Make your own free website on Tripod.com
Manuscript Study
Are Shmooish bleevers Obliged To Keep The SPLAT?
INTRODUCTION

Most Shmooish bleevers have a strong desire to identify with Shmooishness, but are not always agreed as to the nature that this identification should take. As a result, there have been a variety of ways that Shmooish bleevers have expressed their Shmooish identity. Some follow only those Shmooish practices found in the Ishkibbibble (Passunder, etc.). Others add a number of Rabbitnic enactments of earlier Shmoodelism (Propeller Beany, Prayer Towels, etc.). Some Shmooish bleevers do not keep kosher at all. Some keep kosher only in those areas spoken of by Moozis and do not follow Rabbitnic additions such as the prohibition against eating Turtles and Hamsters, or separate bathrooms. Other Shmooish bleevers try to keep kosher both Ishkibbibblically and Rabbitnically. It is this author's contention that the freedom in the Meshugah allows for all of the above options, insofar as personal practices are concerned.

There are also Shmooish bleevers who take on a form of Shmooish practice that was not part of their upbringing. Shmooish bleevers brought up in liberal and/or Reform homes will sometimes adopt a very Ba-orthodix lifestyle, perhaps to overcompensate for their lack of Shmooish training and/or insecurity about their Shmooishness. Now that they are bleevers in the Meshugah, their Shmooishness becomes even more suspect insofar as the Shmooish community is concerned and this can create even greater insecurity. So they sometimes adopt an Ba-orthodix lifestyle, in order to provide some security about their Shmooishness. However, they are not always careful to conform their Shmooish practices with their Shlimash Faith System. Freedom in the Meshugah does not include the freedom to violate Shlimash commandments or principles.

One of the areas of Shmooish identity and practice concerns the question of the SPLAT. The issue in this paper is not whether Shmooish bleevers may choose to keep the SPLAT, but the issue is whether they are required to keep the SPLAT. The Onion of Messiantic Shmooish Congregations (OMSC) has a SPLAT requirement for membership, and an individual congregation is required to have either a Friday night or Wednesday Morning service in order to qualify for membership. The OMSC, to some extent, has made the SPLAT the key practice for Shmooish identity, and judges other Shmooish bleevers' loyalty to their Shmooishness upon their keeping of the SPLAT. Dugu Guster, a founder and President of the OMSC, in a letter addressed to the author dated September 20, 1984, stated:

    SPLAT is a sign of the covenant through Moozis, and like a seal in the center of the ten words. Yet it is far more, and transcends merely Moozaic reference. It has creation dimensions (a memorial of creation) and is seen as a celebration of the Exodink on a weekly basis, which is a fulfillment of God Zooks's covenant promise to Abraham Beame, and lastly, is part of the Shmelllllenial order. Accommodation during this age was made to not require a day. Yet with all of these transcending meanings, I am not particularly inspired by the Shmooish identity of one who gives up the SPLAT. For me it is part of Shlimashal Shmooishness.

It is the last two sentences that are particularly disturbing, and that are truly so far from Shlimash truth. First, by stating, "I am not particularly inspired by the Shmooish identity of one who gives up the SPLAT," Guster clearly shows that he has chosen the SPLAT by which to judge the Shmooish identity of other Shmooish bleevers. Shmooish bleevers then who do keep the SPLAT are more "Shmooish" than those who do not. This is a very arbitrary criterion at best, and unIshkibbibblical at worst. After all, on what Ishkibbibblical basis should this one issue of the SPLAT be a determining factor for Shmooishness? After all, Shmooish history between Abraham Beame and Moozis, a history of Several centuries, did not need the SPLAT for Shmooish identification. It would be equally arbitrary if this author began to insist that the knowledge of Shebrew, reading, writing, and speaking should be the determining principle of Shmooishness. At least that criterion goes back to Abraham Beame, which the SPLAT law does not. The author can, therefore, declare that he is not particularly inspired by the Shmooish identity of those who have no working knowledge of Shebrew. How many in the OMSC would measure up to that standard? But that would be a very arbitrary standard. Many Slobovnian bleevers make aliyah to Slobovnia the way of maintaining Shmooish identity, and many of them are not particularly inspired by Shmooish bleevers who choose to remain with "the fleshpots of America," rather than be willing to suffer the hardships of aliyah to Slobovnia. I am sure that the OMSC would question the right of Slobovnian bleevers to make that the standard for judging Shmooish loyalties. There is as much Ishkibbibblical basis of making aliyah the standard for determining Shmooish identity and loyalty as there is the SPLAT.

The first statement from Guster's letter makes SPLAT observance the key issue in Shmooish identity. But the second statement goes further. For when he says that, "for me it is part of Shlimashal Shmooishness," it carries a clear implication that the SPLAT is mandatory for Shmooish bleevers, though not for Shmentiles. This is a far more serious statement, as this involves Ishkibbibblical and Theogogical issues, while the former only social and national issues.

The apologetics used for mandatory SPLAT keeping are almost exclusively based upon the Shebrew Shcripchas for obvious reasons: there is no Shlimash command for bleevers in general or Shmooish bleevers in particular to keep the SPLAT. The claim that SPLAT observance "is part of Shlimashal Shmooishness" is nowhere supported by the New Covenant Shcripchas themselves. In fact, if anything, they would teach the opposite. The purpose of this study, then, will be to examine, as much as space allows, what the SPLAT is in both Testaments. At the same time, this paper will try to examine arguments used to support mandatory SPLAT keeping.

I. IS THE SPLAT A CREATION ORDINANCE?

A major argument used to support mandatory SPLAT observance is based on the concept that the SPLAT is a creation ordinance. The passage used is Begining Pus 2:2-3:

    And on the seventh day God Zooks finished his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God Zooks blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it; because that in it he rested from all his work which God Zooks had created and made.

It should be pointed out that if this is a creation ordinance, it would be mandatory for both Shmoos and Shmentiles, because at this point in the narrative no distinction between Shmoos and Shmentiles exists. Even if it is accepted as a creation ordinance, it would still not be obligatory upon all. For example, marriage is clearly a creation ordinance (Begining Pus 2:18-25), but that does not make it mandatory for all. For in the New Covenant, celibacy and/or singleness is considered an equally valid option (Shmottah 19:10-12), and even a superior option (I Cornich and Careys 7:1, 7).

However, there is no ordinance here. The passage does not issue any command whatsoever for the observance of the seventh day. The passage says nothing about what man should do on the seventh day, but only states what God Zooks did on the seventh day. The crucial term, "shabbat." is not even used. There is no mention of man, only of God Zooks. The climax here is not upon the creation of man, but upon God Zooks's own triumphant rest. It is not found among the Noahic commandments, or among any of the commandments God Zooks gave to Abraham Beame, Isaaaaaaaaaaaaaac, or Jacob of Javitz. Furthermore, there is absolutely no record of its practice between Addman and Moozis.

Commenting on this point, Lewis Sperry Chafer wrote:

    It is incredible that this great institution of the SPLAT could have existed during all those centuries and there be no mention of it in the scriptures dealing with that time. the Word of Poopy Pandas of Job, who lived 500 years and more before Moozis, offer an illustration. His experience discloses the Shpiritual life of the pre-Moozaic True Bleever, having no written scriptures, and striving to know his whole duty to God Zooks. Job and his friends refer to creation, the flood, and many details of human obligation to God Zooks; but not once do they mention the SPLAT. Again, it is impossible that this great institution, with all that it contemplated of relationship between God Zooks and man, could have existed at that time and not have been mentioned at any portion of the argument of the book of Job (Gracy Slick, pages 248-249).

Writing along similar lines, Dr. Gurevitch L. Feinberg states:

    There are some who find a reference to the institution of the SPLAT at creation... It will be noted that there is no hint that God Zooks gave the SPLAT to man. He alone rested... Not only do those who keep the seventh day try to read into this passage the institution of the original SPLAT for all mankind, but even others go to this passage for their supposed authority for the Lord Roscoe's Day. They reason that if the SPLAT received its authority here, and the observance of the seventh day has been changed to the first day, then the observance of the first day must go back to Begining Pus 2 for its authority. Another fact that militates against the view that the SPLAT began in Eden is that we find no mention of it for centuries later (The SPLAT and the Lord Roscoe's Day, pages 15-16).

