The European invention of printing, the increase of learning, and the
rise of Protestantism provided a foundation for the revival of
Commandment-keeping Christianity. Greater accessibility to the Bible
itself, including vernacular translations, and a greater potential for
religious pluralism provided a base for Christian communities to
reevaluate their relationship to the commandments anciently recorded in
the Old Testament.
Perhaps some sixteenth and seventeenth century exegetes were
influenced by the example of earlier sectarians who had practiced a more
Judaic version of Christianity. In 1940, A. N. Dugger and C. O. Dodd of
the Commandment-keeping Church of God movement wrote a history of their
community that discussed spiritual antecedents in pre-Reformation Europe
(227-230). One ecclesiastical history that is cited by Dugger and Dodd
indicates that the Passaginian sect in Lombardy observed a Saturday
Sabbath and abstained from foods prohibited in Leviticus and Deuteronomy
(227). Other works are cited that inform us that in the eleventh century,
in the valleys of the Piedmont, a sect called Paterins or Paterines were
combining Mosaic law with acceptance of the New Testament (226-8).
Other writers among the Commandment Keepers have also done
historical research, hoping to find evidence of post-apostolic,
pre-Reformation communities with beliefs and practices similar to their
own. Such evidence is seen by Commandment-keeping sectarians as support
for their belief that the authentic Church established by Jesus Christ and
his Apostles has continued to exist from New Testament times to the
present. For example, a contemporary writer of the Saturday Sabbatarian
Church of God movements, Richard C. Nickels, has recently marshaled early
historical writings that indicate that a Saturday Sabbath was observed in
early medieval Celtic Christianity in the British Isles (Sabbatarian
Baptists in England 1973, 6-7).
The fourteenth century translator of the Bible, John Wycliffe, an
Englishman, is viewed as a forerunner of the Protestant Reformation
(Cairns 1981, 250-2). "He gave the English their first Bible in the
vernacular and created the Lollard group to proclaim evangelical ideas all
over England among the common people" (Cairns 1981, 252).
Bryant W. Ball (1994) writes that:
The most cursory survey of the geographical distribution of
seventeenth century Sabbatarian congregations would suggest an affinity
with Lollardy. A Seventh-day presence was established in many areas
which previously had been Lollard strongholds. Long, East Anglia,
Buckinghamshire and the Chilterns, the Severn Valley, particularly
around Gloucester, Dorset, Wiltshire, and Hereford and the Welsh Borders
may all be mentioned as typical in this respect. (30)
The Lollards' interest in basing their religion solidly on the
scriptures themselves could have led future generations to adopt
seventh-day Sabbatarianism in regions where the Lollards had been active
(Ball 1994, 31).
The possibility that some Lollards had accepted the keeping of a
Saturday Sabbath is suggested by a document to which Ball refers in The
Seventh-Day Men:
An early fifteenth-century manuscript, now in the British Library,
confirms that the Sabbath issue was debated in Lollard circles two
centuries or so before observance of the seventh day was openly
established in worshipping communities in England and Wales. (Ball 1994,
34)
& nbsp The writings of Erasmus, Luther, and Hospinian of Zurich
attest to the existence of sixteenth century "Continental Sabbatarianism"
(Ball 1994, 36). Reference has already been made to the sect called
Passagini or Passaginians which the research of Katz places in "the
twelfth and early thirteenth centuries" (Katz 1988, 36). A Saturday
Sabbath may also have been a practice found among twelfth century
followers of Peter de Bruis (or de Bruys), the Petrobrussians (Ball 1994,
36, and Dugger and Dodd 1972, 235).
