Sabbaths vs. Sabbath

 is one of the difficulties that one encounters if one hasn't been thoroughly educated in the Greek language of the New Testament.

In his 17 January 2010 blog post Sabbath(s) and Sunday (σάββατον), New Testament professor Dr. William D. Mounce explains the different ways that the New Testament uses Greek word σάββατον, which is a plural word.

"Part of the key is in the nature of the word σάββατον. It is not as straight forward as one might expect... It can be used in the singular but also the plural, and here is the interesting part; in the plural it can refer to multiple days but it can also refer to a single day. Why, you say, would they do that? I have no idea."

The plural σάββατον is used in Matthew 28:1, which the NIV translates as, "After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb." 

Religious Studies professor Dr. Jason A. Staples points out what may be a flaw in the way that Gentiles have been translating that verse.

Dr. Staples writes, "Note: as for Matt 28:1, it actually says 'after the sabbaths' (plural), not 'after the sabbath,' as Jesus was crucified on a Thursday (the Day of Preparation), which that year was followed by two Sabbath days (Passover and the regular seventh-day Sabbath). Thus the first day of the week came 'after the sabbaths'."

William D. Mounce is a theology professor who has a PhD. Jason A. Staples is also a theology professor who has a PhD. Yet, the two disagree on what Matthew 28:1 actually says. Whereas Dr. Mounce sides with the NIV's translation of the verse (See Mounce Reverse Interlinear New Testament), Dr. Staples sides with the literal translation of the verse. So, who is correct?

Julia Blum teaches the Jewish Background of the New Testament course for the Israel Institute of Biblical Studies. In her 7 May 2023 blog post Passover, Easter, and the Hebrew Calendar, Ms. Blum writes, "Again, if we know God’s calendar and terminology, we would know that there are three Sabbaths each year during the Passover Feast: namely, the two high Sabbaths on the 15th and 21st Nisan, and one regular weekly Sabbath in between."

Ms. Blum's statement is supported by the Jewish Virtual Library article Special Sabbaths, which describes the additional sabbaths that occur during Passover week.

I am not thoroughly educated on New Testament Greek, and I am certainly not an expert on Jewish culture. Yet, the occurrence of more than one sabbath during Passover week helps me to understand what is taking place in Mark 16:1-2, which in the NIV says, "When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body.  Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb..."

In short, Jesus was crucified and buried before the first sabbath of Passover week, and he rose from the tomb after the second sabbath of the same week. This timeline explains how Jesus could be dead for three days according to the Jewish way of keeping time.

If this timeline is correct, then we face an uncomfortable dilemma. We can reject the biblical and historical data in favor of a tradition ingrained in the collective Gentile psyche. Either that, or we can admit that Gentile society has been marching lock-step in groupthink in support of an interpretation that strips the Gospel of its Jewish elements.

Granted, we can also silently accept the biblical and historical data while participating in public displays of the Gentile groupthink.

Leviticus 18:1-30

is a Bible passage that lists sexual activities that the ancient Israelites were forbidden from participating in.

Torah scrolls

Thus far, at the time of this post's publication, I find nothing within official United Methodist law that makes it biblically acceptable for a believer in Messiah Jesus to participate in any of the sexual activities listed in Leviticus 18:1-30.

Yes, the book of Leviticus is a part of the Torah, which is labeled by non-Jews as the Law of Moses.

Yes, non-Jewish believers in Messiah Jesus say that they are exempt from the Torah.

Yet, I have yet to meet a member of the United Methodist Church who says that it is biblically acceptable for a non-Jewish believer in Messiah Jesus to participate in incest or in bestiality.

If non-Jewish believers in Jesus are not biblically exempt from Leviticus 18:9 or Leviticus 18:23, then what makes non-Jewish male believers in Jesus biblically exempt from Leviticus 18:22?

If members of the United Methodist Church have not wrestled with that question, then they should. I did so before I joined the UMC.

