Amplify’d from www.bibleuniverse.com

The Abomination of Desolation

by Gary Gibbs

Introduction      "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) Then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains. . . For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be" (Matthew 24: 15, 16, 21).      What is this prophecy all about, and does it really affect Christians in today's world?      One of the most interesting prophecies in the Bible concerns the abomination of desolation. The element that makes this prophecy especially intriguing is that Jesus identifies it as a specific sign that the end is near.      It was in answer to the disciples' question, "When shall these things be and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" that Jesus spoke of the abomination of desolation. He said, "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (Whoso readeth, let him understand:) then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains... for then shall be great tribulation, such as was not sincethe beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be" (Matthew 24:3,15-21).      Christians of many persuasions recognize this text as a definite and peculiar sign concerning the last days. Yet even though the majority of them can agree that the abomination of desolation is an important sign, they can't seem to agree on its specific nature. Even preachers are thrown into a quagmire of confusion - looking for something that no one is very sure about. It is a perfect example of the blind leading the blind.      Of course, some believe they know the identity of the abomination of desolation. Some teach that this prophecy was fulfilled when Antiochus Epiphanes interrupted the temple sacrifices between 168 and 165 B.C. The abomination they point to is the pig Antiochus had offered on the altar in the temple complex. Others believe the abomination of desolation refers to a future time when an atheistic antichrist will overthrow the temple in Jerusalem and use it as his throne. Then there are those who believe the abomination of desolation is the Roman standards which were worshipped in Jerusalem in 70 A.D. at the time of its destruction by Titus.      Just what exactly is the abomination of desolation? Is it any one of these alternatives? Is it all of them at the same time? Or could it be possible that not any of these interpretations are correct? The answer to these questions is vitally important. Jesus clearly implies that our very lives could be at stake over this matter.      Jesus tells us that our study of the abomination of desolation should focus on the book of Daniel (Matthew 24:15). When one makes a careful study of this book, he discovers that the abomination of desolation can be divided into three parts. These parts are: the abomination of desolation in Daniel's day (involving the first temple); the abomination of desolation in Jesus' day (involving the second temple); and finally the abomination of desolation in the time of the end (involving the whole Christian church). The issues that come into play in the abomination of desolation as treated in the book of Daniel remain consistent in each of its three phases. Therefore they are types, or examples, of each other. The First Abomination      The key that unlocks the mystery of this prophetic event is found in the first two verses of Daniel. "In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and beseiged it. And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God: which he carried into the land of Shinar to the house of his god; and he brought the vessels into the treasure house of his god" (Daniel 1:1,2). In these two short sentences Daniel provides a concise historical background to the remainder of the book which follows.      Further study of Daniel's prologue reveals the abomination of desolation was existent in his time and led to Jerusalem's captivity. The Chronicler reveals the reason the Jewish kings fell to Babylon. "Jehoiakim was twenty and five years old when he began to reign... and he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord his God." It was because of Jehoiakim's iniquitous life that God allowed him to be taken captive.      The significant feature of this is that Jehoiakim's evil deeds are described this way: "Now the rest of the acts of Jehoiakim, and his abominations which he did, and that which was found in him, behold, they are written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah: and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his stead" (2 Chronicles 36:5-8). It was specifically the abominations of Jehoiakim that led him and his city to forfeit God's protection and thus fall to Nebuchadnezzar.      Unfortunately Jehoiachin, his son, didn't do much better. Scripture tells us he also did "that which was evil in the sight of the Lord." Consequently he too was taken captive to Babylon, and "Zedekiah his brother" was placed as king over Judah and Jerusalem (v. 9-11).      The Bible goes on to record that not only did Zedekiah turn out to be just as evil as his two predecessors, but "moreover all the chief of the priests, and the people, transgressed very much after all the abominations of the heathen" (v. 12-14). God's political and religious leaders, as well as the people, adopted heathen ways as their own. They did this at the expense of God's revealed truth. Notice where these abominations were committed: the people "transgressed very much after all the abominations of the heathen; and polluted the house of the Lord which he had hallowed in Jerusalem" (v. 14). These abominations were standing in God's consecrated holy place, the "house of the Lord."      The religious leaders of the day had purposefully led the people to adopt heathen worship practices and incorporated them into their worship of God. In substituting for God's commandments the vain notions of men, the leaders of God's heritage provoked his wrath. The people rejected God's calls to repentance and reformation and were left to reap the consequences. "Therefore, he brought upon them the king of the Chaldees, who slew their young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary" (v. 17).      This judgment was felt not only in the spilling of the blood, but in the complete destruction of the city and sanctuary (v. 19). This all was done "To fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed her sabbaths: for as long as she lay desolate she kept sabbath to fulfill threescore and ten years" (v. 21). The result of God's people practicing the religious abominations of the heathen was the desolation of their land, city and sanctuary. Breaking The Sabbath Brought Desolation      Just what were these abominations that resulted in such desolation? Since this was all done "To fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah," then Jeremiah should be able to tell us what substitutions in worship had been made. In Jeremiah 17 the prophet is told to stand in the gate of the people and prophesy. Under a divine mandate, Jeremiah told the people that if they would honor God's seventh-day Sabbath their city would remain forever, and that this faithful obedience would lead them into such a relationship with Himself that they would be used to convert the surrounding heathen nations (ch. 17:19-26).      On the other hand, if they would not keep the Sabbath day holy God would allow their city to be desolated. "But if ye will not hearken unto me to hallow the Sabbath day, and not to bear a burden, even entering in at the gates of Jerusalem on the Sabbath day; then I will kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched" (v. 27).      Sadly, the Jews chose to continue breaking God's Sabbath and thus inaugurated their own destruction and captivity. The abomination that led to their desolation was breaking the Sabbath. Thus, we see the significance of 2 Chronicles 36:21: "To fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed her Sabbaths: for as long as she lay desolate she kept Sabbath."      Ezekiel, who lived during the same time, also tells us about the abominations God's people were practicing in the holy place. In Ezekiel 8, the prophet was brought by vision to the door of the inner gate. God proceeded to show his servant the progressively greater outrages His people were committing. In verses 5 and 6 He speaks of an image that provoked Him to jealousy. In an escalation of outrage, unclean beasts had been brought into the house of God, women were weeping for Tammuz and the greatest abomination of all was twenty-five men standing in God's holy place "with their backs toward the temple of the Lord, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east" (Ezekiel 8:16).      God had instructed the Jews to erect the temple in a manner that would discourage the imitation of their heathen neighbors in sun worship. The ark of the covenant, the very focal point of the Jews' worship, was placed at the western end of the tabernacle. Thus the children of Israel would face the west, their backs to the rising sun, when they worshipped the true God. Yet the entrance of paganism among God's people had grown to such proportions that Judah's leading men were actually turning their backs on the temple of God. This was a significant act of apostasy.      Both Ezekiel and Jeremiah list the heathen practices that had been incorporated into the worship of God. Whether it was breaking the second commandment by idol worship, adoring unclean beasts, worshipping Tammuz, the mythological god of the pagans, or breaking God's holy Sabbath and worshiping the sun on the day consecrated to it, these practices all were classed by God as abominations. It was because the Jews persisted in justifying their own course and continued in these heathen customs that God permitted the desolation of their city.      Daniel himself agrees that it was the sins committed by God's people that caused their desolation. "O Lord, according to all thy righteousness, I beseech thee, let thine anger and thy fury be turned away from thy city Jerusalem, thy holy mountain: because for our sins, and the iniquities of our fathers.... cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate.... open thy eyes, and behold our desolations..." (Daniel 9:16-18).      It is important to note that the abominations were done by the apostate people of God. This in turn resulted in their forfeiture of God's protection and called down His judgments and chastisement in their desolation. This scenario of the abomination of desolation in Daniel's day, involving the first Jewish temple period, prefigures the two other abominations of desolation prophesied in Daniel. The next one we shall consider is the one that concerns the second Jewish temple period. The Second Temple Desolated      After their release from Babylonian captivity and rebuilding the city and temple, the Jewish leaders erected a mountain of rules and regulations designed to protect them from repeating the sins that had led to their bondage. The fourth commandment's seventh-day Sabbath became a special object of amendment. The Jews reasoned that since it was transgression of the Sabbath that led to their captivity, they needed to define in minute detail how the Sabbath should be kept.      