The medieval history of Christianity in Western Europe is
popularly thought of as the story of Roman Catholicism. However, there is
a continuous sectarian history which provided precedents and, to an
extent, a certain legitimacy to the sectarian communities that arose in
the wake of the Protestant Reformation. Modern sectarians often claim that
the history of the religion founded by Jesus can be properly understood by
researching the history of persecuted sects. When Dugger and Dodd wrote
A History of the True Religion Traced From 33 AD to Date, they were
attempting to share a history of Christianity from the Commandment-keeping
perspective (Dugger and Dodd 1972, v-vii). They thought of the period
between the fourth century and the late sixteenth century as a biblically
prophesied period of historical obscurity for the Church (Dugger and Dodd
1972, v- vii).
The early seventeenth century does mark the beginning of a period
of more open profession and practice of what could be called Judaic
elements of Christianity. An Anglican minister, John Traske, had espoused
seventh-day views until forced to recant. His wife, Dorothy maintained her
commitment to her understanding of the fourth commandment, although she
finished her life in confinement (Ball 1994, 52). Traske had also
practiced "abstinence from the unclean meats of Mosaic Law" (Ball 1994,
49). Also in England, Theophilus Brabourne (Boraborne or Bradbourne,
1590-1662) is known to historians of religion as an exponent of Saturday
Sabbatarianism (Ball 1994, 59-61ff). The immediate roots of the
congregations known as Seventh Day Baptists can be found in seventeenth
century England (Ball 1994, 78-88).
Jews were officially expelled from England in 1290. By 1656, they
were legally settling there again. For some English Christians, the
keeping of a Saturday Sabbath may have seemed a necessary step to convert
Jews to Christianity (Katz 1988, 82-3). Traditional Judaism looked for a
messianic age on earth, and a literal Messiah to reign as king. It is
reasonable to suppose that Christians who would interpret the messianic
prophecies of the Old Testament in a literal fashion as did Judaism might
also adopt other Judaic practices such as the Saturday Sabbath. The
Seventh Day Adventist movement first adopted a heightened emphasis on the
doctrine of the Second Advent and later adopted the Saturday Sabbath. In
the seventeenth century, some Fifth Monarchy adherents became Saturday
Sabbatarians (Katz 1988, 79). Members of this sect had " . . . sought to
bring in the millennium in which Christ would reign with his saints for a
thousand years" (MacGregor 1989, 250).
The first known Saturday Sabbatarian congregation in the British
North American colonies was organized in Newport, Rhode Island on December
22, 1671 (Nickels, Sabbatarian Baptists in America, 1993, 45). Its
existence can be traced to the influence of Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Mumford,
who arrived in Newport in 1664. Mumford had been a member of the Bell Lane
Sabbatarian Church in London (42).
Some Anabaptists on the European continent adopted Saturday
Sabbatarianism, the earliest documented examples of which were in Silesia
and Moravia (Liechty 1995, 6). The observance of a Saturday Sabbath became
a major aspect of the ministry of Oswalt Glaidt and Andreas Fischer.
"Under the leadership of Fischer there also appears to have been an
increasing emphasis on the Mosaic Law as a code by which to determine
church polity" (Liechty 1988, 64).
Daniel Liechty writes that:
Like Fischer's Sabbatarians, the Transylvania Szomatosok were a
leftist extension of a left-wing Reformation movement. Fischer's
Sabbatarianism grew out of the South Central German-Austrian Anabaptist
ideology, while the Transylvania Sabbatarians were a left-wing extension
of the nonadorant Unitarians. (Liechty 1988, 108).
The anti-Trinitarian, Seventh-day observers in Transylvania may have
been influenced to some degree by the earlier example of
Commandment-keeping by Fischer (Liechty 1988, 88):
Oswald Glaidt met Andreas Fischer during his travel up the Danube in
1527. As co-workers, these two men next appear, in late 1527, in
Liegnitz, Silesia. The Reformation in Silesia had been underway for some
years under the leadership of Caspar Schwenckfeld and others. An
Anabaptist community was thriving there before the arrival of Glaidt and
Fischer. Under their influence, many or all of the Liegnitz Anabaptists
accepted the Sabbatarian interpretation of the faith. (Liechty
1995, 30).
