THE HEART OF TRUE CHRISTIANITY --- THE WEEKLY SABBATH #2

 From  the  book

THE ENGLISH   SUNDAY 

LECTURE  I  (1901)

THE HEBREW SABBATH

TO note and estimate widespread changes of opinion and practice is part of the business of the preacher. One such change seems particularly to demand consideration at the present time. Those who have reached middle life observe a difference between the observance of Sunday as it was in their youth and as it is in the present day. There were then many households both lay and clerical in which it was strictly observed; now there are few. By strict observance I mean abstinence from society, from games and amusements, and from ordinary secular reading and studies. On the other hand there were very few houses where Sunday was looked on as specially a day for receiving visitors and arranging parties for amusement. Now however there are many. 

[WOW  AND  THIS  WAS  BACK  IN  1901. I  GREW  UP  IN  THE  1940s AND 1950s. AND  SUNDAY  WAS  PRETTY  “CLOSE  UP  SHOP”  -  THE  TOWN  PRETTY  WELL  SHUT  DOWN;  NO  SPORTS,  ESPECIALLY  PRO  SPORTS  DONE.  AND  THESE  LECTURES  GIVEN  IN  1901  AND  THIS  MAN  FINDS  A  BIG  DIFFERENCE  THEN  -  Keith Hunt]

Between these two classes, the few who still are strict, and the many who regard Sunday as a free day to be used for society and recreation, there is a much larger class who have no definite convictions, are therefore undecided in their practice, and are being gradually drawn towards the laxer use, mainly by the influence of their children as they grow up. But there is also another influence which tells unfavourably for Sunday observance. There are those who will tell you that if you partake of Holy Communion at an early hour, or even if you are present without communicating at midday, you may then consider that the duty of worship has been discharged and the day is free to spend as you will. It is a feast day. You should amuse yourself and help to amuse others. You are to promote cricket, tennis and other games, and various examples of good men are quoted to encourage you in doing so. It is surely your duty to consider this movement of opinion which you observe taking place in your time and not merely to drift with the tide. You ought to take whatever line you do take from conviction, not from fashion.

It is  our duty as clergy to try and help you, to put before you honestly and critically the grounds on which Sunday observance has been supposed to rest, or actually does rest. I will not profess to enter on the subject in an undecided unformed frame of mind. I am convinced that the observance of Sunday in England as it has existed for the last two hundred years or more has its foundation in great religious and moral necessities, and in the will of God for our salvation.

[PRETTY  STRONG  WORDS  ABOVE  FOR  A  DAY (SUNDAY) THAT  NOT  ONE  WORD  CAN  BE  FOUND  IN  THE  ENTIRE  BIBLE  TO  MAKE   SUNDAY  A  HOLY  DAY,  OR  WORDS  TO  SAY  THE  WEEKLY  SABBATH  HAS  BEEN  TRANSFERRED   FROM  THE  7TH  DAY  SABBATH  TO  THE  FIRST  DAY  SUNDAY  -  Keith Hunt]

My aim will be constructive, to show you the true grounds of the observance, to deduce practical consequences, to help you if I can to value a possession which you still retain, that you may prevent its slipping away from us. I am not now advocating action by any societies. I daresay societies may do useful work, but what I want to stimulate is individual action, and a sense of individual responsibility on the part of those who are inclined to think that what they do, does not matter.

The first step in our inquiry will be to see what the Hebrew Sabbath was in its original form before it was overlaid in Judaism with the restrictions of the Scribes. The Judaic Sabbath is quite another matter, and will be treated separately in the next lecture. The distinction between the Hebrew and the Judaic Sabbath is vitally important. What we have to do is to see whether the Hebrew Sabbath was rooted in principles and needs still operative, in short to disentangle its essential character. 

The Lord has told us that it was made for man. We are to consider in what ways this was the case.

Do not however suppose that I am going to contend that the command to observe the seventh day is a command to observe the first day, or that there was any action either by Apostolical authority or by that of the primitive Church, which transferred the obligations of the seventh day to the first.  

We are not under the ceremonial law of Israel, and the law of the Sabbath is ceremonial although we find it in the Decalogue in the midst of religious and moral injunctions, as was natural in an age when those to whom the Commandments were given did not realize a distinction between moral and ceremonial law.

[MY  OH  MY  WHAT  A  DECEPTIVE  TALK  CONCERNING  CEREMONIAL  AND  NONE  CEREMONIAL  LAWS.  THE  OLD  PROTESTANT  COMMENTARIES  LIKE  ALBERT  BARNES   NEVER  FOUND  ANY  SUCH  IDEAS  AS  THIS  IN  THE  BIBLE.  THE  SABBATH  LAW  GOES  BACK  TO  CREATION  AND  WAS  PART  OF  THE  LAWS  OF  THE  COMMANDMENTS  OF  GOD  THAT  DEFINE  SIN—— SEE  MY  STUDY  “THE  TEN  COMMANDMENTS  BEFORE  MOSES”——  TO  JUST  SAY  “THE  4TH  COMMANDMENT  WAS  CEREMONIAL  THOUGH  INSIDE  A  CODE  OF  MORAL  LAW”  IS  AN  IDEA  FROM  PLANET  PLUTO;  WHICH  NOT  ONE  OF  THE  APOSTLES  OF  CHRIST  ENTERTAINED  FOR  ONE  SECOND,  AND  THEY  CERTAINLY  COULD  HAVE  TOLD  US  VERY  EASILY  IN  THEIR  NEW  TESTAMENT  WRITINGS  IF  THAT  WAS  THE  CASE;  IF  THE  7TH  DAY  SABBATH  WAS  ONLY  CEREMONIAL  AND  DID  NOT  HAVE  TO  BE  OBSERVED  TODAY.  PHYSICAL  CIRCUMCISION  WAS  A  HUGE  DEBATE,  SETTLED  IN   A  CONFERENCE (ACTS 15).  IF  THE  WEEKLY  7TH  DAY  SABBATH  WAS  NOT  TO  BE  OBSERVED  OR  CHANGED  FROM  SABBATH  TO  SUNDAY,  YOU  CAN  BE  SURE  IT  WOULD  HAVE  ALSO  BEEN  A  HUGE  DEBATE (SO  CRUCIAL  WAS  IT  TO  JEWISH  LIFE;  AS  CRUCIAL  AS  THE  PRIESTHOOD  AND  TEMPLE  RITUALS  WAS),  AND  WOULD  HAVE  TO  HAVE  HAD  A  CHURCH  CONFERENCE  ON  THE  MATTER,  JUST  AS  PHYSICAL  CIRCUMCISION  HAD  TO  BE  SETTLED  WITH  A  CHURCH  CONFERENCE.  THE  7TH  DAY  SABBATH  WAS  SO  IMPORTANT  TO  JEWISH  LIFE,  THE  SCRIBES  AND  PHARISEES  HAD  ABOUT  600  LAWS  GOVERNING  7TH  DAY  SABBATH  OBSERVANCE (WHICH  OF  COURSE  WAS  UTTERLY  WRONG)  AND  WAS  THEIR  THEOLOGY,  IT  WAS  NOT  FROM  GOD  -  Keith Hunt]

But my purpose is to show that what the Sabbath did, was to provide for deep needs of human nature, physical and spiritual. Those needs continue as strong as ever, and the Sunday meets them for us as the Sabbath did for Israel.

[BUT  GOD  NEVER  SAID  WE  COULD  MAKE  UP  OUR  OWN  RELIGION  AS  WE  SAW  FIT  FOR  WHATEVER  OUR  NEEDS  WERE.  IT  SHOULD  BE  EASY  TO  SEE,  IF  READING  THE  BIBLE,  GOD  IS  THE  LAW  GIVER  NOT  US.  IF  WE  COULD  DECIDE  WHAT  LAWS  WE  NEEDED  TO  FIT  INTO  OUR  LIFE-STYLE,  WE  WOULD  HAVE  ENDLESS  DEBATES  ON  WHAT  LAWS  ETC.  WE  HAVE  ENDLESS  “CHURCH  DENOMINATIONS”  BECAUSE  PEOPLE  DISAGREE  WITH  EACH  OTHER  OVER  UNDERSTANDING  THE  BIBLE  ITSELF;  HOW  MUCH  MORE  IT  WOULD  BE  IF  DEBATING  AMONG  OURSELVES  WHAT  LAWS  CHRISTIANS  SHOULD  HAVE  OR  NOT  HAVE.  THAT  WHOLE  MIND-SET  IS  SILLY,  LUDICROUS,  CRAZY,  AND  PLANET  PLUTO  THEOLOGY,  IT  IS  SO  FAR  OUT  -  Keith Hunt]

In short my position is, the essential identity of aim in the Hebrew Sabbath and the Christian Sunday in spite of very great superficial differences. If that be so, then the Sabbath may be in some degree a guide for the Sunday, making the amplest allowance for the widely different circumstances of different nations, and for the light and glory shed upon the day of rest by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

[SO  CONTINUES  THE  MIND-SET  OF  MAN  MADE  CHRISTIAN  RELIGION,  USING  THE  ORIGINAL  SABBATH  AS  KIND  OF  GUIDE  POST  FOR  SUNDAY,  WITH  ALLOWANCE  FOR  DIFFERENT  CIRCUMSTANCES  OF  DIFFERENT  NATIONS—— CONTINUING  UNDER  ALL  THAT  TO  MAKE  UP  YOUR  OWN  CHRISTIAN  RELIGION—— MORE  NINCOMPOOP  IDEAS  -  Keith Hunt]

What  truths  did  it  express (the  7th  day  Sabbath), what needs  did  it  meet?      

It has been suggested, and I think with good reason, that the original form of the Fourth Commandment as inscribed on the first table was simply, "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy”; and that the reasons for doing so added in Exodus and Deuteronomy are comments by the writer or writers. This would explain the difference between the two versions of the commandment, for they are different in the two books. However this may be, we may make use of these comments as inspired comments representing accurately different aspects of the Divine purpose. There are also other mentions of the Sabbath in the Pentateuch, probably (in their present form at least) of later date,1 of which account will be taken in our survey. Then we have also to consider the references in Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. Lastly we have the record of Nehemiah's endeavours to prevent trade and work on the Sabbath. Although strictly speaking these efforts belong to the history of the Sabbath in Judaism, they do not really go beyond the earlier practice in Israel. Amos viii. 5, bears witness to intermission of trade on the Sabbath in the eighth century, and that was all or nearly all which Nehemiah strove to ensure.

Putting together the various passages in which the Sabbath is mentioned, and allowing that notwithstanding their difference in date, they may be regarded as legitimate developments and mutually consistent, we have three principal aspects in which the Sabbath is presented to us in the Old Testament.    

These

……

1. Modern criticism ascribes these other enactments and narratives to a much later date, and takes them in some degree as representing a later strictness of feeling in regard to the Sabbath; as for instance the enforcement of Sabbath observance on pain of death (Ex. xxxi. 15, cp. Num. xv. 32-6); the forbidding of the kindling of fire (Ex. xxxv. 3); and the prohibition to gather or cook manna on the Sabbath (Ex. xvi. 23, 26). The question is fully dealt with in Art Sabbath, Hastings' "Diet, of Bible," vol. iv.

[NOPE  NO  LATER  DATES  NEEDED;  SABBATH  OBSERVANCE  OR  NON-OBSERVANCE  CARRIED  THE  SENTENCE  OF  SIN  WITH  IT,  AS  DO  THE  OTHER  9  COMMANDMENTS;  SIN  IS  BREAKING  THE  TEN  COMMANDMENT  LAW (1 JOHN 3:4; ROMANS 7:7; JAMES 2:10-12) -  JUST  THAT  SIMPLE,  A  CHILD  CAN  UNDERSTAND  IT,  I  SURE  DID  AS  A  KID  GROWING  UP  READING  THE  BIBLE  IN  A  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  SCHOOL  AND  SUNDAY  SCHOOL  FROM  AGE  7  AND  ON  -  Keith Hunt]

……

are (1) a day of cessation from labour; (2) a festival of redemption; (3) a sign of the relation between Israel and God.

(1) A day of cessation from labour. 

God so ordered his universe that His creatures on earth should have night as a season of rest. That was a gracious and necessary dispensation. But it was not sufficient for man in his developed and civilized state. The nation which He specially took in charge "as the bearer of revelation was to have a weekly day of rest as well. And the way in which this was brought about was by God claiming it for Himself. The possible Babylonian origin of the Sabbath does not affect our belief in divine guidance in this matter. It is now a familiar thought that much of common primitive Semitic custom was taken up into the law given to Israel and adapted to higher aims. The way to secure a day of rest for man was to make it God's day. Only so could it be kept from violation.  

