I wish I had a riveting story to share about this pamphlet, but I don’t. I don’t actually remember the day that I got my hands on it. I don’t know who ordered it more than 30 years ago. I don’t know who subsequently read it or didn’t. I don’t know what they thought of it or why they kept it. I don’t know what that orange dot is on every page.
What I do know is that I found it in a family member’s bookshelf (she doesn’t know its origins either) in 2010, after leaving Adventism. I read it and, in 2011, I received permission from RBC Ministries to share it online as a PDF. The booklet is from 1967 and is no longer in print or available in any format anywhere else. Though it sold for only 15 cents 46 years ago, I think you will find it an invaluable resource to share with Adventists.
Adventists love to trap 10-commandment-promoting Christians into “Who changed the Sabbath?” arguments. I pray that this pamphlet helps those who find SDA reasoning compelling, to see the big picture. Richard DeHaan breaks down many of the SDA arguments for Sabbath-keeping and explains to Christians why Sunday is not the Christian Sabbath. Share it with your pastor, your Sunday School teacher, your co-worker.
A note about context: In the pamphlet, Richard DeHaan refers to “my father” several times. DeHaan’s father, Dr. M. R. DeHaan, was the founder of Radio Bible Class, from which this pamphlet was created.
I welcome your comments about the pamphlet. What do you think?
- Does It Jibe with the Bible? - June 28, 2014
- Eyes to See, Not to Criticize - June 13, 2014
- Perfectly Maintained - March 2, 2014
Delina,
Thank you for drawing our attention to this pamphlet. I am the JohnB that has posted elsewhere on other blogs in this site on Church History issues, my most recent was on the Council of Nicea. I have done a specialised study on the first century Church and its emergence from its Jewish parent.
The DeHann pamphlet in many places takes an essentially ultra-liberal, Pauline, anti-Judaic approach to the Jewish Sacred Calendar – one endorsed by the “official”, Pauline/Imperial Roman Church at and after the advent of Constantine. An approach that “liberates” the Church from Jewish observance. It is also substantially, although not wholly Marcionite in its relationship to Judaism. Without actually admitting to such, in many places he also lightly re-phrases Constantine’s rhetoric at the first Council in 325CE with regard to the celebration of the Church’s Holy Pascha (Easter), and applies it to Shabbat.
A more nuanced approach is in order to reflect the practice in the first century of the Church (30CE – The Resurrection to the end of the Bar Kochba revolt in 135CE).
From Creation to the Exodus, the pattern of “7″ is there with an implied but never explicitly stated worship on this “seventh day”, even in Jewish Tradition. There is nothing with respect to Worship Legislation during this period. This was the inheritance within the Melchisidek Tradition.
At Sinai, we saw the seven-fold pattern crystallised into a legislated weekly-observance, with the Melkisidek Orbit responsible for the maintenance of the pattern, and the Levitical Orbit responsible for the legislated ins and outs of its observance.
The Levitical orbit thereafter also received the sole responsibility for the performance of all blood-sacrifice – based on the Tabernacle/Temple. The Legislated observance for Shabbat and the Blood-sacrifice were made inseparable: when one ceased, so did the other, so much so that one could not be continued without the other. And when the Levitical priesthood ceased, so, too did Shabbat legislation and Blood Sacrifice.
In this regard, the ultra-Orthodox Haredi Jews of 2013CE in Mea Sharim in Jerusalem are inconsistent in their meticulous Shabbat observance – in the absence of Temple Blood Sacrifice, and a genealogicially sound and unbroken “Levitical” priesthood, something they themselves admit to.
When the “Sacrifice and Oblation ceased” (Dan 9:27) at the Cross in 30CE, so, too did all the Torah-contained legislated Shabbat observance rules and regulations.
The Melkisidek Tradition continued the pattern and scheduling thereafter, not only for Shabbat, but for the remainder of the monthly and annual Biblical Feasts plus, Purim and Hanukkah, but with the supreme freedom in Yeshua to observe their spirit on the appointed days without being enslaved to their letter. They were meant to be continued in this “free” manner so that their Gospel pointing to Yeshua could be plainly seen, and not obscured by legislative minutae. Thus such books as “the Gospel in the Feasts of Israel” etc.
