*LANGUAGE

WORDS FROM THE GODS: Q to a preacher/elder:
"Since some language has evolved from god-systems, how do we use the verbage without honoring the god? 
As a specific example, saying "Good luck" is an offshoot of appealing to the Babylonian gods Gad and Meni (Gad = good luck, Meni = bad luck).  God is a God of order, and statistical odds/certainties are part of His structured universe.  To appeal to luck is to deny/challenge God's orderliness, to attempt to "rob" the system.  Faith in luck and faith in God are mutually exclusive ideas and thus to appeal to luck is to appeal to a couple of Babylonian gods.  Consider what Isaiah said:  "But you who forsake the LORD, who forget My holy mountain, who set a table for Fortune,  and who fill cups with mixed wine for Destiny,  I will destine you for the sword, and all of you shall bow down to the slaughter."   (Isa 65:11-12)

Fortune is Gad, the Babylonian god of fortune (Josh 11.17, 12.7, 13.5); Num 13:10 Gaddiel means "god of my luck."
Destiny is Meni, `the Lesser Good Fortune.'  

--Paul"

(Reply from LW, a preacher):

"Answers:
1. Sometimes it is and sometimes it is not.
2. Sometimes I do and sometimes I don't.
3. Some things I watch carefully and some things I don't.
4. I haven't heard of "good luck" but I have heard of many other things in the same category. 

What do I mean?  Hundreds of words in our English language come from the old gods, so such words cannot be ignored least we also serve those gods. On the other hand many of the words have totally lost their relationships to those gods and mean something entirely different today. The etymology of words show us how they go through several stages and end up means something entirely different than the original meaning. Our study of psallo over the years is a good example of this. 
Everything the Romans did from getting up to going to bed and then sleeping through the night was related to some god who controlled that activity. They gave the god a name and many of our words today come from that god. Example would be all the months of the year and days of the week. It is my opinion that these names have lost their meaning and no one in any way thinks of the Sun-god when they go to church on Sunday. Nor do they honor either in word or thought the god Janus when they called the first month of the year January which comes from Janus.  (Janus was a god who had two faces, one pointing forward and one backward so he could see each way. Our first month is named after him so we can both look back and ahead at the same time. Notice the picture on the TV ad with the investment firm named Janus.) [I use the names of the months and days of the week.]
Our present day "by-words" work on the same principle and I use none of them. Gee comes from Jesus and darn from damn, etc. See an English dictionary for the corruption of these words. Because of Eph. 4:29 I don't touch them.
Now, in between these two is the holiday words such as Christmas. I use the word because I think that it has lost the meaning of "Mass of Christ" at the present time. However, I recognize there are those who think otherwise and choose not to use the word.
Now, for "good luck!"  I don't think anyone has the slightest idea that the word comes from two gods. I didn't know it, but I do watch the expression because it doesn't give God the glory for the act.  If you and I were in a fishing contest, I would probably shake hands and say "good luck."  I see it differently than if you were going into a brain operation and I shook your hand and said "good luck."  With or without the gods, I would be placing you in the hands of fate or chance and not recognizing the providence of God."  --LW

*LAW OF MOSES

JUSTIN MARTYR: "The law proclaimed on Horeb is of course obsolete and belongs to you [Jews] alone, whereas ours is for all men everywhere and at all times. Now whenever a law is laid down in opposition to another law, it supersedes the former one. In the same way, a later compact annuls the former one." Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 11.1, 2, cited by Eberhard Arnold, "The Early Christians," Plough Publishing, 1997, pg 143)

E.P. SANDERS: "Modem scholars often try to divide the law into 'ritual' and 'ethical' categories, but this is an anachronistic and misleading division. In such analyses the 'moral law' is often considered to be embodied in the Ten Commandments, but this puts the commandments governing use of the Lord's name and graven images into the 'ethical' division, where they do not belong. Similarly some say that the 'Noachian' commandments - those thought to have been given to all the descendants of Noah, and therefore to be required of Gentiles - are 'moral' commandments. But these, too, include idolatry and blasphemy. It is noteworthy that the list of core commandments that, according to Acts, the Jerusalem church wished to impose on Gentile converts, included the prohibitions against idolatry and eating meat with the blood in it - neither one 'moral' (Acts 15.20). Many Christians define their own stance towards the Jewish law as acceptance of the 'moral' code and rejection of the 'cultic', and so they naturally see this division as existing in the first century, and often as determining the views of Jesus and Paul, but both are incorrect. When Jews - including Jewish Christians - offered a list of 'core' commandments, they usually included some laws that cannot be denned as 'ethical' or 'moral' (e.g. I Cor. 6.9-10). Jesus and Paul both accepted the top commandment on the first table: to worship only the God of Israel. This is not a 'moral' law.

The anachronism of this distinction is seen in another way: 'ritual' commandments not infrequently have an 'ethical' aspect. Thus tithing (a 'ritual' requirement) included charity (a 'moral' duty), and the laws of the sabbath provided rest for labourers and even for animals (Deut. 5.14). There are certain overlaps between the ancient category of 'commandments that govern relations with God' and the modem one of 'ritual law', and also between the ancient 'commandments that govern relations with fellow humans' and the modem 'ethical law', but no more than overlaps.

In the eyes of first-century Jews the same God gave all the commandments, and loyalty to him required obedience of them equally. Modem objectors to ancient Judaism regard it as regrettable that first-century Jews did not see that the cultic laws were trivial, man-made affairs that have no place in true religion. This misses the ancient perspective. From that point of view (to reiterate) the peculiarity of Judaism was to bring all of life under divine law, to treat deceiving one's neighbour as being just as serious as accidentally eating food that should have gone to the priests or the altar. That is, ancients generally thought that cultic worship was in accord with divine intention. Even ancient Christians did not criticize non-Christian Jews for engaging in temple worship, but rather for not accepting the death of Christ as the true atoning sacrifice. Judaism maintained temple worship but greatly expanded the areas covered by explicit commandments from God. Its fundamental moral and humane direction is best seen precisely in its refusal to separate cult from other aspects of behavior. Scholars not infrequently attribute the desire to bring all of life under the law just to the Pharisees, but it is central to biblical law itself and was common to all forms of Judaism." ("Judaism, Practice & Belief, 63BCE - 66 CE," Trinity Press Int'l, pg 194-95)

THREE-PASSAGES OUTLINE:

Deut 10:2: 'And I will write on the tablets the words that were on the former tablets which you shattered, and you shall put them in the ark.'

1 Kings 8:9: There was nothing in the ark except the two tablets of stone which Moses put there at Horeb.

CICERO: "Power and law are not synonymous. In truth they are frequently in opposition and irreconcilable. There is God's Law from which all Equitable laws of man emerge and by which men must live if they are not to die in oppression, chaos and despair. Divorced from God's eternal and immutable Law, established before the founding of the suns, man's power is evil no matter the noble words with which it is employed or the motives urged when enforcing it. Men of good will, mindful therefore of the Law laid down by God, will oppose governments whose rule is by men, and if they wish to survive as a nation they will destroy the government which attempts to adjudicate by the whim of venal judges."

--Marcus Tullius Cicero 106-43 B.C.

