In my last post in this series, "Common Legalist Arguments Part VII", we saw many "back doors" legalists use to break into the abrogated Old Covenant. We explored the idea that the law applied to Israel, and since we are Spiritual Israel the law applies to us. We saw two Israels are being confused and two Covenants are being combined. This cannot be!
This time, I would like to explore a very common argument that people resort to when all else fails -- just claim we all need to be Jewish.
ARGUMENT #8
"If Jesus and the Apostles did it then we must do it too."
At first, this sounds like a fantastic idea. What could possibly be wrong about doing what Jesus and the Apostles did? Isn't that the definition of discipleship? Let's get some context. Let's see how this argument is being used.
An associate at In Him Ministries recently posted onto social media an excellent article about the Sabbath in the New Covenant. The main idea was the Old Covenant with its terms (laws) is gone, and the New Covenant with its terms has come. Short, simple, and agrees with what we write here.
I took a few moments to read the comments, as is my tradition. One person asked if the readers could find any direct command in the Bible to go to church on Saturday. No one could, because there is no such command in the Bible. The fourth Commandment says nothing about going to church. Since their entire identity depends on this one thing, the Sabbatarians all headed in the same direction: they ignored their usual requirement that everything must be commanded in law and instead appealed to the tradition of Jesus and the Apostles. One person said, simply, "Jesus and apostolic precedent!"
You might be thinking, "I still don't see the problem."
Let's get something perfectly clear - this isn't about true discipleship and following Jesus' examples of faith, love, self sacrifice, mercy, justice, etc etc, it's about justifying Sabbatarianism, for which there is no law. This is not about the spirit of the law or even the letter of the law, it's about workarounds.
Allow me to put this argument into other words so we can more clearly see what's really going on:
"There was no law about going to church. But since Jesus and the Apostles lived like Pharisaical Jews, we all must live like Pharisaical Jews, too. Everybody Shabbat!"
Pharisaical Jews?? Yes. Come along and see.
OLD COVENANT JEWS
We must ask ourselves, why did Jesus and the Apostles do what they did? Answer: because they were literally Old Covenant Jews.
We cannot simply ignore this fact. They were working-class Jews in Israel, born under the Old Covenant, during the Second Temple Period, while the Temple yet stood. This was their lifestyle. This was their culture. This is why they did what they did. Are we all to be first century Jews now? (Be careful here! Say 'no' and this argument falls apart, but say 'yes' and your church falls apart.)
Most common legalist arguments are attempts to get back to the Old Covenant law, but that would be pointless here since today's common legalist argument only exists in the first place because there was no "go to church on Saturday" law to get back to.
This common argument is a disguised demand that we must all become ancient Jews.
But if this were really so important, wouldn't you suppose it would be applied across the board? The "we must do what Jesus did" claim is being applied in a completely inconsistent way.
How is it inconsistent? Consider, except for the 40 days between Jesus' death and resurrection, His entire ministry on earth was during the Old Covenant period. That Covenant ended when He died and not before. People tend to forget the Old Covenant is in the New Testament. That means when we read the Gospels we are seeing Jesus and the Apostles living under all 613 Old Covenant laws. All of them, not just the Sabbath.
This "Jesus and apostolic precedent" argument is only intended to get the Sabbath, but as it turns out it applies to everything else. We can't appeal only until we get what we want then back out. That is the inconsistency: it attempts to pick and choose what it wants then leaves the rest behind.
So, out of one side of the mouth there is an appeal, and out of the other a dismissal. It's a highly advanced stealth appeal! It flies undetected into the ancient land of Israel, grabs the Sabbath, and heads back out before the other 612 laws even know it was there.
This goes beyond laws. If following Jesus' and the Apostles' routine is so important (as opposed to, say, following His example of faith, love, mercy, justice...) then why don't people do what they actually did? Jesus and the Apostles:
- Went to synagogue and listened to a Rabbi.
- Argued with Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes, and lawyers.
- Went to Temple.
- Paid the Temple Tax.
