We now come to the direct statement of Paul that the Sabbath was
abolished: Col. 2:14, 16, 17. "Blotting out the handwriting of
ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it
out of the way, nailing it to his cross. * * * Let no man therefore
judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the
new moon, or of the Sabbath days; which are a shadow of things to come;
but the body is of Christ." With other Jewish ordinances, the Sabbath
was blotted out and nailed to the cross; therefore no man is to judge us
about keeping "the Sabbath days." The statement is positive and plain.
When I kept the seventh day this text always perplexed me as it does my
Advent brethren now, say what they will. Paul directly names "the
Sabbath" or "the Sabbath days," for there is no difference, as among the
shadows which have passed away.
It is said by some that "the Sabbath days," plural number, is not the
same as "the Sabbath," singular number, hence is not the weekly Sabbath.
This is a groundless objection, for both the singular and the plural
numbers are used indifferently for the weekly Sabbath. Thus Greenfield's
Greek NT Lexicon says: "Sabbaton. The Sabbath, * * * both in the
singular and plural." Bagster's Greek Lexicon says: "The Jewish Sabbath
both in the singular and plural." So plain is this fact that even Elder
Smith, Adventist, is compelled to admit it though he tries to save his
theory by excepting Col. 2, and Acts 17:2, but without reason. He says:
"When it [Sabbaton] is used in the plural form [excepting Acts 17:2 and
Col. 2:16], it means just the same as if it had been written in the
singular." Greek Falsehood, page 8. Col. 2:16, is no exception to the
rule. In Acts 17:2, the word THREE is what marks the plural. The Revised
Version properly renders Col. 2:16, in the singular, thus: "Let no man
therefore judge you in respect of a Sabbath day," singular number.
Sawyer's translation says: "In respect to a feast, or new moon, or
Sabbath," singular. The Bible Union says: "Of a feast day, or of a new
moon, or of a Sabbath," singular.
A few quotations will show
that both the singular and plural numbers are used for the weekly
Sabbath. "My Sabbaths [plural] shall ye keep for it [singular] is a sign
between me and you." Ек.
31:13. This is the weekly Sabbath. "Keep my Sabbaths." Lev. 19:3.
"Beside the Sabbaths of the Lord." Lev. 23:38. Adventists argue that
this is the weekly Sabbath. "Blessed is the man that * * * keepeth the
Sabbath," "the eunuchs that keep my Sabbaths." Isa. 56:3,4. Either
singular or plural, no difference. "I gave them my Sabbaths to be a
sign." Ez. 20:12. This is the weekly Sabbath, as Adventists well know.
"On the Sabbath days [plural] the priests in the temple profane the
Sabbath" [singular]. Мат.
12:5. Here we have in the same verse both the plural and singular used
for the weekly Sabbath. "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath days?" Мат.
12:10. "Taught them on the Sabbath days." Luke 4:31. "Three Sabbath
days reasoned with them." Acts 17:2. "Let no man therefore judge you * *
* in respect of the Sabbath days." Col. 2:16.
Who can read this
list of texts and not be profoundly impressed that by "the Sabbath
days" of Col. 2:16 Paul means just what that language means in all the
other cases? Of course he did, and no other reasonable application can
be made of it.
In the Greek, in which Paul wrote Col. 2:16, he uses not only the same
word which is always used for the weekly Sabbath, but exactly the same
form of the word used in the fourth commandment itself! I will give the
Greek word for "Sabbath days" in Col. 2:16 and other texts where the
same word and same form of the word, letter for letter, is used for the
weekly Sabbath. Col. 2:16. "Let no man judge you in respect to the
Sabbath days," Greek, Sabbaton, genitive plural.
20:8,10, fourth commandment, "Remember the Sabbath day (Greek,
Sabbaton, genitive plural) to keep it holy." "But the seventh day is the
Sabbath [Greek, Sabbate, accusative plural] of the Lord." Here it will
be seen that Paul uses the same Greek word, letter for letter, that is
used in the decalogue. Hence he surely meant that very Sabbath day.
Notice, further, that in each case in the fourth commandment where the
word "Sabbath" occurs it is plural in the Greek.
So if the use
of the plural in Col. 2 shows any thing, it shows that the Sabbath of
the decalogue is meant. Moreover, the Revised Version renders Ex. 20:10,
and Col. 2:16, exactly alike. Thus: "The seventh day is a Sabbath unto
the Lord." "Let no man judge you in respect of 'a Sabbath.' " Plainly,
then, Col. 2:16, refers to the Sabbath of Ex. 20:8-11.
Sabbaton, genitive plural, the form of the word used in Col. 2:16, is
the one often used in other texts for the weekly Sabbath. Thus: Ex.
35:3, "Kindle no fire * * * upon the Sabbath day," [Sabbaton]. Lev.
