A
In-depth Study on the Sabbath Issue by Clarence A. Settle
Click to go to our Home Page
A
Response to “IS THE SABBATH BINDING TODAY?” Booklet The author starts out by stating: “Our SDA friends
as well as a few other religious bodies insist that the weekly Sabbath should
be observed today. They admit that something was done away when Christ was
crucified, but insist that it was only animal sacrifices, incense, and etc. They
teach that there were two laws given on Adventists ASSUME them. Their first premise, which
is assumed, is false; therefore their conclusion is false. They assume the
thing they must prove. We can prove anything if we are granted the privilege
of assuming one premise. With no ill-will toward the Adventists, but with
love for their souls and the truth, let us weigh their claims in the light of
God’s word. 1. ADVENTISTS TEACH: That “the law of God” and the
“law of Moses” were two different laws. THE BIBLE TEACHES: That they are one and the same
law and uses the expressions interchangeably: ‘This Ezra went up from ADVENTISTS TEACH: That Moses gave the law of Moses. THE BIBLE TEACHES: That God gave the law of Moses. ‘This Ezra went up from ADVENTISTS TEACH: That God gave the law of God. THE BIBLE TEACHES: That Moses gave the law of God.
“And when the brought out the money that was brought into the house of the
Lord, Hillkiah the priest
found a book of the law of the Lord given by Moses.” 2 Chron. 34:14. This proves that the Adventists are
wrong when they teach that God gave “the law of God” and that Moses gave “the
law of Moses” and that they are two separate laws. There was only one law
given. What Moses gave was by God’s authority, God made known the Sabbath and
other precepts, statutes, and laws by the hand of Moses (Neh. 9:14).” =================================================================
Let us look at the claims of this writer and see if
his charge that “These distinctions are not taught in the Bible” is indeed
valid and whether, as he also charges, that this belief by Adventists is
based on false premises. Let us go to Deuteronomy 5:22 which reads, after the
Ten Commandments are quoted (verses 6-21): “These words (the Ten
Commandments) the Lord spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the
midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great
voice: and He added no more. And He wrote them in two tables of stone, and
delivered them unto me.” Let us note the distinct features of the law given
by God here. 1. He SPOKE Ten Commandments,
and ONLY Ten Commandments for “He added no more.” 2. He WROTE them ON STONE.
Now let us look at another feature regarding this law as we go to Deuteronomy
10: 5, after God had written the 2nd set on stone for Moses. We read, 3: “And
I turned myself and came down from the mount, and put the tables in the ark,
which I had made; and there they be,
as the Lord commanded.” Here we are told that this Ten Commandment law, made
of stone, written by the finger of God and spoken audibly by Him to all of Let us now see what God’s Holy Word tells us about
the law of Moses as we go to Deuteronomy 4:13 which states: “And He declared
unto you His covenant, which He commanded you to perform, even ten
commandments; and He wrote them upon two tables of stone.” Now verse 14:“And
the Lord commanded me (Moses) at that time to teach you statutes and
judgments, the ye might do
them in the land...” Going on, 2 Kings 21:8, 2nd part,
states: “only if they will observe to do according to all that I have
commanded them, and according to all the law that my servant Moses commanded
them.” But let us go on as we read in Nehemiah 9:13,14: “Thou camest down also upon Mount
Sinai, and speakest with
them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good
statutes and commandments: and madest
known unto them Thy holy Sabbath, and commandest
them precepts, statutes, and laws by the hand of Moses Thy servant.” Again in
Deuteronomy 31:9 it states: “And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto
the priests the sons of Levi...” Now we will see what happened to this law that MOSES
WROTE as we go to Deuteronomy 31: 24-26 as we read: “And it came to pass,
when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book until
they were finished, That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of
the covenant of the Lord saying, Take this book of the law and put it in the
side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there
for a witness against thee.” Let us stand back now and summarize these laws, the
law of God and the law of Moses and see if, as
Adventists believe, they are indeed two separate and distinct laws, or
whether they are one and the same and interchangeable as the writer states.
We have read that: 1. a)
The 10-commandment law of God was SPOKEN by Him “and He added no more.” 2. a)
God wrote the 10-commandment law ON STONE. 3. a)
God’s 10-commandment law was put INSIDE THE ARK. Can anyone, to this point, honestly state that these
two laws are one and the same, that there is no distinction between the two,
that they are interchangeable, and that “These distinctions are not taught in
the Bible”? But let us go on. 4. a)
God’s law deals with MORAL precepts. 5. a)
God’s law reveals sin. [Romans 7: 7; James 1:23-25]. 6. a)
Breaking of God’s law is sin [1 John 3:4]. 7. a)
God’s people should “keep the whole law.” James 2:10 8. a) “We shall be judged” by the law of
God–James 2:12. 9. a)
God’s law is called “The perfect law of liberty.” James
1:25; 2:12. 10. a)
Christ was to “magnify the law and make it honourable.” Isaiah 42:21. 11. a)
God’s law is spiritual [Romans 7: 14] Furthermore, we are told in Galatians 3:19 that the law of Moses was to serve only “till the seed should come”
[Jesus Christ]. Was it a sin to offer a lamb in sacrifice before Jesus died?
