Halloween I - Origins

Think you know where Halloween came from? Maybe you do. Or maybe you've just heard the same story repeated often enough that it sounds like history. Here are some quick facts and observations to separate the historical record from the Halloween mythology.

---

I don't feel the need to post about Halloween every year. The day is simply a bridge too far for some people. Some love to hate Halloween, even if much of what they believe about it is based on misinformation and outright lies. I am personally not very fond of modern Halloween as it is lately. So why write about it? Because I love history and I want to know the truth about it. How can we say we love the truth if we won't look at the truth? And God is truth. So, I persist.

I just so happened to have some extra material on Halloween that I've been wanting to post somewhere. I thought an article hitting the highlights sounded like a better idea than digging into a single detail. So, today I offer you a rapid-fire bunch of interesting facts and observations. Any one paragraph should give you something good to consider. 

At first, I had this all as one post. When I read through it, I thought it would be unlikely that anyone would read through it all, and if they did, they would never remember what was at the start of the article by the time they got to the end. So, I've decided to turn this into a series. It's easier to digest that way. I will put links at the end for more information.

Please take this quote from The Sun as our introduction:

"Trick or treating may seem like a modern event, but it can actually be traced back to Celtic Britain and Ireland in the 9th century. The night of October 31 was known as Samhain, a Pagan festival which was later combined with Christian celebrations and renamed All Saints’ Day by the Catholic church. At Samhain, our Pagan ancestors believed the souls of our dead came into our world – and were appeased by offerings of food and drink."
-Josie Griffiths and Jennifer Roback, “When Did Trick or Treating First Start, What Is the Meaning Behind the Phrase and How Does It Vary Around the World?” The Sun, October 31, 2021.

I bet most of the readers here are familiar with that kind of material.
There is so much to fix here. How can it be wrong if it's in the mainstream media?? (He said, knowingly.) As we've seen in my "Samhain Lord of the Dead" article and elsewhere, even the Encyclopedia Britannica can be wrong.

First, we have to know who we're dealing with.

THE CELTS

What is a Celt?
Celts are a people group, same as Romans or Anglo-Saxons or Danes. They lived in the British Isles, France, and across Europe into Turkey. The Galatians were Celts (yes, those Galatians). I am part Celt. But as the Roman Empire had many nations, there were many and diverse tribes who were considered to be Celts. In the British Isles alone there were at least 25 named tribal groups in Britain (Iceni, Brigantes, Silures, Trinovantes, Dumnonii, etc), and probably more when smaller groups and northern peoples are included. It wasn't one unified group.

The word Celt is not synonymous with pagan or Druid any more than Italian is synonymous with Catholic. Saying a tradition is Celtic says nothing at all about whether or not it was pagan or Druidic or even religious at all.

What is a Druid?
Druids, real Druids, were (past tense) priests in ancient Celtic paganism. We know almost nothing about what they genuinely looked like or what rituals they actually performed. Only two sources are believed to have been actual eye witnesses to Druids: Julius Caesar and Cicero. And we must take their accounts with a grain of salt.

Druids first appear in historical records in the second century BC, and they disappear from the record roughly around the 400s AD. In the first century, Rome tried to stamp out Druidism in Britain, claiming the Druids engaged in human sacrifice. (This is one example of why we need to take the Roman accounts with a grain of salt. We cannot be sure if this was accurate or just propaganda.) Druidism survived in Ireland and Scotland in part because Rome never fully conquered those areas. Christianity first arrived in the British Isles by 200 AD. Over the following centuries, Christianity spread throughout the British Isles. By the 6th century, Christianity was flourishing in the British Isles. No trace of the Druids remained. Medieval Christian writers reimagined them as wizards (think Merlin).

Aren't there Druids today? No. Not real Druids anyway. Starting in the 1500s, some people in the British Isles began to romanticize the Druids. A great deal of material was written about them which was, shall we say, less than accurate. A good amount of it was extrapolation, imagination, or outright fabrication. They created costumes, songs, holidays, traditions, etc etc. Later writers built upon and added to the claims of earlier writers, until all they had to do to appear legitimate was to quote one another. Modern Druidism is a revival movement, not a demonstrably unbroken continuation of the ancient priesthood. Modern Druids draw on this questionable material, along with later developments of their own. It turns out that Druids can be whatever you want them to be. The same goes for Wicca. Its founders relied heavily on that same material.
Modern scholars, such as Ronald Hutton for one example, are moving away from claims made from 1500s through the mid-1900s.

Now that those bits are cleared up, let's move on to Halloween.

HALLOWEEN ORIGINS

What is Halloween anyway? Halloween is short for "All Hallows Eve" which is the evening before All Saints' Day (aka. All Hallows). All Saints' Day is on November 1st and honors all Christian dead in Heaven. All Saints' Day is the real holiday here, not Halloween. Halloween is to All Saints' Day what Christmas Eve is to Christmas. The day after All Saints' Day is All Souls' Day. All Souls' Day honors all Christian dead who have not yet entered Heaven (remember, Catholics believe in Purgatory). Together, Halloween, All Saints' Day, and All Souls' Day make up Hallowtide or All Hallowtide. A "tide" is a festive period of time as opposed to a single day.

