Fly in the Ointment - The Error of Canonizing Tradition

8/6/2019 Fly in the Ointment - The Error of Canonizing Tradition

1/64

FLY IN THE

OINTMENT

FLIES IN THE F ACE

THE ERROR AND DANGER OF CANONIZING TRADITION

Tayra Ondina Caridad Soler-Antolick, Th. M., M. A. 2009, Updated 2012


2/64

Table of Contents

Preface..............................................................................................................................................1

Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 2-4

In Hebrew.................................................................................................................................... 4-6

Yes Rabbi................................................................................................................................... 6-13

No Sabbath .............................................................................................................................. 13-32

Yes Sabbath, No Sunday ......................................................................................................... 32-46

What Was Really Abolished?................................................................................................... 47-56

What Fulfills the Law? ............................................................................................................. 56-59

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 59-62


3/64

Preface I first believed in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior when I was seven years old

at the McCall Baptist Church which met in the Seminario Bautista Occidental at theLoma Chaple in La Habana, Cuba. It was under the auspices of the Southern BaptistConvention Missions led by Herbert and Marjorie Caudill, and whose pastor wasDemencio Garcia. I made my public profession of faith and was baptized at the age of twelve at the First Baptist Church of Miami. My five-plus decades of being a child of theGod of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob through the blood of Jesus of Nazareth the Messiahhave taken me to many congregations and down many theological roads, a God-ordained maze of religious thought to test the sharpness of my discernment and criticalthinking. I am directly admonished to study, to be diligent to show myself approved, totest the spirits whether they are of God, and to be as the Berean believers 1. At every church and religious gathering I have attended, I have loved many of its members andleaders as if they were my own flesh and blood, who, in fact, were just that through the

blood of the Anointed One. Yet, I saw resistance, to put it mildly, in the faces of theleadership when I would question the legitimacy of a particular doctrine. Many wererelieved to see me leave.

This persuasive essay does not question the fact that salvation, justification, andrighteousness are attainable solely by grace through faith in the only begotten Son of God, not by the works of the keeping of commandments except for this one: And this ishis commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, andlove one another, as he gave us commandment. 1 John 3:23. Neither will it attack anyones character for their beliefs which may be different than those presented, forthose who attack the man instead of the issue have no issue at all. Its focus, however, ison analyzing and critiquing certain theological beliefs and requirements that somegroups hold so purely dear that to come against them would be anathema and, in theireyes, may put ones salvation and sincerity of faith in serious question. These groups fallinto two general categories: Messianic believers who teach the keeping of the Torah(Law) of the Old Covenant within a Jewish framework is essential to pleasing God andnon-Messianic Christians who believe the keeping of Torah, such as observing Saturday as the day of worship, was done away with. Theologically, both are poised against eachother because of the same error: the canonizing of historical events or traditions of men.

Im still in contact with many of those precious people in the differentcongregations who hold the beliefs addressed here. However, I do not attend theirmeetings, mainly because I do not want to end up in a precarious situation forcing me toexplain to them my lack of attendance springing from my theological differences withtheir leaders. I have no intension of identifying and speaking against their leadership.Should, however, this essay come across their leaders desks, my sincerest desire is thatthey read it, analyze it with their Bible in hand, and with humility and readiness of mindand heart, leaving their theological or denominational biases at the proverbial doorshould God require an adjustment of their stance. I will accept only scholarly critique.

1 These were nobler than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readinessof mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:11).

1


4/64

Introduction Throughout the years, I have encountered doctrines, although I am sure there are

many more I have not, that stem from one common error: the canonizing of historicalevents and/or traditions of men. Some of these are but decades old; some are centuriesold. Some of the recent ones spring from the Messianic movement: a Jewish-Messianicelder requiring that his congregants call him Rabbi instead of the more Christian titleof brother or pastor; that baptism must be done in the name of Yeshua pronouncedsolely in Hebrew in order for it to be legitimate; that the name of the Son of God should be uttered in no other language other than in Hebrew; that pronouncing His name inGreek or any of its linguistic derivatives amounts to invoking a pagan god. The mostprevalent centuries-old tradition is that Sunday instead of Saturday is the new biblicalSabbath, the Lords Day, or that observing the Saturday Sabbath is not a divinecommand. At first glance, these may not seem serious. However, elevating a historicalevent, a tradition of man, or a religious/doctrinal rationale to the level equal to a

commandment God did not expressly utter, or giving them superiority over His existingcommandment, is serious indeed. This religious behavior violates Gods expresscommand not to add to or detract from His express Law. It subjects believers to extra biblical obligations as if they carry divine consequences. Conversely, shifting theSabbath from Saturday to Sunday under the guise of avoiding legalism or under therationale that we are under grace and not under the law, and supporting the shift on ahistorical event, can lead Christians to believe that there is no obligation to keep GodsFifth Commandment. Therefore, the question is this: do these events, traditions of menand religious deductions have the force of divine law by creating religious standards of behavior subjecting believers to divine repercussions?

To answer the question, hermeneutics dictated consideration of the elements of the Greek texts. They are context, syntax, and the structure of Greek words themselves.It is important to labor on this a bit because the English does not always provideaccurate translations. It may take three English words to translate the meaning of oneGreek word (thus, the italicized words in the English text). The voice and mood of a verbin relationship to the subject of the sentence are indispensible at arriving at the intendedmeaning of a sentence. Finally, Jesus mindset toward the Pharisees repeatedthroughout the Gospels is the ingredient that congeals all the elements of the text.

In speech class many years ago, I learned that in order to debate effectively, bothsides must agree before the debate can begin on the meanings of words and givens which both sides consider to be true and needing no argument. The givens for thepurpose of this essay are the following:

1. that Jesus (Jesus of Nazareth) is God;2. that, if Jesus is God, then every word proceeding out of His mouth is also

Gods Torah 2 , His Law, and His words are not in contradiction to the Law inthe Old Covenant, although it may expound on it;

2 By the word Torah, I mean the Tanakh, an acronym for Torah (Law), Nevi'im (Prophets) andKetuvim (Writings), wherever God is the one actually doing the speaking. In a general sense, it is the first five

books of the Bible: the Pentateuch. It does not include Jewish oral traditions .

2
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Torah.htmlhttp://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/Prophetstoc.htmlhttp://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/Ketuvimtoc.htmlhttp://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/Ketuvimtoc.htmlhttp://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/Prophetstoc.htmlhttp://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Torah.html


5/64

3. that Jesus is not different from God in essence and purpose; He is one withthe God of the Old Covenant;

4. that Jesus, as God, is immutable 3 , the same yesterday, today, and forever;5. that God never delegated authority to anyone in the Old or New Covenant to

change his Torah (Law, Teaching, Instruction: Deut. 4:2, 12:32 4);

6.

that only God can legislate commandments and define sin; any mansmandates are in violation of Gods commandment not to add to His law;7. that, if God were to change His law 5, He would make it known by clear

declaration, thwarting arbitrariness, vagueness and confusion; and,8. that the biblical day starts in the evening and lasts to the following evening,

a literal twenty-four-hour period.

Concerning hermeneutical axioms 6 , there are three which must remain in the forefrontof our minds:

1. the Bible often interprets itself,2. the Bible does not contradict itself, and3. if a passage is secondary and unclear or obscure, interpret it in the light of

clear and primary passages.This essay adheres to these givens. There are also rules of interpretation that must befollowed such as the passage examined must be read in its grammatical and historicalcontext and interpretation must be empty of our cultural and theological bias,recognizing when those biases are unduly influencing the interpretation. Also, evidenceleads to conclusions, not vice versa. For the purpose of this essay, inductive reasoning

3 Thiessen, Henry Clarence, In tr oductory Lect ur es in Sy stem at ic Theology , (Wm. B. EerdmansPublishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1949), p. 127-8, 132. By the immutability of God, wemean that in essence, attributes, consciousness, and will God is unchangeable. All change must be to the better or the worse. But God cannot change to the better, since He is absolutely perfect; neither can Hechange to the worse, for the same reason. He is exalted above all causes and even the possibility of change.He can never be wiser, more holy, more just, more merciful, more truthful, nor less so. Nor do His plansand purposes change. *** Malachi represents God as saying: I am the Lord I change not (Malachi 3:6).*** He changes not with regard to Hisplans and purposes (Isa. 46:10 [Declaring the end from thebeginning, and from ancient times the things that are not y et done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and

I w ill do all m y pleasur e (r ecall Genesis 2:1-3.) ] *** The immutability of God is duealso to Hisperfection. Any change in His attributes would make Him less than God; any change in His purposes andplans would make Him less wise, good, and holy. *** Truth. By the truth of God we mean that Godsknowledge, declarations, and representations eternally conform to reality. (Emphasis added.) [John17:17. Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. (Jesus praying for His disciples after His lastPassover ended. John 13:1.)] Concerning the extent of Gods immutability, of the seventeen verses in theOld Testament where the word repented is found, the eleven verses where God repented of something is

always within the context of grace and mercy. Jesus Christ Himself is the epitome of Gods repentance todestroy us for disobeying His laws. God in spirit can grow no wiser. When it comes to His Word , He set it aboveHis name Psalms 138:2]

4 Moses speaks to Israel in Deuteronomy 4:2. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which Icommand you. God speaks to Moses in Deuteronomy 12:32. What thing soever I command you, observeto do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

5 Psalms 89:34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.6 Lockha rt 's Axiom s of Herm en eutics , Chafer Theological Seminary, Dr. Stephen R. Lewis,

Professor, http://www.churchofhopeontheweb.org/Hermeneutics.pdf. Accessed on March 12, 2009.