GOOD OLD BOY RELIGION: "Ancient people took for granted that religion was indissolubly linked to a particular city, nation or people." --Robert Wilken, Pagan Criticism of Christianity: Greek Religion and Christian Faith, in Early Christian Literature and the Classical Intellectual Tradition, Paris: Editions Beauchesne, 1979, pg 117-34.

LAW ONLY FOR THE LOCALS: "So deeply embedded in Greek and Roman thought was the division between peoples, that classical legal theory recognized no common law within the city."

----Fustel de Coulanges, The Ancient City: A study on the Religion, Laws, and Institutions of Greece and Rome (Garden City, New York: Doubleday Anchor, [1864] 1955), Bk. III, ch.XI, p. 192-193.

LAW ONLY FOR THE LOCALS: "No one could become a citizen at Athens if he was a citizen in another city; for it was a religious impossibility to be at the same time a member of two cities, as it also was to be a member of two families. One could not have two religions at the same time... Neither at Rome nor at Athens could a foreigner be a proprietor. He could not marry; or, if he married, his marriage was not recognized, and his children were reputed illegitimate. He could not make a contract with a citizen; at any rate, the law did not recognize such a contract as valid... The Roman law forbade him to inherit from a citizen, and even forbade a citizen to inherit from him. They pushed this principle so far, that if a foreigner obtained the rights of a citizen without his son, born before this event, obtaining the same favor, the son became a foreigner in regard to his father, and could not inherit from him. The distinction between citizen and foreigner was stronger than the natural tie between father and son.'"

--Fustel de Coulanges, The Ancient City: A study on the Religion, Laws, and Institutions of Greece and Rome (Garden City, New York: Doubleday Anchor, [1864] 1955), Bk. III, ch.XI, p. 196-197.

LAW MYSTIFIED IN RELIGION: "As law was a part of religion, it participated in the mysterious character of all this religion of the cities. The legal formulas, like those of relgion, were kept secret. They were concealed from the stranger, and even from the plebeian. This was not because the patricians had calculated that they should possess a great power in the exclusive knowledge of the law, but because the law, by its origin and nature, long appeared to be a mystery, to which one could be initiated only after having first been initiated into the national worship and the domestic worship."

----Fustel de Coulanges, The Ancient City: A study on the Religion, Laws, and Institutions of Greece and Rome (Garden City, New York: Doubleday Anchor, [1864] 1955), Bk. III, ch.XI, p.192.

(Compare to "the stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God." (Lev 19:34) and "There shall be one standard for you; it shall be for the stranger as well as the native, for I am the LORD your God." (Lev 24:22))

RELIGIO ILLICITAS: "Of those who introduce new religions with unknown customs or methods by which the minds of the people could be disturbed, those of the upper classes shall be deported, and those of the lower classes shall be put to death." (Legal decree according to the second-century pagan jurist Julius Paulus, Collected Sentences V.21. Cited by Eberhard Arnold, "The Early Christians," Plough Publishing, 1997, pg 61)

NO NIGHT MEETINGS: "The venerated Twelve Tables, the very foundation of Roman law, forbade nightly meetings..." --8.26, cited by Stephen Benko, Pagan Rome and the Early Christians, BT Batsford Ltd, London, 1984, p 11.

"ADULTERIUM. A statutory punishment of adultery, which was considered a criminal offence only when committed by a married woman (adultera) was introduced by the Augustean law, Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis (before 18 BC). Earlier customary law admitted only immediate revenge of the husband on the adulteress or punishment by him after consultation with the family council (consilium propinquorum) in a procedure similar to a judicial trial (see iudicium domesticum). Under the Julian statute, the father of the adulterous woman was permitted to kill her and her partner (adulter) if he surprised them in his or her husband's house. The husband's rights were rather limited; he was forced to divorce her, for otherwise he made himself guilty of matchmaking (lenocinium). Besides, he or his father had to accuse the adulteress of adulterium which now became a public crime prosecuted before a criminal court. Any Roman citizen could bring in the accusation if the husband or his father did not do so within two months after the divorce. The statutory term for other accusers was four additional months. The penalty was banishment of the adulteress and confiscation of 1/3 of her property, together with the loss of a part of her dowry. The legislation of Constantine, later confirmed by Justinian, introduced the death penalty for adulterium." (Encyclopedia Dictionary of Roman Law, Adolf Berger, 1953, pub. by The Amer. Philosophical Soc., p.352)

CASTIGARE (CASTIGATIO). To chastise, castigate. Corporal punishment was applied to both slaves (with a whip, flagellum) and free persons (with a club, fustis) either as an additional punishment, or in lieu of a pecuniary fine when the culprit could not pay, or as a coercive measure for minor offenses. Soldiers were punished by castigatio for disobedience or violation of military discipline. Outside the penal law fathers, masters, and instructors were permitted to castigate their sons, slaves and apprentices, respectively." (Encyclopedia Dictionary of Roman Law, Adolf Berger, 1953, pub. by The Amer. Philosophical Soc., p.382)

"CHRISTIANI: In pagan Rome Christians were considered enemies of the state (hostes publici) and as such they were exposed to persecution and punishment for crimen maiestatis. Besides, the secret meetings of the Christians were punishable under the lex Iulia de collegiiis as illicit associations (collegia illicita). Still in the early third century mentions of illicita Christianorum coitio (gathering) appear; it is likely that a special enactment was later issued against Christian associations. A milder practice was exercised with regard to the so-called collegia funeraticia (tenuiorum), but administrative coercive measures ordered in police proceedings (coercitio) by the discretionary power of the magistrates were always applicable. Refusal to take part in religious ceremonies dedicated to the celebration of gods or the emperor as a god was considered as a confession to profess Christianity in the same measure as an open declaration, "I am a Christian," sufficed for an accusation of crimen maiestatis. A particular practice was introduced in connection with the persecution by the emporor Decius; the production of a certificate that an individual participated in pagan sacrifices issued by a competent commission was an evidence that he was not a Christian." (Encyclopedia Dictionary of Roman Law, Adolf Berger, 1953, pub. by The Amer. Philosophical Soc., p.388)

"CIVITAS ROMANA: Roman citizenship. Beside freedom (status libertatis) Roman citizenship was an essential condition for being subject of rights, both private and public. Citizenship was acquired principally by birth of parents, Roman citizens. A child born in a legitimate marriage, was Roman citizen, even if the father alone was citizen, for children took status of their fathers. Therefore, a child born ex iustic nuptiis of a peregrine father and a Roman mother, was a peregrine. Decisive was the status at the time of conception. See lex minicia [90 BC, ordered that a child of parents of different legal social status received the lower status]. Through manumission a slave became not only free but also a Roman citizen. Admission of peregrines to Roman citizenship was effected by a special concession either in favor of individuals or larger groups, inhabitants of a city or country. Under the Republic, Roman citizenship was granted by the Roman people and later by the emperor. Particular services rendered to the state (military service or special merits, see also lex visellia) were the occasion for granting citizenship to individuals (viritim, singillatim). Political tendencies dictated the acceptance of foreign elements in larger groups into the orbit of Roman citizenship. Between 90 and 87 BC the whole of Italy obtained Roman citizenship; later it was extended gradually to cities and provinces abroad until the Emperor Caracalla (212 AD) granted Roman citizenship to all inhabitants "of the Roman world" (in orbe Romano), with the exception of dediticii." (Encyclopedia Dictionary of Roman Law, Adolf Berger, 1953, pub. by The Amer. Philosophical Soc., p.389)

CONSCISCERE SIBI MORTEM: To commit suicide. Suicide committed by a person accused of a crime in order to avoid condemnation was considered a confession of guilt and his property was confiscated. Trials for high treason were continued in spite of the suicide of the accused. (Encyclopedia Dictionary of Roman Law, Adolf Berger, 1953, pub. by The Amer. Philosophical Soc., p.407) See Suicidium, Libera Facultas Mortis.

