, Acts 26:7, James 1:1 and others).

So, the majority of Bible translations are not always correct. But they are the majority, and so are correct for the viewpoint of the majority.

Concerning the topic at hand, I think we can both agree that in the phrase "the first day of the week", that the word "day" is not in the original text. So the phrase is really "first of weeks", or "first of sabbaths", not "first day of the week". Many Bible translations will have the word "day" in italics to show that it has been added and is not in the original text. If you disagree with this statement, let me know.

"Day" would be "hemera", as used in Acts 20:6, but not found in Acts 20:7.

The article you listed did note that the "first day of the week" in Mark 16:9 was different, for here the word translated as "first" is not "mia", but "protos", meaning "foremost", and not just "one" or "first". So in this case, we have "foremost week". I would be interested in your interpretation of this verse.

The other verse where your help is appreciated would be Luke 6:1, where the sabbath is called the second sabbath after the first, or "deuteroprotos". Strongs dictionary gives the following:

from deuteros 1208 and protos 4413; second-first, i.e. (specially) a designation of the Sabbath immediately after the Paschal week (being the second after Passover day, and the first of the seven Sabbaths intervening before Pentecost):--second ... after the first.

It is evident that the Apostles celebrated Pentecost (Acts 2:1). What was the event that started the counting of of the 7 weeks (49 days) plus one for the the 50 days to Pentecost?

Thanks,

John
0 x
"He replaced the teachings of Christ with his own opinions, and gave us a religion based on the doctrines of men."
Sudsy
Posts: 5859
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: Observing the Sabbath

Post by Sudsy »

If we are sharing just what we believe, I would disagree with John Hurt as follows -

1) The text in Matthew 5:17-20 includes the entire OT laws and prophecies. These were to remain as they were and should be taught as such until they were fulfilled by Jesus. Til heaven and earth pass away is not to be taken literally but rather until the end of the OC period when the destruction in AD70 occured.

2) Jesus fulfilled everything in the OT regarding Himself and the demands of the law. He did what no one else could do to perfectly keep the entire 613 laws and more. He brought this OC to an end.

3) If the OT laws are to continue into the NC period, then we can't cherry pick which ones to obey. And Matthew 5 does not say we are to fulfill them but rather Jesus alone fulfilled them and brought them to an end as a means of salvation.

4) Any apparent contradictions between Jesus and Paul is due to one speaking of the OC and the other the NC. Paul wrote - " For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” - Galatians 3:10 We are not under this curse of being unable to fulfill the OC laws. Jesus kept them all and ended that OC.

5) I believe there was a transition period of a few OC laws to be kept and I believe this was to keep the Jews from getting side-tracked at that time. Paul said he became like a Jew if this opened the door to them listening to the NC Gospel and be saved.

6) Jesus would quote an OT belief and then say 'But I say unto you'. The Law of Christ was even more unattainable by human effort. It goes beyond literal keeping. God is interested in heart issues.

7) Still we are to respect the OT as the Holy Scriptures of God. They are profitable as 2 Tim. 3:15-16 says. But the OT law is not where we are to put our faith. "Grace and truth have come through Jesus". Under grace, Christians are not required to keep a specific "holy time," go to a "holy place" such as the temple, or be under the authority of the holy levitical priesthood.

8) The commands we now follow are the ones Jesus gave and we attempt to discern the application of these commands whether they be literal and whether they were for all believers beyond His immediate audience.

Therefore since Jesus was not referring to the 10 commandments in Matthew 5 and did not mention Sabbath keeping being an eternal command, we consider this to be an OC practise.
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14445
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Observing the Sabbath

Post by Bootstrap »

JohnHurt wrote:
Bootstrap wrote:I disagree with your understanding of the Greek phrase behind "first day of the week", μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων.

When your understanding disagrees with all translations generally considered reliable, the translations are usually correct. In this case, we're dealing with an idiom that is described well on Bill Mounce's site here: Sabbath(s) and Sunday (σάββατον). See also BDAG or any standard lexicon of New Testament Greek.
!!! SNIP !!!

Concerning the topic at hand, I think we can both agree that in the phrase "the first day of the week", that the word "day" is not in the original text. So the phrase is really "first of weeks", or "first of sabbaths", not "first day of the week". Many Bible translations will have the word "day" in italics to show that it has been added and is not in the original text. If you disagree with this statement, let me know.
I disagree - "first of weeks" and "first of sabbaths" are misleading and wrong translations, which is why I pointed you to the article above. σάββατον can mean either "sabbath" or "week", but when used with numbers, it is idiomatic and the numbers are referring to certain days during the week. For instance, the article gives Didache 8:1 as an example: the Judeans fast δευτερα σαββατων και πεμπτη on the second and fifth days of the week (Monday and Thursday) - Αἱ δὲ νηστεῖαι ὑμῶν μὴ ἔστωσαν μετὰ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν. νηστεύουσι γὰρ δευτέρα σαββάτων καὶ πέμτῃ· ὑμεῖς δὲ νηστεύσατε τετράδα καὶ παρασκευήν.