3


6/64

should be applied. I use the King James Version unless otherwise noted. Whenever the word God is used, it refers to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

In HebrewOf the doctrines covered in this essay, this one is short and quick to analyze and

clarify. I included this one, not because it affects a huge number of believers, but ratherto show that even the smallest congregation, the most obscure doctrine, can have itsorigins in faulty reasoning leading to the canonization of a statement of fact whichneither God nor Jesus declare as a commandment.

Some Messianic congregations hold that, because of Acts 26:14, everyone who wishes to be baptized must be baptized in the name of Jesus pronouncing his namestrictly in Hebrew, or the baptism is not legitimate. In Acts 26:14, the apostle Paulrecounts the initial event of his conversion: An d w hen w e w ere a ll fa llen to the eart h, I

heard a v oice speaking unto m e, and saying i n t h e H e b r e w t o n g u e , Saul, Sau l, w hy persecu test thou m e? It is ha rd for thee to kick aga inst the pricks. They reason that, because Jesus spoke to Saul in Hebrew, that somehow it is imperative that believers of all nationalities pronounce his name in Hebrew. If that rationale were to be strictly followed, then, since Jesus spoke several sentences in Hebrew, the more appropriateconclusion would be that all believers must speak in Hebrew whenever referring to biblical topics. Nowhere in the passage did Jesus command Saul to pronounce the nameJesus in Hebrew. This requirement may or may not be written in a congregationsdoctrinal statement, but a cornerstone of this belief is that if one does not pronounce hisname in Hebrew, then one is using a pagan name in reference to Jesus.

In some circles, this rationale includes the belief that the English (or any other

language) name Jesus actually is invoking the god Zeus ( ). It holds that sincesuffix -sus is part of the Greek name for Jesus and it sounds like Zeus (especially in theromance languages like Spanish), then it must be referring to Zeus the pagan Greek god. Although biblical academics do not make anyone any more mature and spiritual, it doeshelp in clarifying what is biblical to thwart off false judgment. Not falsely judgingsomeone is a sign of maturity and spirituality. Here are the academics concerningJesus Greek name.

Zeus is mentioned three times in the New Covenant: Acts 14: 12, 13, and 19:35 and is

4


7/64

translated as Jupiter. The Greek Lexicon undoubtedly affirms that Zues is a Greek god. 7 As a side note, it is very revealing that in other Greek writings, the word dios from which the word da comes, also refer to Zeus. Dios and da are also Spanish words for god and day whose central focus is the Sun, i.e., the Sun god.

Unlike English, Greek words have different endings depending on the voice,gender, case, and number of the word. The Greek declensions 8 ,9 for the name of Jesus inGreek are these:

As shown above, there are three ways to write and pronounce Yeshuas name in Greek depending on its use: Jesus -sous (- ), -sou (- ), and -soun (- ). If one were to spell Jesus name in Greek as the proponents of this doctrine believe, it would bespelled I , which is quite different from the way it is correctly spelled in Greek I . It is unfortunate for this doctrine to gain such momentum when it has nogrounds in biblical Greek or general Greek grammar. Finally, another small butsignificant fact with Greek is that it does not have the sh sound needed to write andpronounce Jesus name in Hebrew: Yeshua.

Another twist to this doctrine is how Jesus name must be spelled andpronounced in Hebrew. The Sacred Name movement insists that Jesus name must bespelled Yahshua, a word, oddly enough, that does not exist in the Hebrew language. Itis an American composite unsubstantiated by linguistics: Yah (Jah, the name of God theFather in Psalms 68:4 Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that ridethupon the heavens by his name Jah, and rejoice before him) and shua. The reasoning isthat, since Gods name in the Old Covenant is Yah, and those who call upon the name Yah shall be saved, then the Sons name must have the name of his Father in it, thus

7 A Greek -En glish Lexicon of t he New Testam en t a nd Ot her Ea rly Chr ist ian Litera tu re , WilliamF. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, (The University of Chicago Press, 1957), p. 338.

8 Encart a Dict ion ar y : English (N or th Am erica) , online . Declension: grammar a group of nouns,adjectives, or pronouns that all change their form or word endings in the same way according to gender,number, or grammatical case. Accessed February 6, 2011.

9 New Tes ta m en t Greek for Beg inners , J. Gresham Machen, D.D., Litt.D., (The MacmillanCompany, 1923), p.141.

5


8/64

Yah-shua, not Ye-shua or Je-shua. Dr. Daniel Botkin wrote an excellent articleentitled The Messiah's Hebrew Name: "Yeshua" Or "Yahshua"? 10 Again, how onepronounces or writes Jesus name is inconsequential to salvation or maturity.

Finally, the issue of the letter J in Jesus has many Christians and Messianicsperplexed and concerned. Some believe that, because the letter J did not exist until the1500s, its use in conjunction with the Saviors name is illegitimate and possibly evenheretical. However, we must look at the origin of the letter before judging it too harshly.J is actually an elongated form of the letter i: , . The Romans used the j todifferentiate it from an i when more than one i appeared together as in the number 23:xxiij as opposed to xxiii. The name of our Savior in Greek begins with an I iota although it is

pronounced as a long ee: I . The vowel following the iota is eta , , which has thediphthong sound ai (see the declension of His proper name above). The has a longoo sound as in Moors. So, the Greek pronunciation of His name would sound like this:ee-ai-soos. The 1661 Authorized Version 11 of the Bible spells the name of our Savior withthe I Iesus, which looks much like the Greek. On the other hand, Cranmers 1539 version spells it with the J, Jesus. Initially, the j and the i represented the same

sound. It was not until the 1500s that Gian Giorgio Trissino distinguished the sounds of the two letters during the Middle High German period of language orthography. Thedifferentiation is that the J/Y sound is ee-ai and the I sound is just ee. TheRomance languages, especially French, developed the new sound for the elongated j.The English acquired it from the French. The letter J, pronounced alone, sound likeee-ai, which sounds like the first two letters of our Saviors name. The first letter Y of His Hebrew name Yeshua is pronounced ee-ai like the sound of the letter J. The Jhas the same sound in Jeshua. Both the y and the j sound are the same for bothspellings of His name, ee-eh-shoo-ah. The latter is just a transformed symbol of theformer. The same occurs with the proper names Jah and Yah.

There is nothing heretical about the letter J in our Saviors name. Sounds, andthe symbols representing them, may change as the centuries pass. What is far moreserious is false accusations from one believer against another based on faulty rationaleor poor academics. Such judgments can carry grave spiritual consequences if there is noconfession and repentance. Those who teach such accusations carry the greater weightof accountability to God and man.

Yes RabbiMessianic Jewish congregations I have visited, including but not limited to those

that are members of the International Alliance of Messianic Congregations andSynagogues and the International Federation of Messianic Jewish Congregations andSynagogues, observe Jewish culture and live Jewish culture as part of their liturgy andspiritual lives. Much of the Jewish culture has embedded within it God-ordainedcommandments, such as keeping the Sabbath and the feasts. However, other traditions

10 http://www.yashanet.com/library/yeshua_or_yahshua.htm#_ftn2 . Accessed February 6, 2011. 11 See the chart of the parallel Bible versions under the section entitled Yes Sabbath, No Sunday below.

6
http://www.yashanet.com/library/yeshua_or_yahshua.htm#_ftn2http://www.yashanet.com/library/yeshua_or_yahshua.htm#_ftn2


9/64

are purely extra-biblical. Some of these congregations require that a prospectivemember interface with the Jewish culture to be in good standing and participate inministry. An integral part of the Jewish culture is calling their leaders Rabbi who areproperly ordained or trained. At first glance, many see no problem with the term. Afterall, the term means teacher and the Body of Christ has many teachers. This word,

however, within the Jewish culture, is more than just a common, ordinary noundescribing a function: it is an exclusive noun of title, honor, status, and prestige withinthe community until we arrive at Matthew 23:1-12.