CRUX: A cross. It was used as an instrument for the execution of persons condemned to death (in [ad] crucem damnare). Crucifixion was considered the most cruel form of the death penalty. Therefore it was applied to slaves; hence the term servile supplicium. Under the Empire crucifixion was also used for Roman citizens, but only in the case of individuals of the lower class (humiliores) convicted of particularly heavy crimes. It was abolished by Constantine, A wooden pillar to which slaves were bound to be flogged, was also called crux." (Encyclopedia Dictionary of Roman Law, Adolf Berger, 1953, pub. by The Amer. Philosophical Soc., p.410)

"DIVORTIUM: A divorce. It was achieved without formalities, simply by a definitive cessation of the common life of the consorts, initiated by common agreement or by one of them, thereby proving that there was no longer any affectio maritalis between the spouses. Therefore, a temporary abandonment of the common dwelling by the wife in a state of exictement (per calorem) was not considered a divortium. If the conclusion of a marriage was accompanied by a conventio in manum, the dissolution of such agreement had to be accomplished by a contrary act (diffarreatio in the case of confarreatio, remancipatio or emancipatio in the case of coemptio). Usually, however, a unilateral declaration by the divorcing spouse (repudium) followed the separation, either by writing, per epistulam - the letter had to be signed by seven witnesses - or orally, direcly or indirectly by a messenger (per nuntium). Legislation of the Christian emperors often dealt with divortium; they introduced some restrictions and imposed pecuniary sanctions on the party who repudiated his consort with any just ground. The principle of the dissolubility of marriages, however, always remained in force. In Justinian's law written notification of a divorce (libellus divortii, repudii) became obligatory." (Encyclopedia Dictionary of Roman Law, Adolf Berger, 1953, pub. by The Amer. Philosophical Soc., p.439)

EXILIUM: (See Humiliores). A person involved in a criminal matter might voluntarily go into exile in order to escapte a trial or a condemnation when the trial was already in course. Exilium also was a compulsory departure from the country if given as a punishment. Voluntary exile was tolerated in the case of a person sentenced to death in criminal trial, but in such cases there followed an administrative decree which outlawed the fugitive (interdicere aqua et igni). It deprived him of Roman citizenship (capitis deminutio media) and his property. Illicit return was punished by the death penalty. The consequences of a compulsory banishment varied according to the crime; they were fixed in the judgment. A miler for of banishment was relegatio, while the severest on was deportatio. The terminology later became rather uncertain. (Encyclopedia Dictionary of Roman Law, Adolf Berger, 1953, pub. by The Amer. Philosophical Soc., p.463)

HUMILIORES: Lower classes of the Roman society. Ant. HONESTIORES = citizens of the higher social classes distinguished by their official position, wealth or origin (in aliqua dignitate positi, honestiore locopositi, nati). The distinction between humiliores and honestiores had particular importance in the field of criminal law and procedure. Some kinds of punishment (capital punishment by crucifixion, by being thrown to wild beasts, torture, bodily punishment) were applicable only to humiliores. In certain cases where the humiliores were punished by death, the honestiores were merely sent into exile. In cases in which relegatio [expulsion from an area, or sometimes, restriction to an area] was applied to honestiores, humiliores were subject to deportatio [perpetual banishment to a limited area, usually with loss of citizenship. Places of deportio were offshore Italian islands or Libyan oasis. See Exilium]." (Encyclopedia Dictionary of Roman Law, Adolf Berger, 1953, pub. by The Amer. Philosophical Soc., p.489)

IUS VITAE NECISQUE: The power of life and death. since the earliest times the head of a family had this right over persons under his paternal power (children and wife) and over his slaves. His right to punish them comprised also the death penalty. Before imposing a severe penalty the pater familias had to consult the council of relatives (consilium propinquorum) but its advice was not obligatory. An abuse of his rights was punished by infamy through a decision of the censors (nota censoria). Imperial legislation restricted considerably the ius vitae necisque until its complete abolishment by Valentinian I. (Encyclopedia Dictionary of Roman Law, Adolf Berger, 1953, pub. by The Amer. Philosophical Soc., p.534)

LIBERAS FACULTAS MORTIS: Permission granted by the emperor to persons condemned to death to evade execution through suicide. Provincial governors did not have this right. (Encyclopedia Dictionary of Roman Law, Adolf Berger, 1953, pub. by The Amer. Philosophical Soc., p.563)

LES FABIA: A statute of unknown date (2nd or 1st century BC) against kidnapping, treating a free man as a slave, or persuading another's slave to leave his master. The same crime (crimen legis Fabiae, plagium) is charged against anyone who helps the principal culprit in such undertakings (socius). In later development, making a free man the object of a transaction (sale, giving in dowry) was also considered to be a plagium. Both the giver and the receiver were subject to punishment but only if they had knowledge of the free man's status and acted fraudently (scientes dolo malo). Severe penalties were provided for plagium in the lex Fabia; they were later aggravated by imperial enactments. Diocletian introduced the death penalty for plagium. (Encyclopedia Dictionary of Roman Law, Adolf Berger, 1953, pub. by The Amer. Philosophical Soc., p.552)

PARTUS: An embryo in the womb. Before birth it is considered a part of the woman and not a human being. Partus can also mean a newborn child.(Encyclopedia Dictionary of Roman Law, Adolf Berger, 1953, pub. by The Amer. Philosophical Soc., p.619)

PARTUS ABACTUS (PARTUM ABIGERE): Abortion. A woman guilty of criminal abortion was punished with exile. A person who gave a woman a poisonous liquid (poculum amatorium) was punished with death if the woman died, otherwise with deportation or, when the woman was of a lower social class, with compulsory labor in mines (metalla). (Encyclopedia Dictionary of Roman Law, Adolf Berger, 1953, pub. by The Amer. Philosophical Soc., p.619)

ABORTION: "By the Severan period, abortion was also a crime, but only if practised to the detriment of a husband's interests. It was not a crime by its very nature." ("Christians and Pagans," Robin Lane Foxe, pg. 347, Knopf Publishers)