& nbsp By about 1532 Glaidt had given up his Sabbatarian views (Liechty
1988, 83). Fischer maintained the position until his martyrdom in 1540 (Liechty
1988, 84).
As the Radical Reformation continued:
There developed in one section of the old Kingdom of Hungary a
well-organized, successful and independent movement of Unitarianism
during the latter half of the 16th century. It is as a branch of this
Transylvanian Unitarianism that we encounter the rise of yet another
group of Sabbatarians---people applying the restitutionist hermeneutic
learned in the context of Unitarianism who were led to restore the
biblical seventh day as the Christian Sabbath. (Liechty 1995, 45)
& nbsp As the movement continued, its adherents came to believe " .
. . their greatest honor to be able to study the Mosaic law and live as
much as possible by its commandments and proscriptions" (Liechty 1995,
61). This included the biblical dietary laws (Liechty 1995, 61). The
movement was led by Andreas Eossi, a Hungarian nobleman (Kohn 1894, 10).
After his death in 1599, the movement eventually took on an even greater
Judaic coloration (Liechty 1995, 69-73). Severe persecution was a
factor in its eventual decline (Liechty, 78).
Normative Judaism, of course, does not include the New Testament
in its religious tradition. Mainstream Christianity does consider the Old
Testament to be canonical but has traditionally been vehement in opposing
the obedience by Christians to laws considered by classical theologians to
be "ceremonial." Thus Christians who would hope to more fully recapture
the religious culture of the primitive church often have found themselves
in a state of continual tension between Christianity and Judaism.
Some sectarian Judaistic Christians have associated with the
Jewish community while secretly believing in the Jesus Christ of the New
Testament. Others have remained within mainstream Christian communities,
at least passively participating in religious activities of which they did
not approve. The former alternative can lead to total assimilation into
normative Judaism. The latter can lead to total assimilation into
mainstream Christianity.
The Protestant Reformation was an attempt to put Christianity
back on track, to return to its original ideals. The New Testament canon,
particularly the book of Acts, contains a history of the early years of
Christianity. At issue in the sixteenth century was to what extent the
practices of the primitive Church should be thought of as a model for how
the Church should conduct its life through the centuries. If " . . . the
restitutionist theme was integral to the entire Reformation urge. . ." (Liechty
1995, 6), then it can be seen how this theme could be taken even
further than Luther and Calvin took it and could lead to further
questioning of the validity of the beliefs and practices of the latter day
churches:
When this restitutionist hermeneutic began to be manifested in such
things as Christian communism, the rejection of infant baptism and
loyalty oaths, a more general anticlericalism and anti-institutionalism,
and Christian pacifism, we are justified in speaking of a "Radical
Reformation." These points of restitution constituted a clear challenge
to, and break from, the established religious and social order. (Liechty
1995, 6)
& nbsp Commandment-keeping sectarians became a significant factor in
the century after the demise of Calvin. I have already suggested that
there may be some common ground for dialogue between Christians of the
Calvinist tradition and Commandment-keeping Christian communities. The
Calvinist tradition has placed less emphasis on historic practice and has
placed much importance on the practical use of scripture. As has already
been shown, Commandment Keepers seek to base their beliefs and practices
on the Bible and are critical of many beliefs and practices within
mainstream Christianity that can be described as traditional rather than
biblical.
One example of a sort of common ground between the traditions can
be found in the strictness with which Sunday has been observed as a
Sabbath in some Calvinistic denominations. It seems reasonable that if
Christians are going to be so careful as to strictly observe Sunday as a
fulfillment of the Sabbath commandment of the Decalogue, it can be
proposed that it would be even more appropriate to go one step further and
return to the specific day of the week which was the original Sabbath. An
argument over which day is the Christian Sabbath would seem to be more
relevant in a community which is actually observing a day of rest rather
than one in which such a concept is of little importance. If it is
critically important to consecrate one day out of seven, it would also be
relevant to put forward the idea that the specific day might be
significant. Seminarian A.T. Lincoln does not observe any specific day of
the week as a Sabbath. He does believe that there is a Christian
significance to worshipping on Sunday. It is interesting to note his
belief that:
To become a seventh-day Sabbatarian is the only consistent course of
action for any one who holds that the whole Decalogue is binding as
moral law . . . (392).