23:38. "Besides the Sabbaths [Sabbaton] of the Lord." Lev. 24:8. "Every
Sabbath [Sabbaton] he shall set it in order." Num. 15:32. "Gathered
sticks upon the Sabbath day," [Sabbaton] Numbers 28:9. "On the Sabbath
[Sabbaton] day two lambs." Deut. 5:12. Fourth commandment again, "Keep
the Sabbath [Sabbaton] day." Isa. 58:13. "Turn away thy foot from the
Sabbath," [Sabbaton] Matt. 28:1. "In the end of the Sabbath," [Sabbaton]
Luke 4:16. "He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath [Sabbaton] day."
Acts 13:14. "Went into the synagogue on the Sabbath [Sabbaton] day."
Col. 2:16. "Let no man therefore judge you * * * in respect of the
Sabbath [Sabbaton] days."
Unless a man is blinded by a pet
theory, he must see that Col. 2:16 does surely mean the weekly Sabbath,
as in all the other texts where the same word occurs.
The only word ever used in the Bible, for the weekly Sabbath is the
very one Paul did use, Sabbaton. So if he had meant to name that
Sabbath, what else could he have said than just what he did say, the
Sabbath days? Why, then, deny that he means just what he says when he
could have said nothing else if he had meant the Sabbath?
The word Sabbath occurs in the New Testament 60 times. Seventh-Day
Adventists admit that in 59 out of these 60 cases it means the weekly
Sabbath; but in the 60th case, where exactly the same word is used both
in Greek and English, as we have seen, they say it must mean something
else! Isn't that remarkable? Hear them: "In the New Testament the
Sabbath of the Lord is mentioned 59 times, and those local Sabbaths,
which expired by limitation and ceased at the cross, are mentioned
once." Scripture References, p. 9.
Strange that the Sabbath means the Sabbath 59 times and the 60th time
it don't! "Jewish feasts are often spoken of in the New Testament but,
not one of them anywhere is called a Sabbath or credited with the nature
of a Sabbath." The Sabbath for Man, p. 544.
"The feast days and new moons" of Col. 2:16, include all the holy days
of the Jews except the weekly Sabbath; hence there was nothing else left
to which it could apply but that Sabbath. The entire list is given in
Num. 28 and 29.
But what settles it beyond a reasonable doubt that Col. 2:16, does
refer to the weekly Sabbaths is the fact that exactly the same list of
holy days here given by Paul is given about a dozen times in the Old
Testament, where we know it means the seventh day.
Turn to Num.
28 and 29, and you have a detailed law as to just what offerings shall
be made on each day of the whole year. The first were the daily
offerings of "two lambs," day by day, for a continual burnt offering.
"The one lamb shalt thou offer in the morning, and the other lamb shalt
thou offer at the even." Verse 3 and 4. The second were the offerings on
the sabbath. "And on the sabbath day two lambs of the first year
without spot," verse 9 and 10. None will deny that this was the weekly
sabbath. Third, in the very next verse come the new moons. "And in the
beginning of your months ye shall offer a burnt offering unto the Lord,"
verses 11-15. Fourth comes the annual feast days. "And in the
fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the Lord," verse
16. Then follows a complete list of all the annual feast days, closing
with these words, "These things shall ye do unto the Lord in your set
feasts," Num. 29:39.
Here we have the law for the daily, weekly,
monthly, and yearly offerings; or, those on each day, on the weekly
sabbaths, on the new moons, and on the yearly feast days. Now read the
following texts, and notice how this list of daily offerings, offerings
on the sabbaths, on the new moons, and on the set feasts, as laid down
in the law of Moses, is repeatedly referred to in almost exactly the
words of Col. 2:16.
1 Chron., 23:3O, 31: "To stand every morning
to thank and praise the Lord, and likewise at even; and to offer all
burnt sacrifices unto the Lord in the sabbaths, in the new moons, and on
the set feasts, by number, according to the order commanded unto them."
Here is a direct reference to the daily offerings, offerings on the
weekly sabbaths, new moons and set feasts, just as ordered in Num. 28
and 29. Can any one doubt that "the sabbaths" here are the weekly
sabbaths, the same as there? Свакако не.
2 Chron. 2:4: "Behold, I build an house to the name of the Lord my God,
to dedicate it to him, and to burn before him sweet incense, and for
the continual shew bread, and for the burnt offerings morning and
evening [daily], on the sabbaths [weekly], and on the new moons,
[monthly], and on the solemn feasts [yearly] of the Lord." Precisely the
same list again, and in the same order, hence the weekly sabbaths are
the ones named. Besides, it would be absurd to suppose that Solomon
would name all the other and minor holy days, but say nothing about the
chiefest of all days, the weekly sabbaths. Every candid man would admit
that "the sabbaths" here are the weekly sabbaths, and so they are in all
the passages which follow.
2 Chron. 8:13: "Even after a certain
rate every day [daily again], offering according to the commandment of
Moses, on the sabbaths [weekly], and on the new moons [monthly], and on
the solemn feasts [yearly], three times in the year." Same list and
order as before.