In my 28 January 2024 blog post Anguishing Over The Plight Of The LGBTQ Community, I write the following:

"One should acknowledge that the Tanakh (a.k.a. Old Testament) generally condemns one man sodomizing another man, but there may be a practical earthly reason for the condemnation. Science reveals that promiscuous sodomy is medically dangerous, just as heterosexual promiscuity is medically dangerous. Click here to read an example of the latter.

Here are links to some science articles that point out just how medically dangerous that promiscuous sodomy is:

Key Health Concerns for MSM (Men Who have Sex with Men)

Sexually Transmitted Diseases

Sexually Transmitted Diseases in Men Who Have Sex With Men

Gay and Bisexual Men’s Health Issues

Sex between men, not skin contact, is fueling monkeypox, new research suggests

What are the Risks of Anal Sex?

Why the monkeypox outbreak is mostly affecting men who have sex with men

‘High-Risk’ Sex Could Raise Odds for Crohn’s, Colitis in Gay Men

Anal Sex – 5 Reasons Why it is Not Good for Your Health

Scientists Find That Gay Men Are Twice As Likely To Have This Disease

If one is going to accept what science has to say about the origin of sexual orientation, then one needs to also accept what science says about promiscuous sodomy. Otherwise one will be a hypocrite."

Please note that my above-quoted statement pertains to sexual promiscuity. I end that same blog post with the following conclusion:

"As stated earlier, science reveals that promiscuous sodomy is medically dangerous. It would be bad for a community to be exposed to the dangers of risky sexual activity. Yet, when two people are committed to monogamy, they do not expose the community to the dangers of risky sexual activity. Thus, same-gender marriage has a public benefit as well as a private legal one.

Like it or not, marriage is a civil institution because it bestows certain legal benefits. Nothing in the Bible forbids members of the LGBTQ community from possessing those legal benefits.

If members of the LGBTQ community are sexually celibate or engaging in sex within the confines of marriage, then they are not risking harm to the general community. Harming the general community is what the Bible condemns."

In my comments, I do not say that non-Jewish male believers in Jesus are biblically exempt from Leviticus 18:22. Instead, I make a medical case for same-gender marriage as a way of protecting the public from the spread of diseases that are spread through sodomy.

At the same time, I point out the medical danger of promiscuity by heterosexuals.

In short, I side with the view that sexual penetration between two people should be limited to people who are married to each other. I side with that view because of what medical science says.

However, the fact that I side with that view doesn't mean that I believe that non-Jewish men are biblically exempt from Leviticus 18:22.

I realize that I am walking a religious tight-rope because of what the United Methodist Church currently says in its written social principles.

Yet, to quote from the preface of those social principles, "The Social Principles are not church law." [2020/2024 The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church, page 106]

So, no, United Methodist law doesn't require any UMC member to biblically exempt anyone from Leviticus 18:22. 

If non-Jewish men aren't biblically exempt from Leviticus 18:9 or Leviticus 18:23, then I cannot conclude that non-Jewish men are biblically exempt from Leviticus 18:22.

Yet, it isn't my job as a United Methodist to dictate how God's sanctifying grace is to work within the life of any person who has made a public profession of faith in Messiah Jesus. It isn't my job to dictate how one is to live after one becomes a believer in Messiah Jesus.

However, as a caveat, I do have a duty to warn against any action that has the potential of harming another person, including an action that is notorious for spreading diseases.

The Virgin Birth

of Messiah Jesus is a doctrine directly taught in the Bible. So, I was surprised to learn that not all members of the United Methodist Church accept the virgin birth of Jesus as essential doctrine. Indeed, on 09 August 2026, the pastor of one United Methodist congregation preached a sermon which appears to cast doubt on the essentiality of the virgin birth of Jesus. 

In his sermon, the pastor states the following:

“I can talk about the related doctrine of the virgin birth. I can talk about where it came from, why it became important, and why it's okay to have doubts about it. I can talk about why it can be central to our faith and still be something outside of what we know to be human biology — how it is a powerful testament that is not, strictly speaking, an essential teaching of the church.”

