Saturday, February 26, 2011

Divorce and Remarriage

Divorce and Remarriage - Does the Bible Allow It?
George Barna, who does the polls on religious statistics has published some significant data on the state of Christian marriages. The findings are that among Christians who have said marriage vows, one out of every three has been divorced at least once. This is the same as the average among all adults. However the statistics cannot be compared strictly across the board, as there is a difference from group to group. Four out of every five adults (actually 78%) of all adults have been married at least once. This rate varies from group to group. Born-again Christians top the percentages of marriage at 84%. Non-Christian faiths are at 74%, and atheists and agnostics are only at 65%. This is due to the fact that more non-Christians choose to simply live together. Born-again Christians that are non-evangelical have the same divorce rate as the national average, 33%. Evangelical born-again Christians are slightly lower with 26%, but when combined into an aggregate class the rate is only slightly lower than the the average at 32%. However, born-again Christians are 3% higher than people who call themselves Christians, but do not identify as born-again. Atheists and agnostics have a 30% divorce rate, however as they only have a 65% marriage rate versus the 84% rate of the born-again Christians, the odds of a dissolved relationship is probably the same as the average divorce rate. Protestants have a 34% divorce rate versus Catholics with a 28% divorce rate. Going from the highest to lowest divorce rate by denomination we have non-denominational fundamentalist churches at the top (Bible churches), followed by Baptists, mainline Protestants (Methodist, Presbyterians, etc.), and Catholics/Lutherans (tied). Jews have a 30% divorce rate and Mormons a 24%. The lowest is the Unification church at 17%. The divorce rate is the highest in the Bible belt, and lowest in the Northeastern states. There is something seriously wrong here.

All of these statistics show that faith in God has not altered the behavior and commitment of people. In fact, those that are supposedly the most fundamental and hold the Bible as inerrant and infallible have the highest divorce rate. On a par with the world, fully one third of the born-again evangelicals, who supposedly believe the Bible is the true Word of God and seek to obey its precepts, are getting divorced. What the statistics do not show is how many of them believe remarriage is acceptable and/or do remarry, nor does it show how many who are not divorced believe that divorce and remarriage is an acceptable practice. I am inclined to think that that statistic is much higher than a third. I deduce that from the fact that, although the Scriptures are clear about divorced men in positions of church leadership, even the most fundamental evangelical churches (and some are nationally well-known) are allowing even their pastors to be divorced and remarried men, much less their elders and deacons. Having divorced leaders in churches is a common practice, which means that the congregation is giving their approval, whether openly or tacitly, to this practice. This would raise the statistic as to belief in this as an approved practice to a much higher level.

While it has become a common and acceptable practice to divorce and remarry, the question is, does the Bible give its approval to it? To determine that we must take a look first at the Old Testament laws, then what Jesus and the epistles have to say about it.

Genesis 2:18, 24 "And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him... Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. "

God is the creator of the institution of marriage. After He created Adam, he saw that Adam needed a companion like himself that would be a fit helper through life. So God created Eve. God created man with the intention of there being one man with one woman. Matthew 19:4-5 “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?” In Genesis, the Hebrew word for cleave is “dabaq” which means” to fasten together” in a permanent way. A derivative of this word means “to solder,” which as anyone who has ever soldered anything knows, is pretty permanent. In Greek the word cleave is “proskollao” which means “to glue”. This is also a permanent idea. This would indicate that God did not have divorce in mind when he created the institution of marriage. Nor did he have polygamy in mind, as two were to become one. It was not long, however, before polygamy was practiced. While there is no way to know when it began, it was practiced, as the Scriptures tell us that Adam's great, great, great, great, grandson Lamech had two wives. Genesis 4:19 “And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.” From Yeshua's words, we know that God created male and female to become one flesh. He did not say that man would cleave to several wives and they would become on group together. So in spite of the fact that polygamy was practiced, and even blessed by God in some cases (Jacob with Rachel and Leah plus their two handmaidens), it was not God's intention that polygamy be the practiced form of marriage. While this is important to know, it does not address the question of divorce and remarriage.

Next we will look at the laws given to Moses regarding marriage, divorce, and remarriage. First of all it must be understood that the Mosaic Law assigned a very low status to women. They were virtually chattel and could be treated as such. A woman belonged to her father until she married, then ownership was transferred to her husband. The laws that applied to a woman did not always equally apply to a man. A man could divorce his wife for a variety of reasons, but a woman did not have the same recourse. She could annoy her husband until he divorced her, but that was the extent of her options. He also was not guilty of adultery if he took more than one wife, while she could not be with another man.

The first law about marriage has to do with a daughter who is sold into a bondservant type of marriage (on the idea of a concubine) for the sake of money.

Exodus 21: 7-11 "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.”

If a man sold his daughter as a maidservant, she was not allowed her freedom at the end of the time period, as other bondservants were allowed to go. The next sentence may explain why. While she was sold, it appears she was sold not only as a servant, but as a betrothal. As such she was now the permanent property of her master, his servant-wife. If she did not please him, he could allow her to be redeemed back by her family. He was not to sell her into slavery, nor deal deceitfully with her in any way. If he, instead of betrothing her to himself, betrothed her to his son, he was to treat her as a daughter. If she were his wife, and he took another wife, he could not diminish her rations of food, clothing, nor deny her sex. If he did not keep this bargain, she was free to leave without having to have to be redeemed for money. Of course without a bill of divorcement, she was not free to remarry, and women did not work for a living, so she would be destitute unless family took her in.

The next type of law regarding marriage was that of the prisoners of war.

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 “When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.”

If a soldier went to battle and among the captives a beautiful woman captured his fancy, and he wanted her as his wife, there were certain ceremonial obligations that had to be observed. First, he had to take her to his house. She was then required to shave her head, cut her nails and remove her beautiful clothes. Just as women today do, pagan women then wore beautiful clothes, did up their hair, painted their faces and grew their nails. By shaving her head, cutting her nails, removing her pretty clothes, and one assumes she no longer had make-up, she made herself as unattractive as she could possibly get. Added to that, she was to mourn her family for a full month. Through that month, the man could not touch her. This gave him a good amount of time to see her in at her most unattractive. At the end of the month, if the man still wanted her, he could take her as his wife. If however, he decided he did not want her after all that, he was not allowed to sell her, because he had “humbled” her. This word “humble” can mean defiled or ravished. It is assumed by most that he would have no delight in her only after he forced intimacy on her, but it is also possible that after a month of looking at her with no hair, she had lost her appeal, and he had merely humbled her in the respect of making her look very unattractive. Either way, she was free to go. However, that would leave her destitute, so it was not much of an improvement over being forced into a marriage.

There was some protection for the virtuous woman whose husband would accuse her falsely.

Deuteronomy 22:14- 21 “If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.”

If a man took a wife, then decided he did not like her, and sought to ruin her reputation out of spite by saying that she was not a virgin when they married, her parents could step in and legally do something about it. This is why they had the customs they did about the marriage ceremonies. While the guests feasted, the couple were sent into a room where they would consummate the marriage. As back then women who were chaste still usually had a hymen, the penetration would cause bleeding. This bloodied sheet would be shown to the parents or even guests as evidence of her virginity. The parents, if they were smart, kept this as evidence of her virginity, should the husband do what this husband was seeking to do - accuse her so that he could have reason to be rid of her. The parents would take the sheet to the elders as proof and accuse the man of lying. The elders would then chastise him and make him pay her father 100 shekels of silver for trying to ruin the family's reputation. Not only that, he was forbidden to put her away or divorce her the rest of his life. That ensured that she would not find herself thrown out of the house and destitute from his obvious hatred of her. If her parents could not produce evidence, she was brought to the door of her father's house and stoned to death as a whore, which made it a really good idea for parents to save the evidence of her virginity from the wedding.

Adultery was a capital punishment affair.

Deuteronomy 22:22 “If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.”

If a man slept with a married woman, both of them were stoned. So men did have some rules.
If a betrothed virgin were assaulted, she needed to be sure she cried for help.

Deuteronomy 22:23- If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you. But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.”

If a betrothed virgin were alone in the city (which was not the best idea anyhow), and a man lay with her, both of the people were taken to the gate of the city and stoned, because it was assumed that it was with her consent, as she did not cry out for help. In the city, someone would have heard her and come to her aid. Therefore it was considered that she was guilty of adultery or fornication. He was also guilty, as she was, in essence, a married woman, being betrothed. If however she was out in a field and was assaulted, it was considered that she was innocent, as even if she were to yell for help, there might not be anyone there to hear her cries of distress and save her. It was considered rape, an act of violence the same as murder, and she was not guilty, so she went free. The moral was, if you were in the city and being attacked, you should yell at the top of your lungs. Otherwise it was a death penalty.

How they dealt with rape or consensual sex of a virgin that was not betrothed.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 “If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.”

This passage implies that it was not consensual, but a girl could always claim that even if it were not. If they were found, (and she had better hope they were or she would be discovered to not be a virgin at some point and that could be bad), the man had to give her father money (fifty shekels of silver) and it was a shotgun wedding, as they say. He also was not allowed to ever put her away (separate from her) or divorce her all his life. Somehow I can see a lot of this type of setup going on. It ensured a daughter's marriage, plus the fact that the husband could never put her away or divorce her. There were ways for women to get around some of these laws that were not in their best interest, if they were smart. Now maybe it is more apparent to men why women trap them into marriage. It is a long-ingrained protective instinct.

A man was not to sleep with his father's wife. (It is assumed this is his stepmother, not his mother).

Deuteronomy 22:30 “A man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his father's skirt.”

The next passage has to do with divorce and remarriage.

Deuteronomy 24:1-4 “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

When a man got married and the wife did something "unclean", which caused her to lose his favor, he could write her a bill of divorcement. First, the uncleanness could not be adultery, for that was a stoning offense. Nobody really knows what this uncleanness was, but it fell short of adultery. What was important was that he must write her a bill of divorcement. Men could simply “put away” their wives, or throw them out. Should they do so, and not give the woman a bill of divorcement, she could not remarry, as that would be adultery. Thus a separation or abandonment left a woman destitute with no means of support. She needed a bill of divorcement to remarry. Should she remarry, and the second husband also wanted to get rid of her, and he also gave her a bill of divorcement, or should he die, she could not go back to her first husband. She was defiled for him, from having been with another man.
This next verse really does not have any relevancy to the topic, I just find it a great verse. This is some honeymoon. Would it not be nice if it were the law today? Of course the question has to be asked, how did he support them over the course of the year? I guess that is why a man built a room on his parents' house for himself and his bride when he got married. The parents must have supported them.

Deuteronomy 24:5 “When a man hath taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war, neither shall he be charged with any business: but he shall be free at home one year, and shall cheer up his wife which he hath taken.”

When a man died childless, there were obligations on the part of his brother.

Deuteronomy 25:5-6 “If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel."

A man was forced to take his brother's wife as his own, if his brother died childless, so that his brother's name would not die out. If he refused, he ended up with public notoriety the rest of his life.
There was a distinction made between married women who were free and those who were in servitude.

Leviticus 19:20 "And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.”

This case deals with a woman who has been sold into servitude as a wife or concubine. As such, not being a free woman, the sin committed is not considered the same as if a free woman were involved, as this woman really is property. The man is guilty of a sin that requires a trespass sacrifice, and she is scourged, but they are not put to death. Only when a man dishonors a free wife, is it the sin of adultery. Leviticus 20:10 “And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.”

We know that the laws of divorce were given not because they were acceptable to God, but because the people's hearts were hard. Matthew 19:8 “He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.” The reason for bills of divorcement was the hardness of the husbands hearts in that they were “putting away” their wives, throwing them out, or abandoning them when they no longer wanted them. As a man could be polygamous, there was no problem with him marrying again. However, without the bill of divorcement, a woman was still considered married to her husband and could not be with another man without suffering the penalty of death. That left her without any source of protection, food, roof over her head, or anything. And if she had children, they were probably thrown out with her. This took a really hard heart, but it was done. For the protection of the women, God allowed divorce so that the woman could marry again without being convicted of adultery. Marriage was her only source of livelihood. It was God's mercy on the woman for the hardness of man's heart. But He did not like it as we see in Malachi.

Malachi 2:14-16 “.... the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.”
The whole objective of marriage is to raise up a godly seed (children) unto the Lord. Marriage is a covenant, and God has covenanted with us. He does not break His covenants and He does not approve of us breaking ours. He hates it when a man deals treacherously with his original wife. He hates it when men put away their wives. Technically this may not include a bill of divorcement and may only be speaking of throwing the woman out without allowing her the means to remarry, but then again, it may be speaking of divorce too. God considers it a violence against the woman to do this to her.
Now that we have looked at the Old Testament laws regarding marriage, divorce, and remarriage, we must look at the New Testament to see what new revelation Yeshua brought.

