The position I have been called to defend is that Christians are bound by the law of God to observe the Sabbath on Sunday. I will attempt to prove this through an appeal to the whole counsel of God, not simply to scattered verses that appear to say something on their own. The way heresies have historically been formed in the church of God is to appeal to one scripture and deny what the whole and entire counsel of God has to say upon a certain matter. One of us is sinning in presenting his position. If my Christadelphian brother is right, then I am sinning by binding you to a yoke greater than Christ has given to us. If I am right, then my opponent is sinning by telling you it is alright to disobey a command that God has instituted for us.
In order to present clearly the issue of whether it is fit and proper to observe the Sabbath, we must first determine precisely what God has stated concerning His law and how we are to apply it to ourselves today. It is my firm opinion, and the firm opinion of many Reformed Christians (Calvinists), that the reason why the church has such little impact on the broader society today is because we have moved away from obedience to God’s commandments as they must be properly instituted in our lives. God promises not only spiritual blessing, but material blessing and earthly dominion if we are faithful to obey the commandments of the covenant (Deuteronomy 28, and yes this applies to the church today since Christ informs us that the kingdom of Israel has been passed to the church in Matthew 21:43, and Paul tells us that the Gentiles have been grafted onto single vine while the Jews have been torn off in Romans 11; Psalm 2 also commands all governments to submit to the law of the Bible). If we are not faithful to obey the commandments of the covenant, God promises judgments as 1 Peter 4:17 states, judgment begins with the house of God. Most Protestants and Christian groups today have essentially committed that old heresy where the Old Testament law is thrown out and all we pay attention to are the sayings of Jesus Christ in the gospels. The scripture vehemently rejects this position. For this reason God has made the Protestant church weak and the heresy of Romanism powerful, and it is presently now swallowing up many of the liberal and even those that are seen as evangelical protestant denominations. Gone are the days of Protestant influence on the earth due to these Arminian influences.
If we are to understand the New Testament properly we must first understand what the Bible says about the application of the law of God. The Bible tells us that there are two kinds of law: that law that is binding upon all people of the earth, and that there is also law that is only binding upon ethnic Jewry. Most who hold to my opponent’s position contend that every law in the Old Testament given by Moses is only binding upon ethnic Jewry. But is this the case? Not according to the scriptures! The scriptures tell us that all are under judgment due to sin, and that we know what sin is by the Mosaic Law. Paul states: "When Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their heats, their consciences also bearing witness" (Romans 2:14-15). So Paul clearly states here that the requirements of the law of God, as revealed in the Old Testament, are written upon the hearts of every single man. This is no law meant only for the Jews! Paul states early in verse 13 "it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous" (Romans 2:13). Paul is saying here that even though the Jews "have the law" and will be judged by the law, even the Gentiles have that law written on their hearts, and therefore all who obey this one law will be declared righteous. Paul is clearly advocating here one law for Jew and Gentile that is to be obeyed and by which all men are judged. The Old Testament also binds the Gentiles to the law of God when it states in Deuteronomy 9:5 "It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations, the LORD your God will drive them out before you…" So we see here that God is judging these nations for their wickedness and sin. The Bible clearly tells us that sin is defined as a violation of the law of God in 1 John 3:4 "Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness" (or as the KJV renders it ‘sin is the transgression of the law’). These Canaanite Gentiles were wicked because they were breaking God’s law, the same law that Israel was bound to obey. God is saying in this verse: I am not bringing Israel into the land because it is
lawkeeping, but I am kicking the Canaanites out because they are lawbreaking. The same law for both is implied here. This is even more abundantly proven in the fact that Jew and Gentile could both be executed by the civil law of Israel for breaking one of the Ten Commandments. Both the Jew and the stranger (Gentile) were not allowed to commit adultery, murder, kidnapping, Sabbath-breaking, and if either did both were to be put to death. After God lists the death penalties for violating the ten commandments in Leviticus 24, He states in Leviticus 24:22 "You are to have the same law for the alien and the
nativeborn, I am the LORD your God". God is not talking about the entire law of the Torah here, but just the laws of death penalty for violating the Ten Commandments, which He has just listed (this also proves by the way that when a Gentile nation covenants with King Jesus the nation should pass the civil law of God as expressed in the Bible, because all are bound to the same justice). In Deuteronomy 18, God lists a whole bunch of moral laws concerning witchcraft and idolatry in the first verses (tied to the first two commandments of the Decalogue) and then states in verse 12 "ANYONE who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you." As we can see, God is punishing the Gentiles for breaking the moral law of God as summarized by the Ten Commandments.
