The Hebrew Roots Movement (HRM) is a
contemporary
Christian theological and cultural movement that
emphasizes adopting elements
from Second Temple Judaism and the practices of
the early Christian
communities. This movement seeks to reconnect with
the Hebraic foundations of
Christianity, often advocating for a return to
what is perceived as the
original form of the faith as practiced by Jesus
(Yeshua) and his early
followers.
Historical Context:
The origins of the HRM can be traced back to
the late
20th century, though its ideological underpinnings
have roots in earlier
Christian restorationist movements. Movements like
this, including the Church
of God (Seventh Day) and various Messianic Jewish
groups, aimed to restore what
they viewed as lost biblical practices and
teachings. The HRM gained momentum
with the advent of the internet, which allowed for
broader dissemination of its
teachings and facilitated community building among
adherents.
Core Beliefs:
1.Torah Observance: Central
to the
HRM is the belief in the ongoing relevance of the
Torah (the first five books
of the Hebrew Bible) for Christian life. Adherents
often adopt practices such
as observing the Sabbath from Friday evening to
Saturday evening, keeping the
biblical feasts (like Passover, Sukkot, and
Shavuot), and adhering to dietary
laws (kashrut).
2.Use of Hebrew Names: There
is a
significant emphasis on using Hebrew names for God
(Yahweh) and Jesus (Yeshua),
alongside Hebrew words and phrases in worship and
daily life, to reflect a more
authentic connection to the biblical language.
3.Biblical Literalism: HRM
proponents
often interpret the Bible literally, particularly
in matters of law and
prophecy, which leads to a unique hermeneutic that
blends elements of Judaism
with Christian theology.
4.Cultural and Theological
Identity:
The movement often seeks to reclaim a Jewish
identity for Christianity, arguing
that Jesus and the early church were Jewish, and
therefore, a true
understanding of Christianity must include its
Jewish roots.
Practices:
·Sabbath Observance:
Adherents might
refrain from using work technology and engage in
communal worship or personal
study.
·Feast Days: Celebration of
the
biblical feasts is seen as a way to align with the
liturgical calendar of the
Old Testament.
·Dietary Laws: Keeping
kosher or
refraining from certain foods like pork and
shellfish is common.
·Study of Hebrew: There is
encouragement
to learn Hebrew so that they can understand the
Scriptures in their original
language better.
Criticisms and Challenges:
·Theological Debates:
Traditional
Christian denominations often criticize HRM for
potentially undermining the
Pauline doctrine of freedom from the law through
faith in Christ.
·Cultural Appropriation:
Some Jewish
scholars and leaders critique the movement for
what they perceive as the
appropriation or misrepresentation of Jewish
culture and theology.
·Community and Identity:
There are
challenges in defining who qualifies as part of
the movement and how to
integrate or differentiate from Jewish
communities.
Conclusion:
The Hebrew Roots Movement represents an
effort to
reinterpret Christian identity through a Hebraic
lens. It challenges
conventional Christian practices and theology by
promoting a lifestyle and
belief system that integrates elements of ancient
Jewish practice into modern
Christian life.
Here
are some
groups and organizations that can be associated with
the Hebrew Roots Movement
(HRM), though they might not all use this term
explicitly, reflecting the
diverse expressions within this broader movement:
1.First Fruits of Zion
(FFOZ) - This
group teaches believers about their Hebrew roots,
including observing biblical
feasts and Torah-keeping from a Messianic Jewish
perspective.
2.TorahResource Institute -
Led by
Tim Hegg, this institute provides resources and
education on the Torah from a
perspective that integrates it with the Christian
faith, emphasizing the Hebrew
roots.
3.Hebraic Roots Teaching
Institute
(HRTI) - Founded by William F. Dankenbring, HRTI
aims to restore what they see
as the original Hebraic foundations of Christianity.
4.Beth Immanuel Sabbath
Fellowship -
A congregation that embraces both Jewish and
Christian elements, focusing on
living out the commandments of the Torah in light of
the New Testament.
5.Olive Tree Congregation -
This
group practices a form of Messianic Judaism,
integrating Jewish traditions with
faith in Yeshua (Jesus) as Messiah.
6.Assembly of Yahweh - While
more
aligned with Sacred Name movements, this group often
overlaps with HRM due to
its emphasis on the Torah and its observance.
7.Lion and Lamb Ministries -
Founded
by Monte Judah, it provides teachings that link the
Torah with New Testament
Christianity, encouraging the practice of the Feasts
and other biblical
observances.
8.Restoration Fellowship –
This
organization works towards restoring the early
Christian practices, which they
believe include the observance of the Torah.
9.Messianic Jewish Alliance
of
America (MJAA) - Although primarily a Messianic
Jewish organization, many of
its teachings and practices align with HRM,
emphasizing integrating Torah
observance with faith in Yeshua.
10.United Church of God (UCG)
- While
not strictly part of HRM, some of its teachings
resonate with the movement,
particularly in Sabbath observance and the biblical
festivals.
11.Nazarene Israel - This
group
combines beliefs in Torah observance with the idea
that the faithful followers
of Yeshua would maintain Jewish identity and
practices.
It’s
important to
note that while these groups share some
commonalities with the Hebrew Roots Movement,
they might differ significantly in other theological
areas or practices.
Moreover, some might identify more with Messianic
Judaism or other related but
distinct movements.
Dean
Haskins is an
artist known for his music composition, production,
and performance work. He
has been actively involved in the music industry
since the early 1990s,
combining his music skills with his visual and
performing arts talents. Haskins
has produced and composed for various projects,
including film scores,
commercials, and live performances, often blending
genres like jazz, rock, and
classical music to create unique auditory
experiences. His work is
characterized by an exploration of soundscapes,
where he integrates live
instruments with electronic elements, showcasing his
versatility and innovative
approach to music. His music can be found on
platforms like Bandcamp, where he
shares his compositions for evaluation and
enjoyment.
Haskins
wrote a
book, “From Christian to Believer,” with his
co-author, James Finnegan.
This
writer came
in contact with Dean at the social media site called
Parler. He strongly
disagreed with the content of the Apostle’s Creed
that this writer posted. He
made it clear in short order that he hated
Christianity. He strongly objected
to the name Jesus. He asserted that Christianity was
a bastardized religion and
emphasized the importance of using Hebrew.
When
asked if he
was a better Hebrew scholar than Alfred Edershiem,
the 19th-century Jewish
scholar who converted to Christianity wrote many
volumes on Jewish life at the
time of Christ, including the monumental work “The
Life And Times Of Jesus The
Messiah.” Dean could not credibly explain why
Edershiem felt the liberty to use
the name Jesus rather than the Hebrew Yeshua; he
could not answer the question.
Another
area that
was like pulling teeth was asking Dean who the
leader of his group was, the “Way
of the Tabernacle.” Gradually, it became clear that
he was or at least one of
the leaders. Then Dean was asked if he was appointed
or self-appointed.
Throughout our limited exchange, Dean exhibited
arrogance and the constant use
of pejoratives. This writer informed him that
because of this, he was a bad
salesman. He said that he was guided by the Holy
Spirit, passing off his lousy
salesmanship to God. Another takeaway from the
exchange was his hatred for
Christianity and his refusal to recognize the
arguments made by a Christian.
This writer gave Dean a link to an article
explaining why the observance of the
Saturday Sabbath was changed to the Lord’s Day on
Sunday. Sending Dean this
article link was our final exchange in which he
blocked me on the Parler
platform. Much of the following will be a
point-by-point response to assertions
made on the “Way of the Tabernacle” website. The
points meriting a response
will be highlighted in red.
An
analysis of
various statements made by Dean Haskins on his
website:
“True believers who are indwelt by
the
Spirit are the bride, and the bride’s name is
Y’isra-el. Most in the “church”
don’t possess the spiritual understanding to see
what is physical and what is
spiritual.” – Dean Haskins
The
above
statement contains several logical fallacies and
theological issues:
1.Ambiguity
in
Definitions:
·The term “true believers”
is not
universally defined. Different denominations and
theological perspectives might
define who qualifies as a “true believer”
differently, leading to ambiguity in
who is considered part of the bride.
2.Scriptural
Interpretation:
·The idea that “true
believers who
the Spirit indwells are the bride” might be derived
from interpretations of New
Testament passages like Ephesians 5:25-27 or
Revelation 19:7-9, where the Church
is metaphorically referred to as the bride of
Christ. However, equating the
bride directly with “Y’isra-el” (presumably
referring to Israel) introduces a
mix-up between Judaic identity and Christian
ecclesiology. Traditionally,
Christian theology might see Israel as a precursor
or type of the Church, but
the equation here seems to blur distinct theological
identities.
3.Theological
Conflation:
·The conflation of the
Christian
Church (the body of Christ, often called the Bride
of Christ) with Y’isra-el
(the nation of Israel) overlooks the distinctions
between Old Testament Israel
and the New Testament Church. While theological
views like Covenant Theology
might see continuity between Israel and the Church,
the statement implies a
direct identity that many Christian traditions would
argue oversimplifies or
misrepresents these relationships.
4.Exclusivity
and
Judgment:
·The assertion that “most
in the
‘church’ don’t possess the spiritual understanding
to see what is physical and
what is spiritual” implies a judgment on the
spiritual state of others without
any proof. This kind of statement can be problematic
because:
·It presupposes one’s
spiritual
superiority or insight, which can lead to spiritual
elitism.
·It lacks objective
criteria for
sufficient “spiritual understanding,” making it a
subjective claim.
·Contrary to many teachings
about
humility, love, and mutual upbuilding in faith, it
might foster division rather
than unity within the Christian community. In
addition, the claim that “most in
the church” is fallacious. Has Dean interviewed most
of the people in the Church?
Such an unverifiable claim is like the atheist
trying to prove a universal
negative.
5.Lack
of Scriptural
Support:
·The statement does not
provide
scriptural references to support the direct
identification of the bride with
Y’isra-el, which would be crucial in Christian
theological discourse. Without
biblical backing, the claim appears more as a
personal or unique theological
interpretation than a widely accepted doctrine.
6.Logical
Structure:
·The argument moves from a
potentially accepted Christian metaphor (believers
as the bride) to a less
commonly accepted or understood identity (the bride
as Y’isra-el) without clear
logical or scriptural progression. This jump needs
more theological groundwork
to be logically coherent in traditional Christian
thought.
In
summary:
Dean
Haskin’s
statement lacks clarity in its definitions,
conflates different theological
identities without sufficient explanation, makes
potentially divisive
judgments, and does not adequately support its
assertions with accepted
scriptural or traditional Christian teachings,
making it problematic from a
logical and theological perspective.
Consider
the warnings
in the scriptures about returning to the types and
shadows of the Older Covenant.
The
Bible’s King
James Version (KJV) includes several passages that
could be interpreted as
warnings against returning to or relying on Judaism
after accepting the Messiah,
the Lord Jesus Christ.
Here
are some
relevant verses:
1.Galatians 2:16 - “Knowing
that a
man is not justified by the works of the law, but by
the faith of Jesus Christ,
even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might
be justified by the faith
of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by
the works of the law shall
no flesh be justified.”
2.Galatians 3:2-3 - “This
only would
I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works
of the law, or by the
hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? Having begun in
the Spirit, are ye now
made perfect by the flesh?”
3.Galatians 4:9-11 - “But
now, after
that ye have known God, or rather are known of God,
how turn ye again to the
weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire
again to be in bondage? Ye
observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am
afraid of you, lest I have
bestowed upon you labor in vain.”
4.Galatians 5:1 - “Stand
fast
therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made
us free, and be not
entangled again with the yoke of bondage.”
5.Hebrews 6:4-6 - “For it is
impossible for those who were once enlightened, and
have tasted of the heavenly
gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And
have tasted the good word
of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they
shall fall away, to renew
them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to
themselves the Son of God
afresh, and put him to an open shame.”
6.Hebrews 10:26-29 - “For if
we sin
wilfully after that we have received the knowledge
of the truth, there
remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain
fearful looking for of
judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour
the adversaries. He that
despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or
three witnesses: Of how
much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be
thought worthy, who hath trodden
under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the
blood of the covenant,
wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and
hath done despite unto the
Spirit of grace?”
7.Colossians 2:16-17 - “Let
no man,
therefore, judge you in meat, or in drink, or in
respect of a holy day, or of
the new moon, or the sabbath days: Which are a
shadow of things to come; but
the body is of Christ.”
These
verses, mainly
from Galatians, are often cited in discussions about
the transition from the
Old Covenant (associated with Judaism) to the New
Covenant in Christ, warning
against reverting to practices seen as legalistic or
unnecessary under the new
covenant Christian faith.
The
following is a
point-by-point analysis of the Way of the
Tabernacle’s online tract called: (Bolding
and red text highlighting is mine)
“THERE
IS
TRUTH AND THERE IS COUNTERFEIT”
Messiah:
born
on the Feast of Tabernacles in the Fall of each
year)
Answer:
The
idea that the
Messiah was born on the Feast of Tabernacles
(Sukkot) is a theory held by some
scholars and theologians. Still, it is not
universally accepted or confirmed by
historical texts. Here are some points to consider:
1.Biblical Texts:
The Bible does
not provide an exact date for the birth of Jesus,
who Christians believe to be
the Messiah. The Gospels do not mention a specific
date or festival in
connection with his birth.