No, it was required for the forgiveness of sin. Was it a sin to offer a lamb
after Jesus died? Yes, because it made a mockery of, and was a total denial
of His eternal sacrifice. We read that sin is the transgression of the law,
which law, the one requiring offerings and sacrifices or the moral law? ONLY
the moral law! Can anyone go to heaven that breaks the law? No, for
Revelation 22:14 states that only those who keep His 10-commandment law will
have a right to the tree of life which is in heaven, and all lawbreakers will
be consigned to the flames. Repeatedly we have shown where the Word of God makes
a distinct difference between the 10-commandment law of God and the law of Moses. I ask the writer and any reader, “which is
the false premise or assumption being promoted here that leads one to come to
the conclusion that these are two separate, different and individual laws as
the writer states? Also, in number 1 of the writers statement, he refers to Luke 2:22, 23 as an
example to show that the two laws are interchangeable. No one can dispute
that God did give both laws––one audibly and written on stone, the other
through Moses to give to Israel, so in that sense they BOTH are the law of
God for He alone is the great law-giver (for “There is one lawgiver, who is
able to save and to destroy:” James 4:12), but they are definitely NOT
interchangeable as the Word of God has clearly shown! And looking at Luke
2:22, 23, and 24, the question is: “Which one of the 10-commandments speaks
of turtledoves or pigeons? In fact in verse 22 it states “according to the
Law of Moses”! As stated before, God’s 10-commandment law deals with MORAL
issues––defines sin; the law of Moses deals with
ceremonial, ritualistic, and health matters––and mentions pigeons. Let us now
go back to the writer’s objections. =================================================================
Going on the author states: “ADVENTISTS TEACH: That animal sacrifices, incense,
etc., were in the law of Moses. These they admit
were abolished when Jesus was crucified. But: THE BIBLE TEACHES: That animal sacrifice was in the
law of God. “He appointed also the king’s portion of his substance for the
burnt offerings, to wit, for the morning and evening burnt offerings, and the
burnt offerings for the Sabbaths, and for the new moons, and for the set
feasts, as it is written in the law of the Lord.” 2 Chron. 31:3
“And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the
Lord, a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.” Luke 2:24.” =================================================================
A response to these verses used here. We have
already established in James 4:12 that there is only one lawgiver––one
Supreme Authority, but I ask the writer, which one of the 10 commandments
mention anything about burnt offerings, new moons, and feasts? And as
previously stated, Luke 2:22 clearly states that this was from the law of Moses! Was Moses a lawgiver? Only in the sense that
God chose him to give the laws as we read in Nehemiah 9:14 “And madest known unto them the holy
Sabbath, and commandest
them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant.” But some may say “Aha! What about the Sabbath?
Doesn’t it say in these verses mention that the Sabbath is written in the law of Moses? Yes it does, but let us note one important distinction that God makes as we
read in Leviticus, chapter 23. Here it mentions the 7 annual Sabbaths or
feasts that the Israelites observed “Besides the Sabbaths of the Lord..” Verse 38.
This tells us that though God’s 7th day Sabbath was also taught in the law of
Moses, as it is in the Ten Commandment law, it was set apart from all the
other Sabbaths or feast days found in the law of Moses. But let us continue
reading what this writer states. =================================================================
“Can the law of God be changed or done away? If not,
the animal sacrifice is still binding. Yes, God abolished the Sabbath with
the same authority he did animal sacrifice. The law had to be changed. (Heb.
7:12) [“For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change
also of the law.” ] Christ
took away the first that He might establish the second” (Heb. 10:9,10).” =================================================================
As we have previously established on page 2, in
numbers 4-11, the law that was changed, done away with, blotted out, are
given “no such commandment to keep,” is the Mosaic law (for the Sabbath was
established 1200 years before the priesthood came into existence). In fact
this was made unmistakably evident when the temple veil was rent
supernaturally from the top down at the time of Christ’s death signifying an
end to the Mosaic system of sacrifices and offerings––see Matt. 27:51; Mark
15:38; Luke 23:45. But let us go on as the writer continues: =================================================================
“ADVENTISTS TEACH: That God gave the Ten
Commandments, and that Moses gave incense, etc. THE BIBLE TEACHES: That Moses gave the Ten
Commandments: Jesus said, “For Moses said, Honor thy father and thy mother
(Mark 7:10). This was the fifth of the Ten Commandments. Jesus said Moses
gave it; Adventists say God gave it. Which will you believe? “Did not Moses
give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?” John 7:17
Here again Jesus said that Moses gave the law. “Thou shalt not kill” was one
of the Ten Commandments. So Moses gave the Ten Commandments!” =================================================================
Let us once again let the Word of God respond to
this person’s erroneous conclusions. We have already clearly made the
distinctions (pages 2 and 3) between the law given by God, and the law given
by Moses, so what is the answer to those verses above quoted by the writer?
Let us go to Luke 24 verse 27, which states: “And beginning at Moses and all
the prophets, He expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things
concerning Himself.” We
also read in verse 44: “And He said unto them, ‘These are the words which I
spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled,
which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the
psalms, concerning me.” Any true Bible student knows that in the days of
Christ, the Scriptures, which they had, were
not referred to as the Old Testament, as we call it today. They were referred
to as “Moses” or “the law of Moses,” “the prophets” and “the psalms.” In
fact, these verses in Luke are the only place
in the Scriptures where specific mention is made of the common three-fold
division of the Old Testament recognized by the Hebrew people
themselves. 1. “The law of Moses,” that is the portion of the
Old Testament written by Moses, commonly called the Pentateuch, and
consisting of the first five books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers, Deuteronomy). Elsewhere the Pentateuch is referred to as “the law,”
(Matt. 7:12; Luke 16:16; etc, “the law of Moses” (Acts 28:23), and sometimes
simply “Moses” (Luke 16:29, 31). 2. “The prophets” for example, were divided by the
Hebrews into what they called “the former prophets”––Joshua, Judges, and the
books of Samuel and Kings––and “the latter prophets” Isaiah, Jeremiah,
Ezekiel, and the twelve Minor prophets. 3. “The psalms” which included not only what we call
the book of Psalms, but probably also all the other books not belonging to
“Moses” or to “the prophets.” These books of the third section are commonly
called the Hagiographa,
or simply the Writings. So, Christ was NOT indicating that Moses was the
literal originator of any law, but that the law came through the books
written by Moses under direct inspiration of God. The writer asks, “Which
will you believe?” Our answer is that we believe the Word of God, not any
individual’s erroneous and contradictory reasoning. But let us continue
reading. =================================================================
“The Adventists make a distinction where there is no
difference. God gave the law of Moses. Moses gave
the Law of God––the one given on =================================================================
In view of the texts quoted on page 1, it is hard to
imagine how anyone can even begin to agree, as this author states, that it
was Moses that gave the law given on =================================================================
“ADVENTISTS TEACH: That the Sabbath is a moral
obligation. THE BIBLE TEACHES: That the Sabbath ‘WAS MADE’ (Mark
2:27). Moral obligations are right within themselves. Religious duties are
right only because God commands them. The Sabbath was made right and binding
on the Jews only because God commanded it (Ex.20:8). Moral obligations relate
to our fellowmen. Religious duties relate to God. When Adam and Eve ate of
the forbidden fruit, they sinned because they violated a command of God; but
they did not thereby commit an act of immorality. They sinned against God not
against their fellowman. It has always been wrong to murder, steal, lie and
commit adultery. These things are wrong within themselves. God forbids them
because they are wrong. Failure to keep the Sabbath violates no moral law.
Men would never have known to keep the Sabbath if God had not commanded it.
Furthermore, worship is a religious duty and not a moral obligation. Even the morals of the Ten Commandments are below
the standards of Christianity. ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ This command does not
condemn hate (1 Jn.