[GOD  GAVE  US  A  DAY;  NO  NEED  FOR  US  TO  PICK  AND  CHOOSE;  THE  7TH  DAY  WAS  SANCTIFIED  FROM  THE  BEGINNING  IN  GENESIS  2.  IT  WAS  MADE  A  PART  OF  THE  GREAT  MORAL  LAW  OF  GOD,  THE  TEN  COMMANDMENTS.  IN  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  SCHOOL  I  ATTENDED,  WE  WERE  TO  MEMORIZE  THE  TEN  COMMANDMENTS  AS  GIVEN  IN  THE  FULL  VERSION  OF  EXODUS  20.  I  KNEW  EVERY  WORD;  I  KNEW  IT  POINTED  BACK  TO  GENESIS  2.  IT  WAS  AS  CLEAR  TO  ME  AS  A  CLOUDLESS  SKY;  IT  WAS  THE  7TH  DAY  TO  REMEMBER  TO  KEEP  HOLY,  NO  OTHER  DAY  OF  THE  WEEK,  BUT  THE  7TH  DAY  -  Keith Hunt]

     

What shall we say of this? The need of rest for body and mind is not less strong now than it was in Israel, nay, it is infinitely greater. Is not the original method of maintaining it the only sure method? See how the day of rest of our labouring classes is being invaded on all sides. It is becoming more and more apparent that the religious sanction is the only one which can ensure a general day of rest. The greediness of man for gain, the thoughtlessness of those who want amusement, and the competition trade break in on the day, and the original conception of observing one day in the week as holy to God is the only one which can preserve it as a day of rest for man.

[GOD  GIVES  US  THE  ONE  DAY  OF  REST—— IT  IS  THE  WEEKLY  7TH  DAY;  STATED  VERY  CLEARLY  BY  THE  4TH  OF  THE  GREAT  TEN  COMMANDMENTS.  YOU  CANNOT  MAKE  A  DAY  HOLY,  YOU  ARE  NOT  GOD;  ONLY  GOD  CAN  MAKE  A  DAY  HOLY,  AND  HE  ALREADY  HAS  DONE  FROM  THE  BEGINNING—— THE  7TH  DAY  OF  THE  WEEK  -  Keith Hunt] 

This is not as some may think, purring forward a superstitious and unreal reason to cover a merely utilitarian motive. For a true conception of the character and will of God is that He wills the good of man, and is served by all that serves it.

In relation to this point a difficulty arises as to the reason given in Ex. xx. 11, for the hallowing of the seventh day, namely the rest of God after Creation. The same reason is repeated in a still more anthropomorphic form in Ex. xxxi. 17, "He (God) rested and was refreshed (lit. took breath)." And apart from the anthropomorphism, the reason seems to involve the literal acceptance of the six day scheme of Creation. But throughout the Old Testament we find revelation strangely coloured by the circumstances and common Semitic beliefs of the nation through whom and to whom it was given. And making allowance for this we may perhaps say that what the Exodus form of the Fourth Commandment really seeks to impress, is that the order of nature, or rather of God working in nature, is an order of alternate action and rest. There was a period, a period of immense duration, during which God was preparing the world for man. Then there has succeeded a period, a comparatively short period, of a few thousand years during which apparently and from a merely human and relative point of view there has been no new creative action. Things remain as they were, and the history of man is unfolded under the conditions prepared for it. Here is a divine pattern of work and rest. But we must remember how distinctly our Lord protests against the idea of any real cessation of the Divine energy. "My Father worketh even until now, and I work " (John v. 17, R.V.).

[OH  THIS  GUY  IS  OBVIOUSLY  ONE  WHO  DOES  NOT  TAKE  AS  LITERAL  GENESIS  1….. FOR  HIM  IT  IS  A  “PERIOD  OF  IMMENSE  DURATION”  -  GOD  PREPARING  THE  WORLD  FOR  MANKIND;  SO  TO  HIM  THE  REST  GOD  DID  ON  THE  7TH  DAY  WAS  NOT  A  DAY  BUT  A  PERIOD  OF  TIME.  HENCE  YOU  THEN  MOVE  INTO  A  THEOLOGY  OF  NO  LITERAL  HOLINESS  OF  THE  7TH  DAY  OF  THE  WEEK;  IT  WAS  TO  HIM,  A  WAY  OF  PUTTING  WORK  AND  REST  OVER  AN  IMMENSE  PERIOD  OF  TIME  -  CLEVER  PLANET  PLUTO  THEOLOGY  OF  DECEPTION  -  Keith Hunt]

   

Israel was commanded to rest on the Sabbath, but the command had a distinctly philanthropic character. That is to say it was not only a commandment to the individual Israelite that he should himself rest, but still more that he should give rest to all those who were under his hand, whether members of his family, or slaves, or cattle. This is clear in Ex. xx. 10, but clearer still in xxiii. 12, and in Deut v. 14. Here again the original direction of the commandment meets our modern needs, and furnishes an analogy but not a direct ordinance for our behaviour to dependents.

[SO  ALLEGORY,  THIS  IS  NOT  LITERAL  BUT  ALLEGORICAL,  SOMETHING  REPRESENTING  SOMETHING;  AND  SO  YOU  CAN  MAKE  THE  BIBLE  SAY   ANYTHING  YOU  WANT  IT  TO  SAY,  JUST  AS  MANY  ATHEISTS  HAVE  SAID  TO  CHRISTIANS,  “YOU  CAN  MAKE  THE  BIBLE  SAY  ANYTHING  YOU  WANT  IT  TO  SAY”—— AGAINST  SUCH  USE  OF  THE  BIBLE  THERE  IS  NO  ANSWER.  ORIGEN  (2ND  CENTURY  THEOLOGIAN)  MADE  JUST  ABOUT  EVERYTHING  IN  THE  BIBLE  ALLEGORICAL  -  Keith Hunt]

Thus the first essential character of the Sabbath ordinance is that man needs rest, and needs to be compelled to allow rest to others. God takes a day from man and then gives it back to him. He is the true giver of all rest. From his hands we thankfully received it, as we also receive the duty of work. He gave Israel the sabbath rest. He through human agency and by gradual evolution has given us our English Sunday.

[WOW….DID YOU GET THAT?  “HE (GOD)  THROUGH  HUMAN  AGENCY  AND  BY  GRADUAL  EVOLUTION  HAS  GIVEN  US  OUR  ENGLISH  SUNDAY.”  WHERE  IN  THE  BIBLE  DID  GOD  SAY  HUMAN  PEOPLE  COULD  TAKE  THE  4TH  COMMANDMENT  INTO  THEIR  OWN  HANDS?  WHERE  IN  THE  BIBLE  DOES  IT  SAY  GOD  WOULD  BY  GRADUAL  EVOLUTION  GIVE  US  THE  1ST  DAY  TO  BE  A  HOLY  DAY?  IT  IS  JUST  NOT  THERE!  WHAT  THE  AUTHOR  IS  DOING  IS  LOOKING  AT  HISTORY,  SEEING  WHAT  DID  GRADUALLY - GRADUALLY - HAPPEN - AND  THEN  STATING  THIS  IS  HOW  GOD  DID  IT,  AS  LIKE  MEN  WERE  BEING  LED  BY  GOD  TO  SLOWLY  AND  GRADUALLY   OVER  TIME  CHANGE  THE  4TH  COMMANDMENT  FROM  THE  7TH  DAY  TO  THE  1ST  DAY.  WHAT  PROOF  FROM  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  DID  GOD  GIVE  THIS  POWER  TO  MEN?  IF  YOU  WANT  TO  QUOTE  ROMANS  14,  YOU  ARE  HOOPED,  FOR  THERE  PAUL  SAID  THE  MAN  COULD  HAVE  THIS  DAY  OR  THAT  DAY (THE  TRUTH  ON  THIS  CHAPTER  14  IS  COVERED  BY  MYSELF  IN  ANOTHER  STUDY),  NOT  THAT  HE  HAD  TO  CHOOSE  THE  1ST  DAY.  IF  YOU  WANT  TO  QUOTE  COL. 2:16;  WELL  FOR  MOST  PEOPLE  THAT  VERSE  IS  USED  TO  DO  AWAY  WITH  SABBATH  OBSERVANCE  ALTOGETHER,  SO  IT  DOES  NOT  HELP  SUNDAY  HOLY  DAY  TEACHERS.  I  EXPLAIN  COL. 2:16  IN  ANOTHER  STUDY.  NOPE,  THERE  AIN’T  ANYWHERE  THAT  GOD  GAVE  TO  MEN  TO  SLOWLY  CHANGE  THE  SABBATH  TO  SUNDAY  -  Keith Hunt] 

He gives us a typical rest, and will give us a final rest hereafter. So the Epistle to the Hebrews has taught us (Heb. iv. 9).

[AND  THAT  SECTION  OF  HEBREWS  IS  FULLY  EXPOUNDED  ON  BY  DR.  SAMUELE  BACCHIOCCHI  ON  MY  WEBSITE  -  Keith Hunt]

(2) The Sabbath was a festival of redemption. This appears from the motive given for the commandment in Deut. v. 15, which there takes the place of the reference to God's rest after Creation in Ex. xx. 11. There was of course the yearly festival of redemption from Egypt, namely the Passover. But that was not enough, the Sabbath also was a commemoration of the deliverance from bondage. A true understanding of the Old Covenant and its relation to the New Covenant may be said to depend on realizing the space which the redemption from Egypt filled in the religious consciousness of Israel. It was to them what the Resurrection of Christ is to us, and this relation is duly recognized in the Church lectionary for Easter Day, and the choice of Psalms. It was to them the assurance of the love of God, it was the act which had made them His people, it was that on which they rested all their hopes. Here was the ever fresh inspiration of psalmists and prophets, here was the note which never failed to touch the heart of the nation—"When Israel came out of Egypt; and the house of Judah from among the strange people.”

One day in seven ways not too often to commemorate it, nor is it too often for us to commemorate the greater redemptive work which is its antitype. 

[BUT  IT  IS  NOT  ONE  DAY  IN  SEVEN  FOR  ISRAEL,  IT  WAS  THE  7TH  DAY,  AND  IF  YOU  WANT  TO  COUPLE  THAT  WITH  THE  PASSOVER,  THEN  FINE,  BUT  IT  IS  THE  7TH  DAY  WITH  ALSO  THE  PASSOVER,  NOT  THE  FIRST.  AND  THE  RESURRECTION  ARGUMENT….. WELL  FIRST  THERE  IS  NO  WORD  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  TO  SAY  WE  HAVE  TO  SET  APART  AS  HOLY  THE  RESURRECTION  DAY.  SECOND,  JESUS  AND  THE  APOSTLES  NEVER  SAID  ONE  WORD  ABOUT  MAKING  THE  RESURRECTION  DAY  INTO  A  HOLY  DAY,  OR  SUPPLANTING  THE  WEEKLY  4TH  COMMANDMENT  LAW  OF  THE  7TH  DAY  TO  THE  RESURRECTION  DAY.  IF  THAT  WAS  SO,  ESPECIALLY  KNOWING  HOW  IMPORTANT  THE  7TH  DAY  SABBATH  WAS  TO  THE  JEWS,  WE  WOULD  HAVE  VERY  CLEAR  STATEMENTS  BY  THE  APOSTLES  IF  IT  WAS  GOING  TO  BE  CHANGED  TO  THE  FIRST  DAY.  AND  SUCH  CLEAR  STATEMENTS  JUST  AIN’T  THERE  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  -  Keith Hunt]

The analogy between the Passover and the Sabbath, and Easter day and Sunday is as complete as it well can be. Nowhere does the essential unity between the Sabbath and the Sunday appear more clearly than in this aspect. 

[YA  AND  EASTER  AND  SUNDAY  SURE  DO  GO  TOGETHER  FROM  ROMAN  PAGANISM  AND  ANTI-JEWISHNESS,  WHICH  AROSE  IN  THE  2ND  CENTURY  A.D.  IT  ALL  HOOKED  UP  REAL  NICE  FOR  THOSE  AT  ROME,  FROM  WHERE  IT  ALL  STARTED,  LEADING  INTO  THE  ROMAN  CATHOLIC  CHURCH  -  Keith Hunt]

It is true that no regulations were given as to how this  commemoration was to be made effective, except so far as rest would of itself bring deliverance to mind. The commandment seems chiefly bent on getting a clear space. It is negative, and leaves the positive observances to be filled up afterwards. They were filled up, possibly to some extent in early days by resort to prophets (as is suggested by 2 Kings iv. 23), certainly in later days by the synagogue and its gatherings for study and instruction in the law. So it is with us. The first thing is a clear space, and it is for the Church of the day to provide suitable means of commemorating redemption by sacraments, worship, instruction, and works of charity.

[AGAIN  WE  ARE  BACK  TO  MAKING  UP  YOUR  OWN  CHRISTIAN  RELIGION  AS  YOU  THINK  YOU  ARE  LED  BY  THE  SPIRIT  OF  GOD—— BUT  GOD  NEVER  GAVE  MAN  THE  RIGHT  TO  MAKE  UP  HOW  AND  WHEN  HE  WOULD  WORSHIP  THE  ETERNAL  GOD.  IT  IS  THE  ALMIGHTY  THAT  GIVES  THE  LAWS  AND  TELLS  US  HOW  AND  WHEN  TO  WORSHIP  HIM  -  Keith Hunt]   

(3) The sabbath was a sign, that is to say a constant taken and reminder of the covenant between Jehovah and Israel. Just as the rainbow was a token of the covenant with Noah (Gen. ix. 12), so the sabbath was a the token of the covenant by the hand of Moses.