Here is a super-condensed timeline of how Halloween developed:

• Christians had been honoring martyrs since there were martyrs. It eventually became difficult to honor them all individually.
• In 609 AD, Pope Boniface IV created a memorial for the dioceses of Rome of all Rome's martyrs on May 13. Other areas had their own days.
• In 735 AD (approximately), Pope Gregory III created a memorial for the diocese of Rome of all departed saints in Heaven on November 1, as part of his dispute with the Byzantine Emperor.
• In 835 AD, Pope Gregory IV expanded the all saints memorial to the whole church.
• Late 800s AD, estimated date of the first recorded mention of samhain.

You may have heard something like, "The Pope moved a feast to November 1 to coopt Samhain." Is that true? No.
Scholars debate whether Samhain was a festival at all in this time period, let alone a popular one.  Pope Gregory III did not move the May 13 date to November 1. All Saints' Day was not intended to replace the May 13th memorial to all martyrs. The May 13th observance took centuries to end. Some sources say it was Pope Gregory IV who transferred the observance to November 1 to better facilitate the many pilgrims to Rome, but other sources say it was Pope Gregory VII who put a final end to the May 13 observance.
This claim about the Catholic Church co-opting Samhain was popularized by James Frazer, who built on ideas from writers such as John Rhys and Edward Tylor. His work helped make the claim widely accepted, and later writers continued spreading it. There is no primary source or reliable secondary source evidence for this claim. Not only is there no valid evidence in support, but there is legitimate evidence against it. Recent scholars have since moved away from the claims of these authors.

Halloween was brought to the United States by immigrants. It changed over time, as most things do. Due to the influence of such things as Protestantism and the Industrial Revolution, to name but two, customs that were once spread over the entire Fall season began to coalesce into single holidays, like Halloween, Thanksgiving, and Christmas. For example, jack-o-lanterns were once found throughout the Autumn but later coalesced into Halloween alone. Other traditions, such as dressing up to go trick-or-treating, were developed in America, with inspiration from medieval Christian traditions. That does not make them direct continuations of medieval traditions, however; they were merely inspired by older traditions.
I want to emphasize dressing up and going door-to-door asking for handouts is a well documented Christian practice from medieval Europe. Medieval customs may seem unusual to us, but being unusual does not prove paganism any more than using a cell phone proves you're a witch. It is simply that our cultures have changed quite a bit over the centuries.

CONCLUSION

So, now you have a better understanding of the origins of Halloween.

Next time, we will dive deeper into Samhain. It is unfortunate that we must always investigate Samhain when we investigate Halloween, but such is the power of a lie told often enough.

---

I promised some sources at the end of the article.

Material on ABD:

Samhain Was Not On October 31
Samhain Lord of the Dead
The Plain Truth About Samhain
The Real History Of The Druids
Review - Is the Occult Influencing Your Family
Peddlers of Paganism

Material off ABD:

Samhain and Halloween. God Cannot Be Contained blog.
https://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2024/10/samhain-and-halloween.html
Note: This is Lonnie's post which got me started reading about Halloween in the first place.

Sanas Carmaic (Cormac's Glossary): https://archive.org/details/cu31924071173474/page/n101/mode/2up. See p.102 of that link, under Gamuin. Note: items in parenthesis are not original.

Annála Uladh (Annals of Ulster): https://archive.org/stream/annalauladhannal01royauoft/annalauladhannal01royauoft_djvu.txt. See p.158 of that link. Note: English translations use "Samhain" or "Allhallowtide", but that is not in the oldest manuscripts.

Tochmarc Emire (The Wooing of Emer):
https://www.paddybrown.co.uk/pdfs/The_Wooing_of_Emer.pdf. See pp.7 & 13 of that link; "Samain".

Félire Óengusso (The Martyrology of Oengus):
https://archive.org/details/martyrologyofoen29oenguoft/page/232/mode/2up. See p.232 of that link.

Acallam na Senórach (Tales of the Elders of Ireland):
https://archive.org/details/silvagadelicaix00gragoog/page/77/mode/1up?q=Sam.

Echtra Nerai (The Adventure of Nera):
https://www.ucc.ie/en/media/academic/seanmeanghaeilge/cdi/texts/Meyer-Echtra-Nerai.pdf. See pp. 4, 10, & 14 of that link. Note: This translation transliterates samuin as Halloween.

Bede's "De Temporum Ratione" (The Reckoning of Time):
https://old.katab.asia/special/De_temporum_ratione.pdf. See pp.53-54 of that link for "Winterfylleth".

Nathan J. Harris, "Debunking Samhain: Undoing the Misinformation of Wicca", PDF file, Academia.edu, accessed 11-4-2025, https://www.academia.edu/144624704/Debunking_Samhain_Undoing_the_Misinformation_of_Wicca.

