Understanding End time Prophecy (How the accepted scenario went off the track) Part 1 of 5

There’s an enormous amount of material out there concerning the apocalypse, Armageddon, end of the world, the book of Revelation and the Antichrist, almost all the scenarios I’ve looked at are virtually the same. I intend to make a case for the error of these interpretations.

Prophecy can be a tedious subject, and I won’t be able to entirely avoid this, so I’ll chop this treatise up into smaller bites so that perhaps no one will be discouraged from reading it. My conclusions are my own, although I just recently learned that someone else came to similar conclusions, and likely before I did. But I arrived here on my own. The fact others came to similar conclusions, by studying the bible for themselves, only serves to confirm to me that I have gone where the evidence naturally leads.

From my perspective, the key to understanding bible prophecy is recognizing that its focus narrows in concentric rings, where the outer rings are things not directly concerning Israel followed by Israel itself (Both Northern and Southern kingdoms), then Judah, Jerusalem, the temple mount, the altar, which all lead us to the center of the target, and the true Lamb of God, which is the Lord of Lords, Jesus the Christ. In the early 90’s I decided to throw off my previous ideas about prophecy, and read the bible for what it would say to me using the above written observation about the nature of the Hebrew Scriptures as a guide. The results didn’t jive with the standard view.

Most writers on the subject of biblical prophecy seem to see prophecy in the same way in that most expect a resurrected Roman empire, which is controlled by the anti-Christ that sets up a world ruling government. Usually there is an expectation of a seven year peace treaty with Israel that permits a temple to be built on the original site, a renewal of animal sacrifices which is forcibly stopped in the middle of the seven years, followed by the “great tribulation”. So many “experts” pontificate on the subject as if they weren’t at least to some degree speculating, but clearly there are various ways of interpreting prophetic symbology. If prophecy is true, its value is that it is a warning of things that might otherwise blindside us, so being aware of all potential meanings seems prudent. I have a view that I’d like to explore. I submit it not as truth but as another speculative possibility. Some of what I present here I take as a possibility, some of it I believe to be true at this point, and I’ll speak of it as if it is. This should not be mistaken for an attempt to make anyone believe these perspectives; I have nothing to gain by anyone believing anything I have to say.

The book of Daniel’s prophecy, in the second chapter, concerning the great statue, is generally recognized as the Rosetta stone by which other predictions are interpreted since it provides a clear core of what occurs in the holy land from the time of the giving of the prophecy until the return of the Lord. As I see it, this is where the standard interpretation begins straying.

The prophecy in Dan 2:31-45, composed of two parts; the first is symbolism and the second, its explanation which describe a statue of a man consisting of a head of gold, its chest and arms of silver, its belly and thighs of bronze, its legs of iron, its feet of iron and partly of clay, each representing successive kingdoms. Five sections are represented, but only four sections are recognized: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome. The anonymous fifth section (usually referred to as the ‘resurrected Roman Empire) is in power when the rock (clearly Jesus) comes and destroys it and establishes his kingdom.

The interpretation of the last part of this prophecy is written as follows in the literal translation:Dan 2:41-43 “And as that you saw the feet and the toes partly clay of potter and partly of ironkingdom divided shall be but of the strength of the iron there shall be in it because you saw the iron mixed with clay of the clay and the toes of the feet partly of iron and partly of clay partly thekingdom shall be strong and partly shall be fragile and as you saw the iron mixed with clay of the clay they shall be mixed with the seed of men but not they shall adhere one to another even as the iron not does mix with the clay.”

When you read the entire prophecy Dan 2:31-44 you may notice each section of the statue is discussed as a separate kingdom; the pattern in these descriptions do not suggest that this last one is not a fifth kingdom, except that it lacks the word fifth. An explanation for this might be that this is the only one composed of parts of the previous empires (as we shall see later), not being taken captive by an external military force, so nothing is actually added; it is however clearly referred to as a kingdom. The NIV uses the words “finally” v40 in reference to the fourth kingdom, but that was added at the discretion of the translators. I choose to accept the pattern, and will refer to the fifth section as a fifth kingdom although it is comprised of parts of the previous four as we will see in Dan 7:24.

Incidentally, Part of the pattern is that the first four kingdoms, usually referred to as world ruling empires were never anything of the kind. I’m sure the Chinese would agree. The Mongols under the brilliant leadership of Genghis Khan and his heirs in fact subdued more of the earth. Why then do theologians insist that the fifth (so called resurrected Roman Empire) is to be a world ruling empire?

· This will be point one: the Empires predicted in Daniel were not, and are not to be world ruling Empires.

                                                                The Pattern

In the bible the word often translated “world” (earth) Dan 2:39 (H772 ‘ara’ corresponding to H776) means land in particular or in general. It can mean world, but it clearly means primarily land in the book of Daniel since it involved Empires of the Middle East. You can be sure that this land is the land of which the bible is primarily concerned, presuming a wider context is not consistent with the normal pattern. Bible lecturers have continually used prophecies where this word is used and applied it to the entire earth.

The prophesy in Daniel V7 is also in two parts and tells the same basic story. The first section verses 1-22 is in prophetic symbology, the second in verses 22-28 explain the symbols. The first section describes a series of beasts, using the imagery of a winged lion; a bear with the three ribs in its mouth; a leopard with four wings; and a ten horned beast with iron teeth. Most English translations of verse 17 appear to speak of the rising of the kingdoms as future events, “four kingdoms that will rise from the earth (land)”, although at this point (the time the prophecies were given) it’s almost time for the second beast to overtake the first; the events are already underway. This observation may have some pertinence later in Daniel 12.

After the four beasts, a boastful little horn arises in Dan7:8. Nothing is said about this horn rising out of the beast’s head; it doesn’t need to rise out of Roman territory. The little horn is a fifth element, but ordinarily not credited with the possibility of representing the fifth kingdom represented by the statues feet of iron and clay. Yet it’s this horn that makes war against the saint and is destroyed by Christ as you can see in Dan 7:21-22 “As I watched, this horn was waging war against the saints and defeating them v22 until the Ancient of Days came.” This is the same time period as the feet since the rock comes and destroys the statue at this point, and then fills the entire world (with his kingdom as this rock is Jesus). The prophecies represented in the statue and beasts are providing duplicate information. If the boastful horn does not represent the same thing as the statues feet, then the pattern is broken. To break the pattern strikes me as sloppy, something God is not. I don’t believe that the fifth kingdom is a resurrection of the fourth, and we will look at the evidence as we go along.

A very similar description of the above is written in Rev 13:5 “The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise his authority for forty-two months. V6 He opened his mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. V7 He was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them.” Notice the similarity of this description to the following description in Daniel.

