Sabbath

•
.
-(
This study on The Sabbath ll is taken from
a series of messages delivered over fiTHT
by H. Frank Fort, Minister of the BSR~AN
B\p'£ISr CHURCH in the Fall of 1947.
I
If. '£~~~0l?:._Shall Make
y~~ _~I.'_~
lI~'lhatsoever
is not of faith is sin ll (Rom.14:23). Upon the
principle of this text we are 30in~ to test the Sabbath question.
Each messace is designed to make its contribution to the conclusion
that t~e ~eventh Day Sabbath was the sign of a covenant made with
Israel and was abolished just prior to the ratification of liThe New
Covenant", which in God's ,lord is always contrasted to lCthe old cove­
nant". I specffy "the :3eventh Day Sabbath", because even they who­
contend for its present day observance, admit the abolition of all
besides, being ceremonial in nature. Yet they observe the law in its
restrictions as to the eating of "pork". Just where this is found
in the so called ilmoral law", if it be true that it remains, is still
a secret. I call attention to-a statement found in a publication
sent me, entitled liThe Present Truth" on page 1, in an article en­
ti tIed liThe Greatest Mistake the Church ever made." One might think
such a sin would be the denial of the virgin birth, the vicarious
sufferings, or the resurrection of Christ, but no; failure to observe
the Sabbath is described as being lithe greatest mistake the church has
ever made." This shows the unbalanced concept of those whose religio­
si ty is founded on some II special li;:ht.
rhey put their i1first things
first. II
,j
If you want to know what a man esteems preeminent, note what he
talks about the nost. Paul said II I delivered unto you first of a 11,
that Which I also received tl (1 Cor.lS:l) and called it "how Christ
died for our sins---and rose ar-ain. ,I As a .uinister of lithe New
Testament" one would expect thIs. uf all the sins mentioned in the
New Testament as charged against Christians, not one time are they
charged with sin as to the Sabbath. Of all the warnings against
false doctrines that would cnaracterize the last days not one time
were the Christians warned as to anything concerning the Sabbath.
Isn't th~s rather strange in view of the importanoe Sabba~arians
attach to the day? Not one prophecy in the New Testament warning ,of
a departure from Sabbath observance, in spite of the fact that it is
constantly beinz preached, that to do so is to constitute one guilty
of accepting "the mark of the :3east." This is supposed to be the
pivot in determining the will of God. To keep the Sabbath Is, so
they say, a sign by which God's true followers are to be found~ and
to fail to do so but keep Sunday is to receive the Mark of the Beast,
and constitute one guilty of "the unpardonable sin." Thus according
to this theory, one can readily see whJ Sunday keeping is the one sin
towering over all sin, and is the outstanding crime of the ages and
liThe greatest mistake the Church ever made." And yet it seems strangl8,,>
-.
· ...
•
- 2 ­
that it didn't seem to reach such towering proportions in apostolic
thinking, and had no place at all in New Testament obligations. Is
the New Testament silent, in its prophetic portion, as to "this
terri ble sin", "Thi s Mark of the ? eas t I' , this al.nos t universal cOlnlnission
of the "unpardonable sin ll because God failed to foresee the ".3reat
departure" as conceived by those who hold this view?
Surely if the 30o~ of God concurs m.th this view, some where in
its sacred pages one ought to find the thunderings of Sinai ~gainst
those who depart from Sinai's law} this side of Calvary. The writer
of Hebrews said to them Il who come unto God by Him" (Heb.7:25) that 1&
"Jesus--surity of a better 'restament i ' (Heb.7:22), "ye are not come
unto the Mount---and the vorce of words--they could not endure--But
ye are come unto Mount Zion--to Jesus the mediator of the New Cove­
nant ll (Heb.12:18:.- 24).
"Who also" Paul said, "hath made us able
Ministers of the New Testa.'1lent" (11 Cor.3:6). Therefore with "the
Sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God ll (Eph.6:17) we shall
seek to point out the significance of PaUl'S statement in (Rom.7:4)
"Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the
body of Christj that ye should be married to another, even to him who
is raised from the dead---N'ow we are delivered from the law. II For
he had said I'ye are not under the law, but under grace ll (Rom.6:14).
To be under grace means too t one has appropriated I'the ri:'hteous­
ness which isof faith" (Rom.9:30) and Paul s3-id, "the law is not of
faith" (Gal.3:1~) and contrasting "the works of the law" and "the
faith of Jesus Christ" (Gal.2:16) he said "We have believed in Jesus
Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not
by the works of the law" (Gal.2:16). Then in verse 21, he said "I
do not frustrate the grace of God: for if richteousness came by the
law, then Chrfst is dead in vain." And in verse 18, "If I build
again the things \'h ich I des troyed, I make mys elf a trans:;ressor."
Paul rebuked Peter by asking "why compellest thou the· Gentiles to
live as do the Jews?" (Ga1.2:14). This had been settled at the
council meeting' in Jerusalem, when the issue was "sal vation ll , a t which
time Peter had sliid, ilMoses of old time hath in every ci ty tl'lem that
preach him, beine read in the syna80gues eyery Sabbath Day" (Act 15:21)
one could expect Moses to be preached on the Sabbath Day in the
synazogues, but let the passaze be produced that reveals the preach:
ing of Christ in "the chur~si' on that day. 'Vhere, in "the New
Testament" of which Paul was a Minister, is the command found for
Christians to meet and worship God on the Sabbath "in the Churches?"
Peter said, "Forasmuch as we have heard that certain which went
out from us have trOUbled you with words, sUbvertinz your souls, say­
ing, ye must be circumcised and keep the law: to whom we save no
such commandment." (Act 15:24). Notice in (Gal.2:16) the only person
in a position lito be justified by t~'1e faith of Christl! is the one who
has Ilbelieved in Jesus Christ ll , but the II works of the law" are in
contras t to ITfherai th of Chris t" • '~Jhich, could not be true J accord­
ing to the theory that one is "justified by the faith of Christ ll when
he obeys the law. But Paul says, "by the faith of Christ" and not
by the i1 works of the law. II He said, "the law was our Schoolmaster
to bring us unto Christ--But·after that faith is come, we are no
lon,3er under a school~nasterJt (Gal.3:24,25). Now what law is Paul
talking about? The one of which it is sal d II It was added because of
- 3 ­
transgression" (Gal.3:l9). The p.;riod of hu.onan existence from lIAdam
to Moses" 1s described as beine "until the law" (Rom.5:13). Now a
question: "Is the law" last mentioned, the so called moral law with­
out which "sin is not imputed "? That is, is it lithe ten c om:nandrnents?"
If so, and it has always be~n, as given on Sinai, binding on ~en, how
could any given time be referred to as being "until the law!!? without
which "sin is not imputed. II If the law here referred to is not "the
ten commandments ll , how could sin exist under the theory, that it is
"transc.ression of the law" (1 Jno.3;4) which in turn is lithe ten
commandments I' , and apart from which there is no definition of sin?
These questions cannot be answered by my who contend that sin cannot
exist either prior to or apart from lIthe ten commandments. 11
Cain and Abel lived over two thousand years before the law. You
ask what law? We reply lIthe law" that "was added because of transgres­
sion." "The law" that"entered that the offence might abound"
(Rom.5:20) and "by which is the knowledge of sin u (Rom.3:20). Now
during that period of time designated as being "until the la W'I
(Hom.5:13) Cain and Abel were born, lived, and died, and of them it
is written "Cain who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother,
and wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his
brothers riLhteous" (1 Jno.3:12). VVhat was the standard of determi­
nation as to the one beinz "evil i ' and the otner dri~teousll? Was it
law of "ten commandments? No, because that which A.bel did by faith,
was not required by the IIten commandments 11 , and that which Cain did
was not condemned by the "ten commandment-s il , and that which Cain re­
fused to do was never commanded by an y of "the ten command..'11ents. II
Again it is written of the antediluvian civilization that "God
saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every
imagination of the thou~hts of his heart was only evil continually"
(Gen.6:5). A:ain we ask, what was the basis of judgment? Was it
the "ten commandments ll ? Again we answer in the nesative for it was
during that period describ,)d as being "until the law ll , during \\hich
time however II s in was in the world ll (Rom.5:13). Now when "the law
was added because of transgression" (Gal .3:19) then transgressors
"died without mercy under two or three witnesses" (aeb.10:28). '.Vilo
e;avethe authority, and to whom, and where was it given for anyone
to contend for tae law, and refuse to execute the sentence of death,
on the disobedient?
It is said that God's Word prophesied the chlnge of the
Sabbath by ecclesiastical authority contrary to the will of God. We
know of no such prophecy. We do know the scripture that allegedly
does so, but in fact touches neither, top, side, nor bottom of "the
Sabbath." If we prove this, and we shall, then any supposed change
of the Sabbath, would be without significance as far as God's Word
is concerned, for religious events or decrees not pro~hesied, do not
fulf:U.. scripture. Only prophesied events can be fulfilJB d. Christ
did many things "that the scriptures mi ..ht be fulfilled d (Matt.8:l7).
But he also i1did many other things" (Jno.21:25) "not written" and
which therefore did not fulfill scrip.ture. 1m effort therefore to
chanse the Sabbath is without significance unless it can be proved
that God prophesied such an effort. It is supposed that (Dan.7:25)
does this very thin:, we shall patiently point out that it does
-4 ­
nothin: of the kind. We read the scripture "And he shall speak great
words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the
most Hi,:h, and think to change times and laws and the: shall be eiven
into his hand until a time and times and the -dividinr-: of times. II
It is supposed by Seventh Day Sabbath keepers t hat the words ilhe shall
think to change times and laws II refer to the change from t he Seventh
Day Sabbath to the First day of the wee!~, and the change in the word­
ins and order of the ten commandments. Let us for the sake of clarity
temporarily grant this. It merely says "he (whoever lIhe ll is) shall
tnink to chanceil them. But in (Dan.2:21) it is said of "the God of
Heaven ----He changeth the times. I! If 'I the times II of (Dan. 7: 25) re­
fer to the Sabbath, to what do the "timesl! of (Dan.2:21) refer?
It
is said in the former reference "He will think to chance", but in the
latter "God changeth t he time:>. 11
•
Now with eference to the word 1I1awsllj in the revised version it
is translated "law", concernin* which, in a publication called "The
Present Truth ll on the subject 1The Greatest Mistake The Church Ever
Made", page 2, we find these words liThe prophecy of (Dah.7:25) charged
that the Papacy would think to change God1s 1aw.1! Now will you read
(Dan.7:25) and look for the words "God's Law". And if you find them
will you send them to me? But again let us suppose it means ilGod1s
law", the power referred to will only IIthink to change" i 1; while it
is written in (Heb.7:l2) "For the Priesthood being changed, there is
made of necessity a change also of the law. It The change of the Priest­
hood was from the Aaronic to that "after the order of Me1chjseci.ek"
and the change of that to which the respective- Priesthoods are related,
was from "the first" to"the second"; from the "old" to the "new".
"A new covenant--not according to the covenant t'Fiat I made wIUi their
fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead tnem out of
the land of Egypt" (Heb.8:8-9). 'vVhat was it? You may well ask.
"There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, which
Moses put there at Horeb, when the Lord made a covenant with the
Children of Israel, when they came out of the land of ESYPt il (1 Ki.8:9).