2.Feast of Tabernacles:
This Jewish
festival occurs in the Fall, specifically in the
month of Tishrei, around
September or October. Some argue that:
·Jesus’ birth might align
with
Sukkot because of the themes of the festival, which
celebrate God’s dwelling
among the people, paralleling the idea of Emmanuel
(“God with us”).
·There’s a reference in
John 1:14
where it says, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt
among us,” and the term “dwelt”
can be translated from the Greek as “tabernacled.”
3.Contrast with Traditional
Christmas:
The traditional celebration of Christmas on December
25 originates in early
Christian practices and might have been chosen to
coincide with or replace
pagan winter solstice festivals rather than being
based on historical evidence
for Jesus’ actual birth date.
4.Theological
Interpretations:
Various
theological interpretations exist. Some suggest that
Jesus’ birth during Sukkot
would be symbolically rich, aligning with themes of
divine presence, the
harvest, and the pilgrimage aspect of the festival.
However, these are
speculative and not derived from explicit scriptural
evidence.
5.Different Jewish
Interpretations:
In Jewish
Messianic thought, the timing of the Messiah’s birth
or arrival isn’t strictly
tied to Sukkot. Other Jewish traditions and texts
might have varying views on
this matter.
In
summary:
While
the theory
that the Messiah could have been born during the
Feast of Tabernacles provides
an interesting theological and symbolic
interpretation, it remains speculative.
There’s no definitive scriptural or historical
evidence to confirm this as
fact. Therefore, it’s true in the context of some
theological discussions but
not as a universally accepted fact.
Counterfeit:
born
on the Christ-mass, December 25 (sun god’s
birthday) (bolding emphasis
mine)
Answer:
The
claim that
Jesus Christ was born on December 25 has a complex
history intertwined with
Christian tradition and pagan festivals. Here’s a
breakdown of the perspectives
and historical context:
1.Biblical
and
Traditional Viewpoints:
·No Specific Date in the
Bible: The
Bible does not provide an explicit date for Jesus’s
birth. While clues suggest
a different time of year (like shepherds in the
fields at night), these do not
definitively confirm or deny December 25.
·Early Christian
Traditions: Early
Christian writers like Irenaeus, Julius Africanus,
and Hippolytus from the
second and third centuries mention December 25 as
Jesus’s birthday. However,
these accounts are not universally accepted as
historically accurate.
2.Historical
and
Scholarly Analysis:
·Pagan Festivals: December
25 was
indeed the date of several pagan festivals, notably
Saturnalia (a Roman
festival for Saturn) and Dies Natalis Solis Invicti
(“Birthday of the
Unconquered Sun”). Some historians suggest that the
early Christian Church
might have chosen this date to align with existing
pagan celebrations,
facilitating the conversion of pagans to
Christianity by providing a Christian
alternative to these festivals.
·Calculations Hypothesis:
Another
theory proposes that the Church calculated Jesus’s
birth based on the presumed
date of his death or conception, both thought to
have occurred around the
equinoxes or solstices, leading to the nine months
later calculation for his
birth.
3.Contemporary
Interpretations:
·Posts on X: Some users on
social
media platforms like X (formerly known as Twitter)
argue that December 25 was
chosen for its pagan significance, suggesting it was
a strategic move by early
Christians to replace pagan festivities with
Christian ones. According to this
idea, as the Christian faith conquered the pagan
world, it claimed the holidays
and infused the pagan holidays with new meaning.
·Christian Perspective:
Many
Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus on December
25 not because they believe
it to be his actual birthday but as a traditional
and symbolic date,
emphasizing the theological significance of Jesus as
the “Light of the World”
during the darkest time of the year.
In
conclusion:
Whether
Jesus was
born on December 25 remains uncertain due to the
lack of definitive historical
evidence. The date’s association with pagan
festivals is well-documented, but
the choice of December 25 might also reflect early
Christian theological
symbolism. The celebration of Christmas on this date
has more to do with
cultural and religious traditions than with
historical accuracy regarding Jesus’s
birth date. Moreover, as the Christian faith
conquered the pagan world,
Christians infused the old pagan holidays with new
meaning as a sign that
Christ is the victorious Lord overall.
Messiah
diedon Passover (a Wednesday that year)
Answer:
The
question of
whether Jesus referred to as the Messiah in
Christian theology, died on
Passover, specifically on a Wednesday, involves
examining both biblical texts
and historical context, which often yields different
interpretations:
1.Biblical
Accounts:
·Synoptic Gospels (Matthew,
Mark,
Luke): These Gospels suggest that Jesus was
crucified on the day following the
Passover meal, which would traditionally have been
observed on the 15th of
Nisan. This aligns with the idea that the Last
Supper was a Passover meal,
placing the crucifixion on a Friday, known as Good
Friday.
·Gospel of John: John’s
account
differs, indicating that Jesus was crucified on the
day of Preparation for the
Passover, before the Passover meal, aligning with
the 14th of Nisan. This has
led some to argue for crucifixion a day before the
traditional Passover,
potentially a Wednesday if one assumes a particular
year where Passover
preparation was on Wednesday.
2.Historical
and
Scholarly Perspectives:
·Passover Date Variations:
Passover’s date shifts due to the lunar calendar; in
some years, it might
coincide with different weekdays. Scholars debate
the exact year of Jesus’s
crucifixion, with proposals including A.D. 30 or
A.D. 33, each having different
implications for the day of the week Passover fell
on.
·Wednesday Crucifixion
Theory: Some
propose a Wednesday crucifixion based on
interpretations of Jesus’s statement
about being in the “heart of the earth” for three
days and three nights
(Matthew 12:40). However, this interpretation has
its challenges, mainly due to
how days are counted in ancient Jewish tradition
(where part of a day counts as
a whole day).
3.Posts
on X:
·Some posts on X mention
that Jesus
died on Passover, with some users supporting that
this occurred on a Wednesday.
These posts reflect varied personal or group
interpretations, not scholarly or
historical validations.
In
Conclusion:
The
traditional
Christian observance aligns Jesus’s crucifixion with
a Friday, following a
Thursday Passover meal.
However,
there
exists a minority view that argues for a Wednesday
crucifixion based on
interpretations of scripture and specific calendar
alignments. Still, this view
isn’t universally accepted among scholars or
theologians.
The
exact day of
the week for Passover when Jesus was crucified
remains a matter of theological,
historical, and interpretative debate. The most
widely accepted view supports a
Friday crucifixion, but alternative theories like
the Wednesday crucifixion do
exist, often based on different scriptural
interpretations or calendar
calculations.
Counterfeit:
died
on Good Friday
Answer:
There
are several
pieces of evidence and traditions within Christian
theology and historical
analysis that support the belief that Jesus Christ
died on what is now known as
Good Friday:
1.Biblical
Accounts:
·The Synoptic Gospels (Mark
15:33-42, Matthew 27:45-50, Luke 23:44-56) describe
Jesus’ crucifixion, noting
that darkness fell over the land from the sixth hour
until the ninth hour (noon
to 3 PM), which would be consistent with the time of
day for a Friday
execution. After this, Jesus is described as dying
and being buried before the
Sabbath began at sunset.
·John’s Gospel does not
specify the
day but provides details that align with the timing
of the Passover. Jesus is
described as being crucified on the day of
Preparation for the Passover, which
would naturally lead into the Sabbath, making it
likely Friday.
2.Historical
and
Traditional Timing:
·The Jewish Calendar: The
Last
Supper is traditionally considered a Passover meal.
If Jesus was crucified the
day after this meal, which was a day of preparation
before the Sabbath, then
Friday becomes the logical day for the crucifixion.
·Early Church Fathers:
Writings from
early Christian leaders like Irenaeus, Tertullian,
and others in the 2nd
century corroborate this timing, speaking of the
crucifixion happening on the
14th of Nisan, which could correspond to a Friday in
any given year.
3.The
Three Days and
Three Nights Issue:
·One theological and
chronological
debate arises from Jesus’ mention of being in the
heart of the earth for “three
days and three nights” (Matthew 12:40). This has led
some to question the
Friday crucifixion because, by modern reckoning, it
seems to not fit neatly
into three full days.
·However, The Jewish method
of
counting any part of a day as a full day could
explain this discrepancy. Thus,
part of Friday, Saturday, and Sunday would count as
three days.
·Some scholars also argue
for a “Sabbath
reckoning” where the Passover might be treated as a
special Sabbath,
complicating the exact timing but still allowing for
a Friday crucifixion.
4.Archaeological
and
Historical Corroboration:
·While direct
archaeological
evidence for the exact day of Jesus’ crucifixion is
lacking, the method of
crucifixion described in the Gospels aligns with
Roman practices of the time,
and the general historical context of Roman Judea,
including the governorship
of Pontius Pilate, supports the setting of the
crucifixion narrative.
In
conclusion:
While
these points
collectively form the basis for the traditional
belief in a Friday crucifixion,
it’s also important to recognize that the exact day
does not change the
theological significance of the event in Christian
doctrine. However, for those
strictly adhering to scriptural and historical
analysis, these pieces of
evidence provide a compelling case for Good Friday.
Messiah;
Rose
again on the Feast of Firstfruits (during the
night)
Answer:
The
Resurrection
of Jesus Christ, often referred to as the Messiah in
Christian doctrine, with
specific Jewish festivals from the Hebrew calendar.
Consider
the
breakdown:
·Messiah: In Christian
belief, Jesus
is the Messiah, the coming one prophesied in Jewish
scripture to bring
salvation or fulfill a divine role.
·Rose again: This refers to
the
Christian belief in the Resurrection of Jesus
Christ, which is central to the Christian
faith, symbolizing victory over death and the
promise of eternal life to
believers.
·Feast of First Fruits:
This ancient
Jewish festival occurs the day after the Sabbath
following Passover. In
Christian theology, within certain interpretations,
the Resurrection of Jesus
is believed to have happened on this day, aligning
with the concept of Jesus
being the “first fruits” of those who have fallen
asleep (died), as mentioned
in 1 Corinthians 15:20.
·During the night: The
Gospels in
the New Testament do not specify the exact time of
Jesus’s Resurrection, but
traditions and interpretations vary. Some Christian
traditions emphasize that
the Resurrection happened in the early morning, as
the tomb was found empty at
dawn (Mark 16:2, Matthew 28:1).
Given
these
points:
·The belief that Jesus rose
again on
the Feast of First Fruits is a theological
interpretation held by some
Christians, particularly those focusing on the
typological connections between
Jewish feasts and Christian events. However, precise
timing or symbolic
significance is not universally agreed upon across
all Christian denominations.
·“During the night” adds a
specific
detail not explicitly supported by canonical texts
but could be part of some
interpretations or traditions.
Conclusion:
Therefore,
while
the general idea of Jesus rising on the day
corresponding to the Feast of First
Fruits is a significant theological interpretation
within Christianity, the
exact timing (“during the night”) isn’t explicitly
detailed in the primary
sources, leading to varied interpretations.
Counterfeit:
rose
again on Easter/Ishtar (at dawn)
Answer:
The
statement that
Jesus rose again on Easter at dawn is based on
traditional Christian belief,
but its historical accuracy and interpretation can
vary.
Some
points to
consider:
1.Biblical
Accounts:
·Mark 16:2 States that Mary
Magdalene and others came to the tomb “very early on
the first day of the week,
just after sunrise.”
·John 20:1 Mary Magdalene
came to
the tomb “early, while it was still dark.”
·Luke 24:1 mentions that
the women
came to the tomb “very early in the morning.”
·Matthew 28:1 Notes it was
“after
the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week.”
These
accounts
suggest that Jesus had already risen before dawn or
at dawn when the women
arrived at the tomb. However, none of these accounts
explicitly say that Jesus
rose at dawn; they only indicate when the tomb was
found empty.
Theologically
and
traditionally, Easter Sunday celebrates the
Resurrection, but the exact moment
of Jesus’ Resurrection isn’t specified. It’s often
understood that he rose
sometime before the dawn, as the tomb was already
empty when the women arrived.
The
Resurrection
is central to the Christian faith, symbolizing
victory over death. The timing
isn’t as doctrinally significant as the event
itself.
Conclusion:
Therefore,
saying “Jesus
rose again on Easter at dawn” from a traditional
standpoint could be seen as an
oversimplification or assumption about the exact
timing. Theologically, it’s
more accurate to say that Jesus had risen by dawn on
the first day of the week,
Easter Sunday, in the Christian tradition.
Messiah’s
people:
assemble on the Father’s Sabbath (seventh day)
Answer:
What
about
the Hebrew word olam, which can be
translated as “everlasting”?
One
should
note that the Hebrew word olam can be
translated differently.