So what we have established here is that all men are bound to obey the law, and will be judged according to their obedience to the law. What is this "law" that Paul speaks of in Romans 1 and God refers to as binding on the Gentiles in the Old Testament? It is the moral law of God as expressed in the Ten Commandments. The Jewish rabbis themselves understood this distinction, and they divided the law into that law which was binding upon both stranger and Jew, and that law which was only binding upon the Jew (namely the ceremonial and sacrificial systems and circumcision). Not only have many rabbis made this distinction throughout their history, but the Bible itself makes this distinction, and even clearly relates that one law is superior to the other law. Brian Schwertley writes "A number of passages indicate that both God and Israel clearly recognized the distinction between moral laws and those which were ceremonial. In fact, several passages would be incomprehensible without such a distinction. "Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD?" (1 Sam 15:22) "To obey is better than sacrifice, because obedience to God is a moral duty, constantly and indispensably necessary; but sacrifice is but a ceremonial institution, sometimes unnecessary, as it was in the wilderness; and sometimes sinful, when it is offered by a polluted hand, or in an irregular manner; therefore their gross disobedience to God’s express command is not to be compensated with sacrifice." The ceremonial rituals apart from faith and repentance accomplished nothing except arousing the anger of a holy God. "A category distinction is unmistakable in God’s declaration, ‘I desire faithful love, not sacrifice’
(Hos. 6:6). That statement would have made no sense whatsoever if Israel could not have told the difference between the laws demanding sacrifice (which we call ceremonial) and the laws demanding faithful love (which we call moral and civil). Are we to believe that the ancient Israelites lacked the mental acumen to catch the contrast between laws which bound Jews and Gentiles alike (e.g., the death penalty for murder, Lev. 24:21-22) and those which bound Jews but not Gentiles (e.g., the prohibition of eating animals that died of themselves, Deut. 14:21)? Whether they used the verbal labels of ‘moral’ (civil) and ‘ceremonial’ (as we do) is beside the point." The New Testament also recognizes the ceremonial distinction. In fact, the book of Hebrews is incomprehensible without such a distinction (cf. Heb. 7:11-12, 18-19). Although violating a ceremonial law under the Old covenant would be immoral (i.e., a sin), because any violation of God’s revealed will is sinful, nevertheless the distinction between moral and ceremonial is biblical and must be maintained." (Schwertley, Brian "God's Law for Modern Man"). Paul refers to the ceremonial law as the "weak and beggarly elements" and the "commandments contained in ordinances" that no longer need to be obeyed since the death of Christ on the cross to provide the more perfect sacrifice and end the ceremonies. This is what the apostles were fighting against when in Acts 15 the apostles had to fight against certain Pharisees who wanted to circumcise everyone and command them to keep the ceremonial laws. What does the New Testament say about the law of God and how we are to approach it today? Christ’s words are clear in Matthew 5:17-19 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be cal led great in the kingdom of heaven."