& nbsp Since the primitive Church was predominantly Jewish
throughout the period covered by the book of Acts, it is understandable
that Radical Reformers would be influenced to recapture the Hebraic roots
of their religion. Of course, Christians considering a return to Hebraic
precedents for their conduct and general approach to spiritual matters
historically have faced a major barrier. Anti-Jewish prejudice, in more
recent times termed anti-Semitism, has played a significant role in
Christian history. That factor offers a partial explanation for the
limited appeal of the re-Hebraization of Christianity, and why it was
mainly elements within the Radical Reformation tradition who advocated it.
An additional factor was the weight of centuries of tradition along with
the almost inevitable problem of societal inertia.
The developing democratic culture of America in the eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries provided a supportive environment for the
survival of restitutionist, sectarian Christianity, including
Commandment-keeping communities. Citing earlier historical works, Richard
C. Nickels notes a mid-nineteenth century Seventh Day Baptist Church in
South Fork, West Virginia that banned the use of pork and lard (Nickels
1993, Sabbatarian Baptists in America, 67). It might be expected
that frontier societies could be more tolerant of religious dissenters and
more conducive to the development of alternative religions.
In the middle of the nineteenth century, many followers of
William Miller had come to accept Saturday as the Sabbath (Ogwyn 1995,
55). Other issues caused a split between that church, which had adopted
the name "Seventh Day Adventists," and the church that came to be known as
"The Church of God (Seventh Day)" (56). The Church of God (Seventh Day)
believes in tithing (How Should the Church Be Financially Supported?
2001, 1- 3) and in the Old Testament dietary laws (Doctrine of Beliefs
of the Church of God (Seventh Day) 2001, 6). It also believes that
Christians should not serve in the armed forces (Ogwyn 1995, 56). The
Radio Church of God of the 1930's developed from the Church of God
(Seventh Day) in the Willamette Valley in Oregon (Ogwyn 1995, 64).
Church historians would view the Church of God (Seventh Day) as
an eighteen sixties offshoot of Adventism. Some branches of the Church of
God (Seventh Day) have developed a more complete observance of Old
Testament practices while rejecting the authority of extra-biblical
writings and traditions. A major Commandment-keeping Christian movement
developed under the leadership of a minister of the Oregon Conference of
the Church of God (Seventh Day), Herbert W. Armstrong (Armstrong 1986,
426, 427). Before Armstrong began his regular media evangelization
efforts, G. G. Rupert, formerly President of the Oklahoma Seventh-Day
Adventist Conference, led an independent Church of God (Seventh Day)
movement which taught the observance of the holy days of the Pentateuch
(Nickels 1993, Remnant, 184- 185). Herbert W. Armstrong established
the Radio Church of God in 1934, also including in its beliefs and
practices the acceptance of the annual festivals of the Pentateuch as a
necessary part of authentic Christianity.
In 1947, the Radio Church of God moved its headquarters from
Eugene, Oregon to Pasadena, California. The Radio Church of God became
known as the Worldwide Church of God in 1968 (Hulme 1994, 9). Herbert W.
Armstrong died on January 16, 1986. Nine years after his death the
Worldwide Church of God abandoned its traditional teachings and entered
mainstream evangelical Protestantism (Tkach 1997, 24).
On April 30, 1995, a large number of dissident ministers of the
Worldwide Church of God began a conference in Indianapolis, Indiana, which
concluded on May 2, with the founding of a new church, "The United Church
of God, An International Association" (Robinson 1995, 1). On May 4, The
Los Angeles Times published an article by Larry Stammer titled,
"Another Schism Racks Worldwide Church of God" (Stammer 1995, B, 1).