As for the Lord’s Day (Sunday), its sanctity arose in this manner – not as a “supersession”, or a “replacement” but as a “completion” or “goal”:
On the Mount of Transfiguration, Luke (9:31), Moses and Elijah commend Yeshua for His “exodus” (often rendered as “departure”) which he would accomplish in Jerusalem (the word “exodus” is in the received Greek Translation in Luke).
Now both Shabbat and Pesak (Passover) were a weekly and an annual commemoration respectively of the Exodus event – as DeHaan points out. What both Moses and Elijah were foreseeing and thus prophesying was a commemoration of a greater “exodus” – namely the Resurrection of Yeshua from Sheol – leading a multitude of departed captives free.
This is the first “sanctification” of the Lord’s Day – a commemoration of the Greater Exodus of Yeshua.
The Second, Third and Fourth Strands arise from Yehsua’s preaching of the kingdom and His Upper Room proclamation: I will not eat or drink of it until I do so anew in my Father’s Kingdom (Matt 26:29, Mark 14: 25, Luke 22: 18).
At Emmaus, when Yeshua “took bread, gave thanks and broke it” (Luke 24:30), He was doing so “anew in My Father’s kingdom”! On that first Lord’s Day, in His Father’s Kingdom. Thus:
Strand Two: the Inaguration day of The Father’s Kingdom, and
Strand Three: the day of transformation of the Upper Room meal (itself a “half-way house from the Jewish Passover) into a fully Christian Eucharist, and
Strand Four: the Inaguration day of the Longed-for “New Covenant”.
all happened on that first Lord’s Day.
Thus, in a very real sense, the Lord’s Day became the “goal” of Shabbat. And their relationship to each other was that of John the Baptist (the Shabbat), to Yeshua (the Lord’s Day). Whereas the Jews of old used the Preparation Day (Friday) to “prepare” for Shabbat, so the Church used the Shabbat as a “preparation day” for the Lord’s Day. And where under the New Covenant, both Shabbat and Lord’s Day are free from the Levitical minutae of rules and regulations, and thus “resting”. One continues to respect Shabbat (without cruelly rejecting it), but even more, one cherishes and loves the Lord’s Day – for at least the above four reasons.
Thus, the Lord’s Day has been with us from the beginning as the Church’s unique contribution to the Jewish Sacred Calendar, in exactly the same way as the “middle matzos” in the Passover matzatash was also a Church contribution from St James the Just and St John the Evangelist to the Passover Seder – which Seder contribution continues to this day amongst the Jews!
Sol Invictus and Constantine.
The Cult of Sol Invictus for the Army’s Mithraism arose in the days of Constantine Chlorus’ youth (Constantine’s father) and was patterned on the Church’s Lord’s Day, not the other way round! Sol Invictus worship was largely absent outside Army circles.
What Constantine did was not to invent a new day of worship – to the Sol Invictus, and “transfer” worship from Shabbat to Lord’s Day, he illegitimately tried to fuse the pre-existing pagan cult of Sol Invictus and the Christian Lord’s Day into a new synthesis, and created secular legislation for its observance – something that perseveres even to this day! This is the basis of secular “sabbatariansim”.
Thus, one can roundly reject the evil Constantinian synthesis without rejecting the Lord’s Day at all!
Calvinists illegitimately also “sabbatise” the Lord’s Day with the Judaic legislation from the Torah – something which as we have seen, “ceased” (Dan 9:27) at the Cross.
The Levitical legislation was not “against us”, nor was it “nailed to the Cross”, nor was there any “supersessionism” as Paul so wrongly asserts, it was there to try to “insulate” the Melkisidek observances from the surrounding pagansim of Caanan. And when a stronger, Lord’s Day came – which could not successfully be “paganised’ – witness the failed Constantinian experiment, the need for such holy Levitical legislation fell away.
DeHann’s pamphlet contains much of merit, but his use of Paul leads in a straight line to the heretic Marcion via Justin (the martyr) and the non-canonical Epistle of Barnabas (not the Barnabas of Acts). If you can ignore his use of Paul, and keep to the Tradition of “Jerusalem-Central”, headed by St James the Just and St John the Evangelist (as I have briefly done above), you will have sound guidance to steer a middle course between the Constantinian synthesis and the Evangelical and thus Adventist sabbatarianism.
I of course could expand much more, but I trust that this short excursus assists.
God’s Richest Blessings on you Delina,
JohnB
Delina (and other readers),
After giving the above outline, and in the absence of subsequent commentary/responses, I perhaps should now address the main question: “Who Changed the Sabbath?”
