Observing the Sabbath

General Christian Theology
Adam
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 10:35 pm
Location: Papua New Guinea
Affiliation: Kingdom Christian

Re: Observing the Sabbath

Post by Adam »

ohio jones wrote:The words of Jesus certainly seem to imply that the rest is "today" and not in the far-off future:
Matt 11:28-29 Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
The yoke makes it sounds like there is still some work involved, even though there is also rest. Perhaps the resolution of the paradox is that we cease from our labors and walk along with God as he works in and through us.
Yes, that's a good point. I suspect that there is probably both a present and a future aspect to entering God's rest.
0 x
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 »

Dear friends,

My sincere apology to to the dedicated Bible translators on this forum, who do their work as a service to others, and not for profit.

Here are my questions for you.

First question:

We see all of the other feast days of Leviticus 23 celebrated in the "New Testament."

Some are harder to find, such as Acts 27:9 refers to the Day of Atonement.

But if you want a complete list, I can republish them here for you.

So, where would you find the Feast of First Fruits in the "New Testament" writings, which are more accurately the Greek scriptures that were written after the Resurrection? What scriptures indicate that Christ and the Apostles kept this feast?
(My guess is that you will say there are no scriptures.)


Second question:

How is Christ the "first fruits from the dead"? What symbolic relationship does He have to the wave offering / first fruits feast day?



Third question:

Why does Christ say "Touch me not" in John 20:17, yet later that day He showed them His hands and His side.



Fourth question:

Sabbaton can be either singular or plural. For example, it is used as both a Sabbath Day, and as a "week" in Matthew 28:1.

From what has been said in our discussion, "hemera" or "day" is implied because there is a number associated with "sabbaton", so that "first of sabbath" or "first of sabbaths" really means "first day of the week". When a number is associated with "sabbaton", it makes "sabbaton automatically a plural.

How would you write, in Greek, the expression "first week of weeks"? Or "first of weeks"? And not imply "day" or hemera when a number is used, but rather imply that the first "week" was intended?


Fifth question:

How do you count the number of days to Pentecost? What is the starting point and ending points? Do you count from Sunday to Saturday each week for 7 weeks, then add one day? How does that work for you?



Your words are valuable to me, and I sincerely appreciate what you say, even if we don't agree. So thank you for your help.
I have had a lot of business lately, and I will be out of town for this next week, but I will check back then. Thanks again,
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
Josh
Posts: 23826
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Observing the Sabbath

Post by Josh »

John,

Your approach is very western, looking for an extreme amount of precisions.

Go and think about the thread Peregrino just posted about a culture where people don't even have the concept of numbers, not even the number "one".

How applicable do you think this debate we are having would be for those people to follow Jesus?

Do they have to learn how to count to 7 first before they can follow Jesus? Or is the kingdom of heaven restricted to the mathematically literate?
0 x
temporal1
Posts: 16279
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:09 pm
Location: U.S. midwest and PNW
Affiliation: Christian other

Re: Observing the Sabbath

Post by temporal1 »

This evening i viewed another episode of Ancient Roads, this was #6 of 6, on Constantine.
http://www.christtoconstantine.com/
Interesting episode. In it, Constantine is credited with establishing Sunday as the Christian day of rest (for the empire.)

This is another source on it:
http://amazingdiscoveries.org/S-decepti ... onstantine
Sunday actually made very little headway as a Christian day of rest until the time of Constantine in the fourth century. Constantine was emperor of Rome from AD 306 to 337. He was a sun worshiper during the first years of his reign. Later, he professed conversion to Christianity, but at heart remained a devotee of the sun. Edward Gibbon says,
"The Sun was universally celebrated as the invincible guide and protector of Constantine.”

Constantine created the earliest Sunday law known to history in AD 321. It says this:
"On the venerable Day of the sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country, however, persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits: because it often happens that another Day is not so suitable for grain sowing or for vine planting: lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost."

Chamber’s Encyclopedia says this:
"Unquestionably the first law, either ecclesiastical or civil, by which the Sabbatical observance of that Day is known to have been ordained, is the edict of Constantine, 321 A.D."
(if this is repeating earlier discussion, i apologize. i have not read every post in this thread.)
0 x
Most or all of this drama, humiliation, wasted taxpayer money could be spared -
with even modest attempt at presenting balanced facts from the start.