Ronald Hutton, "Blood and Mistletoe: The History of the Druids in Britain", (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), p.95. Note: I cannot find an online, free version.

"Scribes and Kings: Religion, Politics and the Medieval Manuscripts of Ireland." On Mythical Ireland. https://mythicalireland.com/blogs/news/scribes-and-kings-religion-politics-and-the-medieval-manuscripts-of-ireland. Note: This is a fine example of a reasoned attempt to identify the balance between old and new in the medieval Irish legends.

Catholic Encyclopedia. “Irish Literature”. NewAdvent.org, accessed 11-8-2025. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08116a.htm

"Internet Medieval Sourcebook". Fordham University.
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/sbook1g.asp. Note: Tons of old works here from Celtic regions.

"The Truth About Halloween". Eternal COG.
https://www.eternalcog.org/media/The-Truth-about-Halloween.pdf. Note: This is a fantastic example both of what to do and not to do in a study. Good: cite lots of sources. Bad: Treat any and all sources as authoritative. People, please mind your sources! Quality over quantity.

Lisa Morton, "Trick or Treat: A history of Halloween". Internet Archive .
https://archive.org/details/trickortreathist0000mort/ Note: I found this after doing this post. It has a ton of info on customs, but does at times draw on some bad sources. Overall, an interesting read.

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

Where Shadows Wait

Velvet sky unfolds
silver threads stitch dark with light
stars hum ancient songs

Moon drifts like a thought
soft upon the breath of clouds
guiding tides to dream

Owls trade whispered news
crickets weave their patient hymn
night blooms without end

A cool wind wanders
through the hush of sleeping fields
carrying the stars

Shadows lean and sway
as if listening for dawn
yet linger in peace

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

The Rest Found In/With Christ Jesus

(Matthew 11:28-30) Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. °Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. °For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

To say Sabbatarians such as Adventists here twist the scriptures in this regard is an understatement. They mangle it. They chew it up and spit it out.

This is a rest the law does not provide. The Sabbath was a temporary respite from labor, carried out the previous six days – physical labor followed by a physical rest from physical work. The Sabbath commandment was a total ban on ANY work on the Sabbath; even the preparation of a meal, where they were to prepare their meals for the Sabbath the day before; the day of preparation, with one interesting statement made in this regard:

(John 19:42) There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.

Whose preparation day? The Jews’ preparation day. Not the preparation day; the Jews’ preparation day before the Sabbath where Sabbatarians try to play cute, and claim the Sabbath was for all mankind, misapplying what Jesus said in Mark 2:27, redefining what “man” meant to the Jews at that time in their culture, where only Jews were “man.”

The Sabbatarian “definition” would mean that it was quite alright for Gentiles to be keeping the Sabbath “according to the commandment” without having to prepare for it…maybe all the Gentiles keeping the Sabbath didn’t eat on the Sabbath, fasting on that day referred to as a feast day in Leviticus 23...

Jesus makes reference to HIS rest for the soul as being in the context of a yoke and burden, with the caveat it is a light yoke and burden, which begs the logical question regarding another yoke and burden that was not so light.

(Galatians 5:1) Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

Here, the liberty found in Christ, being a light yoke and burden, is contrasted to another yoke and burden that was just discussed in the previous verses and account which was about the law, given at Mt. Sinai, starting in verse 21 where Paul asks a question of those who were opting to embrace the law:

(Galatians 4:21) Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

They were unwittingly placing themselves, needlessly, under the yoke and bondage of the law.

Even Peter touches on this theme in Acts 15, during the debate and council at Jerusalem over whether the Gentiles should be required to become Jews first and Christians second by having them undergo circumcision, bringing them under the law according to the law.

(Acts 15:7-11) And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. °And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; °And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. °Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? °But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

This is one of those passages of Scripture, anathema to Sabbatarians, who insist the law be kept in order to demonstrate one’s devotion and obedience to God, which does no such thing. Theirs is a devotion and obedience to the law; not God. God is not the law, and the law is not God. But the law can be treated as “another god besides God” in that it was graven images of stones given to the faithless Hebrews who had already shown they would not listen to or follow God, where they ended up being given the law; even the Decalogue, not so that they would believe God, but believe Moses, “for ever.” (Ex. 19:9)

Christ Jesus; God Incarnate, offered a rest for the soul; a permanent rest from the evil works of the flesh, ultimately leading to death. This is the “sabbatismos” spoken of in Hebrews 4:9 that Sabbatarians insist is the weekly “shadow” (Col. 2:16-17) Sabbath (“sabbaton”) that was temporary, and for the physical body after six days of physical work. They are blind to the context, having a veil before their eyes. It is a rest that is a cessation of a particular work, even as God ceased from a particular work on the seventh day of Creation Week. It is “God’s Rest” entered into through faith; something the faithless Hebrews (Jews) could not do (Heb. 4:6) but they did enter into the shadow weekly Sabbath.