Of which Moses said l1Hear 0 Israe1---The Lord our God made a covenant
with us in Horeb. The Lord made not this covenant with our Fathers,
but with us even Ucl, who are all of us here alive this day" (Deut.5-+1-))
Then Moses enumerates lithe ten commandments" (6-11) and adds IIthose
words the Lord spake -- and he wrote them in two tables of stone, and
delivered them unto me--- to teach you that ye might do them in the
land whither ye go to possess it---and it shall be our righteousness,
if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God
as He commanded usi! (Deut.5:22; 6:1,25). "We were Pharoahs bondmen
in Egypt, .and the Lord brought us out of Egypt" (Deut.6:21) ."There­
fore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath Day"
(Deut.5:15). liThe Children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath to ob­
serve the Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual
covenant. It is a Sign between me and the children of Israel for
ever ll (Ex.31:16-17).
II
Do The Scriptures Prophesy:
The Change Of The Sabbath By An Ecclesiastical Power?
In this chapter we deal principally with the charge as stated
in a religious magazine called "The Present Truth", that the Catholic
- 5 ­
Church changed the Seventh Day Sabbath to trie First day of the week,
and doinS so fulfilled prophec~. The assertion is quoted from the
above mentioned paper exactly, on pa~es 1 and 2 in an article en­ titled "The Greatest Mistake The Church Ever Made". We read, "But
evan though the Lord did not want any tampering with his law, the
prophecy in Daniel st'1tes that the Church would attempt to change it"
(the law). And then again on P. 2
we read, liThe prophecy of Daniel
7:25 charged that the papacy would think to change God's law. 1I In
all fairness to Catholicism, one should give it as opportunity to ad­
mi t or deny t his biblical indictment.
The very thing to be proven
is hereby assumed without proof, namely that the prophecy anticipates
"the papacyll, and indicts it for thinking "to change the times and the
laws."
We deny that the scriptures justify the allegation as based upon
the scripture cited; or that the church in 0uestion claims to have
done it. Now I am fully cognizant that if the scriptures identify
prophetically, any institution and indicts it, it stands 8uilty be­ fore God, despite the most vehement donial.
But to charge an institu­
. tion as the subject of scriptural indictment. not identified by the
scriptures in question is to presume upon the princi~les of i1ri~hteCl.B
judgment. " Two questions for ~rour consideration: (l) "'Jhere di d Daniel
state that the church would attempt to change the law, and (2) where
did Daniel char~e that the Papacy would think to chan~e God's law?
The verse of scripture obviously relied on, since it was the
only one given, to teach the supposed effort to change the law, is
(Dan.7:25). So we quote it novl, i'And he shall speak ,3reat words
aGainst the most Hl::h, and shall wear out the saints of the most High,
and think to chan~e times and laws: and they shall be civen into his
hand ,until a time and times and a di vidinZ of time. I' 'Nha. t is the
antecedent of the pronoun "he"? Daniel answers "that horn that had
eyes, and a mouth that spake very sreat things, whose look was more
stout than his fellows~1 (Dan.7:20).
In verse 19, Daniel had said~
"I would know the truth of the fourth beast. ii 'fhis had reference to
the fourth of the four world powers previously referred to, and
which was in full power durins the ministry of Christ and the apostles,.
The Roman Empire.
John wrote concerning this power in (Rev.13:1)
"I --- saw a beast rise up--having seven heads and ten horns. 1I Now
speaking concerning this beast as constituted by "ten Kinjs", John
was informed in (Rev.17:12) by an angel 'That the Ten Horns which
thou sawest are ten Kings which have received no Kingdom as y8t."
Therefore one need not look for the "Ten Kin::s" and that King­ dom over which they reign, at that time, for they had not at the time
the Revelation was written received a lCin:dom. The refore the illi ttle
horn" of Daniel's prophecy need not be looked for until the "Ten
Kings ll come on the scene, for he was to "rise after them" (Dan.7:25).
That is, after they arose, and then come "up alJ1on8 tl~em" (Dan.7:8).
Notice the Beast John saw had "Seven Heads" (Rov.13:1) of which he
said I/five are fallenl! (Rev.17:10) and then added " one is, and the
other is _not,.Let com~." 'rherefore, the Seventh of t he Seven was
still future, and could not be, until that head of the Beast which
he said 'I now is", ceased to be. Now notice in (Rev.13:3) John said
I I I saw one of his heads
(one of the S8ven of' V 1) as it were wounded
unto death, and his deadly wound was healed. i/ This could not be one
- 6 ­
of the five heads already fallen it could not be the seventh head, it
had not come. Tnerefore he of necessity referred to the he~ that
then was. What was this head? \~t head existed when John wrote the
Revelation? He said it was one of the Seven constitutinc the 8east.
This head of which he said it "now ~ he saw Hwounded unto death."
He saw somethin,s; else; he saw tEat his "deadly wound was healed ll
(Rev.lJ:3). He also saw something that thousands refuse to see,and
that was that after the he aling of the wound in (lues tion, and not b e­
fore,'there was eiven unto him a mouth spsaking great things and
blasphemies: and power Vias --i ven unto him to continue forty: and two
month3" (Rev.13:5). How long? Forty and two months. When? .'\fter
the healine of tho wound, not before. During this forty andifWO­
months "all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names
are not written in the Book of life, of the Lamb" (Rev.13:8). ,Vho
will enforce this worship? Well, someone that would "cause as. mm y
as would not worship the image of the boast should be killed---he
causeth all--tq receive a mark in their right hand, or in their fore­
heads H (Rev .1.3: 15-16) • Again we ask, ..mo enforces this "Mark", or
the penalty for refusing it? John says ill beheld another beaet (be-­
side the one, represented by the head, whose wound was healed)--and
he had two horns like a 1;Jamb, and he spake as a dragon" (Rev.13:11).
This therefore is the power, that enforces worship to the image of the
beast that has been healed, the ~vidence of which is supposed to be
"keeping of Sundayil instead of "the Sabbath".
And what is this two Horned Beast? Well Mr. Uriah Smith, in
his book on "Daniel and Revelation!! tells us in no uncertain terms.
I quote him on page 607, "The United states £overnment had given
abundant evidence b~ its location, the time of its rise, the manner
of its rise, and its apparent character, that it was the power sym­
bolized bv the two-horned beast. There could be no mistake in the
conclusion that it was the very na tion intended by that Symbol. I'
On page 606 we quote aga.in, "The ~nark and worship of the beast are
enforced by the two-horned beast. (the U.S.) The receivinG of the
mark of the beast is a specific act which tho two-horned beast is to
cause to be d_me. ll Now let us ask him, oi'~'ihat is the Mark?" He has
the answer ready, p9,:;e 606, liThe Sunday 3a~bath must be the mark of
the beast." Now when Mr. Smith was char:;ed with sa-;Tine; i'all Christians
of the.present day (his time) WDO are keepinz Sunday as the Sabbath l
of havlnr: lithe mark of the .:east." He replied, 'Inot so----Give ear­
The marl{ and worship of the boast are enforced b ~r the two-horned
beast (the U.S.)---there can therefore be no worship 01' the ~east,
nor receptio~-9.f his ...!!l..ark such as the E£Op'hecy contemplites, til it
is enforced by t he two-horned _b_east II (Pases 606-507). 'ro sum up;
the UoS. is indicted as the power that will enforce Sunday keeping,
which will, when thus enforced and accepted, consti tute it the II'vior­
ship of the Beast. Ii The U. S. Therefore, being this power; according
to this theory will cause to be killed all refusing to bow down. We
challenge the world to name one man that has been killed in this
country, by our government because he refused to worship on Sunday
or any other day, much less .Iall refusing to do so. II Since refusal
is to resul t in death, when the w:J rshiD is to be "enforced" and in
the words of Mr. Smith, one cannot "worship the Beast ll norreceive
his mark" until it is enforced, as I have shown from his own book,
it seems he has made an anacronistic blunder. On page 600 we find
these words, <I',/hat constitutes the mark of the Beast? And that answer
is simpl, this: the mark of tho beast is the chan 7 0 wDich the beast.
has attempted to make in the law of Godo ll Thus
Smith answers
Mr.
- 7 ..
his own question. There is not, however, even the shadow of a hint
of an inferential c;uess thus teaching in God's Word. Now illf there
can be no worship of the beast--such as the prophecy contemplates"
(Dan. & Rev." P. 607) until "enforced by the two-horned beast." (id)
and the "lViark"cannot, according to scripture, be given until "the
deadly wound of the beast" as seen by John, had been healed, and
"enforced by the two-horned beast, /I then there can be no worship of
the image of the beast until the U. S. enforces the observance of
Sunday at the behest of the Papacy. Since there is no sin~le instance
of this "onforcement il , it follows that since "the worship of the beast",
which was not to bo~in until "his deadly wound was hoaled" (Rev.13:3-4),
which must be "caused i ' or "onforced ll , by the lltwo-horned beast ll
(Rev.13:l1-12) has not yet be~un. VVhy? Because U. Smith said IIThere
can be no worship of the beast, nor reception of his mark such af the
pro!,hecy contemplates, til it be enforced, y the two-horned beast"
(Dan. & Rev. P. 607).
Now if this be true, which it isnlt, but si~ce we are investigat­
ing the theory that so teaches, what follows? It follows that "they
(who) worshipped the beast il the number beinz ilall that dwell upon the
earth---whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb"
(Rev.13 :4,8) shall continueas long as the worship is enforced, or as
John said "caused" by the t1two-horned beast." Well how long? John
tells us "Power was given unto him to continue forty and two months"
(Rev .13 :5). Forty and two months-- -the "1260 days" of (Rev .12: 6) and
the "time 1 and times, and half a time" (Rev.12:14) all referring to
the same period of time, and beginning wi th the healing of the "deadly
wound" (Rev.13:3,5) and continuing the specified period for 3i- years.
Now let us compare thi s beas t and thi s period 0 f time wi th the "little
horn il of (Daniel 7:25). First, "he shall speak great words against
the most High"---compare with the beast of (Rev.13:5) "there was given
him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies etc." Second,"They
shall be given into his hand until a time, and times and dividing of
time,"--Now compare with {Rev.13:7)--"it was given unto him to make
war with the saints and to overcome them", how long? "for forty and
two months" (Rev.13:5). Now remember what ever this time is, its
point of beginning is after lithe healin~ of the deadly wound, II
accompanied by the "enforced worship of his image, and reception of .
his mark, from vh ich he lI continues forty and two months II, and con­
cerning which U. Smith said, it must be lIcaused by the U. S.lI It
has not been caused yet, therefore, it has not begun yet, as per this
theory.
Now Mr. Smith gives us his light on the "time, and times, and
the diViding of time" as found in (Dan.7:25) on pa~e 159 of his book
(Dan. &: Rev) "a time as we have seen from chapter 4:23 is one year;
two times, the least that could be denoted by the plural, two years;
and the dividin~ of time, or half a time, half a year. we thus have
three years and a half for the continuance of this power." Now the
author {~uoted, cannot afford to leave this as it is, it would ruin
him for ever. So in order to et the necessary time for his theory
he says (p. 159-160)' "We must consider tha t we are in the midst of
symbolic prophecy; hence in this measurement the time is not literal
but symbolic also. The inquiry then arises, How long a peri~d is de­
noted by the three years and a half of prophetic time? The rule given
us in the Bible is, that when a day is used as a symbol it stands tor
a year." So by this simple expedient 3i years, become 1260 ye~rs.-
- 8 ­
It just happens however that the defini tion of "time " is also gl ven
in this "symbolic" book. Nebuchadnezzar under the judgment of God
had his portion with the beas ts of t he field of til seven times pass
over him" (Dan.4:23) and therefore upon the supposition that the time
element in prophecy, and this was certainly a prophecy, the years are
converted to days, and the days reconverted to years, this King spent
2520 years wi th the beasts of the field. Two scriptures were cited to
justify this expansion of time in (Dan.7:25). First in (Ezek.4:6)
"I have appointed thee each day for a year. 1I Notice the order " a day
for a year il , whil e judgment w~s upon 01 t.i.1G house of Israel,1 f or II ini­
quity." The second scripture was (Num.14:34) and reads "forty days,
each day for a year shall ye bear your inir;ui ties, even forty years. f'
'.Je have therefore, these two instances where lI a day stands for a year ll • •
We have a i'time" scripturally defined as ::eing a lI year il, but not one
time in God's -'iord does a year stand for 360 days which in turn symbo­
lizes
years.