The only difference was that the rainbow was there without human agency, while the Sabbath required man's obedience to maintain it. This is the view of the Sabbath in Ex.xxxi. 13, ff. “It is a sign between me and you.” And so it proves to be. Here we see God's providence looking on to the future. When Israel was carried away captive, and when at other times she sent forth her dispersed into foreign lands, they left behind them much that was distinctive. Sacrifices could not be offered in lands which were not the Lord’s. But the Sabbath could be observed, ands its observance in a strange land gave it far more than before the character of the sign. Hence Ezekiel the prophet of the captivity dwells on this aspect of it.  “More over I gave them my Sabbaths  to be a sign between the and them” (Ezk. xx. 12). The observance of the Day sustained the people in the confidence that they were the people of Jehovah.  

[YES  INDEED  THE  SABBATH  IS  ONE  SIGN  OF  WHO  BELONGS  TO  THE  TRUE  GOD  OF  HEAVEN.  THE  4TH  COMMANDMENT  HAS  NEVER  BEEN  CHISELLED  OUT  OF  THE  TEN  COMMANDMENTS  -  Keith Hunt]

The trials, losses, and even the contempt which it involved them in their foreign homes helped to bind Israel together, and to preserve the national faith and the national existence. How they regarded the Sabbath in those later times we shall consider in the next lecture.

And does not this office of a sign belong to the Christian Sunday?

[IT  IS  A  SIGN  FOR  SURE—— A  SIGN  OF  WHO  DOES  NOT  BELONG  TO  GOD;  IT  IS  A  SIGN  OF  PAGANISM—— SUN  WORSHIP—— A  SIGN  THAT  SAYS  YOU  FOLLOW  THE  WHIMS,  DESIRE,  AND  “STAY  AWAY  FROM  ANYTHING  JEWISH”  AS  IT  MANIFESTED  ITSELF  IN  THE  SECOND  CENTURY  A.D.  -  Keith Hunt]

It is not merely a commemoration, but an assurance of our relation to God. Its observance by the Church reminds us of this relation, and so meets a need of human nature. The difference in outward things which Sunday presents, where it is observed, are a sign and a token

which we welcome. Yet in another sense Sunday is a sign, a sign by which sincere earnest Christian life shows itself to those around. The Christian man necessarily, not ostentatiously makes a great difference between his life and occupations on Sunday and on other days, while other men do not. His observance of the day is sign to them, sometimes regarded with cavilling and contempt, but often exercising an influence and winning respect.

[IT  MAY  WELL  SHOW  SOMETHING  TO  OTHER  PEOPLE  AROUND  THEM,  THOSE  WHO  OBSERVE  “GOING  TO  CHURCH”  ON  SUNDAY,  BUT  IT  WINS  NO  BROWNIE  POINTS  WITH  GOD  PER SE  IN  HIS  PALN  OF  SALVATION.  THE  ETERNAL  DOES  KNOW  THEY  ARE  DECEIVED,  BLINDED  TO  TRUTH,  SO  HE  CERTAINLY  CAN  ANSWER  SUCH  PEOPLE  IN  PRAYERS  AND  ETC.  THOSE  PEOPLE  ARE  BLINDED,  THEY  HAVE  NOT  BEEN  TOLD  THE  TRUTH  BY  THEIR  MINISTERS,  THEY  ARE  SINCERE  BUT  SIN-CERELY  WRONG!  YES  THEY  CAN  WIN  SOME  KIND  OF  RESPECT  WITH  OTHERS,  BUT  TODAY  IN  THE  21ST  CENTURY  MOST  PEOPLE  COULD  CARELESS  WHAT  YOU  DO  ON  SUNDAY  -  Keith Hunt]

There is yet another aspect of the original Hebrew Sabbath. It is implied, I think, in at least one passage of the Old Testament, though not explicitly developed. I refer to Is. lviii. 13, “If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day.” The prophet uses a phrase which is in strictness only applicable to refraining to tread on holy ground, and this implies an analogy between holy ground and a holy day. It should be added that the word translated pleasure means elsewhere, and probably here, not pleasure but business. To do business on the sabbath was analogous to profanely treading on holy ground, such as certain portions of the Temple. Let us follow out the analogy and see what it implies in the prophet’s conception of the sabbath. 

All the land of Israel belonged to God. They were strangers and sojourners in it under His protection. Yet a certain portion of its soil was set apart for Him in recognition that the whole was His. So with the fruits of the land. All were from Him and all were His. This is recognized in a striking way in 1 Chron. xxix. 14-16, yet of these first-fruits were set apart and offered to Him in acknowledgement of His ownership of the whole. So was it also of time and life. Of these also a portion was set apart, a Sabbath was specially dedicated to God to remind Israel, and to acknowledge before Him, that all time was His.

Here again we recognize in the Hebrew Sabbath a provision for the needs of the human soul in all ages of the world. The believer in God will admit that all life is God’s and due to God’s service. But the concession is a vague one and the concession is a fruitless one. Narrow it down to one day in seven, and the result will be not a narrowed idea of what is due to God, but a concentration  of devotion and service which is vivid enough to spread its light and warmth over the rest of the week. That is the ideal, and it is by the presentation of ideals that human life is raised and purified.

………………….

THE  LAST  SECTION  IS  INDEED  WELL  SAID,  AS  IT  DOES  APPLY  TO  THE  SABBATH.  BUT  IT  IS  THE  SABBATH  THAT  WAS  FROM  THE  BEGINNING,  FROM  GENESIS  2.  AND  THE  SABBATH  OF  THE  4TH  COMMANDMENT  OF  THE  10  COMMANDMENTS  GIVEN  TO  ISRAEL,  AND  INCORPORATED  IN  THE  OLD  COVENANT.  THE  NEW  COVENANT  DID  NOT  TO  COME  TO  DO  AWAY  WITH  LAW,  THE  TEN  COMMANDMENTS  OF  GOD,  BUT  TO  MAKE  THEM  MORE  BINDING,  AS  JESUS  WAS  TO  COME  TO  MAGNIFY  THE  LAW  AND  MAKE  IT  HONORABLE [ISA. 42:21];  WHICH  HE  CERTAINLY  DID  IN  THE  SO-CALLED  “SERMON  ON  THE  MOUNT” [MAT. 5,  6, 7].  AND  IT  WAS  JESUS  WHO  SAID,  “THE  SABBATH  WAS  MADE  FOR  MAN  AND  NOT  MAN  FOR  THE  SABBATH” [MARK 2:27].

THE  SABBTH  WAS  MADE;  IT  WAS  MADE  AT  THE  BEGINNING,  SET  APART  AT  THE  BEGINNING,  SANCTIFIED  AT  THE  BEGINNING——  GENESIS 2.

IT  WAS  NEVER  CHANGED  BY  JESUS;  IT  WAS  NEVER  CHANGED  BY  THE  APOSTLES  OF  THE  FIRST  CENTURY.

IT  IS  ONE  OF  THE  POINTS  OF  THE  LAW  THAT  DEFINES  SIN  FOR  US.

NO  NEW  TESTAMENT  WORDS  DO  AWAY  WITH  THE  SABBATH  LAW;  NO  NEW  TESTAMENT  WORDS  TEACH  THAT  THE  SABBATH  LAW  WAS  EVER  CHANGED  TO  SUNDAY.

THERE  WAS  NEVER  EVER  ANY  CHURCH  CONFERENCE  HELD  TO  DEBATE  THE  SABBATH  COMMANDMENT,  LIKE  AS  THERE  WAS  FOR  PHYSICAL  CIRCUMCISION, AS  IN  ACTS  15.

THE  SABBATH  LAW  STILL  REMAINS  AS  THE  SABBATH  LAW  FROM  THE  BEGINNING.  THE  SABBATH  LAW  STILL  REMAINS  AS  IT  IS  IN  EXODUS  20.

Keith Hunt   

THE  ENGLISH  SUNDAY  

LECTURE 2 (1901)

THE  SABBATH  OF  JUDAISM

The attitude of our Lord Himself towards the Sabbath is of course a matter of high importance, and on the surface it appears hostile to a strict observance of a weekly day of rest. His teaching has been held to encourage those who desire to lay aside the precedent of the Sabbath as affecting the Christian Sunday. 

But to understand His position and His language we must go back to distinguish the religion  of the Old Testament from the Judaism which was developed out of it. 

It was the Judaic Sabbath with which He came into conflict, and not the original sabbath of the Old Testament. By Judaism I mean that phrase of the religion of Israel which had its beginning after the Return from Captivity. After the Return we no longer speak of Hebrews but of Jews, i.e. men of Judah, because those who returned were in the main of that tribe, or at least belonged to that kingdom.  

There was a moment in the history of the nation which was of the highest importance and yet is not generally recognized as such. There was a man of remarkable gifts of character and far-reaching influence of whom little is said. The man is Ezra and the moment is the reading of the Law on the first day of Tishri, with the covenant to keep it which was then ratified (Neh. viii. 1 ff). That day was the birthday of Judaism. 

From that day forward the Law in its entirety became the pride of the Jewish nation, its ideal; however imperfectly observed at the outset. I do not mean to assert that the Law then first became known to the people, but only that it occupied a new position in their affections. How much of it was in existence before Ezra is a question into which we need not enter here.

Ezra  the  scribe  (Ezra  v11. 6)  became the progenitor of a long line of successive Scribes who occupied themselves in the Law. These are the Scribes or layers whom we find in possession of the national conscience when the New Testament narrative begins. At the outset of the movement was a good, indeed a necessary one, which restored the national life, but it inevitably tended downwards. Ezra himself was a noble character strong in faith, an instrument in God's hand, but scribism was an occupation full of  danger. The Scribe was originally a writer, or as we would say a secretary. This is the sense of the Hebrew term in the earlier books, but henceforth he becomes no longer a mere copyist. 

The activity of the Scribes lay in three directions: 

(1) systematizing and developing the Law 

(2) teachings it to scholars 

(3) giving judgment in accordance with it on cases brought before them. 

We can see at once what was bound to arise from the new enthusiasm for the Law, and the activity of such a class of persons. 

The Law would be developed in it details, and its application to the cases which occurred would create a vast number of precedents embodying themselves in rules.

We have already seen that the importance of the Sabbath had greatly increased in the Exile. They had to leave behind them altar and sacrifice, but they could take the Sabbath. It had been their token, their badge, their national bond. Now they came back to an opportunity of observing it without let or hindrance in their own land. To this observance Nehemiah especially devoted his efforts. And this portion of the Law naturally attracted in large measure the attention of the Scribes. 

The new importance of the Law, and especially the law of the Sabbath, opened the way to  the development of a new institution which may probably have had its beginnings in the Exile.

The Sabbath gave opportunity for the study of the Law. Hence arose the Synagogue. 

The gatherings which took this name were primarily meetings for instructions in the Law, and not primarily for worship. 

Here before we go on to consider the debasement of the Sabbath by Judaism, it will be right to acknowledge what we owe to Judaism in regard of its enrichment.    

The Synagogue with its weekly gatherings for instruction in the Law, was not only a most important gain to the Jewish Church, but was also destined to influence in a remarkable degree Christian  worship and the Christian Sunday.

But what was the character of this teaching on the Law which thus arose and grew down to the New Testament times? We can gather something of its character from the New Testament itself. For instance there is the  teaching  by which  filial duty was evaded (Mark vii. 10-13).

But we have a much fuller source of information as to the nature of this development in the Mishna, a collection of treatises on the Law. Each of these treatises is itself a collection of opinions and explanations. It is true that these were probably not written down in their present form till the second century A.D., but scholars are agreed that they faithfully represent an earlier body of teaching, which must have been in  existence at the coming of Christ. The amazing childishness of many of its rules respecting the Sabbath almost passes belief.

For instance: if a man on the Sabbath threw anything into the air and caught it again with the same hand, this was a sin.

This is not a place to bring before you what is ridiculous, nor perhaps is it right to make any religious directions a matter of ridicule, if they represent genuine conviction. If we are tempted to ridicule, let us look at another side of this same scrupulous observance. Few incidents in history are more touching than the death of the thousand men, women and children who chose to die in their "innocency" rather than break the Sabbath by defending themselves against their enemies (i Mace. ii. 34-38).

All this for good and evil was the product of Judaism. It may, no doubt, be alleged that there was somewhat in the Pentateuchal Law which resembled and encouraged these refinements and burdensome regulations but a comparison of the Mishna with the Law will show at once how far the former went beyond the letter. It cannot be too often said that it was not the actual religion of the Old Covenant which the Gospels came so strongly into collision in the Person of Christ, but something else, the religion of Israel so different from it as to be almost distinct, the inevitable result of the cessation of prophecy, which till the Return had been the countervailing force against legalism and formality.

This use of the word Judaism is justified by the language of St. Paul (Gal. I. 13, 14), and is merely the English transliteration of the single Greek word which is there translated “the Jews’ religion.”

Now to repeat what has already been said, it was natural that this development should affect what was, at the time, one of the most highly valued of all religious institutions, namely the Sabbath.

You will remember how simply the regulations as to the Sabbath in the Law and the Prophets were expressed. No work was to be done, no burden was to be borne. 

But what was work, what was a burden?