Jesus adamant disdain for Pharisaical attitudes and extra-Torah 12, Talmudic,legislation permeates the Gospels. The Pharisees made the law of God of none effect with their man-made laws and traditions (Matt. 15:1-6 13; Mark 7:13). The extra-biblicaltraditions engrained in the Jewish culture distorted the simple, clear mandates of GodsLaw, Gods Torah, like a broken mirror distorts the image of the face gazing into it. ThePharisees power and authority to make and enforce such laws was rooted in theirrationale that, since they sat on the seat of Moses 14, the law-giver per se, they, therefore,had the authority to enact extra laws, most of them oral laws handed down from Rabbi

to disciple, imposing them on the people and making their exact observance legally binding. Unashamedly, these laws were in addition to, and even superseding, thosefound in the Torah, the breaking of which would carry a more severe punishment thanthe breaking of the Torah itself 15. God made it plain, however, that no one, not evenMoses, could add anything to the Torah or take anything from it. If Moses had nopermission to do it, neither did any leader after him. In legislating extra-Torah laws andordinances, the Pharisees were in violation of a direct order from their Superior. Thisusurpation was the part of Jewish culture that Jesus continually and openly rebuked.They usurped Gods exclusive unilateral authority to legislate how man should behavetoward Him and others. Their exaltation of these men through their culture andtraditions is encapsulated in that one word: Rabbi.

12 The Torah is the first five books of the Old Testament or Old Covenant.13 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, who were of Jerusalem, saying: Why do thy disciples

transgress the tradition of the elders? For they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But heanswered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your traditions?For God commanded, saying, Honor thy father and mother; and, he that curseth father or mother, let himdie the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift by whatsoever thoumightest be profited by me; and honor not his father or his mother, he shall be free [from the death]. Thushave ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your traditions.

14 Matthew 23:2.15 Schrer, Emil, D.D., M.A., A History of th e Jew ish Peop le in the Tim e of Jesus Chr ist

(Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. edition. Reprinted from the edition originally published by T. &. T. Clark:Edinburgh, 1890), pg. 10-12. The Pharisees were simply those who were specially exact about theinterpretation and observance of the law [except for Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 (my comment added)],hence they were the rigidly legal, who spared themselves no pains and privations in its punctualfulfillment. They were considered to interpret the law with accuracy. * * * After what has been said, it isself-evident, that the Pharisees would declare not only the written Thorah, but also the oral lawdeveloped by the scribes as binding. * * * Hence it is expressly said in Josephus, The Pharisees haveimposed upon the people many laws taken from the traditions of the fathers. * * * The Halacha ortraditional law, as developed and settled by the labours of the scribes, was declared to be as legally binding as the written Thorah. R. Eleasar of Modein said: He who interprets Scripture in opposition totradition has no part in the world to come. * * * It is m ore cu lpa ble to teach con tr ary to th e p recepts of the scribes, than contrary to the Thorah itself. (Sanhedrin xi. 3.)

7


10/64

The discourse concerning this title, and two others, is found in Matthew 23: 1-12.The Pharisees and Jesus always had confrontations when it came to the law of God andthe law the Pharisees created. The players in this passage are Jesus, God and theultimate Rabbi; Jesus disciples in training to be leaders themselves; the Pharisees,religious rules of the people; and the multitude. In this passage, Jesus is contrasting

Pharisaical behavior to behavior he expects of his disciples. Subsequently, he ordersthem not to use Rabbi, Master, and Father when addressing each other. The order is adirect order, with the same impact a direct order has in the military. The force of thisorder is embedded in the mood and voice of the verb to call. The verses in the passagein particular are these:

Matt. 23:8 But be not ye called ( ) Rabbi: for one is your Rabbi,even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

Matt. 23:9 And call ( ) no m an your father upon the earth: forone is your Father, which is in heaven.

Matt. 23:10 Neither be ye called ( ) masters: for one is your

Master, even Christ.Matt. 23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

The Greek text uses these two words whose root word means to call: and . Both of these words are in the imperative mood, whichdenotes a command indicated by the - ending. Examples of an English sentenceusing an imperative verb are call your mother, shut the door, or stand toattention, soldier! The subject of the sentence, an implied you, must perform the actof an imperative verb, like a military direct order. is an imperative verb in thepassive voice, while is an imperative verb in the active voice. Passive voicemeans that the subject of the sentence receives the action of the verb instead of

performing it. An example of passive voice sentence is this: The ball was hit by Bobby.Here, the subject of the sentence, the ball, receives Bobbys performance of hitting it. Active voice means that the subject of the sentence performs the action of the verbinstead of receiving it. An example of active voice is this: Bobby hit the ball. Here,Bobby, the subject of the sentence, performs the action of hitting and the ball receivesthe hit.

Jesus uses the first word in connection with the words Rabbi andMaster; He uses the second word with the word Father. He precedes the word , the imperative mood in passive voice, with the word (a negation,not), thus ordering His disciples not to receive others performance of being calledRabbi or Master: Be ye not called (do not receive the performance of others calling you)Rabbi or Master. He also precedes the second word , an imperative verb inthe active voice, with the word , ordering disciples not to call another manfather. From the context it can be inferred that these terms are used in relation tospiritual authority over a person outside familial relationships. In Luke 11:11, Jesusrecognizes biological "fatherhood, and many times He refers to Abraham, Isaac, andJacob as fathers because they truly are biological fathers. An example of the prohibitionof the usage of the word Father in relationship to a man other than ones biologicalfather is that of the Catholic Churchs practice of calling priests Father, and the Pope

8


11/64

Holy Father, as a title of honor and reverence. It falls in the same category as Rabbiand Master in the Jewish culture.

Ignoring the mood and voice of these words has lead to erroneous interpretationof this passage. Upon contacting First Fruits of Zion 16 concerning the issue, this wasToby Janickis reply:

Here are David Sterns 17 comments:

810 But you are not to let yourselves be called Rabbi Father leaders. The Hebrew Christian scholar Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum holds thatthis passage prohibits Messianic Jewish congregations from calling their leadersrabbis 18. (The Quest for a Messianic Theology: Statement, in Mishkan #2(Winter 1985), pp. 119; with Response by myself in the same issue, pp. 2023; and A Comment by him in Mishkan #3, pp. 6768).

My view is that a literalistic approach here is inappropriate, since Jesus also warns against being called father or leader, terms everyone uses. The contextleads me to believe that Jesus here is prohibiting believers from acceptingunearned honors, rather than outlawing three titles. A leader is to be humble, aservant (20:2528); if he is given any title at all, he is not to become puffed up.Others in the community are to guard against making invidious distinctions between clergy and laity by bestowing titles.

My own objection to the use of the title rabbi today is not theological butideological and practical. What should a Messianic rabbi be? A pastor underanother name? I think the term rabbi sets up Jewish expectations which oughtto be fulfilled. A Messianic Jewish congregational leader who accepts the titlerabbi without having training adequate to qualify him as a rabbi in a non-Messianic Jewish setting is accepting honor which he has not earned and to which he is not entitled; and this does violate Jesus injunction.

Should a Messianic rabbi have sm ikhah (ordination; see 21:23N)? If so,should it be Messianic or non-Messianic? If Messianic, who is qualified to grantit? Messianic Judaism at present has very few ordained rabbis and noaccrediting agency. At present, in order not to embarrass the Messianic Jewishmovement, I urge leaders without rabbinic training to resist letting themselves be called rabbi.

Below is the sanitized text of emails I received from a Messianic Jewish Rabbi whosemeetings I was attending for about two years. I wanted to take the LSAT (Law School Admissions Test) on a day other than Saturday. The organization that administers thetest required proof in the form of a letter on letterhead from the Rabbi of thecongregation affirming that I in fact attended the meetings on Saturday. I opened the

16 A Messianic-Jewish organization dedicated to apologetics in defense of Jesus as Messiah. They have great insight into Jewish culture that, more often than not, enhances the understanding of ourJewish Messiah. Toby Janacki is one of its leaders.

17 David Stern is a Jewish believer in Messiah who wrote The Jewish New Testament Commentary.

18 I agree with Mr. Fruchtenbaum.

9


12/64

emails to him with the greeting Dear Brother . He corrected me with the followingtext:

[ His response to m e ] (BTW, we do not use the terminology "brother" inMessianic Judaism.)