PROVINCIA: The original meaning of the term was that of the sphere of action of a magistrate with imperium, distinguished from the sphere of action of his colleague (see collega). Provincia was also used of a district under the ruling of a military commander. Later, territories outside Italy conquered and annexed by Rome were assigned as a provincia to a Roman magistrate (a consul or a praetor) or a high pro-magistrate vested with imperium and representing there the authority iof the Roman state. The first instances in which the term provincia was applied to a conquered and incorporated territory were Sicily and Sardinia (241 and 238 BC). The organization of a new province was regulated by a lex provinciae, but there were no general rules for the adminstration of provinces. Within the territory organized as a province there were territorial units cities and municipalities, which were granted a special status of civitates foederatae or civitates liberae et immunes. The Lex Cornelia de provinciis ordinandis (on the organization of provinces, 81 BC) set some rules for the administration of provinces by ex-praetors who, after their year of service in Rome, assumed the governorship of a province as pro-magistrates with a prorogated imperium (see prorogatio imperii). Ex-consuls were admitted to governorship under the same circumstances. Later, however, the Lex Pompeia (52 BC) fixed a delay of five years between the tenure of a high magistracy in Rome and that of a governorship in a province. From the time of Augustus the governors received a fixed salary. The legal status of the population of a conquered province was that of peregrini [foreign] or of peregrini dediticii [foreign conquered] when the conquest resulted from a victorious war and a surrender of the enemy (see dediticii, deditio). See tributum. Roman citizenship was granted either to individual provincials or to larger groups, until the constitutio antoniniana bestowed citizenship on all inhabitants of the Empire [except dediticii]. The investment of the princeps with imperium proconsulare maius (qualified also as indefinite, perpetuum) gave the emperor in theory the highest power over all the provinces. It was granted for the first time to Augustus by the senate in 23 BC, but very early - already under Augustus - a distinction was made between imperial ) provinciae principis, Caesaris) and senatorial provinces (provinciae senatus). The latter were the pacified, long-annexed provinces, while the imperial provinces were those which had been recently acquired and in which revolts still occurrred or were to be expected. The shift of a province from one category to the other could be ordered by the emperor. Under Diocletian the provincial adminstration acquired a different aspect. The division of the Empire into praefecturae and dioeceses (see dioecesis) was connected with the creation of new provinces, smaller in territory than under the Principate. The military command was separated from the civil administration; the governors retained their jurisdictional power, which was subject to an appeal to the vicarii and eventually to the emperor. In imperial legislation, provincial matters were among the topics to which the emperors devoted their greatest attention. The terms provincia and provincialis are among the most frequent in Justinian's code. For details concerning the administration, officials, jurisdiction, etc, in the provinces, see the pertinent items, e.g., arca provincialis, conventus, conventus civium Romanorum, concilia provinciarum, leges datae, legati decem, legati ad census accipiendos, legati iuridici, legati legionum, lex rupilia, lex pompeia, ornatio provinciarum, repetundae, fundus provincialis, peregrini... (Encyclopedia Dictionary of Roman Law, Adolf Berger, 1953, pub. by The Amer. Philosophical Soc., p.659)

SERVUS: A slave. Although a human being, legally a slave was considered a thing (res) without any legal personality. He belonged to his master as a res mancipi, and therefore the transfer of ownership of a slave was to be performed through mancipatio. All that the slave acquired belonged to his master and he could not assume an obligation for his master. Hence there was no action against the latter from transactions concluded by the slave. Exceptions from this rule were introduced by the praetorian law; see peculium, actio tributoria, institor. Aside from these specific cases a general rule was that the legal situation of a master might be improved by a contractual activity of his slave, but could not be made worse. The master was, however, liable for delictual offenses of the slave (see delictum), but when sued with an actio noxalis for the slave's wrongdoing (see noxa), he might free himself from liability by handing over (surrendering) the slave to the person injured (noxae deditio). A slave could not be sued nor could he be plaintiff in a trial. In the earlier law the master had ius vitae necisque [the power of life and death] over the slave, and even during the period of the Republic a slave had no protection against his master's cruelty. See lex petronia. The law of the Empire brought several restrictions to the master's power. A master who killed his slave with just grounds was punished, and in the case of ill-treatment of a slave he could be compelled to sell him. The pertinent provisions were frequently changed in the later Empire in favor of the slaves under the influence of Christianity. A slave had no family; his marriage-like union was not considered a matrimonium; see contubernium. Blood tie created through a servile union (cognatio servilis) was later regarded as an impediment to a marriage between persons thus related, after their manumission. Specific rules were in force in criminal law and procedure as far as slaves were concerned. Penalties inflicted on slaves were generally severer than those to which free men were exposed. A slave was not allowed to testify in a criminal trial against his master, except in the case of crimen maiestatis. A testimony contrary to this rule was capitally punished. Usually, a slave as a witness in criminal matters was subject to torture; see quaestio per tormenta. Slavery arose by birth from a slave mother. A foreigner of an enemy country became a slave in the Roman state when taken as a prisoner of war. The same happened to a stranger belonging to a country, not allied with Rome with a treaty of friendship, even when he was caught not in time of war. Other causes of enslavement were: venditio trans Tiberim (the sale of a free man beyond the Tiber, i.e, abroad, see addictus), ...For enslavement as a result oif a condemnation for a crime, see servus poenae.(Encyclopedia Dictionary of Roman Law, Adolf Berger, 1953, pub. by The Amer. Philosophical Soc., p.704)

SERVUS FUGITIVUS: A slave who ran away from his master with the intention not to return to him. A servus fugitivus also was a slave who ran away from his master's creditior, to whom he had been given as pledge (creditor pigneraticius), or from a teacher, and did not return to his master. When caught by a public organ or a private individual, a servus fugitivus had to be delivered to the master. Concealing a fugitive slave or helping a slave to escape from his master was considered a theft; see lex fabia de plagio.... A fugitive could be usucapted if the man who held him was in good faith (e.g., he believed to hold a masterless slave). (Encyclopedia Dictionary of Roman Law, Adolf Berger, 1953, pub. by The Amer. Philosophical Soc., p.705)

SERVUS POENAE: A free man who became a slave through condemnation with capital punishment (death

penalty, fight with wild beasts, forced labor in mines). He was considered a slave sine domino (not belonging to anybody). If a slave was condemned to captial punishment, the ownership of his master was destroyed and did not revive any more. A servus poenae could not be freed. In certain cases, a sentence, even when not involving captial punishment, could impose on the condemned slave the additional penalty "ne manumittatur" which meant that he could not be manumitted and remained slave for life. (Encyclopedia Dictionary of Roman Law, Adolf Berger, 1953, pub. by The Amer. Philosophical Soc., p.705)

SUICIDIUM: A suicide. See consciscere sibi mortem, liberae mortis facultas. "A soldier who attempted to commit suicide and did not succeed, is to be punished by death unless he wanted to die because of unbearable pains, sickness, affliction (mourning), or for another reason; in such cases he is to be dishonorably discharged." (Encyclopedia Dictionary of Roman Law, Adolf Berger, 1953, pub. by The Amer. Philosophical Soc., p.723)

SUSCIPERE SERVUM ALIENUM: To give harbor to a slave who had left his master. Keeping the slave secretly (celare, supprimere) against the will of his master was considered a crime (see plagium) and punished under Lex Fabia. See supprimere servum alienum. (Encyclopedia Dictionary of Roman Law, Adolf Berger, 1953, pub. by The Amer. Philosophical Soc., p.726)

It is time to elect a world leader, and your vote counts. Here's the scoop on the three leading candidates.