In a contradictory commentary, United Methodist elder Dr. Jan Davis writes, "It is not my intent to criticize another UMC’s theology, but I do want to highlight why I believe the doctrine of the Virgin Birth is essential... The doctrine of the virgin birth is at the heart of our salvation.  If Christ is not both divine and human, our redemption would not be possible."

I agree with Dr. Davis in that the virgin birth of Jesus is essential Christian doctrine.

As a Certified Lay Speaker in the United Methodist Church, I have the duty of presenting United Methodist doctrine as it is presented in official United Methodist law.

The United Methodist Hymnal contains literature that presents official United Methodist doctrine. The Hymnal contains The Apostles' Creed which affirms the virgin birth of Messiah Jesus.

Paragraph 102 of The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church (2020/2024) says, "We share with many Christian communions a recognition of the authority of Scripture in matters of faith..." 

So, I accept what Scripture says about the birth of Jesus. His virgin birth is essential because it is the start of his divinity. Jesus had to be conceived by the Holy Spirit in order to be God-incarnate.

Grace

is defined as unearned favor. As the United Methodist Church understands it, God's grace comes in three forms - prevenient grace, justifying grace and sanctifying grace.

Amazing Grace, First version, in "Olney Hymns", on page 53 (bottom), 1779

Justifying grace provides us with spiritual justification. It guarantees that we have eternal life when we make Messiah Jesus our Savior and our God. Justifying grace provides us with spiritual re-birth.

As the author of First John writes, "The blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin." (Chapter 1, Verse 7)

That word all means just that - all.

No, we do not have to speak every sin that we have ever committed in order to receive justifying grace. Otherwise, it wouldn't be grace. 

Besides, we are not necessarily aware of every sin that we have committed. We can sin without knowing that we have sinned.

Sadly, I have witnessed alleged "Christians" deny justifying grace. I have witnessed them proclaim that, if you die without confessing all of your sins, then you won't go to Heaven even if you have made Messiah Jesus your Savior and your God. In short, they deny what is written in 1 John 1:7.

These alleged "Christians" think that they never commit sins unaware. That thinking is foolish at best.

Even when we make Messiah Jesus our Savior and our God, we still remain fallible creatures of flesh, and we will sin in order to satisfy the desires of our flesh. 

Hopefully, we will become aware of such sinning and confess it before we die, but what if we die before making such a confession?

The Christians who deny justifying grace - who deny what is written in 1 John 1:7 - display a holier-than-thou attitude. They rant about other people's alleged "unconfessed sins" while denying their own unconfessed sins.

I refer to these grace-denying people as adders, because they add to the Gospel, and what they add is spiritual venom.

What these adders constantly proclaim is this: "It doesn't matter if you have made Messiah Jesus your Savior and your God. If you ______, then you are not a Christian!"

The adders will condemn you because of the way that you are regardless of any faith in Jesus that you confess.

These adders attempt to sink their fangs into all sorts of people - people who were born LGBTQ, people who vote for Democratic politicians, people who support separation of Church and State, people who support a woman's choice over her own health, etc.

Granted, the people attacked by adders aren't perfect, either. I have witnessed some of the former say that they favor separation of Church and State and then try to dictate to the government what the government should and should not do based on their interpretation of the Bible. I have witnessed the former read into the Bible things that are not there. I have witnessed the former subconsciously interpret the Bible through their own unspoken, unwritten philosophies.

Yeah, we are all messed up whether we are adders or the victims of adders.

I, for one, constantly need God's justifying grace because I am constantly saying and doing things that are sinful, with some of those things being just stupid.

For example, on 04 July 2026, I posted on my X.com account an image taken from Japanese anime. I altered the image so that two anime characters said something mean about a real human being. I thought that I was being funny.

No, I was not being funny. Instead, I was being mean to that real human. Not only did I sin against that human, I also sinned against the person who created those anime characters. 

Plus, I sinned against the people who provided the English voices of those characters.

One of those voice-providers saw my post and rebuked me for it.