- Went to Jerusalem for the three pilgrimage holy days each year.
- Observed "Jewish" traditions and holidays, like Hanukkah.
- Preached daily, not just weekly.
- Lived in what we would consider mud brick huts, wore sandals and likely a turban, and walked about Judea.
- Faced persecution and death.
The advanced stealth appeal flies undetected into ancient Israel, grabs a tradition or two, then heads back out before the rest of the culture even knows it was there.
Why don't we wear tassels on our garments? Forget Jesus and apostolic precedent because we've got the New Covenant!
SYNAGOGUE ≠ CHURCH
(For those who do not know, that ≠ symbol means 'does not equal'.)
Now that we've shown what the argument is at heart, let's focus on the Sabbatarianism. We need to understand something about what Jesus was doing.
Ask any Sabbatarian how to do what Jesus did and most of the conversation will gravitate around going to church on Saturday, "Not like those sinful pagans who replaced the Sabbath with Sunday." But therein lies the rub. Jesus did not go to church; He went to synagogue,
Synagogue is not church. So, nobody follows Jesus' precedent by going to church. How much less, then, did Jesus go to a middle school auditorium to set up folding chairs and listen to a "Minister" drone on and on about his own importance in prophecy.
If this argument was really intended to do what it says on the surface, Sabbatarians would do what Jesus actually did and go to synagogue, listen to a Pharisee Rabbi, then get up and teach from Torah with no reference to the New Testament. The claim is, "We must do what Jesus and the Apostles did," right, not, "We must do something roughly analogous but not really what they did," right?
Again, the appeal is to nothing more than Jews being Jewish.
Four times, Acts uses the phrase "synagogue of the Jews" to distinguish. There is no "synagogue of the Christians". There is no New Covenant example of Gentile converts to Christianity taking up synagogue. If Gentiles were in synagogue then they were already there, for Judaism, but not for Christ. All of the accounts of going to synagogue after Jesus' death are in the book of Acts alone, and most involve Paul going there to preach Jesus to Jews, proselytes, and devout people already participating in Jewish synagogue traditions. Then, he would get kicked out (much like Jesus had been kicked out) and go elsewhere to preach to Gentiles who were not associated with Judaism.
So, must we do what Jesus and Paul did and go get kicked out of a synagogue? I don't recommend that.
In many ways, synagogue and church are similar. They are both houses of learning and worship. Early churches and liturgies were patterned after elements from synagogue. So, similar? Yes. Identical and interchangeable? Most certainly not. Early Christians exchanged synagogue for church for a reason, and modern Sabbatarians follow that for the same reason: we aren't Jews.
So, this argument appeals to Jews being Jewish, but only long enough to get the Sabbath. After that it rejects what it just appealed to, because we aren't Jews.
But think about this.
If we can exchange synagogue for church, then why not exchange Saturday for Sunday? That is the very heart of this common legalist argument, is it not? If there is no law to go to church on Saturday, and Jesus did not "go to church", and you're not going to do what Jesus actually did by going to synagogue because you go to church, then why not go to church on Sunday?
It's a valid question.
Trying to force a Jewish-specific practice into a universal Christian mandate is like trying to fit a square tradition into a round command. Historically and theologically, it just doesn’t work.
WHAT CHURCHES?
This introduces another contradiction. Most Sabbatarians will claim there were no churches in the first century. Whether strictly accurate or not, what an interesting thing to ponder!
When I was an Armstrongist, I sat through many a sermon claiming, "'Church' is translated from 'ekklesia' which just means 'the body of believers'. Jesus founded a church, not a building." And this is true! We have no evidence the very earliest Christians built basilicas or any such thing. As best we can tell, they gathered together where they could, read, prayed, sang, and had a meal. So, they did gather together regularly, but they didn't go to a church until some years later when they could no longer fit into houses.
Am I the only one who finds it odd to minimize church when attacking Sunday services, only to turn right around and emphasize church to support Saturday services?
Let's take this one step further.