In God's Word "a time, times and half time equals
42 months; equals 1260 days, and describes the duration of the "en­
forced worship of the beast zd his image after, not before, the heal­
ing of his '1deadly wound. II At the close of the iltime and times and
the dividing of time il (Dan.7:25> the Bible says "the judgment shall
sit, and thoy shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destrqy
it unto the end. And the Kingdom and the dominion, and the greatness
of the Kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people
of the Saints of the Most Highll (Dan.7:26-27). -rhere is not a hint
in God's 'Nord that after the IItime, times and half a time i ' has run
its course, which,cannot begin until the healing of the "deadly wound",
that the "beast" of revelation, or tho IIlittle horn" of Daniel will
do anything. John writes, ,I The beas t was taken, a nd with him the
false prophet that wrought miracles before him (which according to
the theory we examined is the U. S.) with which he deceived them that
had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image.
These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone"
(Rev.19:20). The false prophet was not to be~in his work of enforc­
ing "worship of the image ll until the deadly wound was healed, but the
deadly wound was to be healed before the 42 months, 1260 days, time,
times, and half time, began. (Rev.13:3,4,12-l6).
Now in the book "Daniel and Revela tionil by U. Smith, on page 160,
we read that from "this point" (538A. D.) i1the 1260 years began ll
(though the Bible says 1260 days) and on page 161, we read, 111798
marked the conclusion of the prophetic period of 1260 years, and con­
stituted the deadly wound prophesied in (Rev.13:3). God's Word
reveals that the "healing of the deadly wound!' prece ... es the prophetic
period, as I have shown and as (Rev.13:3,5) proves. Now since the
"mark of the beast il and lithe worship of his image" have not as yet
been " enforced"---such as prophecy contemplates i' (Dan. &: Rev.) and
inasmuch as God's Word declares it should be done during the prophetic
period, then by the process Imown as "Rea.uctio ad Absurdum" we
have kicked the whole theory as a case, out of court, and cleared the
way for the third chapter:
III.
Does The Papacy Claim To Have Changed The Sabbath To The First Day
Of Tho Week?
We denied in the last chapter that the scriptures p,rophetically
identify any ecclesiastical power through v.hich the Sabbath wouldlJO
- 9 ­
changed from the Seventh Day to the First Day of the week, or that
they prophesied any effort toward that end. "<Jeexamined those scrip­
tures supposedly teaching the theory, and found rather they denied it
Now we examine the historical evidence supposedly teaching that the
Papacy claims to have made the change. In the beginning, I deny that
any Priest, Bishop, Archbishop, Cardinal or Pope, will affirm that
their church effected the change by the authority of any decree of any
council this side of the apostles. That they claim their church~d
it I do not deny, but they claim their church is the church to which
Christ referred in (Matt.16:18).
~ill you accept their claim to have
effected the chan;e in that day, and not accept their claim to be the
church of (Matt.lo:lB), which they claim made the chan:e?
D. M. Camri~ht, one of the most ardent advocates of Seventh Day
sacredness for 2~ years, was converted from the error of his way, and
challenced his erst while associates to name "the time and place when
and where the Sabbath was chansed by the Pope, and to name the Pope
and the facts about such a chanse if it occured ll (Seventh Day Adventism
Renounced, Page 243). A. M. Waggoner named the date as 364 A. D. and
the place as liThe Council of Laodicea. 1t He could not of course name
the Pope for the simple reason that at that time the Bishop of Rome
had no authority over other bishops, and even Mr. Waggoner admitted
this in IIReplies to Ca..ilright II P. 143). The Bishop of Rome had not ~
attained to any authority whatever above the other Bishops. II He re­
ferred to IIS yl ves ter of Rome, who was bishop from 314 -336 A. D., only
28 years before the "Council of Laodicea." Yet he would have us be­
lieve that in that 28 years he had become supreme head of all the
church, with power to chango the Day on which the theory contends the
whole world had worshipped since Adam, (Same Place) II.
Now if the change of the Day occured in 364 A. D. then it did
not happen some where else. The 29th canon of the Council of Laodicea
reads as follows: IIChristians ought not to Judaize and to rest on the
Sabbath, but to work in that day; but preferrin~ the Lords, should
rest, if possible, as Christians. ~fucrefore if they shall be found
to judaize, 1 et them be accursed from Christ. It
A ten year old child can see that not one scrap of evidence con­
cerning the chance of a day is herein referred to, but rather pro­
hibition of things on a day already in existence, and called liThe
Lord's Day.1I The Governor of Bi thynia, Asia Minor, named Pliny, wrob
to Trajan, the Emperor in 107 A. D. Approximately 11 years after the
death of the last apostle thus, IIThey were wont to meet together on
a stated day before it was lieht, and sing among themselves alternately
a hymn to Christ as God." Again, Eusebius the historian wrote A. D.
324 iiI think he (the Psalmist) describes the mornin: assomblies in which
we are accustomed to assemble throu,3hout the whole world. By this is
prophetically signified the service w~ich is performed very early and
every mornin,:; of the resurrection day thro~hout the whole world"
(Sabbath Manuel, Paso 125). This was 40 years before the day was
supposed to have been chaneed at the I'Council of Laodicea", and was
confirmatory of tho "stated dayll of Pliny as being "the day on which
Christarose. 1I A~ain in the epistle of Barnabas A. D. 120 or 244
years before the "Council of Laodicea", it is written, llIncenae is an
abomination unto me, and your new Moons and Sabbaths I cannot endure."
He has therefore abolished these things./l (chapter 2). Then in chapter
15, he says, "Wherefore also,. we keep the oi.:;hth day with joyfUlness,
- 10 ­
the day, also on which Jesus rose a~ain from the dead." Five years
later or 125 A. D. we find in "The Teaching of the Apostles ll chapter
14, "But every Lord's Day do ye gather yourselves together, and break
bread, and give thanksgiving etc. it Then 15 years later or 14oA. D.
Justin Martyr in his "First apology of Justin" chapter 67, says, "But
Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly" because
it is the first day on which God~ haVing wrought a chan3c in the dark­
ness and matter. made the world" and Jesus Christ our Saviour. on the
same day rose front the doad. II
Notice, I am not quotinG those men as justifiable basis of First
Day observance. but only to show tha t observance of that day did not
begin whore Mr. \Jaggoncr says it did.
Similar testimonies could bo
multiplied. Let us look at a few statements made by Catholics" which
are said to affirm their change of the day. I could do no better than
quote those statements confidently relied on to teach t he theory we
dony" as found in their own publication. So in liThe Present Truth"
(V. 21, No.lO P. 2) we find these words quoted from liThe Catholic
Encyclopedia ll " Article, "Commandments of God" ••• "The church ••• after
changing the day of rest from the Jewish Sabbath, or Seventh Day of
the week" to the first" made the third commandment refer to Sunday
as the day to be kept Holy as the Lord's Day.1I Now remember, it is
claimed" not by the Catholic Church. but Seventh Day Sabbath observers"
that this was d one in 364 A. D.· at the II council of Laodicoa. II Before
we investigate this let us consider other similar ~uotations. From
the same source" and page as above quoted, we find again "Eusebius"
the Father of church History" an eniment priest of the catholic
church" who lived contemporanously with Emperor Constantine" said"
"all things whatsoever that it was duty to do on the Sabbath" these
we have transferred to the Lord's Day II (Sunday) (A Commentary on Psalm.<}.
one other" on page 7" article "How Did They Come To Keep Sunday"
(same source as above) we find this statement, lion the 7th of March
A. D. 321 Constantine I issued tho first law ever promulcated by a
civil government to enforce Sunday observance upon men. II This is
based upon a statement found in dCode of Justinian il " book 3" title
12 .. law 3".
Now we ask a. question; How could a chan.:e in a day be made in
364 A. D. which had already been made 43 years before? Remember
these quotations areall from the same source. On page 8, of the same
source, namely "The Present Truth ll quotes ira currently used Roman
Catholic Catechism ll " "The Converts Catechism of Catholic doctrine" .
(1942 ed P. 50) Q" lIWhich is the Sabbath Day?
A lISaturday ~s
the Sabbath". Q.. "Why do'we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
A. lIWe observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic
church" in the Council of Laodicea" transferred the solemnity from
Saturday to Sunday. II Now on the same page, I quote" this choice
observation, lIFrom the fourth century onward church leaders and
civil magistrates continually forced Sunday observance upon the
peoples of Christendom by means of 1a ws and penal ties. II Note the
words" "forced Sunday Observance II, and did it wi th lilaws and penal ties",
and this was done "from the fourth century onward", and that "con­
tinually.1I Could language be plainer? No, then lot us compare this
profound observation with the statement or Mr. U. Smith regarding
this matter. (Dan. & Rev. P. 607) I!There can therefore be no worship
of the beast, nor reception of his mark such as prophecy contemplates.
til it be enforced by the two-horned beast. II We ask what is the
* ..
*.
- 11 ­
two-horned beast? He replies, liThe U. S. Government---was the power
by the two-horned beast--it was tile verl nation intended
iby that symbol i' (p. 608). Now we asl{ a question; since the two­
Ihorned beast" is the power prophetically contemplated, to "enforce
the worshi~ of the beast, and reception of his mark, and this power
is identifl.ed as the "U. S. Government il as per the theory we are ex­
amining, and nothine; else is II such as tl1.e prophecy contemplates If ac­
cording to Mr. Smith; what pr0r.hetic signification does the assertion
quoted from "The Present Truth I have, that "from the fourth century
onward church leaders and civil magistrates have continually forced
Sunday observance--by mean s of lawa and penal ties. II
! was not aware
that the U. S. traced its histor: back that far, and since Mr: Smith
says the U. S. Government is the power which enforces "the Vi:) rship
of the Beast", we repeat, what scriptural significance would "the
forced Sunday observance have" .. WHICH supposedly began in theLi:th
century? What were the "laws and penalties ll ? The Bible mentions
one penalty for refusal to receive the mark of the Beast, or to wor­
ship his ima2e; and that is death (Rev.13:15-16).
IsYmbolized
T
To sum up Mr. Smith's theory we have first, lithe beast--"the
Papacy". Second, thG mark of the beast-- II Sunday keepinc", Third,
the imas;e of the beast--"a gigantic ecclesiastical or.:anization of
Protestants"--"The Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America"
(Dan. & Rev. Pa:e 594). Fourth, the power that causes, enforces the
"worship of the image ll andiireception of the mark of the Beast", --­
lithe U. S. Government. 1I This is the theory in the raw. But again
we ask how could the "enforcement of Sunday observance, from the
fourth centurJ" with its laws and penalties, continue without the
"mark of the beast ll and Ifwithout the worship of his ima~:e·l? Such
are the insolvable mysteries of error.
Does the Papacy claim to have chan2ed the Sabbath to the first
day of the week? Let tha:; church speak: In "The ::'.;uestion Box ll
P. 179, a work besring the Imprimatur of the Catholic Church,the
question is asked "Who gave the Pope the authority to chanze a com­
mand of God? This question is answered as follows: "Catholics learn
what to believe and to do from the diVine, infallible authority es­
tablished by Jesus Chirst, the Catholic Church, Which in apostolic
times made sundaf the day of rest to honor our Lord's Resurrection. II
When? i1ln aposto ic times", not a.t the ItCouncil of Laodicea" as Mr.