Those led by the flesh choose the things of the flesh; physical rites and rituals found in the old covenant law; not the new covenant law of faith and the Spirit where those shadows found their fulfillment in the spiritual realities, such as God’s Rest entered into through faith. (Heb. 3:18-19;4:1)

The Hebrews refused the rest found in/with Jesus, for they were quite comfortable with the shadow Sabbath they were given at Sinai, where all is judged according to the flesh by the flesh.

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

The Unspoken, Unrecognized Sin

There is a sin that resides at the core of all sin. It is the genesis of all relevant sin that affects the mind, heart, and soul of mankind, and it is downplayed to the point that it is even denied as a sin by those who seek for an easy to define sin that focuses on the end point; the result that follows a progression from this elementary sin.

It is the sin of faithlessness, also known as the sin of unbelief.

The definition of sin used by Adventism obscures this sin to the point it is even denied as being a sin, where sin is defined as the transgression of the Decalogue of the old covenant law, based on half of a passage of Scripture massaged further that ignores both the English and the Greek of that entire verse.

The sin of unbelief is born of an evil heart, used to describe the Hebrews who were given the law and their progeny that followed after them by the author of Hebrews who describes a “rest” a “sabbatismos” that the Hebrews, who had the Sabbath (Gr. Sabbaton) could not enter into due to their faithlessness and unbelief; their evil hearts of unbelief.

(Hebrews 3:17-19) But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness? °And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not? °So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

The author of Hebrews refers to Psalms 95 in this regard.

(Psalms 95:10-11) Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways: °Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest.

(Hebrews 4:3) For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

The works carried out prior to this rest God entered into were finished from the foundation of the world, which is what the narrative in the opening verses of Genesis describe “In the beginning” that being Creation Week. God entered into a rest from that finished work of Creation and He is quite literally still in that “rest” from that finished work; a cessation of a work that was complete. Whole. Finished. Done.

Understand the implications. God SWORE in His wrath the faithless; the unbelieving cannot and will not enter into His rest with Him that He finished at the foundation of the world. They are barred from entry, but the faithful and believing do join Him in His rest from that work of Creation.

Where is God? In His Heaven; His kingdom.

Who enters into His kingdom, Heaven? Those who keep the law, like as did the Pharisees Jesus described as evil children of the devil, doing the will of their father the devil? Or some other category of people? The author describes them as “believing” – the faithful, and Scripture tells us plainly enough it is the believing and faithful who enter into this rest with God, where we read in the Scriptures that the law is NOT OF FAITH.

The faithless are relegated to the wrath of God, seeing as they are faithless; unbelieving. So I ask you, what did the faithless, unbelieving Hebrews receive that produced this wrath God spoke of?

(Hebrews 4:3) Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

Understand the logic flow. The law works wrath; produces wrath. If there were no law, then there is no transgression. And if there is no transgression, there is no wrath resulting from the law and transgression.

The faithlessness and unbelief is in relation to God Himself; not the law. The faithless, unbelieving Hebrews heartily embraced the law, where they had the shadow-Sabbath they entered into weekly when it came about; a temporary rest from the physical works carried out the previous six days of physical labor; typology of God’s eternal rest from a finished work He entered into on that seventh day of Creation Week; a rest Jesus refers to as a rest for the SOUL and not a physical rest following physical labor; a sabbath described in Colossians 2 as a shadow with no substance, whereas it is Jesus wherein we find ‘substance’ that the weekly Sabbath did not possess, a substance that now offers the believing and faithful a rest for the SOUL; a “cessation” of one’s former works, of the flesh; works of the unbelieving and faithless that eventually lead to death, and not eternity of rest with God and His rest.

I write this knowing full well the faithless and unbelieving do not believe this, for they equivocate God with the law, so that to believe in the law is to believe in God; an assumption that holds no truth. For even God stated to Moses that they were to be given that law, thundered out at Mount Sinai, so that the Hebrews would believe Moses forever; not God. The Hebrews were ready to embrace anything other than God, including a gilded cow they also equivocated with God, calling it the god who brought them up out of Egypt.

Faith; belief, also involves trust – trusting God, explicitly. Completely.

(Psalms 146:3) Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.

You are a ‘son of man’ and you are not even to trust yourself.

Recall the narrative where a wealthy man asks Jesus what “good” thing he, personally, could do in order to acquire eternal life. Jesus replies in regards first to his reference to “good” which goes right over the heads of faithless people, where Jesus states that only God is good. And if only God is good, then, according to how God judges, only God can do good. He, being a man born with the “deceitful and desperately wicked heart” could not do good. The best he could do, given his condition as a ‘man’ was to keep the commandments and thus never sin; an impossible task that those with the evil hearts of unbelief cannot accomplish, but are convinced they can, and do; their deceitful heart that cannot be trusted, telling them they can. You might believe you can keep the law if you ignore your evil heart; deny its existence, and reject Jesus’ teaching regarding the fruits or works wrought by those devoid of God’s Spirit; the “new heart” that enables one to produce good works.