Dan 7:20 “I also wanted to know about the ten horns on its head and about the other horn that came up, before which three of them fell--the horn that looked more imposing than the others and that had eyes and a mouth that spoke boastfully.” This little horn grew up and acts against the fourth beast (Rome) and uproots three of its horns, which Dan 7:24 tell us are kings that are subdued: V24 “The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings. V25 He will speak against the Most High and oppress his saints and try to change the set times and the laws. The saints will be handed over to him for a time, times and half a time. Dan 7:26 'But the court will sit, and his power will be taken away and completely destroyed forever. Dan 7:27 Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be handed over to the saints, the people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom.” The 42 months of Rev 13:5 and the Time Times and half a time are the same time period, which in days is 1260, a number of significance. The beast of Rev 13:5 and the king represented by the little horn both make war/oppress the saints over the same time span, another similarity.

If the little horn grew out of the beast’s head, it would be attacking itself. Dan 7:8 says the little horn came up among the other horns which represent Roman territories. It would be a presumption to conclude that the little horn is Roman rather than a vassal territory, this king is described as different. This new king conquers three of the Roman territories and becomes a new entity formed from part of what was the Roman Empire, but it is not the Roman Empire. It is the final beast and may exist for many hundreds of years, but it lasts until Jesus return. This boastful little horn’s description is much like that of the King of the North in Dan 11:36 “The king will do as he pleases. He will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will say unheard-of things against the God of gods. He will be successful until the time of wrath is completed, for what has been determined must take place.”

The empires, that were predicted, were to rise from the land surrounding Israel; are the subject of much of the Old Testament, these empires are discussed because they are pertinent to Israel who was given the land that bears its name. These Empires dominate Israel, therefore are tools of punishment which explains why they are described as being ‘beasts’.

Here is another parallel description Rev 13:2 “The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion. The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority.”

This beast has characteristics of the first three beasts in Daniel 7 (the lion, bear, and leopard), but not the iron teeth of the fourth beast which represented Rome. This then indicates that the beast is made up of the kingdoms of the Middle East before Rome ruled over Israel as Dan chapters 8 and 11 describe. I’m inclined to believe that this Rev 13:2 beast, the little horn ofDan 7:20 and the King of the North of Dan 11:36 are synonymous.

Ten horns are possessed by this beast of Rev 13,as did the 4^th beast of Dan7:23 Rome, but this does not make them the same beast. This 5^th beast also has seven heads which coincidently is the number of Empires that have punished Israel/Judah; Egypt, Syria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, and now this final one. Two of these heads pre existed the Statue/beasts prophecy. Each head had its moment of time serially making the last head a single beast.

This beast does seem to have a resurrection of sorts (Rev 13:1-3) as it appears to be killed, but another beast (number 6) having the authority of the first (V11-12), resumes the work of the wounded one (v14) and directs adoration to the first as perhaps reminiscent of a glorious past of the people who as described in v13:4 made up an unstoppable military force;”Who is like the beast? Who can make war against him?” Undoubtedly the 5^th kingdom of Daniel and the beast ofRev 13:7 are one in the same.

I should make a note at this point that this 6th beast is not mentioned in Daniel, it is introduced here, and after what appears to be the death of the 5th, or shall we say, collapse of empire, it is this 6^th beast that joins with and probably helps to heal the 5^th. As we are talking about nations here, a nation that has sympathy for another would naturally provide aid. This 6^thbeast forces the mark of the beast to be received; Rev 13:16. Here is a fascinating theory on what John saw that he interpreted as 666: End Time Beast And his Mark

A large proportion of bible prophecy covers the fall of Israel (and Judah in particular) from grace; the consequences of this fall, and the duration. The Prophecies in Daniel cover this precise timeline, and within this timeline salvation comes to those not of Israel. The apostle Paul said inRom11:11 (NIV); “Again I ask: Did they (the Jews) stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious.”

· It is the centrality of Judah that is the first observation of the succession of kingdoms (the beasts). All the kingdoms control, or did control the holy land.

· Secondly; the kingdoms absorbed the previous kingdom or parts thereof of the preceding kingdom.

· Thirdly; there is no gap between kingdoms taking control of Judah.

This is the pattern. The statue of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream did not have its feet cut off, with an air gap inserted between them and the legs to which they should have been attached. For this reason, the idea of the Roman empire (fourth beast, and legs of iron) being resurrected as the last entity (the 5^th empire,the feet) of this succession seems discredited. The question that needs to be asked is “who took control of the middle East, and the holy land, in particular, after the Romans?” Rev 13 has actually already told us it consists of those territorial and ethnic entities comprising the beasts prior to Rome.

· This will be point two: There is no resurrected Roman Empire. This would break the pattern.

Part 2

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

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

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

 

New Features at ABD

AsBereansDid is getting pretty large these days. We're progressing towards our third year! Seeker of Truth put up the first post in April of 2008. Since that humble beginning, ABD has taken on three contributing writers. As a team, we've assembled a lot of information about the various aspects of Armstrongism!
So, in an effort to make it easier for you, our valued reader, to find information more easily, we have created two new pages to the site: a Categories and Resources page and a Frequently Asked Questions page.
You can easily navigate to these pages from anywhere you are on ABD by looking to the ABD Pages widget to the top-right.

Categories and Resources is first of all a list of the many different posts that have gone up here on ABD.
What you will find is that we have reviewed each post and placed a link to the post in what we felt is its proper category by subject (no particular order). One post will be in more than one category because each post tends to cover more than one subject. We felt it would be easier for you if we repeated ourselves in this way because it allowed us to increase the range of subjects - this makes it easier to find just the topic you are looking for.
We also have provided links to posts on the Escaping Armstrongism blog. We linked out to Escaping Armstrongism because it was more convenient than re-posting all of those things here. FYI... Just keep in mind that these links will cause you to navigate away from ABD.
At the bottom of the Categories and Resources page, you will find links to what we feel are helpful and interesting resources like other websites, books, studies, etc. (If you have a suggestion to add to the Resources list, please email us.)

Frequently Asked Questions is a list of questions we have been asked, or that we have asked others, over the years. We have categorized the questions by subject, again, to make it easier for you to find just the question that has been burning in your heart. The answers are by necessity very brief overviews, so we recommend you move to the Categories page to fill in more details. (If you have a question that you don't see addressed here, please email us.)
As always, our usual disclaimer applies:

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

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

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

These pages will be updated fairly often - at least each time we publish a new post - so please check back as often as you would like.