”We’re all just walking each other home.”
UNKNOWN
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:
JohnHurt wrote: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 think you are making an argument based on deductive logic and theology, not deep knowledge of the language or any particular approach to deciding which texts are genuine.
Thank you for your response.

I found your points interesting that in the case of Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor 16:2, that you said that the majority of Bible Translators must be correct in rendering "first day of the week" from the phrase "first of sabbaton", as someone who has a better understanding of Greek would automatically supply the word "day" to a phrase of "first day of the week" that would otherwise be "first of sabbaths".

Yet, in the case of Luke 6:1, your point is that the majority of Bible Translators are not correct, as the text itself is flawed, and provided a document that stated that a scribe that copied the original document wrote "first sabbath" to differentiate between this sabbath in Luke 6:1 and the one in Luke 6:6, while a second scribe that copied this document at a later time put "second sabbath" to explain that this sabbath was not the same as one in an earlier chapter, yet still left the word "first" in the manuscript that he corrected. Therefore, both words (second-first) were written together, accidentally, and so it became "second-first sabbath" in the original text and should be ignored.

If I had brought up these points, you would rightly tell me that I was not consistent in recognizing the authority of the various Bible Translators, as I only recognized them as an authority when it best suited my argument.

Also, if I had said that the reason Luke 6:1 was rendered as "second sabbath after the first" - is that a mistake was made where two different scribes worked together at different times to make a single mistake, you would say that I was at best, grasping at straws. I mean, really. Who would ever believe something like that?

The context of Luke 6:1 is clear, that the disciples were eating the grain in the fields, as the harvest was already in progress. This would perfectly match the time period of one week after the Wave offering or Feast of First Fruits of Leviticus 23:10. This is almost the only time it could have happened.

This question of the appropriate time period is also evident in Acts 20:7 and 1st Cor 16:2, that the term "first of Sabbaths" always occurs just before Pentecost, as I have noted.

So, to wrap this up, here is where your position falls apart.

The Sabbath Day is the 4th Commandment of God, spoken directly by God in Exodus 20:8-11. It is not something that Moses wrote down, it was spoken by God, and the people asked that God not speak to them again. (Exodus 20:19)

So, the Sabbath came straight from God, and not through an intermediary.

The Sabbath is also the Commandment that God Himself observed in Genesis 2:2-3. He said it, He did it, it is His Commandment, not ours.

The Sabbath preceded the Covenant of Mt Sinai, (Exodus 16:23-26) and it continued after the death of Christ (Luke 23:56), so it is not tied to a Covenant.

The Sabbath is eternal, as it is the basis of our rest in Hebrews 3 and 4.

So who would have the authority to override God's statement on the Sabbath and change the Sabbath from the 7th Day to the 1st Day?

Other than YHVH, I think only Christ would have the authority to change or eliminate the Sabbath day. And Christ did not eliminate the Sabbath, but said that He was the Lord of the Sabbath Day. Mark 2:28

There is no repudiation of the Sabbath by Christ, or YHVH, in the Bible.

So, there is no authority in the Bible, by Christ or YHVH, to change the Sabbath from the 7th day to the 1st, or to eliminate it altogether.

And the LORD YHVH said that the Sabbath is the day of the the Holy Convocation, which is the day when we should meet. (Leviticus 23:1-4) Not Sunday.

If Paul was meeting on Sunday, the 1st Day of the Week, every week, and was eating the Eucharist in Acts 20:7, and passing a collection plate around in 1 Cor 16:2, and was saying that Sunday is the new Sabbath day, then who gave Paul this authority?

If Ignatius decided to meet on Sunday, who gave him this authority?

This is the question you cannot answer.

Of course, this same question could be asked about who had the authority to set up church hierarchies, or grant church titles, or allow one to be paid to preach, all of which our Lord condemned. (Matt 23:7-10, Luke 9:46, Luke 22:24, Matt 10:8)

It is these very things (hierarchy, titles, pay) that hold us back from the truth. For if a man must lose his income, his title, his place of respect in the church, in exchange for a little more truth, which will he choose? After 20 centuries, it is pretty obvious.