Waggoner claimed. Again, a priest of the Diocese of New York in
the lIOutlook", JUly 1889 says of: Sunday, the Lord1s Day, "~..l~ink.
it was given by our."Lord to the apostles during the great forty days
after his resurrection, but we cannot prove this." Again
John
Meiler,'Rector of St. Johns Church, Healdsburg. California said of
the association that "the Pope of Rome changed the Sabbath from the
Seventh to the first day of the week", Such assertions are molly
unfounded. Catholics claim no such thing: but maintain that the
apostles themselves established the observance of sunday and that,
we received it by tradition from them. The Councils and Popes after­
wards simply confirmed the keepinc of the day as received from the
apostles." Again in liThe Catholic Dictionary" by Addis and Arnold,
after quoting (Rev.l:10){Acts 20:7)(1 Cor.l6:2) says dThe scriptural
references given above show that the observance of Sunday had begu.n
in the Apostolic ace." Again in the IICatholic Re~isterll~ Sunday 14,
1941, in a column entitled il Ask and Learn." We have the question
- 12 •
"Does one disobey a commandment of !Jod in not keeping Saturday in­
stead of Sunday as a holy Day?" The answer is given as follows:
liThe apostles themselves made the change from Saturday to Sunday,
and tradition tells us that they did it because Christ arose from the
dead on Sunday, and the Holy Ghost descended upon the disciples on
this day. It is, therefore, by the authority of the apostles acting
as Bishops of the Catholic Church, that the precepts of the third
co~nandment are transferred from the seventh to the first day of the
weck. "
Therefore J by letting the. Catholic Church spe ak for itself, as
the author of "The Present Truth" suggested, we find it denying the
alle:ation th~ the chanGe was made subsequent to the time of the
apostles, but was rather made by the apostles acin$ as Bishops for
the Catholic Church. This of course ! do not believe, but my purpose
in this chapter has been simply to show that the Catholic Church
claims only to have chanGed the day of worship, not by any authority
this side of the apostles~ but as an institution over wlhich the
apostles themselves were Bishops, and durin~ their time, Tertull'ian
of Africa was born in 160 A. D. and wrote dLet him who contends that
the Sabbath is s till to be obs erved--- teach us that for the past
time riGhteous men kept the Sabbath. 1f Referring to Adam, Abel,Noah,
and EnOCi'l as being lIinobservant of the Sabba th" (Answer to the Jews"
chapter 2). In (Chapter 4) he said "The observance of the Sabbath
is demonstrated to be Temporary", (Apology, Chap.16) "We solemnize
the day after Saturda: in contradistinction to those who call this
day Sabbath." And in"Tertullian on Prayer" Chap.23, we read, ilWe
neither accord with the Jews in their peculiarity in regard to food,
nor in their sacred days." I do not quote these testimonies as
foundation for Sunday observance, that rests on a more solid founda­
tion than human testimony as I shall prove in another Chapter, but
rather to prove th~ no ecclesiastical power claims to have changed
the day from the seventh to the first, as a day of worship, this side
of the apostles.
IV
When
~as
The Seventh
Da~
Sabbath Given, And To Whom?
In this chapter let us examine the theory that the Seventh Day
Sabbath originated in ~den as a divinely appointed day of rest, and
that by that appointment men have kept that day from then until now.
The first mention of the word "SABBATH II is found in (Ex.16:23) over
2500 years this side of Eden, and its usa2e, and the explanation
~iven as to its observance on th~ occasion would prove to any candid
mind the utter ignorance of such a day prior to that time as we shall
point out.
First, however, let us examine the scripture upon which it is
supposed God blessed and sanctified and then gave to Adam to keep.
I quote from (Gen.2:2) "On the Seventh Day God ended his work which
he had made; and rested on the seventh Day from all his work which
he had made. 1I It would be incongrous to say Adam rested from all
of his work, for the simple reason that as for as God's Word reveals
he hadn't done anything, havinG been created the day before. It is
however a matter of fact, that Adam is not mentioned in this connec­
- 13 ­
tion. Remember that this book from which we quote was written by
Moses, who under the direction of the HOly Spirit tells us what was
done, and why, as far as its bearing upon future events was concerned.
{In (Gen. 2:3) we read tlmse words "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. II This is often read-as proof that when.
God ll res ted", he i1blessed" and Ilsanctifiedll the day. There. isn't a
verse of scripture in God's word that even remotely infers such a
thing; and nothing is farther from that supposition than the scripture
just read. That God "blessed ll and II sanctified" that day I frankly
affirm, because God l s Word says so, but that he did it, when he II res ted ll
I deny.
Notice Moses says the "bIe ssine II and II sanc tifyinG" of that
day, was not when God rested nor while he was resting, nor before he
rest~d, but tneWord is plain "because that in it he had rested. 1I The
blessing and sanctifying of the day, was after.the resting, and'~­
cause of the resting. But the question arISes how long after? There
ISnot an"-intfl11ation that God ever rested again. If he rested at the
completion of all his creation, in an estate pronounced by God as
"vet'y good" (Gen.,2:31) and this did, then certainly he could not rest
when that creation was marred by sin, and so we find Christ saying
four thousand years later, liMy Father worketh hitherto, and I W) rk"
(Jno.5:17). This work was done on th~ Seventh Day Sabbath as well as
every other day, for verse 16 reads, "Therefore did the Jews persecute
Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these thin3s on
the Sabbath. II Notice another in'stance, "I must work the works of him
that sent me, while it is day: the ni:::ht cometh when no man can work"
(Jno.9:4). And in verse 16 the 'harisees said concerning this work
which was the healing of the blind, "This man is not of God because
he keepeth not the Sabbath Day. II So we say as far as God l s -.Yord re­
veals he has not rested since the first Seventh Day at creations
completion and before the advent of sin.
.
There is not a commandment lito keep Holy the Sabbath Day" for
2500 years later. All the round about arguments, and bush beatin0
that the Sabbath was in the "law of God;' and where there is lI no law
there is no trans.:;ression il , and since people were called sinners be­
fore Sinai, therefore the Sabbath was before the civing of the law,
would put the Sabbath before Eden, because it is said of the angels
that they ilsinned" (11 Pet.2:4). If the commandment ex.ists before
(Ex..20:8) as an imposition upon anyone "to remember the Sabbath Da:y,
to keep it Ho~, then please send it to me.
Now by reading (Ex. 20:11 ) and comparing with (Gen.2:3) we dis­
cover why God "ble ssed" and "sanctified" the seventh day, but we wi 11
have to go farther to determine the significance of Israel's obser­
vance of it. Let us see: IISix days shalt thou ]a bar, and do all thy
work: but the Seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God~ in it
thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy
manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that
is within thy gates: (why?) For in six days the Lord made heaven and
earth J the sea, and all that in them is, and, rested the seventh day:
wherefore (because of these things) the Lord blessed the Sabbath Day,
and hallowed it." (Ex.20:9-11). Again we ask, did God "bless" and
"sanctif"yi/ the day when or while he was resting? The Bible answers
that he did not foratthe timehe i1blessed" and IIsanctifiedil that
day it was said tha t his rest was pas~ as affirmed by the "Jords Jlbe­
cause that in it he had rested" (Gen. : ) . /Ie learn that the reason
.. 14 ..
God gives for the lIblessing" and " sanc tifyin,:i1 of the seventh day
therefore 1s, "Because --he had rested" on ,that day. But that is not
THE REASON ISRael' was to keep it, for God ~imself never rested for
tha treason a3ain. God told Moses, "Behold, I will rain bread from
heaven for you: and the people ~_l go ~~ and ¥ather a certain rate
every day, that I may prove them, whether they Wlll walk in my law,
or no. And it shall come to pass, that on the six~~a.l: they shall
prepare that which they brin2 in, and it shall be tWlce as much as
they gather daily.~ •• And it came to pass that on the sIxth da~ they
ga thered twice as much bread •••• And all the rulers of t he con~rec;a­
tion came and told Moses, and he said unto them, This is that which
tile Lord hath said, (what had the Lord sid? liOn the sixth day--i t
shall be twice as much as they eather dailyll) (Ex. 16:4-5). Why was
this done? "That I mi::ht prove them". How did this prove them?
They had geen commanded to lI,'3ather of it every man according to his
eating!',(SX.16:16) no more.
i'Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto
Moses but some of them left of it (the daily portion) until the morn­
inc and it bred worms, and stank ll (Ex.16:20). Knowinc therefore that
to gather more than the daily requirements, was lito have nothing over"
for the simple reason that it spoiled, yet when commanded to gather
twice as much as the daily reqUirement , on the sixth day, they obeyed,
and concerning this, t;iIoses said 'IThis is that which the Lord hath
said" (23). Now Moses continues, by acquainting the pe-ople with the
purpose of the com:aand, after, and not before they had obeyed the
cOl1lLlland to :~ather iltwice as much bread ll on i'the sixth day. II "Tomorrmw
is the rest of t he HoI:: Sabbath unto the Lord: bake that which ye
will bake today---and that which remaineth over lay up for you to be
kept until the mornins" (Ex.16:23). Remember that when they left my
before it had spoiled. II And they 1 aid it up til the morning as· Moses
bade: and it did not stink, neither was there any worms therein. And
Moses said Eat that today; for today is a Sabbath unto the Lord"
(Ex.16:24-25).
Now notice, lI an d it came to pass, that there went
out some of the people on t he seventh da./ for to cather but they found
none" (Ex.16:27). "And the Lord said unto f.1oses~ How long refuse ye
to keep my commandments and my laws '1 11 ( 28) •
The people learned by demonstration that their eating depended
upon oljedience, therefore we have these words, "See for that the Lord
hath given. you the Sabbath ••.• So the people restea-on the Seventh
Day II (29-30). The word "SEE" cnallen,:es consideration of the circum­
stances under which lithe Lord hath given you the Sabbath ll , for the
adverb "SO" indicates that this was the manner in which the IISabbath
was given. II These circumstances ne'Ter obtained prior to this occasim,
therefore the manner in which the Sabbath was here Liven could not,
have obtained prior to this occasion.
In (Deut. 5:12) we read'these words "keep the Sabbath Day to
sanctify it, as the Lord thy God commanded thee. II 1.Vhere was the
commandment? (Exo.16:29-30). Now why were tney to keep this day?
lIAnd remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and the
Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand, and by a
stretched out arm: 'fHJ:REF0liE the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep
the Sabbath Day" (Deut. 5:15). VlJhere is this found? Right inthe
middle of that II which he wrote in two tables of stone II (Deut.5:22).
V41at was it? "His covenant which he commanded you to perform, even
ten commandments and he wrote them on two tables of stonel! (Deut.4:13).
- 15 ­
With whom did God make this covenant?
"The Lord our God made a
covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord made not this covenant with our
.fathers.&, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day"
(De~~:2-3). Then from verse 6-21 we have named the ten command­
ments, then Moses says "These wo ros the Lord spake unto all your
assembly ••• and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of
stone and delivered them unto me. 1I (Deut.5:22). Notice: "He made not
this covenant with our fathers". Notice, confirma.tion of this in
(Deut. 4:32) rlAsk now of the days that are past, which were before
thee, since the day that God created man upon the earth, and ask from
the one side of heaven unto the other, whither any such thing as 3reat
as this thin3 is, or hath been heard like it?lI What is the answer?
No. "The covenant of thy fathers" (:)eut.4:)1) is not the covenant God
made at Horeb, for "The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers l1 •
Paul tells us that 11 the covenant that was confirmed before of :rod in
Christ, the law which was 430 years after cannot disannul" (Gal.):17).