Evil people, with the evil hearts of unbelief, cannot produce good works. It is interesting then that God gave them the Sabbath; a day where they were commanded not to do ‘any’ work on that day; a day stated to be a “holy convocation” in Leviticus chapter 23, where all of Israel; all the Hebrews were seen as being in the presence of God on that day, where extra sacrifices for sin were required at the temple, on a day no one was working, ergo no one was actively sinning by working works that were only evil in the sight of God who judges according to the heart.

Let this sink in. They were not working on the Sabbath, which would ‘logically’ equate to resting from their evil works brought about by an evil heart of unbelief, but there were additional sacrifices for sin on the Sabbath anyway. Their sin of unbelief and faithlessness did not go away on the Sabbath.

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

The Spiritual Realm and the Physical Realm

There there is the spiritual realm and there is the physical realm. Those in this physical realm have no true concept of the spiritual realm, having only physical realm reference points to work from. As a result, the spiritual realm is conceptualized following a physical pattern.

Good and evil become relativistic instead of absolutes. The result of this is that what is spiritual and absolute is rejected by those with strictly physical, carnal perception. For such people, their lives in relation to others becomes a physical construct that is modified over time through experience. But when it comes to the spiritual plane, there are no such experiences, so that what is concluded based on scant and incomplete evidence becomes solidified in the mind, and it is invariably falsehoods based on physical experiences.

Despite plain statements in Scripture regarding spiritual things, even the very nature of God, such information is filtered through a carnal mind; manipulated, parsed, re-assembled into what is acceptable to a carnal mind. It is a process that essentially takes God and modifies Him into something fashioned in the image of carnal man, not unlike the God’s of ancient cultures, such as the Greek gods whose variants popped up all over the ancient world, borrowed and renamed. In this regard then, it is surprising that when Paul visited Athens, he noticed an object dedicated and inscribed to the “unknown god” where Paul started there.

From here, you might well notice the change in position based on what information Paul afforded them regarding this unknown god, for they were beginning to see that the gods of their culture suffered the same maladies of mankind when it came to pulls of the flesh, where their gods demonstrated human characteristics and not those attributes one might assume the gods would present. They were no better than men now, in their eyes. And if no different in behavior than men, then the obvious conclusion would be that they do not exist; that they were creations of men made in the image of man. They could hardly be seen realistically as superior beings to men having the same foibles of men.

A similar pattern follows when it comes to carnal men trying to understand the nature and attributes of  the True God, tainted by man’s same natural proclivity of transference and projection.

God gave the Hebrews a covenant law, with much fanfare. Many people today conclude that, seeing as this law originated with God, it must reflect the Nature of God, it must possess the attributes of God, and it is how God judges mankind and is what God expects of mankind.

That is the relativistic approach, where good and evil are not perceived as absolutes, and where God is absolutely good and man is absolutely evil, born with an evil heart described by God as “deceitful and desperately wicked.” The result is that God condemns evil and evil men. The law, being a blood covenant law, took evil works and even evil thoughts, and prescribed a suitable punishment for evil and evil people: a death sentence. A banishment from His presence. An eternal existence where there is nothing truly good.

Those who embrace the law cannot perceive that the law was given to the evil Hebrew nation as a carrot on a stick, where they could never receive the “consideration” for compliance with the law. The law was essentially a rope, given to them whereby they would proverbially hang themselves with it.

Evil man sees the law as the means whereby he can ‘prove’ himself before God; that he can do good, despite his wicked heart, also referred to as a heart of stone and an evil heart of unbelief.

In order to better explain this, consider how man uses tools, even a rock. It can be used for a useful purpose we would call “good” like building a wall, or it could be used for evil, such as an offensive weapon. A sword can also be used both defensively and offensively to ward off an attacker bent on doing evil with the tool.

The law is no different. It too can be wielded as a weapon in order to lie to one another and destroy another, which is exactly what the Pharisees did with the law, using it as the means to deceive themselves and others, and to conquer and destroy Jesus. In this regard, consider what Paul wrote about the law:

(1 Timothy 1:8-10) But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; °Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, °For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

The Pharisees used the law unlawfully. They applied it against those it was not intended for; the righteous, called of God, who, through conversion and a new heart that is not deceitful; is not desperately wicked; is not a stony heart, and is not an evil heart of unbelief.

Yet, that is what we see happening to the early, fledgling church of God; where the Sanhedrin wasted no time or effort in bringing persecutions against the church in an attempt to destroy it, using the law as their weapon of choice.

None of this has changed in 2000 years. The law that properly applied lawfully only to evil people ends up in the hands of evil people who unlawfully use it against the righteous ones, whose righteousness was derived through faith, even as Abraham’s righteousness was imputed to Him by God due to his faith in God.

Evil people have an inherent hatred of good. True good. And they cannot conceive of anyone being good who is not keeping the law any more than did those Pharisees of Jesus’ time. They embrace the law that ultimately condemns them. The law does not condemn those they persecute with it.