And consider the Pharisee who fasts twice a week: νηστεύω δὶς τοῦ σαββάτου. That's not twice a Sabbath.

I think the translations simply reflect Greek usage here. I don't think you have given good evidence that they are wrong, and I think they give good evidence that they are right. As far as I can tell, you are using Strong's numbers and English glosses to try to reason about what the Greek means, and you can't reliably get at the meaning of foreign languages that way, you have to read how the words are used in context in Greek in a bunch of instances to get a feel for that.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14445
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Observing the Sabbath

Post by Bootstrap »

JohnHurt wrote:The other verse where your help is appreciated would be Luke 6:1, where the sabbath is called the second sabbath after the first, or "deuteroprotos". Strongs dictionary gives the following:

from deuteros 1208 and protos 4413; second-first, i.e. (specially) a designation of the Sabbath immediately after the Paschal week (being the second after Passover day, and the first of the seven Sabbaths intervening before Pentecost):--second ... after the first.
This word occurs only in Luke 6:1, most of the early Greek manuscripts do not contain it, and even ancient interpreters like Jerome said they did not know what it meant. I see it used in three early manuscripts, though.

Can you give any evidence to back up the gloss given in Strong's? BDAG does not seem to consider it likely. It says one possibility is that it means "next to last". Can you read enough Greek to read a lexicon like BDAG? It has a bibliography on this question.

On the whole, I'd say the meaning of this word is very uncertain, and it does not seem likely that it was the original reading of the Greek.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14445
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Observing the Sabbath

Post by Bootstrap »

Bootstrap wrote:This word occurs only in Luke 6:1, most of the early Greek manuscripts do not contain it, and even ancient interpreters like Jerome said they did not know what it meant. I see it used in three early manuscripts, though.
Meyer has a good discussion in his commentary at Luke 6:1, and the Cambridge commentary on the same page has a discussion that is a little easier to read. I'll quote the latter here, because it really is much easier to read and has much of the same information as Meyer.
Cambridge wrote:Luke 6:1-5. The Disciples pluck the ears of corn on the Sabbath. (Matthew 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-28.)

1. on the second sabbath after the first] Better, on the second-first sabbath. St Luke gives this unique note of time without a word to explain it, and scholars have not—and probably never will—come to an agreement as to its exact meaning. The only analogy to the word is the deuterodekate or second tenth in Jerome on Ezekiel 45. Of the ten or more suggested explanations, omitting those which are wholly arbitrary and impossible, we may mention the following,

a. The first Sabbath of the second month (Wetstein).

b. The first Sabbath after the second day of the Passover (Scaliger, Ewald, De Wette, Neander, Keim, &c.).

c. The first Sabbath of the second year in the Sabbatic cycle of seven years. (Wieseler).

d. The first Sabbath of the Ecclesiastical year. The Jewish year had two beginnings, the civil year began in Tisri (mid-September); the ecclesiastical year in Nisan (mid-March).

The first-first Sabbath may therefore have been a name given to the first Sabbath of the civil year in autumn; and second-first to the first Sabbath of the ecclesiastical year in spring (Cappell, Godet).

d. The Pentecostal Sabbath—the Paschal Sabbath being regarded as the protoproton or first-first (Corn. a Lapide).

These and similar explanations must be left as unsupported conjectures in the absence of any decisive trace of such Sabbatical nomenclature among the Jews. But we may remark that

(1) The reading itself cannot be regarded as absolutely certain, since it is omitted in א, B, L, and in several important versions, including the Syriac and Coptic. Hence of modern editors Tregelles and Meyer omit it; Lachmann and Alford put it in brackets. [Its insertion may then be conceivably accounted for by marginal annotations. Thus if a copyist put ‘first’ in the margin with the reference to the “other” Sabbath of Luke 5:6 it would have been corrected by some succeeding copyist into ‘second’ with reference to Luke 4:31; and the two may have been combined in hopeless perplexity. If it be said that this is unlikely, it seems at least equally unlikely that it should either wilfully or accidentally have been omitted if it formed part of the original text. And why should St Luke writing for Gentiles use without explanation a word to them perfectly meaningless and so highly technical that in all the folio volumes of Jewish literature there is not a single trace of it?]