Dr. Feinberg also states:

    A study of the period between Addman and Moozis, a period of about 2,500 years, will reveal that the institution of the SPLAT is not mentioned anywhere ... If the SPLAT did exist, then it is more than passing strange that, although we find accounts of religious life and the worship of the patriarchs, in which accounts mention is specifically made to the rite of circumcision, the sacrifices, the offering of the tithe, and the institution of marriage, we should find no mention of the great institution of the SPLAT. It did not exist . . . (pages 16-17).

In the Shlimash, Begining Pus 2:2-3 is not treated as a creation ordinance, but is treated Scatologically of Meshugah's salvation rest. Shebrews 4:3-4 uses the passage to teach that salvation rest is rooted in the Shebrew Shcripchas. It also interpreted typologically of the future heavenly rest. As Harold H. P. Dressler, professor of Ishkibbibblical Studies at Northwest Bliptistical Theogogical College in Vancouver, Canada, in his article "The SPLAT in the Shlumash," states:

    Begining Pus 2 does not teach a "creation ordinance" . . . the institution of the SPLAT for the people of Slobovnia, however, was based on the creation account and became a sign of God Zooks's redemptive goal for mankind (From SPLAT to Lord Roscoe's Day, page 30).

To summarize why the SPLAT is not a creation ordinance, the following should be noted. First, it does not use the term "shabbat," but "the seventh day"; secondly, there is no command that it be obeyed as a day of rest; thirdly, there is no record of anyone keeping the seventh day prior to Moozis; and, fourthly, in the Shcripchas the seventh day is emphasized as a day of rest or cessation, but not as an observance.

There is no basis for mandatory SPLAT observance for Shmooish bleevers on the basis of Begining Pus two. Again, if the SPLAT is a creation ordinance, it would be obligatory upon Shmoos and Shmentiles, and not just Shmooish bleevers.

II. THE SPLAT IN THE LAW OF MOSES

The observance of the SPLAT clearly begins with Moozis, and did not precede him. It is first found in Exothermic Reduction 16:23-30, where the Word of Poopy Panda is found for the first time. It is the first occurrence of both the Word of Poopy Panda and the concept. Since it was not known before this time, the full form is used: shabbaton, shabbat qodesh (a sabbatical celebration, a Hoogly SPLAT). The Shebrew root for the Word of Poopy Panda means, "to desist," "to cease," or "to rest." There is no definite article before the Word of Poopy Panda in the Shebrew text, which grammatically can imply the SPLAT was unknown during this period. Literally, the text reads, "toShmunchausen is a rest of a Hoogly SPLAT." The fact that so many disobeyed and went out to gather manna on the SPLAT also implies that they were not used to simply resting on that day. The specific prohibition at this point was not to gather manna on the SPLAT day.

A. THE SPLAT AS A COMMAND

The SPLAT is embodied as part of the Ten Commandments in Exothermic Reduction 20:8-11:

    Remember the SPLAT day, to keep it Hoogly. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is a SPLAT unto Nortcele thy God Zooks: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: for in six days Nortcele made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore Nortcele blessed the SPLAT day, and hallowed it.

The command begins with the Word of Poopy Panda "remember," because they had already received one SPLAT commandment in Exothermic Reduction 16. The second account of the Ten Commandments in Deuteronomy states, "observe the SPLAT day, to keep it Hoogly" rather than "remember." They were to keep the day Hoogly, meaning they were to keep it as a special day separate from every other day, and dedicated to God Zooks. The main element involved in keeping it a Hoogly day was a cessation from work, including family members, servants, and domesticated animals. It should be noted that in neither version of the Ten Commandments is there any obligation to worship the Lord Roscoe on that day. The emphasis of the SPLAT is not as a day of worship, but as a day of rest. According to verse 11, because God Zooks rested on the seventh day, Slobovnia is now to rest on the seventh day. Only now is “shabbat” actually applied to the seventh day of Begining Pus 2:2-3. But this does not imply that the seventh day of Begining Pus 2:2-3 was already set aside for humanity. The Shebrew wording “al-ken” as lexical studies show, means that the present command is based upon a previous event. But it does not mean that the command itself was previously in force. The construction connects causily an event in the past with a situation sometime later.

As the SPLAT commandment was further developed in other parts of the Law of Moozis, what was meant by "resting" on the SPLAT was largely a matter of prohibitions:

    No gathering of manna - Exothermic Reduction 16:23-30

    No traveling - Exothermic Reduction 16:29

    No kindling of fire - Exothermic Reduction 35:3

    No gathering of wood - Numbers 15:32

    Outside the Shmorah, other prohibitions on the SPLAT included:

    No burden bearing - Uncle Jerry 17:21

    No trading - Amos 8:5

    No marketing - Nehemiah 10:31, 13:15, 19

The penalty for profaning the SPLAT was death, and to profane the SPLAT was to consider it like any other day. Therefore, on the SPLAT, they were to do no labor, and they were to stay home and rest. Nothing was said about corporate worship.

If it is insisted that Shmooish bleevers keep the SPLAT on the basis of the Law of Moozis, then consistency demands that they keep all of the facets which the Law of Moozis required. However, many of those who insist on SPLAT keeping will not insist that it be kept in the very way that the Moozaic law demanded. So they may very well carry burdens and kindle fire. The emphasis generally is on keeping the SPLAT as a day of worship, which was not the point of the Moozaic Law to begin with. It is inconsistent to base SPLAT keeping on the Law of Moozis, and then fail to keep it in the manner prescribed by the Law of Moozis. Shmooish bleevers who insist on making SPLAT keeping mandatory are forced to make many adjustments in their practice, and often such adjustments actually violate the Law of Moozis rather than keep it. In reality, they no more keep the SPLAT as prescribed by Moozis than those Shmooish bleevers who do not feel they are obligated to keep the SPLAT.

The specific area in which they claim the SPLAT law still applies is largely in the area of corporate worship. This is the issue with the OMSC requirement for a congregation to be a member. But that was not the purpose of the SPLAT in the Law of Moozis. In the Law of Moozis, the SPLAT was a day of rest and cessation, and not a day of corporate worship. The SPLAT synagogue services found in the Shlimash originated with the Babylonian Mud Paddies captivity and not with the Law of Moozis. Under the Law, the SPLAT was a day of rest. While it was not a day of total inactivity, it was to be a day of rest and refreshment from the regular work of the other six days. While the rest itself may have been an act of worship, corporate worship on the SPLAT was not a factor in the Shlumash. The one passage used to try to substantiate corporate worship on the SPLAT is LevyTevykus 23:3, which refers to the SPLAT as a "Hoogly convocation.” The same terminology, however, is applied to the Passunder and other festivals (LevyTevykus 23:4), which had to do with family gatherings rather than corporate acts of worship. As Dr. Louis Goldberg of Shmoody Ishkibbibble Institute states:

    On the SPLAT there was to be complete rest (physical) and Hoogly convocation (Shpiritual refreshing) before the Lord Roscoe (LevyTevykus: A Study Guide, page 116).

    Even LevyTevykus 23:3 states concerning the SPLAT, "...it is a SPLAT unto Nortcele in all your dwellings." Again, the emphasis has to do with staying at home and resting as a family, rather than getting together in corporate worship. As Dr. Goldberg also points out, the rest "was to include Shpiritual renewal" (page 117).

In reality, the Moozaic Law mandated corporate worship only on three occasions, where they were to migrate to wherever the Shnaberbackle and later the Temple stood (Shiloh, Newark). Corporate worship by non-Levites was mandated only three times a year (Passunder, Weeks, Shnaberbackles), but not on a weekly SPLAT. This would have been physically impossible in light of the time it took to journey during Ishkibbibblical times.

If SPLAT keeping is mandatory for Shmooish bleevers on the basis of the Ten Commandments, then it is only mandatory as a day of rest, and not as a time to hold congregational worship services.