Doing good and being good are tied to the law by evil people who reject a pure, unfeigned faith that comes from what is now a pure heart:

(1 Timothy 1:5-7) Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned: °From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; °Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

The law of faith and the Spirit is rejected in favor of the old covenant law of sin and death, where evil people refuse to believe they are evil, having a deceitful heart, and now go after those who are now dead to the law; not under the law; freed from the law, and having been redeemed from the law by Christ so that the law can no longer condemn them. They are freed from condemnation (Rom. 8:1) meted out by the law that was designed for evil men with evil hearts that they cannot recognize as such.

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

Stay Home for the Sabbath?

The Bible contains no requirement to go to church on Saturday, but does it require Sabbath-keepers to stay home? And where does a Sabbath day's journey fit in to this? Let's see if we can find an answer.

---

While I was studying for the article "What Do You Mean... ‘Holy Convocation’?", an interesting point came up which I wanted to go over in more depth but I didn't have the space in that article. So, I thought we could go over it here. It has to do with what ancient Israel did on the weekly Sabbath, or more specifically, where they would be.

To start, let's review the underlying issue so we know why we're going over today's topic in the first place.

Sabbatarianism tends toward legalism and fixating on commands. Sabbatarians believe the weekly Sabbath is a command for Christians and going to church is how the Sabbath is commanded to be "kept". Church on Saturday is central to their identity. Meanwhile, going to church on Sunday, specifically, is condemned in the strongest terms as a man-made tradition in defiance of the laws of the Almighty.
The catch is, there is no command to 'go to church' on Sabbath anywhere in the Bible. Search all you wish, you will not find one. That's a big part of what the post "What Do You Mean... ‘Holy Convocation’?" was all about. The Sabbath is not about when you go to church, but Sabbatarianism is.

At this point, the conversation usually shifts to traditions, but I will spare you that. Instead, I recommend the posts "Common Legalist Arguments - Part VIII" and "Established and Imposed".

This is the background issue that brings us to today's post. Today we ask, perhaps God did not give a command to go to church/synagogue on Sabbath, but did God command Israel to be anywhere in particular? Some will turn to Exodus 16.

PLACE

(EXO. 16:28-30) 28 And the Lord said to Moses, “How long do you refuse to keep My commandments and My laws? 29 See! For the Lord has given you the Sabbath; therefore He gives you on the sixth day bread for two days. Let every man remain in his place; let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.” 30 So the people rested on the seventh day.

The Israelites, to whom the law was given, were commanded by Moses to stay in their homes for the Sabbath.

There is no doubt that this command exists. But it's more than that. I want to share this interesting tidbit from Barnes' Commentary:

"The expression in Hebrew is unique and seems almost to enjoin a position of complete repose: “in his place” is literally under himself, as the Oriental sits with his legs drawn up under him."

So, they were to stay not just at home but where they were. As we should expect, it was understood in different ways. Just look at this interesting tidbit from Adam Clarke's Commentary:

"Some of the Jews have carried the rigorous observance of the letter of this law to such a length, that in whatever posture they find themselves on the Sabbath morning when they awake, they continue in the same during the day; or should they be up and happen to fall, they refuse even to rise till the Sabbath be ended! Mr. Stapleton tells a story of one Rabbi Solomon, who fell into a slough on the Jewish Sabbath, Saturday, and refused to be pulled out."

Have you ever followed the law that closely? In my 30 years as a Sabbatarian, I never did. So much for my righteousness in the law exceeding that of the Pharisees!

For all those who ask, "can we follow Jesus and ignore the Torah," will you ignore this part of Torah?

But don't make up your mind yet. There is more to this story. The question becomes: was Israel really forevermore required to stay home for the Sabbath?

MANNA

What do we say here at As Bereans Did? Context, context, context. And what is the context of Exodus 16:29? Manna.

The Israelites were being tested with the manna and they were failing. They were told not to keep it overnight. They did anyway. God sent worms and rot. They were told not to gather it on Sabbath. They did anyway. Moses commanded them to stay home. The command to stay at home appears to be a way to get the people to follow the rules of manna collection. Can't quite collect it if you're home.

Now, we find ourselves with two options:

Option 1:
Exodus 16:29 could be understood as only pertaining to the Israelites in the Desert Wandering at that time when both manna and the law were being introduced and Israel had to learn how to navigate the new conditions; a temporary command. There is no 'this shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations' attached.

Option 2:
Exodus 16:29 could be understood as a permanent command. There may not be a 'this shall be a perpetual statute' but there also is no clear indication that it ended or was intended to end. Keep in mind, even though this might look like it was about manna collection, the manna collection was itself set up in such a way as to teach Sabbath observance. We've come full circle.

Can I justify one over the other? Well ... it's complicated.