Just as a background note, during Yeshua's time there were two schools of thought on this subject. One was the School of Shammai which said that nothing short of adultery or unchastity was grounds for divorce. The School of Hillel said that any reason was good enough. Pity the poor woman whose husband was a follower of Hillel. She dare not burn his supper.

The first mention of the subject of divorce comes in the Sermon on the Mount.

Matthew 5: 31-32 "It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”

For the first time, the people are hearing new ways of living. These new ways are ways of mercy, forgiveness, and sacrifice. They do not demand retribution or recompense, as the law did. They demand more. They demand a loving, forgiving heart. A heart of peace, meekness, and humility. Yeshua is teaching these new ways, because He knows He will be sending the Holy Spirit to indwell people, and with that indwelling comes the ability to have these characteristics. So now, instead of allowing men to put away their wives when they are displeased, they are told that whoever puts away his wife, or divorces her, except for the cause of adultery (fornication), causes her to commit adultery. First, if she is put away without a writ of divorce, she remains married, so to look to another man for protection guarantees that she is committing adultery, as is the man who is with her. But Yeshua goes further. He says that if she is divorced, and a man marries her, they commit adultery. God sees the marriage as a permanent commitment, so even if man has laws of divorce, God does not acknowledge them. He sees it as adultery. Yeshua does allow though for divorce in one circumstance. That is the case of adultery. If a woman is sleeping with another man, she is first dishonoring him, second any children might not be his, and third, we know that disease can be passed around that way in this day and age, and it most certainly was back then. So for adultery, a man could divorce his wife. Therefore according to this Scripture, there is one reason, and one reason alone for divorce.

The next mention of divorce comes when the Pharisees were trying to trip up Yeshua by making Him say something for which they could condemn Him.

Matthew 19:3-12 “The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”

As already mentioned, there were two schools of thought on this, one that adultery was the only reason, and the other than any reason was good. Yeshua points out that God never intended for man to get divorced at all, that marriage was supposed to be a lifetime commitment. They then challenge Him saying that Moses merely demanded that they give the woman a writ of divorce rather than just put her away (as explained earlier this made a huge difference). He replied that Moses allowed it because of the hardness of their hearts, not because God was endorsing it. He again makes the exception of adultery, and says that anyone who divorces and remarries commits adultery. He is including both men and women, unlike the law which excused men from adultery when they married more than one woman, as polygamy was practiced. He is teaching one woman to one man, which is also a new demand upon them. Men were so accustomed to being able to dump a wife that did not please them (reminiscent of many men today who leave their wives of twenty-five years for that young twenty or thirty-something) that the disciples had a strong reaction. They actually said that if a man has to stay married to one woman his entire life, it would be better not to marry at all than get stuck in that situation. It seems not much has changed in two thousand years in that attitude. Yeshua admits that not many men are capable of accepting this kind of commitment, or a life of not being married (which would mean celibacy), except those to whom it is given. Then he tells who can receive it, those who are eunuchs.
In the case of the word “eunuch”, two different Greek words are employed. The first indicates inability to have sex. The second carries that meaning, but it also carries the figurative meaning of living as an unmarried (and celibate) man. He says that there are those who are eunuchs who are that way from their mother's wombs. In this case, he is speaking of one who literally cannot physically have sex. Then there are the eunuchs who have been made that way by man. Again, this is talking of castration. It was a common thing done in that day for harem guards, and also to captives of war. The third kind is the one who has made himself a eunuch for the kingdom of God. Paul was one of those kind. They deny themselves the relationship of a woman and live a celibate life so that they do not have any responsibility other than what they owe God. It leaves them free to devote themselves entirely to God and His work. In this case, I do not believe it is meant in a literal sense of castration, but simply in the sense of celibacy.

Then Yeshua adds that he who is able to receive it, let him receive it. I believe He meant more than eunuchs should receive this. He had been preaching the Sermon on the Mount, where people were given a whole new set of behaviors. Those were no easier to accept than this, and yet, Yeshua expected His followers to follow these new behaviors and attitudes. I believe He expected that this new behavior in marriage would be adopted by His followers also. He wanted them to have an attitude of reception, just as He expected an attitude of reception for the Beatitudes. Since He declared that divorce was not acceptable except in the one case, and since remarriage was not acceptable at all, it is obvious He expected that those who were “able to receive it,” would be His followers.

In Mark and Luke we find the same teaching. Mark leaves out the one exception that allows for divorce and Luke gives us even less of Yeshua's words on the subject.

Mark 10:2-12 “And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."

Luke 16:18 "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery."

The gist of these accounts, simply stated, is that a marriage should not be dissolved, and if it is dissolved and either party remarries, it is adultery.

Now we look to the epistles to see what they say.

Rom. 7:2-3, "For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.”

This verse tells us that when a marriage is dissolved by the death of one of the spouses, it is perfectly acceptable to remarry. If, however, he "husband liveth" while she is married to another man, she is considered an adulterer. Now, knowing that to marry while she is still legally married to another man is bigamy and a crime, as well as a sin that is punishable by death according to the Law of Moses, it is obvious that the reference to her "living husband" is not a reference to a legal husband, but to a divorced husband. Therefore what is being said here is that regardless of man's law, God considers the first husband the husband, and as he is still living, she is still married to him in the eyes of God, even if she is divorced by man's law. Therefore to marry another makes her an adulteress. Needless to say, Yeshua made it clear that this goes both ways, so the man would be an adulterer also.

1 Corinthians 7:1-17 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.

In this passage, Paul has a number of things to say. First, he is of the opinion that celibacy is better than marriage. Paul was biased this way, as this was his way of life, but it is not a commandment of the Lord. Obviously if this were, Christians would stop having children, and the world would soon be populated by nothing but people who reject God. I do not think Paul properly thought this through when he wrote it. He does say though that to avoid fornication, people should marry. Apparently Paul did not have an active libido. He then tells the married couple that they need to give each other what each one needs and to remember that their spouse is the one who "owns" their body. They are not to withhold sex, unless it is by mutual agreement for fasting and prayer, but then only for a short time, so that they are not tempted to go astray due to lustful desires that are not being met. Again, Paul is conceding this, as he would like everyone to be celibate as he is. Again, he seems to be very biased in this point, and has not thought through the ultimate consequences of his bias. He does say that the unmarried and widows should marry, because it is better to marry than burn with sexual desires that are overtaking their lives. Next he addresses married couples. He tells women that they should not leave their husbands, but if they do separate (and there are cases where this is necessary, such as physical abuse), they must remain unmarried (if they go so far as to divorce) or be reconciled to their husband. Husbands are told not to separate from or divorce their wives. Paul then gives instructions that he says are not from the Lord (Yeshua did not say anything about this, it is coming from Paul, but we know that all Scripture is inspired by God), but from himself. He says that if a believer is married to a non-believer, they should not leave them. That by staying, the spouse is sanctified and may become saved, and the children are made holy when they could have been made unclean by the divorce. However, if the unbelieving spouse wants to leave, they are not under bondage to the marriage anymore. Now, that leaves a question open as to whether that means that the believer can remarry. It would seem from the other verses not, as Yeshua never qualifies whether the people in the marriage are believers or not, but then the Law was not given to the world, but only to Israel. So these are rules for God's people, which would seem to indicate that what Yeshua said applied to people who were believers. Thus if one of the spouses were not a believer, the believing spouse is not under the yoke of permanent marriage, if they are not in bondage to it. Whether that leaves the door open to remarriage to a believer in this case or not I am not sure. I would not want to judge someone on this issue.

1 Corinthians 7:21-28
“Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be. Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.”

Paul says that God has given no commandment concerning virgins, but he has a few suggestions himself. He suggests that given the conditions of the world and the persecution Christians are suffering, that it is better for a person to not be married. This makes sense, in that it only makes it harder on a person when they have loved ones about whom they are worrying. But, if they are married, they should not seek to divorce. And if they are divorced already, they should not get remarried. But, if a virgin does marry, it is not a sin. Nevertheless, there would be hardships brought about by the marriage. Again, the persecution of the day predicted that. One would have to look at one's own time and the level of persecution in one's own environment to see if Paul's suggestion of celibacy was appropo for themselves.

1 Corinthians 7:36-38 “But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry. Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well. So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.”

This is a passage that has puzzled me, as I am unsure if Paul is speaking euphemistically in some respects or exactly what is meant. I went looking to see what others thought on this and saw that there are several interpretations. One is that the virgin being spoken of is a man's virgin daughter. Some say it is that he makes her take a vow of celibacy, but that if she is passing the flower of her age and seems to have yearnings herself, that he should let her out of her vow and let her marry, as it is good for her to marry. However, if he can remain steadfast in his decision to dedicate his daughter as a perpetual virgin for the Lord, he does well. The problem I have with that is, and maybe it is just that I am reading it wrong, it seems to indicate that he is not acting appropriately toward her, and the implication is sexually. The solution is said for them to marry. A father cannot marry his daughter. Then it says that if he can remain steadfast, keep his self-control and can keep his virgin, he does well. Well again, it seems that he is struggling with some desire of his own toward his daughter and is struggling to maintain her as a virgin. That interpretation just does not seem to work for me. The second interpretation is a little better. This one says that the virgin is a man's betrothed. Remember that betrothed is not quite the same as married. Betrothal is the legality of marriage, but not the intimacy of it. It is more than an engagement, as it can only be annulled by divorce, but it is not a full marriage in the sense of two people living together as man and wife. In this case it would be understood that if he is getting sexually aroused by his fiancee, and she is of an age to marry, then they should get married. But if he can exercise self-control and maintain their virginity towards each other, it is even better. This makes a great deal more sense, but if they are betrothed, I can see no reason why they should not go ahead and get married, and why maintaining a celibate marriage is better than consummating it. My own, possibly erroneous idea has always been that Paul was trying to talk about sex in a euphemistic way, as it probably made him uncomfortable to talk about this in a letter to a church group, especially as he was a single celibate man himself. I read it this way, and I may be very wrong. If a man is behaving himself unseemly toward his own virginity, in other words he is possibly masturbating to relieve his sexual urges, because he is past puberty and has needs, then he and his "virginity" should find a girl and get married. But if he can remain steadfast toward his celibacy and has no need to satisfy sexual urges, and can maintain his self-control in this area, having decided to maintain his virginity, that is really good. So, if he cannot control his sexual urges and marries to alleviate the situation, that is a perfectly acceptable thing, but if he can maintain celibacy without having to give in to his sexual urges, Paul sees that as better. Given that Paul is really a big proponent of celibacy, I see this as a distinct possibility that it is this to which Paul was referring.

1 Corinthians 7:39 “The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.”

This is a repeat of what was said in Romans. As long as a spouse lives, a person cannot remarry, but if the spouse dies, they are free to marry whom they will, but only another believer. Since a person who is married and not divorced cannot get married again, this is saying that even if divorced, the person is still considered the spouse.

2 Cor. 6:14 "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?”
This is one rule that many Christians tend to ignore. We are not to marry (nor should we be legally bound to in business or any other way) non-believers. It generally only leads to heartache and problems. A non-believer will never understand your relationship with the Lord and much harm can come from it. If, however, a person becomes a believer after marriage, then one needs to remain in the marriage as advocated above, as the spouse might become a Christian too.

Ephesians 5:20-33 "Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself; For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.”
This passage is one that was dealt with in my article about women submitting to the husband. For more on that, read my other article in the archives. The main gist that is relevant to this articles is that men are to love their wives, women are to reverence their husband, and they are to be one flesh and be permanently joined to each other.
1 Tim. 5:14 "I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.”

It is advisable for young women to marry, have children, and keep busy at home so that they do not give occasion for gossip. This was especially important in Bible days, as women did not have occupations and careers. Today with women being able to support themselves, they have plenty to keep them busy from getting into trouble and causing gossip. Thus they can wait a little longer to marry, which often proves to be a good thing, as sometimes they make a better choice when they are a little more mature.

Having covered basically everything that could be found on marriage, divorce, and remarriage, I think it is clear what the Bible teaches on it. While divorce and remarriage was allowed by God during the Old Testament times, it is not what He likes, and Yeshua made it clear that Christians are not to be doing it. The only excuses for divorce are adultery and if an unbelieving spouse leaves. If there is a need for separation (and I think abuse would qualify as a need for that) one should not necessarily seek a divorce. Remarriage is not allowed for any reason, except for the questionable case where a believing spouse is not under bondage, if an unbelieving spouse leaves. What being out from under bondage exactly means and whether that allows for remarriage is not clear, so I would not judge anyone on that issue myself.

