Our church is organising a football match on Good Friday, after "Churches Together" hot cross buns. Somehow this celebration feels like it should be on Sunday, and for Good Friday to be kept special.

I have been told "God wants us to have fun so we should always have fun". I also read somewhere "The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning but the heart of fools is in the house of pleasure" but maybe that's not appropriate nowadays. Even at football matches two minutes' cheering is considered more appropriate than two minutes' silence and sober reflection!

Stuart   9 April 2009

Walking in Cambridge after the Easter service, there was a delightful tranquillity in the air. Ii seemed to me that the secular world was paying its respects to the One who rose to be both their King and ours. He gave up the right to be happy for our sakes so that we can take pleasure in Him above all else.

Margaret Coles   27 April 2009

The phrase "first day of the week" isn't anywhere in the Greek manuscripts of the bible. The Greek manuscripts say, in English, "first/foremost of the Sabbaths". You can verify this in any Greek Interlinear.

Although this is true, mainstream Christianity uses this “first day of the week” as a main proof that Sunday meetings were prevalent in the New Testament church. Ignoring all the scriptures showing Sabbath meetings.

The fact is, if you have no knowledge about the Feasts of YHVH, then you will have no understanding of what transpired at Jesus’ death and resurrection.

Jesus died on Passover, a Feast/Moedim (Hebrew) of the Lord/YHVH (Hebrew). (Lev. 23:2,5) He was resurrected on the wave sheaf day (vs. 10,11). This day was indeed the morrow after the Sabbath, which began the seven week/Sabbaths count to Pentecost (vs. 15).

Why wouldn’t early Christians continue to keep the "morrow after the Sabbath" just as the Jews had done for more than twelve hundred years (Lev. 23:10,11)? They however didn't keep it weekly as most Christians assume. The “wave sheaf offering” on the "morrow after the Sabbath" was a once a year event.

It was the day the “wave sheaf” (first fruits of the harvest) was waved by the priest to be accepted of the Lord, this ceremony began the spring harvest and the fifty day count to Pentecost.

Early Christians probably started calling this one day of the year the "Lord's Day", since it was the feast/moedim day that Jesus was resurrected on.

The Lord’s Day was not a new name given to every "Sunday". It was the new name given to the day that Jesus was resurrected on, the day that was observed annually, not weekly, the day of the wave sheaf.

It probably wasn’t until later that the annual event on the “morrow after the Sabbath” became a weekly event so that Christians could distance themselves from the Jews. That’s probably how the name “Lord’s Day” took on the meaning of every Sunday.

Using the phrase “first day of the week” which is correctly translated “first of the Sabbaths” is not enough proof that Sunday keeping is biblical, even if the church in the 1st and 2nd century was keeping a weekly “Lord’s Day” as shown in historical writings. Because Paul said that the “mystery of iniquity” was already at work in the church even during his day (2 Thes. 2:7).

How much more in the years following the death of Paul and the other Apostles would the “mystery of iniquity” be working. Therefore historical church writings showing that the early church in the 1st and 2nd centuries kept a weekly Sunday is not reliable enough proof that the weekly keeping of Sunday is biblical.

In counting Pentecost, seven Sabbaths were to be counted (Lev. 23:15). They would count, the first of the Sabbaths, the second of the Sabbaths, the third of the Sabbaths, and so on down to the seventh of the Sabbaths.

If it was the fifth day of the week (Thursday to us) during the third week or "third of the Sabbaths" count to Pentecost, which of the weeks/Sabbaths would it be? It would still be the third week or "third of the Sabbaths". So no matter what day of the week it was in the third week or “third of the Sabbaths”, any of the seven days could accurately be called the “third of the Sabbaths”.

So when the Gospels say "in the end the Sabbath" as it began to dawn toward the "first of the Sabbaths" what is it saying? The day after the end of the Sabbath was the "morrow after the Sabbath" of the wave sheaf. The “first of the weeks” or "first of the Sabbaths" was not a name for Sunday, rather it was a name for all seven days of the first week/Sabbaths count to Pentecost.

Using the names that we use today. The first "Wednesday" after Jesus’ resurrection, would still be within the first week or "first of the Sabbaths". Any one of the seven days in that week would have been called the "first of the Sabbaths", any one of the seven days the next week would have been called the "second of the Sabbaths", and so on down through the entire seven week/Sabbaths count.

So when we get to Acts 20:7, when it says that Paul was in Troas on the "first day of the week" the Greek says "first of the Sabbaths" and it would mean any day during that first week/Sabbaths count to Pentecost. Just look at verse 16 if you want to make sure this was the time of the year. It was after the Days of Unleavened Bread but before Pentecost.

They were within the seven Sabbaths count to Pentecost. Paul in reality could have been preaching until midnight any of the seven days during that first week/Sabbaths leading up to Pentecost. To say this was definitely Sunday is biblically inaccurate, yet mainstream Christianity insist this was Sunday, proving the early church kept Sunday. This assumption is not biblically accurate.

This is a blatant example of eisegesis, or reading ones own ideas into the text of the bible, rather than exegesis, which is using the bible to interpret itself.