That is why Christ said to avoid these things. They bind us from finding the truth. We are both blind, leading the blind, and we both fall into the ditch. And we teach for doctrines the commandments of men. Christ cursed us for this. Matt 15:8-14

I appreciate the Mennonites as they are one of the few that follow Christ when He said to turn the other cheek, or to bless our enemies. At least one denomination has that figured out. And it is probably the hardest of Christ's doctrines to follow. So, blessing to all that follow this instruction from Christ.

I think if we all just read the words in red, that were spoken by our Lord, the world would be a much better place.

I appreciate our dialog, and I thank you for your comments. I hope I have not offended you.

Blessings to you and your family.

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 »

JohnHurt wrote:
Bootstrap wrote:I think you are making an argument based on deductive logic and theology, not deep knowledge of the language or any particular approach to deciding which texts are genuine.
Thank you for your response.

I found your points interesting that in the case of Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor 16:2, that you said that the majority of Bible Translators must be correct in rendering "first day of the week" from the phrase "first of sabbaton", as someone who has a better understanding of Greek would automatically supply the word "day" to a phrase of "first day of the week" that would otherwise be "first of sabbaths".

Yet, in the case of Luke 6:1, your point is that the majority of Bible Translators are not correct, as the text itself is flawed, and provided a document that stated that a scribe that copied the original document wrote "first sabbath" to differentiate between this sabbath in Luke 6:1 and the one in Luke 6:6, while a second scribe that copied this document at a later time put "second sabbath" to explain that this sabbath was not the same as one in an earlier chapter, yet still left the word "first" in the manuscript that he corrected. Therefore, both words (second-first) were written together, accidentally, and so it became "second-first sabbath" in the original text and should be ignored.
Actually, my point is that most Bible translations do get this correct, they don't use the reading found in the King James. And my other point is that if you don't know Greek better than the translators, you shouldn't think you know enough to "correct" their translations. The guideline I give to people is this: if translations generally agree, you can usually trust a reading. If they disagree, you need to understand why, including the motivation behind each reading, before you can really have much of an opinion. If you start playing word games with a language you do not understand, you're on very thin ice.

Here's a sampling of well-known translations of this verse:

New International Version
One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and his disciples began to pick some heads of grain, rub them in their hands and eat the kernels.

New Living Translation
One Sabbath day as Jesus was walking through some grainfields, his disciples broke off heads of grain, rubbed off the husks in their hands, and ate the grain.

English Standard Version
On a Sabbath, while he was going through the grainfields, his disciples plucked and ate some heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands.

New American Standard Bible
Now it happened that He was passing through some grainfields on a Sabbath; and His disciples were picking the heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands, and eating the grain.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
On a Sabbath, He passed through the grainfields. His disciples were picking heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands, and eating them.
JohnHurt wrote:If I had brought up these points, you would rightly tell me that I was not consistent in recognizing the authority of the various Bible Translators, as I only recognized them as an authority when it best suited my argument.
Well, no, I would point out that most translations get this right.
JohnHurt wrote:Also, if I had said that the reason Luke 6:1 was rendered as "second sabbath after the first" - is that a mistake was made where two different scribes worked together at different times to make a single mistake, you would say that I was at best, grasping at straws. I mean, really. Who would ever believe something like that?
I don't know whether that explanation is correct or not, but I do know that very few text critics would argue that it is the original reading, and very few translations are based on that reading.
JohnHurt wrote:The context of Luke 6:1 is clear, that the disciples were eating the grain in the fields, as the harvest was already in progress. This would perfectly match the time period of one week after the Wave offering or Feast of First Fruits of Leviticus 23:10. This is almost the only time it could have happened.
The basic problem here is that we are discussing your conjectures, not the text. Nothing in the text says that Luke is counting weeks the way you suggest.

And the context of Luke is indeed clear: he is clearly writing for a Gentile audience, and describes Jewish customs, assuming that they would not be familiar with them. So it would be very surprising if he expected them to read these things into the text the way you do.
JohnHurt wrote:So, to wrap this up, here is where your position falls apart.