Over 500 rules concerning Sabbathkeeping eventually resulted. Some of these Sabbath laws were as ridiculous as this: one could not leave an egg in the sun on the Sabbath because the sun might cook it, and cooking on the Sabbath was a violation of the fourth commandment. Of course, this only resulted in a system of pure legalism. At last the people began to believe that favor with God depended on how well they obeyed the traditions of their elders.      Ultimately the people were led full circle to disobedience again. Jesus comments that in spite of their apparent religiosity they were still breaking God's law even as their forefathers had during Isaiah's and Daniel's day. "Well hath Isaiah prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men... full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition... making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered" (Mark 7:6-13). Once again the people found themselves immersed in vain and rebellious worship.      Even though their apostasy expressed itself in legalism instead of laxness, it was still based on the same principle upon which all pagan religions are based - that man can save himself by his own works. Jesus, like Jeremiah of old, rebuked this religious system and called it an abomination. "Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God" (Luke 16:15).      Jesus expressed His displeasure for their abominations on numerous occasions. Most notable were the two times He cleansed the temple. On these times He expressed His anger at the desecration of His holy place. The controversy between Jesus and the Jews steamed, boiled and spewed over religion. The religious leaders hated Him because He didn't look like the Messiah, He didn't respect their traditions and most notably He didn't keep the Sabbath in the manner they thought it should be kept. This latter issue infuriated the Jews and led them to seek Jesus' death (See John 5:10-16; Matthew 12:1-4; Mark 3:1-6).      In spite of the religious leaders' resistance, Jesus sought time and again to bring them to repentance and reformation. Often He reproved them for their erroneous ways and pointed the way to true and undefiled religion that is of great price in the sight of God. Yet they hardened their hearts and beat back the waves of God's mercy.      As Jesus entered Jerusalem for the last time, His prophetic eye saw the consequences of their constant rebellion. With a grief-stricken heart and tears coursing down His cheeks, He prophesied the coming doom of the city: "For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side and shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation" (Luke 19:41-44).      After teaching in the temple for several days, Jesus left its precincts for the last time. Again He was choked with anguish as He saw the ultimate result of His people's apostasy. He exclaimed, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings and ye would not! Behold your house is left unto you desolate" (Matthew 23:37,38).      On both these occasions Jesus placed the guilt upon the people by stating, "they knew not the time of their visitation" and "ye would not." As a result of not responding to God's call to turn from their abominations, their temple was to be desolated. This prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when the Roman armies of Titus burned the temple to the ground. This second desolation of the temple perfectly paralleled its first destruction. On both occasions the abominations were done by the apostate people of God and the desolation was an act of judgment performed by a heathen army.      This desolation of Jerusalem was prophesied by Daniel to come as a result of the people rejecting Messiah the prince. A careful study of Daniel 9:25-27 will show this to be the case. In verse 25 Messiah is promised to Israel and the city's restoration is also predicted. But then, ominously, all is prophesied for doom again. Verse 26 speaks of Messiah being killed by His own people and of how this act would cause their city and sanctuary to be desolated once again.      As Daniel heard Gabriel relay this prophecy, it was to his mind a replay of what he had seen happen to the Jerusalem of his day. The prophecy indicated that history would repeat itself, and this is exactly what happened. The abominations that God's people committed resulted, in both 586 B.C. and 70 A.D., in the destruction of their sanctuary and city -- first by Nebuchadnezzar, then by Titus.      Because Israel rejected the Messiah they lost their place as God's favored people. Jesus predicted this would take place by saying, "The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof" (Matthew 21:43). Israel forfeited their franchise of the gospel by their own obstinate sin.      Who would be the new nation to receive the kingdom of God and bring forth the fruits thereof? The Bible provides a clear and concise answer in the apostle Peter's letter to the Gentile converts who "In time past were not a people, but are now the people of God." Of the converts to Christianity, the new people of God, he further says, "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light" (1 Peter 2:9,10).      In the new dispensation God bestows upon the converted Christians all the privileges and promises that had been made to the literal seed of Abraham (see Galatians 3:26-29). Now converted Christians assume the role of Israel, and the Christian church absorbs the status of the temple or sanctuary of God. The Scriptures make this abundantly clear in such texts as Romans 2;28,29; Ephesians 2:11-13; 19-22; and 1 Peter 2:5. The Final Desolation      It is in the light of this New Testament principle of spiritual Israel that Daniel speaks of the abomination of desolation the third and final time. These references can be found in Daniel 8:13; 11:31; and 12:11. Discerning students of prophetic history realize that these verses predict the formation and ascension of power by the Papacy. It is an indisputable fact of history that the Papacy brought into the Christian church the very same practices of paganism for which ancient Jerusalem was destroyed. One has to do only a little study to see how image worship, Tammuz worship, and sun worship were introduced to Christianity during the Dark Ages. Many of these abominations are still with us in the form of statues, candles for the saints, rosary beads, Easter sunrise services and Sunday worship. [For more information on this subject, see Amazing Facts' booklet Baptized Paganism.]      By no means does the papal apostasy exonerate Protestantism. Most Protestant churches accede to the apostasy by continuing the practice of abominations that have their roots firmly fixed in ancient pagan religions, which were established to destroy God's truth. Both Catholicism and Protestantism have fostered abominations in God's holy place, His church. The Christian church is mirroring literal Israel. We are repeating many of the same sins and will consequently reap the same punishment of desolation, unless we are willing to read the handwriting on the wall and flee from Babylon.      It is clear that the three occasions of abomination of desolation found in Daniel result from apostasy on the part of God's people, but what is the sign that will tell us when the desolation is nigh?      In Luke 21:20 Jesus told His disciples what would be the last sign of the imminent destruction of Jerusalem. He said, "And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh." This text does not indicate that the armies are the abomination, but rather that the armies were the instrument to cause desolation. Through the Roman armies God would execute "the days of vengeance" for Israel's abominations.      When the Roman armies surrounded Jerusalem, it was a sign that most of the city's leaders and inhabitants had passed the boundaries of grace and had filled their cup of iniquity. To the Christians living in the city, this was to be a sign that Jerusalem would soon suffer God's judgment. As soon as the first opportunity arose, these Christians were to "flee to the mountains" (v. 21). In 66 A.D. when Cestius, the Roman general, surrounded the city the Christians knew the promised sign had arrived and the time had come to flee. At their first opportunity to escape they did so, and not one Christian died in the horrible destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.      Just as God gave the early Christians a sign of when to flee Jerusalem, so He has given us a sign. He has made it possible for every Christian to know when this world's probationary hour is nearing its close.      In Revelation 13 and 14 John records a list of omens that will tell us just how close we are to the end. The sign that will show this nation has filled its cup of iniquity will be when it makes an image to the Papacy by uniting church and state. How much more neatly could this be effected than by the passage of a national Sunday law commanding everyone to honor a pagan day of worship? Such an event will be a direct fulfillment of Revelation 13:15-17, and provide assurance that the end of this earth's time is quickly approaching.      One author describes coming events this way: "As the approach of Roman armies was a sign to the disciples of the impending destruction of Jerusalem, so may this apostasy be a sign to us that the limit of God's forbearance is reached, that the measure of our nation's iniquity is full, and that the angel of mercy is about to take her flight." When the churches have apostasized in their abominations to such a degree that they enact legislation of a religious law which displaces God's holy Sabbath with a pagan holiday, we may leave our cities, knowing that a time of trouble will be forthcoming.      The abomination of desolation is an important subject in these last days. If we study this prophecy carefully, we will find that in each of its three fulfill-ments refers to a national apostasy by God's people that ends in their tragic destruction. We are now living in the time of the Chistian church's final apostasy, which makes of none effect the commandments of God. We need to see that we are in the midst of fulfilling prophecy and keep our eyes open for the culmination of all things.      Our only sure protection against the abomination of desolation is to give our lives unreservedly to Jesus, loving others as He loves them and worshiping Him in the way that His word teaches. The greatest commandment is simply to love God with all our heart and soul and strength. If we have such love, it will be natural for us to do all things to please and honor Him. In return, He will see us safely through the desolation that will close this earth's history just before He comes again. Read more at www.bibleuniverse.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/b102aa

Amplify’d from www.bibleuniverse.com

Is Sunday Really Sacred?