3:15). ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery. This command does not condemn lust.
The new law under Jesus does (Matthew 5:28). ‘Thou shalt not bear false
witness against thy neighbor.’ This command does not forbid false witness for
a neighbor, nor to a
neighbor. The new law says, ‘AND ALL LIARS,
shall have their part in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone (Rev.
21:80). Many ask if they can live up to the Ten Commandments and be saved.
The answer is emphatically ‘NO!” =================================================================
He states: “Many ask if they can live up to the Ten
Commandments and be saved. The answer is emphatically ‘NO’!” We agree with the
writer that no one can be saved by keeping the law, and that man is morally
unable to keep it. However, we would ask: If sinful man is unable to keep the
law, and when he becomes a Christian he need not keep it, pray tell why was
the law of God given? Shall we make a farce of God’s law and charge Heaven
with proclaiming a code that was for thousands of years impossible of being
kept, and that for the last two thousand years need not be kept? The
Scriptures tell us: “And hereby we do know that we know Him, if we keep His
commandments. He that saith I know Him, and keepeth not His commandments, is
a liar, and the truth is not in Him.” 1 John 2:3,4. Also, “For this is the love of God, that we
keep His commandments: and His commandments are not grievous.” 1 John 5:3. Two things must be made clear here. First, no one
can obtain salvation by “keeping the law.” That is salvation by works, which
will save no one. However, a true Christian does have the power and ability
to keep the law only through Christ dwelling in him. When humanity grasps the
hand of divinity then we can truly claim the promise “I can do all things
through Christ which strengtheneth
me.” Philippians 4:13. This is a study in itself which time does not permit
us to go into here, but there are many verses which tell of the changes and
power which come when the carnal mind is transformed to the spiritual by the
indwelling of the Holy Spirit. In conclusion, how fair would God be if He
commanded us to do something that was impossible for us to do? But let us
continue. The writer states that the Sabbath is not a moral
obligation, and that though “it has always been wrong to murder, steal, lie
and commit adultery...men would have never known to keep the Sabbath if God
had not commanded it.” In other words, God did not have to tell humankind
that it is wrong to murder, steal, lie, etc., but He did have to tell man
about the Sabbath. Let us look at that. Do all men naturally know, as the writer implies,
that it is wrong to steal, commit adultery, worship idols, or violate any
other of the nine commands that he admits are moral? This question obviously
challenges the very foundation on which the whole objection before us rests.
Fortunately a clear and decisive answer can be given. Let us start with the first
commandment. This command not only forbids polytheism but also requires that
we worship not just one singular god, but ONE CERTAIN GOD, the TRUE God! Do
all men naturally know who the true God is? The answer to both questions is
no. Though most men of all races and ages have felt that they should worship
some god or gods, there never has been agreement as to which god or gods
should be worshiped––that knowledge has only come through revelation from God. Let us take the second commandment. Do men know by
reason or nature that it is wrong to make a likeness of God, or of any creature and use it as an object of
religious worship? No. One only needs to turn to Take the third commandment. The reason why we see
force and meaning in the prohibition against taking God’s name in vain is
that revelation presents to us a picture of a most pure and holy God, at
whose very mention of His name the angels bow their heads, but the heathen,
even the most enlightened Greeks, who possessed no such revelation, viewed
their gods as lustful, depraved, vindictive, and even murderous, for they
created gods in their own image and therefore, would it have seemed
reasonable to a Greek to believe that there was anything wrong in taking
lightly the name of any of his gods? No, history records that they did it
habitually! What about the seventh commandment? Does man by
nature know that adultery is wrong? It is a well-known fact that adultery is
not only condoned but encouraged in some cultures. In fact, among the
primitive Eskimos it was the duty of the husband to offer his wife to the guest
for the night, and the guest could offer no greater insult than to refuse to
accept. And even at this very time the homosexual element is desperately
trying to force legalization of same-sex marriage, convinced that they have
every right to do so––that it is the “natural” thing to do, but it is
revelation that reveals to us how odious it truly is. We believe that reason and nature play some part in
giving us a knowledge of
right and wrong, of God and the judgment, so that men are without excuse. But how clear it is that a divine revelation is needed, not only
for every one of the other nine commandments, but for the fourth as well.
But why was the fourth commandment––the Sabbath given? The writer has failed to discern that God has
clearly told us that He created the Sabbath as a sign and reminder of His
creative ability as we read in the 4th Commandment which states “Remember the
Sabbath day to keep it holy...but the seventh day is the (not just A Sabbath,
but THE Sabbath) Sabbath of the Lord thy God...For (or because) in six days
the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested
the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed
it.” Exodus 20:8-11. Isn’t it strange that most of the Christian world seeks to
keep Sunday as a remembrance of Christ’s resurrection, when there is not the
least mandate to do so, and yet they want to cast aside His Holy Sabbath day
which He specifically commanded us to REMEMBER! =================================================================
Going on the writer states: “ADVENTISTS TEACH: That the Sabbath is a universal
day of worship for all mankind. THE BIBLE TEACHES: That the Sabbath was given to the
Israelites and to them only––unless a Gentile was proselytized to their
faith. “And Moses called all THE SABBATH A SIGN: The Sabbath was a sign between
God and the children of THE SABBATH A MEMORIAL: The Sabbath was a memorial
of the deliverance of the children of God has never in any age commanded a Gentile, as
such, to keep the Sabbath. There is no more reason for a Gentile to keep the
Sabbath than for =================================================================
It is true that these covenants were originally
given to the Israelites, but the reason that Sabbath observance was confined
to the Jews in the last part of the four-thousand-year period before Christ
was that NO OTHER PEOPLE ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH WERE TRUE FOLLOWERS OF GOD!