Of course, how could we possibly live with ourselves if we took more credit for this than is due us?
Above all things we would like to thank our Father God and His Son our Savior the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit which is promised to those who trust in Jesus that teaches us and gives us understanding. God gave us the fruits, talents, gifts, desire, time, resources - everything - as well as the will to share this with you, beloved of God. Everything good is from Them, through Them, and to Them. All glory and thanks are to God alone forever.
Next, we would like to thank YOU, our valued readers. What good is a blog if no one ever reads it? We continue on in hope that even one of you will find this information valuable. If we help even one of you in your walk with Christ, then it was all worth it. Thanks to God for that.
Next, we would like to thank all of the other former Armstrong blogs out there who have been of help and support to us. In one way or another, we're all a team. You might have a rough idea of how much you've helped and encouraged us, or perhaps you might relate to how thankful we are, but just in case you don't, we're saying right now... THANK YOU! And we're thankful for you.
Finally, we would like to thank the talented people at Google who make this blog possible. Sure we could blog somewhere else, but we don't, so thanks is due.

Does the Law Teach Us How To Love?

Invariably the reply I receive to my pointing out that God’s eternal law is love and not a laundry list of do’s and don’ts is: “but God’s law teaches us how to love.” Of course, the reference to the law is usually meaning the Ten Commandments specifically (as if they can really be separated from all the rest that Israel said “we will” to).

I would agree that if you love man and God you would fulfill the spirit of the first four that are said to be love toward God and the remaining six that are said to be love toward man.

I was always told that the law given at Sinai was love. I don’t personally think that the death penalty for striking one’s mother or father etc. is love. Here’s a little list of death penalty crimes in the law of Moses.

Ex 21:12 Murder

Ex 21:15 Striking mother or father

Ex 21:16 Kidnapping

Ex21:17 cursing mother or father

Ex 22:18, Lev 20:27 Witchcraft

Lev 19:10 and 19:20Adultery

Lev 20:11-14 Incest

Lev 20:2 Sacrificing children to Molech

Lev 20:13 Homosexuality

Lev 22:19 and Lev 20:15, 16 Bestiality

Lev 24:16 Blasphemy

Deut 13:5 False prophets

Duet 21:18-21 Disobedience to parents

Deut 22:24 Prostitution and rape

I hear all the reasons why the death penalty for these things is actually love, but I don’t buy it. I will accept that they were given to facilitate Gods ultimate plan which is motivated by God’s love. I’d say that God gave the law in love to fulfill a purpose, and the harsh penalties do point out what is just; and gives us a reference point for understanding God’s mercy. I would go on to postulate that God was laying the foundation for the death of his son on the cross. His death would be meaningless to us without knowing the immense seriousness of the sin he paid the penalty for.

With the just penalties in mind, which of us can say that we want justice? Jesus didn’t want this kind of justice; John 8:4 (NIV)(Pharisees, speaking to Jesus)”Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. ⁵In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" ⁶They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. ⁷When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." This is interesting since the law doesn’t have a provision for letting such an offender off the hook.

The laws purpose is to reveal the sin of man Rom 3:19 “Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. ²⁰Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.”


The harshness of the old covenant doesn’t leave one with any allusions as to the seriousness of the transgressions the law describes. I must point out, however, that Israel alone entered the covenant which required the Law of Moses to be kept, but it still serves to reveal to everyone something of the nature of sin.

It’s debatable as to the degree that the Pharisees of Jesus’ time kept the letter of the Law of Moses; which I will define as everything given by God at Sinai before the children of Israel said “we will” in Ex 24:3. It should be noted, however, that the law agreed to had a clause so as to include additional regulations in Ex 23:22 stating that they must be careful to listen and do all that Yahweh says without specified limitations.

The apostle Paul was in a good position to know if the Pharisees were slacking in their law keeping; Acts 26:5 “They have known me for a long time and can testify, if they are willing, that according to the strictest sect of our religion, I lived as a Pharisee.”

Paul’s testimony about himself is that he kept the law, in the physical sense, flawlessly.” Phil 3:5 “If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: ⁵circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; ⁶as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.”


Did all Paul’s law keeping teach him to love? We find him in Act 7:58-59 guarding the clothing of those who were stoning Stephen; “Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul. ⁵⁹While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."


So are Paul and Jesus in disagreement? Mat 23:23 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.” Remember, at this time the New Covenant was not instituted making the Old Covenant binding.

The law speaks of such things in Ex 23:9 “you shall not wrest judgment from the poor.” Lv 19:15 “you shall do no unrighteousness in judgment,” Deut 1:17 “you shall not respect a person in judgment.” The Law also says that ‘you shall love man in Lv 19:34,and God in Deut 6:5, and 11:1.

The Pharisees knew about these laws and there’s no reason to doubt that they thought they were righteous men, and were keeping them, after all: Prov 21:2 “All a man's ways seem right to him, but the LORD weighs the heart.” This little verse probably reveals why Jesus and the Pharisees were not in agreement.
Paul’s testifies to the zeal of Pharisees to keep the law, but can a command to ‘love’ actually be obeyed? Can a mere external law teach a heart to love? It also needs to be noted that the Jews saw the definition of what we translate as neighbor rather narrowly.

Here’s a quote from Love You Jewish Neighbor:

“Let us observe the context in which the above phrase appears in the Torah: "You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall not take revenge or feel resentment against the children of your people, you shall love your companion [reyacha] as yourself." From this it is clear that "your companion" refers to the same category as "your brother" and "the children of your people," all explicitly referring to one's fellow Jew.”

This is a quote from Pharisees And Legalism and it demonstrates the inability to judge intangibles matters inherent in a natural mind:

“The word of God actually demands what some call “legalism.” Far from condemning “strict, literal adherence to law,” scripture actually demands it. First, John 8:30-32 says, “As he spake these words, many believed on him. Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” The term “word” is a singular of class; it refers to all that Jesus commands through His word. If we do not have to abide in all that Jesus commands, how do we determine what we have to obey and what we can leave undone?”

Sounds right; wow, maybe I was wrong. Actually there are differences in keeping Jesus commands, mainly through the spirit he sends. It is his spirit that separates his commands from a legalistic law. If there were no differences there would be no freedom in Christ. A change of nature will make this a whole new ball game.

It is interesting that many Messianic Jews use the same reasoning as Herbert Armstrong in their claim that the law was only a burden because of things that the Pharisees had added; If this was so, the quote from Acts 15:10 “Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear?” would only have been true from the inception of these add-ons. “Deut 21:18-21 requires a parent to bring their rebellious son to the elders to be judged then stoned to death. Can anyone say that they’d comply with this without much suffering? Of course the attempt to define the law’s requirements, such as Sabbath labor, became even more specific and burdensome without question.

