How can Jesus be in the grave for three days and three nights (Mt.12:40)

Jesus said He would be in the grave for three days and three nights (Matt. 12:40). But if we count the days from Good Friday to Resurrection Sunday, it seems there was insufficient time in the grave. Should we recalculate the Passion Week, with the crucifixion actually taking place on Thursday?  

When people attempt to recalculate Passion Week, they often do so with the best motive, namely, they want to take the Bible literally. These people understand that the time from the crucifixion of Jesus to His resurrection must be a literal 72 hours, as understood by Jesus’ words in Mat-thew 12:40 (“just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth”). Therefore, they would conclude that the Last Supper actually took place on Wednesday of Passion Week, the crucifixion on Thursday, and the resurrection on Sunday.

A THURSDAY CRUCIFIXION?

Support for a Thursday Crucifixion Several reasons are given to support a Thursday crucifix-ion of Jesus. First and most obviously, this would allow Jesus’ burial in the tomb to be literally three days and three nights. Second, it is maintained that the day of preparation and the Sabbath described in John 19:31 (“because it was the day of preparation, so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day)”) refer to Passover and not the weekend Sabbath. In this argument, the day of preparation would refer to the day before Passover, and the Sabbath refers to cessation of work on the first day of Passover, and therefore it was a high day. Third, the Greek word for Sabbath in Matthew 28:1 is actually plural, so it describes Resurrection Sunday literally as “after the Sabbaths.” This would indicate that the resurrection took place after two Sabbaths, the first on the first day of Passover (Friday) and the second on the regular Sabbath (Saturday).

Problems with a Thursday Crucifixion

Although this interpretation appears to solve the problem by allowing for three full days and nights in the tomb and a literal understanding of Jesus’ prediction in Matthew 12:40, it does pose some problems. First, the phrase “day of preparation” always means the Friday before the weekly Sabbath (“it was the preparation day, that is, the day before the Sabbath”; Mark 15:42). This is true both in the Bible (Matt. 27:62; Luke 23:54; John 19:14, 31, 42) and in writings of the first century Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities, 16.6). The only reason John 19:14 uses the phrase “the day of preparation for the Passover” is because, in this case, Friday, the normal day of preparation, was also the day before Passover. And, John 19:31 refers to this Sabbath as a high day because it marks the convergence of both the first day of Passover and the Sabbath.

Second, Passover is nowhere called a Sabbath in the Bible. The Law of Moses says the first day of Passover is to be a day without any work (Lev. 23:7; Num. 28:16) but never uses the word “Sabbath” to describe the festival, as it does the Day of Atonement (Lev. 23:32).

Third, the use of the plural form for Sabbath (Matt. 28:1) is totally irrelevant because the word “Sabbath” is commonly in the plural form in the New Testament, even when only one normal Sabbath day is in view (Matt. 12:1, 5, 10-12; Mark 121: 2-23-24" 3:2, 4; Luke 4:16, 31; 6:2; 13:10nActsi 23t14; 16:13). This is also true in Josephus (Antiquities, 12.274) and the Jewish philosopher Philo (On Abraham, 28).

Fourth, the Bible specifies that the crucifixion and burial of Jesus took place on Friday (“the preparation day,’ Mark 15:42; see also Matt. 27:62; Luke 23:54, 56; John 19:31, 42) and that Jesus was raised on the first day of the week or Sunday (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:1-2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1). So, a literal reading of these verses indicates a Friday crucifixion and Sunday resurrection. Either this contradicts Matthew 12:40 or there must be a better explanation.

A Friday Crucifixion

The better alternative to recalculation is to recognize that when Jesus said He would be in the grave for three days and three nights, He was using a common Jewish cultural expression called inclusive time reckoning.

In ancient times, Jewish people used inclusive time reckoning when speaking of any part of a day as referring to a full day (day and night). An example of inclusive time reckoning in the Hebrew Scriptures is when Esther called for a fast “for three days, night or day” (Est. 4:15-16) but then saw the end of the fast “on the third day” (Est. 5:1). Rabbinic literature gives this example from the Mishnah: Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah (about AD 100, a contemporary of the Apostle John) taught, “A day and a night are an Onah (‘a portion of time’) and the portion of an Onah is as the whole of it” (Shabbat 9:3). Clearly, inclusive time reckoning was a common practice among Jewish people in the first century.

We often use idiomatic expressions today when speaking of time. Someone might say, “I did yard work all weekend” but not really mean every minute from Friday night to Sunday night. Nevertheless, a listener would still get the point that much of the weekend was taken up with yard work.

Therefore, I believe we are right to retain the biblical chronology of Passion Week: Jesus shared His Last Supper with His disciples on Thursday night, was crucified on Friday, and raised from the dead early Sunday morning. This time in the tomb includes parts of three days (Friday night, all day Saturday, and early Sunday), a period of time idiomatically described with inclusive time reckoning as “three days and three nights.”

FINAL THOUGHTS

Even more important than calculating precisely how many hours the Lord Jesus was buried in a tomb is to recognize the reason for His death and resurrection. He died to pay the penalty for our sin (2 Cor. 5:21) and was raised to give us new life (Rom. 6:4). Too often we fall into the trap of arguing over what is least important and ignoring what is absolutely crucial.

Continue Reading

Why did the Lord Jesus say ‘Eloi Eloi Lama Sabachthani?

Why did the Lord Jesus say ‘Eloi Eloi Lama Sabachthani? Quoted from  Psalm 22:1, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” (Matt. 27:46)? Did Jesus not understand why He was dying?

The most common explanation of the Lord Jesus’ cry on the cross is that, at that very moment, all the sins of humanity for all time came upon Him and He became sin.

Therefore, some have said, the Father could no longer look upon the Son and so fellowship between God the Father and God the Son was broken for the first and only time throughout eternity. According to this view, the crucifixion shocked the Messiah Jesus to such an extent that He exclaimed, “Why have you forsaken Me?” So widespread is this interpretation that we even find it in contemporary worship hymns. For example, Stuart Townend’s beautiful worship song “How Deep the Father’s Love for Us” contains these lyrics (emphasis added):

How great the pain of searing loss -

The Father turns His face away

Clearly, it has become normative to believe that the Father turned away from His Son and the eternal fellowship of the Godhead was broken (at least for that moment) at the cross.

PROBLEMS WITH THE BROKEN-FELLOWSHIP

EXPLANATION

Jesus Was Not Shocked

So, what’s wrong with this explanation? First, the Lord Jesus clearly knew that He was going to suffer and die. He would not have been shocked. He told His disciples, “The Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn Him to death. Then they will hand Him over to the Gentiles, and they will mock Him, spit on Him, flog Him, and kill Him, and He will rise after three days” (Mark 10:33-34 HCSB). Not only did the Lord Jesus know that He would die, He also knew the reason for His death: to be a sacrifice for sin and to provide “a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45).

God Can Look at Sin

A second problem with this explanation is that it is founded upon a misinterpretation of Habakkuk 1:13. That verse states that God’s “eyes are too pure to look on evil” (CSB).

Therefore, it is said that when all humanity’s sins rested upon Jesus, the Father could no longer look at the Son. According to this view, God literally abandoned the Messiah when the sin of all the world fell upon Him at His crucifixion and the eternal fellowship of the Father and the Son was broken. The problem with this is that Habakkuk 1:13 is not saying that God cannot look at sin. If so, how could He see us? What the verse actually means is that God is too pure to look with approval at sinful actions. That’s why the NASB correctly translates this verse as “Your eyes are too pure to approve evil.”

He Bore, Not Became, Our Sin

Third, this traditional explanation is problematic because the Lord Jesus never became sinful for us. Although 2 Corinthians 5:21 says God “made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf,” it is best to understand this phrase as God made the Lord Jesus “to be a sin offering on our behalf” The Lord Jesus did not become sinful or morally culpable for our sins but rather He bore the penalty for our sin as our substitute.

For example, in the Old Testament Day of Atonement liturgy, Aaron, acting as high priest, was to “lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the sons of Israel and all their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and he shall lay them on the head of the goat and sent it away into the wilderness. ... The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a solitary land...” (Lev. 16:21-22).

The scapegoat (literally, “the go-away goat”) did not actually become morally sinful but symbolically demonstrated the removal of Israel’s sins. Similarly, with the sin offering (Lev. 4), the sinful party was to lay a hand on the sacrificial animal as a symbolic transfer of guilt before the animal was sacrificed.

Nevertheless, it was impossible for an animal to become morally culpable but was a substitutionary offering. Likewise, in 2 Corinthians 5:21, the Lord Jesus did not become morally culpable for our sins, causing the Father to break fellowship with the Son. Rather, He became a substitutionary sacrifice, bearing our punishment and taking our sin away.

Fellowship Cannot Be Broken

Fourth and finally, it is theologically impossible and inconceivable for fellowship within the Godhead ever to be broken.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were always united, from eternity past to the eternal forever. Nothing could ever alter that, not even the Messiah Jesus’ death for the penalty of our sin.

The Reasons for Quoting Psalm 22:1

So why does the Lord Jesus quote Psalm 22:1 regarding God’s forsaking of Him? There are three reasons. First, the Messiah is using the psalm to express His prayer to the Father.

As Dietrich Bonhoeffer has said, the book of Psalms “is the prayer book of Jesus Christ in the truest sense.”** Second, He is using this quotation from Psalm 22 to draw attention to that messianic psalm and identify Himself as its subject. In this way, the Lord is demonstrating that He is the fulfillment of this messianic prophecy. Third, the Messiah Jesus quotes Psalm 22:1 as a rhetorical question, not a literal one. A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in which the questioner knows the answer but asks anyway for dramatic effect or to make a point. The Lord Jesus knew why He was dying and He knew the Father was not literally forsaking Him. It just felt that way. My students through the years have asked a rhetorical question when they see how much reading I require in the course syllabus. They ask, “Why did I take this course?” knowing all the while that they registered for it because it was needed to graduate. The question expresses how they feel. And, similarly, as He was suffering for the sins of the world, the Lord Jesus felt forsaken by His Father, although He knew it was not literally so.

FINAL THOUGHTS

The Lord Jesus’ words at His death are a great reminder for us that redemption was not cheap or easy. Rather, the glorious Messiah, the eternal Son of God, left His throne in heaven, emptying Himself of the rights of deity, and experienced the horrific suffering of crucifixion to provide atonement for our sin (cf. Phil. 2:5-9). Even so, knowing how painful this would be, the Lord Jesus said, “No one takes my life from me. I give it up willingly!” (John 10:18 CEV). This voluntary sacrifice of His life was an expression of His love for us, just as He said, “Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).