2 Chron. 31:3: "The morning and evening burnt
offerings, and the burnt offerings for the sabbaths, and for the new
moons, and for the set feasts, as it is written in the law of the Lord."
The same list again, daily, weekly, monthly and yearly offerings, just
in the order they would naturally come, and just as given "in the law of
the Lord." Num. 28 and 29. But if the sabbaths are not the weekly
sabbaths, then the Lord names the daily, monthly and yearly offerings,
but skips the weekly offerings. Every thinking man knows that such an
interpretation is false. But it is the only way the sabbaths can be
saved from Paul's list, Col. 2:16, for that is the same as all these. As
the object in these passages is to mention the service of God which
must be performed on each of the holy days, it would be absurd to
suppose that all the other sacred days in the whole year would be
carefully mentioned time and again, while no reference whatever it made
to the weekly sabbaths, the most important and the most numerous of all
the sacred days.
Neh. 10:33: "For the shew bread, and for the
continual meat offering, and for the continual burnt offering, of the
sabbaths, of the new, moons, for the set feasts." Same list again,
daily, weekly, monthly and yearly. Either the weekly sabbaths are meant
here, or else reference to the worship of God on the Sabbath is always
studiously avoided, while all the rest is carefully mentioned. The
evidence is too plain to mistake which.
Ezek. 45:17: "Offerings
in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths." Here are
named exactly the same days that Paul gives in Col. 2:16, and in the
same order, yearly, monthly, weekly.
Hosea 2:11: "I will also
cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her
sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts." Same list of holy days that we
have had over and over, where we know that sabbath meant the seventh
Col. 2:16: "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in
drink, or in respect of a feast day, (Rev. Version), or of the new moon,
or of the sabbath days." Here, as before, are the yearly, monthly and
weekly holy days just as laid down in the law where we know the weekly
sabbaths are meant. It is evident that Paul had in his mind those lists
of holy days so often given in the Old Testament, where the sabbath is
The words "the sabbath days" would certainly embrace
the weekly sabbaths unless they were especially named as excepted. But
no such exception is made. Hence we must apply the term as it is used in
the law, to the seventh day.
Hosea 2:11, is a plain prophecy
that all these holy days should cease just as we know has happened in
fact; and in Col. 2:16, is proof that they were nailed to the cross.
8. TESTIMONY OF OTHERS ON COL. 2:14-17
Bunyan: On this text, John Bunyan, than whom no man ever studied his
Bible more closely, says: "Here also as he [Paul] serveth other holy
days he serveth the Sabbath, he gives a liberty to believers to refuse
the observation of it. Nor hath the apostle (since he saith, or of the
sabbath), one would think, left any hole out at which men's inventions
could get." Again: "The old seventh-day Sabbath is abolished and done
away." Bunyan's Complete Works, pages 899, 900.
Dr. Scott says:
"Doubtless, this last related principally to the weekly Sabbath, which,
as observed on the seventh day, was now become a part of the abrogated
The Pulpit Commentary on this text says: "The
Sabbath days' referred to the Jewish Sabbath which was always observed
on Saturday." "If the ordinance of the Sabbath had been in any form of
lasting obligation on the Christian church, it would have been quite
impossible for the apostle to have used this language."
John Wesley: "In respect of a yearly feast, the new moon, or the weekly Jewish Sabbath."
Dr. Lee, Methodist: "The apostle refers to the seventh day Sabbath and
he gives them clearly to understand that they are not morally bound to
observe it. * * * By a 'holy day' and the 'new moon,' he included all
other feasts and rests which might be called Sabbaths, leaving nothing
but the seventh day Sabbath to be meant by the Sabbath days." Lee's
Theology, page 375.
That upon which Seventh-Day Adventists rely to save this text from
applying to the sabbath is the assertion that there were several yearly
or annual sabbath days, and that Paul's language must apply to these
instead of to the weekly sabbaths. Thus Elder Andrews, in his "History
of the Sabbath," says, "There were seven annual sabbaths," and then he
names all the Jewish feast days, as the pentecost, day of atonement,
etc., and cites Lev. 23.
It is true that in our English version the word sabbath is applied to
four of these feast days. But we turn to the Greek, in which Paul wrote,
and find that the word for "sabbath" is sabbaton. Is that the term used
where the word sabbath is applied to the annual feast days? No, indeed,
except in just barely one instance. The day of atonement is called a
sabbath (sabbaton) in the Greek. Lev. 23:32. "In the Old Testament
Hebrew none of those feast days are ever termed a Sabbath, save the day
of atonement." Sabbath for Man, page 544.
The Hebrew word for
sabbath is shabbath. In only this one instance is it ever applied to any
of the annual festivals. But the word "sabbath" in the English version,
when applied to these annual feasts, is from the Greek term ANAPAUSIS,
and in the Hebrew from shabbathon. These words should not be translated
"sabbath," but should be rendered "rest," as they are in the Revised
Version. Thus all these texts read in the New Version: "In the seventh
month, in the first day of the month, there shall be a solemn rest unto
you." Lev. 23:24. "On the first day shall be a solemn rest, and on the
eighth day shall be a solemn rest," verse 39. So also in the English
version of the Hebrew used by the Jews these words are translated rest,
not sabbath. Thus: "In the seventh month, on the first day of the month,
shall ye have a rest," not sabbath, verse 24. "On the first day shall
be a rest, and on the eighth day shall be a rest," verse 39.