As to what should one do when one was not aware of these precepts and finds oneself divorced and remarried, one should remain in the condition in which they find themselves.  Divorcing again would only add more sin to the situation. One can only repent and make sure it does not happen again.

One case that has come up in discussion with others is, what does one do when a person has been divorced before they became born-again. Does that restrict them from then marrying a Christian? It was decided by those in the discussion, and whether right or wrong, I tend to agree, that the sins one commits before being saved are forgiven at that time, and come under the former life. Therefore if one is a new creature, all things are new, and they should be able to marry again, as the commands we see given in the Scriptures are to believers, not unbelievers, and the unbeliever was not responsible to be obedient at the time of the divorce.  Maybe I am in error, but I believe God allows remarriage in this case.

Sunday, February 6, 2011

The Role of Women in Church Leadership

The Role of Women in the Church


One of the controversies that reigns in some of the churches today has to do with the woman's role in the church. More and more we see women in the pulpits of the churches. Unfortunately this is happening not only because women want to have equal authority with men in the church, but the fact that men have been abdicating their roles. Fewer and fewer men are interested, much less feel the call, to go into the ministry leaving pulpits empty. As a result, the vacuum is being filled by not only the only people left to fill it, but the only ones interested in filling it, women. I could not find any statistics, but I am guessing that the larger majority of missionaries are also women. What makes this such a difficult topic to address are these last facts. As I will show, it is not God's plan or will that women be the leaders of the church. That said, as men have walked away from the Lord and those roles, God is left with nobody to work for Him but women. He has to use the people who are willing, to bring the gospel to the world. Thus we have ended up in a situation that is not God's will, but one that exists due to circumstances.

Before getting into the verses about this subject, I think it is important to understand whether or not the verses are relevant to our day, or were only something that Paul wrote to those churches due to their customs of the day. Is the Word of God applicable only as we decide it is based on our culture of the day, or is God's Word timeless and applicable through all generations regardless of custom, tradition, education, and fashions?

What does God's Word say to this? God has told us that “Jesus is the same yesterday, and today and forever.” Hebrews. 13:8. In Psalm 102:27 we read, “But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end.” Malachi 3:6a tells us, ”For I am the LORD, I change not ...” James 1:17 says, “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.These verses have to do with Yeshua (Jesus) and God the Father not changing in character or in regards to their standards. In Matthew 5:18 and Luke 16:17 we are told that not one jot or tittle of the law of God will pass away until heaven and earth pass away. So it appears that neither God nor what His Word says will change or be irrelevant. At least until the heavens and earth have passed away, and to date I do not believe that has happened. :-) God's Word is applicable yesterday, today, and tomorrow. That answers the question of whether the passage pertains to us today, or only was applicable to the churches of Paul's day. Further, this issue was as much a problem during Paul's day as it is today, and when he chastises and corrects them, (as seen below) he lets them know that they do not have the right to create their own practices. The rules are the same for all the churches, because the rules are God's, not Paul's, not the culture's, and certainly not the right of an individual church to create. God's rules do not change just because man does, but in this case, man has not. Women still want to usurp man's authority over her, just as they did back then.

1 Corinthians 14:36-38 "What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. To understand what this passage is all about, one has to understand what was going on at Corinth. This church was not the first church created out of Christianity. There were others that were older. This particular church had started developing their own traditions, ideas, and behaviors that were not common to the other churches. That is why Paul wrote correcting them about so many things, from speaking in tongues, to wearing head-coverings, to letting their women be leaders in the church, etc. They were creating their own practices that were not condoned by God. One has to believe that they were not studying their Scriptures, and therefore were being easily led into error as many, if not most, churches are today. Thus Paul asks them, "Did the Word of God originate with you?" No it did not. "Did it come only to you alone?" No, it did not. So why were they thinking that they could adopt any practices that they felt like adopting? They should be following the same rules as the other churches. Paul then said to them that if they thought themselves so spiritually superior to the other churches, or if any thought themselves a prophet, then the real test of that fact being true, would be that those people would acknowledge that what Paul was preaching was the truth. That these were God's commandments, laws, and rules and that they still apply, and they should teach these things to the people themselves. But, if people choose to ignore what the Scriptures clearly say, out of rebellion, let them go ahead and do as they want. If they want to choose to be ignorant, let them be ignorant. He is not saying that it is acceptable to be ignorant and ignore these rules, he is saying that if they are rebellious and contentious, then just leave them alone. God will deal with their rebellion Himself. It is not our problem. However, he does want them to know that just because they ignore the rules, it does not mean the rules do not exist. I can speed on the highway if I so choose, but that does not change the speed limit. Paul's letters to the Corinthians are chastisements of their errors. Errors that need correcting. And the rules still apply today. God did not say we can pick and choose what we like out of the Scriptures. They all apply. But we have to also study to know how they must be applied, so that we do not apply things incorrectly. So that establishes that what Paul wrote was not an opinion, nor was it something he was merely addressing to the culture of the day. What he is teaching are the commandments of God. Rules that are not changeable at man's whim.

As there are a couple of verses that are used extensively in this debate, it will probably be easiest to begin there and then continue from that point.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 “Let you women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”

1 Timothy 2:11-14 “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”

Before addressing these verses, we must revisit the “women in submission to the man” article on this blog. If the reader has not read it, it is essential that you go over to the archives and first read that, so that you will understand the whole reason why a woman must be submissive to a man. It is again brought up in this verse in 1 Timothy. “I suffer not a woman to teach nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” Again, just as woman submitting to the man and head-coverings are all about authority, (not fashions) this too is all about authority. It has absolutely nothing to do with education (as some would like it to be) nor is it just a traditional cultural thing (again as some would like it to be). It is all about God's order of authority. As we read in 1 Corinthians 11:3, “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” For whatever reason, people are not getting the point that all of these passages having to do with women in the church, whether head-coverings, or teaching, or submission, has to do with God's rule of authority. This is something that God established when Eve sinned, as mentioned in 1 Timothy above. “For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” In Genesis 3:16 God told Eve, “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” This is the curse put upon Eve and her female descendants. This has not changed no matter how much time has passed. It is a curse from God. It is His command that woman be in submission to men. Now as I wrote in the submission post, that does not mean slavery. However it does mean that women are not to usurp man's authority over her. Men are not to be in submission to women, and if a woman is a leader on her own recognizance, that is exactly what happens.

We will revisit the authority issue later. For the moment the issue of silence will be addressed. Both of the above verses say that women are to be in silence in church. In 1 Corinthians the word for silence is “sigao”, which means “to keep silence” or “hold your peace”. In 1 Timothy the word for silence is “hesuchia” and means “to desist from bustling or language” If we were to look at these two verses and only these two verses, it would seem that a woman should not open her mouth from the time she walks in the church until she walks out. But that is not what this means. In 1 Corinthians 11 in the article about head-coverings, it was shown that the whole purpose of wearing them was that women were to have their heads covered when they prayed or prophesied in church. How can you pray or prophesy if you cannot open your mouth? You can't.

Acts 21:8-9 “And the next day we that were of Paul's company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him. And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.”

Philip had four daughters who prophesied. They were allowed to do this, so obviously when Paul told women to keep their silence, he did not mean that they should not open their mouths at all, but that there is a time when they should be silent. What is the key verb that is in both verses? “Learn.” They are to learn in silence. This indicates that portion of the service when preaching and teaching was going on. I believe I know what may have been happening, because I have experienced what I think was happening in the church at Corinth and Ephesus.

A few years ago I was attending a very, very small country church. It had about twelve people on a good day. The pastor was, as is the usual case with these tiny churches, a lay preacher with little formal training in giving sermons. He was a very quiet, withdrawn type of man who lacked self-confidence and was easily lost as to where he was in the order of the service. His wife on the other hand (while being very loving) was a rather loud, take charge kind of person who liked to direct her husband. Now this may have worked in their home, but the trouble was that she was directing him from the pew while he was in the pulpit trying to lead the service. It was made worse by the fact that he would turn to her and ask her what to do next or defer to her instructions. It was disruptive and extremely embarrassing to the congregants to see the pastor so befuddled, and it was annoying to have her constantly disrupting him when she thought he had forgotten something or should do something else. She would interrupt his sermon if she felt he needed correcting on something, or if she had a question about what he said, and she was constantly jumping up and down to deal with the grandchildren, who had not been taught by their parents to sit still and behave. Now while this was a very informal church, (obviously) this was going beyond informal to simple chaos. That is how most of the people in the congregation felt, and they were commenting as to how distressed it made them feel, and how they were not learning a thing, and could not concentrate at all on what he was trying to teach.

I believe, given the definition of “silence”in the above verses, the bustling and the lack of holding their peace that may have been going on, could have been similar to the problem in my own church. Since learning seems to be the constant in both verses, it would seem that the women were disrupting the service either by asking questions or trying to teach when they thought they knew an answer to something being discussed. They may also have been dealing with children, or not sitting still because they did not understand. People tend to do that out of boredom once they are tuned out to what is being said, whether by choice, or because they do not comprehend what is being discussed. Regardless of the cause, it was creating a hubbub in the church when there should have been order. Just having several women asking their husbands next to them questions about what was being said by the leader would have created a disruption due to the whispering, or worse, talking out loud. Remember they did not have speaker systems and microphones. People had to be quiet so that the leader could be heard, and constant whispering or talking would be completely unacceptable. Having to shush children would also be a distraction.

So the gist of these verses in the respect of silence is not that they could not open their mouths at all, but that when the learning part of the service was going on, they were to keep their questions to themselves, ask their husbands when they got home, and maintain a quiet attitude in behavior, so that they would not be disrupting the service and keeping others from learning. They could however pray, prophesy (head covered naturally), sing, and if they had a tongue that could be interpreted, they could do that as well when those activities were ongoing. Again, it was a matter of order. God likes order, not chaos.

So these verses establish that a woman should not be interrupting the service to inquire about things that are taught that she does not understand, and she should not be bustling about distracting others. But does the first part of that only have to do with education? What if she not only understood, but understood better than the man? Would that not qualify her to contribute? That may not have been a problem in Bible times, as women were not educated the same way a man was, but that is no longer true. Women are not only equally as educated, but sometimes have more education and understanding than many men. Does that not change the circumstances? Look at this author. I am a woman who has studied the Bible for decades in depth and now writes a blog that anyone on the planet with a computer can access. Does that not make me disobedient to the very Scriptures I am trying to defend, if I say a woman should not teach? Well, let us investigate that problem.

1 Timothy 2:12 “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.”

The point in this verse is that a woman should not usurp authority over the man and that part of that is that she should not teach. But does it mean she should not teach at all, or does it mean she should not teach when the venue of her teaching is one that is usurping the authority of a man? To understand it correctly, as always, we need to look to other Scriptures to get an accurate picture.

Titus 2:3-5 “The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.”

This passage tells us that women are to be teachers. Teachers of good things, and teachers of younger women. So clearly it is not meant in the passage in Timothy that women not teach at all. The older women would teach the younger, and both the older and younger would also teach their children.

Deuteronomy 6:4-7 “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.”

This instruction was not for the men alone, it was for all of Israel. The men would not be raising the small children and spending all their time with them. The women would be the ones teaching the little children. Paul mentions Timothy's mother and grandmother as being great women of faith who obviously taught Timothy.

I Timothy 1:5 “When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also.”

So teaching itself is not what Paul meant. It is teaching in the incorrect venue that seems to be the problem. Teaching is not allowable for women, if the teaching is in a position of authority over men. Again, as with a lot of other issues, it has to do with God's hierarchy of authority. Does that mean that a women can never under any circumstances teach a man? Again, let us see if there is any precedent set by Scripture that would disavow that premise.

Acts 18:24-26 “And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.”

This verse shows us that a woman, Priscilla, was teaching a man, but not just any man. This was a man who was already mighty in the Scriptures, in other words, a real Bible scholar. And yet, Priscilla was teaching him. But under what circumstances? She was teaching him with and under the authority of her husband Aquila. She was teaching by permission and under the directive of a man whose authority she was under. So, teaching a man, even one who is a great scholar himself, if a woman has more knowledge of the Scriptures, is not a problem as long as she is doing so with the permission and under the authority of a man.