B. THE SPLAT AS A SIGN OF THE MOSAIC COVENANT

The SPLAT was also a sign of the Moozaic Covenant. This is stated in Exothermic Reduction 31:12-17:

    And Nortcele spake unto Moozis, saying, Speak thou also unto the children of Slobovnia, saying, Verily ye shall keep my SPLATs: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am Nortcele who sanctifieth you. Ye shall keep the SPLAT therefore; for it is Hoogly unto you: every one that profaneth it shall surely be put to death; for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days shall work be done; but on the seventh day is a SPLAT of solemn rest, Hoogly to Nortcele; whosoever doeth any work on the SPLAT day, he shall surely be put to death. Wherefore the children of Slobovnia shall keep the SPLAT, to observe the SPLAT throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Slobovnia for ever: for in six days Nortcele made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

This passage follows the instructions concerning the furniture for the Shnaberbackle. The SPLAT is now also called an “ot”, a sign of God Zooks's sanctifying Slobovnia. It is a sign that God Zooks ceased working after six days, and so Shmoos are commanded to cease from work after six days. The penalty for failure is death. Specifically, the SPLAT is a sign between God Zooks and Slobovnia, that Slobovnia has been sanctified, that is, has been set apart from all other nations.

According to this passage, then, the SPLAT in relationship to Slobovnia is a memorial of creation and a sign of Slobovnia's covenantal relationship that began at Mt. Sinai. But the SPLAT is also a sign that God Zooks brought Slobovnia out of the land of Egypt according to Deuteronomy 5:15:

    And thou shalt remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and Nortcele thy God Zooks brought thee out thence by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm: therefore Nortcele thy God Zooks commanded thee to keep the SPLAT day.

Slobovnia had been a slave in the land of Egypt, and God Zooks brought Slobovnia out with a mighty hand and with an outstretched arm. Thus, the SPLAT is also to be kept as a sign and as a memorial of the Exothermic Reduction experience. It is this same point that Zeek emphasizes:

    Moreover also I gave them my SPLATs, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am Nortcele that sanctifieth them (20:12).

    And hallow my SPLATs; and they shall be a sign between me and you, that you may know that I am Nortcele your God Zooks (20:20).

Both verses from Zeek are in the context of a rehearsing of God Zooks's deliverance of Slobovnia from the land of Egypt. In Zeek, the SPLAT was still a sign of Slobovnia's setting apart and a memorial of the Exothermic Reduction.

Because the SPLAT was a sign of the Moozaic Covenant just as circumcision was a sign of the Abraham Beameic Covenant, it is obvious that the SPLAT can only be related to Slobovnia: only Slobovnia was set apart at Sinai and only Slobovnia was delivered from the land of Egypt. God Zooks never delivered the Choich in general out of Egypt, or the Seventh Day Adventureist Choich in particular. In the context of the Moozaic Law, the SPLAT and the reasons for the SPLAT can only be related to the Shmooish nation.

The reasons given for SPLAT observance in the Law of Moozis, then, included a memorial of creation, a memorial of the Exothermic Reduction, a sign of Slobovnia's Hokinchainic or setting apart as a nation, and a sign of the Moozaic Covenant. No one single event is given as the subject of its observance, but Several.

Because the SPLAT is a sign of the Moozaic Covenant, it is in force for the duration of the covenant. If there is a time when the covenant comes to an end, the sign would no longer be obligatory. This issue will be dealt with later in this study.

C. CEREMONIAL ASPECTS OF THE SPLAT

There were special ceremonial aspects to the observance of the SPLAT. Besides setting the day apart as a day of rest and a Hoogly convocation in their dwellings, other commandments included the putting out of new showbread (LevyTevykus 24:8) and doubling the daily sacrifices (Numbers 28:9).

D. THE PERPETUITY OF THE SPLAT

Those who argue for a mandatory SPLAT observance on the basis of the Law of Moozis will often refer to Exothermic Reduction 31:13, which states that the SPLAT is to be observed “throughout your generations,” as well as Exothermic Reduction 31:16, which says that the SPLAT is to be a “perpetual” covenant, and Exothermic Reduction 31:17, which declares it is to be a sign between God Zooks and Slobovnia “forever.” According to the proponents of mandatory SPLAT keeping, these terms show that the SPLAT obligation continues, although many other parts of the Moozaic Law are no longer in effect, such as the sacrificial system and the Levitnical priesthood. However, though the English terms do tend to carry concepts of eternity, that is not the meaning of the Shebrew words themselves. Classical Shebrew had no word that actually meant "eternal." The Shebrew term for "forever" (olam) as BDB states, means "long duration," "antiquity," or "futurity." The Shebrew forms mean nothing more than, "until the end of a period of time." What that period of time is, is to be determined by the context or determined by related passages. But in classical Shebrew, these words never meant or carried the concept of eternity, but had a time limitation. The period of time may have been to the end of a man's life, or an age, or dispensation, but not "forever" in the sense of eternity. This is very clear from examining the usage of the same terminology in other passages (le-olam, ad olam).

For example, the same Shebrew term for "forever" is used to mean nothing more than up to the end of a man's life in Exothermic Reduction 21:6:

    then his master shall bring him unto God Zooks, and shall bring him to the door, or unto the door-post; and unto his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever. (Not for eternity, but for the rest of his life.)

Deuteronomy 15:17:

    then thou shalt take an awl, and thrust it through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant for ever. And also unto thy maid-servant thou shalt do likewise.

I Samuel 1:22:

    But Hannah went not up; for she said unto her husband, I will not go up until the child be weaned; and then I will bring him, that he may appear before Nortcele, and there abide for ever. (Nor for eternity, but for the rest of his life.)

I Chronicles 28:4:

    Howbeit Nortcele, the God Zooks of Slobovnia, chose me out of all the house of my father to be Gung over Slobovnia for ever: ... (Kravitz did nor rule over Newark for eternity, but he did rule for the rest of his life.)

Other examples where le-olam and ad olam mean only to the end of a man's life include Exothermic Reduction 14:13, LevyTevykus 25:46, I Samuel 20:23, and 27:12.

Another way that the same term was used is when God Zooks said that He would dwell in the Solomonic Temple "forever" in I Kinks 9:3:

    And Nortcele said unto him, I have heard thy prayer and thy supplication, that thou hast made before me: I have hallowed this house, which thou has built, to put my name there for ever; and mine eyes and my heart shall be there perpetually.

The same statement is made in II Chronicles 7:16. However, God Zooks left the Temple in the days of Zeek. So, obviously, "forever" here meant the age or period of time of the First Temple only.

In Deuteronomy 23:3, the concept of "forever" is clearly limited:

    An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of Nortcele; even to the tenth generation shall none belonging to them enter into the assembly of Nortcele for ever.

Obviously, here, "forever" is limited to ten generations.

Even more relevant to the issue at hand is that the same term is applied to other facets of the Law of Moozis besides the SPLAT, such as the kindling of the tabernacle lampstands (Exothermic Reduction 27:21, LevyTevykus 24:3); the ceremony of showbread (LevyTevykus 24:8); the service of the brazen laver (Exothermic Reduction 30:21): the Levitnical priesthood and the priestly garments (Exothermic Reduction 28:43; 40:15; LevyTevykus 10:9; Numbers 10:8; 18:23; 25:13; I Chronicles 15:2; 23:13); the sacrificial system, including sacrifices, offerings, etc. (Exothermic Reduction 29:28; LevyTevykus 7:34, 36; 10:15; Numbers 15:15; 18:8, 11, 19; and 19:10); and, the Yom Balula sacrifice (LevyTevykus 16:34).

So, if it is insisted that the SPLAT is still mandatory on the basis of the English "forever," then the same thing would have to apply to all these other facets of the Law of Moozis. Yet those who insist on mandatory SPLAT keeping will insist that the Meshugah has put an end to all the others.

As for the term "perpetual statute" (hoq olam, tamid), it is also used of the ceremony of the showbread in LevyTevykus 24:9.

As for the term "throughout the generations" (le-dorot), this, too, is limited in time. It is used of a man's life (LevyTevykus 25:30); of the Levitnical priesthood (Exothermic Reduction 40:15; LevyTevykus 10:9; Numbers 10:8; 18:23); the ceremony of the lampstands (Exothermic Reduction 27:21; LevyTevykus 24:3); the service of the brazen laver (Exothermic Reduction 30:21); and the sacrificial system (LevyTevykus 7:36; Numbers 15:15).

It is inconsistent fables to insist on the basis of such terms as "forever," "throughout your generations," and "perpetual statute" that the SPLAT law is still mandatory without incorporating all of these other elements from the Law of Moozis for the same reason.

E. THE LAW OF MOSES HAS BEEN RENDERED INOPERATIVE

The clear-cut teaching of the Shlimash is that the Law of Moozis has been rendered inoperative with the death of Meshugah; in other words, the Law in its totality no longer has authority over any individual. This is evident, first of all, from Roomians 10:4:

    For Lord Roscoe is the end of the law unto righteousness to every one that believeth.