All others were pagans and heathens. Of course the Sabbath was closely
associated with the Jews during the time of their national history, and so
was EVERYTHING ELSE of the revealed will of God. The whole Bible was written
by Jews, much of it directly addressed to Jews. Both the old and the new
covenants were made with the “house of The writer states that the Sabbath was binding only
on the Jews, is that accurate? We read in Genesis 2: 1-3: Thus the heavens
and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day
God ended His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from
all His work which He had made. And God blessed the seventh day and
sanctified it: because that in it He had rested from all His work which God
created and made.” This clearly tells us that at the end of creation God
rested on, blessed, and sanctified or specifically set apart the seventh day
of the week––Saturday, as HIS Sabbath––1200 hundred years before a Jew even
existed! So how could it be binding only on the Jews? Furthermore, the Bible
states in Mark 2:27: “And He said unto them, The Sabbath was made for man,
and not man for the Sabbath.” Christ did not say that the Sabbath was made
for Jew, but for man––all mankind, and nowhere in the Bible will you see the
seventh-day Sabbath referred to as a Jewish Sabbath––that is an invention of
man. Did not God also establish the ordinance of marriage? And in 1
Corinthians 11:9 we read: “Neither was man created for the woman; but woman
for the man.” Now if the word “man” in Mark 2:27 pertains only to the Jew,
then according to this verse woman was made only for the Jew also, but how
ridiculous a conclusion that is, is it not? But let us now continue to look
at the writers reasoning. He states: =================================================================
“ADVENTIST TEACH:
That the Sabbath was given at creation and has been observed by man ever
since. THE BIBLE TEACHES: That the Sabbath was made known
on This was just a few days before the Sabbath was made
one of the Ten Commandments. When they were told to “Remember the Sabbath
day, to keep it holy,” it does not mean they had been observing it from
creation; but as they reach the foot of the mount, at the giving of the
manna, the Sabbath had been made known. Nehemiah says that God came down upon
There is neither
command, example, nor penalty concerning Sabbath observance during the
patriarchal dispensation, which embraced the first 2500 years of the history
of man. During the next 1500 years, from Sinai till the new law
went into force (Acts 2) we find no command, example and penalty concerning
Sabbath observance.”
Even so with the Sabbath law. It, along with the
other great precepts of the Decalogue, and many other statutes, was formally
made known to God declares, “...I made myself known unto them, in
bringing them forth out of the Another thought: Those who promote the importance of
Sunday generally argue that man needs
a recurring day of worship each week, nor do they set any bounds of time or
place on that claim. Hence those who lived before Exodus were in need of such
a recurring day. Seeing they were, would God fail to provide for that need?
Indeed, did He not do that very thing when, at creation, He set apart for a
holy use the seventh day? In fact what other conclusion would be reasonable?
If you turn to such references as Acts 13:42-44; 16:13;
17:2; 18:4, 7,8 etc. you will find numerous references that show Paul keeping
the Sabbath, not only with the Jews and the Gentiles, but in synagogues,
houses, riverbanks “as his manner (or custom) was,” as was Christ’s. (Luke
4:16). We also read in Rev. 1:10 that John was in the spirit “On the Lord’s
day.” Which day is that? Sunday-keepers insist that that is Sunday, but there
is absolutely no Biblical support for that. In fact the Bible states in Mark
2:28 “Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.” That’s the Lord’s day! Which
brings us to the writer’s next objection. He states:
Some argue that the passage does not include the
weekly Sabbath, but “Sabbath days” would include all Sabbath days. However,
the word “days” is in italics, which means
that it was supplied by the translators. Leaving off “days”
the passage would read, “or the Sabbath.” When God said, “Remember the
Sabbath day,” Adventists say it refers to the seventh day Sabbaths. Then when
God gives us a better law, and tells us not to observe “the Sabbath,” why
should it not likewise refer to the weekly Sabbath? The Sabbath was a type or
shadow. Those who keep it are clinging to a shadow.”” =================================================================
Again, this objection was previously covered on
pages 2 and 3 showing that this verse can only apply to the “handwriting of
ordinances” of the ceremonial law given by Moses. And wouldn’t it be
contradictory for Paul to give this strong counsel against the Sabbath and
then continue to observe that very same Sabbath he condemns week after week,
month after month, year after year, and that after Christ’s ascension, for he
never saw Him while He still walked this earth? In fact, in the book of
Hebrews, 4th chapter, he upholds the keeping of the Sabbath, both literally
and spiritually (Hebrews 4:1-11). It is apparent that the translators well
knew Paul’s practices in this matter and supplied the word for clarity and
consistency. In reference to the seventh-day Sabbath being a type
of shadow, the writer goes directly against Scripture for it is the things
concerning which no man is to judge us which “are a shadow of things to
come.” The weekly Sabbath was given to man in Again, the Bible clearly defines what law this is as
we read: “For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the
very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered
year by year continually make the comers
thereunto perfect.” Hebrews 10:1. It is clear that this is the ceremonial law
for as stated before; the moral, 10-commandment law makes not one mention
whatsoever of sacrifices. We also read in Matthew 27:51 of the veil of the
temple being supernaturally rent from the top to the bottom signifying by
God’s hand that the law of Moses in sacrifices and
ceremonies and shadowy Sabbaths was at that time done away with. This is
clearly stated for us as we read: “He said, sacrifice and offering and burnt
offering, and offerings for sin Thou wouldest
not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; then said He,
Lo, I come to do Thy will, O God. He taketh
away the first, that He may
establish the second.” Hebrews 10:8,9.
Again, would it not be totally confusing and contradictory for Paul to make
this strong statement condemning the 7th day Sabbath and then continue by
voice and example insisting that that Sabbath should be kept? What folly
indeed!
“1. The covenant God made with 2. God took away the covenant He made with 3. Therefore, God took away the Ten Commandments. 1-God took away the Ten Commandments – just proved. 1. When the covenant, the Ten Commandments,
including the Sabbath, was given, Moses’ face shone when he came from the
mount. (Ex. 34:27-35) 2. The covenant that God gave when Moses’ face shown
“is abolished.” (2 Cor.
3:13) 3. Therefore the Sabbath is abolished.” =================================================================
The writer bases all his objections on that fact
that the ten-commandment law itself is the actual covenant that God made with
In reference to the writer’s reference to Hebrews
8:6-13, the children of Now, if that covenant was the ten-commandment law
and it was abolished, as the writer states, then what defines sin? And if
there is only one law, then the new covenant, under which all of us declare
we may live today, calls for the writing upon our hearts, not only of God’s
moral precepts, but of all the ceremonial statutes also! The logic that
requires this conclusion is unanswerable––if there is only one law. Could
better proof be offered that there must be more than one law? Not a change in the terms of the covenant, the Ten
Commandments, but a change in the location of those commandments, this is the
essence of the difference between the two covenants. In other words, to live
under the new covenant is to live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved
us and gave Himself for us. The Israelites boasted that they of their own
volition could keep the covenant and it degenerated into a system of
salvation by works––as many are promoting in our day, but faith and obedience
to God’s commandments go hand in hand. How significant in this connection is
the description of those who will finally be awaiting the return of Christ:
“Here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.”