The answer which  the Mishna gave to the latter inquiry is that “anything of the weight of a fig is a burden.” 

Given such an answer, you will see what further question it raises. Even a stick in the hand was a burden. I will be content to refer you for details to Edersheim’s “Life and Times of the Messiah,” vol. II., appendix xvii.

Yet strange as it may appear this Judaic Sabbath with its tangled forest of prohibitions was not felt to be oppressive, but was rejoiced in as a delight. And that is the attitude of orthodox Judaism at the present day. It has found eloquent expression in Montefiore's "Hibbert Lectures," a passage from which is appended in a note. Indeed we must guard against supposing that the purpose of these prohibitions was to afflict or to darken. They were intended to secure the Sabbath rest, and the day was to be a joyful day. It was distinctly a day of festivity and social life as well as a day of instruction. 

Three meals of the choicest available food were to be laid ready upon Friday for use on the Sabbath. 

So our Lord excepts a Sabbath invitation (Luke xiv. 1), and it is plain from the character of the discourse then spoken that it was a great feast at which many guests were present.

Such then was the character of the Sabbath in the time of Christ, and it was with this Judaism or Scribism in some of its aspects that He came into conflict. 

We may call it Scribism, for the development was the works of the Scribes.  And He seems to have deliberately selected the Sabbath regulations of the Scribes as the point on which to join issue with them.

It is not accidental that no less than seven of His recorded miracles of healing were worked on the Sabbath. So far from avoiding a course which would be sure to awaken fanatical opposition, He deliberately challenges the Scribes in this particular.

And let us observe that so far as the law is the original law of the Old Testament, He shows no disposition to depart from it, but appeals to the Scripture to justify His actions. It is the Judaic development which He challenges by His works of mercy done in defiance of the Scribes. 

Thus He rescues, purifies and restores the original idea of the Sabbath. Thus as F.D. Maurice has well said, “He was doing what He said He came to do, fulfilling  the law, exhibiting the inmost intent of the divine day.” (Maurice, “Sermons on the Sabbath,” I. P.23).

This purpose of Christ having been so fully manifested to His disciples, we can imagine that in the divine providence, the Resurrection might have been appointed to take place on the Sabbath thus cleansed and purified. But it did not; the next day was chosen instead. There was no doubt a symbolical  reason. There was to be a correspondence between the rest of Christ in the grave after the  conclusion of His redemptive work, and the rest of God in the narration of Genesis after His creative work.

[OH  YES  INDEED  THERE  WAS  A  SYMBOLIC  MEANING  TO  CHRIST  BEING  RAISED  ON  THE  FIRST  DAY  OF  THE  WEEK.  CHRIST  WAS  THE  FIRST  OF  THE  FIRST-FRUITS  AS  PAUL  EXPLAINED  IN  1 COR. 15.  THE  WAVE-SHEAF  WAS  CUT  AFTER  THE  WEEKLY  SABBATH  SUNDOWN  CAME.  ON  WHAT  WE  CALL SATURDAY EVENING. THE WAVE-SHEAF CUT BY THE SADDUCEES,  WHO  WERE  CORRECT  AS  OPPOSED  TO  THE  PHARISEES  WHO  WERE  INCORRECT  ON  THIS  MATTER. JESUS  WAS  PLACED  IN  THE  TOMB  THE  EVENING  OF  THE  HIGH  SABBATH  DAY  OF  THE  FEAST  OF  UNLEAVENED  BREAD;  THAT  YEAR  30 A.D.  THE  PASSOVER  FELL  ON  TUESDAY  EVENING;  JESUS  DIED  ABOUT  3 P.M. WEDNESDAY; JOSEPH AND NICODEMUS  DID  NOT  COME  TILL  “EVENING” HAD ARRIVED, AND WENT TO REQUEST  THE  BODY  OF  JESUS. HE  WAS  PLACED  IN  THE  TOMB  WEDNESDAY  EVENING—— PROVED  IN  MY  OTHER  STUDIES—— AND SO WAS RESURRECTED  SATURDAY  EVENING  AFTER  THE  WEEKLY  SABBATH  HAD  ENDED,  SO  BEING  3  DAYS  AND  3  NIGHT  IN  THE  HEART  OF  THE  EARTH.  AND  SO  ALSO  BEING  THE  TRUE  FIRST  OF  THE  FIRST-FRUITS,  RISING  ON  THE  FIRST  DAY  OF  THE  WEEK—— YES  VERY  SYMBOLIC!  BUT  IT  HAS  NOTHING  TO  DO  WITH  MAKING  THE  FIRST  DAY  A  HOLY  DAY  OR  THE  “CHRISTIAN”  SABBATH.  CHRIST  NOR  THE  APOSTLES  EVER  TOLD  US  TO  CELEBRATE  THE  RESURRECTION  BY  MAKING  THE  FIRST  DAY  THE  HOLY  CHRISTIAN  SABBATH  -  Keith Hunt]  

Again by this rest in the grave on the sabbath, the obedience of Christ to the law which was so marked a feature in His life on earth was completed in a  striking symbol.

[YES  INDEED  SO!  NO  PROBLEM!  BUT  I’VE  EXPLAINED  WHY  ABOVE.  THE  RESURRECTION  DID  NOT  MAKE  THE  FIRST  DAY  OF  THE  WEEK  A  HOLY  DAY  OR  TRANSFERRED  THE  7TH  DAY  SABBATH  TO  THE  FIRST  DAY  -  Keith Hunt]

But  besides these  considerations there was a practical aim which may well have been taken into account.  Though the emergence of the Christian Church after the Resurrection from the bosom of Judaism was to be very slow and gradual, yet the ground was to be cleared for it; all that might delay or hinder the process was to be removed, and the Sabbath as the Christian weekly festival would have been a hindrance. Further, we may say that, notwithstanding Christ's teaching on the subject, the Sabbath was overlaid with superstitious observances, which would have been extremely difficult to dislodge if the day had been adopted by the Christian Church. 

The divine method then was that a fresh day should be taken side by side with the old one, starting on its career with its own contents and special associations, into which might gradually be transferred all that was best in the Jewish Sabbath as cleansed and elevated by the teaching of Christ. 

[HOGWASH  MAN  MADE  GOOBAGOO  THEOLOGY!!! THERE  IS  NOT  ONE  WORD  OF  THE  FIRST  DAY  EVER  BEING  SAID  BY  ANYONE  IN  THE  NEW TESTAMENT  THAT  IT  WOULD  BE  SIDE  BY  SIDE  AS  IMPORTANT  IN  SOME  HOLY  OBSERVANCE  WAY,  AS  THE  ORIGINAL  4TH  COMMANDMENT  SABBATH  OF  THE  GREAT  TEN  COMMANDMENTS.  THE  IDEA  IT  WAS  IS  JUST  BUMBO-JUMBO  FROM  A  THEOLOGY  FROM  PLANET  PLUTO  -  Keith Hunt]  

And this was exactly what happened. For a considerable time the two days were observed side by side. 

[NOT  AT  ALL  IN  THE  LIVES  OF  THE  FIRST  APOSTLES,  THEY  NEVER  OBSERVED  TWO  HOLY  DAYS,  OR  GAVE  ANY  INFERENCE  THAT  WE  SHOULD  OBSERVE  IN  SOME  WAY,  LIKE  A  CHURCH  SERVICE,  ON  THE  FIRST  DAY  OF  THE  WEEK.  THERE  IS  NOT  ONE  WORD  ABOUT  KEEPING  A  RESURRECTION  DAY  BY  A  CHURCH  SERVICE  OR  NOT  WORKING  ON  THAT  FIRST  DAY  OF  THE  WEEK.  IF  TWO  DAYS  WERE  OBSERVED,  WERE  PART  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH,  THERE  WOULD  HAVE  BEEN  CLEAR  MENTION  OF  IT.  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  CHRIST  WAS  A  PROMINENT  TEACHING,  SO  ALSO  WOULD  HAVE  BEEN  HAVING  THE  FIRST  DAY  IN  SOME  FASHION  OBSERVED;  WE  WOULD  FIND  OPEN  TALK  ABOUT  IT  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  SCRIPTURES.  A  NEW  TEACHING  OF  OBSERVING  IN  SOME  MANNER  THE  FIRST  DAY,  WOULD  NOT  HAVE  GONE  WITHOUT  SPECIFIC  MENTION  BY  THE  APOSTLES    -  Keith Hunt]  

Writers on the subject have ventured, without evidence, to say that the observance of the Sabbath ceased for the disciples of Christ immediately after  the  Resurrection. Even Dr. Hessey, who has treated the subject with so much learning, is more or less possessed  with this idea. 

There  can  however,  be  no  doubt  that  the  Apostles  and  their  followers  in  Jerusalem  continued  to  observe  the  Sabbath  as  well  as  the  first  day  of  the  week.

[NOW  WHERE  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  IS  IT  STATED  BY  PAUL  OR  ANYONE,  THAT  THE  APOSTLES  AND  THEIR  FOLLOWERS  OBSERVED  IN  SOME  WAY (CHURCH  GATHERING,  WORSHIP  SERVICE,  BIBLE  STUDY)  ON  A  WEEKLY  BASIS,  THE  FIRST  DAY  OF  THE  WEEK?  IT  IS  NOT  THERE,  NOT  ONE  SINGLE  WORD.  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL  HAD  ONE  SUPER  CHANCE,  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT  COULD  HAVE  EASILY  INSPIRED  HIM  ON  THE  MATTER,  IN  THE  WONDERFUL  RESURRECTION  CHAPTER…. 1  CORINTHIANS  15.  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT  COULD  HAVE  EASILY  INSPIRED  PAUL  TO  SAY  SOMETHING  LIKE:  “AND  SO  WONDERFUL  IS  OUR  LORD’S  RESURRECTION  THAT  WE  NOW  GATHER  TOGETHER  ON  THE  RESURRECTION  DAY,  THE  FIRST  DAY,  AS  WE  DO  ON  THE  WEEKLY  SABBATH,  SO  REMEMBERING  ONE  WHILE  WE  REMEMBER  THE  OTHER.”  OR  “THE  RESURRECTION  IS  SO  FUNDAMENTAL  IN  OUR  SALVATION,  WE  NOW  GATHER  AND  WORSHIP  GOD  ON  THAT  DAY,  BEING  THE  FIRST  DAY  OF  THE  WEEK,  AS  WE  DO  ON  THE  SABBATH.”  I  MEAN  IT  IS  JUST  CRAZY  TO  TEACH  BOTH  DAYS  WERE  BEING  OBSERVED  BY  THE  APOSTLES  AND  THEIR  FOLLOWERS,  AND  YET  WITH  ALL  THE  WORDS  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT,  NONE  CAN  BE  FOUND  TO  UPHOLD  THIS  TEACHING.  OH  YES  LIKE  THE  COMING  OF  EASTER  TO  REPLACE  THE  PASSOVER  IN  THE  2ND  CENTURY,  AND  THE  DEBATE  OVER  IT  ALL,  SO  WAS  THE  COMING  OF  OBSERVING  THE  FIRST  DAY  AND  THE  SABBATH  DAY  ALSO,  FOUGHT  WITH  A  SLOW  WIN  FOR  ROME  OVER  THE  FIRST  CENTURIES  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT  CHRISTIANITY  -  Keith Hunt]

St. James (Acts xxi. 20) speaks of thousands of Jews who believe, who are all zealous for the law. Is it conceivable that these thousands of zealots for the law of Moses,  would  have attached themselves to a sect that had ceased to observe the Sabbath? 

For it was a sect of Judaism that the Church of God presented itself to the Jewish mind, and not another religion.

The mention of St. James suggests another consideration pointing in the same direction. We know from a fragment quoted by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. ii. 23) that St. James was held in reverence by Jews who were not Christian, and received from them the title of “the just” - a title implying a strict observance of the law. 

Could this have been the case if he had not observed the Sabbath?

The truth is that the supposition of the immediate disuse of the Sabbath among Christian Jews implies a total failure to realize the character of the early church, and the dominant position of the sabbath in Jewish faith and practice.

[EXACTLY  WHAT  I’VE  BEEN  SAYING!  THE  THREE  MOST  IMPORTANT  PRACTICES  IN  JEWISH  RELIGION  WAS  CIRCUMCISION,  PRIESTHOOD AND TEMPLE  RITUALS,  SABBATH  OBSERVANCE.  TEMPLE  RITUALS  COULD  BE  DONE  BUT  IT  WAS  NOT  NECESSARY  FOR  SALVATION.  AND  ALL  THAT  CAME  TO  A  STOP  IN  70  A.D.  WHEN  JERUSALEM  WAS  DESTROYED  BY  THE  ROMAN  ARMIES.  THE  PHYSICAL  CIRCUMCISION  WAS  BROUGHT  BEFORE  A  CHURCH  CONFERENCE….ACTS 15.  THE  WEEKLY  SABBATH  WAS  NEVER  BROUGHT  BEFORE  A  CHURCH  CONFERENCE  TO  DECIDE  IF  IT  WOULD  CONTINUE  WITH  THE  ADDED  FIRST  DAY  OBSERVANCE  FOR  THE  RESURRECTION,  OR  DONE  AWAY  WITH  COMPLETELY  AND  ONLY  HAVE  FIRST  DAY  OBSERVANCE.  THERE  WAS  NO  ISSUE  WHATSOEVER  WITH  THE  APOSTLES  ON  7TH  DAY  SABBATH   OBSERVANCE—— IT  WAS  A  NON-ISSUE  SUBJECT  FOR  ANYONE;  NOT  EVEN  ANY  GENTILE  BROUGHT  UP  THE  TOPIC  IN  ALL  OF  THE  WRITINGS  OF  THE  APOSTLES—— IT  WAS  A  NON-ISSUE  -  Keith Hunt] 

It  was  only  through  GRADUAL  EXTENSION  AND  PREPONDERANCE  of  the  Gentile  element  in  the  Churches  of  Greece  and  Asia  Minor  that  the  disuse  of  the  Sabbath  by  Christians  began…….