Hence, except the weekly sabbaths, among all the feast days and holy
days of the Old Testament only one single day in the whole year is ever
called a sabbath. So it is not correct to speak of "the annual
sabbaths," much less to say that there were seven of them. There was
just one, and no more, and this one was included in the annual feast
days. Even Elder Andrews confesses that "the annual sabbaths, were part
and parcel of these feasts and could have no existence until after the
feasts to which they belonged had been instituted. Thus the first and
second of these Sabbaths were the first and seventh days of the pascal
feast. The third annual sabbath was identical with the feast of
pentecost." History of the Sabbath, page 86. By his own confession the
days he calls annual sabbaths were all included in those yearly feasts
and could have no existence separate from them. Feast days (heortes) is
the term embracing all those days, as we have seen. Hence "the sabbath
days" (sabbaton) must apply only to the weekly sabbaths. Or, to say the
least, this term being pre-eminently, almost exclusively, applied to the
weekly sabbaths, must include them any way, whether it did any others
Seventh-Day Adventists try to make a difference between "the Sabbaths
of the Lord," Lev. 23:38; Ex. 20:10, and "her Sabbaths," Hosea 2:11.
They say that "her Sabbaths," were the Jewish Sabbaths, yearly feast
days; but that the Lord's Sabbath is never called her Sabbaths. The
assertion is contrary to facts.
Why, were the yearly holy days
her days? Did the Jews appoint them? No; the Lord appointed them just as
he did the sabbath, and gave them to Israel to keep, just as he gave
them the sabbath to keep. Hence, from one point of view they are the
Lord's, but from another view they are her days. God's, because he
commanded them; hers, because given to them. "I gave them my sabbaths."
So we read of nearly every sacred institution of the Bible. In one place
it is "the Lord's" and in the next it is "hers," "yours" or "theirs,"
but the same institution all the time. Thus we read of the temple: "Mine
house," Isa. 56:7; "your house," Matt. 23:38. Of the sacrifices: "The
sacrifices of the Lord," Lev. 10:13; "my offering, and my bread for my
sacrifices," Num. 28:2; "your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, and
your tithes," Deut. 12:6. Of the law: "My law," Jer. 6:19; "your law,"
John 10:34. Now notice particularly that the feast days are spoken of in
exactly the same manner that the sabbath is; that is, "my feasts," and
"her feasts," "my sabbaths" and "her sabbaths." Thus: "The Lord's
passover," Ex. 12:11; "the feast of the Lord," Lev. 23:4; "the sabbaths
of the Lord," verse 38; "my feasts," verse 2; "my sabbaths," Ex. 31:13;
"a feast unto the Lord," Lev. 23:41; "the holy sabbath unto the Lord,"
Ex. 16:23; "her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths," Hosea
2:11. These quotations are sufficient to show the fallacy of trying to
make a distinction between "my sabbaths" and "her sabbaths." The same
argument would prove that "my feasts" and "her feasts," "my sacrifices"
and "your sacrifices," "my house" and "your house," etc., were entirely
different. But everybody knows better. These experiences apply to the
same thing from different standpoints; the sabbaths of the Lord as
appointed by him; her sabbaths as kept by them; and this is the whole of
Paul represents these things as "blotted out," "nailed to the cross."
Col. 2:14. It is said that this could not apply to the Sabbath which was
engraved in the stones in the decalogue, as you could not blot out nor
nail up this. The answer is easy. To blot out and to nail up are only
used as an illustration. Anciently a document that had been canceled, or
abolished, was rubbed or blotted out, or a nail was driven through it,
as now a conductor punches a ticket to show that it has been used up. As
an illustration it could be applied to laws written in any manner, no
matter what. Such objections are unworthy a candid man. Paul says these
things were against us; but it is said that the Sabbath was not against
us; hence it cannot mean that. Answer: 1. Paul says it was; that ought
to settle it. 2.
The Jewish Sabbath was the great sign of Judaism. Ez. 20:10-13; Deut.
5:15. As such, it carried with it that whole system and so was against
It is said that the weekly Sabbath was never associated with meats,
drinks, feast days, etc., as in Col. 2:16. This is a great mistake as we
have already seen. It is classed with these a score of times. See Lev.
23:2-6; Num. 28: 3-11; 1 Chron. 23:29-31, etc.
But it is argued that as "the sabbath days" of Col. 16, "are a shadow
of things to come," verse 17, and the weekly Sabbath is a memorial of
creation, pointing back to the beginning, therefore they cannot be the
same, for the sabbath could not point both ways. But is not this a mere
assertion without any proof? How do we know that it cannot point both
ways? The passover was a memorial of their deliverance from Egypt, and
always pointed back to that event. Ек.