Some examples are forever, perpetual, everlasting,
eternal, or permanent. The
word “forever” does not necessarily mean
never-ending in scripture, but it can
also be understood to mean lasting only as long as a
time period or age. Since
the Mormons are appealing to scripture in the
defense of one of their peculiar
doctrines, we should briefly respond to this
argument about the “everlasting”
nature
of the Aaronic priesthood.
Does
this mean that a practice commanded in scripture
will last forever? First, it can be admitted that
it’s possible when dealing
with the usage of olam
that a practice
mentioned
may last forever. However, the context of a passage
is essential when making
this determination. Admitting that ‘olam may
mean forever does not
invalidate the fact that there are numerous
indicators that ‘olam can
also be used to describe a practice that will end or
change forms going from
the Older Covenant into the New. In particular, olam
is used regarding
ordinances in the Older Covenant, which were to be
kept by the people of Israel
and not carried over into the New Covenant church
practice in their Older
Covenant forms. It should be noted that there are
significant discontinuities
and continuities in redemptive history when moving
from the Older Covenant into
the New Covenant era.
1.Examples of
the time
limitations of olam:
For
example:
Then
his master shall bring him unto the
judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto
the door post; and his
master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and
he shall serve him forever.
(Exodus 21:6)
In
this
passage, ‘olam stresses permanence and that man
would be a servant
forever. This verse explicitly conveys the idea of a
limitation of time. The prima
facie limitation in this verse is the life
span of the servant.
2.Another
example is the
Feast of Unleavened Bread:
So
you shall observe the Feast of Unleavened
Bread, for on this same day I will have brought your
armies out of the land of
Egypt. Therefore you shall observe this day
throughout your generations as an
everlasting ordinance. (Exodus 12:17)
The
discontinuity
is that the New Covenant church no longer celebrates
the Feast of
Unleavened Bread. The continuity is that this Feast
is fulfilled in Christ.
3.Consider the
Passover:
Now
this day will be a memorial to you, and
you shall celebrate it as a feast to the Lord;
throughout your generations you
are to celebrate it as a permanent ordinance.
(Exodus 12:14)
The
discontinuity
is that the New Covenant church no longer celebrates
the Passover
feast. The continuity is that all of the Older
Covenant feasts, including the
Passover, find fulfillment in the Lord’s Supper.
4.Then there is
the
example of circumcision:
And
I will establish my covenant between me
and thee and thy seed after thee in their
generations for an everlasting
covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed
after thee. And I will give
unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land
wherein thou art a stranger,
all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting
possession; and I will be their God.
And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my
covenant therefore, thou, and thy
seed after thee in their generations. This is my
covenant, which ye shall keep,
between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every
man child among you shall be
circumcised. (Genesis 17:7-10)
The
discontinuity
is that circumcision is no longer required in the
New Covenant.
The continuity is that circumcision is replaced by
baptism in the New Covenant
era as the mark of the covenant.
5.The Sabbath
Day to be
kept on the seventh day:
Therefore the
children
of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the
Sabbath throughout their
generations as a perpetual covenant. It is a sign
between Me and the children
of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made the
heavens and the earth, and
on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.
(Exodus 31:16-17)
Conclusion:
The
discontinuity
is that the day has been changed to the first day of
the week in
celebration of the Resurrection of Christ. The
continuity is that God’s people
are to still honor Him by resting for our labors
after six days of work.
(Hebrews 4:9) In the Greek text, the word for “rest”
in Hebrews 4:9 is sabbatismos.
It means “a Sabbath rest.” Young’s
Literal
Translation captures this well: “There doth
remain, then, a
sabbatic rest to the people of God” (Hebrews 4:9).
Counterfeit:
assemble
on the venerable day of the sun (first day)
Answer:
The
fallacy in
asserting that those who worship on Sunday are
guilty of worshiping the sun god
can be dissected through several logical errors:
1.False
Equivalence:
·Fallacy: Equating
Christian Sunday
worship with pagan sun worship because both involve
the sun or Sunday.
·Explanation: This assumes
that the
mere act of worship on a day named after the sun
implies worship of the sun
itself, which overlooks the intent and theology
behind Christian worship.
Christians worship on Sunday to commemorate the
resurrection of Jesus Christ,
not because of any inherent solar significance.
2.Post
Hoc, Ergo
Propter Hoc (After This, Therefore Because of
This):
·Fallacy: Assuming that
because
Christianity adopted Sunday for worship later in its
history, this must be a
continuation or transformation of sun worship.
·Explanation: The adoption
of Sunday
for Christian worship occurred centuries after
Christianity’s inception. Early
Christians observed the Sabbath on Saturday, and the
shift to Sunday was more
about differentiating from Jewish practices and
celebrating the Lord’s
resurrection, not adopting pagan rituals.
3.Guilt
by
Association:
·Fallacy: This suggests
that
Christian Sunday worship is inherently pagan because
Sunday was dedicated to
Sol Invictus or other solar deities in Roman
culture.
·Explanation: Just because
Sunday
was also a day for sun worship in some pagan
traditions does not mean Christian
worship is an endorsement or continuation of those
practices. Many cultures
have overlapping religious practices regarding
timing or rituals, but the
theological content and purpose differ
significantly.
4.Cherry-Picking:
·Fallacy: Focusing only on
the day
of worship without considering the full breadth of
Christian doctrine, history,
and scripture.
·Explanation: This argument
ignores
the theological reasons for Sunday worship, like the
writings of early church
fathers, the significance of the resurrection, and
the development of Christian
liturgy. It also disregards how Christianity has
changed and adapted over time
for various non-pagan reasons.
5.Argument
from
Etymology:
·Fallacy: Using the origin
of the
word “Sunday” (from Old English “Sunnandæg,” day of
the sun) to imply
theological or ritualistic continuity.
·Explanation: The
linguistic
connection does not necessarily imply religious
continuity. Language evolves,
and words take on new meanings independent of their
origins. For instance, many
names of days and months have pagan roots, but their
contemporary use in
Christian contexts doesn’t imply the worship of
those pagan deities.
6.Non
Sequitur:
·Fallacy: Concluding that
worship on
Sunday must be sun worship because of the day’s name
or historical pagan
associations.
·Explanation: This
conclusion
doesn’t follow logically. Just as worshiping on
Saturn’s Day (Saturday) doesn’t
make one a worshiper of Saturn, worshiping on
Sunday, named for the sun, does
not inherently mean one is worshiping the sun god.
Conclusion:
The
argument that
Sunday worship equates to sun god worship is flawed
because it oversimplifies
and misinterprets historical, linguistic, and
theological contexts, relying on superficial
or coincidental connections rather than substantive
evidence or understanding.
Furthermore, the fallacy is just as silly as
saying
that if you have a Bible study on Thursday, you are
worshipping Thor, the Norse
god of thunder.
Moreover,
Saturday
is named after Saturn, the Roman god of agriculture,
wealth, and time. In Roman
mythology, Saturn was one of the most important
gods, often associated with the
Greek god Cronus. The name “Saturday” comes from the
Latin term “dies Saturni,”
meaning “day of Saturn.” This naming reflects
Saturn’s prominence in the Roman
seven-day planetary week, where each day was named
after a celestial body or
the god associated with it.
The
following
article by this writer that was given to Dean
Haskins resulted in him blocking
me on the web platform Parler.
Who
changed the
Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday Worship?
Did
the Roman
Catholic Pope change the Sabbath from Saturday to
Sunday worship? In this
study, we will seek to answer why the day of worship
changed for most
Christians to Sunday. If it was not for the Pope,
would there be Scriptural
arguments for this day’s change? If the day of
worship changes, will Sabbath
requirements be attached to Sunday?
When
did
Christians start meeting on Sunday? A cursory look
at the New Testament:
“On
the first day
of the week, when we were gathered together to break
bread, Paul talked with
them, intending to depart on the next day, and he
prolonged his speech until
midnight.” (Acts 20:7 ESV)
“On
the first day
of the week,” along with the direction given in
Corinthians by Paul, “On the
first day of every week, each of you is to put
something aside and store it up,
as he may prosper, so that there will be no
collecting when I come”
(1Corinthians 16:2 ESV). Act 20:7 and 1 Corinthians
16:2 are Scriptural
evidence that the Church had begun to observe the
weekly celebration of the
Resurrection on the first day of the week.
Considering
the
claims of two Roman Catholic leaders:
What
does the
Roman Church say is the sign of its authority? On
January 18, 1563, “the
Archbishop of Reggio made a speech in which he
openly declared that tradition
stood above the Scriptures because the church had
changed the Sabbath into
Sunday—not by a command of Christ, but by its
authority” (Canon and Tradition,
p. 263). http://biblelight.net/bssb-1443-1444.htm
Additionally,
the
Catholic Mirror of Baltimore, Maryland, published a
series of 4 editorials,
which appeared in that paper on September 2, 9, 16,
and 23, 1893, as the
expression of the Papacy to Protestantism and the
demand of the Papacy that
Protestants shall render to the Papacy an account of
why they keep Sunday and
also of how they keep it. (Rome’s Challenge: Why Do
Protestants Keep Sunday?)
http://biblelight.net/chalng.htm
It
should be noted
that just because the Roman Catholics claim they
changed the Sabbath to Sunday
does not prove anything. This claim has to be
evaluated scripturally and
historically.
Are
these two
claims valid? Did the Roman Papacy change the day of
worship from Saturday to
Sunday? First off, this claim is dubious and a
historical impossibility because
the Papacy did not exist until sometime after the
First Council of Nicaea,
which convened in AD 325.
The
Roman Church
may dispute this, but appeals to historical evidence
became increasingly flimsy
before this council for an established and
recognized papal system. The Eastern
and Coptic Churches show no acceptance of a papal
system during the first three
centuries of Church history.
The
Seventh Day
Adventists also take issue with Sunday worship,
connecting it with the Roman
Church or Emperor Constantine.
Contrary
to this
claim that Sunday worship was a Roman Catholic
invention, the early Church in
the East met on Sunday as the day of worship.
Eastern Orthodox Churches have
observed Sunday worship since the 1st century.
For
example,
consider the Eastern Orthodox Worship by Rev.
Alciviadis C. Calivas, Th.D.
Rev.
Alciviadis
says the following:
“The most important day for the Christian
community
was and continues to be the First day of the Jewish
week. For the people of the
Old Covenant the First Day was a memorial of the
first day of creation, when
God separated the light from the darkness. For the
people of the New Covenant
the first day includes this and much more. The first
was the day when the empty
tomb was first discovered and the risen Lord made
His first appearances to His
followers. The first was the day of the Resurrection
of Christ and the
beginning of the new creation brought about by His
victory over death. By the
end of the first century the Church gave to this
special day of Christ’s Resurrection
a distinctly Christian name: the Lord’s Day (Kyriake
hemera) (Rev. 1: 10).
The Lord’s Day (Sunday) is a Christian
institution. It
is the Christian festival, founded upon Christ’s
Resurrection. It is “the day
which the Lord has made” (Ps. 117:24). It is a day
of rejoicing and holy
convocation, when no one is permitted to fast or
kneel in sorrow or in penance.
In 321 A.D. St. Constantine, the first Christian
Emperor, declared it a day of
rest. Long before him, however, Christians were
already known to observe the
day with special solemnity, treating it as a holy
day devoted to spiritual
things. As a day of rest, the Lord’s Day is not to
be abused as a day of
idleness and inactivity. For the faithful, it is
always a day for participation
in the communal worship of the Church, for Christian
fellowship, for the
service of God through works of charity, for
personal quiet and meditation, and
for the discovery and enjoyment of God’s presence in
us, and in the people and
the world that surround and touch our lives.” (1)
(Underlining emphasis mine)
Not only do the Eastern Orthodox Christians
worship on
Sunday, the Syriac, Armenian, and Coptic Christians
also worship on Sunday. The
Roman Church has never had much influence in the
East. The Eastern Churches
have always opposed the supremacy of the Bishop of
Rome. Thus, it is doubtful
that Sunday worship in the East was because of the
dictates of a Roman Pope.
According to Wikipedia, it was not until the
4th
century that the Roman Church officially started
worshipping on Sunday.
Historically, the Roman Church was a Johnny come
lately to the day change for
church worship.
Justin Martyr (ca. 100-ca. 165),
who lived
from approximately 100 to 165 AD, wrote on the
issue of Sunday worship
enlightens us historically:
“And on the day called Sunday, all who live
in cities
or in the country gather together to one place, and
the memoirs of the apostles
or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as
time permits; then, when
the reader has ceased, the president verbally
instructs, and exhorts to the
imitation of these good things. Then we all rise
together and pray, and, as we
before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and
wine and water are brought,
and the president in like manner offers prayers and
thanksgivings, according to
his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and
there is a distribution to
each, and a participation of that over which thanks
have been given, and to
those who are absent a portion is sent by the
deacons. And they who are well to
do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what
is collected is deposited
with the president, who succors the orphans and
widows and those who, through
sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those
who are in bonds and the
strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes
care of all who are in need.
But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our
common assembly, because it is
the first day on which God, having wrought a change
in the darkness and matter,
made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the
same day rose from the dead.