God does not want women to not use their brains, or the gifts He has given them, but He does want them to exercise them under the rules He has set forth. The rule is that she be under the authority of a man. I personally do not believe just any man will do, but one who is either her husband, father, or her own spiritual leader, if she is single or her father is not living. He needs to have a right to that authority through blood, marriage, law, or church leadership.

As for my own writing, I have the permission of my husband, who feels that I have a gift of understanding God's Word. He understands my calling from God to teach and supports it. So I am following the rules of authority. I am not usurping the authority of any man in teaching God's Word. I do not know the people who read this, nor am I looking to have authority over anyone who does. I am merely relating God's truth with my husband's approval.

Does this allow for a woman to be in the pulpit? Not as the pastor of a church, no. The assistant pastor? No. The youth director? Maybe. To get up and present information at the pastor's request, possibly. But to be the shepherd of the flock, even as the assistant pastor? Never. To do so is to rebel against God's command, as that would be having authority over all the men in the church. Paul is very clear that this is unacceptable. So how far can a woman take this and run with it? I think that must be a matter of prayer between her, the man in authority over her, and God. If her leadership is in any way giving her real authority over a men, it should not be allowed. The question becomes one of – where is the line drawn? I guess each and every individual act would have to be evaluated on its own to determine that. I do not know that there is any hard and fast rule that could be applied, as circumstances would never be exactly the same from situation to situation. It would require discernment and prayer. I would say, though, that presenting information without actually having authority over the people (men) to whom the information is being given is permissible. Having the authority to dictate any instructions, restrictions, or give orders would cross that line, even if the woman is under another man's authority.

What about other roles of leadership in the church, such as deacons and elders? The passage that people love to quote to allow women deacons is found in Romans 16:1-3 “I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea: That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also. Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus.” Some versions of the Bible use the word “deacon” instead of servant. Why is that? The Greek word is “diakonos”. It means to run errands, an attendant, a waiter, a servant, or one who does menial duties. It is translated “deacon” in English in the modern versions. So why does the KJV use servant instead of deacon? Because for one thing, it is more accurate, and also possibly to avoid the problem that arose from using the word “deacon”. Those who feel a women can hold the office of deacon point to the modern translations which use this word as a defense for letting a women hold the office of deacon. But let us look at the passage in Timothy that speaks about the office of deacon.

1 Tim 3:1-13 “This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.”

In this passage, the work “diakonos” is used first. “Likewise, must the “diakonos” be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon 'diakoneo'.....” First notice the use of two different words. Diakonos means a servant. After the man (he has a wife) who is a servant (diakonos) has been proven, then he is allowed to hold the office of a deacon (diakoneo). There is a difference between simply carrying out the menial duties of a servant and holding the office of a deacon, who acts as a servant to the church in an official capacity. Phebe is a servant, but she does not hold the office of deacon. She is not in a position of leadership over men. Also the descriptions of those who hold office (whether deacon, bishop, or elder), clearly indicate that a man is to hold the office. He is a man, a husband and father, not a wife and mother, as can be clearly seen in the passage above and the one below.

Titus 1:5-9 “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.”

Hopefully taking all of the Scriptures together has brought a clearer picture of what a woman's role in the church can be. She is not to have authority over men, therefore she may under no circumstances be the pastor (or any other title that fits) of a church. She is not to be disruptive in church asking questions which causes others to be distracted. She may pray and prophesy and sing during those times of the church service where these things occur. She may also teach other women, children, and may even teach other men under and with the permission of a man's authority. She may not hold an office of authority in the church, therefore she may not be a deacon, bishop, or elder.

Having said that, in this day and age, it is necessary for pastors to protect themselves from accusations of sexual harassment, therefore it is good for a pastor to have a woman who can counsel other women. In most circumstances this would probably be his wife, but if he is not married, there should be a woman who can act in this capacity. She may even be given a title such as deacon, but it would be understood that this is not a role that puts her in leadership over men, but rather over other women.

So, getting back to the first paragraph of this article, we are finding that women are climbing into the pulpits more and more these days. Some are there out of rebellion against God's mandate, but even so, they are there due to lack of men to fill those roles. How should the church handle the lack of male leadership? I do not think this is as difficult as it sounds. Usually those who have women in the roles of authority are those churches who have long ago left behind the mandates of God, and are religious in name only, not in the power of God. Their disobedience in this area is irrelevant in light of the fact that they have already walked away from God. Those who seek to follow God's path and truth need only pray for God to supply their need of male leadership, and I believe He will be faithful to do so. It may not come in the package that some would like (seminary degrees, etc.), but I find that seminary degrees often lead away from God's truth rather than to it. Seminarians spend their time in seminary looking at Scripture as literature and dissecting it as such. They spend very little time actually looking at what the Word teaches in the way of spiritual truths. Commentaries are the books that are read, not the books of the Bible. If the man God brings does not feel he is qualified to lead in many areas, then let him look to the females in his congregation (and usually the women outnumber the men by a huge percent) to fill the needs of the church under his leadership. As long as that authority is maintained correctly, the women with knowledge and gifts can be allowed to exercise them for the benefit of the congregation. God has given us women ways to stay within the rules, but still exercise our gifts and be of use.

Saturday, February 5, 2011

The Sabbath or Sunday?


The Sabbath or Sunday?

Which should a Christian observe?

For seventeen hundred years or so, most Christians have been meeting to worship on Sunday. In the past few decades, there has been a growing movement among Gentiles to join the remnant Jews who are Messianic and embrace a Hebraic form of Christianity. Some are merely interested in learning more of the culture of Jesus day to better understand the Scriptures, and embrace celebrating a Christianized version of the Passover, sometimes in lieu of celebrating Easter, and sometimes in conjunction with it. Others embrace Judaism to the point of embracing an almost orthodox Jewish lifestyle. What is becoming more common between the two ends of the pole and everywhere in between is the idea of moving to worship on the Sabbath or Saturday rather than Sunday. There have been some groups who have done this for years, without embracing Hebraic roots. The Seventh-day Adventists, and the Seventh-day Baptists. They retain their own theology while moving the worship to Saturday. The question is, which day is the correct day of worship? Did God change from Saturday to Sunday with the new covenant, or did Satan corrupt Christianity and have the day moved for his own purposes?

The church now states that Sunday is the day of worship, as that is the day the Lord was resurrected, that the New Testament church observed it, and it supersedes what God said in the Old Testament. Is that true? Let us go to the source (the Bible) first and see what is said there, then we will look at the history of the church to see what happened.

In the Old Testament, God gives specific directions concerning the Sabbath. The word Sabbath” means a period of rest, and God specifies it is as being a day long. While the first time that resting on the seventh day of the week is mentioned it is not referred to as the Sabbath, it is set apart as a holy day.

Gen. 1:2-3 “And on the seventh day 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: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.”
When God gives the command to Israel about the Sabbath, it is not something new that He has dreamed up just for them. The seventh day of the week has been holy to God since the very first week. He tells Israel to remember the Sabbath, to set it apart as holy and not to profane it. As far as God is concerned, it has always been a holy day. Therefore, this command to Israel is larger than just applying to Israel. It is something that was established by God at creation and that He Himself observed. What appears to have happened is that the rest of the world has not been observing it. It has been forgotten, which is why Israel is told to remember it. When God first mandated the Sabbath, it was merely a day of rest with no particular restrictions, but as time continued, God became more specific with his rules about the Sabbath. First He commanded that no work be done, not only by the Israelites, but also by their servants, strangers, and animals.

Ex. 20:8-11 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 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.”
Lev. 23:3 “Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the Sabbath of the Lord in all your dwellings.”
Deut. 5:12-15 “Keep the Sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee. Six days thou shalt labour, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor the stranger that is within thy gates that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou. 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 by a stretched out arm, therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day.”

Now God makes it clear that not only is the Sabbath a day of rest for Israel, their servants, the strangers in their gates, their animals, and to remember creation, but it is a day set apart to remember God's goodness in bringing them out of the slavery of Egypt where they never had a day's rest. . Next God adds punishment to the breaking of this commandment. The observing of the Sabbath is not only given as a commandment, but it is part of the very covenant that God makes with Israel, and there are dire consequences to breaking it. This covenant is an eternal one, so the commandment can never be rescinded as far as God' people are concerned.

Ex. 31:13 “Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my Sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you. Ye shall keep the Sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the lord: whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.”

Lev. 15:30, 32-36 “But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, whether he be born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Because he hath despised the word of the Lord, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off his iniquity shall be upon him. And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day. And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. And the Lord said unto Moses, the man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.”

God insisted upon the keeping of the Sabbath rest to the extent that He took pains to ensure Israel had no excuse not to keep it. In Exodus 16 we read how God was giving them manna every day in the wilderness. They were only to gather enough for the day, and if they gathered more it became wormy and rotten by the next day. However, on the sixth day they were to gather a double portion, bake or boil it up for the morrow and it would still be good the next day. To make sure they did this, God withheld the manna on the Sabbath, so those who did not gather it on the sixth day went hungry that day. This was the first time there were any specific instructions as to what work they absolutely could not do. Interestingly enough, this rule was given before the giving of the law at the mount, which means that the Sabbath was not an unknown thing to them when God gave the law. They were to rest and cease from all labor including the gathering and cooking of food. This day was originally given as a gift from God just for rest's sake. Now when God tells them to remember it at the giving of the law, it carries more meaning, as having been slaves there would have been no day of rest for them in Egypt. God’s commandments were never supposed to be a burden, but instead make life easier. Modern science has done some research and oddly enough (really not oddly when you think of it) it has been found that people are much healthier both in body and mind if they rest one day out of every seven. Note that they decided one day out of seven was just the amount needed, not one out of five or six or eight.

Israel is later given a few more specific instructions. They are not to kindle a fire. Fortunately they were not in a cold part of the world, so this was not about heat and having to be cold, as in cold weather, a fire would not have to be kindled, it would simply be continuously being fed so that it would not go out. This is about cooking, as you would kindle a fire every time you wanted to cook a meal. In effect it is saying that women are not to slave over a hot stove to fix hot meals on the Sabbath. It’s cold leftovers. That is why they had to not only gather manna on Friday, but had to cook it up also. They are also told not to plow or harvest, but as they would require using the animals for this, it really is not a new command, but more of a reminder that even though the land or harvest calls, they are to take the day off. It is assumed that animals would have to be fed though, so one assumes that animals such as chickens would have something thrown out for them. It is assumed that the animals would be left to graze from the day before. Some animals (cows, goats) may have had to be milked. We know though that it was allowable to do some things for the animals, as Christ mentions that if a sheep is in trouble, does not the shepherd go and rescue it. Matthew 12:11 “And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?” Of course, this was in response to the accusation that was made against Him of being guilty of Sabbath-breaking for healing on the Sabbath, but the point is, it was allowable to do good for someone or something in trouble on the Sabbath and not consider it work.

In Isaiah we find that it is not enough to keep the Sabbath outwardly, but it must be kept inwardly by being just and righteous. Also not only the Israelites are blessed for keeping the Sabbath, but eunuchs and strangers (gentiles) who join themselves to the Lord. Is. 56:1-7 “Thus saith the Lord, Keep ye judgment, and do justice; for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed. Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil. Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the Lord, speak, saying, The Lord hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my Sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.”

There is a special blessing on people who observe the Sabbath. Is. 58:13-14 “If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.”

While many like to feel that these promises have no relevance to Christians today, this is not true. While we may not be of the physical lineage of Jacob (and nobody can know for certain that they are not, since the ten tribes of Israel were dispersed centuries ago), we are the spiritual descendants of Abraham and the promises that are individual in nature, not to the nation of Israel as a whole, apply to us as well. 

In Jeremiah and Ezekiel, God warns what the consequences of not keeping the Sabbaths (whether the weekly, or yearly ones) will be. As a result of ignoring God’s warnings, Israel went into captivity several times.

So to sum up the Old Testament teachings, the Sabbath was declared a holy day and used by God to rest on the first week of creation. He told Israel to remember this holy day and to observe it as a memorial to Him and as a sign of the covenant between them, that they were a holy nation unto Him. They were to keep the day holy by not working, nor pursuing their own pleasures (which might be restful), nor to speak their own words, but to honor God and delight in Him on that day. To do so meant a blessing, to not do so meant death. 

Christianity today says that when Jesus reduced the Ten Commandments to two, love God and love your neighbor, that incorporated commandments 1-3 and 5-10 but that He deliberately left out commandment 4. Is that really true? God has said that the purpose of the Sabbath is to remember God’s creation and the fact that He declared the seventh day of the week holy and set apart right at the very start of creation. It was to be a memorial to God and His act of creating the world and us. It was later commanded to Israel to be remembered. It was not a new idea; it was one that had been lost over time. As nobody but Israel was brought back into observance of it, it would also serve as a perpetual sign of God's covenant with them. 