DAYS OF THE WEEK
Some of the more clever type will recognize the issue here and exchange "go to church" for "worship". Jesus worshipped on Sabbath. This removes any confusion over "church". But!
Jesus prayed and taught daily - which means others were learning and worshipping daily (MAR. 14: 49). The Apostles met in the Temple and in Christian houses daily (ACT. 2: 46; 5: 42). There is no wrong day to preach and worship.
So, now we must specify that 'worship' refers to corporate worship. Jesus went to corporate worship on Sabbath. And He did. But!
Did you know Jews of Jesus’ time primarily gathered in synagogues on the Sabbath, but they also met on Mondays and Thursdays? It's true!
“The people assemble on Mondays and Thursdays to read the Torah and study, as is the custom.”
-Mishnah Megillah 4:1
The Mishnah was written after Jesus' time, but it was not inventing, it was preserving.
When we read about Jesus and the Apostles going to synagogue, many verses state it was on Sabbath. Other verses do not state when it was. Those instances could be on any of the three assembly days.
Why aren't we morally obligated to do the same? Now where are the demands that we have to do this because it's what Jesus and the Apostles did? Why isn't anyone out there saying, "We are not saved by going to church on Monday and Thursday, but we cannot be saved without it?" Why are there no Mondatarians or Thursdatarians?
So, if your standard is doing what they did, then stick to it. Except you don't!
Here's another fact for you - did you know most Christian churches have services on Saturday? Even a great number of Catholic churches have a Mass on Saturday. It's true! But that doesn't count, does it? One wonders why not? It's on Saturday.
Mainstream churches offer services on Saturday, but that doesn’t count. Jews went to synagogue on Monday and Thursday, but that doesn't count. Jesus and the Apostles worshipped and taught daily, but that doesn't count. Verses like ACT 20: 7 and I COR 16: 2 strongly suggest Christians gathering on Sunday, but that doesn't count. Extra-biblical literature like the Didache, Justin Martyr, Ignatius, and Barnabas all tell us the main day for corporate worship was on Sunday, but that doesn't count. Early literature like Eusebius, Sozomen, and Socrates Scholasticus tell us many Jewish converts who kept a Sabbath also went to church on Sunday, but that doesn't count. In fact, there is no extant early Christian source that clearly describes Saturday-only corporate worship - not even from "Judaizing" sects like the Ebionites or Nazarenes - but that doesn't count. To put it even more bluntly - nowhere in or out of the Bible is Saturday ever commanded or demonstrated as the exclusive day of Christian corporate worship.
So, what does count?
The pattern is clear. Today's common legalist argument is not built from the law or from what Jesus, the Apostles, and the early Christians were doing, but from selectively editing that out.
When you look at it this way, it makes this common legalist argument seem rather opportunistic.
But somehow it manages to get even more contradictory.
TRADITIONS OF MEN
At the opening of this post, I said, "But since Jesus and the Apostles lived like Pharisaical Jews, we all must live like Pharisaical Jews, too". I bet that "Pharisaical" part turned some people off. Then, why did I say it? Because there is a deeper layer to this appeal than just Jews being Jewish.
Did you notice there is no command or example anywhere in the Bible to go to Temple only on Sabbath? Did you notice there is no command in the Bible to go to synagogue at all? Did you notice synagogues are not mentioned anywhere in the Old Testament, not even once? That's because they are a more recent addition. Whose addition? The Jews!
Do a study on the history of synagogues. They appear to have started during the Babylonian captivity, but no one knows exactly when or where or by whom. The Temple was destroyed, the Levitical Priesthood was crushed, and the people were dispersed in a foreign land far away from Jerusalem. So, they did what they thought was necessary to keep their culture alive - they created little local places of worship and Torah study. Much later, when the Israelites were allowed to return to Judaea and the Temple was rebuilt, the Temple priesthood became the domain of the Sadducees and the tradition of local synagogues became the domain of the Pharisees. That's why synagogues were Pharisaical and led by a Rabbi rather than a Priest, and that is why Jews do the same today. Modern Judaism is largely descended from the Pharisaical tradition.