For He was crucified on the day before that of
Saturn (Saturday); and on the
day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the
Sun, having appeared to His
apostles and disciples, He taught them these things,
which we have submitted to
you also for your consideration.” (2)
The
writings of
the early Church Father Justin Martyr point to the
celebration of the Lord’s
Day on Sunday’s first day of the week; Revelation
1:10.
This
fact flies in
the face of the Roman Church’s assertions.
There
are other
indications of Sunday worship early in Church
history. For example:
The Didache:
“1. But every Lord’s Day do ye gather
yourselves
together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving
after having confessed your
transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure.”
(3)
According to the Didache, Sunday worship
started early
in church history.
The Didascalia:
“The apostles further appointed: On the first
day of
the week let there be service, and the reading of
the Holy Scriptures, and the
oblation, because on the first day of the week our
Lord rose from the place of
the dead, and on the first day of the week he arose
upon the world, and on the
first day of the week he ascended up to heaven, and
on the first day of the
week he will appear at last with the angels of
heaven.” (4)
According
to the
Didascalia, Sunday worship started with the
apostles.
St.
Ignatius, AD
1491 1556:
“If, therefore, those who were brought up in
the
ancient order of things have come to the possession
of a new hope, no longer
observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance
of the Lord’s Day, on which
also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His
death.” (5)
Note:
The Didache
or The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles is a brief
Christian thesis, dated by
scholars to the late first or early 2nd century
Note:
Didascalia
Apostolorum (or just Didascalia) is a Christian
treatise. The Didascalia
introduces itself as written by the Twelve Apostles
at the time of the Council
of Jerusalem. However, scholars agree that it was a
composition of the 3rd
century,
As
an aside, what
about Emperor Constantine? As some Seventh-Day
Adventists claim, did he change
the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday? This claim does
not hold up since
Christians have met on Sundays since the Apostles.
Constantine did make a
decree regarding worship on Sunday, thus making it
easier for Christians to
worship on Sunday, which they were already doing.
As
noted,
Constantine’s decree recognized the three hundred
years of Christian practice
and expanded Christian freedom by allowing them to
keep their shops closed:
“On the venerable Day of the Sun, let the
magistrates
and people residing in cities rest, and let all
workshops be closed.” (6)
Constantine’s
decree
protected and guaranteed Christians’ civil freedom
for their ongoing
practice.
Where
did the Protestant
Reformers stand on the Saturday Sabbath and Sunday
worship?
The
burden of
proof is on those who maintain the Lord’s Day, the
Christian Sabbath Day, which
was moved from Saturday to Sunday.
The
burden of
proof for this will now be met:
During
the
Reformation, the Protestant theologians did not
mindlessly import theology and
practices from the Roman Church. They reformed the
Church by examining scripture
and binding themselves to the Scriptures as the
final court of appeal. During
the counter-reformation Council of Trent, the Roman
Church made many false
assertions attempting to undermine Protestant
theology. This undermining
happened when Roman leaders, as seen above, claimed
that the Papacy changed the
Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday.
The
Scriptural
proof of the day change:
The
Older Covenant
delineated Saturday as the Sabbath, and it was to be
eternal.
How
did the
Protestant Reformers deal with the eternal covenants
in the Old Testament?
The
Scriptural
basis for discontinuity, continuity, and its
relevance to the issue at hand:
The
Sabbath Day
was to be kept on the seventh day:
“Therefore, the children of Israel shall keep
the
Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their
generations as a perpetual
covenant. It is a sign between Me and the children
of Israel forever; for in
six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth,
and on the seventh day He
rested and was refreshed.” (Exodus 31:16-17)
“So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for
the people
of God.” (Hebrews 4:9 ESV)
The
discontinuity
is that the day has been changed to the First Day of
the week in celebration of
the Resurrection of Christ. The continuity is that
God’s people are to still
honor Him by resting for our labors after six days
of work Hebrews 4:9. In the
Greek text, the word for “rest” in Hebrews 4:9 is
sabbatismos, which means “a
Sabbath rest.”
Young’s
Literal
Translation captures the text from Hebrew 4:9
perfectly:
“There doth remain, then, a sabbatic rest to
the
people of God.” (Hebrews 4:9)
Consider
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
Bible Commentary entry on (Hebrews 4:9), and the
sabbatic rest:
“9. Therefore—because God “speaks of another
day (see
on [2548] Heb. 4:8).
Remaineth—still to be realized hereafter by
the “some
(who) must enter therein” (Heb. 4:6), that is, “the
people of God,” the true
Israel who shall enter into God’s rest (“My rest,”
Heb. 4:3). God’s rest was a
Sabbatism, so also will ours be.
A rest—Greek, “Sabbatism.” In time, there are
many
Sabbaths, but then there shall be the enjoyment and
keeping of a Sabbath-rest:
one perfect and eternal. The “rest” in Heb. 4:8 is
Greek, “catapausis;” Hebrew,
“Noah”; rest from weariness, as the ark rested on
Ararat after its tossings to
and fro; and as Israel, under Joshua, enjoyed at
last rest from war in Canaan.
But the “rest” in this Heb. 4:9 is the nobler and
more exalted (Hebrew)
“Sabbath” rest; literally, “cessation”: rest from
work when finished (Heb.
4:4), as God rested (Re 16:17). The two ideas of
“rest” combined, give the
perfect view of the heavenly Sabbath. Rest from
weariness, sorrow, and sin; and
rest in the completion of God’s new creation (Re
21:5). The whole renovated
creation shall share in it; nothing will there be to
break the Sabbath of
eternity; and the Triune God shall rejoice in the
work of His hands (Zep 3:17).
Moses, the representative of the law, could not lead
Israel into Canaan: the
law leads us to Christ, and there its office ceases,
as that of Moses on the
borders of Canaan: it is Jesus, the antitype of
Joshua, who leads us into the
heavenly rest. This verse indirectly establishes the
obligation of the Sabbath
still; for the type continues until the antitype
supersedes it: so legal
sacrifices continued till the great antitypical
Sacrifice superseded it, As
then the antitypical heavenly Sabbath-rest will not
be till Christ, our Gospel
Joshua, comes, to usher us into it, the typical
earthly Sabbath must continue
till then. The Jews call the future rest “the day
which is all Sabbath.’” (7)
Preliminary
Conclusions:
As
seen in these
examples of the translation of ‘olam as forever,
perceptual, everlasting,
eternal, and permanent, we can conclude that
qualifiers are attached that guide
our understanding of these passages. The substance
remained in each of these
passages, yet the outward form changed, moving from
the Older Covenant into the
New Covenant. The Sabbath Day is eternal, yet the
day of observance changed to
Sunday.
On
the other hand,
the Reformers looked at continuities and
discontinuities in scripture. They
concluded that the practice of the early Christians
meeting on the first day of
the week (Sunday) was a case of a fundamental
discontinuity in scripture.
The
Reformed
hermeneutic presumes that unless the New Testament
sets aside an Old Testament
practice, as in the case of the dietary laws, the
Scriptural command will still
be in force, considering legitimate discontinuities,
as seen above. If the
continuity discontinuity motif is not maintained, it
can be alleged that there
are contradictions in scripture.
A
Scriptural
deduction from the Reformed argument:
1.
In light of
what has been said above, the first day of the week
came to be known as the
“Lord’s Day” (Revelation 1:10) and has been the day
on which the Church
gathered with the blessing of the Apostles (Acts
20:7).
2.
On the day Jesus
had been raised from the dead, the risen Lord
Himself chose the first day of
the week to manifest himself to his disciples when
they were gathered together
(John 20:19, 26).
Supplemental
evidence:
From
Sabbath to
Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical and Theological
Investigation by D. A.
Carson.
“1. The early Church met on the Lord’s Day to
commemorate Jesus’ Resurrection (Bauckham, 232-245):
All four gospels emphasize
Jesus’ Resurrection on the first day of the week.
Though it cannot be proven
that this was the reason established for Sunday
worship, early Christians did
connect gathering on the first day of the week with
the Lord’s Resurrection
(Bauckham, 236, 240).
2. By the end of the first century, “Lord’s
Day” is
seen to be a technical term already in use about the
first day of the
week/Sunday, the Christian gathering day (Revelation
1:10; see Bauckham,
“Lord’s Day,” 222-232).
3. By the middle of the second century,
Lord’s Day
worship gatherings are the universal practice of the
Church (Bauckham, “Lord’s
Day,” 230).” (8)
A
Reformed
exposition of the day change by Professor John
Murray on The Pattern of the
Lord’s Day:
“The Sabbath as a creation ordinance for all
time.
If we accept, the witness of scripture there
can be no
question that the weekly Sabbath finds its basis in
and derives its sanction
from the example of God himself. He created the
heavens and the earth in six
days and “on the seventh God ended his work which he
had made; and he rested on
the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
And God blessed the
seventh day, and sanctified it” (Gen. 2:2, 3). The
fourth commandment in the
Decalogue sets forth the obligation resting upon man
and it makes express
appeal to this sanction. “For in six days the Lord
made heaven and earth, the
sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh
day: wherefore the Lord
blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it” (Exod.
20:11).
Many regard this Sabbath institution as a
shadow of
things to come and, therefore, as an ordinance to be
observed, has passed away
because that of which it was a shadow has been
realized in the full light of
the new and better covenant. At this point, suffice
it to ask the question: has
the pattern of God’s work and rest in creation
ceased to be relevant? Is this
pattern a shadow in the sense of those who espouse
this position? The realm of
our existence is that established by creation and
maintained by God’s
providence. The new covenant has in no respect
abrogated creation nor has it
diminished its relevance. Creation both as action
and product is as significant
for us as it was for Israel under the old covenant.
The refrain of scripture in
both Testaments is that the God of creation is the
God of redemption in all
stages of covenantal disclosure and realization.
This consideration is invested
with greater significance when we bear in mind that
the ultimate standard for
us is likeness to God (cf. Matt. 5:48; 1John 3:2,
3). And it is this likeness,
in the sphere of our behaviour, that undergirds the
demand for Sabbath
observance (Exod. 20:11; 31:17).
The Redemptive Pattern
It is noteworthy that the Sabbath commandment
as given
in Deuteronomy (Deut. 5:12-15) does not appeal to
God’s rest in creation as the
reason for keeping the Sabbath day. In this
instance, mention is made of
something else. “And remember that thou wast a
servant in the land of Egypt,
and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence
through a mighty hand and an
out-streched arm: therefore the Lord thy God
commanded thee to keep the Sabbath
day” (Deut. 5:15). This cannot be understood as in
any way annulling the
sanction of Exodus 20:11; 31:17. Deuteronomy
comprises what was the reiteration
of the covenant made at Sinai. When the Sabbath
commandment is introduced,
Israel is reminded of the earlier promulgation:
“Keep the Sabbath day to
sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath commanded
thee” (Deut. 5:12). And we
should observe that all the commandments have their
redemptive sanction. The
preface to all is: “I am the Lord thy God which have
brought thee out of the
land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (Exod.
20:2; cf. Deut. 5:6). So
what we find in Deut. 5; 15 in connection with the
Sabbath is but the
application of the preface to the specific duty
enunciated in the fourth
command. It is supplement to Exodus 20:11, not
suspension. We have now added
reason for observing the Sabbath. This is full of
meaning and we must linger to
analyze and appreciate.
The deliverance from Egypt was redemption.
“Thou in
thy mercy hast led forth the people which thou hast
redeemed” (Exod. 15:13). It
is more than any other event the redemption of the
Old Testament. It is the
analogue of the greater redemption accomplished by
Christ. The Sabbath
commandment derives its sanction not only from God’s
rest in creation but also
from redemption out of Egypt’s bondage. This fact
that the Sabbath in Israel
had a redemptive reference and sanction bears
directly upon the question of its
relevance in the New Testament. The redemption from
Egypt cannot be properly
viewed except as the anticipation of the greater
redemption wrought in the
fullness of time. Hence, if redemption from Egypt
accorded sanction to the
Sabbath institution and provided reason for its
observance the same must apply
to the greater redemption and apply in a way
commensurate with the greater
fullness and dimensions of the redemption secured by
the death and Resurrection
of Christ. In other words, it is the fullness and
richness of the new covenant
that accord to the Sabbath ordinance increased
relevance, sanction, and
blessing.
This redemptive reference explains and
confirms three
features of the New Testament.
1. The Retrospective Reference
Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of
the week
(cf. Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2, 9; Luke 24:1; John
20:1). For our present interest
the important feature of the New Testament witness
is that the first day of the
week continued to have _distinctive religious
significance_ (cf. Acts 20:7; 1
Cor. 16:2). The only explanation of this fact is
that the first day was the day
of Jesus’ Resurrection and for that reason John
calls it “the Lord’s day” (Rev.
1:10). The first day took on a memorial significance
appropriate to the place
the Resurrection of Christ occupies in the
accomplishment of redemption and in
Jesus’ finished work (cf. John 17:4) as also
appropriate to the seal imparted
by the repeated appearance to his disciples on that
day (cf. Matt. 28:9; Luke
24:15-31, 26; John 20:19,26). When Christ rose from
the dead he was loosed from
the pangs of death (cf. Acts 2:24), he entered upon
life indestructible (cf.