We see from this verse that Christ wishes to make it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that His law remains in FULL FORCE. In fact, we have the opportunity to obey it better than ancient Israel ever did, because we now no longer have to use the ceremonial sacrificial laws, since we can cling to Christ and acknowledge the sacrificial law in that way! In this way, we still obey the entire law. There are many who will attempt to pull statements of Paul of context that appear to state that we no longer have to obey the Old Testament law, or as Paul expresses it, "we are no longer under the law". This does not mean that we are no longer to strive to obey the law, it simply means that the law no longer has the power to condemn us if we disobey it, because we have been justified by faith alone in Christ alone. Brian Schwertley writes concerning this "believers are not under the curse of the law. ‘Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, ‘cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree’), that the blessings of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith’ (Gal. 3:13-14). Paul says that by Christ’s death on the cross, believers are set free from the curse or penalty of the law. Anyone who commits sin is under a curse. God said, ‘The soul who sins shall die’ (Ezek. 18:4). John the Baptist declared that ‘he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him’
(Jn. 3:36). Paul said that the ‘law brings about wrath’ (Rom. 4:15). ‘Having shown the absolute demand of God upon a man’s life, having defined what sin is, having convicted man of sin and shown him the nature of sinful rebellion, the law pronounces the just condemnation of God upon the sinner. The law shuts up all men under sin and seals off any escape to life for them in their own strength (Gal. 3:22). The sinner finds himself lost and sold under sin; the magnitude of his dilemma is revealed in the words, ‘I t stands written that accursed is everyone who does not continue in all things having been written in the law-book to do them’ (Gal. 3:10).’ Jesus Christ bore the guilt and the penalty for the sins of His people on the cross at Calvary. The wrath of God that we deserved for our sins was placed upon Christ. But the fact that Christ bore the judgment that we deserved does not mean that believers are no longer under law as a guide for daily living and sanctification. Such a view ‘is antinomianism, and alien to St. Paul. St. Paul attacked man-made laws, and man-made interpretations of the law, as the way of justification; the law can never justify; it does sanctify, and there is no sanctification by lawlessness.’"
Clearly then, the WHOLE COUNSEL OF GOD must be considered if we wish for Israel, or the church of Jesus Christ to be strong again. The ethnic Jews in Palestine are no longer the Israel of God. We must put on ourselves the entire word of God and obey the entire law of God as revealed in the Old and New Testament. Bestiality is an example of a clear moral law that is only mentioned in the Old Testament, but must still be obeyed today. Tithing is another example where the church has gone wrong. Because we no longer consider tithing to be a requirement of God’s moral law of giving related to the eighth commandment, giving in churches is at an all time low.
So how does this all relate to the fourth commandment? Well it is clear, as Jesus states in Matthew 5, that the fourth commandment continues for today. First of all, the fourth commandment was originally binding not only on just the Jews, but also the Gentile strangers as the verse states in Exodus 20:10 "but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, NOR THE ALIEN WITHIN YOUR GATES". As we can see, the Gentiles were bound to obey this law under penalty of death since, as is stated elsewhere, Sabbath violators were to be executed. This is far different from the Passover for example, were an alien stranger was not bound to observe it unless he became circumcised and expressed an interest in becoming a full Jew. We see here that this Sabbath commandment is binding upon Jews and Gentiles, and not only this, but we see that God sanctifies the Sabbath day ALL THE WAY BACK IN GENESIS when God rested. The Sabbath was not sanctified when God covenanted with the Jews, but when God created the heavens and the earth. The Sabbath is a creation ordinance, and an eternally binding principle that is a reflection of God’s essential nature of work and rest. Does Jesus ever repudiate the Sabbath? Absolutely not! In fact, what we find is Jesus giving us specific information on exactly what we are to do on the Sabbath day! Jesus worships in the synagogue on the Sabbath day. Jesus specifically tells us it is proper to perform works of mercy and healing on the Sabbath day. Jesus specifically tells us it is right to nourish ourselves on the Sabbath day like David did and like He did when he was picking grain with His disciples. Why would Jesus go into all this detail on the Sabbath in the gospels if He was only going to abolish it a few years later?