I deserved the rebuke, and I was ashamed of what I did. I deleted my offending post, but the damage was already done. I had already acted as the opposite of a believer in Messiah Jesus.

In response to my sin, I declined to receive communion from my congregation the following Sunday morning. I could not in good conscience receive communion so soon after I had sinned against those aforementioned people, one whom I had spoken to just one week before my sin.

I am not confessing my sin here in order to receive anything positive from You, the Reader. I am confessing my sin in order to illustrate why God's justifying grace is so important.

In an instant of carelessness of my part, I sinned against four people, one whom I had met face to face. Without God's justifying grace, that particular sin of mine would be enough to condemn me to eternal damnation. 

Regardless of who we are, we all can commit sin in an instant of carelessness or in an instant of callousness. We can commit sin by demanding of Christians something that the Bible doesn't mandate. We can sin by repeating false doctrine that we believe is correct.

God's justifying grace doesn't mean that we have permanently stopped sinning. 

Indeed, in the seventh chapter of the Book of Romans, the Apostle Paul confesses that he continued to sin despite the fact that he was an Apostle. In Romans 7:19, Paul writes, "I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing."

Yet, in Romans 8:1, Paul also writes, "There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."

By making such a statement, Paul is confirming God's justifying grace. Paul is confirming that "the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin," whether every sin be confessed or not be confessed.

If you have made Messiah Jesus your Savior and your God, then the adders are unable to deprive you of God's justifying grace no matter how hard they try to. To quote a 1970s TV character, "You can take dat to da bank."

Oh, we still need to confess our sins to God when we become aware of those sins. We need to confess our sinfulness even we don't know what all sins that we have committed.

I want to end this blog post by repeating the confession in "A SERVICE OF WORD AND TABLE II" that is recorded in The United Methodist Hymnal:

"Merciful God,

we confess that we have not loved you with our whole heart.

We have failed to be an obedient church.

We have not done your will,

we have broken your law,

we have rebelled against your love,

we have not loved our neighbors,

and we have not heard the cry of the needy.

Forgive us, we pray.

Free us for joyful obedience,

through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."

We do not have to wait until a Communion service to repeat that prayer of confession.

Immigration

is a hot topic within U.S. society.

As a topic, immigration is much more complicated than Americans are willing to openly admit.

When it comes to immigration, plenty of Americans are subconsciously promoting a philosophy that has gone unspoken and unwritten.

That particular philosophy goes like this:

"The United States of America must rescue all of the people in the world from all of life's hardships. Therefore, the United States government must allow all people in the world to live in the USA if they want to."

No, Americans may not admit to believing that philosophy, but that philosophy is revealed in how they respond to the USA's immigration laws.

It is one thing to promote the rule of Law, equal protection under the Law and the legal rights that immigrants in the USA have.

I am in favor of all of those.

However, it is another thing to insist that the U.S. government not enforce U.S. immigration laws even when they are applied equally and don't infringe on anyone's legal rights. 

Believe it or not, there are Americans who insist on that.

No, I do not approve of the job that the USA's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency has been doing since January of 2025.

Also, I am opposed to the immigration beliefs of so-called Christian Nationalists.

At the same time, I acknowledge what plenty of Americans refuse to acknowledge.

I acknowledge the occurrence of immigration cheating.

Their numbers may not be as large as Christian Nationalists claim, but there are foreign-born people who are willingly in the USA illegally. 

No, they aren't people who have simply applied for asylum. Instead, they are adults who were adults when the entered the USA through either legal means or illegal means. Those who entered legally did so with temporary permission to be in the USA, and they stayed in the USA after that permission ended.

For example, I read a news report about a man who entered the USA using a tourist visa. The man stayed in the USA after the visa expired. By staying, the man turned himself into an immigration cheater.

I use the label immigration cheater because it is accurate. Plenty of Americans object to the label illegal immigrant because they insist that there is no such thing as an illegal person.

