Tag Archives: god

Dean Haskins and the “Way of the Tabernacle”                                             by Jack Kettler

Overview of the Hebrew Roots Movement (HRM)

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.

Who is Dean Haskins and the Way of the Tabernacle?

Dean Haskin’s bio:

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 19^th-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 died on 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)

“ἄρα apoleipetai ἀπολείπεται (sabbatismos, a Sabbath rest) τῷ λαῷ λαῷ Θεοῦ.” (Hebrews 4:9)

“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]).

4. Didascalia Apostolorum, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1929), 2.

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!

http://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.

http://www.wayofthetabernacle.com

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.

Dean Haskins

https://www.wayofthetabernacle.com/

For more Research: Books and Articles on HRM:

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?

Torahism: The Book

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.

https://answersingenesis.org/presuppositions/dangers-hebrew-roots-movement/

Bewitching Believers Through the Hebrew Roots Movement

https://www.thebereancall.org/content/january-2014-bewitching-believers-hebrew-roots?sapurl=Lys5MjZkL2xiL2xpLyt3dm44dWs4P2JyYW5kaW5nPXRydWUmZW1iZWQ9dHJ1ZSZyZWNlbnRSb3V0ZT1hcHAud2ViLWFwcC5saWJyYXJ5Lmxpc3QmcmVjZW50Um91dGVTbHVnPSUyQnd2bjh1azg=

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

What did Job mean by receiving evil from the hand of the Lord?                 By Jack Kettler

Job states: “But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.” (Job 2:10)

A Reformed Theological Perspective:

1.      Sovereignty of God: From a Reformed viewpoint, Job’s response exemplifies the principle of divine sovereignty. God’s control over good and evil events underscores His omnipotence and the comprehensive nature of His providence. Job acknowledges that all events, whether perceived as good or evil, originate from or are permitted by God for His purposes.

2.      Acceptance of Suffering: Job’s acceptance of suffering is not resignation but an act of faith. It reflects the Reformed understanding that God’s will, even in suffering, is for the ultimate good of His elect. Job does not blame God but accepts adversity as part of the divine plan, including the discipline or testing of faith.

3.      Human Sinfulness and Divine Holiness: Job’s rebuke of his wife positions him as understanding the folly of human perspective against divine wisdom. This aligns with the Reformed doctrine of total depravity – that even in wisdom, human judgment is flawed compared to God’s perfect will. Despite his deep suffering, Job does not sin with his lips, emphasizing the holiness and righteousness of God even in the darkest times.

4.      Theodicy: The passage touches on the problem of evil and suffering. From a Reformed perspective, Job’s stance is not about explaining evil but about trusting God’s righteousness despite evil. This trust is foundational in Reformed theology, where the mystery of God’s ways is acknowledged while maintaining His justice and love.

5.      Faith and Obedience: Job’s response is not merely theological but deeply practical. It reflects a faith that endures trials, trusting in God’s character rather than immediate circumstances. This resonates with the Reformed emphasis on perseverance in faith, where true faith is proven through endurance and obedience to God, even in suffering.

6.      Contrast with Human Wisdom: Job’s wife represents a common human reaction to suffering—despair or rebellion. Job’s rebuke highlights the folly of human wisdom, which cannot fathom divine purposes. This contrasts with divine wisdom, which sees beyond immediate pain to eternal purposes, a fundamental tenet in Reformed thought, where God’s wisdom often transcends human understanding.

What did Job mean by receiving evil from the hand of the Lord?

In the context of the Book of Job in the Old Testament of the Bible, Job is a man who experiences extreme suffering, which includes loss of wealth, family, and health. When his wife suggests that he curse God and die, Job responds with a famous line:

“Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?” (Job 2:10).

Here are some interpretations of what Job might have meant:

·         Acceptance of Suffering: Job expresses a philosophical or theological acceptance that if one accepts blessings from God, one should also be prepared to accept adversity or suffering, seeing both as part of life’s experiences from God’s hand.

·         The Sovereignty of God: This statement reflects an understanding that God is sovereign over all things, including both good and evil events in human life. Job acknowledges that everything, whether perceived as good or evil, comes under God’s control or permission.

·         Test of Faith: Job’s response can be seen as a test of his faith. He is questioning whether praising God in prosperity is consistent but then renouncing Him in adversity. His statement could be seen as a resolve to remain faithful regardless of circumstances.

·         Human Perception vs. Divine Purpose: This might also hint at the idea that what humans perceive as “evil” or suffering might serve a higher purpose or be part of a divine plan that humans cannot fully comprehend due to their limited perspective.

·         Moral and Theological Reflection: Job’s words invite more profound reflection on the nature of God, justice, and suffering. It challenges the simplistic view that righteousness always leads to prosperity, suggesting instead that life’s complexities often defy simple explanations.

Theologically, this has been debated:

·         Traditional Views: Some traditional interpretations might see this as an acknowledgment that God allows evil or permits it for reasons beyond human understanding, not that God directly does evil.