Hebrews also tells us in 4:9 "there remains then a Sabbath-rest for the people of God". Some will argue that this is referring back to the earlier verses that refer to the rest we have in Christ. However, this is the ONLY instance where the word Sabbatismos is used in the Greek. All of the other times the author mentions rest another word is being used. This should clue us in that the author in this verse is talking about a different kind of Sabbath. The only other time this word is used, which is in the Greek Septuagint Old Testament, is when it is being used in reference to the earthly Sabbath day. This then tells us that Hebrews is here commanding a Sabbath rest for us in the New Testament. John in Revelation 1:10 states that there is such a thing as a "Lord’s Day". This is an echo of Isaiah 58, which also refers to a "Lord’s Day" or a day that is the Lord’s possession, and God refers to it as the Sabbath day. If John were using the term to describe the very final day of judgment as some contend, then we would not be sitting here arguing this because the judgment would have already come! Isaiah 58
(KJV) states " If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD,
honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it." So we see here the word "Sabbath" and "Lord’s day" (or "My holy day") are synonyms. This is further accentuated by the fact that many of the visions of Revelation deal with the worship of God by the elders, as well as the elements of Old Testament temple worship like the temple and alter and incense. Worship is of course especially to be done on the Sabbath day.
Finally, we know that the day has been changed from the seventh day of the calendar week, to the first day of the calendar week through apostolic example as well as the information that Christ rested from His work of salvation the first day. Brian Schwertley writes concerning apostolic example: "The universal practice of the apostolic church was to observe the first day of the week. The apostles met together on the first two Sundays after the resurrection
(Jn. 20:19-26). The disciples also met together for public worship on Pentecost Sunday: "When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place" (Ac. 2:1). "Just as the disciples had been ‘gathered together’ (probably in the upper room) on the first Resurrection Sunday, the next or second Sunday (John 20:26), and very probably every following Sunday as well, so too were they ‘with one accord in one place’—probably also in the same ‘place,’ the upper room—on the eighth Sunday of Pentecost...that eighth Sunday, the Lord’s day, when the Lord’s Spirit suddenly came to His temple (His church in the upper room) and burned like an oven with tongues of fire—that too was the new Day which God would create, the Day of the Lord, the Day of the Lord God the Holy Spirit." It is clear that the apostles and the very first churches founded by them sanctified the first day of the week.
The abiding nature of the new covenant first-day observance is demonstrated by Acts 20:7: "Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight." Note that several years after the resurrection and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost the practice of the New Testament church was still public worship on the first day of the week, the Lord’s day (Rev. 1:10). The disciples came together to hear the preaching of the Apostle Paul and to celebrate the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, which in the early church was taken together with a meal. They broke bread as a memorial to Christ’s death on the cross, and they met on the first day of the week to study, celebrate and remember Christ’s work of redemption and His glorious resurrection victory. "It should be observed that the disciples did not come together on the first day of the week simply so that Paul could preach to them before his departure, as some claim. If the sole purpose of the gathering was to hear the Apostle preach his farewell sermon to the congregation, this was something that could have been done at any time during his previous week’s sojourn there. From the Seventh-day Adventist point of view, one would expect such a sermon to have been preached to the congregation on the previous day, Saturday, and for the hastening Paul to have sailed from Troas at sunset on Saturday or dawn on Sunday. Yet there is no trace of this, nor indeed of any Saturday meeting whatsoever. Rather does the whole context teach that Paul simply and incidentally availed himself of the opportunity to preach to the congregation ‘upon the first day of the week when the disciples (as usual) came together to break bread’—and not specially to hear Paul."