Candidate A associates with ward heelers and consults with astrologists. He's had two mistresses. His wife is a lesbian. He chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day.

Candidate B was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in college and drinks a quart of brandy every evening.

Candidate C is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an occasional beer and hasn't had any illicit affairs.

Which of these candidates is your choice?? (see below)

Candidate A is Franklin D. Roosevelt

Candidate B is Winston Churchill

Candidate C is Adolph Hitler

WASHINGTON: When Washington lived, the Philadelphia Aurora wrote, "If ever a nation was debauched by a man, the American nation has been by Washington." When he died it wrote, "Every heart, in unison with the freedom and happiness of the people, ought to beat high in exultation, that the name of Washington ceases from this day to give a currency to political iniquity and to legalize corruption." -(Facts from "Legends, Lies & Cherished Myths of American History," Richard Shenkman, 1988, Wm. Morrow & Co., NY)

"How unfortunate that internal dissensions should be harrowing and tearing our vitals. Without more charity...the fairest prospect of happiness and prosperity that was ever presented to man will be lost."

--George Washington commenting on his Cabinet's infighting.

WASHINGTON: "As to you, sir, treacherous in private friendship (for so you have been to me and that in the day of danger) and a hypocrite in public life, the world will be puzzled to decide whether you are an apostate or an impostor; whether you have abandoned good principles or whether you ever had any." --Thomas Paine (Common Sense) to George Washington.

WASHINGTON: "I feel happy at my emancipation from attachment to a man who has practiced on me the profound hypocrisy of a Tiberius and the injustice of an assassin. --Attorney General Edmund Randolph, lifelong friend of George Washington, after Washington's investigation of suspected foreign intrigue by Randolph.

JEFFERSON: "I know that I have been the object of uniform opposition from Mr. Jefferson...I have long seen a party formed in the legislature under his auspices bent on my subversion... which, in its consequences would subvert the government." --Alexander Hamilton, concerning Thomas Jefferson.

HAMILTON - JEFFERSON: "I will frankly and solemnly declare that I believe the views of both of you are pure and well meant; and that experience alone will decide with respect to the salubrity of measures which are the subject of dispute. Why then, when some of the best citizens in the United States, men of discernment, uniform and tried patriots, who have no sinister views to promote, but are chaste in their ways of thinking and acting, are to be found some on one side and some on the other of the questions which have caused these agitations, should either of you be so tenacious of your opinions as to make no allowances for those of the other?...I have a great, a sincere esteem and regard for you both, and ardently wish that some line could be marked out by which both of you could walk." --George Washington, to Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson.

FRANKLIN: "The great fomenter of the opposition...A factious, turbulent fellow...(an) enemy...evil genius." ...Things said of Franklin by his contemporaries.

LINCOLN: "The cheek of every American must tingle with shame to hear the silly, flat and dish-watery utterances of a man who must be pointed out to intelligent foreigners as President of the United States."

--A Chicago newspaper editorial, concerning Lincoln's Gettysburg Address

FACT: Like Jesus, half the nation wanted to kill Lincoln and he was disliked by most of the others. His own Confederate bro-in-law announced he was "the greatest scoundrel unhung."

FACT: The US Senate met to consider charges of treason against his wife, Mary Todd Lincoln.

FACT: Lincoln himself did not expect a chance of being reelected a second term. Finally he was assassinated.

WARREN HARDING: Warren Harding was once so perplexed by lectures given him on tax measures that he virtually broke down and sobbed in front of one of his secretaries. "John, I can't make a thing out of this tax problem. I listen to one side and they seem right, and then I talk to the other side and they seem just as right, and here I am where I started. I know somewhere there is a book that will give me the truth, but I can't read the book. I know somewhere there is an economist who knows the truth, but I don' know where to find him and haven't the sense to know him and trust him when I find him." -(Facts from "Legends, Lies & Cherished Myths of American History," Richard Shenkman, 1988, Wm. Morrow & Co., NY)

SELECTED HALACHOS [prounounced ‘halakas’] RELATING TO PARSHAS KORACH

By Rabbi Doniel Neustadt

Compiled from the Mishna Berurah and from other contemporary Poskim on a subject that pertains to the parsha of the week. For final Halachic ruling consult your Rav.

SUBJECT: SELECTED SUMMER HALACHOS

The coming of the summer-vacation season, when many people are away from their homes and usual surroundings, brings forth with it unique Halachic problems. Although it is difficult to envision the exact scenarios, we have chosen certain common situations which are likely to occur during the long summer season. A sampling:

A bathing suit is not Muktze. Other swimming paraphernalia, however, are considered a Kli Shmelacto L'eissur (Ha Rav S. Y. Elyashiv).

Unless needed for a medical condition, sunglasses may not be worn on Shabbos outside of an Eiruv.

On Shabbos, one may wear a jacket thrown over his shoulders. It is not considered carrying (Chazon Ish).

A raincoat lining may be zipped in and out on Shabbos.

A Gentile may be told to turn off the air- conditioning system if it has turned too cold and may cause people to become ill. This is permissible both in a private home and in Shul during Davening time (IG"M OC 3:42).

Some Poskim allow asking a Gentile to put on the air-conditioning system if the extremely hot weather causes major discomfort (Minchas Yitzcak 3:23). Other Poskim do not agree and prohibit this. In their opinion, even if the Gentile turned the system on [for the sake of the Jew] without being told to do so, one may not derive pleasure from his action and must leave the building (IG"M YD 3:47).

One who is being chased by a bee may capture it. If one is allergic to a bee sting, he may kill the bee.

An anti-mosquito spray may be sprayed in the air (but not directly at the mosquitoes) in a room which houses a sick person or a baby. A window or a door should be left open (Chazon Ish).

One may spray or rub on his body a mosquito repellent, provided that it is a (totally) liquid type.

All animals are Muktze and may not be carried on Shabbos. A fly, however, may be swatted away.

A fly or bug that fell into a beverage cup or into a bowl of

soup may be removed only if some of the liquid is removed along with it.

Swimming on Shabbos is prohibited, even in an enclosed swimming pool.

Our custom is not to wash the entire body on Shabbos, even in cold water. Some Poskim allow a cold shower to be taken on an extremely hot and humid day if one is in distress (b'makom Tzaar) from the heat (IG"M OC 4:75).

A bungalow colony requires an Eruvei Chatzeiros before any carrying may be done.

The Eruvei Chatzeiros must be accessible. If it was locked up and no key is available, it is considered as if it was lost. Carrying is then forbidden.

If one resides in a bungalow for thirty days, he is obligated to place a Mezuza on every door which requires one. One should not put the required Mezuzos on before the thirty-day period is complete (IG"M YD 1:179).

At the end of the summer, the Mezuzos may be removed if there is a chance that they may be stolen or damaged.

One who purchased a summer home or a bungalow must put on Mezuzos with a Bracha immediately upon moving in.

This issue of Halacha is sponsored L'zchus Hayeled Doniel Meir ben Hinda.