So, when the common argument says, "Jesus and apostolic precedent," what it's really appealing to is Pharisaical precedent. Traditions of men!
This Sabbath vs Sunday debate is not rooted in His divine command but in Pharisaical practice. Sabbatarians, who insist that they reject the oral law, are now appealing to the very thing they reject. Sabbatarians who fervently insist God hates manmade traditions are basing their entire identity on Jesus keeping a manmade tradition. They say He never did that but here He is doing it and all they have depends on it. Odd, no? When did Pharisaical tradition become so important that we cannot be saved without it?
In Esther, the Jews create Purim for themselves. God is fine with this and records it in the Bible for all to see. Legalists reject it.
In Maccabees, the Jews create Hanukkah for themselves. God is fine with this and John records Jesus in the temple at Hanukkah, using the imagery of Hanukkah in reference to Himself as Messiah - He is the light and He is the sanctification in the very Temple which the leadership was defiling. Legalists reject it.
But Jesus keeps a Pharisaical synagogue tradition, as any Jew form His background would, and Legalists set that up as a condition of salvation. How many times have I heard, "You aren't saved by going to church on Sabbath, but you can't be saved unless you do."
Do you see? Not only is this entire common legalist argument nothing but layers and layers of contradictory rationalizations and cherry picking, but -- it is itself a tradition of men. Sabbatarians have taken the synagogue tradition of the Pharisees and turned it into a church tradition for themselves. All traditions of men. If Jesus hated traditions of men, as Sabbatarians frequently and vehemently claim (especially around the holidays), then does Jesus hate going to church on Sabbath, too? It would be very difficult to get more contradictory than, "We cannot be saved unless we do what Jesus hated."
In the end, we see a command is neither here nor there, laws are neither here nor there, traditions are neither here nor there, and history is neither here nor there. Seems this whole appeal to commandments and traditions is really nothing but situational ethics and convenience; an attempt to have it both ways.
CONCLUSION
Today, we looked at the claim "If Jesus and the Apostles did it, that means we must do it, too." It sounded great at first, but like all the rest, it comes apart when you dig in. We peeled back layers of conflicts and inconsistencies until we saw how this argument is really based on Jews being Jewish, who went to synagogue not church, because of a tradition of the Pharisees. We saw how there is no direct command or early example of exclusive Sabbath-only worship. The argument is not really about Jesus and the Apostles did, but it uses them to rationalize a means to create a law where there is no law.
Sabbatarianism is not supported by the full historical and biblical witness, but by cherry-picking and excluding whatever does not fit. It is not a clear mandate, but an opinion.
I mean no offense to Jews in this post. Jews are supposed to be Jewish. I am simply pointing out the absurdity of Gentile Christians pretending to be Jewish while denying it.
You might come away from this post thinking I reject the very essence of discipleship and don't believe we should be like Jesus our Teacher. Ah, but I do believe we should be like Him! Only, I do not think He came to teach a class on first century Jewish culture. I don't think Sabbatarians believe He did either, or they would be more consistent about it.
One thing As Bereans Did has emphasized through the years is: Gentiles do not need to become Jews to be Christians, and Jews do not need to become Gentiles to be Christians. Instead, we encourage everyone to worship God constantly, pray ceaselessly, and live every moment as a reflection of Christ's spiritual message.
I argue for freedom in Christ. I believe the Bible argues for this as well. I know people who go to church on Saturday and Sunday. It's not the day but the faith that counts (and God knows the heart). What I am arguing against here is reformatting tradition into a command, stripping that freedom into an obligation, elevating it to a salvation-level issue, turning it into a tool to beat others with, and doing it for no better reason than off-the-cuff self justification.
----
If you are interested in more information about the history of synagogues, I recommend these three sources:
- James C. VanderKam, "An Introduction to Early Judaism".
- E.P. Sanders, "Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE–66 CE".
- Lee I. Levine, "The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years".
************
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
************
No comments:
Post a Comment