[AND  HISTORY  SHOWS  IT  TOOK  WELL  INTO  THE  SECOND  CENTURY  TO  MAKE  A  LARGE  INROAD,  WITH  PARTS  OF  CHRISTIANITY  WHO  WANTED  NOTHING  TO  DO  WITH  ANYTHING  THAT  COULD  COME  CLOSE  TO  BEING  REGARDED  AS  “JEWISH”—— SO  LIKEWISE  IT  WAS  FOR  THE  EASTER/PASSOVER  DEBATE  WITH  THE  CHURCHES  OF  ASIA  MINOR  AND  ROME——DIFFERENCES  THAT  COULD  NOT  BE  BROUGHT  TOGETHER.  AS  TIME  WENT  ON  ROME  AFTER  THREE  CENTURIES,  WHEN  CONSTANTINE  BECAME  EMPEROR  OF  THE  ROMAN  EMPIRE,  DID  WIN  THE  FINAL  PROMINENCE   OF  BEING  THE  EMPIRE’S  OFFICIAL  RELIGION  IN  THE  CIRCLE  OF  CHRISTIANITY  -  Keith Hunt]

To this influence was added the growing conviction of St. Paul, that all the ceremonial ordinances of the law were but shadows of the Gospel, and the value only for their typical and preparatory character, ordinances which might, indeed must, be completely laid aside now that men had received the substance instead of the shadow.

[THE  AUTHOR  WANTS  TO  PUT  THE  WEEKLY  SABBATH  AS  WITH  “CEREMONIAL”  LAWS—— UTTER  SILLY  AND  STUPID  THEOLOGY.  THERE  IS  NOTHING  “CEREMONIAL”  ABOUT  THE  4TH  OF  THE  GREAT  TEN  COMMANDMENTS;  IT  WAS  FROM  THE  BEGINNING  AS  THE  VERY  WORDS  IN  IT  TELL  YOU,  TAKING  YOU  BACK  TO  GENESIS  2.  HOW  SIMPLER  CAN  YOU  GET,  A  CHILD  CAN  UNDERSTAND  THE  4TH  COMMANDMENT,  I  SURE  DID  AS  A  CHILD  WITHOUT  ANY  PRE-CONCEIVED  TEACHING  DRUMED  INTO  MY  HEAD.  THE  VERY  COMMANDMENT  TAKES  YOU  BACK  TO  GENESIS 2,  BEFORE  ANY  CEREMONIAL  LAWS  EXISTED.  THE  SABBATH  LAW  IS  PART  OF  THE  LAW  THAT  TELLS  YOU  WHAT  SIN  IS,  THAT  YOU  NEED  TO  REPENT  OF  BREAKING,  AND  BE  CONVERTED  TO  A  MIND-SET  THAT  WILL  WANT  AND  DESIRE  TO  OBEY  THE  LAW  OF  GOD.  ALL  THAT  IS  COVERED  IN  DEPTH  UDER  THE  “SALVATION”  SECTION   OF  MY  WEBSITE.  THIS  TALK  ABOUT  “SHADOW”  AND  “SUBSTANCE”  IS  THE  TALK  OF  MANY  USING  COL. 2:16;  ALSO  ANSWERED  FULLY  IN  ONE  OF  MY  STUDIES,  THAT  ANSWER  BEING  THE  TRUTH  OF  THE  CONTEXT  OF  COL. 2:16  -  Keith Hunt]

Bearing in mind the attitude of our Lord Himself towards the law, and the difficult saying, “till heaven and earth pass away one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all things be accomplished” (Matt. v. 18).

[NOT  DIFFICULT  AT  ALL  WHEN  YOU  KNOW  THE  TRUTH  OF  LAW  AND  GRACE  AS  TAUGHT  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  -  Keith Hunt]

It is absurd to suppose that a sudden consciousness of the abrogation of the Mosaic law, whether to the Sabbath or in any other respect, dawned upon the disciples at the Resurrection  or  at  Pentecost.

The relation of the Christian Church to the law was a matter which was slowly thought out, and fought out. It is uncritical to take utterances of St Paul in his Epistles to the Galatians, Romans and  Colossians, and  to  represent them as expressing not only St Paul's conviction twenty years earlier, but also the conviction of the Apostles of the Circumcision who were far from seeing eye to eye with the Apostle of the Gentiles. Which of the two was right is another question, and we have no hesitation in assenting to the view of St Paul.

[NOW  THE   AUTHOR   WANTS  TO  CONFUSE  THE  MATTER  IN  YOUR  MIND   BY  TRYING  TO  MAKE  OUT  THERE  WAS  CONTRADICTIONS  AND  BIG  DIFFERENCES,  BETWEEN  PAUL  AND  SOME  OTHER  APOSTLES,  THOSE  AT  THE  JERUSALEM  CHURCH  ETC.  NO  THERE  WAS  NEVER  ANY  CONTRADICTIONS  OF  THEOLOGY   TEACHING  AMONG  THE  APOSTLES,  AS  I  SHOW  IN  ALL  OF  MY  STUDIES  ON  MY  WEBSITE.  THE  TRUE  SERVANTS  OF  GOD  IN  THAT  FIRST  CENTURY  WERE  IN  HARMONY  WITH  EACH  OTHER.  SURE  PETER  SAID  THERE  WERE  SOME  THINGS  OF  PAUL’S  WRITING,  THAT  WERE  HARD  TO  UNDERSTAND,  THAT  THOSE  WHO  WERE  UNLEARNED  TWISTED  TO  THEIR  OWN  DESTRUCTION  -  Keith Hunt]

But at first as I have said, Sabbath and First Day held their course together. This we shall see more clearly in the next lecture.

[NOPE  JUST  NO  SO,  SO  WE’LL  SEE  AND  COMMENT  ON  YOUR  NEXT  LECTURE  -  Keith Hunt]

The point at which we have arrived today is that it was not primitive, but the Judaic Sabbath against which our Lord strove. He did not by any recorded word of His, weaken the authority of the Mosaic Sabbath, if we may dismiss as apocryphal, and I think we may, the addition1 which one manuscript

……

 1 Codex D inserts after Luke vi. 4, the following words: "on the same day beholding a certain man working on the Sabbath He said to him, Man if thou knowest what thou doest, thou art blessed, but if thou knowest not, thou art cursed and a transgressor of the law." On critical grounds which need not be stated here, the passage may, without doubt, be regarded as an insertion and no part of the original narrative of St Luke. It is possible, however, that the insertion may represent with more or less accuracy a genuine tradition. If so, we may conjecture that some such words may have been spoken by Him to a person engaged in necessary work, such as the spirit of the law permitted though its letter did not. Our Lord refers to cases of necessity for Sabbath work as actually occurring (Matt. xii. 5, John vii. 22).

……

makes to His words in Luke vi. 4.

His claim to lordship over the Sabbath as Son of Man is partially the claim of one who was exercising a divine office, and fulfilling a divine commission, not as has sometimes been supposed the claim of one who represented humanity, and could for that reason control what was “made for man.” He DID NOT ABOLISH the Sabbath, but He claimed it just as He had cleansed the Temple. Both were to pass away, but neither of them immediately. Both still had some work to do. 

[THIS  IS  UTTER  NONSENSE  AS  FOR  THE  SABBATH,  THAT  IT  WAS  TO  PASS  AWAY;  THERE  IS  NO  SCRIPTURE  ANYWHERE  THAT  SAYS  SUCH  A  THING  ABOUT  THE  4TH  COMMANDMENT  OF  THE  GREAT  TEN.  THE  BOOK  OF  HEBREWS  CERTAINLY  WAS  WRITTEN  TO  ANSWER  ALL  THE  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  THE  TEMPLE,  LEVI  PRIESTHOOD,  AND  SACRIFICES  PASSING  AWAY,  BUT  THAT  BOOK  TELLS  US,  CHAPTER  4: 9  “BUT  THERE  REMAINS  A  KEEPING  OF  SABBATH  TO  THE  PEOPLE  OPF  GOD”  (SEE MARGIN IN KJV) AND  THAT  CHAPTER  TALKS  ABOUT  GOD  RESTING  THE  SEVENTH  DAY  FROM  ALL  HIS  WORK.  NOT  ONE  SINGLE  VERSE  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  TALKS  ABOUT  THE  FIRST  DAY  EVENTUALLY  SUPERSEDING  THE  7TH  DAY.  THAT  IDEA  IS  FROM  THE  MIND  OF  MEN  WHO  WILL  NOT  SERVE  GOD  IN  THE  BASIC  WAYS  OF  THE  TEN  COMMANDMENTS.  THEY  WOULD  BE  OUT  OF  A  JOB  PRETTY  QUICKLY,  IF  THEY  EVER  TOLD  THE  CHRISTIAN  WORLD  THAT  IT WAS  VERY  VERY  WRONG,  ON  THIS  MATTER  OF  SUNDAY  CHURCH  SERVICES,  AND  SATURDAY  IS  TO  BE  KEPT  HOLY;  THAT  THE  WEEKLY  SABBATH  HAS  NEVER  BEEN  CHANGED  FROM  SABBATH  TO  SUNDAY—— THEIR  FOLLOWING  WOULD  BE  ALL  GONE  IN  VERY  SHORT  ORDER,  SO  ALSO  THEIR  PAY -CHECK  -  Keith Hunt]  

He restored the sabbath to its primitive pattern, so that it might exercise the influence which it undoubtedly did exercise on the feast which was in course of time to supersede it. So the spirit of the Sabbath as the day for works of mercy, the day for common worship, the day of joyful rest, passed over insensibly into the day which followed it, leaving behind it the formalism and legalism which had been the work of the Scribes. For Christians the Sabbath came to an end just because all its best contents had passed out of it into the Sunday, and nothing remained but an empty shell.

[THIS  COMMENT  IS  OUTRAGEOUSLY  FALSE  AND  IS  THE  TWISTED  WILD  THEOLOGY,  OF  SOMEONE  WHO  THINKS  GOD  WAS  BEHIND  THOSE  IN  THE  SECOND  CENTURY,  WHO  ADVOCATED  GETTING  AWAY  FROM  ANYTHING  “JEWISH”  AND  WERE  AS  PROPHESIED  IN  DANIEL  TO  “CHANGE  LAWS  AND  TIMES”—— THEY  HAVE   NEVER  BEEN  CHANGED  AS  MY  WEBSITE  PROVES  OVER  AND  OVER  AGAIN.  WITH  FALSE  TEACHINGS  AND  COMMANDMENTS  OF  MEN,  WHICH  CAPTURE  THE  CONTEXT  OF  COL. 2:16  BEFORE  AND  AFTER  VERSE  16,  THE  TRUTH  CAN  BE  FOUND  ON  THIS  PASSAGE. THE  WEEKLY  SABBATH  NEVER  AT  ANY  TIME  CAME  TO  BE  ABOLISHED  AND  BECAME  BUT  AN  EMPTY  SHELL.  IT  WAS  ALWAYS  THE  WEEKLY  SABBATH  THAT  REMAINED  STRONG,  COULD  NOT  TEAR  DOWN  AND  ABOLISH;  IT  WAS  THE  7TH  DAY  OF  THE  WEEK  THAT  JESUS  CAME  TO  MAGNIFY  AND  RESTORE  TO  ITS  PROPER  PLACE  IN  THE  LIFE  OF  GOD’S  CHILDREN.  HE  MAGNIFIED  THE  4TH  COMMANDMENT  BY  SHOWING  HOW  IT  WAS  TO  BE  LIVED,  AND  NOT  AS  THE  SCRIBES  AND  PHARISEES  HAD  MADE  IT  INTO.  JESUS  HAD  ALL  KINDS  OF  TIME  TO  TEACH  HOW  AFTER  HE  WAS  GONE  BACK  TO  HEAVEN,  THE  SABBATH  WOULD  EVENTUALLY  BE  TRANSFERRED  TO  SUNDAY;  SO  ALSO  ALL  OF  CHRIST’S  APOSTLES;  NONE  OF  THEM  EVER  DID  PERIOD!  AND  THE  TWO  SECTIONS  PEOPLE  TAKE (ROMANS 14  AND  COLOSSIANS 2: 16);  ARE  USED  IN  CONTRADICTION  TO  EACH  OTHER—— PICK  ANY  DAY  YOU  LIKE  AS  SABBATH  OR  THE  SABBATH  IS  DONE  AWAY  WITH  PERIOD.  YEP  IF  SO  BEING  THAT  PAUL  GIVES  TWO  DIFFERENT  SABBATH  RULES,  TO  DIFFERENT  CHURCHES,  THEN  PAUL  CONTRADICTS  HIMSELF,  AND  IS  PROVED  A  FALSE  PROPHET  NOT  TO  BE  TAKEN  SERIOUSLY;  SADLY  SOME  HAVE  DONE  JUST  THAT,  TAKEN  PAUL  RIGHT  OUT  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  AS  VERY  UNINSPIRED  WRITING,  AND  CONTRADICTING  HIMSELF;  SUCH  IS  THE  SAD  STATE  OF  PARTS  OF  CHRISTIAN  RELIGION  TODAY  -  Keith Hunt]

NOTE.—Orthodox Jewish feeling with regard to the law, and especially the law of the Sabbath.