Sponsorships are available. Please use one of the numbers listed below for comments or inquiries.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

* Distributed by:

* The Harbotzas Torah Division of Congregation Shomre Shabbos

* 1801 South Taylor Road

* Cleveland Heights, Ohio 44118

* HaRav Yisroel Grumer, Morah D'Asra

* (216)321-6381 FAX(216)932-5762

* 75310.3454@compuserve.com

* jeffrey.gross@pcohio.com

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Hospitals Find Ways Around Strict Jewish Laws

by: Juan O. Tamayo / Knight-Ridder Newspapers

Saturday, March 8, 1986

Orange County Register

JERUSALEM - You're in a hospital bed and you want to push the button that summons the nurse. But you're a religious Jew and it's Sabbath, a day of rest when it's biblically forbidden to perform 39 types of work, including turning electricity on or off. What do you do?

If it's a matter of life and death, Jewish law says you can push the button. But if it's not that serious, the answer isn't so clear. Halakhah, the collection of Jewish laws derived from the Bible, oral traditions, and rabbinical court rulings over the past 3,000 years, is a vexing problem for 20th-century Israel.

Though many Jews don't follow Halakhah or its kosher dietary injunctions, the laws fall hard on the 25 percent of Israel's 4.3 million people who are Orthodox Jews - strict believers in the divine source of the injunctions, as well as state agencies required by civil regulations to observe some parts of Halakhah.

Some Israeli banks don't charge interest on loans - that would be usury -but earn profits by investing in the borrowers' businesses. The Israeli Defense Forces have a network of specially designed Sabbath telephones

approved as kosher (or "fit") by a leading rabbi. Some police cars are rigged to run continuously on Sabbath so officers don't have to start them. Most Israeli elevators go on automatic every Sabbath, stopping at all floors to spare riders the need to push buttons. Observant Jews use timers to turn their lights on and off during holy days. And one religious farming cooperative south of Jerusalem is even devising a kosher tractor.

But nowhere are the Halakhah taboos more difficult than in the medical field. Though Halakhah allows for violations when it's a matter of life or death - indeed, preservation of life is considered a mitzvah (a good deed) - doctors aren't always saving lives and patients aren't always dying.

"You don't want to tell an 80-year-old man that he can go ahead and violate Halakhah because he's dying," said David Applebaum, a New York-born doctor and ordained rabbi who heads emergency services at Shaarei Zedek Hospital. And if he doesn't tell the patient, the man probably will refuse to push the nurse's button, even if he's having a heart attack, Applebaum said.

What's a doctor to do? The answer at the 300-bed Shaarei Zedek, which has a large Orthodox clientele, is an array of accommodations raging from the mundane to the sublime. Halakhah forbids cutting and squeezing on the Sabbath, so before the day of rest begins at sundown Friday, staffers precut bandages and tape. Making any kind of permanent written record is taboo, so doctors dictate their notes to Arab scribes, members of a broad category of non-Jewish employees - who perform tasks forbidden to Jews. One doctor has developed a blood pressure chart that is marked with temporary labels. Chemists are working on a disappearing ink, which doctors can use to write their notes to be photocopied later.

Use of telephones is forbidden, so non-Jewish operators screen all incoming calls and relay only the emergencies. Cooking also is banned on the Sabbath, so the hospital makes the meals on Friday and keeps them warm throughout the day.

The hospital adds a form of pine oil to the system of circulating steam it uses to cook, because at least one rabbi has argued that steam used to cook meat and dairy products - a forbidden combination - can pick up the taste and odor of the meals and thereby becomes a type of "food." The mere presence of the steam in the kitchen could make everything around it not kosher. But the pine oil gives the steam such a vile smell and taste, according to the rabbi, that no one would dare call it "food." The hospital has not found a way to meet all the Sabbath injunctions against 39 rituals involved in the biblical system for building a tabernacle.

Staffers cannot draw blood for non-emergency tests because that is considered a form of slaughtering. X-rays are forbidden because they are akin to image-making. And patients cannot be discharged on Sabbath because they have to sign release forms and then drive home - driving is banned. But the hospital has managed to get over the major hurdle - turning electricity on and off - by installing an ingenious power system developed and approved by the Institute for Science and Halakhah, a private Jerusalem agency whose symbol is a pair of biblical scrolls surrounded by atomic rings.

The system the institute designed for Shaarei Zedek involves an electrical switch that gets around the biblical injunctions against creating on Sabbath something new, that is, the light created by the throwing of a power switch. The institute based its research on an ancient rabbinical court finding that a person is not responsible for a particular result if he merely removes an obstacle that is keeping that result from happening. The switch is essentially two small timers. One is designed to count up to 10 seconds and automatically turn on the power. But the other counts to five and then shoots a light beam to the first, which orders it reset to zero and thereby stops it from turning on the juice. Push the switch on the second timer and you place a barrier in the path of the beam, thereby keeping it from reaching the first tier, allowing it to finish its 10-second count and turn on the power. Brown Sabbath plugs and switches are placed alongside the hospital's everyday orange switches. Every Friday afternoon the regular system shuts down and the Sabbath network kicks in.

The special Sabbath phones work on a similar principle. Dial a digit and the rotary doesn't spring back to zero. A timer holds the rotary in place for a few seconds then lets it go. You didn't dial the number. The timer allowed the rotary to dial it.

The kosher status of these mechanical devices isn't accepted by everyone. Institute for Science and Halakhah Chief Rabbi Levi Halkpem has approved them only for hospital and other institutional uses, not for the average Jewish home. And some observant Jews say they would not use the devices in any case because they would violate the spirit, if not the letter of the law.

"They are tricks, gimmicks. Think of them as hiring a good lawyer to get you a light sentence," said one teacher at Boys Town of Jerusalem, a technical school for poor Jewish children.

"There is a lot of argument about these devices, but if the rabbis say they are kosher, they are kosher," said Applebaum, of Shaarei Zedek. David Bannet, a Brooklyn, N.Y.born engineer who does volunteer work for the institute, said it's not easy to persuade rabbis to approve the institute's devices.

Researchers recently had to provide a great deal of evidence to get approval for a two-compartment water heater, designed for Sabbath use. "If a judge sees a thin file, he thinks, 'No case,'" Bannet said "But if he sees a chunky file, then he says to himself, 'Now there’s a case!' "

BIBLE REVIEW, FEBRUARY 2001

READERS REPLY

Face Up to What the Bible Says-And Then Ignore It

"There is an unfortunate tendency for people to reinterpret passages from the Bible that seem to advocate ideas with which they strongly disagree. Susan Ackerman seems to be doing this in her column "When the Bible Enters the Fray" (October 2000). For example, in commenting on Romans 1:26-27, she writes: "For Paul, 'natural,' when used in a sexual context, refers to the penetration of a subordinate person by a dominant one." Now, it might be true that Paul had a peculiar notion of what is 'natural" and 'unnatural," and I've read a number of fascinating articles that have put forth something very similar. But any suggestion that Paul warmly embraced egalitarian same-sex erode relationships and only wanted to condemn nonegalitarian same-sex erotic relationships is utter nonsense. There is simply no evidence to support such a claim.

As for the Greek term arsenokoitai, found at 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, Susan Ackerman claims that it refers only to "homosexual behavior that God is said to find abusive or degrading to human dignity, especially homosexual prostitution and male-male pedophilia." This is simply unfounded. The fact is that this Greek word is a compound neologism based on the Septuagint's translation of Leviticus 20:13. The Septuagint contains both parts of this compound, one right after the other, and thus it seems very clear that arseno-koitai simply refers to men who have anal intercourse with a male partner.