by Joe Crews

Chapter One A Wrong Turn      One of David’s most beautiful prayers is recorded in Psalm 43:3. “O send out thy light and thy truth: let them lead me; let them bring me unto thy holy hill, and to thy tabernacles.”      This same earnest petition to understand God’s Word should be in the heart of every sincere seeker for truth. A willingness to learn and to obey must characterize all of those who expect to be enlightened by the Holy Spirit. To such, the beautiful promise of the beatitude will be fulfilled. “Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled” (Matthew 5:6).      But it does no good to pray for the truth if we have no intention to obey it when God answers our prayer. One of the greatest favors God can bestow upon us is to give knowledge of His Word. And the most presumptuous thing anybody can do is to pray for an understanding of God’s will and then refuse to obey, for any reason whatsoever, when the answer comes.      Many people are guilty of pulling the Bible down to match their poor, weak experi­ence, instead of bringing their experience up to meet the requirements of the Word. There is only one great decisive test of truth, and that is the Bible. Every religious thought, every book we read, and every sermon we hear should be measured by the infallible rule of the inspired Scriptures. It does not matter what we were taught as children, or what the majority is following, or what our emotions lead us to think or believe. Those factors are invalid as a test of absolute truth. The ultimate question must be answered: What does the Word of God say on the subject?      Some people think that if they are sincere in what they believe, God will accept them and save them. However, sincerity alone is not enough. One can be sincere, and be sincerely wrong. I remember driving to West Palm Beach, Florida, several years ago. At least I thought I was going there. It was night, and I had not seen any road signs for quite awhile. Suddenly my car lights picked up a sign that read, “Belle Glade 14 miles.” Heartsick, I realized that I was traveling in the opposite direction from West Palm Beach. I was on the wrong road. No one could have been more sincere than I was that night, but I was sincerely wrong. Now, I could have continued down the road saying that somehow, somewhere up ahead I might find West Palm Beach. Instead, I turned the car around and went back to the place where I took the wrong turn and got on the right road leading to West Palm Beach. That was the only right thing to do. Chapter Two Closed Minds and Majority Rule      God’s Word has a lot to say to those who are willing to be corrected. The people to be the most pitied are those who have closed minds. They will resist any information that varies from their personal views. Their minds are made up, and they don’t want to be bothered by the facts. This is especially true concerning the subject of the Sabbath.      Multitudes have inherited opinions about the day to be observed weekly, and they find it very difficult to look objectively at any other viewpoint. Many of them know that one of the Ten Commandments requires the keeping of the seventh day of the week. They also know that the seventh day is Saturday. Yet they tenaciously follow the tradition of observing a different day from the one God commanded. They worship on Sunday, the first day of the week, for which there is no biblical command.      Why do they do it? Most Sunday keepers have simply accepted the practice of the religious majority in the community where they were raised; assuming that it has to be right because so many are doing it. Is this a safe assumption? Has the majority usually been right in religious matters?      The Bible clearly answers these questions in the negative. Every available source of information reveals that in religious matters, at least, the majority has always been wrong. Jesus Himself said, “And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man” (Luke 17:26). Only eight people went into the ark to be saved from the flood. Christ taught that only a comparable few would be saved at the end of the world. Said He, “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it” (Matthew 7:13, 14).      It is very true that the great majority of Christians today, including many famous evangelists and theologians, are keeping Sunday instead of the seventh-day Sabbath. That fact alone should not over impress anyone.Taken by itself, in the light of Christ’s words, it should raise a flag of warning. Truth has never been popular with the masses. And those in the majority today, as in all past ages, are not really looking for truth as much as they are looking for a smooth, easy, comfortable religion that will allow them to live as they want to live.      What, then, should be the test of the Sabbath truth? Just one thing, and one thing only—the Word of God. Unfortunately, millions have never studied the Bible for themselves on this subject. I propose that we test the Sunday-keeping practice of this majority group and find out if it is correct. If it is biblical, then all of us should accept it and faithfully keep every Sunday. If the Scriptures do not support it, then we should diligently search the Word until we find the day that our Lord has endorsed for us to keep.      The most honest way I know to approach this subject is to take a look at absolutely everything that the Bible says about the first day of the week. There are only eight texts in the New Testament that refer to Sunday, and by carefully studying these verses we can be certain that all the evidence for consideration is before us. If there is any biblical authority for keeping the first day of the week, it will have to be found in one of these verses.      Are we willing to face the consequences of this kind of exhaustive study? Here is where our prejudice will be tested! Can we open our minds completely to whatever this objective search reveals? These are not trick questions. Personally, I do not care which day is found to be the Sabbath. If the Bible teaches it, I will gladly keep Monday, Thursday, Friday, or Sunday. Long ago, I decided to be a Christian and to follow the Word of God wherever it would lead, regardless of my feelings. It makes no difference to me which day I keep holy, as long as it is the one commanded in the Bible! I hope you feel the same way as we begin our examination of every single reference in the New Testament that mentions the first day of the week. Chapter Three Resurrection on Sunday      Let’s begin with the first Gospel. Matthew writes, “In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre” (Matthew 28:1). Here we have some very interesting proof that the Sabbath could not possibly be the first day of the week. According to this recordthe Sabbath was ending when the first day was beginning. They are two successive days. Based on Scripture no one could truthfully call Sunday the Sabbath. It would be both confusing and unbiblical.      The substance of Matthew’s testimony is simply that the women came at dawn on the day following the Sabbath and found that Jesus was already risen. This harmonizes perfectly with the next Gospel, which adds a few more details. Notice that Mark equates the dawn with “the rising of the sun.” He wrote, “And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun. And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepul­chre?” (Mark 16:1–3).      These parallel Gospel accounts clear up a common misconception that has arisen over the meaning of Matthew’s words “as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week.” Some have interpreted this to be just before sundown on Saturday evening. Since the Hebrew reckoning would establish the end of the Sabbath at sunset, they assume that the women came just before the first day was ushered in at sundown.      Here we see the value of comparing text with text. Mark’s words make it impossible to hold the view that the women came Saturday night and found the tomb empty. He lists the very same women as coming at sunrise Sunday morning, but they were asking the question, “Who shall roll us away the stone?” Obviously, if they had been there the night before and discovered an empty tomb, they would have known that the stone was already removed from the door. Thus, we can understand clearly that Matthew’s “dawn” is referring to the early morning visit at sunrise on Sunday morning.      The third New Testament reference to the first day is a simple narrative statement in Mark 16:9, “Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.” Little comment is needed here, because the verse is only repeating the same story of the resurrection early on Sunday morning. The important thing to note is that nothing is said in any of these texts about the first day of the week being holy. There is no intimation of anyone observing the day in honor of the resurrection. Chapter Four Locating the True Sabbath      One of the most complete word pictures of resurrection events is found in the Gospel of Luke, and here we read the fourth reference to the first day of the week. “This man (Joseph of Arimathaea) went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid. And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on” (Luke 23:52–54).      Before reading further, let us carefully examine the inspired description of this crucifixion day. The vast Christian majority agrees that these events transpired on the day we now call Good Friday. Here it is called the “preparation” day, because it was a time for making special arrangements for the approaching Sabbath. In fact, the text states very simply “the sabbath drew on.” This means that it was coming up next.      What else happened on that day Jesus died? “And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment” (Verses 55, 56).      During the rest of that fateful Friday, the devoted women bought the anointing materials and made further preparation for their Sunday morning visit to the tomb. Then, as the Sabbath was ushered in at sunset, they “rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.” This identifies that holy day as the specific weekly Sabbath of the Ten Commandments and not the Passover or some other feast-sabbath that could have fallen on any day of the week.      The next verse tells what the women did on the day following the Sabbath. “Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them. And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre” (Luke 24:1, 2).      First, we notice that the women came to do their regular labor on the day of the resurrection. Modern churches refer to that particular first day of the week as Easter Sunday. There can be no doubt that Jesus was raised sometime during the dark hours of that early morning. In none of the Gospel recitals do we have any evidence that the women, or anyone else, attached any sacredness to the day on which the resurrection took place.      Luke’s account of that eventful weekend proves beyond any question that the true seventh-day Sabbath can still be precisely located. He describes the sequence of events over three successive days—Friday, Saturday, and Sun­day. Jesus died on the preparation day, and the Sabbath was approaching. Christians now refer to it as Good Friday. The next day was the Sabbath “according to the commandment.” Since the commandment plainly designates that “the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord,” that Sabbath had to be Saturday.      