Readers were informed that:
Although other groups of dissidents have left to form breakaway
churches--including the Global Church of God and the Philadelphia Church
of God--the latest development was viewed as a major setback to the
Worldwide Church of God's efforts to stem the flow of members and money
(Stammer 1995, B, 1).
& nbsp There is, at present, considerable volatility in the Churches
of God that have their origins in the old Worldwide Church of God. Schisms
often occur due to differences over the form or method of administration
of church government.
In my opinion, a legitimate criticism of the Worldwide Church of
God family of religious organizations is that for about fifty years an
anti-democratic church culture has been dominant. The current growth of
democracy has been slow and painful. Of course, while Christian churches
appreciate the freedom to fully live their faith and promote it, some do
not believe in a democratic ecclesiastical culture. Some churches are
hierarchical and to some degree authoritarian. Some organizations may
superficially appear to be more democratic than they actually are in fact.
From the 1950s though the 1980s, churches with a Worldwide Church
of God heritage generally saw themselves as organizations centered around
the work of one man whose role was to expose as many people as possible to
at least some aspects of Commandment- keeping theology. There was
relatively less emphasis on building an infrastructure for community
survival within the local congregations.
Few members of these churches had prior experience of active
involvement in organized religion. Worldwide Church of God Members were
generally submissive to the Church leadership, whether the authority was
wielded from headquarters or at the local level. Even many local pastors
were relatively young and inexperienced. They were expected to pass on
instructions that came from headquarters in Pasadena. There was no formal
process by which local congregations or the collective ministry could be
involved in such decisions as the assigning or transferring of pastors.
Some Worldwide Church of God schismatic organizations have
retained a hierarchical, authoritarian approach to church government.
Often these spin-off church organizations have attempted to the best of
their abilities to duplicate the institutions and activities of the old
Worldwide Church of God. This tendency has led to further schisms and the
growth of many autonomous fellowships.
There is a great irony in the history just described.
Commandment-keeping Christian theology views the Church as persuasive
rather than coercive. Yet for many decades many matters relating to church
administration and organization were handled in a manner that in
retrospect is often described as oppressive.
One key problem for many members of the old Worldwide Church of
God was the issue of disfellowshipment, i.e., being banned from attending
church services. The existence of many different Commandment-keeping
groups has mitigated the gravity of this form of discipline. In the old
Worldwide Church of God, disfellowshipment was the prerogative of the
local pastor individually. The decision could only be overruled by a
higher ranking minister such as a regional pastor. The power to
disfellowship and reinstate a local congregant had the effect of placing
great authority in each local pastor.
As of the year 2001, many Commandment Keepers are still working
towards the development of a kinder, gentler, system of church governance.
They desire their movement to be able to effectively maintain its way of
life and share its beliefs with the world. They also hope to have a form
of church government that from their point of view more accurately
reflects the personality and character of Jesus Christ.
On May 5, 1995, in Southern California, the Pasadena Star News
reported that:
The United Church of God will emphasize observance of the Saturday
Sabbath and mandatory tithing, which had been cornerstones of the
Worldwide church until recent changes. (Stammer 1995, B1)
What was also true, but not mentioned in the article, was that church
members would continue the traditional Worldwide Church of God practice of
avoiding extra-biblical ecclesiastical festivals such as Christmas and of
observing the festivals commanded in the Pentateuch.
The July 1995, issue of the Southern California Christian
Times cites a press release from the National and International
Religious Report which states that "Many Worldwide Church of God
pastors have resigned or been fired because they cannot accept the
church's movement toward mainstream Christianity" (3). Obviously, a key
factor in these events is the difference of opinion concerning the
importance that should be placed on practices of Old Testament origin.