Rev. 14:12. And how significant is Paul’s statement that the “carnal mind”
which distinguished rebellious =================================================================
The writer next states: “ARGUMENTS FOR SABBATH
KEEPING ANSWERED: (a) The Sabbath is spoken of as being perpetual (Ex.
31:16) How could a ‘perpetual’ Sabbath cease? It is
asked. The same way that the perpetual temple service (1 Kings 9:3), and
perpetual incense (Ex. 30:8) ceased.” =================================================================
The Sabbath, as stated before, is a “perpetual”
reminder of God’s creative ability, that He created this earth in seven days,
and furthermore, we are told in Isaiah 66: 22,23 that it will be kept in the new earth for ALL
eternity. How much more perpetual than that can you get? =================================================================
“(b) ‘Jesus kept the Sabbath,’ we are told. He also
kept the Passover, and the rest of the law. Jesus was born under the law
(Gal. 4:40 and lived under the law. When He died He nailed it to the cross
(Col. 2:14-17)” =================================================================
Yes, Jesus did keep the Sabbath, for that was His
custom (Luke 4:16). He also kept the Passover and the rest of the law for He
Himself stated that He did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it
“till all be fulfilled.”
(Matt.5:17-18) We’re also told in Galatians 3:19 that the law was added
because of transgression “till the seed should come.” This tells us that the
ceremonial law was only to be in effect UNTIL the seed, or Christ, should
come and fulfill the types and shadows of that ceremonial law. That is what
Christ nailed to the cross, not the moral law, for what a travesty of divine
purpose would it have been for Him to suffer and die such a cruel death to
pay the penalty for a law that was just going to be discarded. =================================================================
“(c) Paul kept the Sabbath, some say. Why then did
the Jews persecute him? Paul preached on the Sabbath in the synagogue because
it was an opportunity. Of him it was said, ‘This fellow persuadeth men to worship contrary to the law.’ Acts 18:13.” =================================================================
The writer states that Paul preached on the Sabbath because
he had the opportunity to do so, not because he actually kept the Sabbath.
What does the Bible say? We read: “And when the Jews were gone out of the
synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them
the next Sabbath.” “And the next Sabbath day came almost the whole city
together to hear the word of God.” Acts 13:42,44. It is obvious from the setting here that the
Gentiles and the whole city could not enter the synagogue to hear Paul
preach, because the Jews would have seen this as utter defilement of their
synagogue. So why then did Paul choose to speak to them on the Sabbath rather
than on the first day of the week? Would this not have been an excellent
opportunity for him to impress upon them the importance of meeting on Sunday
because the Sabbath had been abolished? But let us go on. We read: “And on the Sabbath we went out of the city
by a riverside, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake
unto the women which resorted thither.” Acts 16:13.
Again, why did Paul CHOOSE to worship on the Sabbath instead of Sunday? What
excuse can the writer give for Paul meeting by the river on the Sabbath day?
Wouldn’t it have been more of an opportunity for him to meet with these women
on Sunday instead? But let us continue. We read: “And he reasoned in the synagogue every
Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.” Acts 18:4.
As stated before, to allow a Gentile entry into a synagogue would, in the
eyes of the Jew, defile it, so Paul must have ministered to the Greeks before
or after he ministered in the synagogue. What a wonderful opportunity he
missed to tell those Gentiles that the Sabbath was done away with and now
they should be keeping Sunday! As far as the Jews accusation that
‘This fellow persuadeth men to worship contrary to the law.’ In Galatians, chapters 4 and 5 Paul rebukes those
“Christian” Jews who were insisting on returning again to the bondage of
observing the “weak and beggarly elements” of “days, and months, and times,
and years.” This is a direct reference to the ceremonial feast days and
rituals that were part of the “handwriting of ordinances” that were nailed to
the cross. That is why the Jews accused him of persuading men to worship
contrary to the law, not because he was in any way honoring the observance of
Sunday, as the writer alludes, but because he was turning them away from the
“handwriting of ordinances” of the Mosaic law. But let us continue. =================================================================
“(d)
‘If the Ten Commandments are abolished, then men can steal, lie, etc.’ It is
said. Certainly not! All sin is condemned in the New Testament, see?” =================================================================
I would ask the writer, “What is the definition on
sin?” Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines sin thusly: “The voluntary departure
of a moral agent from a known rule of rectitude or duty, prescribed by God;
any voluntary transgression of the divine law, or violation of a divine
command; a wicked act; iniquity. Sin is either a positive act in which a
known divine law is violated, or it is the voluntary neglect to obey a
positive divine command, or a rule of duty clearly implied in such a command.
Sin comprehends not action only, but neglect of known duty, all evil thoughts
and purposes, words and desires, whatever is contrary to God’s commands or
law.” But since it is not up to mortal man to define what
sin is, even though that definition clearly spells it out, the only authority
for this is the word of God. Since sin involves a moral act, unlike a crime,
which falls under civil jurisdiction and a fault, which indicates a
shortcoming of character, sin can only be defined and forgiven by God. What
does the Bible say sin is? Let us go to 1 John 3:4 which states: “Whosoever
committeth sin transgresseth
also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” We also read:
“Because the law worketh
wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.” Romans 4:15. So here
we are told that sin is the act of breaking God’s law––His moral
ten-commandment law, even just one of them, not the Mosaic one that was
nailed to the cross (for Paul stated regarding that law, “Ye must be
circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment.” Acts
15:24.), and we also read that where there is no law there is no
transgression––no sin. So what standard of morality is the writer referring
to when he says that sin is condemned in the New Testament, when we have just
read in the New Testament that “sin is the transgression of the law”––the
very law which the writer states has been abolished! As stated before, on
page 7, knowledge of our religious duty to God comes only through the
revelation of the word of God, not through some innate instinct in man. Let
us go on. =================================================================
“(e)
‘The Catholics changed the Sabbath,’ it is argued. This just is not true. The
law was changed (Heb. 7:12) before the Catholic Church ever existed. During
the days of the apostles, the early Christians were taught to worship on the
first day of the week (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor.
16:2), and they were taught not to keep the Sabbath (Col. 2:16). Christ
changed the day of worship (Heb. 10:9,10),
not the Catholics. The Bible is right regardless of what Catholics or
Adventists say.” =================================================================
As far as the Catholics changing the day of worship
from Saturday to Sunday, that fact can easily be verified by history despite
what the writer states. However he is correct when he states that the Bible
IS right regardless of what the Catholics or the Adventists or YOU or I say!