[To which I replied ]: The only reason I use "brother" is because I have theconviction that Jesus commanded us not to call anyone rabbi, master, or father when it comes to spiritual relationships. I am being obedient to what I believe ishis mandate. I do not mean it to be disrespectful, but I must obey him first. Ihope you understand... [ This response w as before I did the w ord study in Greek of the verbs Jesus used. He was not ordering me not to call someone Rabbi or

Master ; he on ly ordered m e not to call som eon e Father, like the Catholics do. He ordered the leadership not to receiv e the calling of R abbi or M aster. ]

[To which he replied ]: I am not interested in a debate via e-mail so I neither want a response nor will I respond to such a debate. I studied in the Church of God School of Ministry and was ordained as a minister and teacher of the

Gospel. My use of "rabbi" which means "teacher" in Hebrew is correct, earned,and culturally acceptable. So if you translate the Greek NT text to English, it would say "call no one teacher..." As long as I am a leader of a Messianic Jewishcongregation, the use of rabbi to refer to the leader, will be my choice since it isthe choice of the entire Messianic Jewish movement worldwide. If I were theleader of a Christian church, the title would be pastor/teacher (Eph. 4). Butaccording to you I could not be called teacher in Hebrew? There is nothingextraordinary about the use of the Hebrew language to refer to teacher anymorethan the use of English (or Spanish 'maestro') to refer to the same concept. InIsrael you would use "moreh/morah" for a school teacher and "rabbi/rebbitzin"for a spiritual/congregational teacher. He did not forbid the use of Abba or rabbisince those terms were used to refer to G-d and to Himself (he was called rabbinumerous times in the Gospels and He did not rebuke the people who did itevery time it was used, did He?) In some places the translators wrote rabbi andin other places the translators wrote teacher. But in Hebrew it was rabbi every time it was used... In Israel children call their biological father "abba" and whenthey refer to them in a more personal way they say "avi." According to yourinterpretation, all of physical Israel is sinning against Jesus because they calltheir fathers "abba" and their spiritual leaders "rabbi." Let me assure that thereare alternative sound explanations for a differentinterpretation/application/justification for the Scriptures you would use tosupport your conviction. Did you know, for example, that the modern Hebrew word for husband is "adon." I guess all Israeli wives would also be sinning by calling their husbands "adonim." I don't think so... We observe Jewish cultureand we live Jewish culture. If you are in disagreement with our Jewish culture,titles, terminology because of convictions, then why do you attend? You will haveto be willing to acknowledge our Jewish heritage, culture, etc., at some point andnot insist in Christian terminology, culture, etc., regardless of convictions, else your association with [this congregation] in any capacity will be in jeopardy. Theuse of Christian titles, terminology, ideas, etc. can be quite offensive to Jewishand Messianic Jewish people. This is ultimately my point... There is a protocol

10


13/64

required to interface with [this congregation]. I am stating constraints (protocol) which are expected to be observed by anyone coming in contact with a MessianicJewish Congregation. [This congregation] is no exception.

It is quite obvious from his passionate response that the Rabbi did not understand, or want to understand, what I was saying. In the context of the passage, Jesus is rebukingthe very Pharisaical attitude the Rabbi demonstrated: demanding to be called Rabbi of anyone aspiring to function in any capacity within his congregation. Also, the context of the passage is not addressing any familial relationships like biological father orhusband. No one is sinning by calling their family members by those titles.

In addition, the fact that nowhere in the epistles does any apostle use the wordRabbi as a title of honor in referring to each other is evidence that they took seriously Jesus command not to compel anyone to call them by that title. Jesus commanded hisdisciples in John 15 to abide in Him, and the way to do that was to keep Hiscommandments, on obviously being be not called Rabbi be not called Master anddo not call anyone Father. Why? Because Jesus is our only Rabbi and Master, and HisFather is our only Father. If Jesus use of the imperative mood in any other New Testament passage is deemed His commandment for us to follow, there is no legitimatereason to compartmentalize and exclude the Matthew 23 passage from all His othercommandments to satisfy a purely Jewish-cultural extra-biblical prerogative. it is alsocurious that none of the apostles call each other pastor either as a title for a church-leadership position; it merely included in the list of gifts of God to edify His body, Hispeople. The use of that word as a titular position in the Christian church is parallel to theuse of Rabbi in the Jewish context. I would not doubt that Jesus would have alsocommanded His disciples not to be called pastor because He is our only Good Pastoror Sheppard. The only legitimate offices within the Body of Christs administration areelder and deacon. In our current Judeo-Christian atmosphere, the attributes ascribed tothe words pastor and rabbis have gone beyond mere nouns describing a function.Furthermore, the disagreement was not with Jewish culture at all; it was with a directaffront to Jesus dictates that His disciplesthose future leaders, which hopefully weareare not to receive from anyone the title of Rabbi. Jesus is a jealous God and will nothave anyone other than Him as Rabbi or Pastor in our lives. This is in accord with thefollowing passage in Jeremiah:

Jer. 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

Jer. 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers inthe day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the landof Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband

unto them, saith the LORD:Jer. 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of

Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in theirinward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, andthey shall be my people.

Jer. 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour ,and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall

11


14/64

all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saiththe LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember theirsin no more.

Once the Holy Spirit writes Torah in our hearts, we do not need anyone to teach us whatit says. The Holy Spirit fell on and indwelt the believers at Pentecost (Shavuot), as wellas with us when we believe, so that He would teach us. Granted, Faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17). We come together, have holy convocations, to hear the Word of God in the Torah and the Prophets to encourage and bolster our trust in His faithfulness and power. We are created in Christ Jesus untogood works, which God had before ordained and enumerated in the Law and theProphets that we should walk in them (Ephesians 2:10). To reiterate, Jesus wasadamant that He, the Messiah, is the only Rabbi His disciples need (Matthew 23: 8) andthat is the reason why they should not receive that title: But be not ye called Rabbi: forone is your Rabbi, even Christ ; and all ye are brethren , the very word the Messianicleader did not want used when addressing him.

I can understand the reason why some would assimilate the Jewish culture toreach Jews who have been indoctrinated that Jesus did away with the Law of God.However, if we take into account the givens mentioned earlier, the protocol is to obey Jesus regardless of how offensive that obedience is; it is better to offend a culture thanto offend God Himself. Jesus was constantly offending the Pharisees and the extra- biblical religious culture they created; no, he was blasting it at every turn. In the samepassage, he called those learned, trained Rabbis hypocrites, white-washed sepulchers,and generation of vipers. To remain true to Jewish tradition and culture beyond that which is Torah-based, Mr. Janicki and others must interject the non-existent contextthat Jesus is talking about the unlearned disciple receiving unearned honor, ignoring, atthe very least, the Greek syntax and the forceful commandment. There is nothing in thecontext of this passage giving the slightest indication that Jesus is addressing Hisdisciples lack of rabbinical training. By taking that stance, they are relegating Jesusexpounding of the Torah concerning His jealousy of being the only Rabbi to the status of actually condoning the Rabbis being called by that title. The fact that none of thedisciples were Rabbis and that none of them who later became leaders in the churchever called each other or had others call them Rabbi or Master in any of the epistlesshows that they took Jesus words as a commandment just as biding as Thou shall notcommit adultery. If they called themselves anything, they called themselves servantsand brothers, a humble demonstration that the disciples present at the event in theMatthew passage took a literalistic approach to Jesus words. Therefore, taking theliteralistic approach in the Messianic Rabbis congregation, as in many MessianicJewish congregations across our nation, will jeopardize the child of Gods interfacing

with that congregation, quenching the out-working of his or her spiritual gifts. That is afabricated exclusivity that flies in the face of God and His Torah. If faced with the choiceof being loyal to a culture and being loyal to Jesus teaching, we must take the latter. Anything in the Messianic Jewish culture that goes against Jesus teachings in the New Testament must fall by the way side. Jesus said, in John 13:35 By this shall all m en know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another, not by assimilating theJewish culture, or creating an extra-biblical Western Christian culture for that matter.He also said in John 14:15 If you love me, keep my commandments.

12


15/64

Jesus, as Lord and God, legislated this direct commandment in the Torah of theNew Covenant precisely to counteract the reverence and honor the Jewish culture gave,and still gives, to Rabbis and Pharisees, an honor and reverence that bordered onidolatry. The bottom line is this: any expectation and demands on congregants otherthan what the Torah of God and His Christ dictate is a violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 and

12:32. No culture, not even the Jewish one, has the authority to usurp the mandates of Jesus. The Messianic Jewish congregations who teach that adherence to the Jewishculture as a condition requisite for obedience and spirituality are committing the samelogical error made as the Messianic congregation mentioned in the first section above.Before being quick to point any boastful finger, Protestant churches globally make thesame error by following the Catholic Churchs teaching that the new Sabbath is Sunday,again exalting culture and man-made tradition over plain, Scriptural mandates.