12:11-17. Yet it was also a shadow of Christ. Col. 2:16-17. "Even
Christ our passover is sacrificed for us," 1 Cor. 5:7. So all these
annual feasts were types of Christ in some way, and yet all were
memorials also of past events, as all know. But who would ever have
thought of this if the apostles had not said so? If, then, these feast
days could be both memorials and types, pointing both ways, so can the,
Sabbath. Paul says plainly that the Sabbath days are a shadow of things
to come; and one plain statement of inspiration is worth a thousand of
our vain reasonings. This is in harmony with Paul's argument in Heb.
4:1-11, that the seventh day is a type. For forty years they have tried
to explain away this text , and to show that it really cannot mean what
it says; but there it stands and mocks all their theories. The Sabbath
is a type, for inspiration says so. Again, it is said that the Sabbath
was instituted before the fall, but types could not have been instituted
till after the fall. How do you know that they could not be? Where does
the Bible say so? Peter says of Christ: "Who verily was foreordained
before the foundation of the world, but was manifested in these last
times, for you," 1 Peter 1:20.
The revelator says, "The Lamb
slain from the foundation of the world," Rev. 13:8. If, then, Christ
before the foundation of the world was ordained to die, then the Sabbath
might have been designed even before the creation of the earth, as a
type of Christ. Dr. Watson says: "It is used as an expressive type of
the heavenly and internal rest." Тхеол. Инст. Вол.
II, page 509. The Pulpit Commentary says: "The Sabbath of the Jews was
typical." On Col. 2:17. Dr. Adam Clarke says: "The truth is, the Sabbath
is considered as a type." On Ex. 20:8. Even Elder Andrews, Seventh-Day
Adventist, says: "When the Creator gave existence to our world, did he
not foresee the fall of man? And, foreseeing that fall, did he not
entertain the purpose of redeeming man? And does it not follow that the
purpose of redemption was entertained in that of creation?" History of
the Sabbath, page 151. Exactly; and so the Sabbath as a type of that
redemption might have been given in Eden according to their own showing.
So, on close inspection, every argument of our Seventh-Day brethren on
Col. 2 fails them.
By a false and ungrammatical construction of the relative pronoun
"which" in Col. 2:17, Adventists try to exclude the weekly Jewish
Sabbath from the text. They make the pronoun which refer only to "the
Sabbath days," making it read, "Those, Sabbath days which are a shadow."
This they say, implies that there are other Sabbaths which are not a
shadow, that is the seventh day. But the Greek word for "Sabbath days"
is Sabbaton, genitive plural, while the word for "which" is HA,
nominative plural, neuter. Hence which cannot agree with Sabbath days,
as any scholar knows. "Which are a shadow" relates to the whole list
given in verse 16, viz., meats, drinks, feast days, new moons and
Sabbaths. The revised version renders it, "a feast day, or a new moon,
or a Sabbath day, which are a shadow." Not simply the Sabbath alone, but
all these together were a shadow. Hence the phrase, "which are a
shadow," applies to each item in verse 16. Does Paul, then, mean to say
that only certain feast days, certain new moons, and certain Sabbaths
were shadows, while there were other feast days, other new moons and
other Sabbaths which were not shadows and so were excepted from his
list? No, he makes no exception whatever, neither of feasts, moons, or
Sabbaths. All were included, none were excepted. Hence as Paul included
every feast day, and every new moon, so he also included every Sabbath
of the Old Testament, and that took in the weekly Sabbath as the chief
of all, to say the least. So the last peg on which to hang the Jewish
Sabbath goes down.
Professor AM Weston, President of Eureka
College, Ill., says very truly: "If the Sabbath does not look to Christ
for its underlying principle, then it is the one important observance of
the Old and New Testament that fails to do so." The Evolution of a
Shadow, page 16. We know that there was in Eden one type of Christ, that
was Adam, for the Bible says so, Rom. 5:14. "Adam * * * who is the
figure of him that was to come." Figure is from the Greek TUPOS, type.
"Who was the type of him that was to come." Syriac, Diaglott, Sawyer,
Living Oracles, and Bible Union Translations. Hence types were
instituted in Eden. Therefore the Sabbath cannot be excepted from the
types on that ground.
In Gal. 4:10, 11, Paul sets aside the
keeping the Jewish Sabbath and all those holy days of the law. "Ye
observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you."
That this refers to the holy days of the old law is proved by his
reference to that law, both before and after this text. Thus: "The law
was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified
by faith. But after that faith is come we are no longer under a
3:24, 25. That law has ended at the cross as Paul said in Col. 2:14-17.
Again: "Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the
law?" Гал. 4:21. "Ye are not under the law." Гал.
5:18. So, then, he means the holy days of the law and these included
the Sabbath as the chief of all. Look at his list: Days, (Sabbath days,
weekly), months (new moons), times (yearly feasts), and years
(Sabbatical years). This is exactly the list of Jewish holy times.