The exact same thing can be said for 1 Cor. 16:2. The phrase once again is "first of the Sabbaths" not first day of the week. To claim this was definitely Sunday is biblically inaccurate.

Judea was in the grips of famine. They needed food. The "morrow after the Sabbath" began the spring harvest. There was to be seven weeks/Sabbaths of harvest. What better time for Paul to tell the Corinthians to collect food for Judea than at the very beginning of the harvest, the first week/Sabbaths of harvest?

Paul is telling them, on the first week/Sabbaths of the harvest to set some aside for Judea. Then he would come there to collect. When? Verse 8, some time after Pentecost. This shows the time context is before Pentecost.

The idea that the "first day of the week" meant Sunday, and that biblical Christians celebrated every Sunday because of only eight scriptures that mistranslate the phrase "first day of the week", is a lie that Christianity has used for hundreds of years.

The correct phrase "first of the Sabbaths" is thousands of years old, beginning around 1300 b.c. with the seven week/Sabbaths harvest which is one of the Lord's/YHVH's Feasts/Moedim. (Lev. 23:2,10,11)

The early church would have logically celebrated Jesus' resurrection once a year on the “morrow after the Sabbath”, the wave sheaf day (Lev. 23:10,11) the same day that Jews had kept for hundreds of years, celebrating the first fruits of the harvest. Christians however would recognize that Jesus was the first fruits of the human harvest.

After years the "morrow after the Sabbath" the wave sheaf day obviously began to take on the name the "Lord's Day" because it was the day that Jesus was resurrected on. This day was a day celebrated once a year, not every week in the biblical early church.

The early church also kept the Days of Unleavened Bread (1Cor. 5). They also received the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1). Why have most Christians today rejected God’s Feasts? Calling them Jewish Feasts, when God himself calls them his Feasts (Lev. 23:2)?

If you doubt what I'm saying, look in a Greek Interlinear for "first day of the week". Do a Google search for "first day of the week" and "wave sheaf".

Kevin McMillen   6 January 2012

Eisegesis is the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one's own ideas.

Mainstream Christianity uses blatant eisegesis, especially when it comes to Paul and the law. Historical church leaders, and modern church leaders, have used and continue to use their own ideas and thoughts, and apply them to the study of the scriptures. Not using biblical proof, but using mainstream ideas.

The first instance where I can prove this is the idea that "first day of the week" means Sunday, and that the Lord's Day means Sunday.

Mainstream Christianity has assumed that since early church writings in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries use the term Lord's Day to refer to Sunday, then that must be what it meant in John's day in writing the book of Revelation. This is not necessarily true.

Let's say that in five hundred years, someone finds some writings from our time, let's say they find the Christmas song Wish you a merry Christmas, the lyrics "dawn we now our gay apparel", then say they found other writings from our time that talk about gay being homosexual. Are they to assume that they were putting on homosexual clothes in that song? If they did they'd be incorrect.

That is why we have to be very careful in explaining what John meant by the Lord's Day. Just because over the years it came to mean every Sunday, that doesn't prove it meant that in John's day.

I wrote an article on the "first day of the week", showing that the Greek most likely means the first week/Sabbaths counting to Pentecost. To assume that every time that the phrase “first day of the week” is used that it means Sunday is so very wrong, and it is pure eisegesis.

Sure it was Sunday/the first day that Jesus was resurrected, (I believe it was about the time the wave sheaf was cut, just after sunset after the Sabbath) because we know this was the day after the Sabbath from scripture. But to assume “first day of the week” meant Sunday in Acts 20:7 and in 1 Cor. 16:2 is once again using eisegesis.

If we are to use exegesis, allowing the bible to interpret itself without preconceived ideas, we must conclude that mia sabatton, the “first of the Sabbaths”, means the first week/Sabbaths counting to Pentecost. There is much more biblical evidence for this interpretation than the idea that it means Sunday in every case.

I believe there's enough biblical evidence to show that any day during that first week/Sabbaths count to Pentecost, could be called the "first of the Sabbaths" meaning that Acts 20:7 could have been any day of the week, not just Sunday. This is using proper exegesis, not eisegesis like mainstream Christianity uses.

Now studying Paul's writings. First, Rom. 14, mainstream Christianity using eisegesis claim this chapter is referring to the Sabbath and Holy Days. You can find no clear biblical evidence that this is true. In fact, when shown that mainstream Christianity uses this chapter to also say that pork/unclean is ok to eat, it's easy to see the eisegesis. No where in Rom. 14 is pork/unclean even alluded to, he's talking about vegetarianism, it's only when one uses eisegesis, or their own ideas to interpret scripture, does one even get a hint that pork/unclean or the Sabbath are mentioned in Rom. 14.

I can make a case that the days that Paul is referring to are anniversaries, birthdays, the day of a loved ones death, etc. But I'm willing to admit, that's just a guess. Paul uses the Greek word for regard that means to have sentiment for the days spoken of here. Sure one could have sentiment for the Sabbath and Holy Days, but one can also have sentiment for anniversaries, birthdays, and the day a loved on dies. To use honest exegesis, we can't say that Paul is meaning the Sabbath day or birthdays, we honestly don't know. To say he's definitely talking about the Sabbath is dishonest eisegesis.