The Jews kept the law in a way that is the very definition of legalism; as , I have no doubt, that God knew they would; and their example is like a long running experiment to answer this singular question: does the law teach us how to love? I’m of the opinion that one of God’s purposes in instituting the law is to draw a contrast between two kinds of law; that which is external and requires police and armies to enforce, and one that is internal, is a gift, and by his indwelling spirit writes his truly eternal law on the heart, his law of love. We still refer to the law as a reference to sin in a broad sense, Rom 3:20 “through the law we become conscious of sin”; but knowing what is wrong can’t change ones heart. Even having a list of what the fruits of love are doesn’t create Godly love, only God can do that.

I arrive at the conclusion that God’s eternal law predates the Law of Moses because Paul tells us exactly when the law was given and why. Gal 3:16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed, meaning one person, who is Christ. ¹⁷What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. ¹⁸For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. ¹⁹What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come.

Let’s condense that down. The promises were spoken to Abraham, the law was introduced 430 years later and the law was added because of transgressions. Transgression of what? Not transgression of a law that hadn’t been introduced yet. Of course, Paul could be mistaken and the sentence should actually read: “the law was re-introduced’ but it doesn’t, and the implications are tremendous. At least to me because it’s actually saying that there was a previously existing law; because Rom 4:15 “where there is no law there is no transgression.” Add the fact that the angels sinned, and not by violating the law of Moses, it becomes very clear that some kind of law existed. Angels do not marry, so a law prohibiting adultery would be meaningless as would so many other regulations; Matt 22: 30 (“At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.”)


1John 3:4 as translated in the KJV would indicate that angels sinned by violating the law of Moses, but this verse is mistranslated, and doesn’t say “sin is the transgression of the law,” but rather that sin is anomia, a word never referring to the law of Moses and is usually translated as iniquity. The transgression of the law can’t be the definition of sin if this statement is true; Rom 3:13 “for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.”


Once we realize that there is a higher law (or perhaps we should say higher moral ethic)I don’t think it is difficult to ascertain exactly what that higher law (or moral ethic)is; James 2:8 “If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself, you are doing right”. John 15:9 "As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. ¹⁰If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love. ¹¹I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. ¹²My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. ¹³Greater love has no one than this that he lay down his life for his friends.”


There is a commonality in the things the Pharisees didn’t do: “you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former,” All we have to do is watch the news and see the contentious discourse over such matters. These things are the less concrete, you could say, esoteric things.

It appears that the less tangible things of the law were the things less likely to be obeyed, at least as God views them, as an issue of the heart. I’d venture to say that these were put in the law to make Gods point clear; we can’t create our own goodness. Even the natural affection of man is a creation of God, but it falls way short of where God wants us to eventually be.

The law doesn’t teach us how to love, but that we need a redeemer ⁽Gal 3:24 “So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith.”). This is facilitated by the law which explains why Paul said the law was holy; Rom 7:12 (MKJV)“ So indeed the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good."
Notice that it says the commandments are just. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather have the mercy.

The internal law (the law God writes on the heart) is superior because it becomes an integral part of who we are 2Pe 1:4 (AKJV) Whereby are given to us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these you might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.” and Col 1:27 “To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.”


The law only succeeds in teaching mankind that they can’t have the love of God because they try real hard. Just read the history of Israel and Judah. It certainly doesn’t teach one how to love. Satan told Eve that they could be like God Gen 3:5 “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God.” What would you be if you were like God; 1John 4:8 “Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.” We would also be love. God is love, and for us to try to make ourselves like God is a fools mission, but God can make us like he is; that is, to make us so it can be said that we are love. The law can’t teach us how to love, but God can create a new heart in us; a new nature that doesn’t require a cheat sheet for proper behavior.

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

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

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

Constantine vs the Sabbath

"But there are those who insist the seventh-day Sabbath is still binding. Failure to keep it, they claim, is SIN - and the punishment is DEATH for eternity! Now that's a pretty serious claim!"

-Herbert Armstrong, "Which Day is the Christian Sabbath?", 1972, p. 7.

It is a serious claim! And it should be responded to. Therefore, I would humbly ask you to give some of your time in reading my take on how Armstrongism, and really Sabbatarianism in general, treats Emperor Constantine. This is a post about accusation, judgment, and condemnation presented as a post about the history of the Sabbath vs. the Lord's Day and what part Constantine had to play in that. Frankly, I'm tired of reading the same old nonsense about Constantine, and I felt it had to be answered.

In this post I hope to demonstrate two things: 1) Constantine is not responsible for "changing the Sabbath to Sunday", 2) Condemnation and judgment are not things Christians should get involved in. Don't run away yet! I think you'll find this post useful for dispelling false notions.

PERSONAL ATTACK-TICS

Either Constantine was or wasn't a Christian. There are only two options here. For decades, Sabbatarians like Herbert Armstrong have tried to assassinate the character of Emperor Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus Augustus (aka Constantine I, or Constantine the Great) as a prelude to blaming him for exchanging seventh-day Sabbath worship for Sunday worship. Somehow, they feel emphasizing that Constantine is considered the first Christian Emperor, and then painting him as a pagan, has some bearing on whether or not the seventh-day Sabbath is in force upon Gentile Christians.

Most people do not know what a Logical Fallacy is. Everyone who studies theology should! They are common tactics used in arguing a point, but in fact they invalidate the argument. There are plenty of reasons why the Sabbatarian argument against Constantine is invalid and must be rejected.

Let's just start by pointing out the blatant Poisoning of the Well (they show only unfavorable information about Constantine in hopes that this information will bias you against Sunday worship), as well as the Ad Hominem attack (Constantine was once a pagan, so he can't be right), it's an Appeal to Ridicule (what could an unconverted pagan like Constantine know about the Sabbath; he can't be right), and a Personal Attack (Constantine had his wife killed; he can't be right), it's also a Straw Man (Constantine only wanted to excuse his paganism, do you want us all to be pagans too), it's also a False Dilemma (keep the weekly Sabbath, or you will be a pagan like Constantine), as well as a Red Herring (this is really about the weekly Sabbath, not Constantine; Constantine's behavior has no real bearing on whether or not the weekly Sabbath is still mandated).

It may seem completely ridiculous at first, but this is something that must be dealt with. These arguments are invalid. Yet it would appear the entire case against Constantine rests on such as these.

For sake of argument, let's just say Constantine was probably a horrible Christian as far as we know. Lot wasn't top of the pile either, Rahab was a harlot, Samson was a rebel, David had a man killed after he slept with his wife, Paul was a murderer, and Peter forcefully denied Christ. Not to mention each and every one of us have sinned and fallen short (we should be comparing ourselves to Christ, not Constantine.) But does our lack of perfection change God's perfection? No (ROM. 3: 3-4).