To the Romans Paul taught the same doctrine: the observance of the
Jewish holy days was not to be regarded. "One man esteemeth one day
above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully
persuaded in his own mind." Рим. 14:5.
Dr. Potts, Methodist, says: "That the Sabbath question entered into
Paul's reasonings on the occasion is evident from Rom. 14:1-6." The
Lord's Day Our Sabbath, page 27. These were the days enjoined in the law
for it is of the law that he treats all through the book of Romans. He
makes no exception of the Sabbath day, but says plainly " every day."
Only a few verses before he has quoted five of the ten commandments,
Chap. 13:9, showing that he included the days of the decalogue. It does
not avail to say that Paul means only the annual Sabbaths because he
mentions eating meat and herbs. I have already proved that the weekly
Sabbath was associated with these time and again.
that Paul did intend to set aside the Sabbath, as his words naturally
mean, is the fact that nowhere does he ever in all his instructions to
the churches say one word in favor of keeping the Sabbath. Time and
again he enjoins every other duty, but never a word about keeping the
Sabbath in all his fourteen letters. Most of those to whom he wrote were
Gentiles who never had kept the Sabbath and hence needed instructions
in it if they were to keep it. But not a word does he say to them about
it; though he does command them about the first day of the week. 1 Кор. 16:1, 2.
But it is said that this view of Paul's language abolishes all holy
days and leaves the church without any rest day. The answer is easy and
manifest. Paul was treating of the old institutions which had been
nailed to the cross. Col. 2:14. Hence his language has no reference to
the new institutions of the gospel, of which there might have been a
dozen holy days, so far as these texts are concerned.
na čemu se Adventisti spremno oslanjaju da sačuvaju ovaj tekst od primene na subotu
je tvrdnja da je bilo nekoliko godišnjih ili godišnjih subota dana, te da
Pavlov jezik mora vrediti za njih, umesto za nedeljnu subotu. Tako
Starešina Andrews, u svojoj "Povesti subote", kaže, "Bilo je sedam
godišnjih subota", a onda je imenovao sve jevrejske festivalne dane, kao duhovi, dan pomirenja, itd., i navodi Lev. 23. Istina je da se u našoj engleskoj verziji reč subota primenjuje na četiri od tih praznika. No osvrnućemo se na grčki, na kome je Pavle pisao, a nalazimo da je reč za "subotu" sabbaton. Da li je to izraz koji se koristi gde se reč subota primenjuje na godišnje praznike? Ne, naprotiv, osim u jednom slučaju. Dan pomirenja se zove subota (sabbaton) u grčkom. Lev. 23:32. "U Starom Zavetu hebrejskom niko od onih praznika nije nikada nazvao subotom, izuzev dana pomirenja." Subota za čoveka, stranica 544.
Why Not Found Out Before?
If Sabbatarians are right on the Sabbath question, then the whole Christian church has
broken the Sabbath for the last 1,800 years, and has kept Sunday, "a popish
institution," "the mark of the beast," in its stead. During these long ages
all the holy men, martyrs, reformers, commentators, historians and Christian scholars,
with all their seeking of God, searching the Bible, and studying history, never discovered
this great mistake! Is it reasonable to believe that the entire church, during all its
history, has been trampling upon one of God's most holy commandments? Can it be that the
wrath of God is now to be poured out upon the church for keeping the same day that all
others have kept for 1,800 years? Would God have blessed the reformers and his church as
he has, if Sunday-keeping is such a fearful crime against God as is now claimed?
Now, just to think that the whole church of Christ, immediately after the death of the
apostles, should fall into this fearful sin and error, and practice this crime without
rebuke during the entire history of the church, till just a few days before Jesus comes,
and then only a few find it out and change. According to the Seventh-Day Adventists,
Luther, Calvin, Knox, Wesley, with all the church of Christ for hundreds of years,
committed two fearful sins each week of their lives; they broke the holy Sabbath, the most
important commandment in the decalogue, and kept Sunday, the mark of the beast! Yet God
has let the whole thing go on without any protest, till the last minute of time, and now
everybody who does not accept this "new light," is to be hopelessly damned for
doing what Christians generally have always done! In all candor, this is a pretty big pill
But Sabbatarians say that this has nothing to do with the case. "Our appeal is to
the Bible alone. The Bible plainly teaches it, and we will go by that." So they say,
and so they believe; but the fact is, it is only their interpretation, their explanation,
of the Bible which makes it say so. Did you ever know a sect under heaven, even the
wildest and most fanatical, who were not always on hand ready to "prove it all by the
Bible"? Yes; they know that they are right beyond a doubt, "because the Bible
just says so." They will argue you blind, and grow more confident every day, and
always end by saying, "It is true, not because I say so, but because the Bible says
so." Meet a Mormon, and he has the Bible at his tongue's end. He "proves it all
by the Bible." So the Shaker, and the Swedenborgian, and the Universalist, and the
rest of them, "prove it all by the Bible." How many persons and sects have
arisen at different times with a perfect furor of enthusiasm over some new idea besides
"the old, old story of Jesus and his love." No matter what harm it does to other
Christians and to the gospel, "the Bible teaches it, and that is enough. When we give
this up we will give up the Bible too." So they go on till time alone demolishes
their theory, and then they do indeed give up the Bible and all, while precious souls are
Keeping The Jewish Sabbath A Failure
Sabbatarians began in England in the time of the Reformation, over three hundred years
ago. They had many able men, ministers and writers. They published many books, discussed
the subject widely, and made many converts. Here they had a fine field and a fair start.