No SabbathThe following study of the Gospels concerning the day Jesus died and rose from

the dead is the foundational rebuttal to Christendoms adherence to observing Sunday as the Day of the Lord on which His Body is to congregate. Many often used Mark 16:9as a proof text of the adherence, although some scholars hold that it should not be in theBible because older texts of Mark do not have verses 9 through the end of the chapter.For the purpose of this study, I will assume that the text is authentic.

It is imperative to rely on English grammatical rules and the Greek wordsthemselves in order to come to the appropriate translation. It is very easy for someoneto work backwards from a pre-disposed conclusion and force the evidence to fit it.However, the evidence in the words themselves and the grammatical construction donot support the popular belief that he rose on Sunday. It also has no air of authority 19 clearly mandating a change of the day for weekly worship. In addition, I will also show the anti-Christ origins of the doctrine.

Mark 16:9 is making a historical statement of when Jesus and Mary Magdalenefirst saw each other, which was on the first day of the week. All the Gospels concur thatMary Magdalene initiated the effort to see Jesus at the sepulcher on Sunday, whichhappened to be the Feast of Firstfruits (this feast always falls on a Sunday) 20 . Because of

19 See Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:4. Jesus said that it is written what is the bread of our lives:every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Deuteronomy 8:3. And he humbled thee, and sufferedthee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that hemight make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of themouth of the LORD doth man live. Jesus did not say that our bread after He died would come from theapostles. We have to look at the words God spoke, most of which are found in the Old Testament, for ourspiritual food. Since Jesus is God, we also look to His words to be spiritually fed. There is no other sourceof spiritual food.

20 Howard, Kevin and Rothenthal, Marvin. The Feasts of the Lord , Zions Hope, Inc., 1997, p. 76.According to the Sadducees, later called the Karaite Jews, understood [the Feast of Firstfruits] to refer tothe first weekly Sabbath (Saturday) which occurred during the week of Passover season. Since the highpriest during the time of Jesus crucifixion was Caiaphas, and he was a Sadducee (see John 11:49, Acts5:17, John Gill's Exposition of the En tir e Bible , Mat th ew Henry 's Com m enta ry on th e W hole Bible , and

13


16/64

the repetition of an erroneous tradition, theologians, and subsequently pastors, havetaken a historical fact, an event, a culture, like the leaders of the congregations and theirdoctrines discussed above, and exalted it to the level of a commandment whilediminishing the actual commandment, usurping the clear Word of God. Keeping inmind the givens enumerated at the beginning of this essay, even if Jesus rose from the

dead on the first day of the week, the mere fact that the disciples met on that day doesnot in any way negate the commandment of God to keep the Sabbath day holy:

Exodus 20:8 Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Exodus 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

Exodus 20:10 But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD thy God: init thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter,thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, andall that in them is , and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.

No commandment takes up as many verses as the fourth commandment. I have oftenheard that if God repeats something, it is important to Him. The word Sabbath ismentioned 137 times in the entire Bible; that is in the King James translation alone. If God is immutable, then how is it that those who call themselves by His name somehow have come to believe that their new Sabbath is Sunday? The one man who requires to becalled Holy Fatherthe Popeis one who took it upon himself to change Gods timesand laws, again, a violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32, by syncretizing the ancientpagan ritual of sun worship with practices of the early, before 325 A.D, body of believersin a Jewish Messiah.

Through the Reformation, the Protestant churches severed their ties with theCatholic Church, the Vatican, and the Pope concerning very few, though significant,issues, the most important being that salvation comes by grace through faith, not by works or through indulgences. One of the practices that remained, however, was the worship of God on a day He did not ordain. Here are some quotes from Catholichistorical, academic, and literary documents concerning Sabbath, Sunday, and by whatauthority the change came to be Christian dogma.

Albert Barn es' Notes on th e Bible ), it is more likely that the high priest celebrated the Feast on Sunday,the first day of the week, instead of immediately after the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which always fell on the 15th day of Nisan, an opinion the Pharisees and scribes held. (See also Sinister Players in the Sovereign Plan of Redem ption , John McArthur, Grace to You 2005-2008, accessed athttp://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/42-267.htm : The elders of the people would be the ones who madeup the Sanhedrin, they were a part of it as well. You could just throw everybody in there. The Sadducees were there, as well, another religious sect because they ran the temple enterprise and the Chief PriestCaiaphas was a Sadducee. All of the leadership of Israel is involved in this chief priests and scribesidentification. And theyre seeking how they might put Him to death. Howard and Rothenthal, however,quote Josephus as stating the following: But on the second day of unleavened bread, which is thesixteenth day of the month, they first partake of the fruits of the earth, for before that day they do nottouch them. ( An tiq uities of th e Jew s 3.10.5). Since there was much animosity between the Sadducees andPharisees, it is unlikely that the Sadducee High Priest Caiaphas would have celebrated Firstfruits on theday other than what the Sadducees held to be correct. I am with the Sadducees on this issue.

14
http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/42-267.htmhttp://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/42-267.htm


17/64

W ebsters In terna tional Dictionary , 19 th Edition : Sunday: so called because this day was anciently dedicated to the sun, or its worship.

John Gilmary Shea , in the Am erican Catholic Quart erly R eview , January 1883. Protestantism, in discarding the authority of the Roman [Catholic]Church, has no good reasons for its Sunday theory, and ought logically tokeep Saturday as the Sabbath.

Am erican Sentinal, Father Enright, June 1893. The bible says rememberthat thou keep holy the Sabbath day. The Catholic Church says No! by my divine power I abolish the Sabbath day and command you to keep holy thefirst day of the week. And lo the entire civilized world bows down inreverent obedience to the command of the holy Catholic Church.(Emphasis added.)

The Catholic Mirror , December 23, 1893. Reason and common sensedemand the acceptance of one or the other of these alternatives: eitherProtestantism and the keeping holy of Saturday, or Catholicity and the

keeping holy of Sunday. Compromise is impossible.The Catholic Mirror , September 23, 1893. The Christian Sabbath istherefore to this day the acknowledged offspring of the Catholic Church, asspouse of the Holy Ghost, without a word of remonstrance from theprotestant world.

Catholic World , March 1894, p. 809. She [the Catholic Church] took thepagan Sunday and made it the Christian Sunday and thus the paganSunday, dedicated to Balder, became the Christian Sunday sacred toJesus.

Catholic Press (Sidney) , August 25, 1900. Sunday is a Catholic

institution, and its claims to observance can be defended only on CatholicprinciplesFrom the beginning to the end of Scripture there is not a singlepassage which warrants the transfer of weekly public worship from the lastday of the week to the first. (Emphasis added.)

Albert Sm ith, Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, replying for theCardinal in the letter dated February 10, 1920. If Protestants wouldfollow the Bible, they should worship God on the Sabbath Day. In keepingthe Sunday they are following a law of the Catholic Church.

S. C. Mosna, Storia d ella Domenica , 1969, pp. 366-67. Not the Creator of the Universe, in Genesis 2:1-3, but the Catholic Church can claim thehonor of having granted man a pause to his work every seven days.

A Bible Cyclopedia , page 561, John Eadie, D.D., LL. D. SabbathA Hebrew word signifying restSunday as a name given by the heathens tothe first day of the week because it was the day on which they worshippedthe sun.

Schaff-Herza Encyclopedia : Sunday: ( Dies Solis of the Roman calendar,day of the sun, being dedicated to the sun), the first day of the week.

15


18/64

The Conver ts Chatechism of Catholic Doctrine (1946 , p. 50 ). These arethe actual pages (by the way, the Sabbath commandment is not the thirdcommandment; it is the fourth):

Note that the claims of authority made in this catechism are the same claims protestantand Baptist doctrines make, the faulty logic being that, because Jesus rose on Sunday (an assumption refuted in Yes Sabbath, No Sunday below) coupled with the plenitudeof divine power which He bestowed on her (the Catholic Church specifically, not theBody of Christ as a whole), it is theologically sound to conclude that Sunday cansubstitute Saturday as the Lords Day with no violation of Gods mandates.

Catholic Record , September 1, 1923. Sunday is our mark 21 of authorityThe church is above the Bible and this transference of Sabbathobservance is proof of that fact. (Emphasis added.)

21 Compare the statement with Exodus 31:13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my Sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that yemay know that I am The Lord that doth sanctify you:, and 31:17 It is a sign between me and the childrenof Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. One of the meanings for the word sign in Stron gs Concordan ce number 226 is mark. Also, consider that our signature or mark, for those who cannot write, on a document is our attestation to what precedes it. The Sabbath is Gods attestation, signature, mark, of the evidence that he created the

16


19/64

Faith of Our Fathers , Cardinal James Gibbons. The Scriptures enforcethe religious observance of Saturday. * * * Of course the Catholic Churchclaims that the change was her act, and the act is a MARK of herecclesiastical power. (Emphasis added.)