It is very interesting to note that Jesus rested in the tomb on the Sabbath from His work of redemption, just as He had rested from His work of creation on the Sabbath.      On the day following the Sabbath, Jesus rose. Today it is referred to as Easter Sunday, but the Bible designates it “the first day of the week.” In the light of these indisputable, historical facts to which all Christianity subscribes, no one can plead ignorance of the true Sabbath. It is the day between Good Friday and Easter Sunday. Luke’s record is such a perfect chronological account of those three days that even the most simple and uneducated can locate the biblical seventh day on our modern calendar.      Now we are prepared to examine the fifth New Testament statement concerning Sunday. “The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre” (John 20:1). There is very little new information in John’s description of the resurrection. Like all the other writers he gives no indication whatsoever that the first day of the week was ever counted holy or kept holy by anyone. So far, the significant common thread in all the Gospel stories has been a total absence of such evidence. Chapter Five For Fear of the Jews      John mentions the “first day” again in the same chapter, and this has often been misin­terpreted as a reference to Sunday worship. “Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you” (John 20:19).      Even though this gathering behind locked doors took place on the same day as the resurrection, was it a special commemoration of that event? The circumstances make it impossible for such to be the case. The text plainly states that they were gathered there “for fear of the Jews.” The frightened disciples had already learned that the tomb was empty, and they expected shortly to be charged with stealing away the body of Jesus. They huddled together in the locked room for protection and reassurance.      The fact is that they did not believe Christ had been resurrected from the dead. Mark’s account reveals that they totally rejected the testimony of Mary and the other disciples who brought word of actually seeing the resurrected Lord. “And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them. Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed notthem which had seen him after he was risen” (Mark 16:10–14).      Based on these words, we must quietly pass over that embarrassing Sunday afternoon meeting in the closed room. It was not an occasion of unrestrained joy over the resurrection, as some have portrayed it. In fact, there was not even any recognition on the part of the disciples that a miracle had taken place. They were fearful, depressed, and unbelieving. When Jesus appeared to them He spoke words of strong rebuke because of their lack of faith and because they had rejected the testimony of their own companions. How misleading it is to make this a happy memorial service honoring the resurrection!      Thus far, we have carefully studied six of the eight New Testament references without finding a single instance of Sunday observance. In fact, every one of them reveals a consistent, total ignorance of any recognition of the first day of the week for worship, prayer, rest, or honoring the resurrection. The Gospels were written several years after the events transpired, giving many opportunities to the Holy Spirit to inspire the authors with the full facts. Jesus told His disciples that the work of that Spirit was to “guide you into all truth” (John 16:13). If first-day observance had been any part of truth, then the Holy Spirit would have been divinely obligated to reveal it to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. So said our Lord.      Now we turn to the two remaining references. If we find no evidence in these texts, we will have to abandon the search, for there is nowhere else to look. Paul and Luke are the final witnesses who mention the first day of the week, and both of them have been grossly misrepresented in what they said. Chapter Six No Sunday-keeping in Corinth      In 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2, Paul wrote: “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come … whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem.”      Please carefully notice what the apostle said, and what he did not say. Many have assumed that a religious meeting was held and a collection plate passed. This is not the case. Paul was writing special appeals to the churches in Asia Minor, because many of the Christians in Jerusalem were suffering greatly for lack of food and daily necessities. Paul asked the church at Corinth to gather food, clothing, etc., and store it up at home until he could send men to transport it to Jerusalem. The expression “lay by him in store” in the original Greek gives the clear connotation of putting aside at home. Even Sunday advocates agree to this.      There was no service held on the first day of the week. The gathering up and storing was to be done on that day. Why did Paul suggest that this work be done on Sunday, and what was involved in getting it done?      First, the letter would have been shared with the church on the Sabbath when they were all gathered for worship. The first opportunity to do the work would be the next day—the first day of the week. Keep in mind that there was an apparent food shortage in Jerusalem, and the need was not primarily for money. Such famine conditions were not unusual in areas of the Middle East, as Luke reminds us in Acts 11:28–30.      The church in Rome gives a clue as to the special needs of those suffering Christians. “But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints. For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem. It hath pleased them verily; and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things. When therefore I have performed this, and have sealed to them this fruit, I will come by you into Spain” (Romans 15:25–28).      Here the apostle touches a tender spot in his eloquent appeal. The Roman Christians owed a great debt of gratitude to the mother church in Jerusalem that had sent teachers to evangelize them. Paul urges them to return carnal, or material, gifts in appreciation of the spiritual truths received from them. What kind of gifts did Paul have in mind? It is very interesting that he describes it as sealing to them “this fruit.” The Greek word used here is “karpos,” which is the universal term used for literal fruit. It can also have the connotation of “fruits of one’s labor.”      This throws light on Paul’s counsel to the Corinthian Christians to do their work on the first day of the week, “so that there be no gatherings when I come.” Such work as gathering and storing up produce from garden and field would certainly not be appropriate on Sabbath. In these verses, Sunday is identified once again as a day for secular activities and gives no indication of religious observance. Chapter Seven Paul’s Longest Sermon      This brings us to the final reference that could provide any support for Sunday sacredness. In Luke’s history of the early church, he describes the dramatic farewell meeting, which Paul had with the believers in Troas. Those who grasp for any tiny excuse to justify their disobedience of God’s commandments have grievously distorted this account in the book of Acts. Because it is the only record in the New Testament of a religious meeting being held on the first day of the week, we should examine it with special care and interest.      The full context reveals that it was a night meeting. “And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days; where we abode seven days. In addition, upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together. And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: … and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead. And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him. When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed. And they brought the young man alive, and were not a little comforted. And we went before to ship, and sailed unto Assos, there intending to take in Paul: for so had he appointed, minding himself to go afoot” (Acts 20:6–13).      There are some very unusual things about this all-night meeting in Troas. First, it had to be a solemn, poignant occasion for the speaker and congregation, as well. In verse 25 Paul declared, “And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.”      It is obvious that this farewell meeting was held on the dark part of the first day of the week. There were lights in the room, and Paul preached until midnight. It is important to understand the Jewish way of reckoning time. Days were not counted according to the pagan Roman method, from midnight to midnight. In the Bible, the day begins at evening.      Genesis describes all the days of creation week in the same way—“The evening and the morning were the first day … the evening and the morning were the second day,” etc. In other words, the evening always comes first in the day.      This explains why the Sabbath is described in these words, “It shall be unto you a sabbath of rest, ... from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbath” (Leviticus 23:32). But when does the evening begin according to the Bible? “And at even, when the sun did set, they brought unto him all that were diseased, and them that were possessed with devils” (Mark 1:32). Since the Pharisees taught that it was wrong to heal on the Sabbath, the people waited until the Sabbath was over before bringing their sick to Jesus. Therefore, they brought them “at even, when the sun did set.” Moses wrote, “Thou shalt sacrifice the passover at even, at the going down of the sun” (Deuteronomy 16:6).      In Nehemiah, we are given another description of the beginning of Sabbath. “And it came to pass, that when the gates of Jerusalem began to be dark before the sabbath, I commanded that the gates should be shut, and charged that they should not be opened till after the sabbath” (Nehemiah 13:19). This definitely places the first moments of the Sabbath at sunset, when it is beginning to be dark.      Now we are ready to apply this sound Bible principle to the first-day meeting of Paul in Troas. The night setting would require that it be held on Saturday night. The Sabbath ended at sundown, and the first day of the week began. Paul, who had stayed a full seven days so that he could be with the people over the Sabbath, decided not to leave with the ship on Saturday night. Instead, he fellowshipped all night long with the believers and then walked twenty miles across the peninsula on Sunday morning to join the boat at Assos.      Incidentally, Paul’s missionary companions, including Luke, who chronicled the highlights of the carefully scheduled voyage, manned this boat. It is very significant that they would not go out to sea until the Sabbath was over on Saturday night. Toiling at the oars and sails would have been no more proper for a holy day than Paul’s twenty-mile walk across the isthmus on Sunday morning. Neither Paul nor his fellow travelers would have indulged in those secular activities on God’s holy Sabbath. Chapter Eight Why Eutychus Dropped Out of Church      The New English Bible actually states that the meeting was held on Saturday night. The chief focus of the story seems to be upon the raising of Eutychus from the dead after he fell out the window. The dauntless Paul, after ministering on Sabbath and all night Saturday night, walked twenty miles on Sunday morning to join his companions in Assos. They had stayed with the ship as it sailed around the peninsula on Saturday night, after the Sabbath was over. That long journey on foot by Paul the next day would have been very inappropriate on any kind of holy day.      