However, immigration cheating is a real phenomenon even if it isn't as wide spread as Christian Nationalists believe.

Before continuing, I want to clarify something. Immigration cheaters are not DREAMERS. They were not children when they entered the USA. 

They aren't foreigners who are waiting for asylum applications to be approved.

Also, they aren't people who have conformed to all immigration laws and still have been detained by ICE.

Immigration cheaters are non-DREAMER adults who deliberately live within the USA without having legal permission to do so. They may not be in violation of criminal law, but they are in violation of civil law.

Now, back to that philosophy that I mentioned earlier. 

That philosophy, as I understand it, is based on the belief that the USA has unlimited resources.

Surely, a nation with unlimited resources should let all people have access to those resources.

Well, what about all of those Bible verses that mention the treatment of foreigners?

Those verses are being taken out of cultural context. Those verses do not forbid people from respecting a nation's immigration laws, and those verses do not condone immigration cheating.

Still, immigration cheating is being condoned by people who believe that the United States of America must rescue all of the people in the world from all of life's hardships.

Again, I disapprove of the actions taken by ICE and its political leaders since January 2025. Regardless of their legal status, all foreigners in the USA should receive due process of Law and equal protection under the Law. Their legal rights should be maintained.

The immigration situation in the USA is messy at best. As a citizen of the USA, I favor reformation of the USA's immigration laws.

However, I do not condone immigration cheating, and I am not opposed to the USA's immigration laws being correctly enforced.

I will do what I can to aid immigrants to the USA who are striving to conform to the USA's civil laws.

The Bible does not require me to aid any person in violating civil laws that regulate immigration to any nation.

It is not wrong for me to tell would-be immigrants to get into the law-abiding immigration line.

No, the Bible does not require the USA to rescue all of the people in the world from all of life's hardships.

Sure, it would be nice if the USA could do so, but in order to do that, the USA would have to possess unlimited resources.

No nation possesses unlimited resources, not even the USA.

For the record, I have encountered believers in Messiah Jesus who favor immigration cheating. I have witnessed them get loud and highly emotional when anyone dares to mention the existence of immigration cheating.

I can't fight them. All that I can do is to stay within the Law of my church denomination, and that Law does not require me to condone or to protect immigration cheating.

Philosophy

 influences how we interpret the Bible much more than we realize.

Philosophy can be subconscious, which results in philosophy being unspoken and unwritten.

I have witnessed this phenomenon of subconscious philosophy influencing theology and ideology.

I have witnessed this phenomenon being promoted through groupthink, and the ones participating show no sign that they are aware of what they are doing.

For example, I have read and heard plenty believers in Messiah Jesus state what they believe God must and must not do in order for God to be God.

Yes, believers in Messiah Jesus can and do add their own requirements for God to conform to.

Yet, God has 100% free will. He can do whatever he wants whenever he wants. God does not need our permission or understanding to do as he desires.

This situation leaves us mortals with a challenge.

Will we completely trust God even if he chooses to do something that defies our understanding and our desires?

The United Methodist Church

is not a perfect branch of the universal Church. The UMC does not have flawless ideology.

I tend to cringe when I encounter something within the UMC which appears to me to be a product of American ethnocentrism.

I tend to cringe when I encounter something within the UMC which appears to me to be a product of an unwritten, unspoken philosophy that subconsciously motivates UMC members.

Yet, I joined the UMC knowing that it has elements that I disagree with. Thankfully, those elements are not UMC law even if those elements have the support of UMC clergy.

As a UMC Certified Lay Speaker (current as of the date of this posting), I find myself in an awkward position. In a way, I officially represent my state's Conference. Thus, I am expected to present what the UMC stands for. 

I want to do that so long as "what the UMC stands for" is UMC law as defined by the UMC Book of Discipline.

The UMC Social Principles and the UMC Book of Resolutions are not UMC law. 

So, am I truly free to disagree with the UMC Social Principles and the UMC Book of Resolutions and remain in good standing with my congregation and my Conference?

I do not know, and the not knowing is worrisome.