The Roman Decretalia: He [Pope] can pronounce sentences and judgments in contradiction to the rights of nations, to the law of God andman He can free himself from the commands of the apostles, he beingtheir superior, and from the rules of the old testament The Pope haspower to change times , to abrogate laws , and to dispense with allthings, even the precepts of Christ. ( Decretal, de Transla t. Ep iscop, Cap) (Emphasis added.) [Does this sound familiar?]

Here are some quotes from Protestant and Baptist literature concerning Sunday:

AnglicanChurch and People , September 1, 1947, Rev. Lionel Beere. Many peoplethink that Sunday is the Sabbath, but neither in the New Testament nor in

the early church, is there anything to suggest that we have any right totransfer the observance of the seventh day of the week to the first. TheSabbath was and is Saturday and not Sunday

Toronto Daily News , October 26, 1949. Reverend Philip Carrington, Anglican Archbishop of Quebec, sent local clergymen into a huddle today by saying outright that there was nothing to support Sunday being keptholy. Carrington definitely told a church meeting in this city of straight-laced Protestantism that tradition, not the Bible, had made Sunday the day of worship.

Episcopal Manual of Christ ian Doct rine , p. 127. Is there any command in the New Testament to change the day of weekly rest from Saturday to Sunday?None.

W hy W e Keep Sunday , p. 28. We have made a change from the seventhday to the first day, from Saturday to Sunday, on the authority of the oneholy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ.

MethodistChristian Advocate , July 2, 1942, H. F. Rall. Take the matter of Sundaythere is no passage telling Christians to keep that day, or totransfer the Jewish Sabbath to that day.

BaptistDr. Edward T. Hiscox, (author of the Baptist Manual) New York MinistersConference, November 13, 1893. There was and is a commandment to

heavens and the earth. For the Pope to change the biblical Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, he is inessence saying that he is god above Christ, because he can change Gods times and laws. That makes himthe creator of something which the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did not create. That is the epitomeof anti-Christ. This is a very serious matter, especially for those who believe in Jesus as Christ, but are inthe ranks of obeying the mandates of as blatant of an anti-Christ as the Pope and his Church are.

17


20/64

keep holy the Sabbath day, but that Sabbath day was not Sunday There isno Scriptural evidence of the change of the Sabbath institution from theseventh day to the first day of the week.

LutheransThe Aug sburg Confession , in Catholic Sabbath Man ual , Part 2, section 10.The observance of the Lords Day (Sunday) is found not on any commandof God, but on the authority of the church.

CongregationalistsThe Ten Com m andm ents , pp. 100-01, Dr. R. W. Dale. It is quite clear thathowever rigidly or devoutly we spend Sunday, we are not keeping theSabbath

PresbyterianThe Christian Sabbath , p. 60, N. L. Rice. A change of the day to beobserved from the last day of the week to the first. There is no record, noexpress command, authorizing the change.

The following quotes address the issue of Sunday worship as a tradition. Keep in mindConstantine, who, in his efforts to unify the Roman Empire, chose the now-calledChristian faith as the national religion, changing the worship day to Sunday, to honorthe god he worshipped: the Sun.

Ecclesiast ical History , book 5, chapter 22, NPNF 2 nd series, V.2, p. 132.Almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries(the Lords Supper) on the Sabbath of every weekyet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, haveceased to do this. (Emphasis added.)

Catholic Record , September 17, 1893. Sunday is founded not on

Scripture, but on tradition, and is a distinctly Catholic institution.(Emphasis added.)

Cannon and Tradition , p. 263. The authority of the church couldtherefore not be bound to the authority of the Scriptures, because theChurch had changedSabbath into Sunday, not by the command of Christ, but by its own authority. (See Acts 20: 29-30)

The New Revised Baltimore Catechism , 1949, p. 139. The New Testamentmakes no explicit mention that the apostles changed the day of worship, but we know it from tradition. (Emphasis added.)

For the Pope, through the vehicle of the Catholic Church, to bestow upon himself the

power and authority to change the times, 22 the days, and the seasons is an act of treason against God, because he has made the law of God, like the Rabbis and Pharisees,of no effect, distorting it like the image in a broken mirror, obscuring the true Messiah, who was very Jewish. The Sunday-worship doctrine is close to immutable, not only because of centuries of the unquestioned repetitious observance of the Catholic custom,

22 Daniel 7:25. And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out thesaints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until atime and times and the dividing of time.

18


21/64

but also because admitting otherwise will cause us to practice something that is Jewish.It would not be surprising if the Pope is Anti-Christ. A rebuttal of this custom gonecommandment must be presented verse by verse.

On his website, Pastor John McArthur of Grace to You has a short essay on thesubject entitled Are the Sabbath laws binding on Christians today? found athttp://www.gty.org/Resources/Issues&Answers/598 . I have kept the hyperlinks of theScriptures to facilitate access to the texts he references from the English Standard Version (ESV). 23 To avoid having to go back and forth from the passage to my comments, they are inserted in [brackets]; pastor McArthurs text is in italics. Here ispastor McArthur:

We believe the Old Testament regulations governing Sabbath observances areceremonial, not moral, aspects of the law. As such, they are no longer in force, but have passed away along with the sacrificial system, the Levitical priesthood, and allother aspects of Moses' law that prefigured Christ [the weekly Sabbath is not solely connected with ceremonial requirements connected to the Temple, the sacrifices, andthe priesthood; it was antecedent to them.] Here are the reasons w e hold this v iew .

1. In Colossians 2:16-17 , Paul explicitly refers to the Sabba th as a shadow of Christ,which is no longer binding since the substance (Christ) has come . [Thesurrounding text of the passage from the ESV is as follows:

Col. 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit,according to human tradition , according to the elemental spirits of the

world , and not according to Christ. [Remember Jesus disdain for the traditionsof men. Here, Paul is not addressing the commandments of God .]

Col. 2:9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,

Col. 2:10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and

authority.Col. 2:11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made

without hands [Remember the Galatians? The Judaizers were telling them thatthey must be circumcised in the flesh to be truly saved and sanctified .] by puttingoff the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,

Col. 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from thedead.

Col. 2:13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our

trespasses,Col. 2:14 by canceling the record of debt [The record of debt is the indictmentagainst us, not the Torah. It is the indictment because of transgression; Jesus

23 To access them, simultaneously depress the control (Ctrl) key on your keyboardif you arereading on the computerwhile single-clicking on the hyperlinked Scripture passage. You must beconnected to the internet for the web page to open. Other referenced Bibles are KJV (King James Version)and NAS (New American Standard).

19
http://www.gty.org/Resources/Issues&Answers/598http://bible.logos.com/passage/esv/Colossians%202.16-17http://bible.logos.com/passage/esv/Colossians%202.16-17http://www.gty.org/Resources/Issues&Answers/598


22/64

satisfied the indictment through His blood sacrifice during Passover] that stoodagainst us [Torah is always for us, not against us] with its legal demands. This heset aside, nailing it to the cross [He did not nail the Law of God to the cross.]

Col. 2:15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities [scribes and Pharisees] andput them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

Col. 2:16 Therefore [Remember the old adage about therefore: find out whatits there for. Therefore (because) Jesus disarmed the rulers and authorities-- andput them to open shame] let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. [If Paul isadmonishing them not to allow the rulers and authorities to judge them when itcomes to their observance of Gods commandments, it follows that the Colossians were following Gods commandments without keeping the man-made laws andtraditions .]

Col. 2:17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs toChrist. [Jesus is the substance of the Sabbaths, feasts, new moons, and the Torah

itself and, as a shadow of things to come , they are still in the future, not passedaway.]

Col. 2:18 Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuousmind,

Col. 2:19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body,nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with agrowth that is from God.

Col. 2:20 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world , why,as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations [Mans

regulations]--Col. 2:21 "Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch"

Col. 2:22 (referring to things that all perish as they are used)-- according toh u m a n precepts and teachings?

Col. 2:23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no valuein stopping the indulgence of the flesh.]

It is qu ite clea r in those verses tha t the w eek ly Sabbath is in view . The phrase "a fest ival or a new m oon or a Sa bbath day" refers to the annual, m on thly , and w eekly holy day s of the Jew ish calendar (cf . 1 Chronicles 23:31 ; 2 Chronicles 2:4 ;31:3 ; Ezekiel 45:17 ; Hosea 2:11 ). If Pau l w ere referring to special cerem on ialdates of rest in that passage, why w ould he hav e used the w ord "Sabbath?" Hehad a lready m entioned the cerem onial dates w hen he spoke of festivals and n ewmoons.