There is no small amount of scholarly work to go on here. Just for example, see Biblehub's list of commentaries on this verse. Many commentators understand the command as being specific to the gathering of manna. Many do not. Commentators aside, what did Israel understand it to mean? Many, perhaps most, Israelites understood it as a permanent command. So, we have evidence for both options.

But! At the same time, the Israelites who did believe it was perpetual do not appear to believe the perpetual command was to stay home ...or in a ditch. I mean, there couldn't be people offering to pull that guy from the ditch if they all were all at home, or in agreement with the guy in the ditch.

Let's get more detail to see if we can make some sense of this dilemma.

DWELLINGS

(LEV. 23:3) 3 ‘Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation. You shall do no work on it; it is the Sabbath of the Lord in all your dwellings [moshevoteykhem].

This verse has implications for Exodus 16:29. I am going to pull a short selection from that Holy Convocation article:

We have another Hebrew word now: moshevoteykhem (מוֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם) which means dwelling places, habitations, places where people live - be that homes or home towns. The result of this is the opposite of being commanded to travel to Jerusalem. For the non-pilgrimage holy days there were no large gatherings. They were all smaller.

So, we have two places where miqra qodesh [holy convocation] can happen: at the Temple in Jerusalem, and wherever you dwell. Neither of those are 'at church'. Some portions of miqra qodesh were national and some familial. Some large assemblies and some small assemblies. Some at designated places and some wherever you happen to be.

So 'dwellings' can mean 'homes', sure enough, but must it mean homes? I don't think so. Why not? Because let's look at another place where "in all your dwellings" appears.

(NUM. 35:29) And these things shall be a statute of judgment to you throughout your generations in all your dwellings.

This part of Numbers 35 talks about murderers, and witnesses necessary for the death penalty, and posting bail, and refuge cities, etc. How in the world are those supposed to be 'in your house'? This is only one example. Other examples are quite similar. Insisting that dwellings must mean homes plays havoc with this and other laws.

I just do not see how we can get moshevoteykhem to always mean 'at home'. It can mean 'at home' sometimes, but not always. And if it's not always, then it's contextual. I do not see anything in the context of Leviticus 23:3 that makes me believe it should be understood as exclusively at home. Even the extremist who refused to be pulled from a ditch did not believe this meant to be at home, as certainly there was no ditch inside his house. It would be better understood as, "It is the Sabbath of the Lord in all the places where Israelites settle." In other words, in their towns. And if you weren't in your town at the time, then by implication this means something closer to 'wherever you happen to be.'

If this is how Leviticus 23:3 is understood, then this has implications for Exodus 16:29.

This detail isn't the only clue we have.

FAMILIAL

Let's look at the law for the Sabbath and note something:

(EXO. 20:10b) In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates.

(DEU. 5: 14) but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your ox, nor your donkey, nor any of your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you.

These clearly speak in household terms. These words aren't, "You and your constituents and your townsfolk and your country sides, etc." These words aren't, "You and your congregation and your choir and your service organizer and your prayer leader and your sound crew, etc." These are familial words.

I am trying to make two points here:

First, there is a clear focus on family. Who was responsible for ensuring regular duties had stopped? The head of household. Who did the teaching on Sabbath? The parents. This isn't about going to church. This isn't about sitting for an hour trying not to fall asleep while someone else presents part 38 in a 52-part sermon series. Not a single word spent on Ministers and their fiefdoms and their importance in prophecy and how they are the only ones qualified to teach. Not one jot or one tittle wasted on "pay, pray, stay."

Second, on the pilgrimage holy days, Israel was required to assemble as a nation. But apart from those three, nothing in the laws regarding the sacred assemblies (that includes the weekly Sabbath) ever says what size the assembly had to be, or where it had to be. It could be a town, or a home, or a large gathering, or even as little as a single family, or perhaps it was two families gathered together in a home for a Sabbath visit. Leave your house, stay home, it's all good ...just don't go far.

Finally, let's wrap this up with a few smaller clues.

CLUES

There is a tiny clue hidden in II Kings that demonstrates ancient Israelites did not understand that they were required to stay home. Apparently, it was normal to go see a prophet on Sabbaths and New Moons.

(II KIN. 4:23) So he said, “Why are you going to him [Elisha] today? It is neither the New Moon nor the Sabbath.”

Ancient Israelites might not have been going to synagogue on Sabbath, because synagogues didn't exist at that time, but it seems going to see a prophet was within the realm of possibility. Going to see a prophet by definition means not staying at home. So, maybe not stay at home, but stay close to home.
Also, for all those who say the Sabbath is mandatory but New Moons aren't important, you might want to rethink that.

Interestingly, most of the commentaries I've read mention Exodus 16:29 as the source for where the idea of a Sabbath day's journey comes from.

(ACT. 1:12) 12 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day’s journey.

If the Israelites, including the Apostles, understood that they were to stay at home on Sabbath, then the concept of a Sabbath day's journey should not exist. A Sabbath day's journey should be across the room. Once again, Israel saw it as a permanent command, but not to stay still or even to stay home, but to stay in their dwellings. It is a restriction on travel, but not a restriction on leaving home.