How did Sabbath-keeping succeed? What have they accomplished in England? Three hundred
years ought to be long enough to tell whether it is a success or not. Let Elder Andrews
tell the sad story: "In the seventeenth century eleven churches of Sabbatarians
flourished in England, while many scattered Sabbath-keepers were to be found in various
parts of the kingdom. Now but three of these churches are in existence! And only remnants,
even of these, remain!" Hist. Sabbath, p. 491. Since he wrote the above, two more out
of the three, I believe, have expired, and only one little company of less than ten
members survives! Elder A. sorrowfully asks, "To what cause shall we assign this
painful fact?" The cause is evident; God is not in it. It comes to naught every time
it is tried. Three hundred years hence the same mournful requiem will be chanted over the
grave of Seventh-Day Adventism.
Now look at the history of the Sabbatarian effort in America.
In 1664, over 200 years ago, the Seventh-Day Baptists began teaching that doctrine in
America at Newport, R. I. The first church was organized Dec. 23, 1671. See "Manual
of the Seventh-Day Baptists," pages 39, 40. From that time on they industriously
taught the observance of the seventh day, both in America and other lands, even as far as
China, by preaching, by tracts, books and periodicals, till the religious world is
familiar with their views. They were numerous enough to organize a general conference as
early is 1802. See Hist. S. D. Bap. Gen. Conf., pages 15, 238, or any cyclopedia. They
have had academies, colleges, and universities; learned men, able writers, and zealous
workers. What have they accomplished? Almost nothing. They now number only about 8,000,
and are not holding their own, but are losing ground every decade. They can not even hold
the increase of their children. Largely their youth abandon Saturday for Sunday. For
convenience they mostly colonize together, and so have little influence on the world. To
their praise be it said that they are an excellent people, and free from any fanatical or
other heretical notions. Here again the seventh day has had the fairest possible chance of
success. Its advocates are intelligent, highly educated, respected, and live in this free
land and age of investigation. Why has it not succeeded? That it has not they themselves
must admit. These sober, stubborn facts should have weight with us. Sabbatarian brethren,
stop and weigh these things fairly. What is the use of wasting life contending for what is
a practical failure?
In 1846, nearly seventy years ago, Seventh-Day Adventists began teaching the Sabbath.
They have practiced it zealously, devoted everything to it, poured out treasures by the
million, and filled the land with their literature. What have they accomplished? They
number only about 100,000 now. Have 4,000 workers in the field and spend $2,000,000 yearly
yet again only about 4,000 yearly, or one to each worker! Half of these are from other
churches. The system lacks vitality and gospel power.
Contrast with the above the work and success of the First-Day Baptists. What a grand
work they have done for Christ and souls in the last two hundred years. Instead numbering
8,000, as the Seventh-Day Baptists do, they number 5,000,000. As a body they are just as
pious and devoted as the Seventh-Day Baptists. Then look at the Methodist and other
Sunday-keeping churches, and see how God has blessed them all. Experience shows that
keeping the Jewish Sabbath dwarfs, cripples, and unfits a church for gospel work.
If, now, keeping Saturday is so highly pleasing to God, why does he not prosper it
more? If Sunday observance is such a sin in the sight of God, why does he so remarkably
bless those who persist in it?
Luther And The Sabbath
Even the Adventists acknowledge the greatness of Luther in piety and a deep knowledge
of the word of God. Mrs. White says of him: "Zealous, ardent, and devoted, knowing no
fear but the fear of God, and acknowledging no foundation for religious faith but the holy
scriptures," etc. "Angels of heaven were by his side and rays of light from the
throne of God revealed the treasures of truth to his understanding." Great
Controversy, pages 94, 97. Good. Now hear Luther. Carlstadt, a zealous and learned
Sabbatarian, laid his arguments for the seventh day before Luther, who examined them. Here
is Luther's decision in his own words: "Indeed, if Carlstadt were to write further
about the Sabbath, Sunday would have to give way, and the Sabbath -that is to say,
Saturday- must be kept holy; he would truly make us Jews in all things, and we should come
to be circumcised; for that is true and cannot be denied, that he who deems it necessary
to keep one law of Moses, and keeps it as the law of Moses, must deem all necessary, and
keep them all." Hist. Sabbath, p. 457.
So then, the "light" on the Sabbath question was given to Luther, and he
rejected it, just as the great body of Christians do now. The other leaders of the
reformation were likewise familiar with the arguments for the seventh day, but, as Elder
Andrews confesses, they "as a body were not friendly to such views." Hist.