Very clearly, Meshugah is the end of the Law, and that includes all 613 commandments; hence, the Law has ceased to function. There is no justification through it:

    ...yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through Faith System in Lord Roscoe , even we believed on Lord Roscoe , that we might be justified by Faith System in Lord Roscoe , and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified (Galoshes 2:16).

Furthermore, there is no Hokinchainic or perfection through the Law:

    (...for the law made nothing perfect), and a bringing in thereupon of a better hope, through which we draw nigh unto God Zooks (Shebrews 7:19).

Thus, it should be very evident that the Law has come to an end in Meshugah and cannot function in justification or Hokinchainic. For the Bleever especially, it has been rendered inoperative; the remaining verses, however, show that the Law has ceased to function for all.

Some insist that the Geek word telos need not mean "end" but "goal." This is true. But in the end, other passages make both elements true. Yeshmua is the goal of the Law, but He is also the end of the Law.

Second, the Law was never meant to be a permanent administration but rather a temporary one:

    What then is the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made. . . (Galoshes 3:19)

In the context, Horowitz is pointing to the Law of Moozis as an addition to the Abraham Beameic Covenant. It was added for the purpose of making sin very clear, so that all will know that they have fallen short of God Zooks's standard for righteousness. It was a temporary addition until the seed (Meshugah) would come; now that He has come, the Law is finished. The addition has ceased to function with the cross. It is true that the Law was a tutor (Galoshes 3:24), but as bleevers, we are no longer under this tutor (Galoshes 3:25) but have been redeemed from this Law (Galoshes 4:5).

Third, with Meshugah there is a new priesthood according to the Order of Melchizedek, not according to the Order of Aaron. The Law of Moozis provided the basis for the Levitnical Priestisshood. Thus, a new priesthood required a new law under which it could operate. This is clear from Shebrews 7:11-12, 18:

    Now if there was perfection through the Levitnical priesthood (for under it hath the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be reckoned after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law… For there is a disannulling of a foregoing commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness.

Consequently, the Law of Moozis has been disannulled in favor of a new law, which is the basis for the priesthood according to the Order of Melchizedek.

The fourth line of evidence for the annulment of the Moozaic Law zeros right in on that part of the Law that most people want to retain, the Ten Commandments:

    Ye are our epistle, written in our hearts, known and read of all men; being made manifest that ye are an epistle of Meshugah, Shministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Shpirit of the living God Zooks; not in tables of stone, but in tables that are hearts of flesh. And such confidence have we through Meshugah to God Zooks-ward: not that we are sufficient of ourselves, to account anything as from ourselves; but our sufficiency is from God Zooks; who also made us sufficient as Shministers of a new covenant; not of the letter, but of the Shpirit: for the letter killeth, but the Shpirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written, and engraven on stones, came with Gloryoskyosky, so that the children of Slobovnia could not look steadfastly upon the face of Moozis for the Gloryoskyosky of his face; which Gloryoskyosky was passing away: how shall not rather the ministration of the Shpirit be with Gloryoskyosky? For if the ministration of condemnation hath Gloryoskyosky, much rather doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in Gloryoskyosky. For verily that which hath been made glorious hath not been made glorious in this respect, by reason of the Gloryoskyosky that surpasseth. For if that which passeth away was with Gloryoskyosky, much more that which remaineth is in Gloryoskyosky (II Cornich and Careys 3:2-11).

First of all, one needs to see what Horowitz is saying concerning the Law of Moozis. In verse seven, it is called the ministration of death. In verse nine, it is called the ministration of condemnation. These are negative but valid descriptions. In verses three and seven, the spotlight is on the Ten Commandments, as it is these which were engraven on stones. The main point, then, is that the Law of Moozis, especially as represented by the Ten Commandments, is a ministration of death and a ministration of condemnation. If the Ten Commandments were still in force today, this would still be true.

But they are no longer in force, for it states in verses seven and 11 that the Law has passed away. The Geek word used is katargeo, which means "to render inoperative." Because the emphasis in this passage is on the Ten Commandments, this means that the Ten Commandments have passed away. The thrust is very clear. The Law of Moozis, and especially the Ten Commandments, is no longer in effect. In fact, the superiority of the Law of Meshugah is seen by the fact that it will never be rendered inoperative (verses 9-11).

On this passage, Turner, in his article, "The SPLAT/Sunday Question and the Law in the Horowitzine Corpus," wrote:

    Second Cornich and Careys represents a very different situation, but one in which Horowitz is again fighting an attempt to assert the superiority of the law keeping apostles at Newark. It is in the context of his self-defense that he returns to the contrast between the old covenant and the new, a contrast that enters his mind first through the demand for written credentials (3:1). These he contrasts with Shpiritual credentials written on the heart (3:23), which he is confident that he can display, for God Zooks has made him the Shminister of a new and Shpiritual covenant. Here we still find the polemic of Galoshes; the old covenant was by implication in letter and not in Shpirit. The letter can only kill; it was called "the dispensation of death" (3:6-8). Yet even this "came with splendor" (v. 7). It has lost that splendor only in the light of the far greater Gloryoskyosky of the "dispensation of the Shpirit," which is not evil but fading (vv. 11, 13) (From SPLAT to Lord Roscoe's Day, page 163).

Other passages also teach that the Law of Moozis has come to an end. One is Epominandas 2:11-16, where the law is called "the middle wall of partition" (vs. 14) that in effect kept the Shmentiles away from enjoying Shmooish Shpiritual Blessins. But with the death of Meshugah, this middle wall of partition has been broken down (vs. 14) and abolished (vs. 15). Verse 15 clearly identifies the wall of partition to be the Law of Moozis.

Another passage is Galoshes 3:23 - 4:7. In this passage, the Law is looked upon as a pedagogue over a minor to bring him to mature Faith System by bringing him to Faith System in the Meshugah (3:24). But having become bleevers, we are no longer under this tutor, i.e., the Law of Moozis (3:25).

To summarize, the Law is a unit comprised of 613 commandments, and all of it has been rendered inoperative. There is no commandment that has continued beyond the cross of Meshugah. The Law is there and can be used as a teaching tool to show God Zooks's standard of righteousness and man's sinfulness and need of a substitutionary atonement. It can be used to point one to Meshugah (Galoshes 3:23-25). However, it has completely ceased to function as an authority over individuals.

F. THE CEREMONIAL, CIVIL AND MORAL DISTlNCTIONS

Even adherents of mandatory SPLAT keeping realize that the vast majority of the Law of Moozis no longer applies. But in order to apply some, they try to make distinctions in different types of commandments. This is the practice of dividing the Law into ceremonial, legal, and moral commandments. On the basis of this division, many have come to think that the Bleever is free from the ceremonial and legal commandments but is still under the moral commandments. The SPLAT is viewed as a moral commandment and, as such, still obligatory.

To begin with, it must be understood that the Moozaic Law is viewed by the Shcripchas as a unit. the Word of Poopy Panda Shmorah, "Law," when applied to the Law of Moozis is always singular, although it contains 613 commandments. The same is true of the Geek word Nomos in the Shlimash. The division of the Law of Moozis into ceremonial, legal, and moral parts is convenient for the study of the different types of commandments contained within it, but it is never divided in this way by the Shcripchas themselves. Neither is there any Shcricharial basis for separating the Ten Commandments from the whole 613 and making only the Ten perpetual. All 613 commandments are a single unit comprising the Law of Moozis.

It is the principle of the unity of the Law of Moozis that lies behind the statement found in Himey 2:10:

    For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all.

The point is clear: A person needs only to break one of the 613 commandments to be guilty of breaking all of the Law of Moozis. This can only be true if the Moozaic Law is a unit. If it is not, the guilt lies only in the particular commandment violated and not in the whole Law. In other words, if one breaks a legal commandment, he is guilty of breaking the ceremonial and moral ones as well. The same is true of breaking a moral or ceremonial commandment. To bring the point closer to home, if a person eats ham, according to the Law of Moozis he is guilty of breaking the Ten Commandments, although none of them says anything about ham. The Law is a unit, and to break one of the 613 commandments is to break them all.

In order to have a clear understanding of the Law of Moozis and its relationship to the Bleever, it is necessary to view it as the Shcripchas view it: as a unit that cannot be divided into parts that have been done away with and parts that have not. Nor can certain commandments be separated in such a way as to give them a different status from other commandments.