Some have equated the breaking of bread with the communion service, but such a view cannot be supported from the Scriptures. Luke assures us that those early Christians broke bread daily. “And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart” (Acts 2:46).      The Bible cannot confirm the contention that Paul celebrated the Lord’s Supper with the believers in the upper room. The wording seems to indicate that it was a common meal they shared together. “When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten…” (Acts 20:11). Here we find that eating was associated with the breaking of bread. It is unlikely that the communion meal would be referred to in this manner.      But even if that farewell meeting had included the celebration of Christ’s suffering and death, it would not lend any credence to Sunday observance. We have seen from Acts 2 that bread was broken daily, and nowhere is the Lord’s Supper linked to any particular day. It is surely obvious to anyone that the Troas meeting was not a regular weekly worship service. The importance of that all-night session appears in the miraculous raising of the young man Eutychus, and in the fact that Paul would never see them again before his death. The particular time frame—all Saturday night—has no spiritual significance whatsoever. Luke, the careful historian, does not even record any of the content of Paul’s marathon sermon, although he faithfully documents the miracle of the resurrected youth. Apparently, it was the way Eutychus dropped out of church, and not the day on which it happened that Luke is seeking to establish.      We have now completed an intensive examination of each one of the eight New Tes­tament references to the first day of the week. Not one of them has offered the slightest evidence that Sunday was ever sanctified by God or celebrated by man. God’s great infallible test-Book has revealed that the majority is following tradition instead of truth. Millions have been deceived into blind adherence to an empty pagan symbol.      I am reminded of the story of a Russian czar who took a walk one morning in the border area of his extensive palace grounds. There he saw a soldier with a gun on his shoulder marching up and down near a deserted corner of the courtyard wall. He asked the soldier, who was apparently on sentry duty, what he was guarding. The man replied that he was only following orders and did not know why he was assigned to that particular spot. The czar asked the captain of the guard what the soldier was doing, but he had no idea either. The general in charge of the palace security was consulted, but he could give no reason for the assignment. Finally, the king ordered a search of the dusty military records, and the mystery was unfolded. Years and years before, the queen mother had planted some rose bushes in that corner ofthe courtyard, and a soldier had been sent to protect the tender plants from being trampled. Later, someone had forgotten to cancel the order, and the daily sentry ritual had continued through the years—soldiers with their guns, guarding nothing but an empty rose plot.      Today there are millions of sincere Christians who are religiously trying to protect the sanctity of Sunday. They don’t realize that there is really nothing to guard. The first day of the week is just as devoid of holiness as the deserted courtyard of roses. Jesus said, “Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up” (Matthew 15:13). Chapter Nine The Day They Kept      Now that we have exhausted all possible sources for Sunday keeping without finding the smallest favorable evidence, let us turn to the inspired history of that early church. If they did not keep the first day of the week, which day did they observe? The book of Acts establishes a consistent pattern of seventh-day Sabbathkeeping. On one occasion, Paul was petitioned by the Gentiles to hold an exclusive service for them on the Sabbath. “And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath … And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God” (Acts 13:42, 44).      There are some very interesting points in these dynamic verses that validate the Sabbath practices of Paul and his fellow Christians. After preaching in the synagogue, where the Gentiles were not permitted to enter, Paul was besieged by the Gentiles with an appeal to preach to them “the next Sabbath.” Many have charged that Paul only preached in the synagogues on the Sabbath because he had a ready-made crowd of Jews to work on. This is a false claim. In this instance, Paul made an appointment to minister to the Gentiles on the following Sabbath, and according to verse 43, many of those who heard him that day were “proselytes” to the faith. This means they were converts to Christianity, and Paul and Barnabas “persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.”      How interesting it is that their Sabbath worship is spoken of in the context of continuing in God’s grace! Modern critics of the Sabbath try to label Sabbathkeepers as legalists who are aliens to the grace of the gospel. Not so the writers of the Bible, who constantly associate obedience with true salvation by faith.      In Acts 16:13 we have positive proof that Paul kept the Sabbath even when there was no synagogue and no Jews. He was ministering in Greece, where there were only a few scattered Jews and no synagogue at all. What did he do on the Sabbath? “And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spoke unto the women which resorted thither.”      Even with no church to attend, the apostle sought out a spot where religious worship was carried on—a place of prayer by the river—and preached to those who went there. Surely, no one can fail to discern Paul’s deep commitment to the Sabbath as we follow him in this unusual outdoor mission. Just suppose this Macedonian experience had taken place on the first day of the week instead of the Sabbath. Without question, it would be cited as absolute evidence for Sunday worship, and we would have to concur. But what possible arguments can one present against this example of Paul in true Sabbathkeeping?      Again, we read about Paul’s customary practice in these words, “And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures” (Acts 17:2). “And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks” (Acts 18:4).      Finally, we cite the great apostle’s per­sonal testimony that he never kept one Sunday holy in his whole life. Just before his death, Paul made this emphatic statement to the Jewish leaders, “Men and brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans” (Acts 28:17).      Think for a moment! If Paul had ever deliberately broken the Sabbath, or kept another day than the seventh, he could not have declared truthfully that he had done nothing against Jewish custom. On the strength of this unqualified declaration by a man of unimpeachable integrity, we close the search for Sunday keeping authority in the Bible. It just is not there.      Had we been able to find it, our religious obligation would, without doubt, be much easier to fulfill. We would have the support and example of most of the great religious institutions of the land, both Protestant and Catholic.      But we are not looking for the most popular way or the most convenient way; we are looking for the Bible way. And we have found it. In all honesty, we must declare that the prevailing custom of keeping a different day from the one commanded in the great handwritten law of God is contrary to the Word which will finally judge us. No amount of popular, majority opinion can annul the weighty testimony of a plain “Thus saith the Lord.” We must stand upon the Bible and the Bible alone for our doctrine on this subject.      The Word of God declares, “The seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work” (Exodus 20:10). Until we find some indication in the Bible that God retracted that moral law which He introduced to the world with such a fanfare of power and grandeur, we will accept the Ten Commandments as still relevant and binding today. God said what He meant, and He meant what He said.      Some argue that God exempts us from the fourth commandment because it is impossible to keep the seventh day in the competitive, industrialized society in which we have to earn a living. It is undoubtedly true that Satan has manipulated the economic world to the distinct disadvantage of the Sabbathkeeper, but Godhas never required the impossible. It is never necessary to break one of God’s commandments for any reason.      You may say, “But my employer requires that I work on Saturday, and I can’t let my family starve.” The answer to that dilemma was given by our Lord long ago in the Sermon on the Mount. He said “But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you” (Matthew 6:33). The preceding verse defines “these things” as food, clothes, and job. Jesus is simply telling us that if there is ever a conflict between obeying Him and obeying our employer, we should put Him first. Material considerations should never be made more important than doing God’s will.      In every case, God honors the faith of a Christian who decides to keep the Sabbath regardless of what happens to his job. Many times God works miracles by making special arrangements for the Sabbathkeeper. In some cases, He allows His children to be tested by losing their jobs, and then opens up better ones in response to their faith. Nevertheless, the “things” are always added when we trust Him and obey, regardless of the circumstances.      The real secret of keeping the Sabbath of the Lord is to have the Lord of the Sabbath in our hearts! It is love that leads God’s chil­dren to choose death rather than disobedience to one of His commandments. Jesus said, “If ye love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15). The apostle John defined love in these words, “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments” (1 John 5:3).      Thus, it is not so much the question of a day as it is of a way—the way of obedience through love, or of disobedience through lack of love. Mark it down and never forget it! Keeping the Sabbath, even the true seventh-day Sabbath, is an operation in futility if it does not proceed from a heart full of love and devotion to God. Without love, all law keeping becomes mechanical and miserable, but with love, every commandment becomes a joy and delight. Make this kind of personal love relationship the basis of your Sabbathkeeping, and it will be the happiest day of your week, for the rest of your life! Read more at www.bibleuniverse.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/b102a9

Amplify’d from www.bibleuniverse.com

Feast Days and Sabbaths

by Joe Crews