Rom. 5:10; 6:9, 10), became a “life-giving Spirit”
(1Cor. 15:45), and brought
“life and immortality to light” (2Tim. 1:10). In a
word, he entered upon the
rest of his redeeming work. All of this and much
more resides in the emphasis,
which falls upon the Resurrection as a pivotal event
in the accomplishment of
redemption. The other pivot is the death upon the
cross. The sanctity belonging
to the first day of the week as the Lord’s Day is
the constant reminder of all
that Jesus’ Resurrection involves. It is the
memorial of the Resurrection as
the Lord’s Supper is the memorial of Jesus’ death
upon the tree. Inescapable,
therefore, is the conclusion that the Resurrection
in its redemptive character
yields its sanction to the sacredness of the first
day of the week just as
deliverance from Egypt’s bondage accorded its
sanction to the Sabbath
institution of the old covenant. This is the
rationale for regarding the Lord’s
Day as the Christian Sabbath. It follows the line of
thought, which the Old
Testament itself prescribes for us when it appeals
to redemption as the reason
for Sabbath observance. The principle enunciated in
Deuteronomy 5:15 receives
its verification and application in the new covenant
in the memorial of
finalized redemption, the Lord’s Day.
2. The Manward Reference
Under this caption, we have in mind our Lord’
saying:
“The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the
Sabbath: therefore the Son
of man is Lord also of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27, 28).
The title our Lord uses to designate himself
is one
that belongs to him in his messianic identity,
commission, and office. The
lordship he claims is, therefore, redemptively
conditioned; it is his lordship
as Mediator and Saviour. As such, in accord with his
own testimony, he is given
all authority in heaven and earth (cf. John 3:36;
Matt. 28:18). So every
institution is brought within the scope of his
lordship. Since he exercises
this lordship in the interests of God’s redemptive
purpose, it is particularly
true that institutions given for the good of man are
brought within the scope
of his lordship and made to serve the interests of
the supreme good which
redemption designs and guarantees. It is this
governing thought that is applied
in the text to the institution of the Sabbath. The
accent falls upon the
beneficent design of the Sabbath – it was made for
man. “Therefore the Son of
man is Lord” of it.
When Jesus speaks of the Sabbath, he is
specifying the
institution defined by the fourth commandment, and
he asserts his lordship over
it in precisely this character. There is not the
slightest intimation of
abrogation. For it is the Sabbath in that identity
over which he claims to be
Lord. Too frequently this text is adduced in support
of an alleged relaxation
of the requirements set forth in the commandment as
if Jesus on this ground
were, in the exercise of his authority, defending
his disciples for behaviour
that went counter to Old Testament requirements.
This totally misconstrues the
situation in which the words were spoken. Jesus is
defending his disciples
against the charge of desecration brought by the
Pharisees (cf. Mark 2:24). But
in doing so he shows by appeal to the Old Testament
itself (cf. Matt. 12:4, 5;
Mark 2:25, 26) that the behaviour of his disciples
was in accord with what the
Old Testament sanctioned. It was not deviation from
Old Testament requirements
that our Lord was condoning but deviation from
pharisaical distortion. He was
condemning the tyranny by which the Sabbath
institution had been made an
instrument of oppression. And he did this by appeal
to the true intent of the
Sabbath as verified by scripture itself. Of special
interest is the relation of
the redemptive sanction of the fourth commandment to
the claim of Jesus on this
occasion. The lordship over the Sabbath is, as
observed, redemptively
conditioned and thus only within a redemptive design
can his lordship of the
Sabbath be understood. This is to say that the
Sabbath ordinance in its
beneficent character comes to full expression within
the realm of our Lord’s
mediatorial lordship. The Sabbath is not alien to
redemption at the zenith of
its realization and blessing. As made for man it
continues to serve its great
purpose in that administration that achieves the
acme of covenant grace. This
Jesus’ word seals to us – “the Son of man is Lord
also of the Sabbath”.
3. The Prospective Reference
“There remains therefore a Sabbath keeping
for the
people of God” (Heb. 4:9)
The context of this passage is all-important
for its
interpretation and for appreciation of its
implications. At verse 4 there is
quotation of Genesis 2:2: “And God rested on the
seventh day from all his
works.” This, of course, refers to God’s – own –
rest. At verse 5 there is
allusion to the rest of Canaan and quotation of
Psalm 95:11 (cf. also vs. 3 and
3:11) in reference to the failure of too many to
enter into it (cf. Psalm
95:10). The remarkable feature of verse 5 as of
Psalm 95:11 is that this rest of
Canaan is called God’s rest (“my rest”). Why this
characterization? It is not
sufficient to say that it was the rest God provided.
The proximity of reference
to God’s own rest in verse 4 requires more than the
thoughts of mere provision
by God. We cannot say less than that God calls it
his rest because the rest of
Canaan was patterned after God’s rest – it partook
of the character of God’s
rest. The same kind of identification appears in
verse 10 with reference to the
rest that remains for the people of God. “For he
that has entered into his
rest, he also has ceased from his own works, as God
did from his.” So the rest
of Canaan and the rest that remains for the people
of God are called God’s rest
because both partake of the character of God’s own
rest in resting from his
creative work on the seventh day. Here is something
highly germane to the
present topic.
It is clear that the rest of Canaan and the
rest that
remains for the people of God are redemptive in
character. Since they are
patterned after God’s rest in creation, this means
that the redemptive takes on
the character of that rest of God upon which the
Sabbath institution for man
originally rested and from which it derived its
sanction. We cannot but
discover in this again the close relation between
the creative and the
redemptive in the Sabbath ordinance and the
coherence of Exodus 20:11 and
Deuteronomy 5:15. We are reminded again that
likeness to God governs man’s
obligation and is brought to its realization in the
provisions of redemption.
In the consummation of redemption, the Sabbath rest
of God’s people achieves
conformity to the fullest extent. “For he who has
entered into his rest, he
also has ceased from his own works, as God did from
his” (cf. Rev. 14:13). The
Sabbath institution in all its aspects and
applications has this prospective
reference; the whole movement of redemption will
find its finale in the Sabbath
rest that remains. The weekly Sabbath is the
promise, token, and foretaste of
the consummated rest; it is also the earnest. The
biblical philosophy of the
Sabbath is such that to deny its perpetuity is to
deprive the movement of redemption
of one of its most precious strands.
Redemption has a past, a present, and a
future. In the
Sabbath as “the Lord’s Day,” all three are focused.
In retrospect, it is the
memorial of our Lord’s Resurrection. In the present
with resurrection joy, it
fulfils its beneficent design by the lordship of the
Son of man. As prospect,
it is the promise of the inheritance of the saints.
With varying degrees of
understanding and application, it is this
perspective that dictated the
observance of the Lord’s Day in catholic, protestant
and reformed tradition.
Shall we forfeit in institution so embedded in
redemptive revelation and
recognized as such in the history of the Church of
Christ? In the faith and for
the honour of the Sabbath’s Lord may we answer with
a decisive, no! In devotion
to him may we increasingly know the joy and blessing
of the recurring day of
rest and worship.” (9)
John
Murray
answers the argument that Romans 14:5 ends the
fourth commandment in the New
Covenant era:
ROMANS 14:5 AND THE WEEKLY SABBATH
“The question is whether the weekly Sabbath
comes
within the scope of the distinction respecting days
on which the apostle
reflects in Romans 14:5. If so then we have to
reckon with the following
implications.
1. This would mean that the Sabbath
commandment in the
decalogue does not continue to have any binding
obligation upon believers in
the New Testament economy. The observance of one day
in seven as holy and
invested with the sanctity enunciated in the fourth
commandment would be
abrogated and would be in the same category in
respect of observance as the
ceremonial rites of the Mosaic institution. On the
assumption posited,
insistence upon the continued sanctity of each
recurring seventh day would be
as Judaizing as to demand the perpetuation of the
Levitical feasts.
2. The first day of the week would have no
prescribed
religious significance. It would not be
distinguished from any other day as the
memorial of Christ’s Resurrection and could not
properly be regarded as the
Lord’s day in distinction from the way in which
every day is to be lived in
devotion to and the service of the Lord Christ.
Neither might any other day,
weekly or otherwise, be regarded as set apart with
this religious significance.
3. Observance of a weekly Sabbath or of a day
commemorating our Lord’s Resurrection would be a
feature of the person weak in
faith and in this case he would be weak in faith
because he had not yet
attained to the understanding that in the Christian
institution all days are in
the same category. Just as one weak Christian fails
to recognize that all kinds
of food are clean, so another, or perchance the same
person, would fail to
esteem every day alike.
These implications of the thesis in question
cannot be
avoided. We may now proceed to examine them in the
light of the considerations
which scripture as a whole provides.
1. The Sabbath institution is a creation
ordinance. It
did not begin to have relevance at Sinai when the
ten commandments were given
to Moses on two tables (cf. Gen. 2:2, 3; Exod.
16:21–23). It was, however,
incorporated in the law promulgated at Sinai and
this we would expect in view
of its significance and purpose as enunciated in
Genesis 2:2, 3. It is so
embedded in this covenant law that to regard it as
of different character from
its context in respect of abiding relevance goes
counter to the unity and basic
significance of what was inscribed on the two
tables. Our Lord himself tells us
of its purpose and claims it for his messianic
Lordship (Mark 2:28). The thesis
we are now considering would have to assume that the
pattern provided by God
himself (Gen. 2:2, 3) in the work of creation (cf.
also Exod. 20:11; 31:17) has
no longer any relevance for the regulation of man’s
life on earth, that only
nine of the ten words of the decalogue have
authority for Christians, that the
beneficent design contemplated in the original
institution (Mark 2:28) has no
application under the gospel, and that the lordship
Christ exercised over the
Sabbath was for the purpose of abolishing it as an
institution to be observed.
These are the necessary conclusions to be drawn from
the assumption in
question. There is no evidence to support any of
these conclusions, and, when
they are combined and their cumulative force frankly
weighed, it is then that
the whole analogy of scripture is shown to be
contradicted by the assumption
concerned.
2. The first day of the week as the day on
which Jesus
rose from the dead (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2, 9; Luke
24:1; John 20:1, 19) is
recognized in the New Testament as having a
significance derived from this fact
of Jesus’ Resurrection (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2) and
this is the reason why John
speaks of it as the Lord’s day (Rev. 1:10). It is
the one day of the week to
which belongs this distinctive religious
significance. Since it occurs every
seventh day, it is a perpetually recurring memorial
with religious intent and
character proportionate to the place which Jesus’
Resurrection occupies in the
accomplishment of redemption. The two pivotal events
in this accomplishment are
the death and Resurrection of Christ and the two
memorial ordinances of the New
Testament institution are the Lord’s supper and the
Lord’s day, the one
memorializing Jesus’ death and the other his
Resurrection. If Paul in Romans
14:5 implies that all distinctions of days have been
obliterated, then there is
no room for the distinctive significance of the
first day of the week as the
Lord’s day. The evidence supporting the memorial
character of the first day is
not to be controverted and, consequently, in this
respect also the assumption
in question cannot be entertained, namely, that all
religious distinction of
days is completely abrogated in the Christian
economy.
3. In accord with the analogy of scripture
and
particularly the teaching of Paul, Romans 14:5 can
properly be regarded as
referring to the ceremonial holy days of the
Levitical institution. The
obligation to observe these is clearly abrogated in
the New Testament. They
have no longer relevance or sanction and the
situation described in Romans 14:5
perfectly accords with what Paul would say with
reference to religious
scrupulosity or the absence of such anent these
days. Paul was not insistent
upon the discontinuance of ritual observances of the
Levitical ordinances as
long as the observance was merely one of religious
custom and not compromising
the gospel (cf. Acts 18:18, 21; 21:20–27). He
himself circumcised Timothy from
considerations of expediency. But in a different
situation he could write:
“Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be
circumcised, Christ will profit you
nothing” (Gal. 5:2). Ceremonial feast days fall into
the category of which the
apostle could say: “One man esteemeth one day above
another: another esteemeth
every day alike”. Many Jews would not yet have
understood all the implications
of the gospel and had still a scrupulous regard for
these Mosaic ordinances. Of
such scruples we know Paul to have been thoroughly
tolerant and they fit the
precise terms of the text in question. There is no
need to posit anything that
goes beyond such observances. To place the Lord’s
day and the weekly Sabbath in
the same category is not only beyond the warrant of
exegetical requirements but
brings us into conflict with principles that are
embedded in the total witness
of scripture. An interpretation that involves such
contradiction cannot be
adopted. Thus the abiding sanctity of each recurring
seventh day as the
memorial of God’s rest in creation and of Christ’s
exaltation in his Resurrection
is not to be regarded as in any way impaired by
Romans 14:5.” (10)
Reformed
Confessional
support for the Sunday is the Christian Sabbath:
The Westminster Shorter Catechism asks which
day of
the seven has God appointed. The Shorter Catechism
in Q.59 puts it this way:
“Q.59. Which day of the seven has God
appointed to be
the weekly Sabbath?