 

 

Continue Reading

How do you explain harsh and confusing statements of Jesus?

Some of the statements made by Jesus sound harsh and confusing. They make us feel uncomfortable. For example,

(1)   Why did Jesus curse a fig tree for not having fruit when it wasn’t even the season for figs (Mark 11:12-14)? Or,

(2)        Why did He call a needy Gentile woman a dog (Matt. 15:21-28) or

(3)    Prohibit a man from burying his father (Luke 9:59-60)?

(4)    Why did He promise to cause war (bring a sword) if He was the Prince of Peace (Matt. 10:34)?

The main reason that first-century Jewish people didn’t recognize Jesus as their Messiah was that He didn't fit their expectations. They were looking for a conquering King and political deliverer, but Jesus, in His first coming, arrived instead as a suffering servant and as a spiritual deliverer. In much the same way, twenty-first-century people have a hard time recognizing the real Jesus of the Gospels because He doesn't fit their cultural or societal expectations. It should not be shocking that some of the statements made by Jesus surprise us. Even so, by taking a closer look at the four examples mentioned in this question, we see there are good and simple explanations.

THE CURSING OF THE FIG TREE

Critics have objected to the story of the cursing of the fig tree (Mark 11:12—14, 19-25) because to them, it makes Jesus appear vindictive and selfish. On the surface, it appears that just because Jesus was hungry, He cursed a fig tree finding no fruit on it, “for it was not the season for figs” (v. 13). After He cursed it, the tree withered (vv. 20-21).

The confusion comes from a failure to understand the horticulture of first-century Israel. Fig trees in that part of the world sprout unripe figs before growing leaves. These unripe figs were often eaten by the poor and others when hungry. So, by the time Jesus saw the fig tree (which had leaves on it), it should have already produced edible, unripe figs. The absence of fruit proved that this tree was barren; it would never provide fruit at all. The cursing of the fig tree was not a vindictive, selfish act, but rather one used by Jesus to teach two spiritual lessons.

The first was about the danger of religious hypocrisy. This is evident from the events that occurred between the cursing of the fig tree and when the disciples saw the tree had withered. In between those two events, the Lord Jesus went to the temple and declared that it had become a business operation rather than, as intended, a place of worship (Mark 11:15-17).

The object lesson was clear: Just as the tree had leaves but no fruit, so the religious leadership at the temple looked holy but was not producing spiritual fruit. Jesus was demonstrating that this kind of religiosity would wither and die, just like the barren fig tree.

The second lesson concerned prayer. Jesus did not cause the tree to wither because He exercised His divine power as the Son of God but rather as a result of faithful prayer. So the next day, when the disciples were amazed that the fig tree had withered already, Jesus taught them that they too could pray, and if they believed, they could move mountains (Mark 11:22-24). Mountain moving was an illustration of the power of prayer, not a literal exercise in moving Mount Rushmore into the Pacific Ocean.

The Lord’s point was that mountain-moving prayer is a privilege given to all followers of Jesus who trust God completely. The cursing of the fig tree was not about Jesus being selfish and vindictive but was intended to teach His followers the importance of authentic spirituality and the need for mountain-moving faith in our prayers.

THE GENTILE WOMAN CALLED A DOG

Critics frequently ask, since the Lord Jesus is the perfect model of love, why did He call a Gentile woman a dog (Matt. 15:21-28)? While the Lord Jesus was in the area of Tyre and Sidon (Syro-Phoenicia), a Canaanite woman was begging the Lord Jesus to heal her demonized daughter. The Lord Jesus responded that He needed to minister to the people of Israel before serving Gentiles. Then He gave the illustration that one does not give the children’s bread to the dogs.

She persisted, saying even dogs receive crumbs. In response, the Lord Jesus delivered her daughter. At first glance, it does seem rude for Jesus to compare this woman to a dog. But while Jesus’ response may appear harsh to our modern ears, it was actually gentle. The Greek word used in this passage is kunarion which is a diminutive term, meaning “a little dog, doggie, or house pet.”

Jesus did not use the word kuon, a Greek word commonly translated “dog” but used for “wild, dog packs.” It is helpful to note that Paul used this harsh term, saying “Beware of the dogs” (Phil. 3:2), when warning the Philippians about false teachers. So what can help us better understand this interaction between the Messiah Jesus and the Canaanite woman? First, the Lord Jesus was merely expressing God’s divine priority, not His own bigotry. As the Messiah of Israel, Jesus was called to present Himself to the Jewish people first. That is why He told the Samaritan woman, “Salvation is from the Jews” (John 4:22).

Similarly, Paul told the Jewish people of Pisidian Antioch, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first” (Acts 13:46) and declared the gospel to be “to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16). The message of the Messiah was founded in Israel and promised to the Jewish people. The gospel is an especially Jewish message, and it was essential for the Jewish Messiah to be presented to the Jewish people first since they took priority.

Second, in order to explain this divine program, the Lord Jesus was merely offering an illustration to help this woman understand. His point was that just as a parent has a priority for caring for children before a beloved pet (as evident in His use of the diminutive “doggie” or “puppy’), so the Lord Jesus needed to minister to the Jewish people before caring for a dear Canaanite woman.

Third, notice that the Canaanite woman did not take offense but rather accepted God’s divine priority. Still she did not get discouraged, but persisted. She used the Lord’s il-lustration to ask for “bread crumbs,’ thereby expressing her great faith in the mercy of the Messiah Jesus.

Finally, when the woman persisted, the Lord Jesus com-mended the woman for her faith (“O woman, your faith is great,’ v. 28), and He healed her daughter. This demonstrated that the Messiah Jesus was ready to respond to the humble faith of any person, Jewish or Gentile.

FORBIDDING A MAN TO BURY HIS FATHER

When the Lord Jesus called a man to follow Him, the man requested, “Lord, permit me first to go and bury my father,’ The Lord Jesus responded in a way that may surprise and concern us: “Allow the dead to bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim everywhere the kingdom of God” (Luke 9:59-60).

This reply to a grieving son seems callous and unkind. How could Jesus have been so harsh? The answer is that the man’s request was not to go to his father’s funeral or perhaps, to attend to a deathly sick dad who would die soon.

More likely, this was the oldest son in the family and he wanted to return home, wait for his perfectly healthy father to die, bury him, and then collect his inheritance. The request was not for a brief delay but an open-ended postponement of the call to follow and serve the Messiah Jesus.

The response of the Lord Jesus illustrates the urgency of following Him. We're not to wait until it’s convenient or comfortable for us to serve the Lord. Rather, we are to obey and serve Him immediately, even if doing so might require a loss of personal benefits.

THE MESSIAH AND WAR AND PEACE

According to Isaiah 9:6, one of the throne-titles of the future Messiah is “Prince of Peace.” That's why Jesus’ words seem so shocking: “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matt. 10:34). Was Jesus endorsing war? Actually, He was doing no such thing, but He was being deliberately controversial. When the Lord says “Do not think . . ” He was intentionally shaking up the perspective of His listeners. The following three insights help us understand what Jesus was actually saying.

First, the context reveals that the Lord Jesus was speaking of family division, not holy war. He quotes Micah 7:6 which describes the division between fathers and sons, mothers and daughters, and enemies within families (Matt. 10:35-36).

Second, the Lord Jesus’ use of the word “sword” is figurative for division, not literal for a weapon of war. In the first century, a sword, as used in the Roman Empire, was a two edged weapon used for cutting or cleaving. Jesus was not speaking of war here but using the figure of a sword which would divide families.

Finally, the Lord Jesus’ description of division was predictive, not prescriptive. He was not demanding that families divide over their faith in Him, but He was foretelling that they might face separation. Anyone who has heard of a spouse leaving a husband or wife when one of them became a follower of Jesus or a parent disowning a child over belief in Jesus understands the reality of this prediction. In fact, this happened to me. When I became a follower of Jesus, contrary to my deepest desire, my Dad, an observant Jewish man, disowned me, and even said the Jewish prayer for the dead for me. Although the Lord Jesus did not prescribe this kind of separation, He certainly predicted it. Understanding this passage as a prediction is certainly correct when understood in the context of this passage and in Scripture. In the following paragraph (Matt. 10:37-39), the Lord emphasized the importance of prioritizing love for Him even over love for family.

FINAL THOUGHTS

Would the Messiah really make such shocking statements? Absolutely! The Lord Jesus requires His followers to be fully devoted to Him. He may say things that challenge and surprise us. Nevertheless, His words, when understood within context, are never vindictive, harsh, unkind, or warlike. They are consistent with what we expect from the Lord of lords and King of kings.

Continue Reading

Did Jesus really turn water into wine at the wedding in Cana (John 2:1-11)?

Some skeptics often ask Did Jesus turned water into wine? Even the followers of Jesus ask the same question, but with a very different intent. They find it hard to believe, in light of all the damage caused by alcohol abuse, that the Lord Jesus would actually turn water into wine with genuine alcohol content. To them, it’s inconceivable that the Lord Jesus would provide real wine, and, by doing so, condone social alcohol consumption or possibly even partake of it Himself. So, it’s vital to address these questions, posed both by the skeptic and the teetotaler, in that order.

THE REALITY OF THE MIRACLE

The denial of miracles presupposes a naturalistic point of view. Skeptics argue that Jesus could not have turned water into wine because it’s simply not scientifically possible for a miracle to have taken place. This approach is problematic for a couple of reasons. First, it has the wrong premise, confusing naturalism with scientific fact. Naturalism states that only nature exists and there is nothing transcendent beyond it. By contrast, a truly scientific person would accept the evidence that there is a Creator who established the laws of nature and who then could transcend those laws. That’s why famed former atheist Anthony Flew came to believe that “a superintelligence is the only good explanation of the origin of life and of the complexity of nature.’*° If God does exist, then miracles are not only possible but absolutely necessary in order to ex-plain the historical record. Pure naturalism denies the historical record of events like turning water into wine at the wedding of Cana. But critics should consider the number of people who were present at the wedding of Cana. All of those in attendance attested to the remarkable miracle of Jesus turning water into wine. John declared that his purpose for including these miraculous signs in his gospel was to convince people to “believe Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God [deity], and by believing you may have life in His name” (John 20:30-31 HCS). The miracle at Cana was well known and gave evidence of the deity of Jesus. Denial of the miracle not only rejects the testimony of John but of every other person present at that time. The critic, by denying these first-person validations, is saying, “My mind is made up—don't confuse me with the facts.”