1   ARE THEY STILL BINDING?      How many commandments are contained in the Ten Commandments? Does that sound like a foolish question? Then consider the fact that thousands of religious people would give an answer like “94” or “110.” You see, there is a strange belief on the part of many that the great God-written law of the Ten Commandments was actually a part of the ceremonial law of Moses which contained scores of specific regulations. They do not see the decalogue as being distinct and totally unique because of its divine authorship. Neither do they see the clear limitation which the Bible sets for this moral code by calling it the TEN Commandments.      It seems quite obvious that one would effectively do away with the “Ten Commandments” by mingling them with ninety or a hundred others and calling them “ordinances” instead of commandments. Such a radical effort has been made to dilute the force of the only words of the Bible which God wrote with His own hand.      Furthermore, the claim has been advanced that since the Ten Commandments were a part of the mosaic law of ordinances which ended at the cross, we are no more obligated to obey the decalogue than we are to offer lambs in sacrifice.      Is there proof positive in the Scriptures that there was no such blending of the ceremonial and moral law into one? Can it be shown that the Ten Commandments were of a permanent, perpetual nature while the ceremonial law of statutes and ordinances came to an end when Jesus died? Indeed there is abundance of evidence to answer these questions with a resounding yes!      God made known this distinction to His servant Moses, and Moses explained it to the people at Mt. Horeb. “And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone. And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it” (Deuteronomy 4:13, 14).      Please notice how Moses clearly separated the Ten Commandments, which “he commanded you,” from the statutes which “he commanded me” to give the people. The big question now is whether those statutes and judgments, which Moses passed on to the people, were designated as a separate and distinct “law.”      God answers that important question in such a way that no doubt can remain. “Neither will I make the feet of Israel move any more out of the land which I gave their fathers; only if they will observe to do according to all that I have commanded them and according to all the law that my servant Moses commanded them” (2 Kings 21:8). Here we are assured that the statutes which Moses gave the people were called a “law.” Any child can discern that two different laws are being described. God speaks of the law “I commanded” and also the “law ... Moses commanded.” Unless this truth is understood properly, limitless confusion will result.      Daniel was inspired to make the same careful distinction when he prayed for the desolated sanctuary of his scattered nation. “Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him” (Daniel 9:11).      Once more we see “thy law” and “the law of Moses,” and this time the two are recognized as different in content. There are no curses recorded in the Ten Commandments that God wrote, but the law which Moses wrote contained an abundance of such curses and judgments.      The major point of difference between the law of God and the law of Moses, though, lies in the way they were recorded and preserved. We have already cited Moses’ statement that God “wrote them (the Ten Commandments) upon two tables of stone” (Deuteronomy 4:13). Compare that with Exodus 31:18, “two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.”      No one can confuse this writing with the way the mosaic law was produced. “And Moses wrote this law ... And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying, Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee” (Deuteronomy 31:9, 24-26).     This book of statutes and judgments which Moses wrote in a book was placed in a pocket on the side of the ark. In contrast, the law written by God on tables of stone was placed inside the ark of the covenant. “And thou shalt put into the ark the testimony which I shall give thee” (Exodus 25:16).      At this point we can note several distinctions in the two laws. They had different authors, were written on different material, were placed in different locations and had totally different content. 2   THE CEREMONIAL LAW IS AGAINST US      Now let’s take a closer look at the ceremonial ordinances that Moses wrote in the book. They were to repose in the “side of the ark ... for a witness against thee.” It is interesting to note that the curses and judgments of this law spelled out penalties for transgression which were totally missing from the Ten Commandments. For this reason, the ceremonial law was considered to be a law which was “against” them. Even in the New Testament we read the same descriptive language in reference to that law. “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” (Colossians 2:14).      Certainly there was nothing in the Ten-Commandment law that could be defined as “contrary” to Paul and the church to whom he was writing. It was not “against” those early Christians to refrain from adultery, theft, lying, etc. On the other hand, that moral law was a tremendous protection to them and favored every interest in their lives. We have only to read Paul’s exalted description of the Ten-Commandment law to recognize that those eternal principles were never blotted out or nailed to the cross. After quoting the tenth commandment of the decalogue in Romans 7:7, Paul wrote these words, “Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good” (verse 12). Then he continued in verse 14, “For we know that the law is spiritual ...”      If the Ten-Commandment law had been blotted out at the cross, would Paul have spoken in such glowing language of its perfection and spirituality? He did not speak of a past law. He said, “the law IS holy ... the law IS spiritual.” In other words, it was very much alive and operating when Paul wrote to the Roman church. In contrast he described the handwriting of ordinances in the past tense: “WAS against us ... WAS contrary to us.” It is certain he was not speaking of the same law. One was present and one was past.      Interestingly enough, Paul spoke of the fifth commandment as being in effect when he wrote to the Ephesians. “Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honor thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth” (Ephesians 6:1-3). Again, we find the great apostle affirming that this commandment “IS” not “WAS.” Had it been a part of the ordinances described by the same writer in Colossians, he would have said, “... it WAS the first commandment with promise.”      In the New Testament Church there was a lot of contention over the subject of circumcision, which was a major requirement of the ceremonial law. In Acts 15:5 we read, “But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”      As all recognize, this could not be referring in any sense to the Ten Commandments. They do not even mention circumcision. Yet Paul declared, “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God” (1 Corinthians 7:19). If the law dealing with circumcision was now NOTHING (abolished), then what “commandments” was he exalting as being still binding? One would have to be blind not to see two laws here. The moral law remained, while the law of circumcision (ceremonial law) was abolished.      The truth is that there are numerous references in the Bible which prove that the law of types and shadows, because of its temporary application, was never considered on an equality with the eternal moral law. Its system of sacrifices, human priesthood and feast days were instituted after sin entered the world and always pointed forward to the deliverance from sin which would be wrought through the true Lamb and Priest who was to come—Jesus.      The writer of Hebrews spends much time proving that the law of the Levitical priesthood would have to change in order to accommodate the priesthood of Jesus. He did not spring from the tribe of Levi, but from the tribe of Judah. Therefore, we have reference to Jesus “Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life” (Hebrews 7:12,16).      This “carnal commandment” dealing with a human priesthood is found in the handwritten law of Moses. It contrasts sharply with Paul’s description of the Ten Commandments as “spiritual” and “holy” and “good.” Nothing could be carnal and spiritual at the same time. Neither could anything be “good” and “not good” at the same time. Yet in Ezekiel we read these words:      “Because they ... had polluted my sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers’ idols. Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live” (Ezekiel 20:24, 25). Observe carefully how the prophet identifies the Sabbath law, and then immediately says, “I gave them ALSO statutes that were not good.” Keep in mind that the Ten Commandments were called “holy, and just, and good” (Romans 7:12). Because of its curses and judgments against their continual disobedience, the law of Moses was “against” them and was “not good.” 3   THE MORAL LAW EXISTED IN EDEN      The Mosaic Law is never equated with the eternal moral code which operated from the very beginning of human history. Although they were not written down until Mount Sinai, the Ten Commandments were understood and honored by the earliest patriarchs. Even Cain knew that it was a sin to kill, because God told him that “sin lieth at the door” (Genesis 4:7) after he murdered his brother.      It is impossible for sin to exist where there is no law. The Bible teaches, “for where no law is, there is no transgression” (Romans 4:15). Again we are told, “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4). This principle is amplified further by Paul’s statement that “I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet” (Romans 7:7).      These verses nail down the truth that no sin can be imputed where the Ten-Commandment law is not in effect. God’s statement to Cain about sin lying at the door was in reference to his plan to kill Abel, a violation of one of those commandments. This is absolute proof that the moral law was in effect at that early date. Later, Joseph revealed that he was aware of the binding claims of that same law. He said to Potiphar’s wife, “how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?” (Genesis 39:9). He knew adultery was sin.      Abraham was commended by God in these words: “Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws” (Genesis 26:5). It is very obvious that the law which Abraham faithfully obeyed was not the law of Moses, because that law was not given until 430 years later. And we have just established that the Ten Commandments existed before Abraham, condemning even Cain for murder. Neither is it possible for us to conceive that great, godly Abraham was not acquainted with the basic issues of right and wrong contained in the Ten Commandments.      It is absolutely certain that another law was added 430 years later, and it was in addition to the one Abraham kept so diligently. “And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect” (Galatians 3:17).      The context of this verse indicates that Paul is talking about the ceremonial law rather than the moral law of the Ten Commandments. In verse ten, he refers to the curses “which are written in the book of the law.” We know this had to be the mosaic law because, as we have already noted, there are no curses recorded in the law written on stone.      