"On the one side," he says, "we hear the opinions of so many learned professors, proclaiming ex cathedra that the law was a most terrible burden, and the life under it the most unbearable slavery, deadening body and soul. 

On the other side we have the testimony of a literature extending over about twenty-five centuries, and including all sorts and conditions of men — scholars, poets, mystics, lawyers, casuists, schoolmen, tradesmen, workmen, women, simpletons—who all, from the author of the 119th Psalm to the last pre-Mendelssohnian writer, with a small exception which does not deserve the name of a minority—give unanimous evidence in favour of this law, and of the bliss and happiness of living and dying under it; and this, the testimony of people who were actually living under the law, not merely theorising upon it, and who experienced it in all its difficulties and inconveniences. 

The Sabbath will give a fair example. This day is described by almost every modern writer in the most gloomy colours, and long lists are given of the minute observances connected with it, easily to be transgressed, which would necessarily make of the Sabbath, instead of a day of rest, a day of sorrow and anxiety, almost worse than the Scotch Sunday as depicted by continental writers. 

But, on the other hand, the Sabbath is celebrated by the very people who did observe it, in hundreds of hymns, which would fill volumes, as a day of rest and joy, of pleasure and delight, a day in which man enjoys some presentiment of the pure bliss and happiness which are stored up for the righteous in the world to come. To it such tender names were applied as the "Queen Sabbath," the "Bride Sabbath," and the “holy, dear, beloved Sabbath.” Somebody, either the learned Professors or the millions of the Jewish people, must be under an illusion.

Which it is I leave to the reader to decide.”

 —Montefiore, "Hibbert Lectures," lect. ix. pp. 506 ff (the passage is not actually Mr Montefiore's own words, but is a quotation by him from an article by Dr Schechter in the Jewish Quarterly Review).

………………..

THE  ANSWER  SHOULD  BE  SIMPLE  TO  THE  PERSON  WHO  HUNGERS  ANND  THIRSTS  FOR  RIGHTEOUSNESS;  WHO  LOVES  AND  WANTS  THE  TRUTH.

JESUS  CAME  TO  MAGNIFY  THE  LAW  NOT  DIMINISH  IT,  OR  CUT  IT  TO  PIECES,  OR  PUT  ONE  MASSIVE  HOLE  IN  THE  MIDDLE  OF  IT.

JESUS  BROUGHT  THE  LAWS  OF  GOD  INTO,  BACK  INTO,  THE  REALM  WHERE  THEY  WERE  FROM  THE  BEGINNING,  AND  THAT  INCLUDES  THE  WEEKLY  SABBATH,  FREED  FROM  THE  600  PLUS  RULES  OF  THE  SCRIBES.

JESUS  HAS  3  AND  1/2  YEARS  TO  TELL  HIS  DISCIPLES  THE  SABBATH  WOULD  BE  CHANGED  TO  SUNDAY…. AS  THIS  WRITER  HERE  SAYS  EVENTUALLY.   BUT  CHRIST  NEVER  SO  MUCH  AS  GAVE  THE  TINIEST  HINT  ABOUT  AN  IMPORTANT  THEOLOGY  AS  THE  4TH  COMMANDMENT  SABBATH  BEING  CHANGED  EVENTUALLY!

HE  TOLD  THE  WOMAN  AT  THE  WELL  THAT  JERUSALEM  WOULD  NOT  BE  THE  CENTRAL  PLACE  TO  WORSHIP  GOD;  JESUS  KNEW  CHRISTIANITY  WAS  GOING  TO  GO  TO  ALL  THE  WORLD;  JERUSALEM  WAS  NOT  IMPORTANT  UNDER  THE  NEW  COVENANT.  WHY  IF  THE  FIRST  DAY  OF  THE  WEEK  WAS  GOING  TO  TAKE  OVER  FROM  THE  SABBATH  OF  THE  7TH  DAY;  WHY  DID  JESUS  NOT  AT  SOME  POINT  MENTION  IT,  TO  MAKE  SURE  THERE  WAS  NO  MISUNDERSTANDING.  OR  INSPIRE  AN  APOSTLE  TO  CLEARLY  WITH  SIMPLE  WORDS  TELL  US  A  CHANGE  WAS  GOING  TO  COME,  THAT  THE  7TH  DAY  SABBATH  WOULD  MOVE  TO  THE  1ST  DAY.  NO  SUCH  WORDS  CAN  BE  FOUND.

THE  APOSTLE  JOHN  WRITING  AT  THE  END  OF  THE  FIRST  CENTURY,  WHY  DID  HE  NOT  STATE  SOMEWHERE  IN  HIS  WRITINGS  THAT  THE  CHURCH  WAS  NO  LONGER  OBSERVING  THE  OLD  SABBATH,  BUT  THE  NEW  SABBATH  OF  THE  FIRST  DAY  OF  THE  WEEK;  OR  THAT  THE  CHURCH  WAS  OBSERVING  TWO  SABBATHS—— SATURDAY  AND  SUNDAY,  BUT  GOD  WANTED  THE  OLD  SABBATH  TO  DIMINISH  AND  VANISH,  WHILE  SUNDAY  WOULD  NOW  BE  HOLY  AND  THE  WEEKLY  SABBATH.  NO  SUCH  WORDS  CAN  BE  FOUND  IN  THE  WRITINGS  OF  THE  APOSTLE  JOHN,  WHO  LIVED  TO  VERY  NEAR  THE  END  OF  THE  FIRST  CENTURY.

THERE  ARE  SO  MANY  THINGS  WRONG  WITH  THOSE  WHO  WANT  TO  HOLD  ON  TO  THE  “SUNDAY  THEOLOGY”—— WELL  THEY  HAVE  BEEN  COVERED  AND  ANSWERED  IN  MANY  MANY  STUDIES  UNDER  THIS  SECTION  OF  MY  WEBSITE.

Keith Hunt

THE  ENGLISH  SUNDAY

 

Edward R. Bernard, M.A.

Published 1903

LECTURE III

THE LORD'S DAY IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH

WE will now consider the beginnings of the Christian festival of the Lord's Day. But let me first recapitulate the results at which we have arrived with regard to the Sabbath. The Sabbath although a special ceremonial ordinance for the Hebrew nation was not a mere ceremonial ordinance. It had moral contents and purposes, it met needs always felt by all mankind when brought into relation with the true God.

(1) It was a day of rest from worldly employments, and brought over a clear space for higher thoughts and for approach to God.

(2) It was a commemoration of creation and still more of redemption, of a special relation to God brought about by His past dealings with those to whom the ordinance was given.

(3) It was a sign marking off those who acknowledged that special relation, and binding them together, separating them from the world around them.

(4) It was a kind of first fruits, like the literal offerings of first fruits, By the dedication of which men acknowledged that all the days of human life belonged to Him and His service.

Upon the foundation of this simple ordinance Judaism after the Exile built up a fabric of elaborate rules for its observance. These so far from promoting the original purposes of the Sabbath, darkened, obscured, and absolutely frustrated them. The Sabbath was to be a day given to God. The best way of serving God is as Isaiah had taught by works of love to man (Is. lviii. 7). But it was just these that the Scribes forbade. The law and the prophets were the two mutually counterbalancing forces in the religion of Israel, and the long silence of prophecy from Malachi to John the Baptist gave the whole field to the law, unchecked and uncorrected by contemporary prophetic teaching. The coming of Christ with His forerunner was something much greater than the revival of prophecy, but it was the revival of prophecy.

Thus when He came, He had to vindicate the true purpose of the Sabbath, to clear it from its accretions, and this He did by deliberately challenging the teaching of the Scribes, and selecting the Sabbath for special works of  mercy.

He did not break the Sabbath in the sense of transgressing the Mosaic law, at least there is no record that He did, and it is highly improbable. It was a part of the law which He came not to destroy but to fulfil. It was His habit to attend Synagogue worship on that day. One incidental allusion is enough to show how He regarded it, and indeed might well be construed as approving the future observance of the day by Jewish believers at least until the destruction of Jerusalem. “Pray you that your flight be not in the winter, neither on a Sabbath” [Matt. xxiv. 20 ]. He did not utter a single word to its abolition, but He left it purified and vindicated.

[MATT. 24 IS A PROPHECY CONCERNING JESUS’ COMING AGAIN IN GLORY AND POWER TO RULE THE WORLD. HENCE WE SEE JESUS  UPHELD  THE  4TH  COMMANDMENT,  THE  7TH  DAY  SABBATH  AS  BEING  OBSERVED  TO  THE  VERY  END  OF  THIS  AGE.  MATTHEW  24  HAS  NOTHING  TO  DO  WITH  70  A.D.  THE  DISCIPLES  ASKED  JESUS  TO  GIVE  THEM  THE  SIGNS  LEADING  UP  TO  HIS  RETURN  TO  EARTH.  IT  IS  A  PROPHECY  FOR  THE  END  OF  THIS  AGE,  AND  THE  SABBATH,  THE  ONE  JESUS  OBSERVED  IS  STILL  IN  PLACE   -  Keith Hunt]

Let us now turn to the Lord’s Day, which is the proper subject of the present lecture. We must be prepared to find very scanty traces of its early history, and none whatever of its having been enjoined as a command.

There is the strongest possible contrast between the provision made by God for the Church of the Old Covenant, and that made by God in Christ for the Church of the New Covenant. For the first there is a great system of ceremonial law, feasts, and observances, extensive in itself, even if we narrow it down by assigning portions of it to a later date than that of Moses. But for the other, for the Church of the New Covenant, there was absolutely nothing provided by way of institutions except the two sacraments, and for those only the briefest possible directions were given, with no details as to methods of administration. Everything else that may be required is provided for by the gift of the Spirit. The system and organization of the Church is left to grow up and to develop; to fall away, and to be renewed ; according to circumstances and needs. It was no longer the divine purpose to fix a single Eastern nation in unalterable customs. But looking forward to all the vast changes of Western life and history, there was to be freedom, free born under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, so far as that guidance should be truly sought, freedom with all its risks and its inevitable mistakes.

The primitive  Church  then  was   left to develop and modify all matters of organization and ceremonial. This being so it was left to develop its own weekly festival. It is pure imagination to suppose that directions were given for it by the Lord Himself. Had there been such, some tradition of them would certainly have been preserved for us by the Fathers of the second century. But though we have no ground for supposing a command we do find a certain authorization and approval by Him of the first Lord's Day gathering which is mentioned, and most probably also of a second. Let us take them in order.

[IT  IS  NONSENSE  THAT  FREEDOM  TO  CHANGE  ANY  OF  THE  TEN  COMMANDMENTS  WAS  GIVEN  TO  THE  CHURCH,  WILLY-NILLY.  ANY  IMPORTANT  ISSUES  LIKE  PHYSICAL  CIRCUMCISION  FOR  SALVATION,  WAS  FIRST  MADE  CLEAR  BY  GOD  TO  SOME  APOSTLES  LIKE  PETER  AND  PAUL,  THEN  A  MINISTERIAL  CONFERENCE  HELD  TO  MAKE  THE  TEACHINGS  OF  GOD  CLEAR  ON  THE  MATTER.  SO  IT  WOULD  HAVE  BEEN  WITH  ANY  OTHER  ISSUE,  ESPECIALLY  IF  THE  ISSUE  WAS  WITHIN  THE  TEN  COMMANDMENTS,  AS  LIKE  AN  ISSUE  OF  WHAT  DAY  WAS  NOW  THE  WEEKLY  SABBATH.  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  WRITINGS (RIGHT  UP  TO  THE  DEATH  OF  THE  APOSTLE  JOHN  AT  THE  END  OF  THE  FIRST  CENTURY) ARE  SILENT  ON  ANY  WEEKLY  SABBATH  ISSUE - Keith Hunt]

(1) "After eight days again his disciples were within" (John xx. 26). The day so described is the next First Day after that on which the Resurrection took place. The disciples were gathered, and He came.