The Sabbath Day is the 4th Commandment of God, spoken directly by God in Exodus 20:8-11. It is not something that Moses wrote down, it was spoken by God, and the people asked that God not speak to them again. (Exodus 20:19)

So, the Sabbath came straight from God, and not through an intermediary.
As did circumcision. And Galatians is quite clear about circumcision. If you throw out the letters of Paul, you also have to throw out Acts and Peter, which testify to Paul's authority, and soon you have thrown out a great deal of the New Testament.

Your basic argument is that it's a binding commandment if nothing is said about it in the New Testament. I disagree. New Testament Gentiles were not asked to become Jews. Neither Jesus nor Paul asked them to do that.
JohnHurt wrote:So who would have the authority to override God's statement on the Sabbath and change the Sabbath from the 7th Day to the 1st Day?
Sunday isn't the Sabbath, it's the Lord's Day, honoring his resurrection. I've said that several times in this thread.
JohnHurt wrote:If Paul was meeting on Sunday, the 1st Day of the Week, every week, and was eating the Eucharist in Acts 20:7, and passing a collection plate around in 1 Cor 16:2, and was saying that Sunday is the new Sabbath day, then who gave Paul this authority?

If Ignatius decided to meet on Sunday, who gave him this authority?
I believe Paul had authority as an apostle, and that the author of the Revelation was writing Scripture, but neither of them commands that people meet on Sunday, they only describe that. Ignatius and other early church writers like the author of the Didache describe what the early church did.
JohnHurt wrote:Of course, this same question could be asked about who had the authority to set up church hierarchies, or grant church titles, or allow one to be paid to preach, all of which our Lord condemned. (Matt 23:7-10, Luke 9:46, Luke 22:24, Matt 10:8)
But who gives you authority to "correct" translations of a language you do not know, or to read conjectures into the text, or to dismiss half of the New Testament? You assume more authority for yourself than you are willing to give to the writers and translators of the New Testament.
JohnHurt wrote:It is these very things (hierarchy, titles, pay) that hold us back from the truth. For if a man must lose his income, his title, his place of respect in the church, in exchange for a little more truth, which will he choose? After 20 centuries, it is pretty obvious.

That is why Christ said to avoid these things. They bind us from finding the truth. We are both blind, leading the blind, and we both fall into the ditch. And we teach for doctrines the commandments of men. Christ cursed us for this. Matt 15:8-14
I agree that simple obedience means a willingness to suffer, give up status, give up money ... but simple obedience doesn't require us to reverse engineer what the Bible is trying to say, correct the translations, or read complex theological systems into the text - things that are not clearly stated.
JohnHurt wrote:I think if we all just read the words in red, that were spoken by our Lord, the world would be a much better place.
I agree with you there!
JohnHurt wrote:I appreciate our dialog, and I thank you for your comments. I hope I have not offended you.

Blessings to you and your family.
And blessings to you as well! You have not offended me, but I probably won't put much more time into this, it takes more time and energy than I think it's worth, and I'm trying to free up time for other things.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23826
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Observing the Sabbath

Post by Josh »

John,

A simple question: here on earth, what people do you look up to as your spiritual authority?
0 x
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 »

Josh wrote:John,

A simple question: here on earth, what people do you look up to as your spiritual authority?
Josh,

We have a direct relationship to Christ with no man as an intermediary.

As Christ said:

John 15:5 - I am the vine, and ye are the branches.

We are not a branch off of a branch. We are tied directly to Christ.

There is no priesthood between man and God today. As an adult believer, you are a priest:

1 Peter 2:(9) But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people;

Revelation 1:(6) And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father;

It is the men who assume authority over us as "priests" between us and God that have always been the problem:

Ezekiel 22:(26) Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them.

Some things never change.

Oral Roberts, and other charlatans, claim to see Christ in the desert or in their secret chambers, and so deceive the people:

Ezekiel 22:(28) And her prophets have daubed them with untempered morter, seeing vanity, and divining lies unto them, saying, Thus saith the Lord GOD, when the LORD hath not spoken.

If you wonder why there are so many different denominations, it is because of the priests that run each of these denominations.

If you want a denomination, go to church. If you want Christ, read the words in red.