2. The Sabbath was the sign to Israel of the Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 31:16-17 ;Ezekiel 20:12 ; Nehemiah 9:14 ). Since we are now under the New Covenant (Hebrews 8). [Hebrews 8:8-12 quotes verbatim Jeremiah 31:31-34, with

20
http://bible.logos.com/passage/esv/1%20Chronicles%2023.31http://bible.logos.com/passage/esv/2%20Chronicles%202.4http://bible.logos.com/passage/esv/2%20Chronicles%2031.3http://bible.logos.com/passage/esv/Ezekiel%2045.17http://bible.logos.com/passage/esv/Hosea%202.11http://bible.logos.com/passage/esv/Exodus%2031.16-17http://bible.logos.com/passage/esv/Ezekiel%2020.12http://bible.logos.com/passage/esv/Nehemiah%209.14http://bible.logos.com/passage/esv/Nehemiah%209.14http://bible.logos.com/passage/esv/Ezekiel%2020.12http://bible.logos.com/passage/esv/Exodus%2031.16-17http://bible.logos.com/passage/esv/Hosea%202.11http://bible.logos.com/passage/esv/Ezekiel%2045.17http://bible.logos.com/passage/esv/2%20Chronicles%2031.3http://bible.logos.com/passage/esv/2%20Chronicles%202.4http://bible.logos.com/passage/esv/1%20Chronicles%2023.31


23/64

emphasis on verse Jer 31:33: But this is the covenant that I will make with thehouse of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my la w withinthem, and I will write it on their hearts . And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. In the time of Jeremiah, what was Gods law? It was the Law God gave to Moses on tablets of stone; the new covenant is the same law written,

instead, in the hearts of men, and Jesus its only Rabbi. That is the only difference. Jesus is not the end, as in the termination, of the law; He is the end, asin goal, bulls-eye, of the law. Once He fulfilled all the prophesies regardingHimself in the Law and the Prophets, all that is left are doable laws that weshould delight to do because we love Him. As Jesus Himself said, If you love me, you will keep my commandments. Furthermore, Hebrews emphatically statesthere remains a Sabbath day for the people of God: Heb 4:9 There remaineththerefore a r e s t to the people of God. The Greek word here for rest isSabbatismos (Strongs 4520), which comes from Sabbaton (Strongs 4521: Of Hebrew origin [H7676: Intensive from H7673; intermission, that is,(specifically) the Sabbath : - (+ every) sabbath.]; the Sabbath (that is,Shabbath ), or day of weekly repose from secular avocations (also theobservance or institution itself ), not Katapausis (Strongs 2663: From G2664;reposing down, that is, (by Hebraism) abode: - rest.), which is the word used inthe rest of Hebrews 4. Therefore, there remains a Sabbath day, a Hebrew Sabbathday, for Gods people, which we are .] we are no longer required to observe thesign of the Mosaic Covenan t. [Romans 11 addresses the fact that only those Jews who do not accept the Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah were cut off from thecultivated olive tree, making room for Gentiles (wild olive branches) who do believe in Christ to be grafted-in where the natural branch was cut off. Paulreminds the Romans in verse 11:23 that And even they, if they do not continue intheir unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.There is only one Israel and one nation of the people of God, not two. The MosaicCovenant written in our hearts is the New Covenant; therefore, Hiscommandments apply to the Gentiles who are grafted in.]

3. The New Testament never commands Christians to observe the Sabbath . [TheNew Testament never states that God repealed his law, and it did not have tocommand Christians to observe it because the first Christians were Jews who were already observing it .]

4. In our on ly glim pse of an early chu rch w orship ser vice in the New Testam ent,the church m et on the first day of the w eek ( Acts 20:7 ). [As stated later on in thisessay, this passage is just making a historical statement about a dinner and thesubsequent events that followed leading to Eutychus resurrection. Remember

again, the Jewish day starts at sundown; therefore, it makes sense that afterSabbath observance is over at sundown, the believers got together the evening of the first day to eat (break bread).]

5. Now here in the Old Testam ent ar e the Gentile nations com m anded to obser vethe Sabbath or condemned for failing to do so. That is certainly strange if Sabbath observan ce were m eant to be an eternal moral principle . [Quite true:God did not command heathen nations to keep his commandments, but He didcommand the Gentile strangers living within the gates of Israel to keep them. See

21
http://bible.logos.com/passage/esv/Acts%2020.7http://bible.logos.com/passage/esv/Acts%2020.7


24/64

footnote 23 . Remember also that Abraham, who was not an Israelite or Jew,obeyed Gods commandments, statutes, and laws.]

6. There is no evidence in the Bible of any one keeping the Sabba th before the tim eof Moses, nor are there any commands in the Bible to keep the Sabbath beforethe giving of the law at Mt. Sinai . [Galatians 3:19 states that the Law (Torah, which literally means Teaching or, like Paul correctly states schoolmaster ortutor was added because of transgression . Transgression of what? Surely, Mosesdid not write that God declared any law prior to Exodus 20. However, God madeHis intentions about the Sabbath known from the beginning, to make it holy, andthe fact that it is the seventh is consistent with His importance of number sevenin much of the Law and the Prophets (the seventh day, Sabbath), the seven weeksplus one day (Pentecost), seventh month (TabernaclesLeviticus 23:41,Deuteronomy 16:9-10), the seventh year (Sabbath for the earthExodus 23:11,Leviticus 25:4), the fiftieth year, seven times seven years plus one day, (the yearof JubileeLeviticus 2:8-13ff). It is not far fetched to infer that, if the Law wasadded because of transgression, that some law had to exist for pre-Exodus

people to transgress against it. Since the Sabbath is irrevocably tied to Creation,God could have declared a barebones law in the Garden, since at that time, Godhad a face-to-face relationship with man, even after the fall. For example, it isobvious that Genesis 4 mentions an acceptable and unacceptable offering untoGod, which could be a reference to a law God spoke to the pre-Noah population.Furthermore, concerning Abraham, God said Genesis 26:4 I will multiply youroffspring as the stars of heaven and will give to your offspring all these lands. Andin your offspring all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, Genesis 26:5 because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments ,my statutes , and my laws ." (ESV) Tithing also existed before the time of Moses.It is not inconceivable that the pre-Noah, and subsequently, the pre-Moses

population knew to keep Sabbath holy.]7. When the Apostles met at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15), they did not impose

Sabbath keeping on the Gentile believers . [They did impose dietary laws, whichthe Church does not keep either. Were they not done away with also? The factthat the Sabbath was not mentioned does not preclude that the apostles did notteach it or observe it (Acts 13:44). The New Testament is full of passages wherethe apostles taught on Sabbath in the synagogues. If we adhere to the argumentthat Christians worship on Sunday because the apostles had dinner (broke bread)on the first day of the week, then it follows that Christians should then teach theGospel in synagogues on the seventh day of the week.]

8. The apostle Paul warned the Gentiles about many different sins in his epistles,but breaking the Sabbath was never one of them . [This argument does notpreclude that the apostles did not teach and keep the Sabbath.]

9. In Galatians 4:10-11 , Paul rebukes the Galatians for t hinking God expected themto observe special days (including the Sabbath) . [Remember the rule of interpreting vague passages with clear ones? If Paul was rebuking the Galatiansagainst keeping the Sabbaths and the feasts, then why did he himself keep them?See references to New Testament observances of Sabbath and feasts below. The

22
http://bible.logos.com/passage/esv/Galatians%204.10-11http://bible.logos.com/passage/esv/Galatians%204.10-11


25/64

main thesis of Galatians is salvation. We are saved only by grace through faith, but not by circumcision or the keeping of any Sabbath or feast. However, if welove the God who died for us to save us, we must keep His commandments (John14:15).]