Does our sin determine whether or not Saturday is the Sabbath or Sunday is the Lord's Day? No. It is a staple argument of Sabbatarians that the weekly Sabbath was from creation (even though it is not). So, concentrating on that one claim, that the weekly Sabbath was from creation, what sin un-does that argument? What sin changes the weekly Sabbath? No sin can. Right? So why concentrate on Constantine's sins, then?

Let's approach this from the opposite angle - what sin established the weekly Sabbath? No sin did. Right? So why concentrate on Constantine's sins? What do they have to do with anything? So what if every man, woman and child is a sinner, what does that add to or take from the weekly Sabbath? Nothing. Right? So why do we even mention it? Did Saul's murders change Christ's sacrifice? No. Did it disqualify Paul from speaking about Christ's goodness or others' sins? No. So what does Constantine's sins have anything to do with the Sabbath? If Constantine was the only other human in history besides Christ that lived without a single sin, would that affect the Sabbath? No.

Pointing out Constantine's personal failures - manifold as they were - is pure character assassination! It does nothing for or against the facts.

Is character assassination Christian? No! So, if Constantine was such a bad Christian that he had nothing to say about the weekly Sabbath, what more can character assassins possibly have to say about it?

Chew on that a little.

Of course, I address the un-Christian practices of Constantine and how that affects truth. I do not address whether or not Constantine actually had authority to proclaim Sunday as a Sabbath. In fact Constantine had no such authority before God to add to or take away from God's word. But he did have civil authority to declare a day of rest in his empire.

AUTHORS OF CONFUSION

Let us move on to something else. I would like to continue by pointing out the confusion in the stories told by the various Sabbatarian groups.

Character assassination is supposed to sour you to Constantine and make the evidence against Sunday seem weightier. This sort of specious manipulation of history is thick in Armstrongism particularly. Have you read "True History of the True Church?" or "Another True History?" Please do!

The character assassination is how they get their foot in the door. After this, there seems to be two main tactics used over and over and over again: fabricating information from thin air, and leaving important information out. I would like to deal with these, as well as the confusion that results.

-INFORMATION FABRICATED

Some people aren’t above character assassination, logical fallacy, and misinformation; why not also engage in fabricating information from thin air and passing it on as truth?

Take this quote for example:

"Few realize, today, but the Sabbath vs. Sunday controversy raged during the first three centuries of the Christian era. Violence and bloodshed mounted. Millions were tortured and put to death over this question."

-Herbert Armstrong, "Which Day is the Christian Sabbath?", 1972, p. 7.

The Church of the Great God rehashes and rewords the quote this way:

"Few people realize that the Sabbath vs. Sunday controversy raged during the first three centuries of the Christian era, and millions were tortured and put to death over this question under the Emperor Constantine."

-"Sabbath: God's Gift to Mankind", http://sabbath.org/

Those, my friends, are false statements. They’re made up! What do we call false information that was knowingly made up to assassinate someone's character? Lies! These are outright lies.

Establishing an actual number of how many Christians were killed in the first three centuries is probably not possible. Wikipedia estimates 3,000; others estimate 100,000. At any rate, Constantine didn't persecute millions. So far as we know, Constantine didn't persecute anyone to death. At all. The Great Persecution under Diocletian was the worst Roman persecution by far – even worse than that of Nero. Galarius and Constantine ended that.

"Constantine, on taking the imperial office in 306, restored Christians to full legal equality and returned property that had been confiscated during the persecution."

-Wikipedia, "Persecution of Early Christians in the Roman Empire", accessed 2-26-2010

"In May 305 Diocletian retired from office and was replaced by Galerius who continued to effect the suppression of the Church. However, in the West, Constantine had been appointed Augustus and his provinces knew freedom from persecution. Galerius did not relent in his hatred of the church until, lying on his death bed, he issued an Edict of Toleration on April 30th 311 to try and gain favour and prayer from the Christians. Galerius died shortly after and his lands were divided between Maximian and Licinius. The toleration granted by Galerius was to be short-lived for Maximian was to allow persecution at the discretion of local councils.

Constantine, continuing to grow in influence and power, defeated Maxentius who had seized power in Rome in 306. This victory took place at the Milvian Bridge on October 27th 312 CE, a victory which Constantine claimed had been given to him through divine assistance. From then on he was to be sympathetic towards Christianity. Afterwards, Constantine and Licinius met at Milan and signed the "Edict of Milan". This was a policy which granted freedom of worship to Christians and to those of other religions. Also, all property belonging to the Church, including that of individual Christians, was to be restored."

-Adrian Russell, "Roman Persecution of the Early Church", earlychurch.org.uk, 1992

There was now religious freedom in Rome. Constantine outlawed crucifixion in favor of hanging, he restored property to Christians, he freed Christian slaves, he allowed the Christian bishops to decide their own policy (he then enforced their policy in an effort to maintain peace and unity), and many other such benevolent things.

There were not millions of Christians to put to death in the first three centuries. If any large number were put to death it certainly was not over the "Sabbath vs. Sunday controversy," but rather it was over the Roman attitude of distrust over new religions, and they saw Christianity as a superstition and a threat to the unity of society.

If there was a Sabbath vs. Sunday controversy at all it was not primarily between Christian and Christian, but between Christian and Jew! There were a small number of Christians who observed a seventh-day Sabbath, sure, I'm not denying that. Most of these were converts from Judaism. There were Christians who observed the Lord's Day on Sunday rather than the seventh-day as well. Most of these were Gentile converts. Then, there were those who did both. ...And those who did neither.

I don't know where Herbert Armstrong gets his material, but as I've proven in the past multiple times, it wasn't from history books. Then his followers take their information from him, how can they help but reach a false conclusion?

(ROM. 14: 5-6) 5 One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it.

-INFORMATION LEFT OUT

Some are more than willing to cherry-pick their information, leaving out any bits that work against them, and rushing headlong to a false conclusion. They depend upon our ignorance of facts (who has time to study religious history??) and we tend to give them the benefit of the doubt that no person would be so blatantly deceptive ...but they are.

One often-used example is found in a decree issued by Constantine in the year 321 A.D.

Constantine decreed:

"On the venerable day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed..."

-Codex Justinianus lib. 3, tit. 12, 3; trans. in Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 3, p. 380, note 1

Mr. Richard Rives emphasizes this approach:

"In the year 321, Constantine issues a decree stating all judges and city people and craftsmen shall rest upon the venerable day of the sun, the day that the Invincible Sun was worshipped. Thus the establishment of Sunday, the sacred day of pagan sun-worship, as the day of rest."