The Sabbath should have been observed right from creation, but man chose to reject God and His ways, so it was forgotten. God has always intended that the seventh day be a day of rest. So to honor God, to love God, do we not have to observe the very memorial that He Himself established to memorialize His work? Is that not a very part of the other three previous commandments and part of what Christ reduced to one commandment, loving God? The first three commandments have to do with worship of God, the fourth commandment gives us the time to worship. There is a hymn titled, “Take Time to Be Holy.” Being holy takes time, so God gave us the time to do so. He set aside an entire day for us to do nothing but rest and spend time with Him.

There were some exceptions to the rule. The priests in the temple had to offer sacrifices on that day. That was work, but it was temple work and mandated by God. They were not doing their own pleasure, but pleasing God. Therefore God allowed this work. One presumes that they took another day of the week off, as if one looks at the passage in the Ten Commandments, one sees that it is not specified that Saturday is the day to be observed, but that one day out of seven is to be observed. As God rested on the seventh day of the week and made it holy, so He had Israel rest on the seventh day, but if one looks at the spirit of the law instead of the letter, the spirit of the law can be observed by setting aside one day of the week as holy to the Lord even if it is not Saturday. One assumes though that it is only the priests or shepherds of God who must work on that day who really have this excuse. Most Christians should be able to observe the Sabbath if they so desire. There are those who are required by the nature of their jobs to work on the Sabbath (police, firemen, doctors, nurses), but I have discovered that often if keeping the Sabbath is really important to these people, as they view it as being obedient to the Lord, the Lord will often do something to their schedules to allow them to have the Sabbath off. Such is the case in my own household. In fact a promotion was the way God brought it about. 

Getting back to the history of the Sabbath, we can see that Israel was observing the Sabbath when Jesus came on the scene. He observed the Sabbath as a good Jew should, and as one who had to keep the Law perfectly. It was His custom to go into the synagogues on the Sabbath to teach.
Luke 4:15-16 “And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all. And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up for to read.”

John 18:20 “Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.”

Matt. 4:23 “And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, [on the Sabbath] and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.”

The problem that arose when Yeshua began His ministry came because, by that time, the simple rules that God had established had been grossly inflated by the over-conscientious rabbis through the ages. They were (supposedly) so concerned that nobody break a rule, that they built multiple barriers around them so that one would have to break a whole lot of rules before getting to the actual law. As a result, the rules became so burdensome that the people grew to resent God and His laws altogether. The day was to be a day off from work; they made it a nightmare. When Yeshua showed up, he went about doing all sorts of things which the Pharisees found greatly objectionable.

In Matthew 12 we see that Yeshua and His disciples went through the field on the Sabbath day picking the grain and eating it, as they were hungry. They were accused harvesting, and therefore Sabbath-breaking. Yeshua corrected them by telling how David took the shewbread from the temple to feed himself and his men even though it was meant for the priests, but was not guilty of Sabbath-breaking. He also pointed out that the priests work on the Sabbath with God’s approval. He then declared that He is Lord of the Sabbath. The point being that we should observe the spirit of the law, not a lot of man-made rules. He then went into the synagogue and healed a man. The Pharisees then tried to trip Him up, so they could accuse Him, by asking if it was lawful to heal on the Sabbath. He replied that a person would rescue a sheep, if it were in trouble, and not think it Sabbath-breaking, so how much better is it to rescue or heal a man. Are not both doing good deeds, which is what God wants us to do to honor Him? So Yeshua observed the Sabbath, but not the ritualistic, over-burdened one that Israel was keeping. He set the tone for how the Sabbath was to be kept.

Lastly, as far as Yeshua and the Sabbath goes, His expectation was that His followers would still be observing the Sabbath when He returns. In the Olivet Discourse when asked what the signs of His Coming would be, He tells His disciples, and by extension us, that they should (when the abomination of desolation occurs and they must flee), pray that their flight would not be on the Sabbath. That is because it is very important for those at the end to be observing the Sabbath. It would appear that those who do comprise a special group in the end days. (See my end times studies). The fact that He specifically mentions this in relation to our day tells us that it was not His intention that Sunday (which He knew would be the day of His resurrection) supersede the Sabbath. It surprises me how many people miss or ignore this very important Scripture and point. If they do acknowledge it, it is to say that since the disciples were Jewish, it only applies to Jews, and does not indicate that Christians were expected to be following the Sabbath. Is that really true? Yeshua was expecting His followers in the last days (and that is Christians, not Jews (unless they are Messianic)) to be observing the Sabbath. While He specifically refers to those who are at Jerusalem praying that they do not have to flee on the Sabbath, and that would indicate Jews, the expectation is still there that people who are reading the New Testament (believers) would be observing the Sabbath. There would be no point in Him mentioning it if only Jews who are not Christians were to worry about it. They will not know, because they do not read the Scriptures.

Now we come to the place where people feel that things changed. The church is presently teaching that the Sabbath was changed to Sunday due to the fact that Yeshua rose on Sunday, and the teachings of a few Scriptures. And a very few (and questionable) Scriptures at that.

The first reason, that Yeshua rose on Sunday, is not a reason to change God's commandment. He did not rise on the Sabbath, because it was the Sabbath. He was fulfilling the Feast of Firstfruits which fell on the first day of the week. Nowhere after His resurrection did Yeshua ever tell his disciples that they were to stop meeting on the Sabbath. His resurrection was on the day it was to fulfill another completely different festival. It had no bearing on the Sabbath. Never did He indicate that now they should celebrate the day of His resurrection instead. Had the day been changed, something that important and so obviously in opposition to God's commandments would have mandated that Yeshua teach it personally, so that His followers would know that God Himself was making this change in His laws. This would not be a simple change for them to accept if it were to be done. Therefore the fact that He arose on Sunday is not really evidence that we were to change God's laws without His approval. He arose on Sunday because He was fulfilling the Feast of Firstfruits. Why is that idea completely unacknowledged?

The next evidence that needs to be addressed is the Scriptural evidence. Many people like to say that the New Testament church changed the day and was meeting on Sunday for their worship. Extra-biblical writings do not bear that supposition out quite in that way. The church continued to meet on the Sabbath for a long time after Yeshua ascended. Later evidence (2nd century) showed that they also would meet on Sunday in remembrance of the Lord's resurrection, but it did not supplant the Sabbath for another couple of centuries. In fact the two were celebrated side by side up until the fifth century. The only two places that switched over to Sunday earlier on were Rome and Alexandria. Now, we know that God said that Egypt is in error for every work they do. The Lord hath mingled a perverse spirit in the midst thereof: and they have caused Egypt to err in every work thereof, as a drunken man staggereth in his vomit.” Isaiah 19:14. Rome is the headquarters of the Roman Empire who, through Constantine, incorporated numerous pagan practices into Christianity and mandatory Sunday rest through legislation. This was further promoted by the council in Laodicea in A.D. 364 (Laodicea being the worst church in the Revelations letters, God having been put out of the church) when it was stipulated in their Canon laws that “Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday, but shall work on that day; but the Lord's day they shall especially honour, and, as being Christians, shall, if possible, do no work on that day. If, however, they are found Judaizing, they shall be shut out from Christ.” So, the church that is accused of shutting the Lord out of the church, with one stroke of the pen, mandates that God's commandment be reversed in favor of man's law. Does that tell us anything?

Before going into the history of the change from the Sabbath to Sunday, we need to see if the premise that this change is taught by Scripture is indeed true. The following are the few verses that are used to defend a Sunday worship day.

Acts 20:7 “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.”
This verse is used to show that they were meeting on Sunday for Sabbath worship services. Looking at this verse more closely, let us first start with looking at it in light of the culture of the day, not in the light of how we observe things today. It must be remembered that the day started at sundown the night before. So when it says they met on the first day of the week when they came together to eat bread, it is indicating that they were meeting on Saturday night at dinner time, which would have been considered the beginning of first day of the week. The Sabbath, when they would have gotten together to worship was ending. They would be having the evening meal after the Sabbath was over. As Paul had no doubt spent the Sabbath with them, (he was going from synagogue to synagogue at that time) they wanted him to speak to them until they had to end the day and go to bed. As people wanted to hear him teach, they wanted him to stay for an informal bible study sort of gathering after dinner. This is exactly what the text actually describes. Paul preached after dinner until midnight on Saturday night. This interpretation makes much more sense than him preaching from noon (which would have had to have been the meal referred to if they met on Sunday) until midnight. The meal on Sunday night would actually have been eaten on the second day of the week according to the way they measured days, so any meal on the first day of the week would have either been dinner on Saturday or lunch on Sunday. Sunday was normally a work day for the Jewish culture, (who had incorporated Gentile Messianics into their congregations), so it would be unusual for anyone to take the day off, if they were still observing the Sabbath, which Jews would be. There is no clear historical evidence of Sunday observance until the second century. So, this could not have been a Sunday. This had to have been Saturday night. As Paul’s plans were to depart and travel on the morrow, he was leaving on Sunday morning. Therefore, they were not meeting on nor moving their worship to Sunday, they were meeting the same evening that they had observed the Sabbath day.
The next verse used to “prove” Sunday worship is taught in Scripture is found in 1 Cor. 16:2 “Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.”

Here again is where it is necessary to understand the culture of the day. It was forbidden to do work on the Sabbath. So all work had to be finished by sundown on the sixth day. This meant that shopkeepers would work up until closing, but could not do their financial books until the first day of the week when they again opened for business. Therefore they could not figure out their tithe until that time. Paul met with the people on the Sabbath to teach them, and he did not want them dealing with money on that day, as it was forbidden to do that sort of work. So he instructs them to set aside their tithes or offerings on the first day of the week, so that they were not figuring out their tithes and taking offerings on the Sabbath when he came to see them. Rather than proving the move to Sunday worship, when understood in the context of the culture of the day it shows just the opposite. They were not to gather offerings when meeting with Paul (on the Sabbath), but to do that work on the first day of the week, which was a work day and during which doing the finances was allowed. The very fact of doing the accounts and figuring out the tithes on the first day of the week proves that they had not moved the Sabbath to Sunday.

The next verses that can be used to try to support Sunday worship are found in Romans and Colossians

.Romans 14:5-6 “One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. he that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth no, and giveth God thanks.”

These verses are not speaking of the Sabbath observance at all, but of fasting observances and eating habits. The entire passage must be taken in context. One must read the entire passage and it can be seen that eating and fasting is the subject, even though the word fasting is not used. “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.”

The problem was fasting, as the custom of many at that time was to fast twice a week on particular days (such as Tuesday and Friday) and they felt everyone should do that. Others disagreed. Paul is letting them know that it is up to the individual as to whether or not they want to fast and on what days, and as to what they may or may not eat.

Colossians. 2:16-17 “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.”

These two verses would seem to be the only verses that might allow for the changing of the Sabbath to Sunday, but it is only by indirect implication at best if they did. According to these verses, it would seem it is up to the individual and their conscience to decide whether or not to observe a special day as holy or not.  If taken at face value, it would appear that we are free to observe (or not observe) the Sabbath any way that we want, and others shouldn't judge us. Is that what it could really mean? We know that Yeshua already indicated that in the end times believers should hope that they do not have to run on the Sabbath. If we do not have to observe the Sabbath, why worry about it? Also taken this way, we could definitely not worry about breaking the fourth commandment, but Yeshua told us if we love Him we will keep His commandments. So is that what it really means? I do not think so. 

I believe when speaking of holy days, new moons, and Sabbath days, Paul is speaking not of THE Sabbath, but of all the other holy days and festivals that God ordained for Israel to celebrate. All of those were shadows of things to come. We know from Acts that there are only a few rules that Gentiles have to observe. We are not beholden to participate in the festivals that God gave Israel. In fact, the reason for some of these have passed. The New Moons were to mark the Jewish calendar so that the holy days could be calculated. Only Jews use this calendar. Passover was to look forward to Yeshua’s first coming. The Feast of Firstfruits was fulfilled with Yeshua’s resurrection. Pentecost was fulfilled with the coming of the Holy Spirit. Rosh haShanah is a New Year’s Day celebration. Yom Kippur is no longer necessary, because He was the ultimate atonement for our sins. The Feast of Tabernacles was about the forty year wanderings in the wilderness. Naturally these fall festivals also have meanings that relate to the Lord’s Second Coming, but Judaism seems to not understand those meanings, as they did not accept their Messiah, and Christians quit or never began celebrating these festivals, as God did not demand it of them. Messianic Jews are not under the law to have to observe them, but they are a national and cultural tradition for them, a heritage to be preserved, therefore they generally do observe them. These festivals are not forbidden, however, to those who want to celebrate them. They can either treat these holidays or holy days as days that they regard unto the Lord and celebrate them as more important than other days, or they can ignore these festivals and treat every day alike. These festivals and Sabbaths were and are only the shadow of things of Yeshua. But the Sabbaths mentioned here are not the weekly Sabbath. That has another meaning entirely, one that has to do with creation and the covenant with Israel. The weekly Sabbath was to be observed perpetually. It is one of the Ten Commandments. Yeshua said that if we love Him, we are to keep His commandments. John 14:15 “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” He never said that He was removing this from being one of the commandments. Nor has the covenant been annulled, even though there are Christians who believe in replacement theology and would like to think it has been annulled.