10. In Romans 14:5 , Paul forbids those who observe the Sabbath (these were nodoubt J ew ish believers) to condem n those who do not (Gentile believers) . [Paulslanguage does not forbid anything; rather, he rebukes the act of judging oneanother, not the act of observing of the Sabbath. The two main issues are thehonoring of one day over another and the eating of certain foods. Paul does notmention the Sabbath with specificity here; therefore, the issue is not clear andmust be brought to light by clearer passages. It is easy to make the assumptionthat he is talking about the Sabbath because of our cultural bias. Paul rebukes the weak, those who eat only vegetables, for judging those who eat vegetables andmeat, and vice versa. Also, the ESV has a different take on Romans 14:6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats [meat],eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who

abstains [from eating meat], abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks toGod. Compare this verse with the KJV: He that regardeth the day, regardeth itunto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regardit. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eatethnot, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. The underlined portion inKJV is not in the ESV, or the NASB for that matter. Staying true with pastorMcArthurs use of the ESV, verse 6 only contrasts being vegetarian with beingcarnivorous. Concerning the keeping of the day, however, there is no contrast,and Paul states that he who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord.There is no mention that he who observes any or every day observes it or themin honor of the Lord. This is a very curious and telling discrepancy. If we stay

with the ESV, the version pastor McArthur uses, then this verse actually supportsthe observance of the Sabbath to honor the Lord. ]

11. The early church fathers, from Ignatius to Augustine, taught that the Old Testament Sabbath had been abolished and that the first day of the week (Sunday ) w as the day w hen Christians should m eet for w orship (contrary to theclaim of many seventh-day sabbatarians who claim that Sunday worship wasnot instituted until the fourth century). [Ignatius and Augustines teachings, if they stray from the plain, express, law from Gods proverbial lips, have as muchconsequence upon the believer in Jesus as did the traditions of the Pharisees andthe scribes: none. Perhaps these and their theological ancestors are the very typeof heretical men against whom Paul warned the Galatians, because these men

taught contrary to Gods plain commandments and diminished them. Therefore,it is a clear indication that their teachings are heretical and should be avoided, being precepts outside the purview of Gods Word. There is no indicationanywhere in the entire Bible that God delegated authority to any man to changeHis Word. God is so serious about His Word that He has magnified it above HisName (Ps. 138:2). If He plainly ordained it, He, and only He, can plainly repeal it.He has done no such thing. On His steadfastness and predictable immutability we can soundly and confidently rely .]

23
http://bible.logos.com/passage/esv/Romans%2014.5http://bible.logos.com/passage/esv/Romans%2014.5


26/64

12. Sunday has not replaced Saturday as the Sabbath. Rather the Lord's Day is atime when believers gather to commemorate His resurrection, which occurred on the first day of the week . [This essay refutes this assumption beyondreasonable doubt; therefore, the premise that we must meet on Sunday becauseJesus rose on a Sunday is groundless and anything built upon it is logically

erroneous .] Ev ery day to the believ er is one of Sa bbat h rest , sin ce w e haveceased from our spiritual labor and are resting in the salvation of the Lord (Hebrews 4:9-11 ). [This has been addressed above .]

So while we still follow the pattern of designating one day of the week a day for the Lord's peop le to gather in w orsh ip, w e do not refer to this as "the Sabbat h" [and rightly so.]

John Calv in w rote ,

There were three reasons for giving this [fourth] com m andm ent: First, with theseventh da y of rest the Lord w ished to give to the people of Israel an im age of spiritualrest, whereby believers m ust cease from t heir ow n w orks in order to let the Lord w ork

in them . Secondly, he w ished that there be an established day in w hich believers m ight assem ble in order to hear his Law a nd w orship him . Thirdly, he w illed that one day of rest be granted to servants an d to those w ho live und er the pow er of others so that theymight have a relaxation from their labor. The latter, however, is rather an inferred than a p rincipal reason.

As to t he fir st reason, there is no doubt that it ceased in Christ ; because he is thetruth by the presence of which all images vanish. He is the reality at whose advent allshadows are abandoned. Hence St. Paul (Col. 2:17 ) that the sabbath has been a shadowof a reality yet to be. And he declares elsewhere its truth when in the letter to the

Rom ans, ch. 6:8, he teaches us that w e are buried w ith Christ in order tha t by hisdeath w e m ay die to the corruption of our flesh. And t his is not done in one day , but

during all the course of our life, until altogether dead in our own selves, we may be filled w ith the life of God. Hence, superst it ious obser van ce of da ys m ust rem ain fa r fr om Christ ians.

The two last reasons, however, must not be numbered among the shadows of old. Rather, they are equally valid for all ages. Hence, though the sabbath isabrogated, it so happens among us that we still convene on certain days in order tohear the word of God, to break the [mystic] bread of the Supper, and to offer public

prayers; and, m oreov er, in order tha t som e relaxa tion from their toil be given toservants and w orkingm en. As our hum an w eakness does not allow such assem blies tom eet every day , the day observed by the Jews has been tak en aw ay (as a good device

for elim inating superst it ion ) an d an other day ha s been dest ined to th is use. This w asnecessary for securing and maintaining order and peace in the Church. [It issomewhat absurd that Calvin abrogates the Sabbath, a day on which God expressly ordained for us to convene to hear His Word, and condones for us to meet to hear His Word on some other day which God did not ordain. Also, to call something that Godordained as a superstition borders on arrogance.]

As the tru th therefore w as given to the Jew s un der a fig ure, so to us on thecontrary truth is shown w ithout shadow s in order, first of all, that w e m editate all our

24
http://bible.logos.com/passage/esv/Hebrews%204.9-11http://bible.logos.com/passage/esv/Col.%202.17http://bible.logos.com/passage/esv/Col.%202.17http://bible.logos.com/passage/esv/Hebrews%204.9-11


27/64

life on a perpetual sabbath from our w orks so that the Lord m ay operate in us by hisspirit; secondly, in order that we observe the legitimate order of the Church for listening to the word of God, for adm inistering the sacram ents, and for public prayers;thirdly, in order that w e do not oppress inhum anly w ith work those w ho are subject tous. [From Instruction in Faith, Calvin's ow n 1537 digest of the In stitutes, sec. 8, "The

Law of the Lord "] . [Remember that Calvin came out of the Catholic Church and took with him much of its liturgy (he uses the word sacraments, which is a Catholic term). Itdoes not appear in the Bible. What does appear in the Bible is Passover. Commenting onCalvins rationale would be redundant.]

Notwithstanding the above, most pastors and laymen rely on eight sets of versesto support the view that, because Jesus saw Mary Magdalene on the first day of the week that therefore, He must have risen on the first day of the week, and, therefore, Godrepealing the observance of the seventh day as our Sabbath day of worship:

1. Matthew 28:1 After the Sabbath, in the early dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the sepulchre.

2.

Mark 16:1 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the motherof James, and Salome, bought spices, in order to come and anoint His body.

Mark 16:2 So, very soon after sunrise on the first day of the week, they cameto the tomb;

3. Mark 16:9 Now when Jesu s was risen early the first day of the week, heappeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

4. Luke 24:1 Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning,they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared,and certain others with them.

5. John 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from thesepulchre.

6. John 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of theJews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

7. Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples cametogether to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on themorrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

Act 20:8 And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they weregathered together.

Act 20:9 And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead.

Act 20:10 And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said,Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him.

25


28/64


29/64

mention of any restoration. The passage, like many others in this essay, is just making astatement: pray that the day on which you take flight because of the abomination of desolation is not on the Sabbath day. We do not have the scholarly authority to makemore out of it than what is it saying. Others say that Sabbath observance ceased after theresurrection; however, Acts 18:4 states that Paul was reasoning in the synagogue every

Sabbath, and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks NASB.Still others teach that the Lord Jesus refused to observe the Sabbath rules, thus

giving us the go-ahead to refuse to observe them. The passages used are those whenJesus healed on the Sabbath, or His disciples picked wheat from a field to eat becausethey were hungry. There is an assumption that healing or picking wheat to satiatehunger was a violation of the Law. Yet there are no such rules to be found in Torah;these rules were Talmudic rules, which Jesus detested. Note Mark 3:2, 4 And they were watching Him to see if He would heal him on the Sabbath, in order that they mightaccuse Him; v. 4 And He said to them, Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to doharm, to save a life or to kill? But they kept silent. These verses in Mark do not at allsupport the view that Jesus broke the Sabbath rules.

There are other passages which warrant attention. A Baptist pastor, a friend andclassmate of mine when we were at Miami Christian College, commented that Hebrews7:15-22 supports the annulment of the Ten Commandments:

Hebrews 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of whichtribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

Hebrews 7:15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,

Hebrews 7:16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

Hebrews 7:17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

Hebrews 7:18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandmentgoing before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

This passage is addressing the superiority of Jesus as high priest after the order of Melchisedec contrasted against the priests after the order of Aaron. In verse 22, theannulment of the commandment refers to the commandment in the law pertaining tothe priests and their duties; it does not refer to the Ten Commandments. My friendpastor uses Hebrews 10: 9b to support his view of Hebrews 7:22. However, and again,looking at the context of Hebrews 10:9b, we must consider the entire verse and theprevious verse:

Hebrews 10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and

Fly in the Ointment - The Error of Canonizing Tradition

Documents

Transcript of Fly in the Ointment - The Error of Canonizing Tradition