(2) The exact discovery of what the word means is only important as a matter of archaeology. Happily there can be no question as to the time of year at which the incident took place. The narrative seems to imply that the ears which the disciples plucked and rubbed were ears of wheat not of barley. Now the first ripe sheaf of barley was offered at the Passover (in spring) and the first ripe wheat sheaf at Pentecost (fifty days later). Wheat would ripen earlier in the rich deep hollow of Gennesareth. In any case therefore the time of year was spring or early summer, and the Sabbath (whether the reading be correct or not) was probably some Sabbath in the month Nisan.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
User avatar
JohnHurt
Posts: 823
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 8:04 pm
Location: Buffalo Valley, TN
Affiliation: Primitive Christian
Contact:

Re: Observing the Sabbath

Post by JohnHurt »

Bootstrap,

You have some valid points. That sabbaton can mean an entire week, as in Acts 18:12, and from your example in the Didache, if there is a number associated with sabbaton, it could mean a certain day of the week. I won't argue that.

You can leave Luke 6:1 for another time, but I hold that this verse does fall on my side of the logical argument, as it notes a counting of days until Pentecost. And if you refer only to the most ancient texts (i.e. Hort and Westcott), than anyone can dismiss quite a few things.

I would also be interested in your thoughts on Mark 16:9 - where "protos" is used instead of "mia" as "first".

And, it is readily apparent that you possess a greater knowledge of the Greek language than I do.

But a knowledge of the Greek language does not always provide a way to see the context. Here are the questions that I don't think your position cannot answer:

1. We would need to prove that the phrase "the first day of the week" is something that happens every week.

I hold that this phrase denotes the yearly "Feast of First Fruits" when the wave offering is made (Leviticus 23:15).

First fruits fell on the "morrow after the sabbath" following Passover (Lev 23:5) and also after the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Lev 23:6). The Feast of First Fruits also comes before Pentecost, which is 50 days after its celebration. (Lev 23:16)

The Feast of First Fruits happens on "the morrow after the sabbath", just as Pentecost does (Lev 23:15-16), so we are both in agreement that this day occurs on Sunday. That is why I won't challenge that "first day of the week" is something that happened on a Sunday.

But my position is that the term "first day of the week" is not a weekly service, but yearly, and happens only after Passover and Unleavened Bread, and before Pentecost.

The example in Acts 20:7 perfectly follows this pattern, for the "first day of the week" follows the days of unleavened bread (Acts 20:6), yet occurs prior to Pentecost. (Acts 20:16)

Likewise, the term "first day of the week" in 1 Cor 16:2 occurs prior to Pentecost (1 Cor 16:8).

There is no other occurrences where this term is used, other than the resurrection of our Lord, which also occurred after Passover / Unleavened Bread, and prior to Pentecost.

The pattern is clear.

So, I think we will be unable to prove that the term "first day of the week" is something that was practiced more than just once a year.

2. The position does not show where a command was given by Christ to meet every week on Sunday, instead of the 7th day. Only Christ would have the authority to make this change, for the 7th day Sabbath was the day of "holy convocation" (Leviticus 23:2-3), and not Sunday. Men writing the Didache or Ignatius or others do not have this authority.

3. The position relies on the authority of the most popular Bible Translations and other tools. Yet, these same translators could never translate "baptizo" as "immerse", as they would lose any customers that believed in sprinkling / infant baptism.
So, "baptizo" has always been transliterated and was never accurately translated, as a fully accurate translation is not the primary goal of a Bible translation. The primary goal of a translation is to sell Bibles.

The Bible translators will never translate "emuwnah" in Habakkuk 2:4 as "faithfulness", or "by being faithful", which is something you do and is how this word is translated in all occurrences in the Old Testament, but they will translate this word "emuwnah" as "faith", which a state of mind, and not translate it as being faithful, in an effort to appease everyone from Paul to Martin Luther. Only Hebrews 10:37-38 will show us that Habakkuk 2:4 is an activity of being faithful, not a state of mind.

Only the Bible can accurately describe the Bible. Not a translator.

4. The position cannot show how Christ is tied to the Feast of First Fruits. Christ was killed as our Passover lamb, and was taken out of the world and put into the tomb, just as leaven is taken out of the feast of unleavened bread. Christ is the symbol of all of the feast days.

Christ is called the firstfruits from the dead (1 Cor 15:20, 23). Yet, if "first of sabbaths" is really just a day of the week that happens every week, then there is no real connection to Christ as He was presented as the wave offering to the Father, as recorded in John 20:17, 27).

Christ is associated with all of the feast days, as He is the purpose of these days. Yet, the position you have does not associate Christ with the feast of first fruits.

5. Your position does not give us a starting day to count the 50 days to Pentecost.

6. This may seem unrelated, but it is. Your position will not be able to describe how Christ was in the tomb for three days and three nights. (Matt 12:40).