If, as PauL""says J lI~law" was Lt30 years aft~~~~_~~venantII made
with Abraham, one can see why he ref~rred to it as having been "added"
tOal-:)":21). 'rhe same text says "til the seed should come. II "The-raw
was added" 1~30 years after the covenant confirmed to ."..braham" (Gal.): 17) .
lilt came to pass at the end of the 4)0 years, even the self same d~y
it came to ra ss, that all the hosts of the Lord went out from the
Land of Egypt. "(Ex.12:Lt-l) • God delivered Israel from :egypt by reason
of IIhis covenant wi th'..braham, with Isaac, and with Jacob'l (SX. 2: 24) •
Here is the promise to Jacob, "I am God, the God of thy Father:. feaa'
not to ~o down into Sgypt; for I will there make of thee a great
nation: I will go down with thee into Egypt, and I will also surely
brin0 thee up asain i' (Gen.46:3-4). The covenant made with the nation
after it was brought out of bondaJe, was not the covenant made with
the fathers, by which they were brou~ht out. Directly affirmed by
the word of God: concerning the "Covenant at Horeb", inclusive of
"the Holy Sabbath'f of course, it is written I/Thou (the Lord) camest
down also upon Mt. Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and g~vest
them ri.:)1t judgments, true laws, good statutes, and commandments: and
madest known unto them the Holy Sabbath•••• (through whom?) •••• Moses
thy servant" (Neh.9:]J -14). He didnft do this in Eden, nor Mesopo­
tamia, nor Bethel, but "Sinai", not made knownto, nor by, Adam, Enoch,
Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Nor Jacob but I'Moses m servant. 1I Not made with
"the fathers ll but with II US II Israel, IIbrough out of Egypt ll , not eternal,
butlfadded ll , not for ever, but "until the seed should come. II Not kept
by Israel as a sign or memorial of creation, but of their deliverance
from Egypt: Not a si3n of a covenant of univers&l application, but
them "he caused to go forth out of the land of Sgypt ll (Eze.20:10).
"The Seed of Jacob ••• in the land of Egypt ll (Ex.20:5) after whose de­
liverance he II gave them my Sabbaths, to be a sien between me a:rl thee"
(Eze. 20:12). Therefore to the children of Israel Moses was commanded
to speak IIVerily my Sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between
me and you throushout your 2enerations ••• ye shall keep the Sabbath _
therefore, for it is holy unto you ••• Vfuerefore the children of Israel
shall keep the Sabbath .•• it is a si3n between me and the children of
Israel for ever" (Ex.31:13,14,17).
t
... 16 ­
v
"A
Siern
For Ever"
--_Q_---~_._
.­
We will study now this covenant and its si2n further, as well
as the significance of the vo rds 'fa si::n ••• for ever. II ilHe shall
keep the Sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: everyone that
defileth it shall surely be put to death. I I . Since, by many, it is
contended that this is "God's law" in contradistinction to IIMoses
law" let us pause here to quote (Heb.lO:28) "He that despised Moses
law died without mercy under two or three witnesses," Why? Because
IIMoses' law" was "God's law". f·.10ses had no law, either in the sense
of orieinatin~ from him, or in the sense of bein2 possessed by him,
Moses wrote what God told him to write, thus ltThe law was ~~!; by
Mo s e s" (Jno.l: 1 7 ) •
Now to continue with the quotation: liThe children of Israel
shall keep the Sabb'ath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their genera­
tions, for a perpetual covenant." lilt is a sign between me and the
children of Israel for ever ••• and he 3ave unto Moses, when he had
made an end of communing with him upon Mount Sinai two tabms . of
testimony, tables of stone, written wi th the fin;3er of God. 11 I wm t
us to notice especially the words "throuehout their generations" ••
lI a r-e rpetual covenant",
and "a si::;n between me and t he children of
Israel fOl ever." IIA perpetual covenan~ with whom? Israel, How
long? llthroughout their r'enerations"
Why? because it is a II s io-n
Qetweenme and thecE.1.Id~n of Israel for ever."
That is, it=rwll
never be a sign between me and snyother nation. As long as Israel
was in covenant relationship with Jod, the Sabbath would be "as a
sizn between God and I rael, of that covenant."
If it be contended
that the mrds "perpetual" and "for ever" and "throu3hout ~Tour .::::ene­
rations" show the Sabbath to be ceaseless, apart from Israel, then
look at the same words as applied to the Passover, "ye shall keep it
a feast to the Lord throughout ~our ~enerations; ye shall keep it a
feast by an ordinance for ever" (Ex.12:14). Notice a::::ain, as applied
to II incense II. "A perpetua,l-IIicense before the Lord throuzhout your
~enerations" (SX.30:8).
Divorce the word IIfor ever", "Perpetual",
and i'throuehout your generations i ! , from Israel, the nation wi th which
God made the covenant, wherein the Sabbath is found, and we would
have perpetuated on the same premises "the burnt offerin,ss" (Ex.29=42)
"Atonement 11 (2X.)O:lO) "Washing'of hands anJ feet" (::X.)0:21) "First
fruits II (Lev. 23: 13) "meat offerines ji (Lev. 6: 18) 1I 0 il for lamps"
(Lev.24:) "frin.::::es ll (Num.15:38) IIPentecost ll (Lev.23:21) "feast of
tabernacles" (Lev.23:41) "Anointinz" (Ex.4o:15) "Sweet Savour Offering ll
(Lev.):17) and one could multiply similar texts, but in all the above
we have the exactly the same words used to indicate the continuance
of the Sabbath, as a si 0 n of a covenant eXistine between God and
Israel. David said "He (God) showed his Word unto Jacob, his statutes
and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dwelt so with my nation:
and as for his jUdgments they (that is any other nation) have not
known them" (Ps .147: 19-20) • "The Lord came from Sinai ••• from litis
ri:ht hand went a fiery law for them (whom?) ••• the consregation
of Jacob il (Deut.33:2- 4). It is true tc1.at God"chose Abram •• and
made a covenant with him" (Neh.9:7-8), but it was not the covenant
tha t God mad 0 with "his Seed". God I s word says, liMo ses calle d all
Israel ••• The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The
Lord made not this covenant with our fathers" (Deut.5:2-3) and in
.. 17 ­
verse 12, ri0ht in the middle of thi~ covenant, we find these words
"keep the Sabbath day. It This covenant made at Sinai wi th Abraham's
ilseed ll . was "added ll to a covena.nt they already had when they went into
Egypt, and could not, so Paul says, t1disannulil lithe covenant, that
was confirmed before of God in Christ .•• by 430 years II (Gal. 3: 17) •
Why? "It was added because ot trans.:;ressions, till the seed should
come" (19). This "ministration of death writt"8"lland engraven in
stones ••• was done away ••• abolished lf (11 Cor-:):7,11,13).
It is supposed that (Ps.lll:5,8,9) refers to "the ten command­
ments." It reads as follows, liRe will ever be mindful of his cove­
nant •• all his commandments are sure. They stand fast for ever and
ever ••• Re sent redemption unto his people: He co~nanded his covenant
for ever." We ask this simple question; where was Israel when God
"sent redemption unto his people?" When they were in Sgypt of course,
Exactly the same word translated "redemption" in (Ps.lll:9) is trans­
lated "division" in (Ex.8:23) as follows "I will put a division (a
redemption) between my peoplEl (Israel) and thy people (Egypt)."
Why did God do this? "God remembered his covenant with Abrah!:>m,
with Isaac, and with Jacob, and God looked upon the children of Israel
and God had respect unto them" (Ex. 2: 24-25).
Now let us see when
that covenant was confirmed. In (Ps.105:6,8,9,10,l2,23,26,37,42,4.3)
"0 Ye Seed of .\braham his servant, ye children of Jacob his chosen ••
~e hath remembered his covenarlt for ever, the Word Which he commanded
to a thousand generations, which covenant he made with ~braham and
his oath unto Isaac, and confirmed the same unto Jacob for a ~w, and
to Israel for an everlasting covenant." When did God do this? "When
they were but few men in numberj yea, very few, and stran~ers in it
(the land) ••• Israel also came into Jeypt, and Jacob sojourned in the
land of Ham ••• He (God) sent Moses ••• he brou~ht them forth ••• for he
remembered his holy promise and Abraham his servant. ~nd He brou~ht
forth his people with joy, and his chosen with gladness." Cuuld a
ten Jear old child fail to see that "the covenant" which God remem­
bered and upon the basis of which, ~ccordine to promise, he brou2ht
Israel "out of Eg~rpt", was the one made with Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob?, and possessed by the people, "few in number" who "came into
Egypt?"
And ,could that same ten year old child unless blindly sub­
servient to ecclesiastical exactions fail to see, that "the covenant"
the Lord God made with· Israel in Horeb was "not made with t he fathers"
(Deut.5:2-3) and was therefore not the covenant which God remembered,
and by reason thereof delivered Israel from Egypt? Israel ~ de­
livered from Egypt on the basis of the covenant she had when she
went "into Egypt", but her brief sojournings in the land of Caanan
was on the basis of a covenant not made with "the fathers", which
they accepted at Sinai, as Jeremiah says in (Jer.3l:3l-32) "Behold
the days come, saith the Lord, t~ I will make a new covenant with
the Rouse of Isr~e~, and with the House of Judah: not accordin3 to
the covenant I made with their fathers in the day that I took them
by the hand to brine them out of the lana or Egypt; which my covenant
they brake". This covenant which Israel brake was not the covenant
God confir.med to Jacob, but the covenant Israel accepted at Horeb.
1I~'\11 the souls of the house of Jacob which came into Eg:lI'_~ were three
score and ten (70 people)"'Gen.46:27). Now when God dEilTVered his
seed, he did so by redemption, therefore the covenant was the d cove ­
nant of redemption ll by which Israel was delivered from the death
anr;el"in Egypt" (Ex.l2:l2-l3) and out of the hands of the Sr.r tians
in (Ex.14:30) from Egypt, but the covenan 0
aw at S na was never
made with my of the "Fathers ll , but with "tho seed ll that came out d
.......
- 18 ­
Egypt. liThe everlastin;: covenant" (Heb.13: 20) ratified by the IIblood
of Christ," upon the basis of which "the promise is sure to all the
seed" (Rom.4:16) and of which Christ "is suretyll (Heb.7:22) was that
of which ".o\braham before the law, David durin$ the lE!w, Paul since
the law, predicated their salvation (Rom.4:3,o,24).
.
Now back to the Sabbath as a sisn of the covenant God made with
Israel at Sinai, and which wms to be "observed throu.7,hout their r;en­
erations" (Ex.31:16). Let us study a few minutes these words "Their
~nerationslf. Paul said concernin.:: his "kinsmen accordinG to the flesh:
who arc Israelites ••• of the law •• and of whom as concerninG the flesh
Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever•.\men u (Rom.9:3,4,$).
llTheyll, he said, IIVVhich are the children of the flesh, these are not
the children of God: but the children of the ¥romise are counted for
the seed" (Rom.9:8) upon the basis of which If he Gentiles have attained
to righteousness, even the ri2hteousness which is of faith ll (30).
Therefore, that generation of the flesh which brou$ht Christ, as ~o
his humani t./, into the world, was in the reckonin~ of:J-od the last,
now "if any man be in Christ he is a new creation." (11 Cor.$:17).
Yvherefore he said, "henceforth know we no man after the fIe sh l' (16).
This Christ himself tau,:ht, when it was reported to him "thy mother
and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee"(Matt.l2:47)
These were his fleshly relations, and Christ clearly teaches that the
next generation would rest on a different foundation, as his answer
reveals--"Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?, and he stretched
forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and
my brethren. For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is
in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother ll (48-50).