·         Modern Interpretations: Some modern scholars might argue about the implications of attributing evil directly to God, often suggesting that “evil” here might refer more to misfortune or calamity rather than moral evil.

Job’s acceptance of both good and evil from God’s hand underscores a profound trust in divine wisdom, even when that wisdom appears harsh or incomprehensible from a human perspective. This narrative is pivotal in exploring the problem of suffering within the context of faith in a just and omnipotent God.

The word evil exegeted:

In Job 2:10, the Hebrew word often translated as “evil” is רע (pronounced “ra'”). Here’s a detailed exegesis:

1.      Etymology and Basic Meaning: רע (ra’) fundamentally means “bad,” “evil,” or “displeasing” in Hebrew. It can refer to moral evil, calamity, disaster, or something that is not good.

2.      Context in Job 2:10:  In this verse, Job responds to his wife, who has suggested he “curse God and die.” Job replies, “Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?” (or “evil” in many translations). Here, רע likely encompasses both the idea of moral or ethical evil and the broader sense of misfortune, trouble, or adversity.

3.      Theological Implications: Divine Sovereignty: Job acknowledges that both good (טוֹב – tov) and evil (רע – ra’) come from God. This doesn’t necessarily mean God is the originator of moral evil but rather that all events, good or bad, fall under His sovereignty.

4.      Human Response: Job’s statement reflects a profound acceptance of life’s dualities, suggesting a theological worldview where trials are part of divine governance, not necessarily punitive but certainly within God’s plan.

5.      Contrast with Other Scriptures: In other parts of the Bible, רע is used in contexts that denote moral evil (e.g., in commandments against doing evil). However, in contexts like Job or in discussions of the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” in Genesis, it might imply the full spectrum of human experience, not just moral categories.

6.      Cultural Context: In ancient Near Eastern thought, including Hebrew culture, רע could describe anything contrary to well-being, harmony, or divine order. Thus, in Job’s context, it might refer to ethical or moral evil and any form of suffering or calamity.

7.      Translation Variability: Different translations might render רע as “trouble,” “harm,” “disaster,” or “adversity” to capture the nuance of the context in Job rather than the strictly moral “evil.”

In summary, in Job 2:10, רע (evil) encapsulates the broader concept of adversity or misfortune that comes into human life, which Job accepts as part of divine governance, not just limited to moral or ethical wrongdoing. This reflects Job’s profound faith and acceptance of life’s hardships as part of a larger, divinely ordained plan.

In conclusion, Job 2:10, from a Reformed perspective, underscores the sovereignty of God, the acceptance of divine will in all circumstances, the contrast between human folly and divine wisdom, and the perseverance of faith. Job’s reaction is a personal response and a theological stance on how believers should understand and react to divine providence, even in extreme suffering.

The above study was Groked 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)

Mr. Kettler is a respected 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.

This is not fair, cries the Arminian                                                                    By Jack Kettler

“Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory.” (Romans 9:20-23)

How is the objection to God’s sovereign choices answered?

Paul, in Romans 9:20-23, answers the objector. Unfortunately, many Christians do not like the answer that Paul provides. The following study will explore Paul’s answer in greater detail.

The passage from Romans 9:20-23 presents a profound defense of God’s sovereign right to elect some to salvation while passing over others. Paul, in his wisdom, anticipates an objection from his audience, asking who they are to question God’s actions (v. 20). Paul then employs a powerful metaphor of a potter and clay to illustrate the unfathomable authority God holds over His creation (v. 21). Just as a potter has the right to shape and use clay as he sees fit, so too does God have the right to create and use people as He chooses (v. 21).

Moreover, in v. 21, Paul uses the argument from the lesser to the greater, suggesting that if a potter has the power to shape and mold his clay as he pleases, then surely God, the creator of all things, has even greater power to form and order his creatures as he sees fit. The authority of God over his creations far surpasses that of a potter over his clay. Unlike the potter, who did not create the clay, both the clay and the potter were made by God. This implies that there is no difference in the material or substance out of which the potter creates various vessels, just as there is no difference in the nature of mankind. All are born into the same corrupt state, both those who are chosen and those who are rejected, those who become vessels of mercy or vessels of wrath. The text also expresses that, as the potter forms vessels of honor or dishonor, of nobler or viler use, from the same lump of clay, according to his will, without needing to justify his actions to his creations, so God may choose some and reject others, without being accountable to his creatures. The potter does not take anything away from the clay, regardless of the form he gives it; similarly, the Creator does no wrong to the creature, no matter how he disposes of it.

Summarizing Paul’s thought thus far:

1.      He thereby manifesteth his great displeasure against sin and his power to take vengeance on sinners. Seeing:

2.      He bears long with them in their sins; exerciseth great patience towards them in the midst of their provocations, giving them space to repent if they call or will. And seeing:

3.      They are vessels of wrath, fitted to destruction, partly by themselves and their own sensual courses, partly by God’s righteous judgment, who gives them up thereunto.