Josh McDowell compares the rejection of eyewitness testimony to explorers going to Australia and discovering an animal that seemed to deny all the zoological categories previously known. It was a semi-aquatic, egg-laying mammal with webbed feet, a broad, flat tail, and a flat bill similar to a duck. At first, people rejected the eyewitness report of this discovery and considered it a hoax because it didn’t fit their previously conceived notions. When the explorers returned from Australia a second time, carrying the hide of a duck-billed platypus, they were again accused of fabricating a fraud.*’ This modern-day example demonstrates the danger of only trusting our preconceived ideas rather than believing reliable firsthand testimony. John’s purpose for including this miracle was to prove the deity of Jesus. Only God could turn water molecules into wine molecules. Those who are followers of Jesus fully accept the ability of Jesus to do this and much more! Many, though, have a different issue related to the suitability of that miraculous wine.

THE QUESTION OF THE GRAPES

The wisdom writer states categorically, “Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler, and whoever is intoxicated by it is not wise” (Prov. 20:1). He also gave an extended description of the woes, sorrows, contentions, complaints, and wounds of those “who linger long over wine” (Prov. 23:29-35). The danger of alcohol abuse has caused many to question why the Lord Jesus would actually turn water into wine with alcoholic content. It seems to them that this would be contrary to His love and concern for people. They try to explain away this miracle. Yet all the biblical evidence seems to indicate that Jesus did indeed create wine out of water.

The Lexical Evidence

When the wine ran out at the wedding in Cana, Jesus had the pots filled with water. Afterwards, the headwaiter tasted the liquid in the pots and the water “had become wine” (John 2:9). The Greek language has perfectly good words for both juice and wine. In this paragraph, the word oinos plainly means wine. Southern Baptist Greek scholar A. T. Robertson has written, “It is real wine that is meant by oinos here. Unlike [John] the Baptist, Jesus mingled in the social life of the time, was even abused for it (Matt. 11:19 = Luke 7:34).’* The plain sense of the word used here is actual, real wine.

The Contextual Evidence

It’s not only the word used in John 2:9 that points to real wine, but also the very next verse. The headwaiter who had tasted the wine told the bridegroom, “Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine; but you kept the good wine until now” (John 2:10). These words indicate what was (and maybe still is) standard operating procedure at weddings. In particular, it was normal to serve the better wine first. Then, when people became drunk (the literal translation of “drunk freely;” cf. NET Bible), they would offer the lesser quality wine. However, in this case, clearly the best wine had been made available late in the celebration. This verse is not saying anyone had yet become drunk— only what was normally done at weddings. The important detail to note is that the sort of wine offered at weddings was the kind that could cause drunkenness. Imagine the headwaiter saying, “Normally, the name brand grape juice is brought out first, and then, when the senses are dulled, the store brand quality is released.” This would make no sense. The only way to understand the headwaiter’s words would be if he were talking about real wine.

The Cultural Evidence

We must consider that the miracle took place at a first-century Jewish wedding. All Jewish festivals and weddings at that time were consecrated and celebrated with real wine. It would make no sense for Jesus to go against the cultural tradition and turn water into grape juice. Clearly the miracle involved Jesus turning the water into actual wine with alco-holic content.

The Historical Evidence

Prior to the modern era, there was no question that this was a miracle with real wine. It was only in nineteenth-century America, with its rampant abuse of wine and other alcohol, that followers of Jesus began to reject drinking wine whatso-ever. This in turn led many to question the alcoholic content in the miraculously made wine of Jesus. However, to deny the alcoholic content of the wine in this miracle and in this setting is to read the Bible through the lens of our modern-day culture and emotions.

SO WHAT?

What should we make of Jesus turning water into wine at the wedding of Cana? To begin, the passage shows that Jesus approved of drinking wine. Master educator Gilbert Highet, in a book about methods of instruction, pointed out that Jesus taught in ways other than by lecturing. He states, “The first miracle told of him in John’s gospel was the creation of wine to help the festivities at a wedding. He could not have said more plainly that he approved of both marriage and [wine]- drinking.’*’ Bishop Ryle similarly comments, “If our Lord Jesus Christ actually worked a miracle in order to supply wine at a marriage feast, it seems to me impossible, by any ingenuity, to prove that drinking wine is sinful.”** Second, the Bible includes clear warnings about the danger and destruction of drunkenness. The book of Proverbs (cited previously) warns about the abuse of alcohol.

The Bible teaches that the damage caused by drinking alcohol should be a caution against ever imbibing too much. Moreover, the abuse of alcohol by many in our culture should give us pause. We can agree that if we never took a drink of wine or any other sort of alcohol, we would never be able to abuse it. Certainly, this could be the wisest course for many of us. Third, we are cautioned by Paul to consider the effect of our alcohol consumption on others. Paul’s teaching about meat sacrificed to idols can easily apply to the drinking of wine. Even if we are able to drink wine temperately without abusing it, Paul taught believers to limit our liberty in doubtful things, so as not to cause “a stumbling block to the weak” (1 Cor. 8:9-10). To cause someone to stumble does not mean we are annoying a legalist. Rather, it refers to causing others to behave in a way that is contrary to their conscience. If a believer drinks wine, and by doing so causes someone else who is struggling with resisting wine to drink it, then we “sin against Christ” (1 Cor. 8:12).

FINAL THOUGHTS

What can we conclude? We need balance when it comes to our attitude and behavior toward wine and other types of alcohol. While we do not want to become legalists, condemning brothers and sisters in the faith who have the freedom and control to drink wine, we must also not behave so carelessly that we cause a stumbling block for brothers and sisters “for whose sake Christ died” (1 Cor. 8:11). Remember the words of Paul: “Therefore, if food [or drink] causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat [or drink wine] again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble” (1 Cor. 8:13).

Continue Reading

‘SUOL CHU THEIDA UNLA, A SUKSUOLTU RUOK CHU HMANGAI RO’

Pastor Johny Laldinthar F Tusing,

22 Sept., 2026 at Phuaibuang.

Table of Contents

Thuhawngna. 1

Pathien le Suol 2

Isu le misuol (suksuoltu) ngirhmun.. 3

1.     Uirenu: 3

2.     Naupa tlân hmang: 4

3.     Siedâwltu (tax collector): 5

4.     Kraws lêra mi suol: 5

Thukhârna

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

Thuhawngna

Kum zabi 3na laia Kohran ṭhuoitu le puipa langsar tak chu St. Augustine a nih.

Ei thu ziek inlâr tak el hi St.Augustine a thuzieka inthawka lâksuok a nih. Ama hi ‘St. Augustine of Hippo’ tia hrietlâr, kohran hmasa laia Thoelogian le ziektu ropui tak a nih. AD 354 in Thagaste (tuta Algeria ram) ah hin a pienga, a pieng tîra a hming chu Augustine Aurelius ti a nih.

Pathienin thiemna le varna anthuom leiin Kohran Thuring tamtak sulsuotu laia mi a nih. Pathien Lunginsietna thuring (Doctrine of Grace), Suol bul (Doctrine of Original Sin), Sacrament Thuring (Doctrine of Sacrament) le Trinity Thuring hai hi ama hi ei hnârlâkna (source) a ni tlângpui a nih.

Suol thua a thuziek ropuitak laia mi chu AD 424 laia ‘Letter 211’ a zieknaa Latin ṭawngin "Cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum," hi a nih. A umzie chu ‘Mihriem chu hmangai la, suol ruok chu theida rawh” ti a nih. 1929 khan India hnam pa Mahatma Gandhi in St. Augustine thuhril besanin “Hate the Sin and not the Sinner” [Suol chu theida unla, a suksuoltu ruol chu theida lovin] ti hi khawvêl pumpui hriet dingin a hung hmang langsâr ta a nih.

Pathien le Suol

Suol hi Pathien leh inrem theilo, Pathien Thienghlim le inpawl thei der lo a nih. Pathienin a theida êm êm a nih. Pathienin suol a theida zie chu; ‘Suol man chu thina a ni sih a’ (Rom 6:23); ‘in khawhlona (suol) chu nangni le in Pathien kâra tlain a sukṭhe lem cheu a nih, naa a hriet nuom nawna dingin in suolnahai chun a hmai chu a hlie pêk bawk cheu a nih’ (Is.59:2).

Suol leia thlaraua thi vawng ei nih. Pathien leh inzawm thei ta lo ei lo ni tah.  Pathien chu hmangaina le lunginsietna hau, zangainaa sip a ni leiin ‘Suolnain in chungah thu a nei ta naw ding a ni sih a, Dân rorêla um in ni nawh a, lunginsietna rorêla um in ni lem sih a’ (Rom 6:14) tiin Krista Tlantu zara chun ‘chuongchun, tuhin chu Krista Isua umhai ta ding chun thiemnaw inchangtirna hrim a um ta nawh’ (Rom 8:1) a tih. Chuleichun, tûkhawm Kristaa a um chun thilsiem thar a hung ni tah a; thil hluihai chu a bo tah a, ngai ta u, a hung thar tah (2 Kor.5:17). Kristaa umhai chu thilsiem thar an hung ni lem tah.

‘Pathien ṭhatnain simna dingin a ṭhuoi hlak che ti hre loin, a ṭhatna hauzie le, a en theizie le, a zaidaw theizie dâm chu i ngainêp am a nih?’ (Rom 2:4). Pathien ṭhatnain simna dingin a mi ṭhuoi hlak a ni ti ei hriet zing nuom a um.

Simna indiktak neia, Pathien hmaa inbunruoka, lungril lungriem ithlâka Pathien pantuhai Lalpa’n an hlawsamtir ngai nawh.