-Richard Reeves, "Pagan Christianity?" video, time marker 01:16 through 01:36, 2-23-2010.

With barely a rest for breath, Mr. Rives continues:

"Shortly after he made his Sunday proclaimation, Constantine ordered his wife and eldest son murdered, and had a bronze statue of himself set atop a tall collumn as Apollo, the Sun God. This is the man known as the first Christian Emperor."

-Richard Reeves, "Pagan Christianity?" video, time marker 01:36 through 01:54, 2-23-2010.

That is a typical claim. But is it true?

The facts are that Constantine's second wife brought false charges against Constantine's son of his first wife, and manipulated Constantine into ordering his son’s execution. Upon learning the truth from his own mother, Constantine had his second wife executed - and rightfully so.

So we can see the missing details change the story quite a bit. The character assassination is quite unfair. But what would you say if I told you half of the quote from Constantine's edict is missing? Here is the rest of the edict:

"...but let those who are situated in the country, freely and at full liberty attend to the business of agriculture; because it often happens that no other day is so fit for sowing corn and planting vines; lest, the critical moment let slip, men should lose the commodities granted by Heaven."

-Codex Justinianus lib. 3, tit. 12, 3; trans. in Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 3, p. 380, note 1

So this was not a day of complete rest. It was not in all reality a changing of Saturday to Sunday, as we very well know agriculture was prohibited on the Sabbath (MAT. 12: 1-2).

Notice how nothing even resembling the phrase "Sabbath" appears in the edict. But that doesn't stop people like Mr. Rives from telling half the story and then bashing Constantine in hopes you won't search for the truth on your own! How could Mr. Rives be so familiar with this edict and not have known about the second half of the statement? Can I conclude anything other than this vital information was left out on purpose?

-CALENDAR POTPOURRI

So, as we’ve seen, some, like Richard Rives, claim Constantine changed the Sabbath to Sunday in 321 A.D. Still others claim he changed the Sabbath at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. Which is it?

If these people so vigorously claim that they have the truth - God’s truth - then they should all tell the same story. If they have access to such very plain truth, they should all tell the same truth. Wouldn’t you think? They do not. Why not?

And they claim we are the ignorant ones!

But these aren't the only claims about the timing of this change "from Sabbath to Sunday".

I stumbled across one independent group who say this:

"...the Sabbath to Sunday change occurred and actually began as far back as 2000 years B.C."

http://www.whochangedthesabbath.com/

They also say this:

"It was changed to Sunday and made law in the council of Laodicea (A.D. 363-364)..."

http://www.whochangedthesabbath.com/

So now there are even more dates!

The statement, "as far back as 2000 years B.C." is a reference to the thoroughly debunked nonsense of Alexander Hyslop and his "Nimrod founded the Catholic Church" garbage. I am unaware of any Armstrongist group that does not perpetuate Hyslop's fantastical inanity to this very day.

For an example, see Fred Coulter's Christian Biblical Church of God, in their article "Sunday - Christian or Pagan". You only need go so far as the third paragraph; they even close with this information. Talk about something being "in fact, false, counterfeit — a blatant lie!"

I don't know how many times I have recommended the book "The Babylon Connection" by Ralph Woodrow. I will go right on recommending it. It is invaluable to defend against these kinds of deceptions. If you haven't read it - please do yourself the favor!

The statement, "it was changed to Sunday and made law in ... (A.D. 363-364)" is false!

Sunday observance was made law, yes, but the Sabbath wasn't "changed to Sunday" then. This has been more than adequately proved not only on this blog, but on a great number of other websites. All one need do is look. Read the Didache for example. Or read Justin Martyr. I will post some quotes for you in a bit. But we don't need to go to ancient sources to demonstrate this, let's go to other Sabbatarian sources.

Seventh Day Adventist author and teacher, Leo Schreven, (pulling material from SDA historian Samuelle Bacchiocchi) says the seventh-day Sabbath was changed to Sunday under Hadrian:

"Sundaykeeping was introduced into the Christian Church rather innocently, and its first advocates never dreamed that it would take the place of the seventh-day Sabbath of God. Sundaykeeping had its origin in Rome during the reign of the Emperor Hadrian in the second century. Hadrian persecuted the Jews in Rome incessantly. In an attempt to separate themselves from the Jews and avoid being persecuted with them, these early Roman Christians began keeping Sunday in addition to the Sabbath."

-Leo Anthony Schreven, "Now That's Clear (Prophetic Truth Made Simple)", p. 97, 1994

Please note that Hadrian (117-138 A.D.) pre-dated Constantine (274-337) by quite a bit and pre-dated the Council of Laodicea (363-364) by even more. Immediately we recognize that Constantine is absolved because the issue predates him. Does that stop the invective against him, however? No. There is little agreement among Sabbatarian groups except that they all condemn Constantine.

And once again we have a completely bogus statement regarding history.

"Its first advocates never dreamed that it would take the place of the seventh-day Sabbath," is a false statement built on a false premise. I have demonstrated this elsewhere and will demonstrate that again right now if you will kindly bear with me, valued reader.

So, from the authors of confusion we have had these “true” dates listed: 2,000 B.C., 117-138 A.D., 321 A.D., 325 A.D., 363-364 A.D.

Will the real “true” date please stand up!

The reality is precisely what I told you before – these people cannot get their stories straight. If they are telling us this life-alteringly important “truth” supposedly from God, why can’t they get their stories straight? The only thing they appear to agree upon is 1) the Sabbath was changed to Sunday [which it wasn’t], and 2) Constantine is a horrible Christ-hating monster [which he wasn’t]. Is there any doubt that “authors of confusion” is an appropriate title?

LORD’S DAY IN HISTORY

Now that we've seen the character assassination, manipulation of information, and holistic disagreements among Sabbath-keepers as to who is responsible for altering the Sabbath and when, let's begin to look at some historical examples of Sunday observance. Let's see what the first advocates believed and held.

If Sunday observance started with Constantine then we should see nothing about it before the 320's A.D. If we do see something before Constantine then we should do the responsible thing and stop blaming Constantine. What do we see?

"...on a fixed day they used to meet before dawn and recite a hymn among themselves to Christ..."

-Pliny, letter to Trajan, (112 A.D.)

Pliny the Younger, who reported to Emperor Trajan (53-117 A.D.) even before Hadrian's day, tells us that the majority of Christians met on certain day before dawn and held a worship service. “Before dawn” gives us a big clue, but Pliny doesn't say on which day that pre-dawn meeting occurred. We need to look elsewhere.

"But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration."

-Justin Martyr, "First Apology", chapter 67 (130-165 A.D.)

Justin tells us the day was Sunday.