In light of these other Scriptures, it can be seen that Paul was not referring to THE Sabbath when saying that it was permissible to regard every day alike. He was speaking of all these other special days. He expected that his audience understood that the weekly Sabbath was something that was required of everyone and was not optional. As it has already been shown that the other verses do not support Sunday worship, and the extra-biblical texts indicate that Sunday was not observed until several centuries later, it is safe to say that these verses do not support it either, and therefore there are no verses so far that support Sunday worship.

The last verse used to defend Sunday worship is found in Rev. 1:10-11 “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet.”

This verse was also covered in my end times studies, but just briefly, the term Lord’s day as referring to Sunday did not come about for at least another hundred years or so after John penned this book. It was not in use in John's day anywhere, as a way of referring to Sunday. It was used to refer to the Sabbath, but that was not Sunday. So John could have had the vision on the Sabbath. We can also look at this as referencing something else. John was taken in the spirit to the Day of the Lord or the end of days. That could be what is being referred to here, not necessarily the Sabbath, and definitely not Sunday. If read it as, “I was in the Spirit on the Day of the Lord....” it would make tremendous sense, given the rest of the book of Revelation. Either way, it does not support Sunday worship.
Thus the “proof” of these few verses upon which the whole theory that the Bible teaches a change of Sabbath worship to Sunday is undermined when one looks at the verses more closely. 

A book that I have discovered which is very explanatory and which I highly recommend in understanding the Law of God vs. the Law of Moses is Ten Commandments Twice Removed by Danny Shelton and Shelley Quinn. I recommend  that the reader get a copy and read it if they want to truly understand the issue.

As one last reference on this subject, I found an article online that goes into the history of how it came about that Christians stopped observing the Sabbath and began worshiping on Sunday.  I found it to be the most informative article I have yet read on the subject, so I have posted it below along with the web address.

As the article is quite lengthy and has several pages of bibliography, I will wrap up my own comments here and let the article speak for itself. I believe after seeing how the Scriptures above do not support Sunday worship, and seeing how Sunday worship came about, it will be clear that we should be keeping the Sabbath on Saturday.


The Link is found here, the article is posted below.

How Sunday Became the Popular Day of Worship
by Kenneth A. Strand
Contrary to what many Christians believe, Sunday was not observed by New Testament Christians as a day of worship. They kept Saturday, the seventh day of the week.
The question of how Sunday, the first day of the week, replaced Saturday, the seventh day of the week, as the main day of Christian worship has received increasing attention in recent years. One widely acclaimed study, for example, suggests that the weekly Christian Sunday arose from Sunday-evening communion services in the immediate post-resurrection period, with Sunday itself being a workday until after the time of Constantine the Great in the early fourth century.[1] Eventually, however, Sunday ceased to be a workday and became a Christian Sabbath." Some simpler and more popular views are that either (1) Sunday was substituted immediately after Christ's resurrection for the seventh-day Sabbath, or (2) Sunday- keeping was introduced directly from paganism during the second century or later. But is either of these views correct? What do the actual source materials tell us?
Both Days Observed.
One thing is clear: The weekly Christian Sunday--whenever it did arise--did not at first generally become a substitute for the Bible seventh-day Sabbath, Saturday; for both Saturday and Sunday were widely kept side by side for several centuries in early Christian history. Socrates Scholasticus, a church historian of the fifth century A.D., wrote, "For although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries [the Lord's Supper] on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this."[2] And Sozomen, a contemporary of Socrates, wrote, "The people of Constantinople, and almost everywhere, assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the first day of the week, which custom is never observed at Rome or at Alexandria."[3] Thus, "almost everywhere" throughout Christendom, except in Rome and Alexandria, there were Christian worship services on both Saturday and Sunday as late as the fifth century. A number of other sources from the third to the fifth centuries also depict Christian observance of both Saturday and Sunday. For example, the Apostolic Constitutions, compiled in the fourth century, furnished instruction to "keep the Sabbath [Saturday], and the Lord's day [Sunday] festival; because the former is the memorial of the creation, and the latter of the resurrection." "Let the slaves work five days; but on the Sabbath day [Saturday] and the Lord's day [Sunday] let them have leisure to go to church for instruction in piety."[4] Gregory of Nyssa in the late fourth century referred to the Sabbath and Sunday as "sisters."[5] And about A.D. 400 Asterius of Amasea declared that it was beautiful for Christians that the "team of these two days comes together"--"the Sabbath and the Lord's day,"[6] which each week gathers together the people with priests as their instructors. And in the fifth century, John Cassian refers to attendance in church on both Saturday and Sunday, stating that he had even seen a certain monk who sometimes fasted five days a week but would go to church on Saturday or on Sunday and bring home guests for a meal on those two days.[7] It is clear that none of these early writers confused Sunday with the Bible Sabbath. Sunday, the first day of the week, always followed the Sabbath, the seventh day. Furthermore, the historical records are clear in showing that the weekly cycle has remained unchanged from Christ's time till now, so that the Saturday and Sunday of those early centuries are still the Saturday and Sunday of today. Later in this article we will return to data from early church history of the second and subsequent centuries to trace the manner in which Sunday eventually eclipsed the Sabbath, but first it is important here to take a look at the New Testament evidence, inasmuch as the New Testament is normative for Christian practice.

How did Christ and the apostles regard the Sabbath and Sunday?

Sabbath in the New Testament. According to Luke 4:16, it was Christ's "custom" to go to the synagogue on the Sabbath day. Moreover, at the time of Christ's death and burial, the women who had followed Him from Galilee "rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment" (Luke 23:56), indicating that there had been no instruction from Him to the contrary. They were still observing the seventh day of the week! We may, in addition, take note of the fact that the implication of this text is that when Luke wrote the account several decades after Christ's crucifixion he took for granted that no change in Sabbath observance had occurred. He reports this Sabbath observance "according to the commandment" in a totally matter-of-fact way, with no hint that there had been any new day of worship added in the interim. On the other hand we must also recognize, of course, that Christ was accused of Sabbath-breaking by the scribes and Pharisees. We may take, for example, the incident where Christ's disciples plucked grain as they walked through a grain field, rubbed it in their hands, and ate it (Matthew 12:1-8). And we could also notice several instances of Christ's healing work that ran counter to the Sabbath-keeping views of the Jewish leaders--perhaps most strikingly the incident regarding the man with a withered hand (verses 10-13). What do these experiences mean? In order to understand the situation, one must recognize that Jewish Sabbath observance in Christ's day did not mean simply following Scripture laws but also adherence to strict regulations in Jewish oral tradition. The Mishnah, wherein multitudinous regulations of this so-called oral law were written down about A.D. 200, gives an idea of what Sabbath observance was like among the scribes and Pharisees.

There were both major laws and minor laws.

Additional Sabbath regulations. The thirty-nine major laws listed in the tractate (or section) of the Mishnah entitled "Shabbath" are given as follows: "The main classes of work are forty save one: sowing, ploughing, reaping, binding sheaves, threshing, winnowing, cleansing crops, grinding, sifting, kneading, baking, shearing wool, washing or beating or dyeing it, spinning, weaving, making two loops, weaving two threads, separating two threads, tying [a knot], loosening [a knot], sewing two stitches, tearing in order to sew two stitches, hunting a gazelle, slaughtering or flaying or salting it or curing its skin, scraping it or cutting it up, writing two letters, erasing in order to write two letters, building, pulling down, putting out a fire, lighting a fire, striking with a hammer, and taking out aught from one domain into another. These are the main classes of work: forty save one."[8] These thirty-nine laws had many variations and ramifications. It would make a difference, for instance, whether two letters of the alphabet were written in such a way that they could both be seen at the same time. If water were to be drawn from a well in a gourd, a stone used as a weight in the gourd would be considered as part of the vessel if it did not fall out. However, if it should happen to fall out, it would be considered as an object being lifted, and therefore the individual with such an experience would be guilty of Sabbath-breaking.[9] Objects could be tossed on the Sabbath, but there were regulations pertaining to allowable distance and as to whether the object went from a private domain to a public domain, for example.[10] The foregoing are but a very few of the specifics mentioned in the tractate "Shabbath." And in addition to the laws mentioned in that tractate, the Mishnah contains other Sabbath regulations, the largest number of which deal with the Sabbath day's journey. (These are treated in the tractate "Erubin.")
In the context of this sort of casuistry regarding Sabbath-keeping, it is obvious why Christ's disciples were being accused of Sabbath-breaking by their picking and rubbing kernels of grain. One of the thirty-nine major Sabbath laws was "reaping"; another was "threshing." Thus Christ's disciples were both reaping and threshing--breaking two of the major laws of the Sabbath. If they blew the chaff away, they could also possibly have been considered as engaged in "sifting"--in which case they would have broken three different major Sabbath laws. Such "Sabbath-breaking," it must be emphasized, was not against God's commandments as given in Scripture but was purely and solely against the Jewish restrictions. In considering the various miracles that Christ performed on the Sabbath for the purpose of alleviating suffering, it is interesting that Christ Himself never accepted the Pharisees' criticism that He was breaking the Sabbath. Indeed, in connection with the case of the man with the withered hand, He raised a question, "What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath days" (Matthew 12:11, 12). After this, He proceeded to heal the man. Thus He emphasized the lawfulness of this kind of deed on the Sabbath.

How about the apostles?

But now, what can we say about apostolic practice after Christ's resurrection? The book of Acts reveals that the only day on which the apostles repeatedly were engaged in worship services on a weekly basis was Saturday, the seventh day of the week. The apostle Paul and his company, when visiting Antioch in Pisidia, "went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and sat down" (Acts 13:14). After the Scripture reading, they were called upon to speak. They stayed in Antioch a further week, and that "next Sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God" (verse 44). In Philippi Paul and his company went out of the city by a riverside on the Sabbath day, to the place where prayer was customarily made (Acts 16:13). In Thessalonica, "as his manner was," Paul went to the synagogue and "three Sabbath days reasoned with them [the Jews] out of the scriptures" (Acts 17:2). And in Corinth, where Paul resided for a year and a half, "he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks" (Acts 18:4; compare verse 11). Thus the evidence in the book of Acts is multiplied regarding apostolic attendance at worship services on Saturday.

The Lord's day.