Isu le misuol (suksuoltu) ngirhmun

1.    Uirenu: Dân inchûktirtuhai le Pharisaihaiin nuhmei pakhat a uiret leia an man an hung ṭhuoi a; a laiah an inngîrtir a. Isu kuomah, “Inchûktirtu, hi nuhmei hi a uiret lai an man a nih, a uiret lai takin. Hrem hmabâk Mosie dâna lunga dêng hlum ding a nih. Isu’n  “Nangni laia suol nei naw naw chun ama chu lungin dêng hmasa raw se,” a ta. Hnuoia khan iem a ziek ei hriet naw, ṭhenkhatin a suolna ‘Uiretna Suol’ lien kuou-in a ziek a ni el thei an ti, ‘thiemhnaw a chang leia dêng hlum ding thu’ thu a ni theia, ‘Dân sâwmpêk’ khawm a ni thei, ‘Dân inchûktirtuhai le Pharisaihai’ lien deuin a ziek a ni thei bawk. Iengpo khawm nisien, uiret lai taka man chu a ngirhmun a va sie lâwm lâwm de! Isu chu a kûn nâwk a, a kutpârin hnuoi a ziek nâwk a. Chun, anni chun a thu hril chu an hrietin, a upatakin a phut a, a tâwp chenin, pakhat khatin an inrel hmang ta pei a. Isu a tho a, a kuomah, “Nuhmei, khâwlai am an um tah a? Tukhawmin thiemnaw an inchangtir naw che a ni maw?” a ta. Ama chun, “Lalpa, tukhawmin an mîn changtir nawh,” a ta. Chun, Isûn, “Kei khawmin thiemnaw kân changtir naw che; fe la, tuta hnung chu suksuol nâwk ta naw,” a ta. Isu’n nang le kei hi a mi hrietchieng bêk bêk. Mi hmuhawia, langthei thila ei suksuol ni kherlo hai khawm a hriet vawng a nih. Amiruokchu, zangaina le lunginsietna leiin ei nina ang angin a mi pawm nuomhai ei ni hi a ropui hlê. (Jn.8:1-11). Isu khan suol kha thupbo, humhim, hrilmawi a tum annaw. Suol kha iengma loa a ngai tina a ni bawk nawh. Suol theida vieu sienkhawm suksuoltu a hmangaina anthûk bêk bêk leiin a hungna san tak sandamna (damna) an tlun el a nih.

2.   Naupa tlân hmang: Naupa tlân hmang tekhithua, a naupang lem kha khawvêl chêna, nun inhawi taluoa hun hmang a nih. A nei po po a sukthâm ta mei meia, a pa kuomah iengkhawm ro nei ta lo, ngiet ding nei ta derlo a nih. Chan sietaka um, damna dinga vawkbu (iengkhat kâwm) insukkhawp nuom el ta kha, “Tho ka ta, ka pa kuomah fêng ka tih” ti thei dinga lungril a neina le a ṭhangharna a khan, a beisei nêka ropui ditsakna chungchuong a chang a nih. A pa kuom tieng a pana, hlataka a la um laiin a pain a lo hmuh a, a lunginsiet bêk bêk a, a tlân a, a kuoh a, a fâwp ta ngâwi ngâwi a. Hi hin ‘mi suol le suksuoltuhai’ ama kuom tieng pantuhai kuomah Pathien lungril put hmang chu a nih. A va ropui de! ‘Pa, vâna mi chungah le nanga mithmuin thil ka suksuol a; i naupaa inbûk tlâk ka ni ta nawh,’ an buotsaina po po hril dinga a tihai po po khawm a hril hman ta nawh. Pa hmangaina inthûtak leia chan ṭha a dawnghai po po ropui zie kha a va ropui lâwm lâwm deh. Hmangainaa khawm hmangaina tâwpkhâwk a lo ni ngei. ‘Khawm tho ka ta ka pa kuom tieng fêng ka ti’ tituhai chun, chan ropuitak hmûng an tih. (Lk.15:11-32)

3.   Siedâwltu (tax collector): Isu hun laia hlêpru hmang, phatsantu, misuol tâwpkhâwka ngai anni hlak. Zakai siewdâwltu hausa kha chuongang mi a ni leiin, an ngaia chun mi suol a ni leiin ‘mi suol kuoma tlung dingina  lût ta saw’ an ti hrim a nih. Isu’n a hming ngeiin ‘Zakai; tia koin, a inah a tlung a nih. Sandamna ropuitak tlungin Simna indiktak, lungril inthlâkdanglamna nun ropuitak-Personal Revival (mimala) a tlung a ni kha. Mani nina inhrea, muolpho ngama Pathien hmaa suol thuphachawina neia, suol simna tak tak neihai kuomah chun Isu’n ‘Vawisûn hi ina hin sandamna a hung tlung tah’ ti hi anchang hlak.  “Bohmanghai zawnga sandam dingin Mihriem Naupa hi a hung a ni hrim a nih,” (Lk.19:1-10)

4.   Kraws lêra mi suol: Krista ruola hemdea um misuol pakhat thi el ta ding (dying criminal) kha ieng ang kheua suolna nei am ti chieng takin ei hriet naw; suomhmang, tuolthat, suolluina chîng hlak khawm ni rawi naw nîm!!  Sienkhawm, a suolna anhrieta, mi suol thi tlâka an pawm a, ‘eini chu tuor âwm tak hrim tuor ei nih, ei thilthaw man indiktak hmu ei ni lem…Isu I ramah lal I ṭhung phaleh mi hre zing rawh aw’ tia mi suol nina inhrechienga, tuor tlâk le thi tlâk nina inpawma, simna lungril le ringna tak takin, inngaitlâwm taka Isu lunginsietna le zangaina a hei hni zet khan, damna a chang der el. Isu’n  “Titakzetin ka hril che hi, vawisûn hin ka kuomah Paradisah um vêng i tih,” a hlaw pha dêr a nih. Mi suol pakhat khan taksa damna le khawvêl saltângnaa inthawk thawvengna insuo zalênna a beiseia. Suol inhrea Isu kuomah tuor âwmtak hrim le an suol leia hrem le tuor le hmu tlâk anni zie inhrechiengtu ruok khan chu chatuon damna a chang thung a nih. Ieng angin lo suol inla khawm Krista kebula tlu lûttu tuhai an vângneia, damna la chang pei an tih. Damna chang ding thil tamtak a ṭul naw, a pawimaw tak chu mani suol inhrietchiengna, simna indiktak neia Krista pan ku hi ei damna a lo nih. (Lk. 23:39-43)

Thukhârna

Unau dittakhai, suol chu suol a nih. Lalpa Pathien anga suol theida an um nawh. Suol tirdakum ngai theilo tak khawm ei Pathien a nih. Sienkhawm, mani suol inhrea, simna lungril indiktak puta ama pantuhai an hlawsam ngai nawh. Suol sim si lo, inthlâkdanglamna hmu ding um der lo, mihriem chanpuihai laka mawina chau zawnghai ruok chun Pathien ngaidamna hmu nihai. Suol man chu thina a ni sih a; Pathien thilthlâwnpêk ruok chu ei Lalpa Krista Isu zârah chatuona hringna a nih.

Zakai anga simna nei, Naupa tlanhmang anga thoa pa kuom tieng pana inbunruok, Kraws a hemdea um thi el ta dingpa hrem âwmtak le tuor âwm taka inhre sia Krista kuomah kawinawina nei (brokenness) angin Pathien pan hlak ei tiu. Simna tak tak ei nei phawt chun ieng anga suol tirdakum khawm thaw inla (uirenu) khawm Pathien ngaidam theilo a um nawh. Amiruokchu, ‘Pathienin a ngaiudam theilo suol a um naw’ ti leia I suksuol luia, lungril indik le inthieng I put naw ruok chun Pathien hremna chungah tlung a tih.  Pathien lunginsietna el zangaina nêka inril le inthûk SUOL a um nawh. Pathien hmangaina in a khûm var var a nih. Ngaidam theitu Pathien chun a mi lunginsiet bêk bêkhai eini leiin, lungril indik, fel le thienghlim taka Ama pantuhai chu mi lo kuo in, mi fâwp ngawi ngawiin mi lâwmlût a tih.

‘SUOL CHU THEIDA UNLA, A SUKSUOLTU RUOK CHU HMANGAI RO’

 

 

Continue Reading

SABBATH CHUNGCHANGA BIBLE INCHÛKTIRNA

SABBATH CHUNGCHANGA BIBLE INCHÛKTIRNA
(Biblical Theology of Sabbath)

Pastor Johny Laldinthar F Tusing, 8^th Oct., 2026

Contents

Kamkeuna. 2

Sabbath Umzie. 3

Sabbath Chungchanga Ngaidan Ṭhenkhat 3

Bible-a Sabbath.. 5

(1) Thuthlung Pêk Hmaa Sabbath (Before the Old Covenant) 5

Exo.16:22-30a ei hriet ding pawimawhai: 6

(2) Thuthlung (dân) Pêk Huna Sabbath (Sabbath under the Old Covenant) 7

SABBATH NI A THAW A PHAL NAWHAI 7

SABBATH NI A THAW A PHALHAI 8

Thuthlung dân pêka Sabbath Chungchânga Hriet Ding Pawimaw.. 9

(3) Thuthlung Thar Huna Sabbath (Sabbath under the New Covenant) 10

Pathienni (Lalpa Ni-The Lord’s Day)  Chungchang  14

Protestant Huna Sabbath le Pathienni (Sunday) 16

Martin Luther. 18

John Calvin.. 18

Sabbatarianism... 19

Hebrai Lekhathawna Châwlni 21

Thukhârna. 23

Bibliography. 25

Webliography. 26

 

Kamkeuna

Tulai Social Media ahai Sabbath chungchang hi Mizoram ah hril a hlaw êm êm a. Mi tamtakin an lo hrilfie-in anlo insêl rawp tah. Fie deua ziek ei nuom leiin Article sei tak a ni ding a ni ti tiemtu haiin ei hriet a pawimaw hmasa a nih.

Bible-in Sabbath chungchang hi iengtin am a hrila? Thuthlung Hlui le Thar ahai hin iengtin am inchûktirna/pawm dân ding a hril ti hi ei hung suizau tum chu a nih.

Mosie dân ei en chun Sabbath chu inser thienghlim dinga thupêk a ni ti chieng takin ei hmu. Vawisûna ringtuhai ruok chu Thuthlung Dân hnuoia um eini ta naw ti hi ei hriet hmasatak dinga pawimaw a nih.

Thuthlung Hlui Dân hnuoia Sabbath inser dinga thupêk (commandment) hi Thuthlung Thar leh ieng anga hrilmat diem a na? ti hi indawnna pawimaw tak a ni leiin ei hrilfie tum laia mi a ni bawk a nih.

Sabbath Umzie

Sabbath hi Hebrai ṭawng שַׁבָּת (sabbat) tia inthawk lâksuok a ni a, a umzie chu ‘sin thaw châwl’ ("to cease," "to stop," or "to pause") tina a nih. Professor in ‘sabbatical’ a lâk ei ti chun ‘inchûktirna sin-a inthawk châwl lâk’ tina el a nih. Chuleiin, sabbath chu ‘châwl’ le inzawm a nih. Pathienin dân sâwm pêk (decalogue) a khan ‘ni sari ni ruok chu LALPA I Pathien kuoma châwlni a nih’ ti a nih (Ex.20:10).