Only if you hold that Passover, which is the 14th day of the lunar month and not a day of the week, - that Passover occurred on Wednesday, and that our Lord was buried on Wednesday evening at sundown as Thursday was a sabbath of Unleavened Bread (Lev 23:6-7) and called a "high day" as a result (John 19:31), and that our Lord was resurrected on Saturday evening, just as the sun went down, which was the beginning of the "first of Sabbaths", - this is the only scenario where He could be buried in the tomb for 3 days and 3 nights.

The idea that Christ was buried on Friday and arose on Sunday could not be 3 days and 3 nights. To make 3 full days and nights, we would have to agree that there are yearly sabbaths and feasts that parallel the death and resurrection of Christ, which would point to the "first of sabbaths" as being the feast of first fruits.

And so the same phase, "first of sabbaths", or "first day of the week" would point towards a yearly feast, not a weekly service.

Thanks for reading this, I am certain we disagree. Thank you for your help.

John
0 x
"He replaced the teachings of Christ with his own opinions, and gave us a religion based on the doctrines of men."
User avatar
JohnHurt
Posts: 823
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 8:04 pm
Location: Buffalo Valley, TN
Affiliation: Primitive Christian
Contact:

Re: Observing the Sabbath

Post by JohnHurt »

Bootstrap wrote:
Bootstrap wrote:This word occurs only in Luke 6:1, most of the early Greek manuscripts do not contain it, and even ancient interpreters like Jerome said they did not know what it meant. I see it used in three early manuscripts, though.
Meyer has a good discussion in his commentary at Luke 6:1, and the Cambridge commentary on the same page has a discussion that is a little easier to read. I'll quote the latter here, because it really is much easier to read and has much of the same information as Meyer.
Cambridge wrote:Luke 6:1-5. The Disciples pluck the ears of corn on the Sabbath. (Matthew 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-28.)

1. on the second sabbath after the first] Better, on the second-first sabbath. St Luke gives this unique note of time without a word to explain it, and scholars have not—and probably never will—come to an agreement as to its exact meaning. The only analogy to the word is the deuterodekate or second tenth in Jerome on Ezekiel 45. Of the ten or more suggested explanations, omitting those which are wholly arbitrary and impossible, we may mention the following,

a. The first Sabbath of the second month (Wetstein).

b. The first Sabbath after the second day of the Passover (Scaliger, Ewald, De Wette, Neander, Keim, &c.).

c. The first Sabbath of the second year in the Sabbatic cycle of seven years. (Wieseler).

d. The first Sabbath of the Ecclesiastical year. The Jewish year had two beginnings, the civil year began in Tisri (mid-September); the ecclesiastical year in Nisan (mid-March).

The first-first Sabbath may therefore have been a name given to the first Sabbath of the civil year in autumn; and second-first to the first Sabbath of the ecclesiastical year in spring (Cappell, Godet).

d. The Pentecostal Sabbath—the Paschal Sabbath being regarded as the protoproton or first-first (Corn. a Lapide).

These and similar explanations must be left as unsupported conjectures in the absence of any decisive trace of such Sabbatical nomenclature among the Jews. But we may remark that

(1) The reading itself cannot be regarded as absolutely certain, since it is omitted in א, B, L, and in several important versions, including the Syriac and Coptic. Hence of modern editors Tregelles and Meyer omit it; Lachmann and Alford put it in brackets. [Its insertion may then be conceivably accounted for by marginal annotations. Thus if a copyist put ‘first’ in the margin with the reference to the “other” Sabbath of Luke 5:6 it would have been corrected by some succeeding copyist into ‘second’ with reference to Luke 4:31; and the two may have been combined in hopeless perplexity. If it be said that this is unlikely, it seems at least equally unlikely that it should either wilfully or accidentally have been omitted if it formed part of the original text. And why should St Luke writing for Gentiles use without explanation a word to them perfectly meaningless and so highly technical that in all the folio volumes of Jewish literature there is not a single trace of it?]

(2) The exact discovery of what the word means is only important as a matter of archaeology. Happily there can be no question as to the time of year at which the incident took place. The narrative seems to imply that the ears which the disciples plucked and rubbed were ears of wheat not of barley. Now the first ripe sheaf of barley was offered at the Passover (in spring) and the first ripe wheat sheaf at Pentecost (fifty days later). Wheat would ripen earlier in the rich deep hollow of Gennesareth. In any case therefore the time of year was spring or early summer, and the Sabbath (whether the reading be correct or not) was probably some Sabbath in the month Nisan.
Thanks!

John
0 x
"He replaced the teachings of Christ with his own opinions, and gave us a religion based on the doctrines of men."
Post Reply