Also, mainstream Christianity has used Rom. 14 to create a "no day" doctrine. This is biblically unsound, and it is also pure eisegesis. Not knowing for sure what days Paul is referring to, and using their own ideas to do away with the Sabbath, physically at least, is dishonest eisegesis.

Mainstream Christianity uses Gal. 4:10 and Col. 2:16 to try to support their ideas about Rom. 14, but with true unbiased exegesis, the "no day" theory doesn't hold water, and in fact is a heresy.

To understand Gal. 4:10 and Col. 2:16 we really need honest exegesis, using the bible and historic evidence to interpret it, not our preconceived theological theories. The bible says that the sect of the Pharisees (Acts 15:1,5) were teaching the gentiles they had to be circumcised and keep the "law of Moses" to be saved. The big problem here was they were using the law as a means of salvation and not just that, they were teaching that in order to be saved that gentiles had to become proselytes of the Mt. Sinai covenant(circumcised), in which Israel promised to obey the law. Which they failed to do.

This would make the law a means to salvation rather than the true purpose of the law, which was to show what sin was and nothing more. Rom. 3:20, Rom. 7:7

Sidestepping a little because we could go on forever about the law and how it relates or doesn't relate to salvation.

When a Pharisee said that one must obey the "law of Moses" he meant much more than most in mainstream Christianity teach. He also meant the oral law, the Talmud/Mishnah. They were saying that in order for a gentile to be saved, he not only had to keep the law, he also had to keep the oral traditions of the fathers.

They were also saying that in order for a gentile to be saved, if he sinned, he had to go to the temple and offer the proper sacrifices. This was all included in their "must be circumcised and obey the law of Moses" requirement. It was much more than just keeping the Sabbath and the other Ten Commandments. It was much more than eating clean and keeping the Holy Days. They also required all the ceremonial sacrifices and laws that the book of Leviticus required under the old Covenant, the ceremonial washings that the Talmud required, all the benedictions that the Talmud required. etc. etc. etc.

They were requiring so much more than just obeying the law.

So, when we get to Gal. 4:10, we see the Galatians very scrupulously, and meticulously watching exactly what they did or didn’t do on the Sabbaths, Holy Days, and New Moons. Just look up the Greek word for observe in Gal. 4:10. It means to watch meticulously, scrupulously. They were being very careful to do all the things required in the old Covenant and the Talmud/oral traditions. In reading Paul in Gal. 5 they were even being circumcised.

Gal. 4:10 reveals much more than the Galatians merely just resting on the Sabbath and Holy Days. They were keeping them as a Jew would, and not just any Jew, as a Pharisee would. With all the regulations, and probably all the sacrifices. Num. 28

This is what Paul was against, not mere Sabbath keeping.

Similarly Col. 2:16, from reading Colossians it looks like the Colossians weren't falling for the all crap that the Galatians were, but they were being judged for not doing it. They were apparently being judged for not keeping the "laws of Moses" including the oral laws as the Pharisees required.

Paul isn't telling them not to let anyone judge them for “not” keeping a day or feasts. Paul is telling them not to let anyone judge them for not keeping them the way the Pharisees prescribed. Proof? Col. 2:22 "After the commandments and doctrines of men." The Sabbath was not a commandment or doctrine of men, but the added rules of the oral traditions were. The Talmud contains the added oral rules.

As I said, this is using pure exegesis, not eisegesis as mainstream Christianity uses.

All the misunderstandings come from not understanding the law and it's purpose.

The laws purpose was never to give salvation. It's sole purpose was/is to show what sin is. Rom. 3:20, Rom. 7:7

How could Jesus get rid of the law. That would be getting rid of the possibility to sin. He didn't get rid of the law or the possibility to sin, he got rid of the penalty for breaking the law. He fulfilled the law by paying it's price, not by getting rid of it. The laws price for us who disobeyed it, death. Jesus died so we don’t have to. This is the simple message of the Gospel.

We are sinners. We broke the law which shows what sin is, we had to die. Jesus came down to fulfill the laws requirement and that requirement was our death. To claim that Jesus got rid of the law is unbiblical. What he got rid of is our death sentence.

As I’ve said before, all the back and forth over "is the Sabbath required for Christians" just muddies the water. Required for what? Salvation? Is not hating my brother required for salvation? If it is, I'm lost. I get angry all too often. Is not lusting required for salvation? If so I'm lost. Though I try my best, I sin. My trying does not mean I'm trying to earn anything. My trying is because I want to obey my Saviour and my God, though imperfectly, as best as I can.

It's too bad that most churches don’t explain this well enough.

There is absolutely nothing legalistic about Sabbath keeping if done in the correct mindset. As I said, I keep the Sabbath as best as I can, not to be saved, for I'm already saved, and will be saved. (I can show both tenses in the bible.) I keep the Sabbath because not to keep it is a sin. It has nothing to do with attaining salvation.


Kevin McMillen
KLJCMC@COMCAST.NET

Kevin McMillen   6 January 2012