In actual fact, in the light of history, this is a trick non-question. A question that only “works” properly amidst English-speaking Evangelical “sabbatarian” Protestantism.
The true questions (yes, there are at least two, if not more) are (or should be):
(1) “How and where and under what circumstances did the Sabbath fade from Church observance?” and
(2) Who was responsible for “sabbatising” the Lord’s Day?” (Thus giving the illusion of “change” of the Sabbath).
Taken together, and with the dubious and eclectic use of Church history, they yield the above trick non-question. With an honest use of Church history, they are stand-alone questions, which should not be conflated.
As I have largely answered the second question above, I will concentrate on briefly answering the first.
In the first “100 years” of the Church, there were two main groupings or “orbits”:
(1) The Jerusalem-Central Orbit, led by St James the Just and St John the Evangelist, and
(2) Paul.
The first was from the beginning, and the second has its roots in the Acts 15 “Council” of 49CE, and was fully active and separate at 64CE at Paul’s “trial” at Ephesus (2Tim 1:18, 4:14-17).
(1) The Jerusalem-Central Orbit kept Sabbath-observance, but in a wholly New Covenant way – as the “preparation-day” for the Lord’s Day as I have outlined above – so that they could centre their focus on Yeshua who is and remains forever their (and our) “sabbath-rest”, rather than be side-tracked by the picky-rules associated with the Mosaic-Covenant Sabbath.
The “Proclamation!” site has rightly drawn attention to this matter, and is to be commended for doing so!
This Sabbath/Lord’s Day pattern continued with all their gentile affiliates such as the Celtic Church, the Church in Ethiopia, the Syriac Church in Edessa and points further north and east – such as Odessa on the Black Sea and in what is now Iraq and Iran – even as far as China, and in the Church of Mar Toma in India.
(2) The Pauline Orbit, by contrast, as a consequence of their radical anti-Torah, and hence their anti-Sinai stance, especially after 70CE, saw no point in keeping any observance of the Jewish Sacred Calendar, including the newly-minted Lord’s Day of Jerusalem-Central. It was only to retain some degree of credibility as a “Christian movement” with supposed “Apostolic-Roots” that they continued Lord’s Day Observance, but not in the manner of Jerusalem-Central. Thus, they never gave the Sabbath the time of day in any manner whatsoever.
The Pauline Orbit was limited to the bounds of the Roman Empire, eventually capitulated to Constantine and became part of the Constantinian Imperial Roman Church. It used its newly-found Imperial Roman power to persecute the Jerusalem-Central Orbit.
++++
But what of the Papal assertion in the Cardinal Heenan catechism? This is the one so wearisomely trotted out by SDA’s.
After giving the Heenan assertion careful consideration, and having done considerable research, I have come to the following two major conclusions:
(A) This assertion should be treated with the same disdain as one would treat the “Donation of Constantine” and other false Papal Decretals – wholly lacking in historical substance.
(B) It was designed to meet head-on and hopefully neutralize American Evangelical Sunday-Sabbatarianism, and consequently divert attention away from Rome’s own appalling Liturgical practices and incompetence in the matter of its practical application of _its_ sacred calendar.
In researching European Papal catechisms, I cannot recall its appearance amidst a Continental Protestant environment. This applies to Calvinist Switzerland, France and Netherlands, and in Lutheran Germany and Scandinavia.
Likewise, it never appears in the Slavic East in the Papal-Orthodox friction zone. Rome knew and still knows full well that Orthodoxy is too well-schooled in history to take anything on face-value from Rome! Not even the highly-Papalising “Confession” of the Orthodox Peter Moghila in 1642 makes that error in giving Rome the credit for the rise of Lord’s Day worship.
But what of Samuel Bacciochi?
I have his books in my library, and can confidently assert that he, too (along with almost all SDA “historians”), is less than complete in his skewed presentation of the available historical record. He only got his Papal medal and magna cum laude from the Gregoriana through, de-facto, giving the Cardinal Heenan bluffery some credibility. Rome will take credit from whatever source, however suspect its provenance if it is to Rome’s advantage – any well-bred SDA worth their salt knows (or at least _should_ know) that!
I trust that this further assists.
God’s Blessings on you Delina,
JohnB
ps: I also did a mini-post in Colleen’s blog on the Trinity and the Liturgy of St James.
I appreciate your interaction, but I fear you’ve missed the whole gist of my post and the pamphlet.