Sabbath Chungchanga Ngaidan Ṭhenkhat

Progressive Covenantalism le Dispensationalism hai chun, “Krista in Sabbath hi a thlâk danglam” ti an pawm-a, mi ṭhenkhatin ‘Pathien thupêkhai hi an pawimaw vawng leiin Thuthlung hlui-a Sabbath hi Thuthlung thar-ah sunzawm zing a ni ding a nih’  tiin kohran ṭhenkhatin inchûktirna an pêk; Seventh Day kohran an um hiel hrima, ṭhenkhatin Thuthlung Hlui-a Sabbath angin Pathienni hi an ngai (transitioning from Saturday to Sunday) bawk.[1]

Seventh Day Adventist haiin Adventist Biblical Research Institute puithu tak an neia, hi Research Institute-a an mithiem suongvâwrhai hmanga an lekhabu ziek ‘The Sabbath In The New Testament And In Theology’ ti lekhabu sa deu el an suksuoka Ekkehardt Mueller  le Eike Mueller hai Editor an ni nghe nghe. Hi chau ni lo, Seventh Day Adventist Theological Seminary kutsuok tamtak khawm hmu ding a um bawk.

Evangelical huong sûnga khawm Sabbath chungchanga lekhabu ṭha tak el ‘From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation’  D.A.Carson, editor-na hnuoia 1982 khan suksuok a lo ni bawk. Hi bâka ‘Perspective on the Sabbath: 4 Views’ lekhabu dâm, ‘Five Views on law and Gospel,’ Christian and Biblical law’ le ‘Biblical Theology’ tamtak ziekin a um bawk. Pathienni/Lalpa Ni (Lord’s Day) khawm hi ṭhenkhatin Sabbath ang deu thawa inser dinga det taka pawm Evangelical lai khawm an um bawk.

Evangelical sûnga Sabbath chungchanga lekhabu râwn tlâk leh mi tamtak innghatna chu Willy Rordorf ziek ‘Sunday: The History of the Day of Rest and Worship in the Earliest Centuries of the Christian Church’ 1962-a sutsuok hi a nih. Rordorf chun, ‘Thuthlung Hluia Sabbath hi châwl (rest) a inṭanin Pathien chibai bûk (worship) le châwl-in a tâwpa, Thuthlung Thar-a Pathienni (Sunday) hi Pathien chibai bûkna (Day of Worship) a inṭanin, ei la sunzawm zinga, châwl (rest) nia khawm ei hmang ta pei a nih” a tih. [2]

A hnunga J. Francke, R.T Beckwith le W. Stott[3] hai khawmin lekhabu an hung ziek a, mi tamtakin Journal dang danga Articles tamtak ziek a hung um ta pei a nih.

Pathienni (Sunday) hi ṭhenkhatin ‘Christian Sabbath’  tia awlsam deua pawmtu an um bawk. Amiruokchu, Evangelical Scholarhai chun Christian Sabbath anga pawm hi an ti naw tlângpui.

Hi Sabbath le Lalpa Ni  indawnna tamtak hin Theology a themsa-Thilsiem chungchang (creation ordinance), Ṭhatna dân (moral law), Thuthlung Hlui le Thar inlaichinna, Sandamna chanchin (salvation history), Thuthlung (covenant), Pathien dân (biblical law), hrillâwkna (prophecy) le sukdikna (fulfillment).

Hi chau ni lovin, Kristienhai in Thuthlung Hlui Dânhai hi ieng chen am ei pawm ding le ei hnâwl dinghai? a kawpsa vawng a nih.

Bible-a Sabbath

Bible-a Sabbath hi ṭhe thuma ṭhe thei a ni a; (1) Thuthlung pêk hmaa (2) Thuhlung (dân) pêk huna (3) Thuthlung Thar huna

  (1) Thuthlung Pêk Hmaa Sabbath (Before the Old Covenant)

A sapṭawng ang takin ei inlet naw, Thuthlung Hlui hma ti khan Genesis a inthawk a hlui vawnga ngaina  a lien leiin, Thuthlung pêk hma tiin ei sie a nih. Sabbath ti tak hi Genesis-a thilsiema khan hmang a ni nawh. Gen.2:3-4a, “ni sari nia chun a thilsiem po po chu a châwlsan ta a, Chuongchun, Pathienin ni sari ni chu mal a sâwm a, ân ser ta a: chu ni chun Pathienin a thilsiem po po, thu ngawta a siem le kuta a siemhai chu a châwlsan ta leiin”. Hi hi Sabbath chungchanga Bible-a ânziek hmasatakna a nih.

Amiruokchu, Pathienin Adam le Thlatu hmasahai (Patriarchs) kha inser le sin châwlsan dinga thupêk chu ei hmu der nawh.  Mipui le Israelhai Sabbath inser dinga thu a pêk (command) hi Mosie dân-a pêk hma met kha a nih. Chu chu Exo.16:22-30 a khan ei hmu. Pathienin manna a pêk khan, bung 16:5naa, ‘Ni ruk nia (Zirtâwpni) chun ni tina an lâk khâwm zât lêt hni la khâwm an ta…” châng 23naa, “Hi hi a nih LALPAIN a hril kha: Zînga chu LALPA ta dinga Châwl ni (Sabbath) inthieng, châwl ṭawk ṭawk ding ni chu a nih” ti hi a hung hmang ta a. Châng 25 le 26a a hung hril nawna, châng 26a lem chun, “Ni ruk sûng chu la khâwm in ta, ni sari ni ruok chu Châwl ni a nih a, chu ni chun pakhat khawm um naw nih,”  ti ei hmu tah.

Exo.16:22-30a ei hriet ding pawimawhai:

1. Israelhai ta ding chun Châwl ni (Sabbath) chu an chanchin (history) a, an thil hriet hmasatakna a nih. Hi hma hin Sabbath leia châwl ti hi hrietna an la nei  nawh.

2. Thlalêrah Sabbath an bawsiet khan Mosie in a hal/kâwk/zilhau tâwl-a, Dân a pêk hnung ruok chun Sabbath bawsietna hremna chu thina (lunga dêng hlum) a ni tah (Num.15:32-26)

3. Sabbath- châwlni (day of rest) hi thilpêk (gift) hadamna ni a nih. Pathien thilpêk an ngaihlu naw/inza naw hun huna Pathien pawi an tâwk hlak.

4. Sabbath (châwlni) hi Pathienin a mihai a sukthienghlimna hmangruo a nih. Pathien an ring ngam am ti fiena a ni bawk. A thu pêk/ a thu hril iengma loa an ngai huna Pathien pawi an tâwk hlak.

(2) Thuthlung (dân) Pêk Huna Sabbath (Sabbath under the Old Covenant)

Thuthlung (covenant) a pêk thu Exo.20:1-17a ei hmu. Dân sâwm-decalogue (thupêk) a pêka hin, a palina (fourth commandment) chu Sabbath a ni a, inser (vawng thienghlim) dingin châng 8-11 inkâr poa ei hmua, a ngaipawimaw ta hlê (dân sâwm pêk laia a ziek khawm a sei tak). Ieng sin khawm thaw  a phal ta naw a, suokhai chen an inser ding thu le ran ruol le khuolzintu chen khawm a huom. Exo.31:13-17 a lem chun Sabbath chu inchikna (sign) a hmang ding thu a hrila, sabbath bâwsetu le inzanawtu chunga hremna  chu sukhlum (death) a ni tah (31:14b).

Exo.35:2-3 (Sabbath inser dânhai), Lev.23:3, Num.15:32-36, Deut.5:15 a hai ziek nawn, ziek nawnin a hung um tah. Thuthlung Hlui ziek dangahai khawm hmu ding a um pei taa. Sabbath nia Pathienin thaw a phal le phalnawhai suklang ei tih.

SABBATH NI A THAW A PHAL NAWHAI
Manna lâk khawm (rût)	Exo.16:23-29
Mei khawm sêm der lo ding a nih	Exo.35:3
Thing inkhâwm	Num.15:32-36
Thil zawr, thil inchâwk hrim hrim	Neh.10:31; 13:15-22
Phur phura suok amanih lût	Jer.17:19-27
SABBATH NI A THAW A PHALHAI
Sipai thilthaw/raldo	Jos.6:15; 1 Kings 20:29; 2 Kings 3:9
Inneina ruoiṭhe	Ror. 14:12-18
Inhlânna ruoi	1 Kings 8:65; 2 Chron.7:8-9
Pathien mihai kan (visit)	2 Lal.4:23
Temple vêngtuhai inthleng	2 Lal.11:5-9
Entirna bei chunga sin nei	1 Chron.9:32
Pumrawhmang thilinhlân	1 Chron.23:31; Ez.46:4-5
Thiempu le Levi an sinhai	2 Lal.11:5-9; 2 Chron.23:4,8
Dâi kawtkhâr saktieng  hawng	Ez.46:1-3

Mishnah (Jewish Oral Tradition) a lem chun Sabbath nia thaw thienglo 39 zet ziek lang a nih (Shabbat 7:2). Lekhabu hieng Jubilee le Qumran (Dead Sea Scroll) a hai khawm Sabbath inser ding thu hmu ding tamtak a um. [4]

Thuthlung Dân Pêka Sabbath Chungchânga Hriet Ding Pawimaw

1. Sabbath dân pêka uma hin, mi hnuoihnung le mi hrâtnawhai (siehlaw le khuolzin mi) hai humhimna le hadamna a nih.

2. Sabbath ni in ieng sin khawm châwl ding a nih. Thil zawr le inchawk khawm khap a nih. Pathien chibai bûk dinga thupêk ruok chu a ni nawh. Sienkhawm, Temple-ah fe thei a ni a, Sabbath inser dinga thu pêk tak chu Pathien biek (worship) nêkin châwl (rest) a nih.

3. Sabbath chu thutlung nauhai inchikna (sign) a ni a (Ex.31:13,17). Chu inchikna chun thuthlunga umhai po a huoma, thuthlung in a huom lo chu a khuop nawh.

4. Sabbath bawsetu chu lunga dêng hlum ding a nih (Ex.31:15; 35:2; Num.15:32-36). Mosie in bawsetuhai a kâwk nêka hremna nasa a hung ni tah.

5. Sabbath inser dinga thu pêk tak hi Pathienin thilsiem po po ni ruk sûngin a siem zo vawnga, a ni sari ni chun a châwl lei a nih. Amiruokchu, thilsiem po po inser dinga ati a ni nawh. Ama le thuthlung a neihai ta ding bîka a siem a nih. Thuthlung Thar-a hmang zing dinga hrilna le inchûktirna a um nawh.