But someone might say to me that Justin wrote several decades later (is two or three decades "several"?). We can go farther back than Justin if you'd like.

"If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things [Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him..."

-Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians, chapter 9 (50-98 or 117 AD; disciple of John)

"Its first advocates never dreamed that it would take the place of the seventh-day Sabbath" my eye!

Ignatius tells us the meeting was on Sunday, and that it is called the "Lord's Day." Not only did Ignatius' epistle come at most 5 years after Pliny's letter, but Ignatius, being the Apostle John's disciple, would have greater authority in his words. Especially when his words match those of his teacher:

(REV. 1: 10) I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day

These two statements translated "Lord's day" are precisely the same Greek words. The Apostle John and his student Ignatius speak the exact same way. Naturally!

There's a Wikipedia article on this that I would like to take a sample from for you to review:

"'Lord's Day' is the English translation of the ancient Greek kyriake hemera, a term that first appears in Christian literature in the latter half of the first century. Within a few decades, however, the term kyriake hemera became ubiquitous in Christianity, so that hemera was ellided. Thus, when a Christian writer referred to the kyriake, his readers understood that Sunday was meant. The first appearance of the term kyriake hemera is in the New Testament, in the Book of Revelation, which was written in the latter decades of the first century. In Rev. 1:10, the author writes, 'I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day.' Most Christian commentators interpret Rev. 1:10 as a reference to Sunday, but some argue that because Revelation contains numerous eschatological visions, kyriake hemera in this passage should be taken as a reference to the end of the world or Judgment Day, which Old Testament prophets often called the Day of the Lord. However, in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, as well as in the original Greek texts of the New Testament, the eschatological judgment day is called hemera tou kyriou, never kyriake hemera. It is possible that when Christians began to call Sunday 'the Lord's Day,' they opted for kyriake hemera because hemera tou kyriou already had acquired its own connotation or meaning due to the Septuagint rendering."

-Wikipedia, "Lord's Day", accessed 2-24-2010, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord's_Day.

"Lord's Day" referred to Sunday 2,000 years ago. Still does! Let us continue on to another, even more ancient document than Ignatius' Epistle to the Magnesians.

"But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving"

-Didache, chapter 14 (50-120 A.D.)

The Didache is said to be the oldest known attempt to summarize the beliefs of the Gentile church at that time. Look at the date. It is possible, but not definite, that the Didache was written during the lives of the Apostles.

Regardless of the exact date, the Lord's Day (again using the same Greek phrase “kyriake hemera”), Sunday, is what they believed and observed from Apostolic times. Clearly Pliny the Younger was referring to Sunday and not Saturday.

Clearly, we have seen evidence for Sunday observance from the very earliest years. Constantine, therefore, stands absolved of all accusations against him.

But we’re not done yet!

AN EIGHTH DAY

Sunday is not a Biblically cursed day. Those who believe Pentecost is always on a Sunday also believe Christ ascended into Heaven again on this day. He appeared to ten of the Apostles on Sunday, then again to eleven Apostles on Sunday. Most of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances were on Sunday.

But I want to point out that there is a correlation between the ancient writers in that they observe Sunday, called it the Lord's Day, and understood it, not as the first day of the week, but as the eighth day; a new day. I also want to point out that they all agree Christ was raised to life on this day.

"The command of circumcision, again, bidding [them] always circumcise the children on the eighth day, was a type of the true circumcision, by which we are circumcised from deceit and iniquity through Him who rose from the dead on the first day after the Sabbath, [namely through] our Lord Jesus Christ. For the first day after the Sabbath, remaining the first of all the days, is called, however, the eighth, according to the number of all the days of the cycle, and [yet] remains the first."

-Justin Martyr, "Dialogue With Trypho", chapter 41 (130-165 A.D.)

(Barnabas 15: 8-9) 8 Finally He saith to them; Your new moons and your Sabbaths I cannot away with. Ye see what is His meaning ; it is not your present Sabbaths that are acceptable [unto Me], but the Sabbath which I have made, in the which, when I have set all things at rest, I will make the beginning of the eighth day which is the beginning of another world. 9 Wherefore also we keep the eighth day for rejoicing, in the which also Jesus rose from the dead, and having been manifested ascended into the heavens.

-Epistle of Barnabas, author unknown, chapter 15 verses 8-9, (80-120 A.D.)

Eighth Day? You mean, like the Last Great Day is the eighth day? Chew on that a bit.

SEVENTH DAY OBSERVANCE

Adventists like Herbert Armstrong and such a myriad of their students like Richard Rives and Leo Schreven paint a picture that the seventh-day Sabbath was kept so universally that it was unnecessary to mention it in the New Testament. I find that laughable, since observance of days is clearly dealt with in the New Testament - they just don't like what Paul says. Then they take verses, like the ones where Paul enters the Synagogue to preach to the Jews, to support their Sabbath claims. Of course they ignore all verses that would show Paul preaching to the Jews whenever and wherever he found them gathered, including at the river (ACT. 16: 13), until they rejected him and he left them to preach to the Gentiles (ACT. 13: 46; 18: 6; 26: 20; 28: 28). And they ignore verses like Acts 19: 9 that show Paul preaching every day of the week, and Acts 20: 7 where Paul preached on Sunday. They also claim that only several decades after the Apostles was anything changed in regards to Sunday worship. According to the Didache, Ignatius, and his teacher the Apostle John - as I showed you earlier - that isn't so either.

How do they overcome the historical record? Why, they paint all of the "early church fathers" as heretics and order you to stay far away from what they write, of course. How many times have I heard “the heretic Irenaeus” or “Justin was a philosopher.” They don’t just falsely accuse Constantine, they falsely accuse all of the early church fathers!

Modern Sabbatarians invented a "falling away" right after Paul's death involving a switch from "true Christianity" to paganism, focusing on a switch from Saturday to Sunday and also Passover to Easter. This is precisely what Herbert Armstrong and Herman Hoeh and A. N. Dugger and C. O. Dodd write in books like "The True History of the True Church." Follow that link and read that post if you have not yet done so. You'll see the lies for yourself I promise you that!

These ancient Christians that I have quoted were no heretics! They were devout and honestly reported what they believed. One thing that is abundantly clear is that each of the ancient writers disavowed legalism. Each of them completely disagree with the likes of Herbert W Armstrong.

Let's continue on and see for ourselves whether or not the early Christians were universally observing a seventh-day Sabbath.

“But again [the Jews'] scruples concerning meats, and their superstition relating to the Sabbath and the vanity of their circumcision and the dissimulation of their fasting and new moons, I do [not] suppose you need to learn from me, are ridiculous and unworthy of any consideration.”