In August 1995, a conference of leaders of the dissident
Commandment-keeping United Church of God, an International Association
(currently referred to as UCGIA) was held in Denver, Colorado (Smith 1995,
1). The participants decided to begin efforts around October to publish a
magazine that would be offered to the general public, The Good News
(Smith 1995, 1). For many years, the Worldwide Church of God had published
theological material and, at times, church news, in a publication bearing
that title. The first issue of the revised Good News appeared in
October, and the magazine soon became available in several languages.
In order to understand the exegesis of Judaistic Christian
sectarians, one must note that their approach to hermeneutics is similar
to that of the most conservative of evangelicals. They believe that the
collection of canonical books contains a coherent doctrine and that all of
the scriptures can be essentially harmonized. One can discern a similarity
between how the Bible is treated by UCGIA expositors and how the Gemara
treats the Mishnah in the Talmudic tradition:
The Talmud accepts the contents of the Mishnah as incontrovertible
facts. The Talmud can find interrelationships and connections among the
subjects, it can draw attention to problems, it can reconcile apparent
contradictions--but it cannot disagree with the Mishnah. (Steinsaltz
1989, 3)
A recent discussion on the role of biblical authority in Christianity
has been written by Darrell Jodock in his book, The Church's Bible: Its
Contemporary Authority. The role of the Bible for Commandment Keepers
is further enhanced by their sectarian stance. This perspective means that
the classical theological writings of orthodox Christianity such as the
works of Augustine, Aquinas, Luther and Calvin are considered by them to
be heterodox and lacking any authority.
As those who have read it can attest, the Talmud admits that
although the various viewpoints that it presents should be internally
consistent according to logic, it does record different views. However,
the hermeneutic of conservative evangelicals is based on the belief that
the doctrine of one author of a biblical book may be expounded on by
another author, but not explicitly contradicted. For example, many
biblical scholars see a different perspective on faith and works in Paul's
epistle to the Romans from the perspective in the catholic epistle of
James. Conservatives would seek, however, to find a basis for harmonizing
the two letters. They would not be satisfied to believe that two divinely
inspired authors would be cited in the canon as teaching contrary
theological positions.
Millard J. Erickson in his Christian Theology states that:
By the authority of the Bible we mean that the Bible, as the
expression of God's will to us, possesses the right supremely to define
what we are to believe and how we are to conduct ourselves. (241)
According to the categories in Erickson's text (222, 230-231, 239-240),
the general consensus of the sectarian churches of God is that in the
original autographs the Bible was fully inerrant, and there is general
confidence that what has been transmitted to us, although in places
obscure or difficult, correctly conveys the intent of the original
autograph .
In its Fundamental Beliefs, the United Church of God has
this to say about the role of the Bible in its beliefs and practices:
We believe that Scripture, both Old and New Testaments, are God's
revelation and complete expressed will to humanity. Scripture is
inspired in thought and word, infallible in the original writings, is
the supreme and final authority in faith and in life, and is the source
of all truth. (5)
& nbsp By the sixth century BCE, Judaism had already become a
diasporized religion. Rarely in its history has Judaism been able or
willing to impose itself upon a gentile majority. Early Christianity was
in a similar situation. Also, its chiliasm caused it to be apolitical in
nature. As Troeltsch has pointed out in The Social Teaching of the
Christian Churches, the sects that developed after the Protestant
Reformation were returning to "primitive" Christianity. Some Anabaptist
communities of the Radical Reformation also attempted to lead people to
Christ by example and persuasion, not by coercion (Estep 1963, 197). By
doing so they provide a precedent to compare with contemporary Commandment
Keepers who did not seek secular power to enforce their principles.
Members of the Commandment-keeping churches of God combine
reverence for the Old Testament with an appreciation for the status of the
Church of God, in the tradition of the Radical Reformation, as a critic of
society from without rather than from within. Neither the Church as such
nor its members in their role as Christians are going to politically or
militarily act so as to push society towards an imposition of the civil
law of ancient Israel. For example, Fundamental Beliefs of the United
Church of God, an International Association includes this statement:
We believe that Christians are forbidden by the commandments of God
from taking human life, directly or indirectly, and that bearing arms is
contrary to this fundamental belief. Therefore we believe that
Christians should not voluntarily become engaged in military service.