6. Ex. 20 le Deut. 5-a Thupêk sâwm (10 Commandments) ei hmu ve vea, Deut.a mi hi Mosie in Israelhai a hril tharna a ni a, Châwlni inser ding thua Exodus le Deuteronomy hi an ang ta nawh. Deut.5:15a, “Aigupta rama inthawk ṭhuoisuoka an um leia inser ding thu a hril lem a. Aiguptaa khan nêksâwrin, châwl nei lova an um anthawka thuoi suoka an um” thu a hril lem. Sabbath hin chu rimsîkna, nêksâwra an umnaa inthawk Pathienin a ṭhuoi suok an hriet a nuom lei a nih.

(3) Thuthlung Thar Huna Sabbath (Sabbath under the New Covenant)

Isu ngeiin Sabbath chungchang a sukdanglam ti ei hmu.

Bible-a Typology (angpui/entirna) a chun Type (angpui) le Antitype (sukdiktu/sukfamkimtu) a uma, Thuthlung Hluia tamtak hieng ang in-entirna le a angpui hril mat ding tam tak a um a nih. [Thiempu Aron le Isu Krista; Fekân Ruoi le Krista Intlanna]

Sabbath-a khawm hieng ang typology hi Bible thiemhai chun an hrilmat hlak. Pathienin a mihai Châwlni (Sabbath) inser-a châwl (rest) dinga ti hi Type (a angpui inchikna) a ni a, Thuthlung Thar-a chun nitina Isu Kristaa châwl (rest) thei dinga lo in entirna niin Krista chu a sukfamkimtu (Antitype) [Hrietchiengna dingin: Type chu inentirna (symbol) a ang a ni a, Antitype chu, kha inentirna sukfamkimtu a nih][5]

Thuthlung Thar ah Dân Sâwm Pêk a hril zawm lo umsun chu Sabbath chungchang hi a nih. Ieng lei? Dân dang pakuohai po kha Krista dâna a kawpde/lâk lût a ni taa, Sabbath thu pêk ruok chu Isu’n a sukdanglam lei a nih.[6]

Isu kha dân hnuoia pieng a ni a (Gal.4:4), chuleiin, rawng a bâwl lai khan chu sabbath kha an ser ve ngei a nih. Sienkhawm Krista ngeiin, “Mihriem Naupa hi Châwlni Lal a ni si a” (Mt.12:8) a tih. Thuthlung Hluia Pathienin châwl (rest) a hril tak kha Isu ngeiin a hnungzuituhai kuomah châwlna a pek lem thu a hril. “Nangni sininrim le phu rik phur po pohai, ka kuomah hung unla, keiin inchâwltir ka ti cheu” (Mt.11:28) a tih.

Kut zeng châwlniin a sukdam (Mt.12:9-14). An hêk theina dingin (Mosie dân hretuhai an nih) “Châwlniin sukdam a thieng am? tiin an indawn a, Isu’n “Châwlnia sukṭhat a thieng” tiin kut zeng kha a sukdam a nih. Châwlni-a mi sukdam chu Judahai ngaia chun mak tina khawp, danglam ti khawp (most intriguing) a nih. Thuthlung hmasaa thina khawp kha damna a ni tlat. Thilsiem-a Pathien a châwl (rest) kha, hun thara ruok chun mi a sukdam ta lem. Isu’n châwlni-a mi a sukdam hin a Lalram a hawng (kingdom inauguration) a ni zie hmu thei a ni a, chu lalrama (famkim huna) chun natna le thina a um ta naw ding a lo entir a ni bawk.[7]

Isu khan Sabbath kha a suktâwp/sukbo ti ei hmu naw a, amiruokchu chieng deuin Sabbath chungchang hieng hin a ti, “Châwlni hi mihriem ta dinga siem a na, mihriem hi Châwlni ta dinga siem a ni nawh” (Mk.2:27).

Châwlni bawkin nuhmei kebai a sukdam. Inkhâwmna in hotu a lunginsen a, “mihriem sinthawna ding ni ruk a um annâwm; chu sûng chun hung unla, insukdam ro; Châwlnia hung lovin” a ta. Lalpa ruok chun a kuomah, “Nangni vervêkhai, Châwlniin mâni sebâwng amanih, sabengtung amanih a bu fâknaa inthawka sûtin, tui dâwn dingin in ṭhuoi dawk seng hlak a ni naw am a nih? Hi nuhmei, Abraham naunu, Setanin kum sâwmpariet a iman hi, Châwlni khawmin hi khuopna hi hang sûtpêk naw zie am a nih?” a ta, a dawn a. (Lk.13:10-17). Sabbath nêka chunghnung lem a ni zie a hril.

Tirko Paula ngeiin, “Chuongchun, fâk thua manih, dâwn thua manih, ruoiṭhe ni thua manih, thla thar thua manih, châwlni thua manih tûkhawmin sawisêl naw raw hai se cheu; chuonghai chu thil hung tlung dinghai hlim (shadow) a nih, a tak ruok chu Krista ta a nih” (Kol.2:16-17) a tih. Sabbath hin Krista a tinzawna, ama ngeiin a sukfamkim thu ei hmu.

Hi taka Sabbath chungchanga Paula in ‘hlim (shadow)’ a ti hi Greek ṭawnga chun ‘skia’ ti a ni a, Hebrai zieka Thuthlung Hluia inthawina hlim (shadow) chu Krista in a sukfamkim zie (Heb.10:1) a hrilna leh an ang char a nih. Chun, Kol.2:17a ‘a tak’ (substance; Gk.’soma’) ruok chu Krista a ni ti leh Heb.10:1a, ‘angpui’ (form; Gk. ‘eikona’) chu Krista a ni ti hi anmil char bawk a nih. [8]

Paula a hrilna ki (tone) hi ieng dang ni lovin fâk thu amanih, ruoiṭhe thu, thlathar thu leh châwlni thua tûkhawmin sawisêl naw raw hai se cheu; chuonghai chu thil hung tlung dinghai hlim (shadow) a nih, a tak ruok chu Krista ta a nih ti hi a nih. Thuthlung Hluia chun fâk thu, ruoiṭhe thu, ni inser thuhai chu Pathien in a namdet a ni a, chuong thua chun iengkhawm buoina (issues) thil a um ta nawa, Kristaa chun thilsiem thar a ni lem tah. Chuong dân tamtak chu hmang ta lo (not valid)  a ni lem ta, ringtuhai chu Mosie thuthlung (Mosaic covenant) a um eini ta naw leiin ti hi a nih. Paula hin Sabbath inser le hmang sunzawm hi a hril hnuol chuong lêm nawh; sienkhawm sandamna an tlun naw zie ruok chu a hril tum tak laia mi a nih. Sabbath thupêk (sabbath regulation) in a mi khuop ta naw leiin inser thienghlim nawtuhai chu lunga dêng hlum  amanih thiemnaw inchangtirna tieng Kristaa a um ta naw ti hi a nih.

Sabbath chu Mosie Thuthlung (Mosaic Covenant) inchikna (sign) a ni leiin, chu thuthlung a bo tahnung chun inchikna khawm umzie nei ta lo (null and void) a ni tah.

Pathienni (Lalpa Ni-The Lord’s Day)  Chungchang

Pathienni/Lalpa Ni hi Sabbath anga inser amanih hmang dinga Bible inchûktirna tak (indication) amanih thupêk (command) chu a um nawh. Kohran hmasahai in Lalpa thonâwkna Ni-a an inhmukhâwmin, Pathien chibai an bûk hlak

Greek ṭawng chun Κυριακή  ἡμέρα (Kyriake hēmera) ti a nih. Bible-a Thup.1:10a chau ei hmu. Pathien chibai bûk a hmang/inser thua a hrilna ruok chu a ni nawh. κυριακός (kuriakos) tia (adjective) a hmang a, a umzie chu ‘Lalpa ta (belonging to Lord)’  tina a nih. Hi thumal hi 1 Kor.11:20 le Thup.1:10 a ei hmu. Clement of Alexandria (ziektu hmasa) kum zabi pahnina laia a hmang/ziek ti naw chu Jewish Literature le Septuagint a khawm hmu ding dang a um nawh. [9] Kohran hmasa laia thuzieka chun tamtak hmu ding a hung um tah (abîkin Didache, Ignatius le Gospel of Peter ahai lem chun tamtak hmu ding a um).

Ei Lalpa'n thina hnea ropuitaka a thonâwkna ni kha Kohran hmasahai hrâtna bulpui leh hmêlma kulbing dettak ṭhiekna dinga Pathien zâra thilthawtheinaa an ngai leiin Κυριακή  ἡμέρα kha Pathienni (Sunday) leh an hmetkawp/hmang ta pei a nih. Asia rama (Roman Province) kohranhai lem chun Kohran a ngir ṭan tîra inthawk ta khan Pathienni hi mipui inkhâwmna (Corporate Worship) huna an nei hrim a nih. [10]

Chanchinṭha ziek laia Johan hin ‘Ni saria ni hmasatak’ ti hi a hmang uor taka (Jn.20:19, 26) an inhmukhâwmin an umkhâwm hlak zie hmu thei a nih. Ziek dang Mt.28:1, Mk.16:2, Lk.24:1 ahai khawm hmu ding a um. Hi hi an ṭanna anga ngai tamtak an um. Gentile Mission (Jentail hai kuoma chanchinṭha hril) hma daia inṭan anga ngai theiin a um.

Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History 3:27) a ei hmu dân chun:

'Ebonites (kohran hmasalaia Juda ringtu pâwl) hai kha pâwl hnia ṭhe theiin an um a, pâwl khat chun ‘Sabbath ursun takin an inser a, Pathienni khawm Lalpa Sandamtu thonâwkna ni in an ursûn hle; pâwl pakhat chun Lalpa Ni tak hi an hmang chuong nawh.’