Some believe that "the Lord's day" mentioned in Revelation 1:10 refers to Sunday. However, when we read the passage, we find no hint of it being either a Sunday or a worship day. John here simply states that he "was in the Spirit on the Lord's day." Although it is true that eventually the term "Lord's day" came to be used for Sunday, no evidence indicates this was the case until about a century after the book of Revelation was written![11]
Most pointedly of all, there is neither prior nor contemporary evidence that Sunday had achieved in New Testament times a status that would have caused it to be called "Lord's day." Another day--the seventh-day Sabbath--had, of course, been the Lord's holy day from antiquity (see Isaiah 58:13) and was the day on which Christ Himself and His followers, including the apostle Paul, had attended religious services, as we have seen.
In fact, there is not one piece of concrete evidence anywhere in the New Testament that Sunday was considered as a weekly day of worship for Christians. Rather, Christ Himself, His followers at the time of His death, and apostles after His resurrection regularly attended worship services on Saturday, the seventh day of the week.
Moreover, when widespread Christian Sunday observance finally did become evident during the third to fifth centuries, this was side by side with the seventh-day Sabbath, as we have seen. The question now arises as to when and how Christian Sunday observance arose.
The first clear evidence for weekly Sunday observance by Christians comes in the second century from two places--Alexandria and Rome. About A.D. 130 Barnabas of Alexandria, in a highly allegorical discourse, refers to the seventh-day Sabbath as representing the seventh millennium of earth's history. He goes on to say that the present sabbaths were unacceptable to God, who would make "a beginning of the eighth day [Sunday], that is, a beginning of another world. Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead."[12] About A.D. 150, Justin Martyr in Rome provides a more clear and direct reference to Sunday observance, actually describing briefly in his Apology the worship service held on Sunday: "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." Next follow prayer, communion, and an offering for the poor.[13] The same writer in his Dialogue With Trypho the Jew manifests an anti-Sabbath bent in a number of statements, including the following: "Do you see that the elements are not idle, and keep no Sabbaths? Remain as you were born."[14]
Rome and Alexandria. Thus both Barnabas of Alexandria and Justin Martyr in Rome not only refer to the practice of Sunday observance, but they both also manifest a negative attitude toward the Sabbath. Interestingly, it is precisely these same two cities--Alexandria and Rome--that are mentioned by two fifth-century historians, Socrates Scholasticus and Sozomen, as being exceptions to the general rule that worship services were still held on Saturday throughout the Christian world as late as the fifth century. What particular circumstances could have led Rome and Alexandria to their early adoption of Sunday observance? Moreover, why was Sunday observance soon (at least by the third century) so readily accepted throughout the rest of Christendom, even when the Sabbath was not abandoned? Obviously, the evidence thus far presented shatters the theory that Sunday was substituted for the seventh-day Sabbath immediately after Christ's resurrection. But likewise incorrect is the opposing view that the Christian Sunday was borrowed directly from paganism early in post-New Testament times. Not only does this theory lack proof, but the sheer improbability that virtually all Christendom suddenly shifted to a purely pagan practice should alert us to the need for a more plausible explanation. Especially is this so when we remember that numerous early Christians accepted martyrdom rather than compromise their faith. Justin himself was such a Christian, suffering martyrdom in Rome about A.D. 165.

Not a substitute for the Sabbath.

At such a time as this, would a purely pagan worship day have suddenly captured the entire Christian world, apparently without any serious protest? Furthermore, if this were the case, how would we account for the fact that the Christian Sunday, when it did arise, was regularly looked upon by the Christians as a day honoring Christ's resurrection, not as a Sabbath? This latter point deserves special attention. In the New Testament, Christ's resurrection is symbolically related to the first fruits of the harvest just as His death is related to the slaying of the Paschal lamb (see 1 Corinthians 15:20 and 5:7). The offering of the wave sheaf (grain sample) of the first fruits of the barley harvest was an annual event among the Jews. But in New Testament times there were two different methods of reckoning the day for this celebration. According to Leviticus 23:11, the wave sheaf was to be offered in the season of unleavened bread on "the morrow after the Sabbath." The Pharisees interpreted this as the day after the Passover Sabbath. They killed the Paschal lamb on Nisan 14, celebrated the Passover Sabbath on Nisan 15, and offered the first-fruits wave sheaf on Nisan 16, regardless of the days of the week on which these dates might fall. Their celebration thus would parallel our method for reckoning Christmas, which falls on different days of the week in different years.

The Resurrection Festival

On the other hand, the Essenes and Sadducean Boethusians interpreted "the morrow after the Sabbath" as the day after a weekly Sabbath--always a Sunday. Their day of Pentecost also always fell on a Sunday--"the morrow after the seventh Sabbath" from the day of the offering of the first fruits (see Leviticus 23:15, 16).[15] It would be natural for Christians to continue the first-fruits celebration. They would keep it, not as a Jewish festival, but in honor of Christ's resurrection. After all, was not Christ the true first fruits (see 1 Corinthians 15:20), and was not His resurrection of the utmost importance (see verses 14, 17-19)?But when would Christians keep such a resurrection festival? Would they do it every week? No. Rather, they would do it annually, as had been their custom in the Jewish celebration of the first fruits. But which of the two types of reckoning would they choose--the Pharisaic or the Essene-Boethusian? Probably both. And this is precisely the situation we find in the Easter controversy that broke out toward the end of the second century.[16] At that time Asian Christians (in the Roman province of Asia Minor) celebrated the Easter events on the Nisan 14-15-16 basis, irrespective of the days of the week. But Christians throughout most of the rest of the world--including Gaul, Corinth, Pontus (in northern Asia Minor), Alexandria, Mesopotamia, and Palestine (even Jerusalem itself)--held to a Sunday-Easter. Early sources indicate that both practices stemmed from apostolic tradition.[17] This is a view more plausible than that the Sunday-Easter was a late Roman innovation. After all, at a time when Christian influences were still moving from east to west, how could a Roman innovation so suddenly and so thoroughly have uprooted an entrenched apostolic practice throughout virtually the whole Christian world, East as well as West?[18] A reconstruction of church history that sees the earliest Christian Sunday as an annual Easter one rather than as a weekly observance makes historical sense. The habit of keeping the annual Jewish first-fruits festival day could be easily transferred into an annual resurrection celebration in honor of Christ, the First Fruits. But there was no such habit or psychological background for keeping a weekly resurrection celebration. It is probable that the weekly Christian Sunday developed later as an extension of the annual one.
Various factors could have had a part in such a development. In the first place, not only did almost all early Christians observe both Easter and Pentecost on Sunday, but the whole seven-week season between the two holidays had special significance.[19] As J. van Goudoever has suggested, perhaps the Sundays between the two annual festivals had special importance too.[20] If so, elements already present could have aided in extending Sunday observance to a weekly basis, spreading first to the Sundays during the Easter-to-Pentecost season itself and then eventually throughout the entire year.[21] Thus the annual Sunday celebration could have furnished a source from which the early Christians in Alexandria and Rome inaugurated a weekly Sunday as a substitute for the Sabbath. But there is no reason why this kind of weekly resurrection festival had to supplant the Sabbath. And indeed, elsewhere throughout Christianity we find it simply emerging as a special day observed side by side with the Sabbath.

Sunday replaces Sabbath in Rome.

But what factor or factors prompted the displacement of the Sabbath by a weekly Sunday in Rome and Alexandria? Undoubtedly the most significant was a growing anti-Jewish sentiment in the early second century. Several Jewish revolts, culminating in that of Bar Cocheba in A.D. 132-135, aroused Roman antagonism against the Jews to a high level--so high, in fact, that Emperor Hadrian expelled the Jews from Palestine. His predecessor, Trajan, had been vexed too with Jewish outbreaks; and Hadrian himself, prior to the Bar Cocheba revolt, had outlawed such Jewish practices as circumcision and Sabbathkeeping.[22]
Especially in Alexandria, where there was a strong contingent of Jews, and in the Roman capital itself would Christians be prone to feel in danger of identification with the Jews. Thus, especially in these two places would they be likely to seek a substitute for the weekly Sabbath to avoid being associated with the Sabbath-keeping Jews. Moreover, with respect to Rome (and some other places in the West), the practice of fasting on the Sabbath every week also tended to enhance the development of Sunday observance by making the Sabbath a gloomy day. This obviously had negative effects on the Sabbath and could have served as an inducement in Rome and in some neighboring areas to replace such a sad and hungry Sabbath with a joyous weekly resurrection festival on Sunday. As the weekly Sunday arose side by side with the Sabbath throughout Christendom, elsewhere than at Rome and Alexandria, perhaps it was inevitable that eventually the two days would clash quite generally, as they had done as early as the second century in Rome and Alexandria. This did in fact happen, and later in this article we will survey the process by which Sunday finally displaced the Sabbath as the main day for Christian worship throughout Christendom.

A brief summary of the facts ascertained thus far will now be in order:
  1. The New Testament silence about the weekly observance of Sunday, in contrast to the recurring statements about the Sabbath, provides convincing evidence that there was no such Sunday observance in New Testament Christianity. (Moreover, the second-century silence regarding the Sabbath and Sunday, except for Rome and Alexandria, is in large part a result of the fact that basically no controversy had developed over the two weekly days except in those two places.)
    2. The mushrooming literary evidence from the third through fifth centuries reveals that at last a weekly Sunday had become quite generally observed. Furthermore, throughout most of Christendom it was observed side by side with the Sabbath.
    3. The background from Judaism for an annual "first-fruits" celebration on Sunday provided the basis for an annual resurrection celebration among Christians. This was undoubtedly the first step toward a weekly Sunday resurrection festival.

Increased reference to both Sabbath and Sunday.

It is a curious fact that the references dealing with both Sabbath and Sunday increased sharply in the fourth century A.D. and that many of these had overtones of controversy. In some instances, there was an emphasis to keep both days (as, for example, in the Apostolic Constitutions).
On the other side, however, stood the anti-Sabbath church leaders. For example, John Chrysostom, a contemporary of Gregory and Asterius, went so far as to declare, "There are many among us now, who fast on the same day as the Jews, and keep the Sabbaths in the same manner; and we endure it nobly or rather ignobly and basely"![23] Earlier we noted that the Sabbath fast--which made the Sabbath a sad and hungry day--helped bring about the rise of Sunday observance in Rome and in some other places in the West. Indeed, as early as the first quarter of the third century Tertullian of Carthage in North Africa argued against the practice.[24] About the same time Hippolytus in Rome took issue with those who observed the Sabbath fast.[25] However, in the fourth and fifth centuries evidence of controversy on this matter heightened. Augustine (died A.D. 430) dealt with the issue in several of his letters, including one in which he gave rebuttal to a zealous Roman advocate of Sabbath fasting--an individual who caustically denounced those who refused to fast on the Sabbath.[26] As another evidence of the controversy, Canon 64 of the Apostolic Constitutions specifies that "if any one of the clergy be found to fast on the Lord's day, or on the Sabbath-day, excepting one only, let him be deprived; but if he be one of the laity, let him be suspended."[27] The interpolater of Ignatius, who probably wrote at about the same time, even declared that "if any one fasts on the Lord's Day or on the Sabbath, except on the paschal Sabbath only, he is a murderer of Christ."[28] (On the Paschal Sabbath, the anniversary of the Sabbath during which Christ was in the tomb, Christians considered it appropriate to fast.) The last two sources noted may indicate that the controversy had extended beyond Western Christianity; but as far as the actual official practice was concerned, only Rome and certain other Western churches adopted it. John Cassian (died about A.D. 440) speaks of "some people in some countries of the West, and especially in the city [Rome]" who fasted on the Sabbath.[29] And Augustine refers to "the Roman Church and some other churches . . . near to it or remote from it" where the Sabbath fast was observed. But Milan, an important church in northern Italy, was among the Western churches that did not observe the Sabbath fast, as Augustine also makes clear.[30] Nor did the Eastern churches ever adopt it. The question remained a point of disagreement between East and West as late as the eleventh century.[31]
The increase in references about the Sabbath--both for and against--indicate that some sort of struggle was beginning to manifest itself on a rather widespread basis. No longer did the controversy center in only Rome and Alexandria. What could have triggered this struggle on such a wide scale in the fourth and fifth centuries?
Undoubtedly, one of the most important factors is to be found in the activities of Emperor Constantine the Great in the early fourth century, followed by later "Christian emperors." Not only did Constantine give Christianity a new status within the Roman Empire (from being persecuted to being honored), but he also gave Sunday a "new look." By his civil legislation, he made Sunday a rest day. His famous Sunday law of March 7, 321, reads: "On the venerable Day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country, however, persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits; because it often happens that another day is not so suitable for grain-sowing or for vine-planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost."[32] This was the first in a series of steps taken by Constantine and by later "Christian emperors" in regulating Sunday observance. It is obvious that this first Sunday law was not particularly Christian in orientation (note the pagan designation "venerable Day of the Sun"); but very likely Constantine, on political and social grounds, endeavored to merge together heathen and Christian elements of his constituency by focusing on a common practice. In A.D. 386, Theodosius I and Gratian Valentinian extended Sunday restrictions so that litigation should entirely cease on that day and there would be no public or private payment of debt.[33] Laws forbidding circus, theater, and horse racing also followed and were reiterated as felt necessary.

Reaction to early Sunday laws.