It was with reference to this that the Psalmist, when in view of the
sacrifice of Calvary said, IIA Seed shall serve him, it shall be counted
for a generation" (Ps.22:30)-and in view of the 3enearogy of ChrIst in
(Ma'ft.l:1-11) where it is traced from .__braham the Father of the nation
that brou~ht Jesus into the world~ "unto Christ" •• "the first born son"
of Mary, a generation remains to be accounted for, for it is said that
there are 42 generations from "Abraham unto Christ", but there are
only 41 to be found, unless upon a new principle of relationship
another generation can be accounted for, and this is exactly what we
find. "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God"
(1 Jno.S:l). The other generations were not dependent on this, but
rested on a fleshly basis. It is with reference to this forty second
gener~tion th~ Christ alluded in his statement concerning his mother
and brethren after the flesh as quoted from (Matt.12:47-50). That
generation was the last after the flesh, therefore when Moses said
that the "Sabbath was a si..::;n of the covenant God made wi th Israel
thr01~ghout their genera t_ions., it would of necessi t~T cease wi th the
~t of those Generations, which we have shown ended wi th the first
comine of Christ at his death, for Christ was known after the flesh,
until his death as the scripture shows. Let us read itj "He died for
all ••• and rose ag~in. Wnerefore henceforth (that is beyond th~ time)
know we no man after the flesh (fleshly genealogies) yea though we
have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth (beyond his
death) know we him no morel! (11 Cor.5:15-16). The margin reads,
i1know we him so no more" J that is after the fIe she Why? for our
relationship to him as believers was established by the second birth,
that is by beinG "born again" (Jno.3:3). So much for the YO rds
I/throughout your generations." Of what was it a si2n? (Deut.5:lS).
It was a sign of ~Sraels' deliverance from Egyptian bondage.
- 19 ...
VI
"Ih~_:e~e.s.e.~ ~
Saboa tismos" (1)
"If Joshua had ,siven ~hem rest, he would not have spol·wn after..
ward of another dayl There remaineth therefore a Sabbath-rest for
the people of God. For he th~ is entered into his rest hath himself
also rested from his work, as God did from his. Lot us therefore give
diligence to enter into that rest II (Heb. Lp 8-11).
This is the first of three chapters to show why we keepthe First
Dfil__Of the week, instead ofthe Seventh Day. We haveshown in previous
c apters that tho Seventh Day Sabbath, was a si.::;n as the Lord sai d,
IIbetween me and tho children of Iarael ll (2X.31:17) and was a memorial
of Israels' deliverance from J6yptian bondage as affirmed in the cove­
nant made with Israel at Horeb, not made with the Fathers.
The day (Sabbath) itself was a memorial to Israel of their de­
liverance from Egypt, and its prosp3 ct was "rest" in eaanan. The
statement in our text, "If Joshua had 3iven them rest ll refers not to
the. day, for it was not Joshuas' responsibility to give the day, God
ned already done that through Moses, the mediator of the covenant of
which it was a sign. The word translated "rest" is from the greek
KATAPAUSIN, and it may be used as a synonym for IISABBATON", since
it also -means Jlrest. II But SABBATON doos not necessari:LJ mean the
Seventh Day sabbath, as we shall prove. In order to determine that
it is the Seventh Day Sabbath, it would of necessity be modified by
"HEBDOMOS", Seventh. The rest which Joshua did not 2i ve the children
of Israel ~s stated in our-re.xt, was not the hebdomadal Sabbath, but
the rest of which it was the shadow. Over 400 years later, David was
sa~rine to Israel, "Today if' you will hear his voice harden not ~rour
hearts as in the provocation etc." (Ps.95:7) • .\nd then he referred
to the past generations of whom God said "I sware in my wrath that
they should not enter into my rest" ( 11 ) and declared the failure
was due to Israel's wickedness-rn-verses (9-l0). What rest was this?
The rest of which the Seventh Da7 Sabbath was a type.
The wri tar of our text refers to David's day as follows, "Aeain
he (God) limiteth a certain day (certainly not the seventh day Sab­
bath) saying in DaVid, Today, after so lonG a time (400 years from
Joshua's day), as it is said, !oday if ye will hear his voice, harden
not your hearts il (Heb.4:7). This ~ay' was spoken of because Joshua
had faile d in his day to .:;1 ve the rest II to which referenc.e is ra­
pea tedly made. On the same principle ., It remaineth that some mus t
enter therein il (6). We have learned that all who entered not in
failed lIbecause of unbelief" (H~b •.J:19). In the day of which the
writer speaks be;,Tond Joshua and DaVid, it is said "we which have be­
lieved do enter into rest ll (Heb.4:,3)
If this rest is the Seventh
Day Sabbath, then one of two th:'_ngs is true; First, "all who enter into
it, th~ is of course keep it, nre believers, or none are believers
who fail to keep it. No man on earth will affirm either to be true.
The word uniformly translated II rest II is from the greek "KAT APO~V' a"
wi th one exception, and that i 9 found in (::-Ieb. L~: 9) and is from the
word"SABBATISMOS". It does not mean sinply "rest", as does "SABBATON lf
or "KATAPOWSIS", but it means I'The keeping of a rest." It implies
that the responsibility so to do rests upon them who IIbelieve", and
who enter into that rest of which it is a t~~e until the ante type.
- 20 ­
the heavenly rests shall be a blessed reality. It is a day, a speci­
fic day, a da: of time, and we shall identify it in another chapter,
and show why it cannot be the Seventh DaJ Sabbath, and why it is the
First Day of the week.
Now let us go on with the text under consideration: Neither
Joshua nor David cave Israel rest, of which the Seventh Day Sabbath
was a type. The significance of this will be brought out in connection
wi th tile discussion of t he present day "SABBATISMOS". Christ, however .•
does for the believer what Joshua and David failed to do.
"For he
th~ is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works,
as God did from his." (Heb.4:10).
It is sometimes supposed that the
pronoun Jlhe" of this text refers to the believer, but it is an unsup­
portable supposition, that even ignorance cannot justify. Imagine
the gall t:lat would compare the "works" of the believer, wi th the
"works" of the God of creation. The I'works fl in ~uestion are the works
of Christ, which he finished on our behalf and to the glory of the
Fath0r. Notice the words of verse 4, HGod did rest the seventh day
from all his works ll • Now compare verse 10, "He hath also ceased from
his own works, as God did from his." Who could fail to see that the
comparison is between two divine works, that of "creation", and that
of II re demption". Let us see, Christ said limy meat is to do the will of
him that sent me and to finish his work" (Jno.4:34). On the cross
Christ said, "It is finished tl {Jno.19:30) and a2ain in (Jno.17:4)
"I have finished the work which thou .:::avest mo to do." }Tow notice,
"My Father worketh hitherto and I work d (Jno.5:17). A.:;ain, i l l must
work the works of him that sent mc" (Jno.):l:) and on the·cross "he
finished the work" and "when he had by himself pur.:;ed our sins, sat
down on the right hand of God" (Heb.l:3) IIfrom henceforth expecting
till his enemies be made his footstool" (Heb.lO:13). Jesus .I cn.tered
InfO that within the vail" (Heb.6:19) unto whom we come, for his
promise "come unto me and I will ,:ive :rou rest ll (Matt.ll:2B). There­
fore Christ coased from his work, when he naa-finished them, entered
in, and sat down, in anticipation of the answerto his pra:rer based
upon tha t finishod work as recorded in (Jno .17: 24)
"Father I will
that they also, whom thou gavest me, be with me where I am, that they
may behold my elory.ll This is the rest of which the present SAB­
BATISMOS is the type and shall be fulfilled when (Jno.14:3) occurs,
"If I ~o and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive
you unto myself, tha(t where I am, there ye may be also.'· That is the
fulfillment of all that the ItSabbatismos1il typically anticipates.
The rest was never given under the covenant made with Israel at
Horeb, as-rne scriptures testify in Joshua and David, but the Seventh
Day Sabbath was ziven.
That Sa?bath lasted from Horeb to the cross o
We will show why in the next chapter, and why it would be without
siznificance now. Yet Christ said "Gome unto me, all ye that labor
and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest (which Joshua and David
failed to do). Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me, for I am mec}c
and lowly in heart, and ye shall find re~t unto "ou~ ~Q.ulJl. For my
yoke is easy, and my burden is li,',?;ht il (Matt.ll:2tr=29T.'\.~ain, 'iRis
commandments are not .zrievous" (l Jno.5:3). Lot us now contrast tl1 l _s
lanGuage wi th that descriptive of the poople under the law as used ',y
Peter. "Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the nec~':
of the disciples which nei ther our fa thors nor we were able to bea:::>;;
U~.cts 15:10).
The Pharisees had tried to bind "the law of Moses"
(5) called in (24) .Ithe law" upon tho believers, concernins which tho
- 21 ­
the apostles said "we gave no such commandment" (24). Tbe metaphy­
sical distinction between the different aspects of the law as a cove­
nant between God ~nd Israel, does not exist in God l s Word, but only in
the minds of men who imagine vhere they ou~ht to consider. Under the
Old Covenant which was inclusive of the Seventh Day Sabbath, Joshua
aTa-not zive Israel rest, under tho same covenant, David did not ~ive
them rest. And on the basis of that covenant no being ever haa had
"rest". The work which Christ finished on the cross is the basis of
"the rest ll which Christ promised in (Matt.ll:28-30). This is the
ilrest" found only in redemption, as we walk b~T fai th looking forward
to IlRis res til that shall be " 3 1 or ious ,I (Isa .11: 10) • .
VIr
"Tl'!,f!. Present Sabbatismos" (2)
We shall now provo that the "Sabbatismos" of (Heb.4:9) is not
the seventh day, but the first day of the week. The fact that Sunday
was a day dedicated to ~un worship, has no more to do with the subject
than the fact that the Seventh Day, is called Satur:iay out of respect
for "the god of ac;ricul ture i i , in greek mytholoe;y. The ten commandments
were never, as a covenant of which the Seventh Day Sabbath was a sign,
imposed on any other people than Israel, and obedience to this covenant
would be no more than rlour ri:hteousness" (Deut.6:25). This Paul af­
firms in (Phil.3:9). It never saved anyone. Israel was not delivered
from Egypt because of it. It was not dosi3ned to save, therefore it
could not, it did not, it never will give d res t. f1 This Christ alone
does upon the basis of His redemptive work, and upon this work "wo
that believe do enter into rost ll •
A.nd in remembrance of that work, we
are "keeping a Sabbath l ! (the LordI s Day) which also looks forward to
the Ilrest ll , glorious in natur~,. heavenly in prosRe..ct, but it is not
the Seventh Da~· Sabbath, sign of a covenant,never made With any nation
other than Israel.
"There remaineth therefore a Sabbath-re~t for the people of God"
(Heb.4:9). As pointed out, the words "Sabbath-rest it , are from the
greek verbe.ll.noun, which being Ii teralJ translated is "sabbath-keeping".
Now let it be understood, we do not believe God chan 0 ed the Seventh
Day Sabbath.
we do be1ieve, however, that that day as a "sient! of
the old Oovenant, ceased at the cross with ~ll other; types, figures,
patterns, and shadows, which tocether for.med the covenant ~iven to
Israel "at Horeb", never existing as such prior to that time, and was
~pecificly " a dded because of transer-ession, till the seed should come ••
but after that faith is como We are no lon:;er Under a schoolmaster"
(Gal.3:l2,25). Paul said 'tthe law was our schoolmaster to brins us
unto Christ ll (24). liThe law is not of fai th ll (12) and Paul said of
them who "wero alive unto God throu~h Jesus Christ ••• ye are not under
the law, but under gracei! (Rom.6:11,14). When Paul said llbut after
that faith is come" in (Oal.3:25> he did not refer to personal belief
in testimony, but rather to the testimony of faith, by which believers
"walk" (II Cor.S: 7) and for which they "earnestly contend ll (Jude 3).