I attend a Lutheran parish that accepts (practicing) homosexuals as full members, and I hope other states follow Vermont's lead in accepting civil unions between gay and lesbian couples. But intellectual honesty forces me to admit that the Bible occasionally condemns homosexual activity. One should place these few passages in their historic context. That Paul was homophobic and found homosexuality immoral shouldn't be any more shocking than finding out that the Bible condones slavery and that some first-century Christians owned slaves.

Instead of reinterpreting passages we dislike, we should admit that we dislike them. Conservatives might cite Leviticus 20:13 in an attempt to justify their anti-gay ideology, but most of them would never suggest that our society should put homosexuals to death so as to follow its teachings to the letter of the law. The truth of the matter is that conservatives don't wish to follow all the teachings of scripture any more than liberals do."

Steven Craig Miller

Alton, Illinois

(PAUL MITCHELL: I won't attempt to reply to this last paragraph, except that obviously Miller doesn't know the mind of conservatives and what we would do, anymore than he knows the mind of God. Miller has intellectual honesty, then throws it out the window to do what he feels is right. "There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." (Prov 14:12)

Also note that Miller must impugn Paul ("homophobic"), God's apostle, in order to destroy the message delivered from God. My, my! Miller's god is so weak as to have foolishly chosen a homophobic apostle and couldn't stop Paul from distorting the message. But our God is not so weak!!!!

"The words of the LORD are pure words; as silver tried in a furnace on the earth, refined seven times." Ps 12:6

"...(the gospel) has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit..." Eph 3:5

-----------------

(same Bible Review 2/01)

A Broken Form of Sexuality

Glenn Layne, D. Min. Senior Pastor First Baptist Church Temple City: "California Dr. Ackerman's column is an example of high-handed hijacking of the term "biblical scholarship" in the service of a revisionist sociopolitical agenda. "Biblical scholarship" apparently occurs only at select institutions, like Dr. Ackerman's own Dartmouth, or Harvard, Yale or Claremont. Apparently it does not occur at Gordon-Conwell (my seminary), Fuller, Bethel or Westminster. It seems evangelicals, by definition, cannot be scholars.

There is a case to be made, for example, that sexual perversion is indeed the key ingredient in the sin of Sodom (which Ezekiel says was the result of their rich, idle arrogance). Homosexuality is never once portrayed in a favorable light in the pages of Scripture, while heterosex-ual marital union is praised throughout. That alone should give pause to the revisionist approach to biblical teaching on homosexuality.

It should be pointed out that Bemadette Brooten is not the only person to have studied the meaning of "natural" and "unnatural" in Romans 1:26-27, and that her bizarre thesis is not the only one held by responsible scholars. (I think here of James D.G. Dunn's commentary on Romans and the excellent word-study work of Thomas Schmidt, as in his Straight and Narrow?)

One thing is painfully obvious about the process used by Ackerman and the countless other revisionists I have encountered: It is hardly an impartial process but, typically, the worst kind of deconstructionist thinking. I recall a lengthy written exchange I had with a revisionist pastor in Ohio. By the third letter he admitted: "OK, you win. The real issue is not that I interpret Scripture differently; I reject its ultimate authority in this matter." [emph added-pm]

This hacking away at biblical texts to make them fit the 21st century's current moral confusions is not unlike the efforts of Southern scholars in the early 19th century to batter Scripture into a pro-slavery document.

Ackerman is right that both "right" and "left" tend to select the passages that will best (superficially) buttress their cause. But the question remains: What does the Bible say? Nothing good about this broken expression of sexuality. It is best to call people to flee a burning house, not to assure them that the fire will keep them warm."

"...[Man] cannot make enforceable contracts binding his future personal actions...This applies also to marriage contracts. Since human self-ownership cannot be alienated, a man or a woman, on a free market, could not be compelled to continue in marriage if he or she no longer desired to do so. This is regardless of any previous agreement. Thus, a marriage contract, like an individual labor contract, is, on an unhampered market, terminable at the will of either one of the parties." (Murray N. Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State, NY: NY Univ Press, 1962, 1975, Vol I., p.441-42 footnote)

(Libertarians thus hold man owns himself, is autonomous even to God. A wife can give him her love and youth and industry ---all of which are her "capital"--- and he can rob her by disposing of her in later life. This denies permanent covenants as ordained by God, Num 30.2).

ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA: Sunday, first day of the week; in Christianity, the Lord's Day, the weekly memorial of Jesus Christ's resurrection from the dead. The practice of Christians gathering together for worship on Sunday dates back to apostolic times, but details of the actual development of the custom are not clear. Before the end of the 1st Century AD, the author of Revelation gave the first day its name of the "Lord's Day" (Rev. 1:10). Saint Justin Martyr (c. 100-c. 165), philosopher and defender of the Christian faith, in his writings described the Christians gathered together for worship on the Lord's Day: the gospels or the Old Testament was read, the presiding minister preached a sermon, and the group prayed together and celebrated the Lord's Supper. The emperor Constantine (d. 337), a convert to Christianity, introduced the first civil legislation concerning Sunday in 321, when he decreed that all work should cease on Sunday, except that farmers could work if necessary. This law, aimed at providing time for worship, was followed later in the same century and in subsequent centuries by further restrictions on Sunday activities. (15th edition, vol. 11, pg. 392)

ENCYCLOPEDIA AMERICANA: From the apostolic era to the present it has been customary for Christians to assemble for communal Sunday services... Civil laws requiring the observance of Sunday date back at least to Emperor Constantine the Great, who designated Sunday as a legal day of rest and worship in 321. This law, however was not specifically Christian, since Sunday was the day of the sun-god for pagans as well as the Lord's day for Christians. While Constantine thus managed to please the two major religious groups in the Roman empire, numerous later law regulating behavior on Sunday have been avowedly Christian. (Sunday, 1988, pg. 21)

COLLIER'S ENCYCLOPEDIA: The New Testament contains clear evidence that from a very early period the first day of the week was observed by Christians as a day of assembly for "the breaking of bread" and perhaps for the collection of freewill offerings. (Acts xx:7 and 1 Corinth xvi:2). Justin Martyr in the middle of the second century describes how "on the day called Sunday" all town and country Christians assembled for instructions in holy writings, for prayer distribution of bread and wine, and the collection of alms. Tertullian declared that the Christians "made Sunday a day of joy, but for other reasons that to adore the sun which was not part of their religion. (Sunday, , 1985, pg. 632-633)

HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH: The celebration of the Lord's Day in memory of the resurrection of Christ dates undoubtedly from the apostolic age. Nothing short of apostolic precedent can account for the universal religious observance in the churches of the second century. There is no dissenting voice. This custom is confirmed by the testimonies of the earliest post-apostolic writers, as Barnabas, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr. (Philip Schaff, , vol. 1, pg. 201-202)

HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH: Hence, the first day was already in the apostolic age honorably designated as "the Lord's Day." ...it appears, therefore, from the New Testament itself, that Sunday was observed as a day of worship, and in special commemoration of the Resurrection, whereby the work of redemption was finished. The universal and uncontradicted Sunday observance in the second century can only be explained by the fact that it has its roots in apostolic practice. (Philip Schaff, , vol. 1, pg. 478-479)

NEW SCHAFF HERZOG ENCYCLOPEDIA: The earliest traces of the observance of the first day of the week in remembrance of Christ's resurrection is found in the Pauline period of the Apostolic Age... Sunday was first regulated by civil authority in 321, under Constantine, directing that the day be hallowed and observed appropriately. (Sunday, pg. 145)

PHILIP SCHAFF: "The universal and uncontradicted Sunday observance in the second century can only be explained by the fact that it had its roots in apostolic practice." (History of the Christian Church, Vol. I, p. 478.)