Can we find further confirmation that this later law was indeed the law of Moses? The answer rests in Galatians 3:19. “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions till the seed should come to whom the promise was made ...” Here we have two significant facts set forth concerning the law which was added. We are told why it was given and also how long it would remain in effect. These two bits of information will be considered very carefully since they contain compelling evidence in the case.      FIRST: WHY WAS IT GIVEN? The verse clearly states that it was “added because of transgressions.” This is most revealing because we have just established that “where no law is, there is no transgression” (Romans 4:15). One can’t be guilty of transgressing a law which does not exist. In this case one law obviously did exist; and it had been “transgressed,” making it necessary to add another law 430 years after God’s covenant with Abraham. And since it is recorded that “Abraham obeyed ... my laws” (Genesis 26:5), we have to believe that that earlier law, which Abraham observed, was the Ten Commandments. Moses had not yet been born, and it could not have been his law.      So what must we conclude from this evidence? The Ten Commandments had been transgressed, making it necessary to add the ceremonial law. Upon reflection, this makes a lot of sense. If a law is made forbidding murder, and it is broken, then another law would have to be enacted to prescribe the penalty or punishment for breaking that first law. We have already established that the Ten Commandments contained no curses (penalties) or judgments (punishments), but the mosaic law was characterized by those very things.      SECOND: HOW LONG DID THIS “ADDED” LAW REMAIN IN EFFECT? The Scripture says, “Till the seed should come.” There is no controversy over the identity of that seed. It is Christ. But do we have evidence that the law which was blotted out and nailed to the cross was indeed the law of Moses? Whichever law it was, it is designated as the “handwriting of ordinances.” Nowhere are the Ten Commandments identified as ordinances. That term is applied to local legal codes which are very narrow and limited, such as “town ordinances” which extend only to the city limits. In comparison, the Ten Commandments are more like the constitution of the United States. 4   WHAT LAW WAS BLOTTED OUT?      But let’s look closer at that text in Colossians 2:14-16 to get the real picture. After describing the “blotting out” and “nailing” of the ordinances, Paul wrote, “Let no man THEREFORE judge you in meat, or in drink.” The word “therefore” means “based on what has just been said, we must come to this conclusion.” In other words, he was saying, “Based upon the fact that the ordinances have been blotted out, THEREFORE let no one judge you in meat or drink.”      Now we begin to see clearly which law was under discussion. Is there anything in the Ten Commandments about meat and drink?      But let us read the rest of the text before us: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ” (Colossians 2:16, 17).      Question: Could these sabbath days be talking about the Seventh-day Sabbath of the ten-commandment law? No. Because they are clearly defined as “shadows of things to come.” Please keep in mind that the weekly Sabbath was instituted by God before sin came into the world. THERE COULD NEVER BE TYPES OR SHADOWS BEFORE SIN EXISTED! All the shadows were introduced because of sin and pointed forward to the deliverance from sin through Christ. For example, all the lambs slain represented Jesus, the true LAMB, who would die for the sins of the world. If sin had not entered the world, there would have been no need of a Saviour, and therefore, no lambs or shadows pointing to a Saviour.      So these “sabbath days which are a shadow” could not possibly be referring to the Seventh-day Sabbath. But what other sabbaths could they be talking about? Were there “sabbaths” other than the weekly Sabbaths? Yes, there were yearly sabbaths which had absolutely nothing to do with the Seventh-day Sabbath of the decalogue. And they were definitely a part of the “ordinance” system which ended at the cross.      For proof of this, let us go back to the law of Moses and read about these annual feast days which were shadowy sabbaths. “Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, In the seventh month, in the first day of the month, shall ye have a sabbath, a memorial of blowing of trumpets, an holy convocation” (Leviticus 23:24). Again we read, “Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonement ... It shall be unto you a sabbath of rest” (verses 27, 32).      As you can clearly see, these annual sabbaths fell on a different day of the week every year, and God specifically explained that they were not to be confused with the weekly Sabbath. “These are the feasts of the Lord, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, to offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord, a burnt offering, and a meat offering, a sacrifice, and drink offerings, everything upon his day: BESIDE THE SABBATHS OF THE LORD” (verses 37, 38).      Now we can understand what Paul was referring to in Colossians when he wrote about meat and drink and sabbath days which are shadows. There were certain prescribed offerings for each of those yearly feast days, and they were shadows pointing to the future sacrifice of Jesus. But the Bible says these were “BESIDE THE SABBATHS OF THE LORD,” or the Seventh-day Sabbath.      Now it is fully established which law was blotted out and nailed to the cross. At the moment of Christ’s death, the veil of the temple was ripped from top to bottom by an unseen hand (Matthew 27:51). The most holy place of the sanctuary was exposed where the sprinkled blood recorded all the sins of the people. But no more blood needed to be sprinkled; no more lambs needed to be slain; the true Lamb had come to which all those sacrifices pointed. From henceforth, it would be a denial of the Saviour to bring animals. It would be denying that He was the fulfillment of all the shadows and types. Therefore, it would be “against us” or “contrary to us” to continue observing that mosaic law.      To clarify this issue further, let’s ask a very simple question or two. On the day before Jesus died, would it have been a sin for a man to refuse to bring a lamb in order to have his sins forgiven? The answer, of course, is yes. It would have been a sin, because that was the only way to be forgiven. Another question: Would it have been a sin to refuse to bring that lamb, THE DAY AFTER JESUS DIED? No, because the true Lamb had died, the veil had been rent, and the ordinances blotted out. A law had been abolished by being nailed to the cross—the ceremonial law of Moses. Paul referred to the same law in Ephesians 2:15, “Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances ...”      Now let’s ask another question: On the day before Jesus died, was it a sin to steal? Undoubtedly it was. On the day after He died, was it a sin to steal? The answer is yes; it was just as wrong as the day before He died. Obviously, all the blotting out of ordinances, types and shadows did not affect the great moral code of the Ten Commandments in the slightest degree—they all applied afterward as much as before Christ died.      There are Christians today who still insist that the yearly sabbaths should be observed along with the weekly Sabbath. If such is required, then what were the sabbath days which were blotted out and nailed to the cross? And what was the “holyday” mentioned by Paul as being abolished along with those “sabbath days which were shadows of things to come?” The Greek word for “holyday” is heorte, which is also used to designate one of the yearly festivals of the Jews: “After this there was a feast (heorte) of the Jews; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem” John 5:1. This is unquestionably one of the holy days that Paul spoke of as being abolished. In contrast, the weekly Sabbath is never referred to as a “feast,” neither is it ever connected to the Jews by such terms as “sabbath of the Jews.” It is only designated as the “sabbath of the Lord.”      It is of more than passing interest that some of the most noted Bible commentators (including Adam Clarke and Albert Barnes) agree that Paul is not talking about the Ten Commandments being abolished at the cross. Dwight L. Moody, Dr. C. I. Schofield and Billy Graham also strongly affirm that the law abolished was the ceremonial law. 5   THE TEN COMMANDMENTS IN HEAVEN      Perhaps we should ask right at this point, what is the significance of the tables of God’s law being placed inside the ark of the covenant?Remember that this spot was the most holy on the earth because it represented God’s throne. God had said, “there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the cherubims” (Exodus 25:22). Below that shekinah glory, symbolizing the presence of God, lay that holy law by which sin was to be defined. And there, as we know from the Scriptures, Jesus, our High Priest, was to plead His blood for sinners.      The earthly sanctuary was copied by Moses from the pattern in heaven. All its priestly ministry was a type and shadow of the work of Jesus, the true High Priest, in the holy and most holy places of the heavenly sanctuary. “Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us” (Hebrews 9:24). John the Revelator beheld the original sanctuary in heaven where Christ now ministers as High Priest to make atonement for sin. What is sin? “Sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4). Which law? John gives the answer in Revelation 11:19, “... the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament.”      Think of it for a moment! This is the real thing from which all the Old Testament was patterned. Here is the real Priest, the real mediation, and IN THE ARK OF THE COVENANT, the real Ten Commandments. But please consider this horrendous scenario—IF THE LAW THAT WAS IN THE ARK WAS ABROGATED AT THE CROSS, CHRIST IS MEDIATING FOR THE TRANSGRESSION OF AN OBSOLETE LAW! Keep in mind that John is beholding this heavenly scene years and years after the cross. It is still there today! In the throne room of God, over the mercy seat, where His blood is now sprinkled for the blotting out of sin. Sin is still what it has ever been, and Christ ministers His blood for sin. No wonder the mercy seat is located just above the broken law. Remove the ark containing God’s law and you remove the foundation of His throne, His government. You also remove the law by which sin can be defined and judged. If there be no law, there can be no transgression, and therefore, no need of an Intercessor or a Saviour.      With the heavenly sanctuary located so definitely in the throne room of God over the ark containing the Ten Commandments, there is not a shred of evidence remaining against the validity of that law. The truth is that all men will be judged on the basis of that eternal code which forms the foundation of God’s government. James wrote, “For whosoever shall keep the whole law and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty” (James 2:10-12).      