Pathienni (Sunday) a inkhâwm inṭan dân suituhai chun Palestinian Church (Jerusalem le a sevêla kohranhai) bulṭan niin an hril. [11] Inrinni (Sabbath) zântieng punkhâwmin (Tt.20:7) ni saria ni hmasataka bei khawiin, inkhâwmna an nei hlak. Kohran hmasahai chanchin ziektu Pliny The Younger[12] chun, ‘Bethunia (Bithynia) kohranhai chu Pathienni (Sunday) in inkhâwmna (worship) vawi hni (at dawn and evening) an nei hlak thu a ziek.[13] [Bethunia kohran hi Tt.16:7; 1 Pet.1:1 ahai ei hmu]

Justin Martyr’s[14] Apologies (1 Apol.65) a khawm ama hun lai ngei Pathienni (Sunday) a inkhâwmin Lalpa Zânbu (Eucharist) an nei hlak thu a hril. ‘Dialogue with Trypho’ a zieknaa, ‘Sabbath inser dân indiktak chu simna le insirna lungril puta Pathien chibai bûk a ni’ a tih.[15]

Protestant Huna Sabbath le Pathienni (Sunday)

Sabbath dân hi Israelhai (thuthlung nauhai) ta ding bîka pêk a ni ti hi Protestant pawm dân tak chu a nih. Amiruokchu Sabbatariniasm (Sabbath inchûktirna ngaina/lâk ursûn pâwl) hi Protestant laia hrât taka fepui an um a, chuonghai chu Seventh Day Adventist/Seventh Day Baptist hai an nih. Hienghai hin Sabbath chungchang hrilmawina le lâk ursûnna a sukzuol a, mi tamtak inchûktirna danglam an pêk leiin sukbuoiin an um hrim a nih. Pathienni (Sunday) hi Christian Sabbath a ni ti Bible-a ei hmu nawh.[16] Protestant huna Sabbath ei ti hin an ṭan tîr laia an fepui dân kha ei ziek tum a ni a, hieng Seventh Day ngai dân hi ei tinzâwn tum nawh.

Protestant Reformation hi Ninety-five Theses, Wittenberg Church kawtkhâra October 31, 1517-a Martin Luther-in a târ ni ânthawka inṭan a nih. Chuleiin, kum zabi 16na laia Pathienni le Sabbath chungchang ei sui ding a nih. Protestant hin Sola (chau-only) hmanga thil panga a lo fe pui- Sola scriptura: “Scripture alone”; Sola fide: “faith alone”; Sola gratia: “grace alone”; Solo Christo: “Christ alone”; Soli Deo gloria: “to the glory of God alone”  kha lungrila ei vawng zing nuom a um.

John Calvin inchûktirna ‘Institutes of the Christian Religion’ a Mosie dânhai hi Civil, Moral le Ceremonial a ṭhe-in a hung hrilfie ti ei hriet.[17] Westminster Confession of Faith, XIX- Of the Law of God a khawm hieng ang ṭheṭawpna hi ei hmu.[18]

Hi dân ṭhe hai hi ei suibing tum a ni naw leiin Sabbath chungchang chau ei ziek ding a nih.

Luther le Calvin chun ‘The Lord’s Day’ hi Kohran hmasa thaw dân hi Mosie dân-a Sabbath ang ni lovin an ngai.

Martin Luther

Luther hi Mosie dân ṭhe chiem naw sienkhawm, Sabbath dân ruok hi chu ringtuhai khuopna dingin a ngai nawh.[19] Pathienni (Sunday) a Pathien chibai bûk dinga pungkhâwm hi chungtieng Pathien (divine intervention) thaw lei ni lovin mihriemhai in Pathien ei biekna dinga ei thaw niin a ngai. [Bible-a a hrilna tak a um naw leiin][20] A ngaidân hi Confession of Augsberg (1530) a hieng ang hin a hril ‘Sabbath hi ei inser a ṭul ta naw a, Kohranin Lalpa Ni (Lord’s Day) hi Pathien chibai bûkna dinga an ruot (appointed) a ni chun mipuihai fekhâwm hun hriet theina a nia lâwm a um (seems to have been pleasing)’ tiin.

John Calvin

Luther nêkin Theology hi a thlûr nasa lem a, chun, a ziek nasa lem bawk. Dân chunchang tamtak a ziek. Dân sâwm pêk a palina- Sabbath thu sei tak a zieka. Ceremonial (Ser le sâng) dân po po Kristaa an fâwkkhâwm vawng taa, Kristaa châwl eini ta leiin, Sabbath inser ang ni lovin, Pathien Chibai bûkna dinga ni hran ei pawimaw lem. Mosie Sabbath kha hlimthla (foreshadow) a ni a, Krista chu a tak a nih. Sabbath hi Ceremonial Law a ni leiin sunzawm ṭul ta lovin a hrilfie. ‘Sabbath hi sertan (circumcision) le inthawina dânhai leh inang an ni a, ‘a hunbi a hung tlungkim hmaa thil um’ anni leiin Krista lo kâwkhmuna le tarlangna (prefigure) chu Kristaa a famkim tah’ a tih.  [21] Lalpa Ni hmang leia sin châwl (rest) tuma sukthlarau (spiritual sabbath) ruok chu iem ṭhathnempuina ding , a pawimaw tak chu suol nghatsanna (mortification) a nih’ a tih. Karl Barth ruok chun Calvin ngai dân hi ‘Calvin’s Sabbath mysticism’ a tih. [22]

Calvin hin Luther ang bawkin ‘Pathienni (Sunday) a inkhâwm (worship) hi a remchanga, nitina inkhâwm (public worship) hi a theinaw leiin hlâwk taka hmang ding a ni; amiruokchu Pathiena inthawk pêka um, ruok chu a ni naw (not divinely given to Christian)’ a tih. Calvin hin Pathienni (Sunday) a inkhâwm (worship) a ni si chun mani sinhai châwlsan in, insukhlimna (recreation) hai khawm bansan-in, lungril po poa Pathien chibai bûk le a inchûktirna huna sûnnitlâka hun pêk ruok chu a pawimaw a tih.

Sabbatarianism

Sabbatarianism umzie chu Ringtuhaiin Sabbath thupêk ang taka inser dinga pawmtuhai tina a nih. Martin Luther le John Calvin hai hin Sabbatarianism angin inchûktirna an pêk nawh. Pathienni (Sunday) a inkhâwm (worship) chu thil remchang tak, karkhat sûnga ni bîk neia, châwl meua Pathien chibai bûkna hun bâka kohran hmasahai lo thaw dân chu ṭha an tih.

A hnunga Reformed Theologian hai chun ‘a ni bi tliek char ni naw sienkhawm karkhata ni khat ama chibai bûk ding ruok hi chu Pathien dân (God’s Law) a ni; asanchu Pathien chibai bûk hi tâwplo chatuon thil (perpetual and eternal) ding a ni leiin’ ti hi an hung khek pui nasa pei a.

Zurich-ah Ulrich Zwingly thlâktu Heinrich Bullinger (d.1575) khan Reformation bulṭantu hai ngai dân naw ang deuin Sabbatarian Position a hung nei a. Thlarau Châwlna ni (Spiritual Rest Day) tiengin a hrilfie a, thupêk palina hi Sunday-a khawm sunzawm pei dinga thupêk a ni’ tiin a hung fe puia, Sabbath ang bawkin hi inkhâwm (worship) a hin Pathien Thu (Scriptures) tiemna le hrielfiena, ṭawngṭai, sacraments le ṭhangpuina (almsgiving) hai thaw dingin a hung inchûktir a. Bullinger hi Pathienni (Sunday) a thaw ding le thaw naw ding (do’s and don’t) ziektu Protestant Theologian hmasatak a hung ni a. Sunday Rest chu Sabbath Rest ang bawka inser thienghlima, bawsetuhai chu thina chen khawm hrem hmu tlâk anni zie Num.15 bêsanin rorêltuhai (magistrate) a hril hiel. Mi a thuhne thei vieu si leiin, mi tamtakin an pawmpuia, Second Helvetic Confession (1566) Chapter 24 chun Lalpa Ni (The Lord’s Day) le Sabbath chunchang theṭawpin Europe Reformed Church a hmang a hung ni ta pei a nih.   Hi hi Sabbatarianism Protestant laia inṭanna a ngai thei a nih. [23] Dân Sâwm pêk palina (fourth commandment) ngaipawimawna a zuol peia,  Seventh Day Baptist chu 1650’s lai khan London a indin ṭanin a um a, Seventh Day Baptist (America) chu 1671 in Newport, Rhode Island ah indin-in a um a. America rama Adventist Movement chu nasatakin 1840’s lai khan a tlunga, chuongchun, May 21, 1863-a Ellen G White inrawina hnuoia Seventh Day Adventist hi indin-in a hung um ta a nih.

Ei lekhaziek a phut tîra ei hril ta ang khan Sabbath chungchang hin Theology a themsa a ni ei ti kha, Kohran inṭhena (division) a chawk suok der el a nih. Dân sâwm pêk a palina leia kohran inṭhena um hiel a nih. Chuleiin, ‘The Fourth Big Division’ an ti hiel a nih.

Hebrai Lekhathawna Châwlni

Thuthlung Dân chungchanga insêl theina tamtak a um a, sunzawm le sunzawmlo (Continuity/Discontinuity) chunchanga Thuthlung Thar Lekhabu pawimawtak chu Hebraihai kuoma lekhathawn hi a nih.

Sabbath chungchang ngei khawm Hebrai ziek hin a lo sukfie hlê.

Sabbath thupêk chungchanga Bible-a fie taka a hrilfiena chu Hebrai 3:7-4:11 hin ei hmu.

Pentateuch (Bible-a lekhabu a hmasatak pangahai) a ei hmu angin; Sabbath siem nasan (original purpose) chu Pathienin a mihai sinthaw sâwlnaa inthawk châwlna (rest) neia, Ama tieng lungril pea chibai an bûk theina ding a nih. Hi châwlna (rest) hi Hebrai zieka hin a hung hmang a, Heb.4:4a ei hmu chat a nih. Israelhai chu châwlna (rest) ngaipawimaw dinga ti anni angin Pathienin a thilsiem (creation) a châwl, a mihai khawm châwl dingin thu a pêk angin Sabbath ni in an châwl a, Joshua rawiin Kanan rama an châwl ti ei hmu bawk, kum tamtak châwl sunzawmna ei hmu bawk. Hi hin Pathien laka an thuawina hmu theiin a um.

Hebrai ziektu hin hieng po po hi a hriet vawnga, chuleiin, “Chuongchun, Pathien mihai ta ding chun Châwlnia châwlna a la um ta rawp a” (Heb.4:9) ti hi ei hmu ta a nih. Châwlnia châwlna (Gk.sabbatimos) hi Israelhai châwlna anga châwl tak hi a hriltum tak ni lovin; Isu Krista ta dinga ringumna (faithfulness) a hrilna le Mosie nêka chunghnung lem a ni thu a nih. Châng 10a, ‘A châwlnaa lût ta chu, Pathienin ama sinthawhai a châwl san ang khan ama khawm chun a sinthawhai a châwl san ve ta a’ tia hin Sabbath châwl an hriechieng êm êm kha hmangin Chatuona humhimna le châwl hadamna Kristaa ei hmu thu leh inrimna po poa inthawka kumkhuoa châwlna (eternity rest)  a hrilna a nih.

