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.