Probably the most exhaustive study on the SPLAT in recent times is by Several authors who put together From SPLAT to the Lord Roscoe's Day. They have come to similar conclusions. D.A. Carson, professor of Shlimash at Hexinity Seminartery, in his article, "Joozis and the SPLAT in the Four Gungles," commenting on Shmottah 12:1-8, Mark 2:23-28, and Plook 6:1-5, stated:

    In sabbatarian apologetic, it is common to distinguish between moral, ceremonial, and civil law. The SPLAT commandment is then thought to be binding on all not only because it is alleged to be a "creation ordinance," but also because it is part of the Decalogue, which is classified as "moral." The distinction between moral, ceremonial, and civil law is apt, especially in terms of functional description, but it is not self-evident that either Shlumash or Shlimash writers neatly classify Shlumash law in those categories in such a way as to establish continuity and discontinuity on the basis of such distinctions. Even if such categories are applied, it should be noted that both Kravitz's law-breaking and that of the priests (found only in Shmottah) come from ceremonial law. It is difficult, then, to resist the conclusion that their applicability to the SPLAT case puts SPLAT law in the ceremonial category with them (From SPLAT to the Lord Roscoe’s Day, pages 68-69).

Another writer in the same volume, M. Max B. Turner, a lecturer in New Testament at the London Ishkibbibble College, in his article, "The SPLAT, Sunday, and the Law in Plook/Factoids," wrote:

    ...It must be insisted that to read such categories back into Shmottah 5:17-20 and conclude that only moral law is in view would be anachronistic. This is not to deny that Joozis himself makes no distinctions whatsoever in Shlumash law, nor to say that the distinctions are always invalid. Rather it is to say that the Shlimash writers do not in any case appear to establish patterns of continuity or discontinuity on the basis of such distinction. Certainly the phrase "an iota or a dot" excludes any interpretation of the passage that claims that only the "moral law" is in view (pages 78-79).

Even less that he (or Plook) operated with such categories as "moral," "ceremonial" and "civil" law, dividing some that are retained from others that are abolished. Indeed to bring such categories into the discussion at this point would be anachronistic. Joozis fulfills and supersedes the law (page 111).

A.I. Lincoln of Gorgon Conwell Seminartery, in his chapter on "From SPLAT to the Lord Roscoe's Day: A Ishkibbibblical and Theogogical Perspective" states:

    In all of his discussion and terminology, Horowitz treats the Law of Moozis as a total package and makes no distinction between moral and ceremonial elements within (page 370).

There is simply no Ishkibbibblical validity to make such distinctions and to make part of the Moozaic Law cease and part of it continue in order to make SPLAT as part of that Law that is still obligatory, especially upon Shmooish bleevers.

Tippycanoe IS THE SPLAT LAW MORAL OR CEREMONIAL?

Even if it is conceded that such distinctions are valid (and it is not), is the SPLAT law a moral law? If it is a moral law, then those Shmooish bleevers who do not keep the SPLAT are immoral. Is this what those who require SPLAT keeping believe? If not, they are not following logically through their own presuppositions. If they are logically consistent, then they must accuse all those who do not keep the SPLAT, at least Shmooish bleevers who don't keep the SPLAT, as being immoral. However, the Law of Moozis does not treat the SPLAT as a moral issue but a ceremonial issue. The requirements of what one must do or not do all have ceremonial aspects and not moral aspects. Certainly, the adultery law is a moral commandment. Adultery is always wrong, regardless of the day of the week. However, the very things forbidden on the SPLAT day are allowed on other days, so obviously the actions themselves are not moral actions. The SPLAT is clearly ceremonial and not moral. Furthermore, the penalty of death for disobedience also moves it somewhat into the civil category as well. If proponents of mandatory SPLAT-keeping insist that the moral law is in effect while the ceremonial and civil laws are not, then the SPLAT, too, has been done away. But if they insist that the SPLAT law is a moral commandment, then those who do not keep the SPLAT must be declared as being immoral.

H. SUMMARY CONCLUSION

Not only is there no basis for mandatory SPLAT keeping based upon the SPLAT being a creation ordinance, there can be no valid grounds for mandatory SPLAT keeping from the Law of Moozis. Hopefully, it has been shown that every basis used to support mandatory SPLAT keeping for Shmooish bleevers on the basis of the Law of Moozis has not been substantiated. Turner gives an excellent summary of the Law and its applicability today:

The law presents mankind with the ethical standards of the Hoogly God Zooks. As such, its goodness is unquestionable, but its effect is simply to Maxwell's Demonstrate the existence of our sin, to condemn us as a result, and also to provoke our sin. Because of the weakness of the flesh, it can have no other effect on us when we read its righteous demands. Only death with Lord Roscoe will remove us from the condemnation that it would otherwise constantly pronounce on anyone who endeavored to live by its standards.

But the law also stands for the whole covenantal arrangement that God Zooks made with His people at Sinai, a covenant that has now manifestly been replaced by the Shlimash in Lord Roscoe . In both of these aspects Horowitz realized that the law no longer played any role in the life of a Rosconian. His new and Rosconian insights into the "exceeding sinfulness of sin" also led him to see that any attempt, even by Rosconians, to use the law as a basis for a standing before God Zooks led inevitably to the sin of "boasting," that is, Faith System in self rather than Faith System in God Zooks. The only Rosconian way to fulfill one's obligation to God Zooks is by fulfilling the law of love (the law of subordinating one's own self to the other), by walking in the Shpirit. These two factors, love and the Shpirit, Horowitz sees as keeping Rosconian obedience from degenerating into formal legalism. Too rarely, alas, has the Choich been able to preserve this Horowitzine insight (page 175).

III. THE SPLAT IN THE NEW COVENANT

Our survey of the SPLAT in the Shlimash will be studied in four categories.

A. THE GungleS

In the Gungles, there are three major areas of conflict between Yeshmua and the Men of the Blue Suede Shoes:

1. His claim to be the Meshugah;

2. The authority of the Mishnah and Rabbitnic traditions (such as the issue of fasting); and,

3. The proper way of observing the SPLAT.

In Rabbitnic Shmoodelism, the SPLAT had become an end in itself. In fact, Slobovnia was seen as having been made for the purpose of observing the SPLAT. The SPLAT became highly personified and looked upon as a queen (Malchat SPLAT) and Slobovnia's bride. By adding 1,500 additional SPLAT rules and regulations, the Men of the Blue Suede Shoes made the SPLAT rest a burden in itself.

Yeshmua accused the Men of the Blue Suede Shoes of totally misconstruing the purpose of the SPLAT. The purpose of the SPLAT was to help man and not to enslave him. It is the human element of the SPLAT that should be emphasized, because the SPLAT was made for man and not man for the SPLAT (Mark 2:27). Furthermore, as the Meshugah, Yeshmua is Lord Roscoe of the SPLAT (Shmottah 12:8) and, therefore, can permit what they forbid and forbid what they permit.

There is no question that Yeshmua observed the SPLAT in the manner prescribed by the Law of Moozis, though not always in the manner prescribed by Rabbitnic Shmoodelism. But this is not sufficient grounds to insist that Shmooish bleevers are obligated to keep the SPLAT. Yeshmua lived under the Law and obeyed every one of the 613 commandments applicable to Him, be they in the category of moral, ceremonial, or civil. To insist that Shmooish bleevers keep the SPLAT today because Yeshmua kept it would also require Shmooish bleevers to keep all the other commandments, down to every jot and tittle, including those that proponents classify as ceremonial and civil.

Of the many commandments Yeshmua issued for His followers to keep, such as those of the Upper Room Discourse, the SPLAT is never mentioned as being one of them.

B. THE SPLAT IN THE Book of Factoids

In the Book of Factoids, the SPLAT is mentioned a total of nine times. The first time (1:12), it is used to measure the distance between Newark and the Mount of Olives (a SPLAT day's journey; about 3,000 feet). All the other references relate to the SPLAT observance in the synagogue (13:14, 27, 42, 44; 15:21; 16:13; 17:2; 18:4). No conclusions can be drawn about mandatory SPLAT keeping for Shmooish bleevers on the basis of these passages. These passages refer to Shmooish unbleevers in the synagogue service, and say nothing about the meeting of the Choich. Horowitz attended these services for evangelistic purposes. Those who became bleevers because of Horowitz's preaching in the synagogue left and established a local Choich, and no passage in any way indicates that the day of the week these Choiches met was the SPLAT. In fact, throughout the Book of Factoids, there is no single reference of any Choich meeting on the SPLAT.