Thup.14:13a, “Chun, vâna inthawkin rawlin, “Hienghin ziek rawh: Tuta hnung chu mithi, Lalpaa thihai chu, an hamṭha. Thlarau chun, ‘Anih, an sinin- rimnahai chu châwl san tâng an tih; an thilthawhai chun a hung zui ve ding a ni sih a,’ a tih,” a ti ka hriet a. Hi thu leh Hebrai ziek hi ziekmat (inmil) char a nih.

Chuleiin takin Isu’n, “Nangni sininrim le phur rik phur po pohai, ka kuomah hung unla, keiin inchâwltir ka ti cheu” (Mt.11:28-30ff) a ti hrim a nih. Isu’n châwl (Sabbath) thupêk chu a sukfamkim tah ti a chieng hlê.

Ringtuhai châwlna a ni leia Isu’n Sabbath a sukfamkim dân Clowney ziek hi a pawimaw khawp el. ‘

Decalogue (dân sâwm pêk)-a Sabbath thupêk chu ei zâwm ngei a ni, Thlarauin Kristaa ei châwl ta leiin, ama chun ei sininrim po po leh ei phurrik chu phur-in, ei Sandamna dingin ei ring taa, ei hringna khawm ama ta dinga inhlân in, damsûnga ata dinga ringum dingin ei intuklût ta lem a nih’  [24]

Thukhârna

Sabbath thumal hi KJV inlet dân chun (plural ṭhangsa in) Thuthlung Hluia vawi 139 le Thuthlung Thara vawi 59, a rengin 198 vêl inziek anga ngai a nih. [25] A ziek tam dân lei ringawta ngaipawimaw ding tina a ni naw a. Ziek nasan le a thupui fepui hriet a pawimaw.

Sabbath chungchanga ei ziek ta ang khan Bible-a thil pahni lien tak tak a um-Mosie Dân inchikna (sign) niin Pathienin a thuthlung nauhai kuomah a thil ngiet le intuklût (claim and loyalty) ding thu a nih.

Bible-a anziek dânhai chu a chungtieng ei ziek vawng ta leiin ziek nawn ta naw mei nih.

Thuthlung Hlui dân po po hi a tâwp vawng tina  a ni naw a, sunzawm le hmang pei ding thu a um bawk naw leiin Protestant hai chun Moral, Civil le Ceremonial Law-in anlo ṭhe hrim kha a nih. (Reformed Theology and Covenant Theology). Dân sâwm pêk (decalogue) a pakuo dang po hi moral law-a tiemin, a palina Sabbath tak hi Ceremonial Law a sie a nih. [26]

Kohran hmasaa inthawk Thuthlung Thar-a ei hmu ang leh khawvêl hmun tina Pathienni (Sunday) a inkhâwmna nei a; Ringtu ta dinga châwl (rest) nia ei hmang hi thil ṭha tak le remchang (convenient) khawp el. A Sabbath ngai pawimaw rak in Sandamna an tlun thei naw a, ei suolna a inthawk a mi siemṭha/intlan chuong nawh. Sabbath hi Kristaa sukfamkim (fulfilled) a ni tah. [27]

“Nangni rawi ngawtin thlalêr hmunah a tumin hung unla, châwl phawt ro” (need for physical rest) (Mk.16:31) ti le “Nangni sininrim le phur rik phur po pohai, ka kuomah hung unla, keiin inchâwl tir ka ti cheu” (Mt.11:28) a hai hin mihriem taksa châwl pawimawna le thlarau sandamna châwl (spiritual and salvation rest) ei pawimaw ti a chienga. Pathienni (Sunday) hi Lalpa Thonâwkna Ni (The Lord’s Day) a ni ang taka hadamna ni, thlaraua ei insukhrâtna ni, thlarau bu ei fâkna ni, Pathien chibai bûkna nia ei hmang hi a pawimaw hlê. Lalpa Ni-a ei ngai thupui tak ding chu Pathien Chibai bûk (Worship) a ni ding a nih.[28] Mi dâl theitu khawvêl thilhai a inthawk ei insie fihlim a pawimaw. Worship chu ringtu hringnuna a lairil a ni ding a ni a, kohran hringna (heartbeat) a nih. Lalpa Ni chu châwl (rest) in a hluolân ding ni lovin Krista chu Lal a ni a, ei hringna thina hnea thonâwk a ni zie puongsuokna a nih. Hi hi LALPA ni ruot chu a nih, Hi ni hin hlimin lâwm ei tiu (Ps.118:24).

Bibliography 

Bauckam, R.J. ‘Sabbath and Sunday in the Protestant Tradition’ in D.A. Carson, ed. From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982.

Bauckam, R.J. ‘The Lord’s Day’ in D.A. Carson, ed. From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982.

Beckwith, R.T and W Stott. This is the Day: The Biblical Doctrine of the Christian Sunday and its Jewish and Early Christian Setting (Morgan and Scott: London, 1978.

Blomberg, Craig L. ‘The Sabbath as Fulfilled in Christ’ in Perspective on the Sabbath, Ed.by Christopher John Donato. Nashville: B & H Publishing House, 2011.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion, Transl. by Henry Beveridge. James Clark & Co., 1962. Volume 2, Book 4, Chapter 20, Section 14.

Carson, D.A., ed. From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982.

Clowney, E.P. How Jesus Transform the Ten Commandments, ed.R.C. Jones. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2007.

Collinson, P. “Beginnings of English Sbbatarianism,” C.W. Dugmore and C. Duggan ed., Studies in Church History I. London: Nelson, 1964.

Francke, J. Van Sabbat naar Zondag (Ton Bolland: Amsterdam, 1973.

Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 12.

Lincoln, A. T. ‘From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical and Theological Perspective’ in D.A. Carson, ed. From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982.

Naselli, Andrew David. ‘What is a Biblical Theology of the Sabbath’ in 40 Questions About Biblical Theology ed. by Jason, S. DeRouchie, Orien R. Amrtin, Andrew David Naselli, Series Ed. Benjamin L. Markle (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2020.

Pliny Epistles 10:96.

Rordorf, Willy. Sunday: The History of the Day of Rest and Worship in the Earliest Centuries of the Christian Church. SCM: London, 1962.

Schreiner, Thomas R. 40 Questions About Christian and Biblical Law. Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2010.

Strickland, Wayne G. Five Views on Law and Gospel, ed.by Stanley N. Gundry. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

Wallace, R.S. Calvin’s Doctrines of the Christian Life. Edinburg: Oliver and Boyd, 1959.

Zuck, Roy B., Basic Bible Interpretation. Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1991. 

Webliography

https://thewestminsterstandard.org/the-westminster-confession/

https://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/facts-about-the-sabbath 

---

[1] D.A. Carson, ed. From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 15.

[2] Willy Rordorf, Sunday: The History of the Day of Rest and Worship in the Earliest Centuries of the Christian Church (SCM: London, 1962), 15.

[3] J. Francke, Van Sabbat naar Zondag (Ton Bolland: Amsterdam, 1973); R.T Beckwith and W Stott, This is the Day: The Biblical Doctrine of the Christian Sunday and its Jewish and Early Christian Setting (Morgan and Scott: London, 1978)

[4] Thomas R Schreiner, 40 Questions About Christian and Biblical Law (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2010), kindle location 3507 of 13800.

[5] Andrew David Naselli, ‘What is a Biblical Theology of the Sabbath’ in 40 Questions About Biblical Theology ed. By Jason, S. DeRouchie, Orien R. Amrtin, Andrew David Naselli, Series Ed. Benjamin L. Markle (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2020), Kindle location 421 of 637; Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1991), 179-80.

[6] Andrew David Naselli, ‘What is a Biblical Theology of the Sabbath’…, kindle location 420 of 637.

[7] Thomas R Schreiner, 40 Questions About Christian and Biblical Law …, kindle location 3521 of 13800.

[8] Thomas R Schreiner, 40 Questions About Christian and Biblical Law…, kindle location 3536 of 13800.

[9] R.J Bauckam, ‘The Lord’s Day’ in D.A. Carson, ed. From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 222.

[10] R.J Bauckam, The Lord’s Day’…, 232.

[11] R.J Bauckam, The Lord’s Day’…, 238.

[12] Pliny the Younger (Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus)

[13] Pliny Epistles 10:96.

[14] Justin Martyr (c. AD 100–165) hi ringtu hmashai laia inchûktirtu ropui a nih. A lekha zie First and Second Apologies hai hi kohran chanchin tamtak ei laksuokna a nih. Jn.1:1 a thu (logos) hi Isu Krista a ni zie fie taka ziektu a nih. Justin hin inchûktirna indiknaw (heresies) hieng Gnosticism, Docetism, le Marcionism hai nasataka a dodâl thu ei hmu bawk.

[15] Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 12.

[16] Wayne G. Strickland, Five Views on Law and Gospel, ed.by Stanley N. Gundry (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), kindle location 1269 of 7890.

[17] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Transl. by Henry Beveridge (James Clark & Co., 1962), Volume 2, Book 4, Chapter 20, Section 14, 663.

[18] https://thewestminsterstandard.org/the-westminster-confession/

[19] R.J. Bauckam, ‘Sabbath and Sunday in the Protestant Tradition’ in D.A. Carson, ed. From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 314.

[20] R.J. Bauckam, ‘Sabbath and Sunday in the Protestant Tradition’…, 314.

[21] R.J. Bauckam, ‘Sabbath and Sunday in the Protestant Tradition’…, 316; R.S. Wallace, Calvin’s Doctrines of the Christian Life (Edinburg: Oliver and Boyd, 1959), 141-142.

[22] R.J. Bauckam, ‘Sabbath and Sunday in the Protestant Tradition’…, 317.

[23] P. Collinson, “Beginnings of English Sbbatarianism,” in C.W. Dugmore and C. Duggan ed., Studies in Church History I (London: Nelson, 1964), 211.

[24] E.P. Clowney, How Jesus Transform the Ten Commandments, ed.R.C. Jones (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2007), 51-65.

[25] https://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/facts-about-the-sabbath

[26] Craig L. Blomberg, ‘The Sabbath as Fulfilled in Christ’ in Perspective on the Sabbath, Ed.by Christopher John Donato (Nashville: B & H Publishing House, 2011), kindle location 6814 of 10384.

[27] Craig L. Blomberg, ‘The Sabbath as Fulfilled in Christ’…, kindle location 6535 of 10384.

[28] A. T. Lincoln, ‘From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical and Theological Perspective’ in D.A. Carson, ed. From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 405.

 

Continue Reading