Next, Paul proceeds to describe two types of vessels that God has created: those prepared for destruction and those prepared for glory (v. 22). The former are described as ‘vessels of wrath,’ while the latter are ‘vessels of mercy.’ This distinction is not based on merit or demerit in the vessels themselves but on God’s divine will and purpose (v. 23), reassuring us of His perfect plan.

In these verses (22-23), a response is provided to the objection raised in Romans 9:19 concerning God’s right and power to dispose of his creatures as he sees fit, akin to a potter’s treatment of his clay. The apostle anticipates potential accusations of tyranny and partiality against God and offers justification for his disparate treatment of different individuals.

The reasons for God’s actions are outlined as follows:

1.      By taking a severe course with some, God demonstrates his intense displeasure against sin and his ability to exact vengeance upon sinners.

2.      He exhibits remarkable patience towards these individuals, tolerating their transgressions and allowing them to repent if they choose to do so.

3.      These individuals are described as vessels of wrath, destined for destruction, due to their own sinful actions and God’s righteous judgment, which has left them in such a state.

The passage concludes with Paul emphasizing that God has endured the vessels of wrath with much patience, a testament to His boundless mercy, allowing them to remain in their state of sin for a time in order to display His wrath and power (v. 22). This is done so that He might make known the riches of His glory to the vessels of mercy, whom He has prepared for glory from the beginning (v. 23).

In summary, the passage teaches that God’s election of some to salvation and passing over of others is a sovereign act that is not based on human merit or demerit. It is a manifestation of His perfect justice and mercy, and it ultimately glorifies His name and displays His power and wrath against sin.

On an emotional level, how, according to Reformed theology, does one respond to someone who says, “I did not ask to be created?”

Reformed theology suggests that while a person didn’t ask to be created, their existence is part of a divine plan. So, instead of focusing on the fact that an individual didn’t get a say in being born, maybe consider that they are here for a reason.

Or,

According to Reformed theology, a person’s response to being created without consent might be acknowledging the mystery of existence and God’s sovereignty. It’s like being handed a script for a play you didn’t audition for. One can either spend the whole performance complaining about the part they were given or make the most of it and try to understand God’s plan.

A theological response:

A Reformed theologian would likely respond to this objection by emphasizing God’s absolute sovereignty over all of His creation. According to the Reformed view, God is the ultimate authority and the source of all existence. As such, He has the right to create and to do with His creation as He sees fit.

In response to the objection that one did not ask to be created, a Reformed theologian might point to the passage from Romans 9:20-23, which states that the created thing (i.e., the person) has no right to question the Creator. Just as a potter has the right to shape and use the clay as he sees fit, so too does God have the right to create and use people as He chooses.

Furthermore, a Reformed theologian might argue that the objection misunderstands the nature of God’s sovereignty. God’s sovereignty does not depend on the consent or approval of His creatures. Rather, it is an inherent aspect of His being as the omnipotent Creator.

In short, a Reformed theologian would likely respond to this objection by affirming the absolute sovereignty of God and emphasizing that His right to create and to elect some to salvation while passing over others does not depend on the consent or approval of His creatures.

Two Principles, Sovereignty and Responsibility:

The first theological principle posits that from the beginning of time, God has predestined a group of individuals from the entirety of fallen humanity for His own purpose without considering any inherent merit of those chosen. This divine selection is not based on personal worthiness but on God’s sovereign will. Moreover, God ensures this chosen group’s salvation through the atonement of their sins by Jesus Christ and by exerting His authority to overcome their resistance and lead them to faith.

The second principle underscores that individuals who ultimately face damnation and separation from God do so as a consequence of their own culpable pride and sinfulness. No innocent individuals are condemned; all who are lost have willfully turned away from the evident manifestations of God’s power and glory in nature and the gospel. Those who genuinely seek salvation through Christ are not denied it. No one is held accountable for failing to acknowledge, believe, or obey a truth that was inaccessible to them. All instances of damnation and judgment are a direct result of conscious rebellion against the revealed knowledge of God.

In conclusion, Paul’s argument in Romans 9:20-23 can be stated in logical form as follows:

Premise 1: God is the creator and has the right to use his creation as he sees fit.

Premise 2: Humans are part of God’s creation and, therefore, subject to his will.

Premise 3: It is not appropriate for the created (humans) to question the creator (God).

Conclusion: Therefore, it is not appropriate for humans to question God’s actions or decisions.

The argument can be further broken down as follows:

1.      God has the right to use his creation as he sees fit (implied in the potter-clay analogy).

2.      Humans are part of God’s creation.

3.      Therefore, God has the right to use humans as he sees fit.

4.      It is not appropriate for the created (humans) to question the creator (God).

5.      Therefore, it is not appropriate for humans to question God’s actions or decisions.

This logical form captures the essence of Paul’s argument, which is based on the sovereignty of God and the relationship between the creator and the created.

The above study was Groked 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)

Mr. Kettler is a respected 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.