Or, if involuntarily engaged, to refuse conscientiously to bear arms or,
to the extent possible, to refuse to come under military authority. (33)
& nbsp Similarly, the UCGIA has inherited an apolitical heritage.
Opposition to participation in politics has characterized the Worldwide
Church of God before its recent changes. Utilizing the typology of H.
Richard Niebuhr, it would be appropriate to view the churches of God
collectively as a community which sees itself from a "Christ against
culture" perspective (Niebuhr 1951, 45- 82). The issue of pagan versus
biblical culture is seen as both ecclesiastical and personal in nature. It
is a major element in the educational outreach activities of Commandment
Keepers. They in their public pronouncements feel free to encourage other
churches and individuals to abandon what are considered to be pagan
beliefs and practices. To their way of thinking, religious beliefs and
practices should be in strict harmony with the Bible. This educational
outreach usually does not extend into the area of politics and generally
does not focus on the political realm, such as condemning or endorsing
specific government policies.
The Commandment Keepers will argue however, for the superiority
of the Old Testament civil code over any other and would encourage modern
nations to base their legislation on biblical principles. This
encouragement does not take the form of direct advice to specific
politicians or of lobbying for specific pieces of legislation. It should
be further pointed out that the encouragement does not take the form of
voting, running for office, contributing financially to politicians or
political movements, or endorsing candidates for office. It takes the form
of articles and seminars expounding upon the benefits that would accrue to
the society if the political and economic systems operated in conformity
to the laws of the Old Testament. Chapter Seven will further discuss the
Commandment Keepers' tradition of non-involvement in politics.
Obviously, Christianity is not Rabbinic or Biblical Judaism.
Something has changed. The New Covenant is not exactly the same as the Old
Covenant, or it would not have been promised in Jeremiah 31. What has
changed under the New Covenant, and what impact do any changes have on the
responsibility of Christians to the laws of the Old Testament? As we enter
the twenty-first century, a concerted effort is being made to understand
the significance of the New Covenant to Christianity's first-century
founding fathers. According to the New Testament, the ministry of Jesus
Christ began the formal fulfillment of the prophecy of Jeremiah 31:31-33
(Luke 22:20; Hebrews 8:8-10; and Hebrews 10:15- 18).
Recent scholarship has brought to light the importance of
Christianity's roots in Judaism and the interrelationship that for a time
continued to exist between the Jewish and Christian communities. Ministers
of the Commandment-keeping churches of God tend to stress the Hebraic over
the Hellenistic aspects of Christianity in their theology. Also, whenever
the opportunity presents itself, the Church will inform other Christians
that Christianity should abandon practices that originated in paganism and
should return to its Hebraic roots.
Actually, one of the weaknesses in the movement at present is its
lack of appreciation for the Hellenistic background that is also important
for an understanding of the New Testament. In its zeal to recapture the
Jewish heritage of Christianity, there is sometimes a neglect of the Greek
heritage. By this criticism, I do not mean to imply that a greater
appreciation for the Hellenistic background of the New Testament would in
any way diminish the strength of the Commandment-keeping position.
Greater understanding of the New Testament scriptures is gained
when the reader has an awareness of the Hellenistic background of the text
in addition to the Hebraic. Of course, the generally accepted New
Testament canon consists of books written in Greek. Many of the books of
the New Testament obviously were first written for predominantly gentile
audiences.