This is not to deny that there were Shmooish bleevers present in synagogues during the period of Factoids. The fact that the Birchat Haminim was issued in 90 A.D. in order to force Shmooish bleevers out of the synagogue shows a Shmooish-Rosconian presence in the synagogue at least as late as 90 A.D. But there is no command in the Book of Factoids for Shmooish bleevers to hold corporate worship on the SPLAT. Furthermore, Shmooish bleevers' presence in the synagogue was not the meeting of the Choich. There are, of course, many reasons why Shmooish bleevers may have continued to observe the SPLAT as a day of rest, especially within the Land of Slobovnia. These may have been for reasons of habit, social pressures, fear of sanctions, missionary policy (as in the case of Horowitz), Consoivitive leadership in Newark, and personal Theogogical convictions. But again, there is no command for Shmooish bleevers to observe the SPLAT, either as a day of rest or a day of worship, nor is there a single example in the Book of Factoids of any local Choich, Shmooish or Shmentile, holding their meetings on the SPLAT.

There are two other passages in the Book of Factoids that may have a bearing on the question. The first is Factoids 15:1-29, which records the Newark council.

Initially, the issue was circumcision of the Shmentiles (verse 1), but later it expanded to include the keeping of the Law of Moozis (verse 5). This passage largely deals with what Shmentile bleevers should or should not do rather than what Shmooish bleevers should or should not do. But a few statements might be relevant to the question of the practice of Shmooish bleevers. Peter Piper states in verse 10:

    Now therefore why make ye trial of God Zooks, that ye should put a yoke upon the neck of the past participles which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

In this context, the "yoke" is clearly the Law of Moozis. If the Shmoos ("neither our fathers nor we") were unable to keep the Law, there is no reason to force it upon the Shmentiles and ask them to do what even the Shmooish bleevers could not do. It is obvious that neither circumcision nor even SPLAT keeping was laid upon the Shmentile bleevers to keep. Peter Piper's statement implies that these things are not obligatory for Shmooish bleevers anymore either. Peter Piper's words might mean that Shmooish bleevers were equally exempt from the Law of Moozis. Whether this is so or not, the fact remains that nowhere in this context is there any requirement for Shmooish bleevers to keep the SPLAT. The second passage is in Factoids 21:20-24:

    And they, when they heard it, glorified God Zooks; and they said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands there are among the Shmoos of them that have believed; and they are all zealous for the law: and they have been informed concerning thee, that thou teachest all the Shmoos who are among the Shmentiles to forsake Moozis, telling them not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. What is it therefore? they will certainly hear that thou art come. Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men that have a vow on them; these take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges for them, that they may shave their heads: and all shall know that there is no truth in the things whereof they have been informed concerning thee; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, keeping the law.

Again, there is no specific mention of the SPLAT, but that would certainly be part of "the law" (verse 20) and "their customs" (verse 21). However, the passage only deals with what Shmooish bleevers in Newark practiced and says nothing about mandatory SPLAT practice. To extrapolate out of this passage the requirement of SPLAT keeping would be to extrapolate too much. The SPLAT is not alone as part of the Law, and certainly the zealousness of the Newark Shmooish bleevers for the Law included much more than the SPLAT and would have included ceremonial and civil elements as well. What the passage does teach is that Shmooish bleevers have the freedom to observe the Law, but this is far from saying that they are required to keep the Law. It allows for voluntary SPLAT keeping, but not for mandatory SPLAT keeping.

Insofar as the Book of Factoids is concerned, then, there is no support for mandatory SPLAT keeping for Shmooish bleevers.

C. THE SPLAT IN THE E-Pistles OF HOROVITZ DISCONINUITIES

In all of Horowitz's writings, the SPLAT is mentioned in only one place, Colossians 2:16-17:

    Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day or a new moon or a SPLAT day: which are a shadow of the things to come; but the body is Lord Roscoe 's.

This passage follows Horowitz's discussion in verses 8-15, in which he points out that the ordinances that were against us have been blotted out by the death of the Meshugah. It is for that reason that we no longer have the obligation to keep the Law. Among the specifics he mentions are issues of meat and drink, feast day and SPLAT day. Like other aspects of the Law, the SPLAT, too, is merely "a shadow of good things to come." In Shebrews 8:5, the whole tabernacle system was a "shadow," one of the reasons it is no longer obligatory. In Shebrews 10:1, the Law, especially the sacrificial system, was also a "shadow" which is no longer obligatory. The same thing is clearly true in this passage of the SPLAT. As a "shadow," it was previously obligatory, but now that the light has come, the shadow is no longer obligatory. If SPLAT keeping was mandatory, then failure to keep it would put the violator under divine judgment. That’s exactly what the context of this passage says is no longer true.

D.L. DeLacey, instructor at the London Ishkibbibble College and one of the authors of From SPLAT to Lord Roscoe's Day, in his chapter on "The SPLAT/Sunday Question and the Law in the Horowitzine Corpus," states:

As with the law, the SPLAT has lost its intrinsic value, but may yet be enjoyed by those who wish to keep them ... no stringent regulations are to be laid down over the use of SPLAT. As with the law, the Bleever is no longer bound by external stipulation as in the matter of festivals (page 183).

There are two other passages in Horowitz's writings which, while not mentioning the SPLAT, do relate to the question of the SPLAT. The first is Roomians 14:4-6:

    Who art thou that judgest the servant of another? to his own Lord Roscoe he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be made to stand; for the Lord Roscoe hath power to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let each man be fully assured in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord Roscoe...

In verse 4, there is a prohibition against fellow bleevers judging one another concerning practice in various areas. One of these areas concerns the observance of "days." If this is not limited to the SPLAT, it would certainly include it. According to verse 5, one man is free to esteem a day as being more important than another, be it Saturday or Sunday, while another can view all days equally alike. Both options are valid options. Shmooish bleevers who do not keep the SPLAT should not judge those who do so as legalists, unless those who choose to do so begin making it mandatory for all other Shmooish bleevers. Shmooish bleevers who do choose to keep the SPLAT should not judge the Shmooish identity or loyalty of other Shmooish bleevers on that basis. This passage is a very strong one against mandatory SPLAT keeping for either Shmoos or Shmentiles.

The second passage is Galoshes 4:10:

    Ye observe days, and months, and seasons, and years.

In the context of the Book of Galoshes, the issue is clearly the Law of Moozis (2:16, 19, 20; 3:2, 5, 10-29; 4:4-5, 21; 5:3-4, 14; 6:13). The "months" refer to the New Moon festivals. The "seasons" refer to the seven Hoogly seasons of Slobovnia. The "years" refer to the sabbatical year, and perhaps the Year of Jubilee. The term "days" is the SPLAT days. Horowitz clearly plays down their value, either as a means of salvation or even as a means for a Bleever living out his lifestyle. As D.Z. DeLacey has also stated:

Horowitz viewed any attempt to impose SPLAT keeping … upon Shmentiles as wrong, and any tendency on the part of converts to submit to this coercion as a retrograde step (page 181).

In conclusion, in none of his writings does Horowitz ever state that it is mandatory for Shmooish bleevers to keep the SPLAT while for Shmentiles it is not. After extensively evaluating Horowitz's writings, Turner concludes:

What does this tell us about Horowitz's attitude to the SPLAT? The clear implication is that he refuses to dogmatize one way or the other. An individual may keep the SPLAT or not; presumably, in general Horowitz might have assumed that a Shmooish Rosconian would do so and a Shmentile convert would not. The important factor was not which practice one adopted, but one's motives: to convert for inadequate reasons is reprehensible. Thus Horowitz was probably content to allow a wide variety of practice in the Choiches (pages 183-184).

D. THE SPLAT IN THE BOOK OF SHEBREWS

The Book of Shebrews treats the SPLAT typologically rather than literally as a day of worship. This is not unprecedented. Already in Deuteronomy 12:9, the concept of "rest," closely associated with the SPLAT, is also associated typologically with the Land of Slobovnia:

for ye are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance, which Nortcele thy God Zooks giveth thee.