So let us look at the Bible and at those verses the writer uses to support
his contention that the early Christians were taught to worship on the first
day of the week and taught not to keep the Sabbath. Let us go to Acts 20: 7
which states: “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came
together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the
morrow: and continued his speech until midnight.” For the sake of clearly
understanding this verse I must also include a couple of other verses. We
continue reading: “And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where
they were gathered together” Verse 8. Then through verses 10 there follows
the account of the young man who fell asleep and fell down and was mortally
injured but Paul resuscitated him when we take up the narrative again: “When
he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a
long while, even till break of day, so he departed.” Verse
11. In looking closely at the events surrounding this
meeting “upon the first day of the week,” some crucial facts become evident.
Let us look at them. Today we reckon time from midnight to midnight, a
system that has come to us from the secular world not from the Scriptures,
for it is a well-known fact that the Bible reckons time from sunset to
sunset, not from midnight to midnight, as we read in Genesis 1:5,8,13,19,23,31. And Leviticus
23:32 tells us that “...from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your
Sabbath.” And what is “even”? We read: “And at even, when the sun did set...”
Mark 1:32. So keeping this in mind, going back to Acts 20,
verse 8, we can safely deduce that since there were “many lights in the upper
chamber,” that this service was held at night, also the fact that Paul spoke
“even till break of day,” (verse 11) confirms this as a nighttime meeting.
That being the case, the first day of the week would start on Saturday night,
after sundown, just as the Sabbath starts on Friday night after sundown. So
this meeting was actually held on Saturday night, not on the daytime part of
Sunday, leading to the conclusion that for a Sunday advocate to look to this
event as proof of Sunday sacredness is only to reveal how weak is the case for Sunday worship in the
Scriptures. But let us now look at 1 Cor. 16:2 which states: “Upon the first day of the
week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him,
that there be no gatherings when I come.” According to Sunday advocates and
apparently the writer, we are supposed to find here a picture of a religious
service when a company is gathered together and the offering is being taken
up. The reasoning, of course, is that if a service was held on Sunday, that
proves Sunday is sacred, and by inference, that the Sabbath of the Decalogue
has been abolished. Admittedly, this is a very great deal to attempt to
find in one text; especially when one cannot honestly draw such deductions
from it. Instead of describing a church offering, where the faithful pass
over their gifts to a deacon, the record plainly says that each one was to
“lay by him in store.” The R.S.V. translates this verse as such: “On the
first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and save, as
he may prosper, so that contributions need not be made when I come.” In other
words, when the first day of the week had come, each one was to decide from
the prior week’s earnings how much to set aside for the special collection
that Paul was going to take to the poor at Jerusalem, and lay it by in a
special place apart from the other money of the house. THIS WAS AN ACT OF
BOOKKEEPING, NOT AN ACT OF WORSHIP! Again, how can any student of the Bible
honestly and sincerely use this verse as a support for Sunday worship? But let us go the extra mile and look at some other
verses that are frequently used by Sunday advocates. Let us go to Luke 20:19
which many use to support their belief that the disciples were gathered to
honor Christ’s resurrection. We read:“Then
the same day at evening, being the first day of the week when the doors were
shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and
stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.” The disciples were not gathered to celebrate
Christ’s resurrection. They were huddled there behind locked doors “FOR FEAR
OF THE JEWS!” In fact, not only were they NOT celebrating the resurrection of
Christ, they did not even believe that He had risen even after they were
told! Just go to Luke 24:10,11,36,37,
and Mark 16:13,14! So once again, this “first day of the week verse offers
absolutely no support for Sunday observance. But let us go to one more that is used. Let us go
back to Acts 20:7 which states that “the disciples came together to break
bread.” We’ve already established that this was definitely a Saturday night
gathering. But again, for the sake of argument concede that it actually was
on a Sunday, does that help their case any? Sorry, for reading in Acts 2:46
we see: “And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple and
breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and
singleness of heart.” So here we see that the act of breaking bread in and of
itself, had little or
nothing to do with the sanctity of the day on which it was done. Let us
continue. =================================================================
“(f) Jesus came not to destroy the law. He came to
fulfill. He said: ‘For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one
jot or one tittle shall
in no wise pass from the law, TILL ALL BE FULFILLED.’ When
it was fulfilled THEN IT DID PASS AWAY. Did Jesus fulfill it? On the
cross He said ‘It is finished.’ After His resurrection, Jesus said He had
fulfilled the law, the prophets, and the psalms. (Luke 24:44). Therefore the
law HAD passed away.” =================================================================
Is the abolishment of the moral law what Jesus meant
when He said in Luke 24:44 “...that all things must be fulfilled, which were
written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets,
and in the psalms concerning me”? In verse 27 it states: “And beginning at
Moses and all the prophets, He expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the
things concerning Himself.”
What were the things concerning Himself? Since He began “at Moses” we know
that He began with the book of Genesis, and under this revelation John could
fearlessly proclaim “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God, and the Word was God...He was in the world, and the world was made by
Him, and the world knew Him not.” John 1:1,10. Paul could confidently state: “For by Him were
all things created...all things were created by Him and for Him.” Col. 1:16,
etc,. Etc,. Etc. What was fulfilled were all the prophecies regarding
His birth, His mission, His Messiaship
and incarnation etc., that were written hundreds and even thousands of years
before His appearance here on this earth in all the books of the Old
Testament, and illustrated through the ordinances and ceremonies of the
Sanctuary services––which, as stated before, came to a sudden and dramatic
end at His death on the cross. Again, at the risk of much redundancy, it was
THIS LAW that was abolished––nailed to the cross! =================================================================
“(g)
‘We are to live by every word that proceedeth
out of the mouth of God.’ Another argues. The command to build the ark, offer
animal sacrifice, burn incense, and practice circumcision all proceeded from
the mouth of God. Are we to live by these commands? The commandments of God
in the Patriarchal and Mosaic ages are not binding on Christians (Heb. 1:1,2). We must now hear Christ
(Matt. 17:2; 28:18). =================================================================
In view of the above writers assertion that “The
commandments of God in the Patriarchal and Mosaic ages are not binding on
Christians” isn’t it puzzling and strange then that under the inspiration of
the Holy Spirit, the apostle James tells us in chapter 2 that ALL are going
to be judged by that ten commandment law that the writer says is now
abolished, and he even lists some of those laws in verse 11 so that there
will be no mistaking what law he is referring to? Furthermore, he tells us in
verse ten that if you break just one of them, you’re guilty of breaking them
all! Was James then laboring under some false assumption? And what about the apostle John? Was he also under some delusional influence when he
defined sin as the transgression of the law––the law that according to the
writer is no longer binding on Christians? And what of his words in 1 John
2:3,4 which state: “And
hereby we do know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He that
saith, I know Him, and keepeth not His commandments, is a liar, and the truth
is not in him.” Were James and John Christians or not? And three times the
very last book of the Bible, the book of Revelation signals God’s approval
and favor upon those that keep His commandments––in fact it is ONLY those who
do so who will be in His kingdom, which strongly confirms the words of Christ
Himself when He told the rich young ruler “...but if thou wilt enter into
life, (eternal life––in heaven) keep the commandments” in Matt. 19:17. And
then, again so that there would be no mistaking what commandments He was
referring to; He lists some of them in verses 18 and 19. But the writer above
tells us that those commandments are “not binding on Christians––we must now
hear Christ.” I ask, according to these Bible texts, who is hearing Christ?