SMITH’S BIBLE DICTIONARY: "The results of our examination of the principle writers of the two centuries after the death of St. John, are as follows: `The Lord's day existed during these two centuries as a part and parcel of apostolical, and so of Scriptural Christianity. It was never defended; for it was never impugned, or at least only impugned as were other things received from the apostles. It was never confounded with the Sabbath, but carefully distinguished from it. . . Finally, whatever analogy may be supposed to exist between the Lord's Day and the Sabbath., in no passage that has come down to us is the fourth commandment appealed to as the ground of the obligation to observe the Lord's Day." (Smith's Bible Dictionary, "The Lord's Day,")

PHILIP SCHAFF: "The celebration of the Lord's Day in memory of the resurrection of Christ dates undoubtedly from the apostolic age. Nothing shot of the apostolic precedence can account of the universal religious observance in the churches of the second century. There is no dissenting voice. This custom is confirmed by the testimonies of the

earliest post-apostolic writers as Barnabas, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr. It is also confirmed by the younger Pliny. The Didache calls the first day `the Lord's Day of the Lord.'" (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, II, p. 201-202.)

107 A. D. IGNATIUS: "Those, then, who lived by ancient practices arrived at a new hope. They ceased to keep the Sabbath and lived by the Lord's Day, on which our life as well as theirs shone forth, thanks to Him and his death." (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, 9:1)

120 A. D. BARNABAS: "Wherefore also we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose from the dead." (Epistle of Barnabas, 12:10)

138 AD JUSTIN MARTYR: "We all choose Sunday for our communal gathering because it is the first day, on which God created the universe by transforming darkeness and primal matter, and because Jesus Christ, our healing savior, rose from the dead on the same day." (1st Apology, 65-67, ca. 138 AD; cited by Eberhard Arnold, "The Early Christians," Plough Publishing, 1997, pg 250

145 A. D., JUSTIN MARTYR: "But Sunday is the day on which we hold our common Assembly, because it is the first day of the week and Jesus our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead." (The First Apology of Justin, Chapter LXVII.)

TERTULLIAN, A. D. 200: ""We solemnize the day after Saturday in contradiction to those who call this day their Sabbath, and devote it to ease and eating, deviating from the old Jewish customs, which they are now very ignorant of." (Apology, Chapter XVI.)

WEEKLY OBSERVANCE

Justin Martyr: "And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the Memoirs of the Apostles or the Writings of the Prophets are read, as long as time permits; then when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and as was before said when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgiving, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons." (Justin Martyr, Apologia 1:67. about 138 AD; also cited by Eberhard Arnold, "The Early Christians," Plough Publishing, 1997, pg 249)

JUSTIN MARTYR: "Then bread and a cup containing water mixed with wine are brought to the overseer of the brothers ...When the overseer has given thanks and all the people have assented, those we call table stewards give each one present some of the bread and wine with water that was accepted with thanksgiving and take some of it to the homes of those who are absent." (1st Apology, 65-67, ca. 138 AD; cited by Eberhard Arnold, "The Early Christians," Plough Publishing, 1997, pg 248)

"The Lord's Supper had already been separated from the Lovemeal after the middle of the second century. Originally an offering of thankful hearts and tangible gifts from all believers, it changed (at the end of the century) into the oblation of the Mass offered by the priest." (Eberhard Arnold, "The Early Christians," Plough Publishing, 1997, pg 40)

90 AD DIDACHE: But every Lord's day, do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord... [Matt. 5:23-24] (The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, Chap. 14:1, Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 7, page 381)

IGNATIUS: "Be eager, then, in coming together as often as possible for God's Meal of Thanksgiving and for his praises, for if you meet frequently, Satan's powers are broken.." (Letter to the Ephesians, before 120 AD, cited by Eberhard Arnold, "The Early Christians," Plough Publishing, 1997, pg 213)

TERTULLIAN: "The participants do not go to the table unless they have first tasted of prayer to God. As much is eaten as is necessary to satisfy the hungry; as much is drunk as is good for those who live a disciplined life. When satisfying themselves they are aware that even during the night they should worship God. They converse as those who are aware that God is listening. After the hands are washed and the lights are lit, all are asked to stand forth and to praise God as well as each is able, be it from the holy Scriptures or from his own heart. From this is will be recognized 'how he drank.' In like manner the Meal is closed with a prayer." (Apology 39; cited by Eberhard Arnold, "The Early Christians," Plough Publishing, 1997, pg 246)

THE GOSPEL AND. . . "Former presiding Lutheran Bishop David Preus will visit Tacoma next weekend to speak out against a Lutheran agreement with the Episcopal Church.

Preus contends that the accord, titled "Called to Common Mission," goes against Lutheran tradition by requiring acceptance of the "historic episcopate."

The historic episcopate refers to the belief that bishops are ordained into an unbroken line of religious leadership going back to Jesus' apostles. The Lutheran-Episcopal agreement would require all new clergy to be ordained by a bishop, and each new bishop to be ordained or installed by three bishops from the his-toric episcopate.

The Episcopal Church historically has accepted this understanding of ordination. Lutherans have not, believing instead "that IT IS ENOUGH TO AGREE ON THE GOSPEL and administer the sacraments," Preus said. "NOW, WE'RE BEING REQUIRED TO INCLUDE THE HISTORIC EPISCOPATE AS A NECESSARY ITEM." [emphasis added] ("Opponent of Lutheran-Episcopal Pact to Speak," The News Tribune, Tacoma, WA, 5-13-2000, p.B6)

MARTIN LUTHER: "Since we are all priests and all have one faith, one gospel, and one sacrament, why then should we not have the authority to test and determine what is right in the faith? Abraham had to listen to Sarah who was more subject than we are to anyone on earth, and Balaam's ass was wiser than the prophet himself. If then God could speak through an ass against a prophet, then can he not speak through a godly man against the pope?...Therefore it behooves every Christian to espouse the cause of the faith, to understand and defend it, and to rebuke all errors." (The Second American Revolution, pg. 202, JW Whitehead, 1982, David C. Cook Publishing Co.)

"Widespread outrage over a proposed statement on human sexuality by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) has caused leaders of the 6.2 million-member denomination to back away from the document and make "significant modifications" to the process being used to develop the statement. The statement called masturbation healthy, condom distribution among teens a moral imperative, homosexual marriage a Biblical practice and marriage in general an optional step for committed couples." (Christian American, 2-94; cited in the American Family Assoc. Journal, April, 1994, p.10)

RETURN TO INDEX