And now maybe this verse also makes more sense:

(ACT. 16:13) And on the Sabbath day we went out of the city to the riverside, where prayer was customarily made; and we sat down and spoke to the women who met there.

How can one go to see a prophet or on a Sabbath-day's journey, or gather at a river, when they were supposed to be at synagogue? How can one be at synagogue when they were supposed to stay home? They can't.

The answer is, none of these things were required. Going to synagogue was never a requirement in the first place. Even in the time of synagogue, it wasn't mandatory to go there. But more importantly for today's article, staying home for the Sabbath appears more and more like it was not mandatory.

One last clue to point out here. There were three annual pilgrimage festivals where all the males in Israel were commanded to appear at the Temple in Jerusalem: Unleavened Bread, Pentecost, and Tabernacles. We know Unleavened Bread and Tabernacles were seven days long (Tabernacles was eight if you count the last day). There was guaranteed to be a weekly Sabbath in there somewhere. Tell me, how can one be at the Temple in Jerusalem for the annual holy days and at home for the weekly Sabbath at the same time? Not possible. But this can be done: stay close to where you are dwelling at that time.

One might wonder what the official word from Armstrongism was on this. Well, there wasn't really one. Here, read this typical comment:

"Some people ask about the mention of 'a sabbath day’s journey' in Act; 1: 12. There is no special command anywhere in the Bible limiting travel on the Sabbath. This 'sabbath day’s journey' was a custom of the Jews and is not a biblical command."
-Rod Meredith, "Rejoice In God's Sabbath!", Good News Magazine, Dec. 1957, p.5

Hopefully, you can now see why this was not correct. There is a law limiting travel: Exodus 16:29, which says, "Let every man remain in his place; let no man go out of his place on the seventh day." The Sabbath day's journey is not merely a custom of the Jews, it is their way of interpreting how Exodus 16:29 applied to them in light of all the other relevant evidence. Disagree with the conclusion Israel came to if you must, but at least address it. Armstrongism did not address it; it ignored it. The same way it ignores how the Fourth Commandment was written specifically for Israel. This is entirely par for the course with Armstrongism.

Meredith goes on to say how a walk on Sabbath is good but you shouldn't walk so far as to tire yourself. The Sabbath law of rest was not about staying well rested, it was about ceasing from normal activity and treating the time as holy and set apart, belonging to God, not for ordinary use. He didn't even understand the primary feature of the day. These are Sabbatarians we're talking about. What irony! A group whose entire identity is this one thing, yet they clearly misunderstand the very core of the thing.

CONCLUSION

Did God command Israel to be anywhere in particular on the Sabbath? Yes. He said to stay in place. The question is not whether Exodus 16:29 says to stay in place; it does. The question is: what does that mean, exactly, and to whom does it apply? It applies to Israel, to whom the law was given, and none besides. The evidence as I see it points away from it literally meaning 'stay in your house' (or staying in a ditch all day). There appears to be more leeway to it than that. To Israel, "place" seems to have meant something closer to 'surrounding area'. So, no, a Sabbath-keeper does not appear to be required to stay home for Sabbath.

This post isn't really about a Sabbath day's journey. That is a secondary item, but one I thought was helpful to the main point. During my time in Armstrongism, we were never told how the Sabbath day's journey came about. We read about it in Acts and dismissed it as yet another odd tradition of the Pharisees. Turns out it is built on grappling with Exodus 16:29 and other evidence, like we did today. We don't know exactly how it started or by whom, but I imagine it started because there is no clear answer in Scripture, and some Rabbi probably got fed up with being asked about it and just came up with an answer. I can't fault that.

The upside of today's article is:
Sabbatarians narrowly escape repeating the error of the Pharisees. There is no law to go to church on Sabbath, and it doesn't look like there was a law to stay home either. So, going to church does not vacate any law in favor of tradition.

The downsides include:
1) Most Sabbatarians simply ignore this command entirely. They either aren't aware of it or they simply ignore it as if it isn't there. They neither stay still, nor at home, nor a Sabbath day's journey, nor anything else besides.
2) We still have the issue of not having a command to go to church. Sabbatarianism turns an opinion about a man-made tradition into a command, all while condemning man-made traditions.
3) Sabbatarian churches are going to have to decide for themselves how to interpret Exodus 16:29. Does that make it ... a tradition?
4) This has implications for the annual holy days as well. I have the eighth day of the Feast of Tabernacles particularly in mind, since people often begin their long journeys home on that day.

To help you move forward, I suggest these articles:

What Do You Mean... ‘Holy Convocation’?
Established and Imposed
Common Legalist Arguments - Part VIII
The Sabbath Rest of Genesis 2
The Road to Sabbatarianism - Part I
Editing The Commandments
Acts 15 - What Was Debated - Part I
Confusing the Covenants
If You Love Me, Keep My Commandments
For Paul, Jesus Is The Answer

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************