A. From the beginning of the world to the
Resurrection
of Christ, God appointed the seventh day of the week
to be the weekly Sabbath;
and the first day of the week ever since, to
continue to the end of the world,
which is the Christian Sabbath.”
Westminster Confession of 1646:
Of
Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day
“Chapter XXI. Of Religious
Worship, and
the Sabbath Day with Scriptural proofs
I. The light of nature showeth that there is
a God,
who hath lordship and sovereignty over all, is good,
and doth good unto all,
and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised,
called upon, trusted in, and
served, with all the heart and with all the soul,
and with all the might, (Rom
1:20; Act 17:24; Psa 119:68; Jer 10:7; Psa 31:23;
Psa 18:3; Rom 10:12; Psa
62:8; Jos 24:14; Mar 12:33). But the acceptable way
of worshipping the true God
is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own
revealed will, that He may
not be worshipped according to the imaginations and
devices of men, or the
suggestions of Satan, under any visible
representation, or any other way not
prescribed in the holy scripture, (Deu 12:32; Mat
15:9; Act 17:25; Mat 4:9-10;
Deu 15:1-20; Exd 20:4-6; Col 2:23).
II. Religious worship is to be given to God,
the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and to Him alone, (Mat
4:10; Jhn 5:23; 2Co 13:14);
not to angels, saints, or any other creature, (Col
2:18; Rev 19:10; Rom 1:25):
and, since the fall, not without a Mediator; nor in
the mediation of any other
but of Christ alone, (Jhn 14:6; 1Ti 2:5; Eph 2:18;
Col 3:17).
III. Prayer, with thanksgiving, being one
special part
of religious worship, (Phl 4:6); is by God required
of all men, (Psa 65:2):
and, that it may be accepted, it is to be made in
the name of the Son, (Jhn
14:13-14; 1Pe 2:5); by the help of His Spirit, (Rom
8:26); according to His
will, (1Jo 5:14); with understanding, reverence,
humility, fervency, faith,
love, and perseverance, (Psa 47:7; Ecc 5:1-2; Hbr
12:28; Gen 18:27; Jam 5:16;
Jam 1:6-7; Mar 11:24; Mat 6:12, 14-15; Col 4:2; Eph
6:18); and, if vocal, in a,
known tongue, (1Co 14:14).
IV. Prayer is to be made for things lawful,
(1Jo
5:14); and for all sorts of men living, or that
shall live hereafter, (1Ti
2:1-2; Jhn 17:20; 2Sa 7:29; Rth 4:12): but not for
the dead, (2Sa 12:21-23; Luk
16:25-26; Rev 14:13); nor for those of whom it may
be known that they have
sinned the sin unto death, (1Jo 5:16).
V. The reading of the Scriptures with godly
fear, (Act
15:21; Rev 1:3); the sound preaching, (2Ti 4:2); and
conscionable hearing of
the word, in obedience unto God, with understanding,
faith, and reverence, (Jam
1:22; Act 10:33; Mat 13:19; Hbr 4:2; Isa 66:2);
singing of psalms with grace in
the heart, (Col 3:16; Eph 5:19; Jam 5:13); as also,
the due administration and
worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by
Christ, are all parts of the
ordinary religious worship of God, (Mat 28:19; 1Co
11:23-29; Act 2:42): beside
religious oaths, (Deu 6:13; Neh 10:29); vows, (Isa
19:21; Ecc 5:4-5); solemn
fastings, (Joe 2:12; Est 4:16; Mat 9:15; 1Co 7:5);
and thanksgivings upon
special occasions, (Psa 107; Est 9:22); which are,
in their several times and
seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner,
(Hbr 12:28).
VI. Neither prayer, nor any other part of
religious
worship, is now, under the Gospel, either tied unto,
or made more acceptable by
any place in which it is performed, or towards which
it is directed, (Jhn
4:21): but God is to be worshipped everywhere, (Mal
1:11; 1Ti 2:8); in spirit
and truth, (Jhn 4:23-24); as, in private families,
(Jer 10:25; Deu 6:6-7; Job
1:5; 2Sa 6:18, 20; 1Pe 3:7, Act 10:2); daily, (Mat
6:11); and in secret, each
one by himself, (Mat 6:6; Eph 6:18); so, more
solemnly in the public assemblies,
which are not carelessly or wilfully to be
neglected, or forsaken, when God, by
His Word or providence, calleth thereunto, (Isa
56:6-7; Hbr 10:25; Pro 1:20-21,
24; Pro 8:34; Act 13:42; Luk 4:16; Act 2:42).
VII. As it is the law of nature, that, in
general, a
due proportion of time be set apart for the worship
of God; so, in His Word, by
a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding
all men in all ages, He
hath particularly appointed one day in seven, for a
Sabbath, to be kept holy
unto Him, (Exd 20:8, 10-11; Isa 56:2, 4, 6-7):
which, from the beginning of the
world to the Resurrection of Christ, was the last
day of the week, (Gen 2:2-3;
1Co 16:1-2; Act 20:7); and, from the Resurrection of
Christ, was changed into
the first day of the week, which, in scripture, is
called the Lord’s Day, (Rev
1:10); and is to be continued to the end of the
world, as the Christian
Sabbath, (Exd 20:8, 10; Mat 5:17-18).
VIII. This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the
Lord,
when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and
ordering of their common
affairs beforehand, do not only observe an holy
rest, all the day, from their
own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly
employments and recreations,
(Exd 20:8; Exd 16:23, 25-26, 29-30; Exd 31:15-17;
Isa 58:13; Neh 13:15-19,
21-22); but also are taken up, the whole time, in
the public and private
exercises of His worship, and in the duties of
necessity and mercy, (Isa 58:13;
Mat 12:1-13).”
Westminster
Catechism
and Confession, one of Protestantism’s most
excellent confessions,
understands that the Saturday Sabbath has changed to
Sunday, along with its
significance.
Conclusion
with a
summary of Scriptural reasons for the day change:
1.
The Lord rose
from the dead on the first day of the week, Matthew
28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 25:1;
and John 20:1, 19, 26.
2.
In the book of
Acts, we learn more about Sunday, the day of
Christ’s Resurrection. “And upon
the first day of the week, when the disciples came
together to break bread,
Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the
morrow; and continued his
speech until midnight.” (Acts 20:7)
3.
In 1 Corinthians
16:1-2, Paul tells us that not only in Corinth but
all the churches of Galatia
met upon the first day of the week. Moreover, the
apostles commanded the
observation of this day rather than any other day
for Sabbath services.
4.
Regarding
Sunday, the first day of the week, it can be said
this day is sanctified to be
holy to the Lord above any other day, and therefore
it has the Lord’s name upon
it and consequently is called the Lord’s day, as is
manifest from
Revelation1:10.
In
answer to the
opening questions, the Roman Catholic assertion that
the Papacy changed the
Saturday Sabbath to Sunday worship does not hold up
historically, nor most
importantly, biblically.
Notes:
1.
Rev. Alciviadis
C. Calivas, Th.D., Encountering Christ in Worship,
https://www.goarch.org/-/orthodox-worship
2.
Justin Martyr,
The First Apology of Justin, Chap. 67, pp. 354, 355.
3.
Didache Chapter
XIV.11, Christian Assembly on the Lord’s Day, 14
[A.D. 70]).
5.
Epistle of
Ignatius to the Magnesians, Chapter IX.
6.
(Constantine,
March 7, 321. Codex Justinianus lib. 3, tit. 12, 3;
translated in Philip
Schaff’s, History of the Christian Church), Vol. 3,
p. 380, note 1.
7.
Jamieson,
Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible,
(Grand Rapids, Michigan,
Zondervan, 1977) p. 1405-1406.
8.
R. J. Bauckham,
“Lord’s Day,” in From Sabbath to Lord’s Day, ed. D.
A. Carson, pages 221-250.
9.
John Murray,
The Sabbath, The Pattern of the Lord’s Day, (United
Kingdom, Lord’s Day
Observance Society), out of print.
10.
John Murray,
The Epistle to the Romans, vol. 2, The New
International Commentary on the Old
and New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1968),
257–259.
Messiah’s
people:
“called out assembly,” the bride, true name
Y’Isra-el
Answer:
The
concept of the
Messiah’s people being referred to as the “called
out assembly” or “bride” has
roots in both Jewish and Christian theology, though
interpretations can vary
significantly between these groups and even within
them:
1.Messiah’s
People
as “Called Out Assembly:”
·In Christianity, the term
“ekklesia” (ἐκκλησία), often translated as “church,”
means “called out ones” or
“assembly.” This term is used to describe the
community of believers in Jesus
Christ, who are seen as called out by God for a
divine purpose. Early Christian
writings, including those in the New Testament,
describe believers as an
assembly chosen or called by God.
2.The
Bride:
·The metaphor of the
“bride” is
frequently used in Christian theology to describe
the church’s relationship
with Christ. This imagery comes from passages like
Ephesians 5:25-27, where the
church is described as the bride of Christ, meant to
be presented without spot
or wrinkle. In Judaism, the concept of Israel as
God’s bride exists, notably in
prophetic literature, where God is depicted as
betrothed to Israel (e.g.,
Hosea, Jeremiah).
3.True
Name
Y’Isra-el:
·The term “Y’Isra-el” or
“Yisra’el”
is essentially the Hebrew name for Israel, which
means “struggles with God” or “God
prevails.” In Jewish thought, Israel refers to the
descendants of Jacob, who
was renamed Israel after wrestling with an angel
(Genesis 32:28). In some
Messianic or Jewish-Christian interpretations,
there’s a movement to reclaim or
use Hebrew names, believing they hold spiritual
significance or are closer to
the original context of the scriptures. “Y’Isra-el”
might emphasize this
connection, although it’s not universally adopted in
mainstream Jewish or
Christian discourse.
4.Messianic
and
Eschatological Views:
·From a Messianic Jewish
perspective
or certain streams within Christianity, especially
those with Hebraic roots,
there’s an understanding that the true followers of
the Messiah (whether seen
as Jesus or another figure in Jewish eschatology)
are part of a spiritual
Israel, which might be called Y’Israel. This view
often incorporates the idea
that believers, both Jewish and non-Jewish, are part
of God’s covenant with
Israel through faith in the Messiah.
5.Cultural
and
Theological Nuances:
·The idea of “Y’Isra-el” as
the true
name for the Messiah’s people can be tied to
theological debates about the
identity of God’s people in the end times. Some
believe that all believers in
the Messiah will be part of a restored Israel,
fulfilling prophecies about the
ingathering of the exiles and the unity of God’s
people under one covenant.
In
summary:
While
the phrase “called
out assembly” aligns with Christian usage of
“ekklesia” for the church, and the
term “bride” is used for both Israel (in Jewish
texts) and the Church (in
Christian texts), the specific usage of “Y’Isra-el”
as the true name for the
Messiah’s people might be more aligned with certain
Messianic or Hebraic
Christian interpretations, emphasizing a continuity
or restoration of Israel
through faith in the Messiah. However,
interpretations can vary widely, and not
all theological or religious groups will agree on
these points.
Counterfeit:
Circe
(Church), daughter of the sun god
Answer:
The
fallacy above
refers to likely stems from the conflation or
misinterpretation of several
mythological or religious elements.
1.Circe
in
Mythology:
·Circe is a figure from
Greek
mythology, not directly related to Christianity or
any other religious
institution like the Church (often referred to as
“Circe” in some
interpretations due to phonetic or typographical
similarity). She was a
sorceress known for her ability to turn men into
animals, as described in
Homer’s “Odyssey.” Circe was the daughter of Helios,
the Titan sun god, and the
nymph Perse.
2.Misinterpretation
or
Confusion:
·The confusion might arise
from:
·Linguistic Mix-up: Circe
might be
confused with “Church” due to similar sounding names
in some languages or
dialects.
·Symbolic or Allegorical
Interpretations: In some literary or symbolic
interpretations, mythological
figures like Circe might represent ideas or entities
from Christianity or other
religions. However, this isn’t standard in
traditional mythology.
3.Symbolic
Connections:
·Sun Imagery in Religion:
The sun has
been a powerful symbol across many cultures and
religions, including
Christianity, where light is often used as a
metaphor for divine truth or
enlightenment. However, this does not mean figures
like Circe are directly
linked to or considered part of Christian theology.
4.Fallacy
Analysis:
·Argument from False
Analogy: This
fallacy occurs when two things are compared that
have no real similarity, or
the comparison is made inappropriately. Here,
assuming Circe, a mythological
figure with no direct connection to Christianity, is
the “daughter” of the
Church due to some superficial or misunderstood
connections would be erroneous.
5.Etymological
Fallacy:
·Assuming that because
words sound
similar or share similar roots, their meanings must
be related, which isn’t the
case here with “Circe” and “Church.”
To
summarize:
The
idea that
Circe is the daughter of the Church because of her
association with the sun god
Helios represents a misunderstanding or creative
reinterpretation of mythology
and religion. This fallacy would involve
misconceptions about the origins and
implications of mythological and religious symbols
and names.