Sabbath, p. 460.
These facts show how untrue it is to say that people have been unacquainted with this
Sabbath question before.
John Milton On The Sabbath
So the great John Milton, author of "Paradise Lost," has thoroughly discussed
the whole Sabbath question, using the same arguments as we use now to show the abolition
of the Jewish Sabbath. I quote a few sentences from his "Treatise on Christian
Doctrine," Vol. 1, Book 2, Chap. 7. "It is evident from more than one passage of
scripture that the original Sabbath is abrogated." "If, then, the commandment of
the Sabbath was given to those alone whom God brought out of the land of Egypt and out of
the house of bondage, it is evidently inapplicable to us as Christians." He argues
the question this way at considerable length.
Richard Baxter On The Sabbath
This great divine, the author of "Saints' Rest," "Call to the
Unconverted," etc., in 1671, wrote his "Divine Appointment of the Lord's
Day" against the Seventh-Day advocates of his times. Gilfillan, says: "Baxter
(1671) and Bunyan (1685) wrote their interesting defences of the Lord's day for relieving
the perplexities with which some good people in their time were distressed in consequence
of the proselyting zeal of Saturday Sabbathists." The Sabbath, p. 144. so the
Sabbatarians over 200 years ago were giving the same "light" and doing the same
proselyting work as now. They were answered by such men as Baxter, Bunyan, Milton, etc.
I give a few words from Baxter: "It is also confessed, that the universal church
from the days of the apostles down till now have constantly kept holy the Lord's day in
the memory of Christ's resurrection, and that as by the will of Christ delivered to them
by or from the apostles; insomuch that I remember not either any orthodox Christian, or
heretic, that ever opposed, questioned, or scrupled it, till of late ages." Part 2,
Chap. 18. Of him even Mrs. White says: Baxter, a man "of talent, education, and deep
Christian experience, stood up in valiant defense of the faith once delivered to the
saints." Great Controversy, page 175. Yes: such men as these stood up and opposed the
Jewish Sabbath heresy.
Hear Mrs. White on Bunyan: "John Bunyan breathed the very atmosphere of
heaven." Great Controversy, page 174. Well, now hear Bunyan: "As for the seventh
day Sabbath, that, as we see, is gone to its grave with the signs and shadows of the Old
Testament; yea, and it has such a dash left upon it by apostolical authority, that it is
enough to make a Christian fly from it for ever. 2 Cor. 3" "Again the apostle
smites the teachers of the law upon the mouth, saying, 'they understand neither what they
say nor whereof they affirm."' Complete Works, page 915.
If ever a man this side the apostles lived near to God, drank into his spirit, and knew
the true intent of the Bible, that man was Bunyan, author of the immortal work, Pilgrim's
Progress. He met these Sabbatarians and their work in his day. He studied the subject
fully and wrote a book against them from which I have quoted.
He regarded them just as they are regarded now, as legalists, blind zealots, and
disturbers of the church.
So all this talk that the church did not have the light on the Sabbath question till
Adventists arose to give it is contrary to facts as the above proves. It is simply the old
arguments of 200 years ago rehashed.
Zašto nije otkrivena ranije?
Sabatariani u pravo po pitanju subote, onda cela hrišćanska crkva
je kršila subotu u poslednjih 1800 godina, te je držanje nedelje, "papska institucija", "znak zveri", na svom mestu. Tokom
tih dugih stoleća svi sveci, mučenici, reformatori, komentatori, istoričari i hrišćanski naučnici, sa svim svojim traženjima Boga, pretražujući Bibliju, i proučavajući istoriju, nikada nisu otkrili ovu veliku
pogrešku! Je li razumno verovati da je cela Crkva, tokom cele svoje istorije, gažila jednu Božju presvetu zapovest? Može biti da se gnev Božji sada izlio na crkvu zbog odbacivanja držanja istog dana koji svi drugi drže 1800 godina? Da li bi Bog blagoslovio reformatore i njegovu crkvu kao što je on ima, ako je držanje
nedelje takav užasan zločin protiv Boga, kako se sada tvrdi?
nekoliko reči od Baxtera: "Takođe se priznaje, da je univerzalna
crkva iz dana apostola do sada stalno čuvala sveti dan Gospodnji u
spomen Hristova vaskrsenja, te da je u skladu s voljom Hrista
njih ili od apostola; toliko da se ne sećam da je bilo nekog pravoslavca,
ili jeretika, koji se ikada usprotivio, ispitivao, ili ga kolebalo, do
kasnih vekova". Deo 2, pogl. 18. Za
njega čak i gđa White kaže: Baxter, čovek "talenta, obrazovanja i
dubokog hrišćanskog iskustva, ustao je hrabro u odbranu vere jednom
predane svetima." Velika borba, str 175. Da: takvi ljudi kao ovi ustali su i protiv jevrejske subotnje jeresi.