Those that keep His commandments,
or those that say that those commandments are “not binding on Christians?”
But let us go on. =================================================================
“CONCLUSION: After the resurrection, Jesus gave the
term of pardon for the new will and testament (Matt. 28:18; Mk. 16:15,16, Luke. 24:46,47). Men must hear the gospel,
believe it, repent of their sins, confess faith in Christ, and be baptized
into Christ for the remission of sins. The apostles, guided by His Spirit,
went to work and executed His the
will of Christ on the terms laid down by him. This plan of redemption is new.
It is different to that of the old law.’ =================================================================
In this, I am in total agreement with the writer
although not in a way in which he intends. First of all he states that men
must repent of their sins and be baptized into Christ for the remission of
sins. My question is just how can they do this when the writer insists that
the very standard defining the sin they must repent of is now abolished? And
yes, this plan of redemption IS new, it IS different to that of the old law
as we read: “The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of
all (in Heaven) was not yet made manifest, while as yet the first tabernacle
was standing: which was a figure for the time then present, in which were
offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the
service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; which stood only in meats
and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until
the time of reformation. But Christ being come an High Priest of good things
to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that
is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves,
but by His own blood He entered in once into the Holy Place, having obtained
eternal redemption for us.” Hebrews 9: 8-12. And again: “Then said He, Lo, I
come to do Thy will, O God. He taketh
away the first, that He may
establish the second.” Heb. 10:9. So these verses plainly and unmistakably
tell us that it is the law of sacrifices and drinks and offerings and
washings and ordinances etc., the Mosaic law, that
Jesus came to do away with. What other conclusion can a reasonable person
reach? Let us continue.
Keeping the Sabbath required the following: 1. Do no work. (Ex. 20:9,10) =================================================================
Let us look at those requirements listed by the
writer. No. 1 is observed by faithful Sabbath-keepers today. Only those tasks
vital to health and safety are performed on the Sabbath. Of course the
preacher, as the priest of old, must minister or work on that day, and also
animals and livestock must be cared for. Jesus was accused of breaking the
Sabbath because he ministered to the sick and suffering and even dared to
pluck some grain on the Sabbath. When considering No. 2 it must be considered that
kindling a fire required considerable labor, but when the Israelites were in
the desert the comparatively warm climate of the Sinai region made artificial
heating unnecessary, and a fire would have been kindled only for cooking
purposes. Not being essential to health in such a climate, warm food was not
to be prepared on Sabbath. In fact as one reads the account of the manna, in
Exodus 16:23 the Israelites were given instruction to bake and seethe what
they were to eat on the day before the Sabbath––the preparation day––Friday.
To believe that the God of mercy and love who stated that it was a man’s
rightful duty to pull the ox out of the ditch on Sabbath would condemn
someone for kindling a fire when it was a matter of safety or health, is to
believe in a god other than that of the Scriptures, but this admonition
referred to the laborious duties involved in cooking a meal on the Sabbath. In references to No.3, today faithful
Sabbath-keepers bake, boil, cook etc., their food on Friday before the
Sabbath so that it only requires a few moments on the stove to warm it up to
an appetizing degree. No. 4 was carried to a legalistic, harsh, fanatic
degree by the Pharisees of Christ’s day who condemned the cripple for rolling
up and carrying his bed (John 5:10). This verse in Jeremiah and a similar
injunction in Nehemiah 13:18-21 refers to those who eager for profit, were transporting
merchandise on the Sabbath day. It does not apply to legitimate and necessary
tasks. No. 5 refers of course to the Mosaic system, now
nailed to the cross. Continuing–––– =================================================================
“It is argued that the other things were abolished
because not in the Ten Commandments, then why do Adventists refuse to eat
pork in the Ten Commandments. The doctrine of abstaining from meat today is
of the devil (1 Tim. 4:1-4)” =================================================================
Yes, the writer is correct in stating that the
admonition against eating pork is not found in the ten
commandments, but it is found in the Mosaic law which was abolished,
so on what basis do Adventists refuse to eat it.
Again let us look to Holy Scripture. Going back to Genesis, the first book of
the Bible, we see in chapter 7 as Noah was given divine instruction prior to
boarding the ark, God directed him to take 7 of the clean and 2 of the
unclean beasts into the ark. This was over a thousand years before there was
a Jew, so the distinction was already clear back then that some beasts were
clean and some were unclean. But now let us go to the last book of the Bible,
Revelation where in chapter 18, verse 2 it speaks of unclean and hateful
birds, and that is not all, but before we go to the next verse in mind, let
us look at 1 Timothy 4:1-4 which states: “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly,
that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to
seducing spirits, and the doctrines of devils. Speaking lies in hypocrisy:
having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry and
commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with
thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For
every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received
with thanksgiving.” I have highlighted the portions of the verse, which
I believe are especially relevant to the writer’s objection, the fact that
Adventists prohibit the eating of pork as unclean flesh. The question is, was Paul condemning those who
forbid the eating of swine here? The answer is found in the very next verse,
which is not usually read by those who want to believe that eating swine’s
flesh is condoned or approved of God. We read in reference to this, “For
every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received
with thanksgiving.” “For it is sanctified by the word of God AND prayer.”