How did the Christian church react to Constantine's Sunday edict of March, 321, and to subsequent civil legislation that made Sunday a rest day? As desirable as such legislation may have seemed to Christians from one standpoint, it also placed them in a dilemma. Heretofore, Sunday had been a workday, except for special worship services. What would happen, for example, to nuns such as those described by Jerome in Bethlehem, who, after following their mother superior to church and then back to their communions, the rest of their time on Sunday devoted "themselves to their allotted tasks, and made garments either for themselves or else for others"?[34] There is no evidence that Constantine's Sunday laws were ever specifically made the basis for Christian regulations of the day, but it is obvious that Christian leaders had to do something to keep the day from becoming one of idleness and vain amusement. Added emphasis on worship and reference to the Sabbath commandment in the Old Testament seem to have been the twin routes now taken. Perhaps a first inkling of the new trend comes as early as the time of Constantine himself--through the church historian Eusebius, who was also Constantine's biographer and keen admirer. In his commentary on Psalm 92, "the Sabbath psalm," Eusebius writes that Christians would fulfill on the Lord's day all that in this psalm was prescribed for the Sabbath--including worship of God early in the morning. He then adds that through the new covenant the Sabbath celebration was transferred to "the first day of light [Sunday]."[35] Later in the fourth century Ephraem Syrus suggested that honor was due "to the Lord's day, the firstborn of all days," which had "taken away the right of the firstborn from the Sabbath." Then he goes on to point out that the law prescribes that rest should be given to servants and animals.[36] The reflection of the Old Testament Sabbath commandment is obvious.
With this sort of Sabbath emphasis now being placed on Sunday, it was inevitable that the Sabbath day itself (Saturday) would take on lesser and lesser importance. And the controversy that is evident in literature of the fourth and fifth centuries between those who would honor it reflects the struggle. Moreover, it was a struggle that did not terminate quickly, for as we have seen, the fifth-century church historians Socrates Scholasticus and Sozomen provide a picture of Sabbath worship services alongside Sunday worship services as being the pattern throughout Christendom in their day, except in Rome and Alexandria. It appears that the "Christian Sabbath" as a replacement for the earlier biblical Sabbath was a development of the sixth century and later. The earliest church council to deal with the matter was a regional eastern one meeting in Laodicea about A.D. 364. Although this council still manifested respect for the Sabbath as well as Sunday in the special lections (Scripture readings) designated for those two days, it nonetheless stipulated the following in its Canon 29: "Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday, but shall work on that day; but the Lord's day they shall especially honour, and, as being Christians, shall, if possible, do no work on that day. If, however, they are found Judaizing, they shall be shut out from Christ."[37] The regulation with regard to working on Sunday was rather moderate in that Christians should not work on that day if possible! However, more significant was the fact that this council reversed the original command of God and the practice of the earliest Christians with regard to the seventh-day Sabbath. God had said, "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work" (Exodus 20:8-10, RSV). This council said, instead, "Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday but shall work on that day."

Work forbidden on Sunday.

The Third Synod of Orleans in 538, though deploring Jewish Sabbatarianism, forbade "field labours" so that "people may be able to come to church and worship."[38] Half a century later, the Second Synod of Macon in 585 and the Council of Narbonne in 589 stipulated strict Sunday observance.[39] The ordinances of the former "were published by King Guntram in a decree of November 10, 585, in which he enforced careful observance of the Sunday."[40] Finally, during the Carolingian Age a great emphasis was placed on Lord's day observance according to the Sabbath commandment. Walter W. Hyde, in his Paganism to Christianity in the Roman Empire, has well summed up several centuries of the history of Sabbath and Sunday up to Charlemagne: "The emperors after Constantine made Sunday observance more stringent but in no case was their legislation based on the Old Testament. . . . At the Third Synod of Aureliani (Orleans) in 538 rural work was forbidden but the restriction against preparing meals and similar work on Sunday was regarded as a superstition.
"After Justinian's death in 565 various epistolae decretales were passed by the popes about Sunday. One of Gregory I (590-604) forbade men 'to yoke oxen or to perform any other work, except for approved reasons,' while another of Gregory II (715-731) said: 'We decree that all Sundays be observed from vespers to vespers and that all unlawful work be abstained from.' . . . "Charlemagne at Aquisgranum (Aachen) in 788 decreed that all ordinary labor on the Lord's Day be forbidden, since it was against the Fourth Commandment, especially labor in the field or vineyard which Constantine had exempted."[41] God's Sabbath never forgotten. And thus Sunday came to be the Christian rest day substitute for the Sabbath. But the seventh-day Sabbath was never entirely forgotten, of course. This was true in Europe itself. But particularly in Ethiopia, for example, groups kept both Saturday and Sunday as "Sabbaths," not only in the early Christian centuries but down into modern times.
Nevertheless, for a good share of Christendom, the history of the Sabbath and Sunday had by the sixth through eighth centuries taken a complete circle. For most Christians, God's rest day of both Old Testament and New Testament times had through a gradual process become a workday and had been supplanted by a substitute rest day. God's command that on the seventh day "you shall not do any work" had been replaced by the command of man: Work on the seventh day; rest on the first. However, all Christians who consider the New Testament as the normative guide for their lives, rather than the decisions of men hundreds of years later, will ask whether the worship day of Christ and the apostles--Saturday, the seventh day of the week--should not still be observed today. We believe it should.
Kenneth Strand was professor of church history, Theological Seminary, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan, and editor of Andrews University Seminary Studies, when this article was written. He has edited, compiled, or authored many books, including Interpreting the Book of Revelation, A Panorama of the
Old Testament World, and A Brief Introduction to the Ancient Near East. He aided in school planning for
several overseas colleges. Copyright 1978 by Kenneth A. Strand.
__________________
1. Willy Rordorf, Sunday: The History of the Day of Rest and Worship in the Earliest Centuries of the Christian Church, trans. by A.A.K. Graham from the German ed. of 1962 (Philadelphia, 1968).
2. Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, book 5, chap. 22, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (NPNF) Second Series, Vol. II, p. 132.
3. Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, book 7, chap. 19, in NPNF, Second Series, Vol. II, p. 390.
4. Apostolic Constitutions, book 7, sec. 2, chap. 23, and book 8, sec. 4, chap. 33 in The Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF), Vol. VII, pp. 469, 495.
5. Gregory of Nyssa, De Castigatione ("On Reproof"), in J. P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, vol. 46, col. 309 (Greek) and col. 310 (Latin).
6. Asterius, Homily 5, on Matthew 19:3, in Migne, Patrologia Graeca, vol. 40, col. 225 (Greek) and col. 226 (Latin).
7. Cassian, Institutes of the Coenobia, book 5, chap. 26, in NPNF, Second Series, Vol. XI, p. 243. CF. Institutes, book 3, chap. 2, and Conferences, part 1, conf. 3, chap. 1, in NPNF, Second Series. Vol. XI, pp. 213, 319.
8. "Shabbath," 7.2, in Herbert Danby, trans., The Mishnah (London, 1933), p. 106.
9. Ibid., 17.6, in Danby, op. cit., p. 115.
10. Ibid., 11.1-6, in Danby, op. cit., pp. 110, 111.
11. The earliest clear patristic source is Clement of Alexandria. See, e.g., his Miscellanies, book 5, chap. 14, in ANF, Vol. II, p. 469.
12. The Epistle of Barnabus, chap. 15, in ANF, Vol. I, pp. 146, 147.
13. Apology I, chap. 67, in ANF, Vol. I, p. 186.
14. Dialogue, chap. 23, in ANF, Vol. I, p. 206. Several other statements in the Dialogue reveal a similar feeling.
15. J. van Goudoever, Biblical Calendars, 2d rev. ed. (Leiden, 1961), pp. 19, 20, 23, 25, 26, 29. The Boethusians and Essenes actually chose Sundays a week apart because of a difference in their understanding of whether the Sabbath of Leviticus 23:11 was the Sabbath during or the Sabbath after the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Moreover, they used a solar calendar in contrast to the lunar calendar of the Pharisees.
16. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book 5, chaps. 23-25 (NPNF, Second Series, Vol. I, pp. 241-244), provides the details.
17. Ibid., chaps. 23.1 and 24.2, 3, in NPNF, Second Series, Vol. I, pp. 241, 242; Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, book 7, chap. 19, in NPNF, Second Series, Vol. II, p. 390.
18. The fact that Victor of Rome could not successfully excommunicate the Asian Christians (see Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book 5, chap. 24, in NPNF, Second Series, Vol. I, pp. 242-244) provides further substantiation of this view. If Rome could earlier have influenced almost the entire Christian world, both East and West, to give up an apostolic practice in favor of a Roman innovation, why was she now incapable of stamping out the last remaining vestige of this practice? The only reasonable explanation of all the data seems to be that the Sunday-Easter was not a late Roman innovation, but that both it and Quartodecimanism (observance of Nisan 14) stemmed from apostolic times. For further details, see my "John as Quartodecimanism: A Reappraisal," Journal of Biblical Literature, 84 (1965), pp. 251-258.
19. See Tertullian, The Chaplet, chap. 3; On Baptism, chap. 19, in ANF, Vol. III, p. 678; and On Fasting, chap. 14, in ANF, Vol. IV, p. 112.
20. Van Goudoever, op. cit., p. 167.
21. Philip Carrington, The Primitive Christian Calendar (Cambridge, England, 1952), p. 38, has made this suggestion: Since crops could hardly have been ripe everywhere on the two Sundays especially set aside (day of barley first fruits and Pentecost day), may it not have been implied that any Sunday within the fifty days was a proper day for the offering of the first fruits? For an excellent discussion of the whole question of Easter in relation to the weekly Sunday, see Lawrence T. Geraty, "The Pascha and the Origin of Sunday Observance," Andrews University Seminary Studies (hereafter cited as AUSS) III (1965), pp. 85-96.
22. See Dio Cassius, Roman History, book 68, chap. 32, and book 69, chaps. 12-14, in Loeb Classical Library, Vol. VIII, pp. 394-397, 420-423, 446-451; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book 4, chap. 2, in NPNF, Second Series, Vol. I, pp. 174, 175.
23. Comment on Galatians 1:7 in Commentary on Galatians, in NPNF, First Series, Vol. XIII, p. 8.
24. In On Fasting, chap. 14 (ANF, Vol. IV, p. 112), Tertullian indicates that the Sabbath is "a day never to be kept as a fast except at the passover season, according to a reason elsewhere given." He also indicates his opposition to the Sabbath fast in Against Marcion, book 4, chap. 12 (ibid., Vol. III, p. 363).
25. Hippolytus mentions some who "give heed to doctrines of devils" and "often appoint a fast on the Sabbath and on the Lord's day, which Christ has, however, not appointed" (from his Commentary on Daniel, iv. 20; the Greek text and French translation are given by Maurice Lefevre [Paris, 1947], pp. 300-303).
26. See Augustine's Epistles 36 (to Casulanus), 54 (to Januarius), and 82 (to Jerome), in NPNF, First Series, Vol. I, pp. 265-270, 300, 301, 353, 354. They are dated between A.D. 396 and 405. It is Epistle 36 that gives rebuttal to the Roman advocate of the Sabbath fast.
27. English trans. in ANF, Vol. VII, p. 504. This canon is numbered 66 in the Hefele edition (see note 37, below).
28. Pseudo-Ignatius, To the Philippians, chap. 13, in ANF, Vol. I, p. 119.
29. Institutes, book 3, chap. 10, in NPNF, Second Series, Vol. XI, p. 218.
30. The first statement appears in Epistle 36, par. 27 (NPNF, First Series, Vol. I, p. 268), and a similar remark is made in Epistle 82, par. 14 (ibid., p. 353). References to Milan are found in Epistle 36, par. 32, and in Epistle 54, par. 3 (ibid., pp. 270, 300, 301).
31. See R. L. Odom, "The Sabbath in the Great Schism of A.D. 1054," AUSS I (1963), pp. 77, 78.
32. Codex Justinianus, 1. iii., Tit. 12, 3, trans. in Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 5th ed. (New York, 1902), Vol. III, p. 380, note 1.
33. Theodosian Code, 11. 7. 13, trans. by Clyde Pharr (Princeton, N.J., 1952), p. 300.
34. See Jerome, Epistle 108, par. 20, in NPNF, Second Series, Vol. VI, p. 206.
35. Migne, op. cit., vol. 23, col. 1169.
36. S. Ephraem Syri humni et sermones, ed. by T. J. Lamy (1882), vol. 1, pp. 542-544.
37. Charles J. Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, trans. by Henry N. Oxenham (Edinburgh, 1896), Vol. II, p. 316. Canon 16 (ibid., p. 310) refers to lections; and the fact that Saturday as well as Sunday had special consideration during Lent, as indicated in Canons 49 and 51 (ibid., p. 320), also reveals that regard for the Sabbath was not entirely lacking.
38. Ibid., Vol. IV, pp. 208, 209.
39. Ibid., pp. 407-409, 422.
40. Ibid., p. 409.
41. W. W. Hyde, Paganism to Christianity in the Roman Empire (Philadelphia, 1946), p. 261.
These Times / May 1982