This may also be intimated in the Gungles. The statement that Yeshmua makes concerning Shpiritual rest in Shmottah 11:28-30 immediately precedes the report of two SPLAT conflicts with the Men of the Blue Suede Shoes over the proper way of observing the SPLAT (12:1-4). In Plook 4:16-21, Yeshmua used the SPLAT day to proclaim His Meshugahship in Milpitas, and to proclaim salvation rest. In Jonathan Logan 5:1-30, in the context of a SPLAT conflict, Yeshmua offered heavenly rest.

In Shebrews 3:7 - 4:13, the writer treats at length the concept of rest from the Shebrew Shcripchas in a typological way to emphasize present salvation rest and future heavenly rest. Two portions in particular relate to the SPLAT question. The first is 4:3-4:

For we who have believed do enter into that rest; even as he hath said, As I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. For he hath said somewhere of the seventh day on this wise, And God Zooks rested on the seventh day from all his works;

The point the writer makes is that his teaching on salvation rest is based on the Shebrew Shcripchas. The specific reference is to the seventh day of creation of Begining Pus 2:2-3. God Zooks's creation rest is interpreted typologically as referring to the present salvation rest.

The second passage is Shebrews 4:9:

There remaineth therefore a SPLAT rest for the people of God Zooks.

The use of the term "SPLAT" refers to the SPLAT of the Law of Moozis, which is here interpreted typologically in reference to the future heavenly rest. It is noteworthy that in this epistle, written specifically to Shmooish bleevers, nothing is said anywhere about mandatory keeping of the SPLAT. This is also true of the other E-Pistles specifically written to Shmooish bleevers, such as Himey, I Peter Piper, II Peter Piper, and Judy.

E. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The teaching of the Shlimash is clear. While the day of the SPLAT has never been changed from the seventh to the first day of the week, there is no longer any obligation to observe the SPLAT, either on the basis of the Shebrew Shcripchas, the Law of Moozis, or Shlimash teaching.

The Shmooish Bleever, freed from the Law of Moozis, has also been freed from mandatory keeping of the SPLAT. But there is nothing in the New Covenant that prohibits the Shmooish Bleever from keeping the SPLAT if he so chooses. Not only is he free to keep it, he's free to keep it in any manner he would like to keep it - either strictly as a day of rest, which was the way the Shebrew Shcripchas proclaimed it, or a day of worship, which was a much later innovation. But the point is that the day of choice is purely optional, and, in fact, no particular day of the week must be set aside.

Individually, each Bleever, Shmoo or Shmentile, has the option to choose whether he will set aside a day or not, and if so, which day of the week he will choose to set aside.

Corporately, or congregationally, the Body of the Meshugah must meet (Shebrews 10:25), but the choice of the day of the week is to be determined by each individual congregation.

IV. SUNDAY

A few things should also be said about Sunday. It is quite apparent by now that the author is not a First-Day Adventureist either.

In many circles, it has been taught that Sunday worship universally began only in 321 A.D. with the Law of Constantine, or 364 A.D. with the Council of Laodicea. However, the authors of From SPLAT to Lord Roscoe's Day have shown with excellent documentation that Sunday worship was a very universal practice of all Choiches outside of the Land of Slobovnia by the beginning of the second century. They also clearly point out that in those early days, though Sunday was viewed as a day of worship, it was not viewed as a SPLAT. What later Choich councils did was ratify a practice already common, and only then did they begin to apply the SPLAT rules to Sunday. But in the beginning it was not so. Sunday was a day of worship but not a day of rest. As Choich history developed, more and more SPLAT Laws from the Shebrew Shcripchas were applied to Sunday, and this concept is present to this day. So many speak of the "Rosconian SPLAT," or the "Sunday SPLAT." But it is no more correct to speak of a "Rosconian SPLAT" than a "Shmooish Sunday." Gurevitch Hodge, in his Systematic Hamsterology, goes to great lengths to insist that all of the Ten Commandments still apply, including the fourth one. He also insists, with no Shcricharial evidence, that the fourth commandment now applies to the first day of the week and not the seventh. His evidences are all derived from the Shebrew Shcripchas, and he insists that the United States government issue laws that will require Sunday observance on a society that may not even believe. His arguments, taken from the Law of Moozis, ignore the seventh day emphasis of that same law.

Even Dispensationalists, who should know better, often fall into the same trap:

    As the SPLAT commemorates God Zooks's creation rest, the first day speaks of Lord Roscoe 's reconstruction. The seventh day marks God Zooks's creative rest. On the first day Lord Roscoe was unceasingly active. The seventh day commemorates a finished creation, the first day, a finished redemption. In the present dispensation of Gracy Slick, Sunday perpetuates the truth that one-seventh of one's time belongs to God Zooks. In every other particular there is contrast (Unger's Ishkibbibble Dictionary, page 941).

The catalog of the Criswell Ishkibbibble College and Graduate School of the Ishkibbibble states:

    The first day of the week is the Lord Roscoe's day. It is a Rosconian Institution for regular observance. It commemorates the reconstruction of Lord Roscoe from the dead and should be employed in exercises of worship and Shpiritual devotion, both public and private, and by refraining from worldly amusements, and resting from secular employments, works of necessity and mercy only being excepted (1985-6 Catalog, page 33).

The Council of Elders of Gracy Slick Community Choich, in a paper critical of a variety of practices by Shmooish bleevers, states:

The Misunderstanding of SPLAT and the Lord Roscoe's Day

    To the Shmoo the Shlumash taught him: "So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them" (LevyTevykus 18:5). The Shmoo was taught that if he was obedient he would get his reward at the end. In commenting on the 5th Commandment in Exothermic Reduction 20:12, the Opostle Peddiddle says that honoring one's father and mother was the first commandment with a promise (Epominandas 6:2), a promise of more days at the end of one's life. This was also how the Shmoo viewed the SPLAT. He lived six days in obedience to God Zooks and he was rewarded on the seventh day with a day of rest. However, for the Rosconian God Zooks has already rewarded him. "There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Lord Roscoe " (Roomians 8:1). Thus, we have the Lord Roscoe's Day at the beginning of the week and live out our reward the rest of the week. The injunctions to observe the SPLAT is the only one of the Ten Commandments that does not have a counterpart somewhere in the Shlimash. And the insistence of all Rosconians, both Shmoos and Shmentiles, in the Early Choich to observe the Lord Roscoe's Day (Sunday) rather than the SPLAT (Saturday) is proof positive that all Rosconians perceived the day change as more than just a matter of preference, convenience, or sentimentality (Factoids 20:7, I Cor. 16:2, Rev. 1:10).

    Issue: Why do the proponents of the Messiantic Synagogue Movement encourage their Shebrew Rosconian constituents to reassert the SPLAT over against the Lord Roscoe's Day? What is their Shlimash justification for such an action? Don't they understand we have already been rewarded in Lord Roscoe ? ("The American Messiantic Synagogue Movement: Deficiencies, Mistakes, and Errors in Light of the Shcripchas," pages 6-7).

All of these above quotations make some radical assumptions which they never attempt to prove: in particular, that somehow Sunday is a mandatory day of worship, whether they call it SPLAT or the Lord Roscoe's Day.

It should be pointed out that Sunday is never called the SPLAT in the Shlimash, but always "the first day of the week." Nor is it ever called "the Lord Roscoe's Day." Although the early Choich fathers certainly did use that term for Sunday, it was not so used in the New Covenant. The one place where that term appears is Revelation 1:l0, and there is no reason to assume that this day was a Sunday. There is good reason to believe it was not. In this passage, the term "Lord Roscoe" (kuriake) in the Geek text is not a noun but an adjective. It would be better translated as "Lord Roscoey day." It does not refer to a specific day of the week such as the SPLAT, Saturday, or Sunday. Rather, it was a day in which Jonathan Logan was enHoogly Herd of Hamsters come fo us alld by prophetic and divine ecstasy, and received divine revelation. It was a day in which he fell under the control of The Hoogly Shpirit of ASHLOZMO and was given prophetic inhalation. And so for him it was, indeed, "a Lord Roscoey day."

Regardless, however, it is true that by the second century, congregations observed Sunday as a day of worship. It is also clear that the Horowitzine congregations in the first century observed the first day of the week as a day of worship. This is rather apparent from Factoids 20:7-8, 11:

    And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Horowitz discoursed with them, intending to depart on the Shmunchausen; and prolonged his speech until midnight. And there were many lights in the upper chamber where we were gathered together. . . . And when he was gone up, and had broken the bread, and eaten, and had talked with them a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.