[THIS DOES NOT SAY THE FIRST DAY WAS THEN MADE HOLY, OR WAS TO BE OBSERVED AS THE NEW TESTAMENT SABBATH - Keith Hunt]

(2) " When the day of Pentecost was now come, they were all together in one place" (Acts ii. 1). This again is a gathering of the disciples, probably of the believers as a body. It was in "a house" as we learn from v. 2. This has been generally understood to imply that they were assembled in the upper chamber mentioned in Acts i. 13, but Dr Chase (" Hulsean Lectures," p. 31) has with some probability suggested that "the Temple was the scene of the Pentecostal gift." "House" is the regular term both in the Septuagint and in Josephus for the chambers of the Temple. Here also we have most probably a divine recognition of the gathering for observance of the day, a fresh consecration of it by the Pentecostal gift. I say most probably, for the question whether the gift of the Spirit took place on a Sabbath or on a First Day depends on the interpretation of the accounts given as to the day of the Crucifixion.1

1 Without going into detail it is sufficient here to say that the three Synoptic Gospels seem to point to the Last Supper having been the real Passover meal, celebrated on the proper day at the proper hour. If that be so then Pentecost must have fallen on a Saturday. But if we follow the narrative of St John, and regard the Last Supper as an anticipatory Passover, and the Crucifixion as having taken place on Nisan 14 before the hour of the true Passover, then Pentecost would fall on a Sunday, and the conclusion which I have drawn from that supposition is maintained. There is, however, some doubt as to the rendering 'fully come' in Acts ii. 1.    See Blass's note in loc.

[THE  SADDUCEES  HAD  THE  CORRECT  COUNTING  TO  PENTECOST—— ALWAYS  ON  A  SUNDAY;  SEE  MY  STUDIES  REGARDING  PENTECOST.  BUT  PENTECOST  WAS  A  FEAST  DAY  OF  THE  LORD.  IT  HAS  NOTHING  TO  DO  WITH  THE  WEEKLY  SABBATH,  OR  THE  4TH  COMMANDMENT  -  Keith Hunt]

(3) We hear nothing more of the First Day of the week in Jerusalem or Judear but twenty-five years later it meets us from the side of the Gentile Churches in an Epistle of St Paul. Writing to the Corinthians [1 Cor. xvi. 2] he mentions it as a suitable day for putting by what they could spare from the earnings of the week, for the collection for the poor saints at Jerusalem. Like the Sabbath the first day was to be a day of works of mercy. The passage does not necessarily imply that Christians assemblies were held on that day, though of course it does not in any degree tell against their being so held. In the next century the Sunday assembly was the time for making such offerings, and this may have been already  the   custom   at   Corinth,  [JUST  NOT  SO  AT  ALL;  THERE  IS  NOT  ONE  WORD  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  THAT  SAYS  TRUE  SAINTS  OF  GOD  MET  AS  A  REGULAR  CUSTOM  ON  THE  FIRST  DAY  OF  THE  WEEK - Keith Hunt] but the offerings mentioned in 1 Cor. xvi.2 were to be kept in store by the givers till St. Paul came. In short the course enjoined by him resembled the missionary box kelp in a private house, with the addition of a special day selected for putting in the gifts.

[NOTHING  HERE  ABOUT  THE  FIRST  DAY  BECOMING  THE  WEEKLY  SABBATH,  OR  TAKING  THE  CHANGE  AND  PLACE  OF  THE  7TH  DAY  SABBATH.  PAUL  WOULD  COME  ON  THE  FIRST  DAY  AND  THEY  WERE  TO  HAVE  THEIR  GIFT  READY  FOR  HIM  TO  TAKE  TO  THE  POOR  SAINTS  AT  JERUSALEM  -  THAT  IS  ALL  IT  SAYS,  A  COLLECTION  FROM  EACH  GIVER;  NO  HOLY  DAY  MADE  HERE,  NO  ADOPTING  OR  CHANGING  THE  WEEKLY  7TH  DAY  SABBATH  TO  THE  1ST  DAY - Keith Hunt]

(4) Then at a date shortly after the epistle referred to above, comes the incidental notice that when St. Paul came to Troas he attended a gathering on the first day of the week for the breaking of bread, that is for celebration of the Lord's Supper, combined as it then was with a meal taken in common. 

[BREAKING  BREAD  HERE  HAS  NOTHING  TO  DO  WITH  A  LORD’S  SUPPER,  IT  JUST  MEANS  EATING  A  MEAL.  THEY  LITERALLY  DID  BREAK  BREAD  DURING  A  MEAL, SLICED  BREAD  HAD  NOT  BEEN  INVENTED.  THIS  WAS  A  FIRST  DAY,  SHALL  WE  SAY,  EVANGELISTIC  MEETING;  WHICH  CAN  BE  ON  ANY  DAY  OF  THE  WEEK.  IT  DOES  NOT  SAY  THE  FIRST  DAY  WAS  HOLY,  THE  SABBATH,  OR  OBSERVED  AS  A  REGULAR  DAY  OF  GATHERING.  AND  IT  HAD  NOTHING  TO  DO  WITH  CELEBRATING  THE  COMMEMORATION  OF  OUR  LORD’S  DEATH,  AS  I  PROVE  IN  OTHER  STUDIES  CONCERNING  WHEN  AND  HOW  OFTEN  THE  SAINTS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  OBSERVED  THE  CEREMONY  OF  THE  LORD’S  DEATH - Keith Hunt]

Whether the time of meeting was on Saturday evening or on Sunday evening does not much affect our present inquiry, though it is otherwise a matter of considerable intererest, as it involves an important question.

It has been argued that if St. Luke is following the JEWISH MODE OF RECKONING, THEN HE CONSIDERS THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK TO BEGIN ON THE EVENING OF THE SEVENTH DAY. 

In that case the actual celebration of the Supper did not take place till after midnight on Saturday, i.e. early on Sunday morning.

EVEN IF THIS BE THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT IT PROVES A CUSTOM OF EARLY MORNING COMMUNIONS AT THIS PERIOD, since the prolongation of St. Paul’s discourse is noticed as unusual, and it is implied that this was the cause why the sacred meal did not take place sooner, i.e. before midnight. It is extremely improbable and unsupported so far as I know by other evidence, that an all night service leading up to a communion before daybreak was a primitive practice.

And it would certainly be strange if a meeting to celebrate week by week the Lord's Resurrection was held on Saturday evening, that is before, instead of after, the hour of the occurrence of the original event.

[THE  HISTORICAL  TRUTH  OF  HOW  OFTEN  THE  TRUE  SAINTS  OF  GOD  OBSERVED  THE  LORD’S  DEATH,  IS  FULLY  EXPOUNDED  ON  MY  WEBSITE  UNDER  THIS  SECTION,  AND  THE  “HISTORY”  SECTION.  THE  WRITER  OBVIOUSLY  DOES  NOT  KNOW  THIS  HISTORY,  OR  IS  DELIBERATELY  GLOSSING  OVER  IT  TO  HOLD  TRADITIONS  FROM  HIS  CHURCH  DENOMINATION  -  Keith Hunt]

It is I think probable that St. Luke, Gentile as he was, did not feel strictly tied to the Jewish mode of reckoning, and therefore is here describing a  gathering which took place on Sunday evening.

[ANY  RELIGIOUS  MEETING  ON  ANY  DAY,  NIGHT  OR  DAY,  IS  FREELY  OURS  TO  TAKE  IF  WE  SO  CHOOSE;  BUT  THAT  DOES  NOT  MAKE  THE  DAY  A  HOLY  DAY,  OR  SABBATH  DAY.  NOT  ONE  WORD  HERE  ABOUT  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  CHURCH  OBSERVING  THE  1ST  DAY  AS  THE  WEEKLY  SABBATH  DAY - Keith Hunt]

Arriving out of the above comes the question, did St Paul start on his voyage (Acts xx. 7) on a Sunday morning? This would be the case if the gathering met on Saturday evening. In itself there is no improbability in this, but it has been sufficiently shown that any argument in favour of Sunday travelling based on this, rests upon an insecure footing. Before leaving the passage it may be added that the meeting for observance of the First Day at Troas, whether on Saturday evening or Sunday evening, is by far the most definite piece of evidence that we have on the subject, and that it is noticeable that it comes from a Gentile Church. 

[ONCE  MORE  THIS  PASSAGE  DOES  NOT  MAKE  SUNDAY  A  HOLY  DAY,  OR  THE  WEEKLY  SABBATH  THAT  NOW  CANCELLED  OUT  THE  WORDS  OF  THE  4TH  COMMANDMENT.  NOTHING  IS  SAID  HERE  TO  JUSTIFY  SOME  NOW  CLAIMING  THE  FIRST  DAY  HAD  BECOME  THE  SABBATH.  ANYTHING  SO  TAUGHT  IS  PURE  CONJECTURE  AND  GRASPING  AT  THE  AIR,  TO  TRY  AND  JUSTIFY  A  CHANGE  OF  THE  WEEKLY  SABBATH  FROM  THE  7TH  DAY  TO  THE  1ST  DAY  -  Keith Hunt]

(5) Lastly  we  have  the  words  of  Rev. 1. 10. “I was in  the Spirit on the Lord’s day.”

Here for the first time we have a name for the day, hitherto called "the first day of the week." Doubt has been cast upon this explanation of  "the Lord's day," and other meanings have been suggested.

It has been said that in this highly prophetic book, the  Lord’s day is the Old Testament phrase, the “Day of the LORD”, IN A NEW FORM, AND THAT IT HERE MEANS THE DAY OF JUDGMENT TO WHICH ST. JOHN IS TRANSFERRED IN SPIRIT.

But there seems no good reason to doubt the traditional interpretation. 

[YES  INDEED  THERE  IS  A  BIG  HUGE  DOUBT!  THE  TRUE  SAINTS  OF  GOD  NEVER  OBSERVED  SUNDAY  AS  A  HOLY  DAY;  NEITHER  DID  THEY  SAY  ANYWHERE  ABOUT  SUNDAY  BEING  THE  WEEKLY  SABBATH  -  Keith Hunt]

There is nothing to surprise us in the occurrence of the phrase. In the second century this name for the First Day was universally accepted in the Church, and we should therefore expect to find it coming into use towards the close of the first century. The name, Lord's day, has been lost by the Teutonic races, but it has been preserved in the Romance languages. It is enough to remind you of the French name Dimanche which represents "Dominica," i.e. "dies Domini."

[I  PROVE  ELSEWHERE  THAT  FALSE  TEACHERS  DID  RISE  UP  IN  THE  TRUE  CHURCHES  OF  GOD;  WE  SEE  IT  IN  THE  WRITINGS  OF  PAUL  AND  JOHN.  BY  THE  SECOND  CENTURY  ROME  WAS  TAKING  A  LEADING  PART,  IN  LEADING  AWAY  FROM  THE  TRUTHS  OF  GOD;  THE  PASSOVER  WAS  REPLACED  WITH  EASTER.  SUNDAY  WAS  BEING  ADOPTED  BY  ROME  TO  GET  AWAY  FROM  ANYTHING  “JEWISH”—AGAIN  ALL  THIS  HISTORY  IS  GIVEN  TO  YOU  ON  MY WEBSITE  -  Keith Hunt]

This then is the evidence for observance of the first day in Apostolic times. AND HOW VERY LITTLE IT ALL COMES TO!  On the other hand in the book of Acts alone, the Sabbath is mentioned not less than nine times, most often in connection with St. Paul’s missionary work. No doubt he went to the synagogues on the Sabbath for the sake of the easy opportunity  then given him of speaking to the Jews and the devout persons, but I think it would be a low estimate of his character which represented him as doing so merely for the sake of the opportunity. We feel so strongly the opposition between the Christianity of St. Paul and the anti-Christian prejudice of the Jews  with whom he came into conflict, that we are blinded to a sense of how much they had in common. We fail to realize the longing with which, in a heathen city, the wandering apostle would seek for communion in worship with those who like himself, knew and adored the living God.

I will here report, what I have already said (lee. ii), that there can be no doubt that the apostles generally observed  both  the  Sabbath and the first day of the week [NOT  AT  ALL,  JUST  WAY  WAY  OFF  FROM  THE  TRUTH  OF  THE  MATTER;  THE  APOSTLES  NEVER  OBSERVED  THE  FIRST  DAY  AS  SOME  KIND  OF  SEMI-SABBATH;  NOR  DID  THEY  OBSERVE  EASTER,  BUT  THEY  OBSERVED  THE  PASSOVER  ON  THE  14TH  DAY  OF  THE  HEBREW  CALENDAR,  AS  THE  LORD’S  DEATH;  PROVED  IN  OTHER  STUDIES  ON  MY  WEBSITE  -  Keith Hunt]

But there is nothing whatever to show that the observance of the Lord’s Day was regarded as compulsory, either for Jewish Christians who had another day to keep, or for Gentile Christians who had no other day to keep. Indeed St Paul's protest against judging others in respect of their non-observance of feast days and Sabbath days (Col. ii. 16) though directed against Judaizers would apply equally well to the observance and non-observance of the Lord's Day. And the same is true of Rom. xiv. 5, "One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike." This could not have been written had the observance of the Lord's Day been a universal rule of the  Church.