Messiah:
Yahoshua
(Yah’s salvation)
Answer:
“Messiah:
Yahoshua
(Yah’s salvation)” is not the only exclusive way to
refer to the Messiah in
Christian or Jewish contexts. Here are some
variations and considerations:
1.Yahoshua
- This
name is derived from Hebrew. It’s sometimes used
by those who prefer using
original Hebrew names. However, variations exist:
·Yeshua is a more commonly
used
Hebrew name for Jesus, meaning “salvation.”
·Joshua - The anglicized
form of
“Yahoshua” or “Yeshua,” found in English Bibles.
2.Jesus
- In
English-speaking contexts, “Jesus” is the most
widely recognized name for the
Messiah. This comes from the Latin Iesus, which in
turn derives from the Greek Ἰησοῦς
(Iēsous), a transliteration of the Hebrew Yeshua
or Yahoshua.
3.Jesus
Christ -
Combining the name with the title “Christ,” which
means “Messiah” or “Anointed
One” in Greek.
4.Messiah
- This
term can stand alone or be paired with various
names:
·Messiah Jesus or Jesus the
Messiah
·HaMashiach in Hebrew,
which means
“The Messiah.”
5.Lord
- Often used
in a messianic context, especially in Christian
worship and texts:
·Lord Jesus Christ
6.Other
Cultural and
Linguistic Variations:
·Isa is used in Arabic,
Islam, and
some Christian contexts in the Arab world.
·And, Iēsous Khristos in
Greek
directly translates to “Jesus Christ” in English.
Each
of these ways
of referring to the Messiah can be associated with
different theological,
cultural, or linguistic backgrounds:
·Christianity generally
uses “Jesus
Christ” or variations thereof.
·Judaism might use
“Messiah” or
“Moshiach” when discussing the expected or potential
messianic figure.
·Messianic Judaism might
use
“Yahoshua” or “Yeshua” to highlight the Jewish roots
of Jesus’ identity.
Therefore,
while “Messiah:
Yahoshua (Yah’s salvation)” is one way to express
this concept, it’s far from
the only universally accepted way. Language,
culture, and religious tradition significantly
influence how this figure is named and described.
Counterfeit:
Yay
Zeus (Jesus, also falsely iesous, iesum, an iesus)
The
statement “Yay
Zeus (Jesus, also falsely iesous, iesum, an iesus)”
contains several
inaccuracies and misconceptions:
1.Jesus
and Zeus:
·Confusion between Names:
The
statement seems to imply that Jesus and Zeus are
related or the same, which is
incorrect from a theological, historical, and
linguistic perspective.
·Jesus: The name Jesus
comes from
the Greek form of the Hebrew name “Yeshua” or
“Yehoshua” (Joshua), meaning
“Yahweh is salvation.” The Greek transliteration is
Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous).
·Zeus: Zeus is the chief
deity in
Greek mythology, unrelated to the Judeo-Christian
figure of Jesus. The name
Zeus derives from the Indo-European root *dyeu-,
which is related to sky or
day, not to any Semitic or Hebrew roots.
2.Linguistic
Misrepresentation:
·“Iesous, Iesum, Iesus:”
These are
Latinized forms of the Greek name Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous).
They are not false but are
variations of the same name adapted to different
grammatical cases in Latin:
·Iesous - Nominative case
used for
the subject of a sentence.
·Iesum - Accusative case,
used as
the direct object.
·Iesus - Another Latin
form, though
less commonly used in classical Latin texts for
Jesus.
·The claim that these names
are
“falsely” attributed to Jesus misunderstands how
names get adapted across
languages. These variations are typical linguistic
adaptations rather than
false representations.
3.Cultural
and
Religious Misunderstanding:
·The statement might imply
a
conspiracy or a deliberate misrepresentation of how
Jesus’s name was
transliterated or translated, which isn’t the case:
·Early Christian texts were
written
in Greek, the lingua franca of the Eastern
Mediterranean. Hence, “Yeshua” was
naturally transliterated to “Iēsous” in Greek and
from Greek to Latin as
“Iesus” or “Iesum,” depending on the grammatical
context.
4.Lack
of Historical
Context:
·The evolution of the name
from
Hebrew to Greek to Latin reflects the cultural and
linguistic transitions in
the early spread of Christianity, not an attempt to
mislead or confuse.
In
conclusion:
The
statement
contains a mix-up of linguistic evolution,
historical context, and theological
identity. The names “Iesous,” “Iesum,” and “Iesus”
are legitimate, albeit
varied, forms of Jesus’s name in different
linguistic contexts, not falsehoods.
The connection or conflation with Zeus is a
misunderstanding of etymology and
cultural history.
Salvation:
declared
directly to the believer by the Holy Spirit
Counterfeit:
declared
only by man who falsely claims it’s the Holy
Spirit
And,
for
some reason, Christians don’t think these things
even matter!
www.wayofthetabernacle.com
Answer
The
above
declaration and alleged counterfeit are nothing more
than subjective quibbling.
Dean, a leader of the “Tabernacle,” says that the
Holy Spirit tells him
directly and without any evidence and levels an
accusation that a Christian’s
testimony is based on man's word. The assertion that
salvation is based on
man's word is false regarding the Reformed faith.
Furthermore, Christians think
these things matter to those who are more humble in
their faith and less likely
to throw accusations around. His lack of
documentation is a glaring error in
Dean Haskins’ assertions here and elsewhere. In this
writer’s brief exchange
with Dean on Parler, he was asked if he had taken up
mind reading because of
his lack of documentation for his assertions.
Escatology
Astray:
The following is Dean Haskin’s view on Bible
interpretation taken from his
website.
WHAT
IS THE
“FALLING AWAY”?
In
2 Thessalonians 2:3,
Paul speaks of the coming rule of
the antichrist, which will precede Messiah’s
1000-year reign on earth. He says
that the antichrist will not come until there is
first “falling away from the
faith. (bolding emphasis mine)
What
movement
occurred AFTER Paul had died and stripped the true
faith of its foundations,
replacing the Father’s true ordained days
(Sabbaths) with ordained pagan
counterfeits like SUNday assembling and holydays
are tied to sun worship, and
also turned salvation into something man controls?
Christianity
I.S.
the “apostasy” Paul said would precede the coming
of the antichrist. It
began in the early centuries after the New
Testament writers had all
died/culminating in its head (the Pope) endorsing
the antichrist. Christianity
flows from Rome, where it was invented, and it
pervades and deceives the
planet.
Apart
from some
shocking historical errors, such as “Christianity
flows from Rome.” Dean has apparently
never heard of Eastern Orthodoxy because they would
most certainly object along
with the Coptics.
The
assertion that
“everything in Christianity flows from Rome”
oversimplifies and is not
accurate.
1.Historical
Context:
·Early Christianity:
Christianity
began in the Middle East, specifically in Judea
(modern-day Israel and
Palestine), with the life and teachings of Jesus
Christ. The early Church
spread through the Apostles' efforts across the
Roman Empire and beyond.
·Rome's Role: Rome became
central
due to its political and cultural significance in
the Roman Empire. The Bishop
of Rome (later known as the Pope) gained prominence
partly because Rome was the
empire's capital.
2.Development
of the
Papacy:
·Over centuries, the Bishop
of
Rome's role evolved, especially after the fall of
the Western Roman Empire. The
Pope's authority was recognized more formally during
the Middle Ages, leading
to the concept of papal primacy. However, this was
not without controversy,
especially in the East, where the Orthodox Church
developed independently.
3.Eastern
Christianity:
·The Eastern Orthodox
Church,
centered in Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul),
has its own Patriarchs and
does not accept the Pope's universal jurisdiction.
This branch of Christianity
developed alongside Western Christianity but with
different theological
emphases and ecclesiastical structures.
4.Protestant
Reformation
and Beyond:
·The Protestant Reformation
in the
16th century challenged the authority of Rome,
leading to the formation of
various Protestant denominations. These groups often
rejected or reformed many
doctrines and practices associated with Roman
Catholicism, emphasizing
scripture over tradition or papal authority.
5.Global
Christianity:
·Today, Christianity is a
global
religion with diverse expressions:
·Catholicism: While the
Pope in Rome
is the spiritual leader, there are also significant
Eastern Catholic Churches
that, while in communion with Rome, retain their own
rites and traditions.
·Orthodoxy: Orthodoxy has
autocephalous (self-headed) churches, such as the
Greek Orthodox, Russian
Orthodox, etc.
·Protestantism: Encompasses
numerous
denominations like Presbyterian, Reformed, Lutheran,
Anglican, Baptist,
Methodist, etc., each with its governance.
·Other Christian Movements:
Include
Anglicanism, which splits between those who align
closely with Rome and others
who do not, and independent or non-denominational
churches.
6.Non-Roman
Influences:
·Various cultures and
places have
influenced Christianity:
·Alexandria: Early
Christian
theology and Christology were significantly
developed here.
·Antioch is known for its
school of
thought that emphasizes Christ's humanity alongside
His divinity.
·Constantinople: Played a
crucial
role in theological debates and the formation of the
Nicene Creed.
In
summary:
While
Rome has
been, and remains, a significant center for
Christianity, especially for the
Roman Catholic Church, the assertion that
“everything flows from Rome” does not
hold universally across all Christian traditions.
Many cultural, geographical,
and theological currents have influenced
Christianity's development, making it
a richly diverse global faith.
Exegesis
of 2
Thessalonians from a Reformed Perspective
Introduction:
2
Thessalonians,
believed to be penned by the Apostle Paul, addresses
a community grappling with
eschatological concerns, moral conduct, and church
discipline. This letter,
likely written shortly after 1 Thessalonians, aims
to clarify misunderstandings
about the Day of the Lord, encourage steadfastness
in faith, and correct
certain behaviors within the church.
1.Authorship
and
Historical Context:
·Authorship: While
traditional
scholarship attributes 2 Thessalonians to Paul, some
modern scholars debate its
Pauline authorship due to stylistic differences with
1 Thessalonians. However,
from a Reformed perspective, which typically holds
to traditional authorship,
the letter is accepted as genuinely Pauline, written
in collaboration with
Silas and Timothy (2 Thess. 1:1).
·Context: The church in
Thessalonica
was experiencing persecution (2 Thess. 1:4-7), which
likely led to confusion
about eschatological events, causing some members to
become idle, expecting the
imminent return of Christ.
2.Theological
Themes:
·Eschatology: The Day of
the Lord (2
Thess. 2:1-12): Paul corrects the Thessalonians’
misunderstanding that the day
of the Lord had already come. He outlines a
sequence: apostasy must occur, and
the “man of lawlessness” must be revealed before
Christ’s return (2 Thess.
2:3-4). This passage reflects Reformed theology’s
understanding of progressive
revelation, where events unfold in God’s
predetermined order, emphasizing God’s
sovereignty over history.
·The Restrainer:
Discussions on the
identity of the restrainer (2 Thess. 2:6-7) are
speculative; however, within
Reformed circles, interpretations might lean towards
the Holy Spirit, human
government, or an angelic being, all under divine
control.
·Perseverance and Election:
·God’s Faithful Calling (2
Thess.
2:13-14): Paul reassures believers of their election
by God for salvation
through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in
truth. This aligns with the Reformed
doctrine on election, emphasizing that salvation is
a divine initiative, not
predicated on human merit.
·Work and Discipline:
·Against Idleness (2 Thess.
3:6-15):
Paul’s admonition for everyone to work and not be
idle (3:10-12) reflects the
Reformed work ethic, where diligence in one’s
calling is seen as a part of
Christian living, countering the idle expectation of
Christ’s immediate return.
3.Ecclesiological
Insights:
·Church Discipline: The
directive to
withdraw from those who live in idleness but do not
obey the letter’s
instructions (2 Thess. 3:14-15) underscores the
Reformed view on church
governance and discipline, where the community is
responsible for maintaining
order and purity in doctrine and life.
·Prayer for the Church (2
Thess.
1:11-12): Here, the intercessory role of the apostle
for the spiritual growth
and glorification of the church members is
emphasized, reflecting the Reformed
focus on the means of grace, including prayer, for
spiritual development.
4.Application
for
Today:
·Relevance: The themes in 2
Thessalonians continue to resonate:
·The call to diligently
work and
doctrine amidst eschatological speculation or
societal pressures.
·Believers find comfort in
God’s
sovereign plan for history and salvation.
·The importance of church
discipline
as part of communal spiritual health is highlighted.
Conclusion:
2
Thessalonians
from a Reformed perspective serves as a guide for
eschatological understanding
and a framework for Christian living that emphasizes
perseverance, community
responsibility, and reliance on divine providence.
It encourages believers to
live out their faith actively in anticipation of
Christ’s return, maintaining
order and discipline within the church community
while trusting in God’s
overarching plan for the cosmos.