Commandment Keepers cannot deny the Hellenistic aspects of
Christianity's background. Insufficient consideration of Hellenistic
influence makes Commandment Keepers vulnerable to the criticism that they
are selectively choosing a heritage due to a particular agenda. On the
other hand, Commandment Keepers are quick to point to possible examples in
the New Testament of the observance by gentile Christians of the holy days
of the Torah. For example, 1 Corinthians 5:6-8 can be understood to imply
that the church in Corinth was keeping the Passover festival during the
lifetime of the Apostle Paul. The church members are to " . . . Keep the
feast . . .." This admonition by Paul may be symbolic, but it also may be
literal.
It should be brought out that Jewish tradition is also rejected
where it is believed to be in obvious conflict with the canonical
scriptures. For example, while contemporary Orthodox Judaism teaches a
belief in the immortality of the human soul apart from the body,
Commandment Keepers emphatically disagree:
Secular history reveals that the concept of the immortality of the
soul is an ancient belief embraced by many pagan religions. But it is
not a biblical, Hebrew or apostolic teaching. (D'Alessandro, et al.
1997, 12)
& nbsp Calvin's respectful approach to Old Testament law would be a
good starting point for understanding the approach to Old Testament law
currently held by these churches of God. This is not to say that Calvin or
his disciples in later years were Commandment Keepers. The Calvinist
tradition may have provided a basis from which some Commandment Keepers
proceeded to build their more sectarian approach.
Mainstream Christianity, however, can generally be described as
upholding a New Testament standard for the individual, and an Old
Testament standard for the society. There is an attempt to apply the
Sermon on the Mount in interpersonal situations. However, for foreign
policy and often for matters of civil administration, Old Testament
precedents are treated as relevant. This can be seen, for example, in
arguments concerning war and capital punishment.
Commandment-keeping communities considering themselves
collectively to be the Church of God, in sectarian fashion, create their
own consistently biblical subculture. Their worldwide membership, in a
sense, form communities which offer a peaceful, non-conformist alternative
to their host societies. These dissenters from what is generally thought
of as orthodoxy believe that Christianity is not divorced from such issues
as the sanctification of certain days and abstaining from certain foods.
Many conservative Christians use the Old Testament in support of just war
and capital punishment. Commandment Keepers believe that they personally
have been called to a life that prohibits them from participation in wars
or in occupations that might require the taking of human life.
Commandment-keeping sectarians would contend that their form of
Christianity is truly orthodox and was already being challenged by
heterodox versions in New Testament times. The Apostle Paul writes:
For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work, but only until the
one who now restrains it is removed. (2 Thessalonians 2:7)
Jude states:
Beloved, while eagerly preparing to write to you about the salvation
we share, I find it necessary to write and appeal to you to contend for
the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. (Jude 3)
Like many other Christians, Commandment Keepers believe that human
interaction should be in accordance with that part of the Decalogue that
begins with the command to honor one's parents. Like Calvin, the sectarian
churches of God would contend that the Sabbath and holy days are not
purely ceremonial. Their societal standards are based on that part of the
Decalogue that begins with the command to honor one's parents. They would
argue further that biblical Holy Day observances and dietary restrictions
were given to identify the people of Yahweh and continue to serve that
function. These commandments also impart a spiritual benefit. Certain
understanding of God's nature and plan is more readily grasped and
retained when God's commanded days are observed. Commandment Keepers
believe that their practices are based on the Decalogue as elaborated by
Jesus Christ.
The belief in the spiritual utility of the biblical holy days and
dietary laws does not imply that non-observance brings damnation. It is
intended to imply that non-observance is indicative of a qualitatively
less desirable relationship with God. The same is also true regarding the
dietary laws, which are also assumed to have practical, physical benefits,
perhaps of an ecological nature.
On the other hand, sectarian Commandment Keepers would hold the
following proposition to be true. Since they have studied the question of
whether or not God requires his followers to observe the biblical holy
days and dietary laws and are convinced that he does, for them,
personally, it would be sin to violate them. It is not for them to dictate
to God who can or cannot be in the first resurrection, but it is their
responsibility to adhere to correct beliefs and practices once they are
brought to their attention.