[WOW….HE  GETS  IT.  BUT  FAILS  TO  SEE  THAT  WITH  THE  CATHOLIC/PROTESTANT  UNDERSTAND  OF  ROM. 14  AND  COL. 2: 16  THERE  IS  A  CONTRADICTION  WITH  PAUL.  IN  ONE  SECTION  HE  SAYS  THERE  IS  NO  SABBATH,  IN  THE  OTHER  SECTION  YOU  CAN  CHOOSE  WHATEVER  DAY  OF  THE  WEEK  AS  SABBATH.  THE  TRUTH  OF  COL. 2:16  AND  ROM. 14  IS  FULLY  EXPOUNDED  IN  OTHER  STUDIES  ON  MY  WEBSITE  -  Keith Hunt]

In short, the supposed transference in Apostolic times of the obligations of the Sabbath to the Lord’s Day is a Fiction, which grew up in and after the fourth century.

What did happen, was, for Gentile Churches, the observance of the Lord's Day came to be influenced by the great ideas and aspirations which the Sabbath had expressed, and did still express for their brethren the Jewish Christians. The connection between the two days was never formal, but it was none the less real and powerful.

[NOPE  IT  WAS  NEVER  REAL  PER  SE.  NOT  ONE  VERSE  OR  INSTRUCTION  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT,  TELLS  US  TO  SET  A  DAY  ASIDE  TO  COMMEMORATE  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  CHRIST.  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  NEVER  ENDORSES  THE  FIRST  DAY  AS  A  HOLY  DAY,  OR  A  SABBATH  DAY.  THE  TRUTH  OF  THE  RESURRECTION  WAS  PREACHED  AS  ONE  MIGHTY  HUGE  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD,  AS  WE  SEE  IN  1  COR. 15,  BUT  WE  ARE  NEVER  TOLD  TO  MAKE  THE  FIRST  DAY  AS  SOME  SEMI-SABBATH,  OR  TO  EVEN  GATHER  TOGETHER  IN  SOME  REGULAR  WAY  OF  WORSHIP  -  Keith Hunt]

With  the  beginning  of  the  second  century  we  pass  beyond  the  New  testament  to  the  Apostolic  Fathers  and  the  Apologists.

[AND  THOSE  GUYS  WERE  BY  THEN  GOING  INTO  THE  VARIANTS  OF  FALSE  DOCTRINES,  AS  WE  SEE  FROM  THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  LORD’S  DAY  AND  EASTER  -  Keith Hunt]

I must be content with four or five illustrations  of  the  definite  establishment  of  the  Lord’s  Day  in  this  century.  They are the stock instances, but they must not on that account be omitted.

(1) Ignatius writing quite early in the second century not only names the Lord’s Day, but speaks of living in conformity with it, thus giving it a central position in Christian life and practice. Yet further he speaks of Jewish Christians who had given up the Sabbath. He contrasts life according to the Lord’s Day with “sabbatizing” that is with Judaic manner of life of which the observance of the sabbath was a the centre and type. Here is a contrast between the contents of the two days not a transference of them from one to the other.

[CERTAINLY  WE  KNOW  BY  THE  EARLY  SECOND  CENTURY  THE  CHURCH  OF  ROME  HAD  TAKEN  ON  A  HUGE  INFLUENCE  IN  THE  “CHRISTIAN”  WORLD.  INDEED  THE  FIRST  DAY  WAS  PUSHING  OUT  THE  SABBATH  OF  THE  4TH  COMMANDMENT;  EASTER  WAS  PUSHING  OUT  THE  OBSERVANCE  OF  THE  LORD’S  DEATH  ON  THE  14TH  OF  THE  FIRST  MONTH  OF  THE  JEWISH  CALENDAR;  IT  WAS  A  TIME  OF  GREAT  FALSE  DOCTRINES  COMING  INTO  AND  UNDER  THE  NAME  OF  “CHRISTIANITY”  -  Keith Hunt]

(2) The (so-called) Teaching of the Twelve Apostles is mainly a treatise on Christian worship, which we need not hesitate to place early in the second century. Here we have both the name of the Lord's day and an injunction to meet and break bread on that day, given as a rule known and accepted by all.

[ONLY  ACCEPTED  BY  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THOSE  UNDER  THE  INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CHURCH  AT  ROME  -  Keith Hunt[

Then follow two more statements from very different quarters, which confirm the observance of Sunday as it now comes to be called.

[YES  THE  DAY  OF  SUN  WORSHIP  IN  THE  PAGAN  WORLD;  NOW  BEING  ADOPTED  BY  THE  CHRISTIANS  OF  ROME - Keith Hunt]

(3) Pliny, the Roman governor of Bithynia, gives, in a letter to the Emperor Trajan, the account given to him by Christians who had recanted under pressure. The sum of their offending had been that they met on a stated day before dawn for worship, and a mutual oath (sacramentum) of abstinence from sin; and again (later, but at a time not specified) for a common meal. Though this passage only proves the observance of "a stated day," yet in the light of the other evidence from the same period, it must be interpreted to mean Sunday.   

[WOULD  HAVE  BEEN  SUNDAY  INDEED,  FOR  THAT  DAY  WAS  NOW  THROUGH  ROME,  TAKING  THE  PLACE  OF  THE  4TH  COMMANDMENT  SABBATH;  APOSTASY   WAS  WELL  ON  ITS  WAY  INTO  “CHRISTIANITY”  AND  FORMING  WHAT  WOULD  BECOME  THE  ROMAN  CATHOLIC  CHURCH- Keith Hunt] 

(4) Justin Martyr, the Christian apologist, to whom  we owe our first full account of Christian worship, says that the assemblies  for these purposes were hold on the day of the sun. And he prefixes to the motive of commemorating the Resurrection, a further reason for the observance of the day, namely that on the first day of the week, God dispelled darkness (by the creation of light), and changed chaos to order. 

[CLEVER  WAYS  TO  BRING  IN  A  THEOLOGY  OF  THEIR  OWN  MAKING;  WORSHIP  ON  THE  DAY  OF  THE  SUN;  GET  PAGANS  TO  ACCEPT  GOD  AND  CHRIST,  WHILE  CONTINUING  TO  KEEP  THEIR  TRADITIONS,  AND  TO  MOVE  AWAY  FROM  BEING  THOUGHT  OF  AS  “JEWISH” - Keith Hunt]

(5) The last testimony to be quoted comes from another apologist (Tertullian)  at the end of the same century. Here a new and distinct element of Sunday observance makes its appearance of which we have heard nothing hitherto, namely abstinence from business. Tertuilian has been speaking of the two postures in prayer, standing and kneeling, and he goes on to say, "On the Lord's day we ought not only to dispense with that attitude [i.e. the posture of kneeling in prayer], but also to lay aside every condition and every duty which involve anxiety, postponing, moreover, business, lest we give place to the devil" (Test. de Or. 23). 

You will see that no attempt is made to ground abstinence from business employments on Sabbath regulations, but they are to be avoided as inconsistent with the character of the day, and disturbing to the frame of mind which is proper to it. 

When we come to sum up the result of the present inquiry as to the true character of Sunday, we shall find that it cannot be better expressed than in these words of Tertullian.

[YES  WORDS,  IDEAS,  OF  MEN,  MAKING  UP  THEIR  OWN  RELIGION  TOWARDS  GOD;  WHICH  GOD  HAS  NEVER  GIVEN  THEM  THE  RIGHT  TO  DO.  JESUS  SAID,  “YOU  WORSHIP  ME  IN  VAIN,  TEACHING  FOR  DOCTRINES  THE  COMMANDMENTS  OF  MEN,  WHILE  BREAKING  THE  COMMANDMENTS  OF  GOD”  -  Keith Hunt]

This tendency to abstain from work and from everything else that might interfere with the ideal of the day as a day of worship received before long, legal recognition in the edict of Constantine, March 7, 321.

[YES  MAN  FINALLY  STAMPING  THE  RELIGION  OF  “CHRISTIAN”  ROME  ON  THE  EMPIRE  OF  ROME  -  Keith Hunt]

This edict must not be interpreted as a state interference with matters of religion, but rather as a legalisation of existing Christian custom. As, however, the decree was to extend in its effects to the whole empire, and not merely to the Christian portion of it, it was impossible to give the day its Christian name, or to put the observance of it on Christian grounds. I have endeavoured to examine the motive of the decree in a note at the end of this lecture.

Looking back on what has been said, we see that the Lord’s Day and its observance were not, in the beginning at least, built upon the Old Testament Sabbath, or the fourth Commandments. 

The day grew up as a Commemoration of the Resurrection, that great event which in Apostolic preaching filled even a larger space than the Cross itself. The Lord’s day was not prescribed by God to man, but spontaneously offered by man to God. Worship and communion were the ideas which distinguished it.

[MAN  MAKING  UP  HOW  HE  WOULD  WORSHIP  GOD;  MAKING  UP  HIS  OWN  WAYS  AND  CUSTOMS  HE  WOULD  WORSHIP  GOD  WITH.  THIS  WAS  NEVER  ALLOWED  BY  GOD,  HOW  COULD  IT  BE  AS  THERE  THEN  WOULD  BE  UTTER  CONFUSION  IN  THE  CHURCHES  OF  GOD  AROUND  THE  WORLD.  THE  DAY  OF  THE  RESURRECTION   OF  JESUS  WAS  NEVER  TOLD  TO  US,  TO  OBSERVE  NEITHER  IN  WORSHIP  SERVICES  OR  REFRAINING  TO  WORK  ON  THAT  DAY.  ALL  OF  THOSE  THINGS  ARE  THE  IDEAS  OF  MEN,  WHO  ROSE  UP  UNDER  THE  CHRISTIAN  BANNER  IN  THE  FIRST  CENTURY  EVEN  WHILE  THE  APOSTLES  LIVED  AND  PREACHED;  MANY  PASSAGES  TELL  US  OF  FALSE  TEACHERS  AND  MANY  ANTI-CHRISTS.  THE  SNOWBALL  GAINING  MORE  MASS  AND  POWER    DOWN  THE  HILL,  AS  THE  FOLLOWING  CENTURIES  UNFOLDED  -  Keith Hunt]   

Does this view of its origin tend to relax the strictness and completeness of our observance of it today? The very notion of an offering involves sacrifice and self-denial. Here, as elsewhere, David's rule applies, "I will not offer unto the Lord my God of that which doth cost me nothing."

[O  HOW  MAN  CAN  JUSTIFY  HIS  MADE  UP  WORSHIP  IDEAS;  AS  SOME  SAY,  “YOU  CAN  MAKE  THE  BIBLE  SAY  ANYTHING  YOU  WANT  IT  TO  SAY”  -  Keith Hunt]

NOTE.—On the Decree of Constantine

It has been argued that the decree of Constantine, dated MARCH 7, A.D. 321, was not Sabbatarian. 

This is true in the sense that the decree does not base the observance of the Sunday on that of the Sabbath. But it is Sabbatarian in the looser sense, that it was designed to promote the observance of the Sunday as a day of rest. The direction to suspend all artisan work on that day, and indeed, all work in towns, is perfectly clear, and the exception made in favor of agricultural work on the part of dwellers in the country is an exception which is regarded as needing its justification to be expressed in the terms of the decree itself.

To regard the decree as principally concerned with legal proceedings, and the distinction between "dies fasti" and "nefasti," is to fix attention on a small portion of its scope to the exclusion of the rest.

And indeed Constantine’s motive, though he was not yet a professed Christian, was unmistakably a religious one, if, at least, we accept as trustworthy Eusebius’ comments in his life of Constantine (iv. 18), where we find that the emperor commanded a similar honour to be paid to Friday. In the case of Friday, no motive but a religious one could be assigned, and as will be seen, Eusebius classes together the Emperor’s action with regard to the two days. He (Eusebius), supposes the command to honour these days "was in memory of things related to have been accomplished by our common Saviour on these two days" (i.e. Friday and Sunday). That the observance of Friday was abandoned as impracticable would account for there being no mention of it in any extant decree. 

The above argument assumes as correct the conjecture of Valesius [Greek is given], a conjecture which, although rejected by Heinichen, is amply justified both by Sozomen H. E. I. 8., and by the context in Eusebius. See Zahn, " “Skizzen aus dem Leben," p. 370.

………………..

SO  WE  DO  SEE  CONSTANTINE   DID  HAVE  RELIGIOUS  MOTIVES  BEHIND  HIS  DECREES  REGARDING  SUNDAY  AND  FRIDAY,  AS  IT  FUSED  WITH  THE  IDEA  OF  “EASTER”  AND  THE  TEACHING  CHRIST  DIED  ON  FRIDAY  AND  ROSE  SUNDAY.  YES  THE  2ND  CENTURY  DEBATE  WITH  ROME  AND  THE  CHURCHES  OF  ASIA  MINOR,  OVER  WHEN  TO  OBSERVE  THE  LORD’S  DEATH  IS  RECORDED  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY.  ROME  ADOPTED  “EASTER”  AND  SO  CONTINUED  TO  ADOPT  SUNDAY,  AND  CONSTANTINE  MAKING  ROMAN  CHRISTIANITY  A  STATE  RELIGION,  GAVE  LEGITIMACY  AND  IMPOTENCE   FOR  ROME  TO  ADOPT  MORE  AND  MORE  FALSE  CUSTOMS  AND  TEACHINGS  AS  THE  CENTURIES  PROCEEDED - Keith Hunt