(Verse 5) The one vital fact that those who advocate the
eating of swine and other unclean flesh overlook is that it MUST be
sanctified by the word of God and not just prayer, for there are many
conditions under which prayer is an abomination to God, one of them is the
prayer of those who––in fact, let us read one specific verse in its entirety:
“He that turneth away his
ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination.” Prov. 28:9. Now, getting back to the subject of flesh food, it
MUST be sanctified by the word of God. Has swine or any other unclean food
ever been sanctified by the word of God? Some may say that the account of
Peter in Acts 10 supports this,
however a close reading of the entire account will show that the issue was
not the literal eating of unclean flesh, but addressed the matter of
ecclesiastical, racial and social pride and intolerance. But there is one final verse that I have in mind
that should settle this question once and for all. Let us go to Isaiah 66:
15-17 which reads, in reference to His soon-coming return: “For behold, the
Lord will come with fire, and with His chariots like a whirlwind, to render
His anger with fury, and His rebuke with flames of fire. For by fire and by
His sword will the Lord plead with all flesh: and the slain of the Lord shall
be many. They that sanctify
themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the
midst, eating swine’s flesh and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be
consumed together, saith the Lord.” Is there any question remaining now as to
whether the prohibition of eating pork, shrimp, lobster, rabbit, crab, or any
other unclean and abominable creature is of the devil, or of God? And since
it is of God, then whose doctrine are those promoting who insist that there
is no such prohibition? But let us continue with these final objections. =================================================================
“(1) That the name
Seventh-day Adventist is not in the Bible.” =================================================================
No, the name Seventh-day Adventist is NOT in the
Bible, but it simply describes those who keep the seventh-day Sabbath, and
are awaiting the advent, or coming of Jesus Christ. The name is not there but
can anyone deny that the apostles, the early Christians, and all faithful people
of God since Christ ascended were, and are Seventh-day Adventists in faith
and practice? =================================================================
“(2) That they have a church manual, or creed, to
which all members must subscribe; and this manual contradicts the Bible.” =================================================================
Unfortunately, and sadly so, the writer is
absolutely accurate in this assessment. However, this ONLY applies to the
official, corporate, denominational organization of Seventh-day Adventists.
Thankfully, just as in the days of Jesus where there also was an official,
corporate, denominational organization, there was also a small but faithful
group of believers who followed an itinerant, unauthorized, unofficial
ex-carpenter who was the true Shepherd, the Light of the world, the Bread of
life. So today there is a small and relatively unknown and unrecognized and
scattered group of faithful believers who have separated from that official
denomination and are determined to follow the true Lamb, not a fallen and
apostate, world-approval-seeking religious entity. In closing, the writer
presents these challenges: “$1000.00 REWARD
=================================================================
As far as finding the name SDA church in the Bible,
that is explained a couple of paragraphs above. But this is truly
inconsequential for the Bible tells us that “Neither is there salvation in
any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby
we must be saved.” Acts 4:12. It is not membership
in ANY denomination that will assure salvation, for Jesus said “And other
sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they
shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one Shepherd.” John
10:16. There are in reality only two churches in this
world. Most “Christians” belong to the one described in Isaiah 4: 1 where we
read: “And in that day (the end of time––now) seven (signifying “every or
all”) women (meaning “churches” – see Rev. 17:1-5 and Rev. 12:1,2; Jer. 6:2)
shall take hold of one man (meaning the Man Jesus Christ) saying, We will eat
our own bread (They do not want to eat of the bread of life––to do what Jesus
says––“If you love me keep my commandments”) and wear our own apparel: (They
do not want Christ’s pure white robe of righteousness wrought through
obedience) only let us be called by Thy name (Nevertheless they want to be
recognized and acknowledged as Christians and followers of Him––why?) to take
away our reproach.” (They don’t want to be known as the Babylonian harlots
that they truly are!) And the one TRUE church, the one true fold which is
left in these final days of earth’s history, and follows the Lamb is
described for us thusly: “And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went
to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God
(they don’t argue that they are abolished, they observe them), and have the
testimony of Jesus Christ.” Revelation 12:17. God left specific directions regarding His
Sabbath––when to begin it, when to close it, how to observe it (Lev. 23:32;
Ex. 20:8-11; Isa. 58:13,14
etc.) I challenge the writer, since he insists that Sunday is now the day for
Christians to keep, to show FROM THE BIBLE when to begin it, when to close
it, and how to observe it, since there is vast disagreement and practice and
confusion among Christianity regarding these specific matters. Some go to
church in the morning and devote the rest of the day to secular matters and
pleasure. Some spend much of the day in church activities etc., etc., but as
yet I have been unsuccessful in finding anyone who can give me FROM THE BIBLE
the answers to these requests. Can the writer? Surely, since God gave such
specifics for His Sabbath, if He did change it, is it not reasonable to
expect Him to likewise give directions for His NEW day of worship? I submit
that his only defense is man’s tradition, condemned by Christ in Mark 7:6-9,
13. In closing, I would like to say that I believe I
have submitted ample Scriptural evidence to show that it is the Christian’s
duty to keep the Sabbath––if he truly loves the Lord. Over and over we are
admonished to “keep the commandments,” at the heart of which is the Sabbath
command. Paul, in Hebrews 4:11 states: “Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any
man fall after the same example of unbelief.” It is clear, not only from the
context of the chapter, but from Paul’s own example that he is unquestionably
referring to the seventh-day Sabbath here––both in a spiritual and a literal
sense. And throughout the entire New Testament the Sabbath is inferred,
implied, and illustrated by example and behavior, so why would a specific command to observe something that
was the custom, the norm, the accepted, not only during the New Testament
era, but for thousands of years before that, be necessary? My prayer is that the writer of these objections
will open his heart to the truth of the Scriptures rather than continue the
example as given us in 2 Peter 3:16 which states: “As also in all his
epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which some things hard to be
understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also
the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” The Lord has plainly given us instruction as to how
to interpret the Scriptures, not in our own judgment and opinion, but by
letting the Bible be its
own interpreter. We read: “Whom shall He teach knowledge? And to whom shall
He make to understand doctrine? Them that are weaned from
the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon
precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line, here a little
there a little.” Isaiah 28:9, 10 The writer of these objections has failed to follow
these instructions and instead has based his arguments on one solitary verse
here and there which, as demonstrated, can only lead to confusion and
contradiction and erroneous conclusions. But there is still another rule by
which all of our findings, conclusions, beliefs and opinions must be tested.
We read: “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to
this word, it is because there is no light in them.” Isaiah 8:20. “Let us
hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep His commandments.
For this is the whole duty of man.” Ecclesiastes 12:13 IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN,
AND ALWAYS WILL BE! May the light of God’s truth and the peace of His
word richly bless all who read this study, is my prayer. Clarence A. Settle |