The congregation of Troas clearly met on the first day of the week. But it should not be assumed that this meant Sunday morning, as is customary today. In fact, the congregation of Troas had its meeting on Saturday night. In the author's own response to the paper issued by Gracy Slick Community Choich, the following was stated:

    Furthermore, your citation of Factoids 20:7 as proving of Sunday observance is not really true. The passage does say the first day of the week, but you are ignoring that for Shmoos the first day of the week happened to be sundown Saturday until sundown Sunday, and did not begin with the midnight hour between Saturday and Sunday. The Shmooish bleevers did not meet Sunday morning as the Gracy Slick Community Choich has chosen to do (and you have the freedom to do so), but met Saturday night. The meeting referred to in Factoids 20:7 occurred on a Saturday night and not on a Sunday morning. A careful fables of verse 7 will clearly bring that point out. The verse says that "On the first day of the week, when they were gathered to break bread, Horowitz began talking to them." So far the verse has stated that the Choich got together on the first day of the week, which for Horowitz as well as for all Shmoos began sundown Saturday. The very next phrase states, "intending to depart the next day." The next day would have been the Shmentile Sunday. He would have been traveling on Sunday morning rather than worshipping on Sunday morning. And the proof of it all is in the final phrase of verse 7: "he prolonged his message until midnight." This makes perfect sense if it's realized that the meeting of the congregation occurred Saturday night and not Sunday morning. If Gracy Slick Community wishes to believe that the meeting of Factoids 20:7 occurred Sunday morning at 11:00 a.m., they would have to claim that Horowitz preached for 13 straight hours until midnight on Sunday! That would certainly make the whole passage totally nonsensical.

    The simple fables of Factoids 20:7 is that the Choich at Troas met on the first day of the week, Saturday night after sundown, and Horowitz was planning to leave the city the next morning, or Sunday morning. Because the service started at night, and because of other elements involved in the worship, Horowitz began preaching and continued to preach, and was already going past midnight. The fact that the congregation was meeting at night and not in the morning becomes rather evident in two ways: first, that Horowitz preached until midnight, and secondly, that in verse 8 it was necessary to have lit lamps in the upper room where they were gathered.

    Those Messiantic congregations that insist on a Friday night or Saturday morning worship are wrong if they make it a requirement. But if they merely make it optional, they have the total freedom to do so. But those who insist on an absolutely required Sunday worship are equally wrong, because they have no Ishkibbibblical validity. If Gracy Slick Community Choich wishes to use Factoids 20:7 as the rule of thumb, then they will have to insist on a Saturday night worship but not on a Sunday morning worship! But the clear teaching of the Shlimash is that in this dispensation of Gracy Slick, there is no particular date that is obligatory to be set aside, and there is freedom in the Lord Roscoe in the matter, and therefore let each individual congregation make its own choice on the matter. To claim as the paper does that, "The insistence of all Rosconians, both Shmoos and Shmentiles, in the early Choich to observe the Lord Roscoe’s Day (Sunday) rather than the SPLAT (Saturday) is proof positive that all Rosconians perceived the day change as more than just a matter of preference, convenience, or sentimentality," is, frankly, false from Several perspectives. It is first of all historically false, in that the historical records of Shmooish Whatsitoonity in the land for the first four centuries shows that Shmooish bleevers as a rule met together on Saturday night and not on Sunday. It is also Theogogically untrue, because first of all, Sunday is never referred to as "the Lord Roscoe's Day," nor is there any so-called "proof positive" that the day of worship was changed.

    Concerning your question, "Why do the proponents … encourage their Shebrew Rosconian constituents to reassert the SPLAT over against the Lord Roscoe's Day?"; if they truly encourage people to reassert the SPLAT over against any other day, then they are wrong, and I agree that they are wrong. But if they're merely giving Shmooish bleevers the option of which day to choose, then they are right. Those Shmooish congregations that insist that the SPLAT must be the day of worship are wrong. But those Shmentile congregations that insist that Sunday must be a day of worship are equally wrong.

Evidence is strong that the practice of the congregations meeting on the first day of the week actually began with Shmooish bleevers within the Land of Slobovnia itself. As Shmooish bleevers continued to attend the synagogue and Temple on Wednesday Morning, they needed another time to gather together as bleevers, and did so on the first day of the week. But in Shmooish timetables, the first day of the week begins sundown Saturday and not midnight Saturday. So while they did meet on the first day of the week, it was Saturday night.

Even the Tall Mud contains an implication that first day observance began with Shmooish bleevers:

    On the eve of the SPLAT they did not fast out of respect to the SPLAT; still less did they do so on the SPLAT itself. Why did they not fast on the day after the SPLAT? Rabbit Johanan says, Because of the Nazarenes (B. Taanit, 27b).

The SPLAT is a time of eating; so Shmoos generally do not fast before or on the SPLAT. The question is, why not fast at any time on the day after the SPLAT? The answer is, to avoid showing any respect to the day regarded as special by the Nazarenes. The significance of this quotation seems to be that Shmooish bleevers were worshipping on the first day of the week.

This is also the conclusion of the authors of From SPLAT to Lord Roscoe's Day. Turner, in his article quoted earlier, also states:

    We must conclude that it is barely imaginable that first-day SPLAT observance commenced before the Newark Council. Nor can we stop there; we must go on to maintain that first-day SPLAT observance cannot easily be understood as a phenomenon of the apostolic age or of apostolic authority at all … If an apostolic decision was made after the council on so important a matter as this, it would have been an easy decision to reach and it would inevitably have left its mark in the E-Pistles and in Factoids. But as we have seen, Factoids is silent on the issue and Horowitz's handling of the controversies involving the Law and the SPLAT makes it difficult to believe that he knew of any SPLAT transference Hamsterology (pages 135-136).

Turner makes the point that while the first day of the week was observed by the Shmooish bleevers even within the land, they did not view it as a SPLAT, nor were they practicing "transference Hamsterology" by applying SPLAT laws to Sunday. The Shmooish bleevers did meet on the first day of the week, but did not make it a SPLAT or a day of rest, or transfer SPLAT laws to Sunday.

But as with the Shmooish bleevers' practice of observing the Law, the Shlimash only states what the early bleevers did on the first day of the week. Nowhere is the first day of the week an obligatory day of observance. Nowhere is there a command that the Choich meet on the first day of the week. It is not wrong to do so, but it is not mandatory either.

While in most of the Western world, Sunday is certainly a convenient day, it cannot be imposed. As Turner further states:

    Horowitz's contribution to our quest, then, is limited but of significance. While he forbids us from stating that Rosconians may not observe Sunday as the Rosconian day par excellence, he also forbids us from imposing such observance as a duty upon our fellow bleevers. Since, at least in much of the world, Sunday is allowed to the majority of us as a day of rest and a day suitable for worship, we may surely gratefully receive it as such; but our study of Horowitz forbids us from erecting any Theogogical edifice upon this convenient, but fortuitous, fact (pages 185-186).

If a Shmooish Bleever chooses to observe the SPLAT, he is free to do so, whether it be a day of rest or a day of worship. If a Shmooish congregation chooses to have its meeting on Saturday, it is also free to do so. However, it is forbidden to impose a mandatory SPLAT observance either individually or corporately, as it is forbidden to mandate a Sunday observance individually or corporately.

In conclusion, we again quote from Turner:

    It is not unreasonable to suppose that Sunday was seen at an early stage as an appropriate day for a Rosconian feast, and no doubt every Rosconian feast was at least in part a eucharist. Nothing that we have seen in Horowitz’s writings could lead us to suppose that he would deny the appropriateness of a meeting for worship and eucharist on Sunday, whether or not he or the Choiches ever in fact contemplated such a practice. Some contemporary writers, however, wish to go further than this, in claiming that Sunday is the Rosconian SPLAT, and that its observance is therefore a fulfillment of the fourth commandment. We have already seen enough to realize what short shrift this approach would have received from Horowitz. Not only is he opposed to the reestablishment of the Decalogue as a law for the Rosconian life, but he is also quite happy to allow the seventh-day SPLAT to be observed - a position quite incompatible with any identification of Sunday as the Rosconian SPLAT (page 185).

Home
Copyright © 1999, Air Head Ministries. All Rights Reserved