-Mathetes, "Epistle to Diognetus", chapter 4, verse 1, (written some time between 150 and 200 AD)

“For if even unto this day we live after the manner of Judaism, we avow that we have not received grace”

-Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians, chapter 8 (50-98 or 117 AD; disciple of John)

"Is there any other matter, my friends, in which we are blamed, than this, that we live not after the law, and are not circumcised in the flesh as your forefathers were, and do not observe sabbaths as you do?"

-Justin Martyr, "Dialogue With Trypho", chapter 10 (130-165 A.D.)

"The new law requires you to keep perpetual sabbath, and you, because you are idle for one day, suppose you are pious, not discerning why this has been commanded you: and if you eat unleavened bread, you say the will of God has been fulfilled. The Lord our God does not take pleasure in such observances: if there is any perjured person or a thief among you, let him cease to be so; if any adulterer, let him repent; then he has kept the sweet and true sabbaths of God."

-Justin Martyr, "Dialogue With Trypho", chapter 12 (130-165 A.D.)

"For we too would observe the fleshly circumcision, and the Sabbaths, and in short all the feasts, if we did not know for what reason they were enjoined you,--namely, on account of your transgressions and the hardness of your hearts."

-Justin Martyr, "Dialogue With Trypho", chapter 18 (130-165 A.D.)

How much more proof can a person possibly need? How much more evidence will it take for people to realize they’ve been taught an error? How can we continue to berate Constantine when we can so easily see such overwhelming proof that Sabbath observance was not universally practiced in the New Covenant church??

(ROM. 14: 4) Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.

Did some in the east practice a seventh-day Sabbath? Yes. A few in the east did. But that doesn't mean the Gentiles who did not practice it were heretics converting to an ancient pagan system. To which ancient pagan system did they supposedly convert? According to our best historical authorities, there was no pagan system dedicated to worship on Sunday, as the Roman empire simply didn't operate that way to begin with.
I quote D. M. Canright, from his letter of inquiry to F. N. Pryce of the British Museum, Department of History, London, England.

"Q. 4. Did they have any special day of the week when individuals went to the temples to pray or make offerings?
 
Ans. No; both for Greeks and Romans the month was the unit and not the week. The Greek calendar varied in different states but the month was generally divided into three periods of ten days. The Romans reckoned from three fixed points in the month, the Kalend or first, the Nones fifth or seventh, the Ides thirteenth or fifteenth. These subdivisions in themselves had no religious significance. Also in the Roman calendars were nundinal, or market days, at periods of eight days, or, as the Romans reckoned time. On these days farm work, etc., stopped and citizens flocked into the town markets. To some extent this may be a regular stoppage of secular work.; but it had no religious significance, except that it was considered an evil omen when the nundinal coincided with other festival days, e. g., the: Nones.  The nundinal period seems derived from a blundering reminiscence of a quarter of a lunar period, and there seems no connection with the later seven days' week (see below).  

Q. 5. As Sunday was sacred to the Sun, Monday to the Moon, Saturday to Saturn, etc., were those supposed deities worshipped on their own particular days more than on any other days? 

Ans. No; the old worship of the gods was disappearing when the seven-day week came about.  The significance of the deities' names was astrological, not religious, e.g., if a person were born on Monday, the moon would influence his horoscope, but the moon was never an object of common worship." 

-D. M. Canright, "The Lord's Day From NeitherCatholics nor Pagans", 1915, in section "THE PAGAN ROMANS AND GREEKS HAD NO WEEKLY DAY OF REST, OR FESTIVAL, OR WORSHIP"

So, as we can see, there was no pagan Sunday observance to which these people could have converted! More invented history. More empty claims.

There were many Jewish converts who were zealous for the law (ACTS 21: 20). Christians all! Some of these Jewish converts were attempting to teach the Gentile converts that they must become Jews in order to be Christians (ACT. 15: 1-5).

The Jerusalem Council considered the problem, and in the end sided with Paul and Barnabas in rejecting the idea, laying only a few restrictions on the Gentiles (ACT. 15: 19-20, 28-29; ACT. 21: 25). These things are most likely not from the Old Covenant law, as we were taught, but are in line with what are called the Noachide Law. The points were selected specifically to address practices equated with idol worship which the Gentiles were escaping. They were not primers to bring more law in later.

Paul, throughout his epistles, speaks with incredible strength against Christians turning back to the Old Covenant law (GAL. 3: 1-3; GAL. 5: 1-5) as he continued to be hampered by zealous adherents of the legalism (ACT. 15: 24: GAL. 1: 7; GAL. 5: 12).

None of this deters these modern "teachers of the law". Instead of just accepting grace and taking the gospel at face value, they reason their way around it with scary language and clever little observations. It is common among Adventists to remark how the "Sun-day" is the "sacred day of pagan sun-worship." What does that prove? Shall we not also remark how "Satur-day" was named after Saturn? Most historians will tell you that the days of the week were named after celestial bodies because of astrology, not religious worship. As it turns out, Sunday was not a day set aside for pagan Sun worship at all. Why doesn't that surprise me? And why don't I think anything we’ve read here will stop these ones from continuing to perpetuate their lie?

CONCLUSION

We have seen a gross display of questionable integrity.

Constantine cannot defend himself here, so he becomes an easy scapegoat for people with an agenda. They viciously and unfairly attack his character in hopes that we will be biased against the man and made sympathetic to their attack against Sunday observance. Important information is purposefully left out of their reports, while new information is conjured from thin air. More is ignored than included. It’s no surprise they have come to a wrong conclusion. But it was the conclusion they wanted to reach from the start.

How can people who claim to be bringing God’s truth use such dishonest tactics? The only important truth they reveal is the truth of their own nature. Their complete inability to get their own stories straight only adds fuel to this fire. God is not the author of this confusion.

In conclusion of this whole matter, I hope I have shown these two things: 1) Constantine is not responsible for "changing the Sabbath to Sunday", 2) Condemnation and judgment are not things Christians should get involved in.

(GAL. 6: 1-4) 1 Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted. 2 Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. 3 For if anyone thinks himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself. 4 But let each one examine his own work, and then he will have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another.

If we are to love our enemies and pray for those who hate us, how much more are we to love those who honestly look to Jesus Christ for salvation, but disagree with us in a handful of areas? The New Covenant law is love! I'm not saying, "Why can't we all just get along? Let's all be Unitarian." I'm just saying, "love your neighbor as yourself." Love, and you have fulfilled the whole law (ROM. 13: 8-10; GAL. 5: 14; JAS. 2: 8). Sabbatarians, stop the character assassination! Sunday-keepers, do not put a stumbling block in front of Jesus' servant! I pray God helps you in this; giving you a discerning heart and a humble spirit.

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

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

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