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
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 »

Two Early Anabaptist Martyrs that Kept the Sabbath Day:

Here are the Wikipedia Articles:

Andreas Fischer (ca. 1480 – 1540) was an Austrian/Moravian Anabaptist, and associate of Oswald Glaidt. He first appears as an Anabaptist leader in the public records in 1528 in Silesia, as a literary opponent of Caspar Schwenckfeldt's associate, Valentine Crautwald. His main written work is "Scepastes Decologi," in which he defended not only adult baptism but also (following Oswald Glaidt) the reinstitution of Saturday/Sabbath keeping as a Christian practice. This work is lost, but its main arguments are carefully reconstructed by Daniel Liechty (pp54ff.) based on Crautwald's tract against it ("Bericht und anzaigen wie gar one kunst und guether versandt, Andreas Fischer Vom Sabbat geschriben.") Fischer spent the 1530s moving back and forth between Silesia, Moravia and Slovakia, where he found fertile ground for his ideas especially among the population of miners, who were staging a series of strikes and revolts throughout that decade. Fischer was arrested and put to death in 1540.[1] [2]


Oswald Glait (Cham 1490 – Vienna 1546) was a German Anabaptist and Sabbatarian.[1] Originally a follower of Balthasar Hubmaier, in 1527 in the Nikolsburg dispute he sided with the pacifist position of Hans Hut. He then appears in Silesia, along with Andreas Fischer, as a leader of an Anabaptist group there. He penned a booklet, Vom Sabbat, advocating the (re)institution of Saturday/Sabbath keeping as a Christian practice, thus restoring what Glaidt argued had been the original practice of the Apostolic church of the New Testament. There is also good evidence in this writing (lost, but carefully reconstructed by Daniel Liechty based on Caspar Schwenckfeldt's refutation of it) that Glaidt strongly believed that Christ's Second Coming was to occur in the very near future (this shows the extent of Hans Hut's influence on Glaidt at this time). Glaidt appears later in the sources attached to the nascent Hutterite group in Moravia. He was arreste and imprisoned in Vienna in 1545, then taken out at night and drowned in autumn 1546.[2]

Here are the GAMEO articles:

Fischer, Andreas (ca. 1480-1540)

Evidence suggests that Andreas Fischer was born ca. 1480 in Bohemia and was educated at the University of Vienna. He was likely baptized by Hans Hut or Oswald Glait, and appears with Glait in Silesia in 1528 as a leader and spokesperson for the Sabbatarian Anabaptists there.

Between 1529 and 1532, Fischer worked as a missionary in Slovakia and had some success among the miners there. He narrowly escaped execution; his wife was drowned. He moved to the Nikolsburg area about 1532 and assumed the position of leadership among the Schwertler faction that had been left vacant by the exit to Prussia of Hans Spittelmayr. The Hutterite Chronicle reports that this group soon became known as "Sabbatarians."

After 1535, Fischer fled to the border region between Saxony and Bohemia to escape persecution. He returned to Moravia about 1537 and to Slovakia in 1540 where was was arrested and executed.


Glait, Oswald (d. 1546)

Glait (Glayt, Glaidt, sometimes also called Oswald von Jamnitz after his last place of sojourn), Oswald, an Anabaptist martyr. He was born in Cham, Upper Palatinate, Germany, and was originally a monk or priest. Early in the 1520s he joined the Lutheran Church, went to Austria, and became for a while a minister in Leoben, Styria. Expelled from there and "from all of Austria for the sake of the Word of God," he turned to Nikolsburg in 1525, where the Lutherans had organized a church under the protection of Leonhard von Liechtenstein, led by Hans Spittelmaier. Glait now became the assistant minister of this congregation. Nikolsburg was at that time a real haven for all kinds of non-Catholic groups such as Bohemian Brethren (formerly Hussites), Lutherans, and the more spiritualistic minded "Habrovans." In 1526 Glait supported an attempt by the Moravian nobleman Jan Dubcansky, to unite all these "evangelical" parties. With the consent of several Moravian noblemen Dubcansky called a "synod" to Austerlitz which Glait also attended. The latter's report of this event was printed with the title, Handlung yetz den XIV tag Marcij dis XXVI jars, so zu Osterlitz in Merhern durch erforderte versammlung viler pfarrer und priesterschaften, auch etlicher des Adels und anderer, in Christlicher lieb und ainigkeyt beschehen und in syben artickeln beschlossen, mit sambt derselben artickel erhlärung. I. Cor. I. (only known copy in the National Library in Vienna). This synod was certainly a great event: on the one side were more than one hundred "Utraquist" ministers (Bohemian Brethren), on "our" (Lutheran) side were many more. At the center sat the nobles, Dubcansky and other manorial lords of the area. Appointed commissioners called attention to the differences of doctrine and requested a comparison, so that the poor populace might not be bewildered. The decision must be left to the clear Word of God; human rank and descent should play no role. Of the seven articles discussed (Wiswedel, 553-555) the fourth might be mentioned: "No one should be admitted at the Lord's Table unless he be born again before, through the Word of God." In general, the type of faith defended was closest to the Zwinglian. Agreement was finally reached, and every participant added his signature (date: 19 March 1526).