It is the standard in the New Testament by which a thin,:: is oranded
as "sinu (Rom.14:23) or ilri3hteousnessll (Rom.6:18). The law as "a
covenant", consisted of precepts, ei ther moral, civil, or ceremonLll
in nature. But no one set of the precepts of a kind constituted t~~Ll..;
covenant, rather thecovenant consisted of them all. Whatever pre··
- 22 ­
cept, moral in nature J Gxisted prior to the Sinaitic a:reement, could
not be called "the covenant", and it i3 just as trou that any moral
precept that existed during the Sinaitic covenant, and remains in
force, this side of the cross, could not be called ('the covenant ll ,
for the simple reason that the covenant made with Israel at Horeb
consisted as Moses said of "all the comrnandments Jl (Dout.ll:8). It
is one thin: for a moral precept, prohibitory in nature, to be in
forcoj but it is qui te another thins to contend that a Ilcovenantll of
which it was but a sin~le item must also be in force by reason there­
of. Now the writer of Hebrews says, "The Priesthood being changed,
there is made of necessi ty a change al so of the law" (Heb. 7: 12) •
ljow Christ lIis the mediator of a be;tter covenant, which was establishe(
upon better pr'omises" (Heb.S:6L but this 1tbetter covenant" is con­
trasted to lithe covenant that I made with their fathera' in the day
when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt"
(9). Then we read in verse (13), .Iin that he saith a new covenant, he
ha th made the firs t old. II Paul speaks of it as ii tha t Which is done
~watl (11 Cor.3:11) "that which is abolished" (13) and which was
wrJ.tten and en3raven in stones Jl l71. _'-nd
said of the preachers
of "the glorious gospel of Christ ••• we are able ministers of the
New Testament" (6) II no t of the letter" which is another expression
for "the law" and so used by Paul in (Rom.7:6). That the law there
referreato, is inclusive of the ten commandmeni;s, he quotes them (7).
Now if God for some reason has seen fit to abolish the Seventh Da:r
Sabbath, and yet continues to condemn coveteousncss or murder or ly­
ing, or stealin3 or any other immoral act, as he repeatedly docs
throughout the New Tostament, by a specifically prohibitive co~nand­
mcnt, should it be considered any less bindin.s because not considered
as a part of f'the covenant" made wi th Israel? If as Gods 'Nord says
"there must be a chan~e of the lawil, whore should one ':;0 in ordor to
determine, how much, if any,of it remains bindin~ after tho chan:e.
Should we examine that in ezistence bofore the chan.se or after the
chance? Intelligence will venture but one reply.
ne
The priest II call e ct after the order of Aa.ron 1t (Heb. 7: 11) could
only I'serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly thin~s" (8:.5) ::md
they continued until "tho veil of the temple was rent" (Matt.27:51)
at Christs l death. Until then, The Hi;:::h Priest alone entered "the
type of the Heavenly", signifying that the way into the holiest of
all was not yet made manifest, while as yet the first tabernacle was
yet standing" (Heb.9:7-9). After the rendins of tho vail, Christ
alone entored into the heavenlies, of which the e~thly tabernacle
was but thG type. He has "entered into that wi thin the veil ..• oven
Jesus" (Heb.6:l9-20). And the writer of Hebrews now says, "Having
therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood
of Jesus, by a new and living way which he hath consecrated for us
through the veil, that is to say his flesh •• {who?) •• Jesus •• the High
Priest over the house of God" (Heb.lO:19-2l). After the death of
Christ, no earthly priest ever went into the most Holy placo on earth,
with the approbation of heaven, and with the chan0 e of the priest­
hood there was also a change of ~h~-law.
I simply refer to these
thines in order to estaorish the time-eTement in relation to tho
Sabbath. Let us consider (Col.~:14,16Il7), IlBlottinc; out the hand­
writing of ordinances that was against us which was contr~ry to UBI
and took it out of the way, nailine it to his cross."
Notice the
Ilhandwri tinG of ordinances· 1 is considered as a covenant being indi­
cated by the sinzular pronoun "it ll Dound twice in this, verso. Thus
- 23 ­
it is always considered, when in contrast to lithe new covenant".
That is simply "a covenant." Now to continu0 with verse (16-17),
"Let no man judc;e you in meat or in drink, or in respect of an ~OlY
day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days: which are a sha ow
of thin::s to come; but the body is of Christ.l! The words here trans­
lated "Sabbath Days" is translatec1 l!Sabbath Dayl! in the revised version
However, the words arc interchangably used for the weekly seventh day
Sabbath as the followin;,; passa:.::,es prove: ilMy Sa bba ths (plural) shall
ye keep for it (singular) is a si2n between me and you" (Sx.31:13);.
rlK..:ep my Sabbaths ll (Lev.19:3: "Beside the Sabbaths (plural) of the
Lord ll (Lov.23:38~ l!Blessed is the man •. that koepeth the Sabbath •••
the eunuchs that keep my Sabbaths i (Isa.56:2,4); "I gave them my
Sabbaths to be as ien,r (Eze.20:12) ilO n the Sabbath Days (plural) the
pri.ests in tho temple profane the Sabbath (sin,:ular) (Natt.12:5); !tIt
is lawful to hoal on the Sabbath Jays?lI (10); "Tau,:ht them on the Sab­
bath ~aysll (Luke 4:31); "The Sabbath da~Ts reasoned with them" (.'\ct 17:2
"JI.,et no m3.n therefore jUdge you ••• '-.n respect of the Sabbath Days"
(Col.2:16). Not only is the same word used in (Col.2:16) that is used
in all the other texts where it admittedly has reference to the seventh
day Sabbath, but it is exactly the same word used in the fourth com­
mandment (Ex.20:10) for the seventh day Sabbath. The form of tho
word used in (Col.2:16) is often used elsE.,whGre whore thore is no
question as to which Sabbath reference is made: IIICindle no fire ••
upon the Sabbath :::>ay l'(:Zx.35:3); IIBeside the Sabbaths of the Lord l'
(Lev.23:38); "Every Sabbath he shall set it in ordor ll (Lov.24:8);
(Num.15:32) (Num.28:9) (Deut.5:12) (Isa.58:13) (Matt.28:1) (Luke 4:16)
(A~t 13:14) and then exactly the same word translated in (Col.2:16)
"Sabbath Days. II
The only word ever used in the Bible for the weekly
sabbath is the very one used by paul in (Col.2:16).
Now let us compare the enumeration of (Col.2:16) with other pas­
sases containin~ the same enumeration of days to determine if logic
demands the acceptance of the word "translated" Sabbath Days", as the
Seventh Day Sabbatns. In Numbers, chapter 28 & 29 we have the offer­
ings required for all the foast days •. In (Num.28:3-8), we have the
"daily offerings ll •
In (Nuro.28:8-l0) we have the "Sabba.th Day."
In (Num.28:11-15) we have the "bezinnin.:: of your months", and in
(Num.28:16-31) the "yearly offerings. Now notice. tho Lord says,
"These things ye shall do unto the Lord in your set foasts (daily,
weekly, monthly, and yoarly) beside your Vows and your free will of­
ferings, for your burnt offering, and for your meal offerings and for
your drink offerinGs, afld for your pOlIce offerin:.;s 11 (Num. 29: 39) •
What did he moan? Daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly days and thoir
offerin~s.
In exactly the same order we have the same days in
(1 Chron.23:30,31) (1) ileverl morninc •• lil{cwise at even ... (2) in the
Sabb8ths, in the (3) new moons, and on the (I:.) set foasts.'1
Daily,
we'JfTy,-monthly, ~nd yn'l:,}:r.ln (11 Chron. 2:4) the---saille eni:ID:o-r,l­
-rion;-'in thos8:'me ord:Gr;-\T) "MorninG and evenin2 •• (2) on tho Saob:.tth
.• (3) on tho new moons, and on (~.) the Solemn feas ts. II Daily, weekly,
montEl.y, ~roarly. Again in (11 Chron.8:1J) (1) ilevery day ••• on the
(2) Sabbath •. (3) and on tho new moons" U+) and on tho solemn foas ts. II
"Dflily, w(',ek12~ El9-nt~ and yuarly."
Again in (11 Chron.31:3)
;'Tne tl) morning and evenin~,•.• (2) tho Sabbaths ••• (J)the new moons ••
(Ll.) tho sot fensts, as it is writton IN THE L.'Lv OF TH2 LORD."
rho
s~mo lists are found in (Neh.10:33) (Eze.[t5:17) and in -(Hosea 2:11)
"I will also cause all her mirth to coaso, her el) foasts days, (2)
her new moons,
(J) her Sabbaths and (4) all her solemn foasts. 1I
Daily, we0kly, monthly, and yearly. And God said Iwdll cause them
- 24 ­
all to cease. Wo believe he did it at the cross. Paul said to the
churches of Galatia, !I ye observe (1) days, '1nd (2) months, and (3)
times, and (L~) years. lam afraid of you, lest I h:'1.ve bestowed 18.bor
upon you in vainl/ (Gal.4:10-ll). Here we h~ve tho Sabbath days, months,
ye2rs, Gnd Sabbaticnl years. Jut whore were they found. In (Gal.lt :21)
Paul asked, "tell me, ye that desire to be under tho law, do yo not
hear tho law?" Then in verse (24) he refers to the two covenants:
"tho one from the Mount Sinai which zendoreth to bondage, which is
Hagai:-r' In this coveri'"a-nt-6f-course the Iidays, months, times, and
yGars li nre found, tho obsorvins of which, after the cross, caused the
apostle to say, "I am afraid of you lest I have bestowed upon you
labor in vain ll (Gal.4:ll). Since these IIdays" etc., are in the cove­
nant "from Mount Sina.i i ' , let us soo about tho seventh day Sabbath in
this connection. Nehomiah said i1Thou camest down also upon Mount
Sinai •• and madost known unto them the holy Sabbath•.• by tho hand of
Moses th~ servant U (Neh.9:13-l4). Note also (Dcut.5:2,12,15) (Ex.3l:l3)
(Ex.3l:lo) (Deut.lO:3-L~), which as a covonant was "abolished at the
cross" (11 Cor.3:6,13). Thus ended the covenant of Sinai with its
sign, and the generation of the flosh.
"Therefore if any man be in
Christ he is a new creature (not of the flesh, but of God) old thin2s
are passed 3.way, Behold all things are become new." A. new relation­
ship, by a new birth, throu3h a now covenant, under a new Father. '
Thero is a new day, the morrow after the :abbath, dThe Lord's Dayl',
the first day of the week. In our next cha~ter we shall show why this
must bo true, and show that after the resurrection of Christ, no
chrIstian assembly ever met on t~e Seventh Day Sabbath to-!~rshiE and
identify the da:,r W~'1ich ,\ tho Lord h3. thnnde 11 for th3.t purpose.
VIII
liThe Present Sabba tismos_'~l
IIThen tho s:uno day at evenine, beinc the first day of the week •••
Jesus 2nd stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto
you ••• Then were tho disciples 2:1ad, whun thoy saw the Lord ll (Jno.20~.
c~o
'Ne s,(lall not concern ourselves with the testimony of post apostoli<
history, although the un~~mity of its voice in favor of the proposi­
tion is overwhelming. While pa~anistic pressure produced many warped
relizious ideas during the patristical era, they had,however, sense
enough t9 know what day they kept, and that day was the i1first dg,y of
tho weekI! ~ecause on it Christ arose from tho dead. We will not,
however, rely on their reasoning, preferring God'S Word to all human
testimony. There is not a single statoment, no not so much as a hint,
that the institution called in the New Testament, the church, ever
met on the seventh day Sabbath to worship God, after the re surrec tion
of Christ. We shall est~blish this as a reasonable fact, and also
as a declared fact.