Introductory
Observations
about Dean Haskins’ book From Christian to
Believer” by Kurt Van Gordon:
“When I first looked at Dean Haskins's book
on Amazon,
coauthored with James Finnegan, I was unfamiliar
with either author. However, I
took note that their book was published by “Tate
Publishing” (the scandalized
Tate Publishing from Mustang, Oklahoma, not to be
confused with Tate Publishing
in London, England, from 1911).This
relaxed my anticipation that we had much more than
two self-proclaimed
specialists who lacked the business-sense to steer
away from Tate Publishing,
due to their horrid reputation. Anyone
can
Google Tate Publishing of Mustang, OK, and find
compounded articles
exposing lawsuits by would-be authors, the Oklahoma
Attorney General’s
eight-count indictment for embezzlement, among other
things, and the lawsuits
from Xerox and other corporations.This
was not a good beginning for analyzing Mr. Haskins’s
work.
My
second flag was Haskins’s book description, which
stated that we are all going
to be “shocked” with what he found out about
Christianity.When someone uses the word “shocked” to
describe the Bible or Christianity, it fosters the
pretense that the author has
discovered something formerly unknown or untouched
by any other writer.Rarely is this the true case.In fact, his thesis about Hebraic Roots is
rehashed from the Messianic movement churches, but
even older, it also is
rooted in the Judaizers who tormented the apostolic
Church, who were rebuked in
Paul’s epistles as legalists who are ignorant of
God’s true grace.
Further
research showed that Haskins’s coauthor, Finnegan,
has released the book free
of charge on his website.I downloaded
it and read some of the sections.My
initial suspicions were confirmed in that it was a
jumbled concoction of
term-replacement, term-twisting, and just plain
fabrications reminiscent of
Herbert W. Armstrong (founder of the former cult,
Worldwide Church of
God).Haskins
and Finnegan have
intensified the legalism and have returned to the
very object of Paul’s rebuke
in Galatians, in that “they pervert the gospel of
Christ” (Gal. 1:7), of which
he twice-declared, “Anathema!” (accursed, Gal. 1:8,
9).
The
book meanders in directionless paths with no central
point, except that he
disdains both mainline Christianity and parts of the
Hebrew Roots
Movement.The
book also engages
date-setting for the tribulation and millennial
periods, which they surmise as
2031, “From the time of Adam to the time of Abraham,
there was roughly two
thousand years. Then from the time of Abraham to the
time of Christ, there was
another two thousand years. Most biblical scholars
agree that Christ was
crucified in the year AD 31, and if we add two
thousand years to that, we
arrive at 2031.”The simplest research
will expose their false statement about “most
scholars,” but far worse is their
contrived and forced interpretation attached to it.As
with most hyper-dispensational
date-setters, none have ever been right because “the
day and the hour no man
knows,” promised Jesus, in Matthew 24:36.” - Kurt
Van Gorden, author of
Mormonism (Zondervan, 1995), the coauthor of The
Kingdom of the Occult (with
Walter R. Martin and Jill Martin-Rische, 2008), and
the Senior Researcher of
The Kingdom of the Cults, by Walter Martin, (2019).
See
https://wayofthetabernacle.com/images/From%20Christian%20to%20Believer.pdf
Critical
Review of
“From Christian to Believer” by James Finnegan and
Dean Haskins
"From
Christian
to Believer" aims to guide readers on a spiritual
journey
through Christian symbolism, mainly focusing on the
Tabernacle. However, the
book suffers from several academic flaws that
significantly undermine its
credibility:
1.
Lack of
Scholarly Rigor:
The
text often
makes assertions about biblical interpretations
without providing sufficient
textual or historical evidence. This approach might
resonate with those already
inclined towards the author's viewpoint but lacks
the depth expected in
academic or theological studies where primary and
peer-reviewed secondary
sources are crucial.
2.
Anachronistic
Interpretations:
There's
a tendency
to impose modern theological concepts onto ancient
texts without acknowledging
the historical, cultural, and linguistic contexts.
This retrofitting of
contemporary beliefs onto ancient practices can lead
to misinterpretations and
overlooks the development of Christian doctrine over
centuries.
3.
Over-Simplification:
Complex
theological
concepts are often reduced to simplistic metaphors,
which might
serve well for introductory religious literature but
fail when trying to engage
with or contribute to theological discourse. This
simplification can dilute the
richness of biblical scholarship and ignore the
nuances that scholars debate.
4.
Bias and Lack
of Critical Engagement:
The
book appears
to advocate for a particular theological stance
without adequately exploring or
critiquing alternative interpretations or
viewpoints. This lack of dialogue
with other theological traditions or even within the
Christian tradition can
make the work seem dogmatically one-sided rather
than a scholarly exploration.
5.
Inadequate
Source Citation:
While
not uncommon
in religious texts aimed at the general public, the
absence of proper citations
or references to other works, both ancient and
modern, hampers the book's value,
which makes it difficult for readers to follow up on
claims or assess the
credibility of the interpretations presented.
6.
Theological
Assumptions:
The
author
sometimes presents theological assumptions as if
they were universally accepted
truths, which can be misleading. For instance,
specific interpretations of
salvation, the role of the Tabernacle, or the nature
of belief are treated as
definitive rather than as one perspective among
many.
7.
Use of
Anecdotal Evidence:
The
narrative
often relies on personal anecdotes or testimonies,
which, while compelling from
a personal faith perspective, do not constitute
reliable academic evidence.
This method might be inspiring but does not
contribute to scholarly discourse.
Are
the authors
professionally competent in Hebrew?
Given
the
information available and the nature of the book
"From Christian to
Believer," there isn't explicit evidence within the
author's or authors'
document demonstrating professional knowledge of
Hebrew.
Points
to
consider:
Language
Use:
The text often
discusses biblical concepts, especially those
related to the Tabernacle, which
might suggest familiarity with the Old Testament.
However, this does not
necessarily indicate proficiency in Hebrew, as many
English translations or
commentaries could be the source of such
information.
Lack
of Hebrew
Textual Analysis:
If the book delves deeply into Hebrew language
specifics, like etymology,
syntax, or exegesis based on the Hebrew text, one
might expect to see Hebrew
words or phrases analyzed, transliterated, or
translated. However, without
directly accessing the text or a detailed content
analysis, there's no clear
indication that such a level of Hebrew scholarship
exists.
Theological
Interpretation
vs. Linguistic Knowledge: Many theological interpretations of the
Bible can be
made without advanced knowledge of Hebrew. The book
might focus on spiritual or
symbolic interpretations that do not require one to
be adept in the original
languages of the Bible.
Author's
Background:
The book doesn't provide information about the
author's background or
credentials. If the author has training or expertise
in Hebrew, this would
typically be mentioned in the author bios or in the
book's acknowledgments,
which are not included in the review snippets or the
PDF version of the book itself.
To
accurately
assess the author's knowledge of Hebrew, one would
need:
·Direct Reference to
Hebrew: Quotes
from or discussions about the original Hebrew texts,
showing interaction with
the language.
·Citations: Use of
scholarly sources
that deal with Hebrew, like lexicons, commentaries
on the original texts, or
studies from Hebrew scholars.
·Author's Qualifications:
Information on the author's academic or professional
qualifications related to
biblical languages.
Without
this
information, it's difficult to confirm if the
author(s) of "From Christian
to Believer" have professional knowledge of Hebrew
sufficient for writing
an authoritative book on biblical interpretation
based on the language itself.
The
publisher Dean
Haskins used for his book is another reason not to
read the book:
Tate
Publishing
from Mustang, Oklahoma, is not considered a credible
publisher based on its
history and numerous legal and ethical issues:
Business
Practices:
Tate Publishing operated primarily as a vanity
press, where authors
paid for publication services. While this isn't
inherently non-credible, the
issues surrounding Tate Publishing go beyond
standard vanity press operations.
·Legal Troubles:
In 2016, Xerox sued Tate Publishing for over
$1.7
million in unpaid services. This lawsuit highlighted
financial distress.
In January 2017, Tate Publishing ceased
operations
amid legal battles, including lawsuits from printing
services providers like
Lightning Source and Xerox for millions of dollars
in unpaid debts.
The founders, Richard and Ryan Tate, were
arrested in
May 2017 on charges including embezzlement,
extortion, and racketeering. They
pleaded no contest to 44 criminal charges in
December 2019, which included
defrauding customers.
·Customer Complaints: There
have
been numerous complaints from authors and musicians
about the non-delivery of
services despite payment, lack of royalties, and
poor quality of work. The
Oklahoma Attorney General received nearly 2,200
complaints from former clients
about Tate Publishing's practices.
·Closure and Transition: In
January
2017, they announced they were in a transition
period, no longer accepting new
clients, and were supposedly working to find new
homes for their current
authors and artists, which did not resolve the
issues for many.
·Public Perception: The
combination
of legal issues, customer complaints, and the abrupt
closure of business
operations significantly damaged Tate Publishing's
reputation. They were often
cited in consumer reports and reviews as a company
to be wary of.
Given
this
background, Tate Publishing would not be recommended
for anyone considering a
publisher for their work due to its history of
fraudulent activities, legal
issues, and failure to provide promised services. In
light of the numerous
fallacies, lack of scholarship, and divisive spirit
outlined above regarding
Dean Haskins’ book, Tate Publishing was a publisher
of last resort.
Conclusion:
From
an academic
standpoint, “From Christian to Believer” falls
short. Its methodological approach
lacks the rigor, critical analysis, and broad
engagement with theological
scholarship necessary for it to be considered a
contribution to biblical or
theological studies. This book, however, ends with a
conclusion and does not
include an index.
While
Dean Haskins
is a talented musician, his excursion into theology
can be described as
religion-run amuck. The “Way of the Tabernacle” is
an extreme aberrational
subset of the HRM characterized by ignorance,
arrogance, and vitriolic hate of
the Christian Faith.
Portions
of the
above study were Groked under the direction of Jack
Kettler and perfected with
Grammarly AI.
“Study
to shew
thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth
not to be ashamed, rightly
dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
The
above material
is copyrighted and published by Kettler Wellness
Inc. The above material can be
freely copied as a whole or in part if the context
is preserved and proper
attribution is listed.
Mr.
Kettler is an
author who has previously published articles in the
Chalcedon Report and
Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are
active Westminster, CO, RPCNA
Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work
includes 18 books defending the
Reformed Faith, which are available for order online
at Amazon.
Torahism:
The Book
by R. L. Solberg has been recognized for its
critique of the theology
associated with the Hebraic Roots Movement, arguing
against the requirement for
Christians to keep the Law of Moses. This book won
awards for its theological
stance and is considered a thorough defense against
HRM teachings. www.RLSolberg.com
Torahism:
Are
Christians Required to Keep the Law of Moses?
Dangers
of the
Hebrew Roots Movement by Tim Chaffey with Answers in
Genesis examines the HRM, pointing
out what it sees as dangers and heresies, such as
the belief that Christians
must keep the Torah, which it argues contradicts New
Testament teachings.
Articles and blog posts by R. L. Solberg,
including
those on his website, discuss the theological issues
with HRM, emphasizing the
dangers of legalism and the misinterpretation of
scriptural covenants. https://www.youtube.com/@TheBiblicalRoots
Judaism
is
not Jewish: (currently out of print, one can find
used copies for sale on
the Internet)
By
Baruch
Maoz
What
others are saying about Baruch’s Judaism is not
Jewish:
"The
heart of his indictment is this: the Movement has
allowed rabbinic tradition to
overshadow the Bible. In a laudable attempt to
attract Jews to Christianity,
they are in danger of losing the essence of the
faith as it centers in Jesus
Christ." - Tom Wells, Pastor, The Kings Chapel, West
Chester, Ohio
"Written
primarily
as a constructive critique of Messianic Judaism and
in light of the
author's more than 30 years as a minister in Israel,
it has far broader
relevance. It highlights, in a fashion both
compelling and winsome,
considerations that are non-negotiable today, as
always, in maintaining the
integrity of the gospel of Jesus Christ and biblical
Christianity." -
Richard B. Gaffin, Jr, Westminster Theological
Seminary, Philadelphia
"This
book is must reading for everyone who cares about
the Jewish people." -
Stan Telchin, Stan Telchin Ministries, Sarasota,
Florida
"Pastor
Maoz
is a passionate and persuasive writer with clear
convictions, who builds
simple and convincing arguments on ademonstrably
biblical foundation. For those
within, intrigued by,or dealing with the Messianic
Movement, this book is
importantand perhaps essential reading. Similarly,
other Jewish Christians and
any one involved in evangelizing Jews would almost
certainly find it helpful.
The book also has much to say to all believers." -
The Banner of Truth
"This
is a warm, engaging and very important book,
especially for Jewish Christians
and those involved in ministry with Jewish followers
of Messiah Jesus." -
John Armstrong, Reformation & Revival
Ministries, Carol Stream, Illinois
(Director of Renew and formerly a Pastor for twenty
years)
"Pastor
Maoz
is a passionate and persuasive writer with clear
convictions, who builds
simple and convincing arguments on ademonstrably
biblical foundation. For those
within, intrigued by,or dealing with the Messianic
Movement, this book is
importantand perhaps essential reading. Similarly,
other Jewish Christians and
any one involved in evangelizing Jews would almost
certainly find it helpful.
The book also has much to say to all believers." -
The Banner of Truth