A few weeks later Hubmaier arrived in Nikolsburg as a refugee. His reputation must have preceded him, for he found a great following right from the beginning. The town now became to the Anabaptists "what Emmaus was to the Lord. . . ." Apparently Glait also received believer's baptism. In Glait's room Hubmaier finished (July 1526) his book, Der uralten und neuen Lehrer Urteil, dass man die jungen Kinder nit taufen soll bis sie im Glauben unterrichtet sind. Hubmaier set to work to replace the former Lutheran congregation by an Anabaptist brotherhood, with the approval of the Lord of Liechtenstein. This stimulated Glait to do more writing. In 1527 he published his second tract, Entschuldigung Osbaldi Glaidt von Chamb . . . etlicher Artickel Verklärung so ihnen von Misgönnern fälschlich verkehrt und also nachgeredt worden ist (printed at Nikolsburg by Simprecht Sorg, called "Froschauer," who printed all the Hubmaier tracts). In this tract Glaidt sought to answer the many calumnies of the Barefoot Friars of nearby Feldsberg who had spread all kinds of stories about the "evangelicals" of Nikolsburg and about Glait in particular. "Everyone knows that these things were not true," Glait asserts, "but I would rather be called a 'heretic' with Christ than a 'holy father' with the pope." Since they had charged him with false doctrines, which might confuse the common man, he would now discuss the articles in question. The following points are taken up in the booklet: (1) Faith and its demonstration in good works, (2) the saints and their worship, (3) the giving of alms, (4) and (5) the differences in food and days, (6) the celibacy of the clergy, (7) images, (8) altars, (9) giving offense (i.e., giving up Catholic customs, such as celibacy, eating meat on Friday), (10) burial, (11) the sacraments, (12) baptism, (13) the Lord's Supper, (14) freedom of the will.—It should, however, be admitted that in skill and clarity Glait's book cannot be compared with the writings of Hubmaier.

In 1527, when a dispute broke out in Nikolsburg concerning the use of the sword (defended by Hubmaier) or the practice of absolute nonresistance (defended by Hans Hut), Glait sided with Hut. Dissatisfied with the outcome (Liechtenstein decided in favor of Hubmaier), Glait followed his fugitive friend Hut to Vienna in Austria. Here we find Glait in the Anabaptist meeting in the Kärntnerstrasse, and here it was that Glait baptized the former Franciscan friar Leonhard Schiemer, who was soon to seal his faith with a martyr's death. From now on Glait found no place of rest. Hans Schlaffer, another well-known Anabaptist martyr and former priest, had contact with him in Regensburg, Bavaria, and testified later to Glait's pious Christian life.

Very little is known about Glait's work in the following years. After Hubmaier's death he turned to Silesia where Caspar Schwenkfeld and his collaborator Crautwald had been working for the Reformation (as they understood it). Around 1530 Glait seems to have published a tract, "Concerning the Keeping of the Sabbath," of which, unfortunately, no copy has been preserved. We learn of its contents only through Schwenckfeld's refutation, dated 1 January 1532, and entitled Vom Christlichen Sabbath und Unterschaidt des alten und newen Testaments (the only print known is one of 1589, reprinted in Corpus Schwenckfeld. IV, 452-518). Apparently Glait presented the idea that an observance of the Sabbath is binding on the Christians in the new covenant just as it was on the Jews of the old, because it is enjoined in the Decalog. Since Glait and his companion Andreas Fischer promulgated this idea in the area of Liegnitz (Silesia), Crautwald, at the insistence of the Duke of Silesia, wrote a critique entitled Bericht und anzeig wie gar ohne Kunst und gutten verstand Andreas Fischer vom Sabbath geschrieben (a copy in the State Library in Berlin).