The seventh Day sabb~th in tho Old Testqment was mn.de known unto
a people, who had been delivered in a twofold sense, and who antici­
pated a third deliverance as typified b~r the day which they were com­
manded to keep. In their bonda:::c it is said IIGod hoard their groan­
in..::s ::md God remembered his covenant wi th :\braham, wi t:~ Isaq.c, ::md
with J2cob 1t (:::x.2:2LI.). Now in that covenant Sod had said, " a ll the
land which thou sees t, to thoe will I give it and to thy seed for
over" (Gen.13:15). In (Gen.15:l8) God c3.1led this "a covenant with
Abram.
11
In verse 1), God said "thy sood shall be a stranger in a
- 25 ­
land that is not theirs ••• that nation will I judge: and afterward
shall they (thy seed) come out ll (Gon~15:13-14). This covenant was
confirmed in (Gen.17:7-8) ~nd again in Isaac in (Gen.17:17,21) and
finally in Jacob (Gcn.46:2-3) where it is said, III will bring thee up
again." Now when Israel had been broueht lI ou t of tho land of Egypt"
God said, "ye have seen what I did unto the Eeyptians, and how I bare
you on E~.:;;les win3s, and brou.:;ht you unto myself "(Ex.19:4). In do­
in,: so God said he had "kept the oath which he had sworn unto your
Fathers", and derscribed that as being fulfilled in the fact toot,
litho Lord ,hath brou~ht you out wi th a mighty hand and redeemed JTou out
of tho house of bondaeoil (Dout.7:8)i
Now in view of this twofold deliverance (1) from the death angel
in EeYPt, and (2) from tho hands of the EeYPtians at the Red Sea, God
gave Israel a day on which they were to rest in commoration of that
deli verance. I quote, "Remember th::lt thou was t a scrV8.nt in the land
of Egypt, and thmt the Lord €fiy God brought thee out thence through
a miehty hana, and by a stretchod out arm: THEREFORE, the Lord thy
God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath Day," wfiicfi was, as ¥erse 14
says, lithe seventh day." A child can see that t his day was commora­
tive of a twofold deliverance, both of which therefore had beon ef­
fected before tho day was given. The deliverance from tho doath
angel in Egypt was effected wherever the blood of the Paschal Lamb
was applied, and those thus delivered by blood, wore then delivered
by power, the exercising of Which wns SUbsequent to the previous
delivcrance'3.nd was from a different enomy, lithe hand of the Egyptians"
The Seventh Day Sabbath was commerative of this twofold deliver­
ance, and also anticipated the "rest~l, in Caanan, which Joshua failed
to give. No one can successfully deny this. We affirm that obsorvance
of that day now could not be in commeration of the twofold deliverance
effected through the death and resurrection of Christ, of which the
Paschal Lamb, and deliverance from "the hand of tho Egyptians", wero
but types. \Vhy? Because on the seventh day Sabbath, Christ lay a
corpse in a borrowed tomb, and his disciples cowered, a discouraged
and mourning band fulfilling the prophetic utterahce of Christ in
(Jno.16:20,22) where he said lI ye sh2.ll weep and lament, but the world
shall rejoice: and ye shall be sorrowfUl, but your sorrow shall be
turned into joy." Christ had said in verse 16, "a little while, and
ye shall riot see mo:, ••• Yc now therefore (durinG the little while in
tho 8rave} h~~e sorrow: but I will soc yoU a~ain, ~nd your hearts
shall rejbice, and your joy no man taketh from you. II This is des­
criptive of the disciples durinc the three days and ni3hts, in which
Jesus lay in the zrave. They "wept" as Mnry, or was "sad" as the
discipl es on the road to Emmaus, or "sorrowful" as WGre they all.
Imag~ne Momorializ-ing that lISovonth Day Sabbath. 1I
But "on the first day of the week", was finished, not the work
of reconciliation, that was finishod on the cross, but the work by
which those reconciled, rost secure in the promise IIbocause I live ye
shall live also" (Jno.14:l9). "He w~s offered for our offences, nnd
was raised a,3ain for our justification" (Rom.4:25). Paul said of all
who "were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, ••.• we shall be
saved by his life ll (Rom. 5: 10) • 11 If Chris t be not raised yo 'lre yet
in your sins" (1 Cor.15:l7). Thorefore "death" and "resurrection"
are both essentinl to bringing "many Sons to Glory", and the "rest"
of which our present "Sabbatismos" is but the forotnsto. Tho S3l1le
...
...
- 26 ­
God who dolivored Israel by blood, also brou:ht them out, and his
purpose was to brin: them into the l~nd. Therefore the Sabb~th of
the seventh day lookod back to tho twofold deliv0rance by blood and
power, 3.nd loolced forward to 3. rest the:T nevor obtained. The whole
transaction however was but typicll of our deliverance by lithe blood
of the lamb ll (Col.l:29) from the peno.lt:T of sin, 3nd by his resurrec­
tion power, from tho power of sin-{Hob-:-I"J:20-21) (Phil.4.13) ~nd the
rest in clary from the presence of sin, otern9.11y (Rev.14:13)(Rev.21:27
Again we say that observance of the seventh day Sabbath now would put
us between death ~nd resurrection, while in tho type it stood after
both, the paschal bmb, and Jehov~hslfi3htinE for them a:ainst the
Egyptians" (Ex.14: 25). Therefore since "the spirits of the prophets
are subject to the prophets'l and "God is not tho author of confusion
but of peacell(l Cor.14:32-33), seventh day Sabbath observance is an
achronistic misrepresentation of the types foreshadowing redemption,
therefore false and destructive in its implications. It perverts the
truth, makes Godls prophets contradict each other and is therefore
conclusive to infidelity.
lilt is not of faith" (Gnl .3:12) therefore
"sin" (Rom.14:23).
Now Hosea had prophesied the cessation of' "all .•• her Sabbaths"
(Hos.2:11) and David prophesied concerninG a d~y of rojoicin 0 in
which i'the stone which the builders refused is become the head stone
of the corner. This is tho Lordls Day; it is marvelous in our eyes.
This is the d~ which the Lord hath m3.do; we will ro joice and be
glc.d in it"'Ps.118:22-24).
Our text says ,Ion the first day of the
week ••• the disciplas wore ::l3.d w:10n the:, saw the Lord. ,I This wns the
day on which Jesus was "declared to be the Son of God with powor"
(Rom.l:4). This is a d8.J on which the resurrected Christ stood in the
midst of his disciples in resurrection ~ower. His first mootinc with
"them" was on tho "first day of the week. it His second moetin~ was
"after eizht days a;:ain ••• Jesus stood in the midst and snid, Peace be
unto you" (Jno.20:2o). This was "the first day of the weeki', as
similar terminology rolated to the d9.Y of' tho resurrection will show.
"The third day he S'hall rise 3.c;ain"(Matt.20:19) in (1 Cor.15:L~)
Paul said llHe arose aCl1.in tho third day", " a f'ter three days I will rise
acain" (Matt.27:63); "after three days rise a3ain" (lVlk.8:31). There­
fore to say lI a fter eie;ht days" is the same as "tho eighth day"; as
to say "the third day" is the same as " a f'ter three days." Therefore
the second appearing of Christ in the midst of his. disciples was "on
t1;lo first day of the weei:",
the day of his resurrection. In the ­
type the first day of the week was anticipatod as "tho eighth dayll,
the morrow after tho Sabbath" (Lev.23:11).
The d::q of Pentecost was
fifty days from the "day yo brought the sheaf of tho wave offering;
seven Sabbaths shall be complete; even the morrow after the Seventh
Sabb3.th shall ye number f'if'ty days" (Lcv.23:15-16). Thorefore the
day of Pentecost occurod on lIthe first day of the weeki', on which day
"they were all with one accord in one place" (Act 2:1) and they wore
there by commandment; "tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until yo be
endued wi th power from on hi,3h" (Luke 24:L~9). \l1Jhen was this done?
liOn the first d9-Y of the week ll , the day which tho Lord hath made,
the day on which he arose f'rom the dead", "The LordI s Day", ~nd so
observed by the church Christ built ever since. (1) The f'irst day of'
the week is a witness to the church of the resurrection of Christ
and Christians (2) Tho firs t day of t he week is the witness of redemp­
tion achieved. (3) The f'irst day of' the week is the memorial of' tho
bcginnins of the new crl..;ation of God. "This is the Day which the
~ 27 ­
Lord hath made" we will rejolee a.nd. be glad in it. 1I The stone which
the buildors refused iSbccome the head stone of the corner. This is
the Lord's'dolng; it is marvelous in our eyes" (Ps.118:2?). In 'the
words of another, "That marvelous doing is the lifting of the re- .
jected stone into the place of t he corner in the bUilding of God; and
as that is is resurrection, then the day is the day of resurrection;
as the resurrection day was the first day of the week, then this day'
the Lord hath "made", the day of nis marvelous doinS, is the' first day
of the week", and as the Lord hath made the day, as the Psalmist dis­
tinctl] states, and as wnatever the Lord makes is his, then this day,
this day of the raising up of the stone (for it had tO,be raised up
before it could become the head stone of the corner) this day is the
Lord's, Day; :\nd as the first day of t he week and the day of t he raising
up of the stone are identical, and this identical day is the first
day of the week" then the first day of the week is the Lord's Day,
and as the Psalmist sp8akine by the Spirit co~nands those Who love
the Lord to rejoice and be glad in it; and as a co~rr..nand tore joice
and be Blad in tha t day is the reco:;ni tion of t he day above all o'ther
days, then as the church stands for love to the Lord, it follows that
the church, every christian, is commandod to keGp the "first day of
the week ll as Itthe Lord's Day.1t
The Seventh Day Sabbath stands for, the ear th, flesh, man in sin,
man under the law,'man under doom, man under sentence of death, man
the sentenced criminal, bound up with the old creation on which is the
curse of God, a dead Christ. Death, nothins but death. But look at
the Lord's day, it stands for; heaven, Spirit.man in Christ, man a­
bove law, man in grace, man in life, man in the new creation, glory,
eternity of blessing.
Put the two days side by side and 101 the
grave of Christ is between them. The Seventh Day Sabbath, beholds a
sealed tomb, a dead Christ, and mourning disciples. The Lord's ,Day
sees an empty tomb, "he is not here he is risen", and hears the Lord's
Words "peace be unto you", and beholds the disciples response, "~,
were the disciples slad, when they saw the Lord."
Those who teach the Seventh Day Sabbath, substitute law for grace,
Moses for Christ, works for faith, earth for heaven, the old~reation
for the new, a dead Christ for a liVing Christ. To so teach is to be
gUil ty of perverting the word of God, and in the li:ht of t ha t Word
prOVing a blindness and spiritual darkness without excuse. Let us
turn to the "first day of tho weJk ll , liThe Lord's Day" and prize it
in the assumption of its obli::;ations to "hear tho \'Jord ll (Jno.20:20)
"to break broad" (Ac t 20: 7) and "lay b~T in store as God has prospered
him II (1 Cor.16:2) on that day when "the whole church be come to.:;ether
into one placo" (1 Cor.14:23) J for Christ said IIThere am I in the
mids tIt (Matt.18: 20) lion the firs t day of the week •••• where the dis­
cipl~s were assembled ••• Jesus •••• stood in tho midst ••• thon were the
disciples Cladll (Jno.20:19).
"This is the way walk ye in it."
il
-f"t
. I
J