Do not by any means miss the tremendous truths contained in these verses. This is the law we will be judged by! Which law is it? James leaves no room for doubt. He quotes two of the Ten Commandments. But notice how he defines this law as a complete unit in itself. He states that we are responsible for keeping “the whole law.” How many commandments are contained in “the whole law”? Exactly ten! What do we become if we break any one of the ten? “A transgressor of the law,” James answers. And that is what sin is called in the Bible. “Sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4).      Why did Jesus come? “Thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21). Notice that Jesus came to save us from breaking the law, but “... if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 John 2:1). Here we have a picture of our High Priest, our Advocate, interceding with His own blood in the heavenly sanctuary before the Father’s throne in behalf of those who break His law. Where is the throne located? Over the ark of the covenant containing the law by which James says all “shall be judged.”      Is there any validity to the argument that the Ten Commandments were all abolished at the cross, and then nine of them restored in the New Testament? This is a specious invention to attempt evasion of the fourth commandment. No Christian has ever found fault with nine of the commandments. Why would they want to get rid of the fourth? Obviously because they are breaking it and do not want to believe that they stand condemned by it. Can they annul the entire decalogue, and then reinstate nine of them? We have proven already that only the mosaic law was annulled—not the Ten Commandments. Further, James has declared that the whole of that law is binding, and breaking any one of them is sin. How can anybody extract the fourth commandment from the Ten Commandments and still call it a “whole law”?      Incidentally, the Sabbath is mentioned in the New Testament more than any of the other nine. This could be tied to the fact that God has apparently chosen the fourth commandment to be the great test issue in His law. In Exodus 16 He used the Seventh-day Sabbath to “prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no” (Exodus 16:4).      Is there reason to believe that the Sabbath contains a testing quality that cannot be found in any of the other nine commandments? It is an interesting question to contemplate. Besides being worded in a totally different manner (“remember” instead of “thou shalt not”), the fourth commandment is the one which does not have a stigma attached to breaking it. One might abstain from stealing for fear of going to jail, and from adultery for fear of getting shot by an angry spouse. In fact, it is illegal to break some of the Ten Commandments, so they might be obeyed simply to avoid the negative consequences of disobedience. BUT CONSIDER THIS: IN OUR WORLD TODAY, THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT ACTUALLY CARRIES A STIGMA FOR KEEPING IT! In fact, the only reason one would choose to obey it is out of love for Christ and choosing His will above our own. Therefore, it would constitute a special test of genuine love for Christ. 6   PROOF THAT THE SABBATH REMAINS      Although there is a wealth of proof that the Ten-Commandment law and the Sabbath were confirmed by an obedient New Testament Church, I would like to focus on one area of evidence that is often overlooked or misinterpreted. We find it in Hebrews 4, and it probably constitutes the most convincing single reference in favor of Sabbath-keeping to be found in the Bible.      As a little background, we need to examine the thrust of the whole book of Hebrews. The writer of this letter is showing how many of the elements of the old covenant have been taken away. We can almost feel the anguish of the Hebrew believers as Paul explains to them how the sacrificial system has been taken away, having been fulfilled in Christ. The Levitical priesthood has been removed, being replaced by Christ our High Priest. Were they waiting fearfully to hear him take away the Sabbath also? If so, they must have been tremendously relieved when he wrote these words, “There remaineth therefore a ‘keeping of the sabbath’ (see margin) to the people of God” (Hebrews 4:9). I am using the marginal reading of the King James Version because that is the exact, literal meaning of the original statement.      The context of Hebrews three and four does not indicate that Paul was trying to convince the Hebrew Christians which day to keep holy. They already knew that. His great burden was for them to enter into a spiritual relationship with Christ—to have an experience of rest from the works of sin. He proved that the children of Israel did not find that true rest because of their lack of faith and disobedience in the wilderness. Although the Greek word for rest, KATAPAUSIS, means simply “cessation from work,” the context seems to indicate that the author is talking primarily about finding a spiritual rest in their experience.      Nevertheless, the two chapters definitely tie the spiritual rest to the Seventh-day Sabbath-keeping initiated and commanded by God in the beginning. Otherwise, we would not find in verse four a direct quote from Genesis 2:2. “For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works” (Hebrews 4:4).      The reason for citing God’s resting on the Sabbath from His work of creation is revealed only when we analyze verses nine and ten. Paul says that what remains for God’s people is not KATAPAUSIS (a spiritual rest), but SABBATISMAS, meaning a literal keeping of the Sabbath. Then in verse ten we find the real key which proves beyond a question that the SABBATISMAS rest was not spiritual only, but a cessation from physical work. “For he that is entered into his rest (KATAPAUSIS—spiritual rest), he ALSO (in addition to the spiritual rest) hath ceased from his own works, AS GOD DID FROM HIS.”      The big question about this verse focuses on the works which one ceases from. Are they works of sin? Are they works to obtain salvation? Or are they the physical works from which we cease on the Sabbath? The answer is plainly revealed by the phrase “AS GOD DID FROM HIS.” Go back to verse four and we begin to understand why this quote from Genesis is included in Paul’s discourse. It is necessary to establish which works God did rest from. God ceased from His physical work of creation on the seventh day, and we are admonished to cease from ours, as He did from His. He did not just enter into a spiritual rest on the seventh day or we might conclude that He was not at spiritual rest on the first six days. The fact is that God is always at spiritual rest. Neither did He have any works of sin or the flesh to cease from. He simply rested on the seventh day from His work of creation, and we are being told by Paul that the ones who truly have received the spiritual rest of salvation will ALSO cease from their physical works on the Sabbath, AS GOD DID FROM HIS.      Don’t you see how this lends a tremendous new spiritual dimension to the keeping of the Sabbath? It memorializes our personal salvation experience. It stands as a blessed weekly reminder of the continual rest from sin that we may have through Christ. No wonder the Sabbath “remains” for the people of God! Our Creator has made it a symbol of the sweetest spiritual blessings available to the human family.      We can understand why God did this when we pause to think how Sabbath-keeping parallels the salvation experience. What really makes something holy? In Isaiah 58:13 God calls the Sabbath “my holy day” and “a delight.” Listen! It is the presence of God in something which makes it holy. (Remember the burning bush?) God’s presence is in the Sabbath just as His presence is also manifest in the life of a genuine Christian. So why should not true Sabbath-keeping be made a memorial of true salvation in Christ?      It is no happenstance that the same Hebrew word, CHASID, is used in Isaiah 58:13 to describe the Sabbath (“my HOLY day”) and also in Leviticus 19:2 to describe God’s people (“Ye shall be HOLY”). He dwells in the Sabbath, and He dwells in His people as a sanctifying influence, hence both are called “holy.” This is why God made the Sabbath, from the beginning, a sign of sanctification. “Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them” (Ezekiel 20:12). The New International Version says, “so they would know that I the Lord made them holy.”      Lest someone raise the stale argument that the Sabbath is only a sign of holiness for the Jews, let me hasten to add this inspired text: “if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:29). All born-again Christians are the true Israel today, and have been sanctified unto God. therefore, the Sabbath is for them.      This sign of sanctification has been reaffirmed in the New Testament by Paul’s dramatic statement in Hebrews 4:9, 10 that the keeping of the Sabbath remains for God’s people. Because we have entered into His spiritual rest of salvation (“Be ye holy”), he declares that we should ALSO rest from our works, “AS GOD DID FROM HIS” (“my holy day”).      Someone might suggest that after we enter into spiritual rest there would be no need to observe the memorial of it by keeping the Sabbath physically. But if that were true, we would have to also stop practicing water baptism. Immersion memorializes our death to the old man of sin. We experience that conversion BEFORE entering the water to be baptized. If the physical observance is unnecessary just because we have had the spiritual symbolism fulfilled in us, then we should abandon the physical custom.      Further, we would have to renounce the practice of celebrating the Lord’s Supper. It also memorializes an experience of the heart in receiving the sacrifice of our Lord by faith. But should we give up the physical observance of the communion just because we have already entered into the spiritual joy of what it represents? Of course not! Then why should anyone suggest that the Sabbath not be observed physically just because it is used as a memorial of union with Christ? Paul says that it REMAINS as a Sabbath rest for the people of God.      In their monumental Commentary On the Whole Bible, Jamieson, Fausset and Brown make this comment on Hebrews 4:9, “This verse indirectly establishes the obligation of the Sabbath still” (page 449). It is most interesting that these Sunday-keeping theological scholars, with the highest of linguistic credentials, make such a statement. Yet the relationship of the spiritual rest of salvation and the physical Sabbathkeeping is undeniable in the context.      So how can we summarize our discoveries about the two laws? Surely it has been established that the Ten Commandments were in a different category than the temporary mosaic law of ordinances. That moral code, encased in the ark of testimony, like the rest of the wilderness sanctuary, was a copy of the true pattern in heaven. So we affirm that it not only was repeated and reinforced in the New Testament but was identified in John’s vision beneath the mercy seat in the heavenly sanctuary, from which Christ ministers His own blood for the transgression of that holy law. From that foundational position, it continues to be the basis for Christ’s intercessory ministry for us in the throne room of heaven. Therefore, it is established as the most unmovable and unchangeable of all God’s decrees. Read more at www.bibleuniverse.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/b102a5