Glait tried now to work for his faith in Prussia, but an order of Duke Albrecht in 1532 brought about his expulsion also from this territory, together with his friends Oswald of Grieskirchen (an Anabaptist) and Johannes Bünderlin (formerly of Linz, a "spiritual reformer"). It is supposed that Glait now went to Falkenau in Bohemia, for we find here "Sabbatarians" as late as 1538. This Sabbatarian movement seems to have also encroached into the Nikolsburg district, for Leonhard von Liechtenstein asked both Wolfgang Capito and Caspar Schwenckfeld for an opinion in this matter (1531). Since Capito was preoccupied with other affairs, Schwenckfeld undertook the task of judging the booklet of Glait, "with whom I had once pleasant discussions at Liegnitz" (see the above noted tract by Schwenckfeld). Schwenckfeld rejected Glait's main argument for the Sabbath observance (the reference to the Decalog) because logically all the Judaic law would have to be reinstated including circumcision. "The true observers of the Sabbath are those upon whose hearts the law of the Spirit has been written by the fingers of God." In conclusion, Schwenckfeld presented a Summarium etlicher Argument wider Oswald Glaids Lehre vom Sabbath, with 18 arguments. But he emphasized that he was careful not to do any injustice to Oswald (Corp. Schw. IV, 515-518).

Later Glait must have become the leader of an Anabaptist group around the city of Jamnitz in Moravia, but no particulars are known. The Hutterite Chronicle gives only an account of his death of which the Hutterites learned through several brothers who shared Glait's fate (Zieglschmid, Chronik, 259f.): "In 1545 Brother Oswald Glait lay in prison in Vienna for the sake of his faith. The citizens came to him in his prison and asked him kindly and earnestly to renounce it, else they would have to execute him. But say what they would, they could not move him. Two brethren also came to him, Antoni Keim and Hans Staudach [[[Hutterian Brethren (Hutterische Brüder)|Hutterite Brethren]] likewise in prison in Vienna for the sake of their faith, and in 1546 martyred], who comforted him. To them he commended his wife and child in Jamnitz. After he had been in prison a year and six weeks, they took him out of the city at midnight, that the people might not see and hear him, and drowned him in the Danube" (autumn of 1546).

A song by an unknown author praises Glait's death as a martyr. It begins, "Ihr Jungen und ihr Alten, nun höret das Gedicht" (Lieder, 1211). Of Glait himself two hymns are known: one found in a Hutterite manuscript book and still unpublished, "O sun Davidt, erhör mein bitt, und lass dich des erbarmen" (mentioned by Beck, Geschichts-Bücher, 161, note), and the other called "Die Zehn Gebote," which begins, "Es redet Gott mit Mose: ich bin der Herre dein," printed 1530 as a pamphlet,, reprinted once more in Magdeburg in 1563, and now also to be found in Wackernagel, Kirchenlied III, 465 f. (No. 524).

Just as Glait was honored in song after his death, so his services to the Brethren were willingly recognized during his life. Balthasar Hubmaier in his Ainfeltiger Underricht (1526) gives him the praise that he "proclaimed the light of the holy Gospel so bravely and comfortingly, the like of which I know at no other place."


Here is a book by Daniel Leichty on Andreas Fischer and the Sabbatarian Anabaptists:



I hope this is helpful.

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 »

JohnHurt wrote:If you want a denomination, go to church. If you want Christ, read the words in red.
I agree with that. But the words in red are the light through which I read the rest of the Bible. They are not at odds with Paul, but it's important to read Paul in that light.

I don't see anywhere in the words of Jesus where he tells Gentiles to observe the Jewish Sabbath, become circumcised, or observe the various Jewish feasts that you promote.

I like the way the NLT puts this:
You search the Scriptures because you think they give you eternal life. But the Scriptures point to me!
In general, I think we do better if we read the Scriptures to find Jesus, not to discover hidden things or religious practices or theologies. And it's the same Jesus that Paul preaches so richly.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Post Reply