Another passage which proves that the apostolic church held public worship on the first day of the week is 1 Corinthians 16:1-2: "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the churches of
Galatia, so you must do also: On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come." The first thing to note regarding this passage is that Paul, speaking by the Holy Spirit, insists that the charitable donations for the poor brethren in Jerusalem be collected on the first day and no other. The fact that the Holy Spirit chose the first day of the week and no other day presupposes that for the Christian church there was something unique—of abiding religious significance—regarding that day. Otherwise, why would the Holy Spirit insist upon only the first day and not the seventh, or third, or fourth, etc.? Second, note that this was not just the practice of the church at Corinth but of all the churches in
Galatia: "as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you must do also." Collecting tithes for the poor on Sunday was the universal practice of the Christian church in the days of the apostles. "The only explanation for this ‘catholic’ [i.e., universal] injunction to all Christians everywhere to lay by for the poor saints in Jerusalem specifically on Sunday, is that all Christians everywhere were in the habit of laying by for their own local poor brethren too."
It is not an accident that Paul’s injunction to give to the poor brethren on the Lord’s day immediately follows chapter 15, which focuses on the significance of Christ’s resurrection. Giving is an aspect of Lord’s-day public worship. We give unto God because He first gave Himself for us. "Elsewhere Paul speaks of this collection in terms that are full of theological content: ‘fellowship,’ ‘service,’ ‘grace,’ ‘blessing,’ and ‘divine service.’ All this together suggests that the ‘collection’ was not some mere matter of money, but was for Paul an active response to the grace of God that not only ministered to the needs of God’s people but also became a kind of ministry to God Himself." Thus, this passage not only proves that the apostolic churches conducted their public worship services on the first day of the week, but also shows that giving to God is part of Christian worship. This is to be expected, for it was also the universal practice in the Jewish synagogues to receive tithes and offerings during their public worship services on Saturday. The New Testament church was patterned to a large extent after the Jewish synagogue.
Seventh-day Adventist apologists have attempted to circumvent the obvious implication of this passage by arguing that collections were made on Sunday, rather than on Saturday, because it would have been a violation of the Saturday sabbath to do bookkeeping, etc., on that day. Such reasoning is fallacious for three reasons: First, as already noted, the Jews collected tithes on Saturday and engaged in "bookkeeping" procedures related to charity on the Sabbath for centuries without divine disapproval. Second, Jesus Christ clearly taught that works of mercy were permissible—yes, even required—on the Sabbath (Mt. 12:12; Mk. 3:4). Third, works of mercy on the Sabbath are permitted and commended in the Old Testament as well (1 Sam. 21:6; 2
Kgs. 4:23). "If, as Seventh-day Adventists maintain, the post-resurrectional Christian Church held its weekly meetings and its sabbath on Saturday, it is more than probable that the entire collection would have been handed over to Paul on such an occasion, rather than ‘on the first day of the week.’" (Schwertley, Brian "The Christian Sabbath: Examined, Approved, Applied").
So we see here a clear statement that the Sabbath was observed on consecutive Sundays.
Some will argue from this that the law then has changed, because the day has changed from the seventh to the first. They forget, however, that the commandment is not for what day of the week the seventh day of rest would fall on, but that there would simply be a pattern of six days of work and one seventh day of rest. The particular day on which that seventh day of rest falls might very well indeed depend upon the dispensation and is not a part of God’s eternal moral commandment.
Finally, some dispensationalists and others who believe only the NT law is truly applicable to us will argue that Jesus denies the Sabbath throughout the gospels by consistently breaking it. This is simply not true. Jesus never claims to break the Sabbath, but is simply correcting the foul interpretation that the Pharisees have given to the Sabbath. People will claim that Matthew 12:1-8 demonstrates that we no longer need to observe the Sabbath. What Jesus is doing here is informing the Pharisees of the proper application of the Sabbath not only today, but also under the old covenant, which the interpretation of the Pharisees had perverted. Christ is stating here that if David could violate the true ceremonial law of God, then certainly Christ and His disciples could disobey the traditions of mere men without guilt. The Pharisees classified taking grain as threshing and therefore unlawful work on the Sabbath day. This was, however, the Pharisees twisted interpretation, and nowhere does the Word of God ever state we cannot nourish ourselves on the Sabbath day (works of necessity). If Christ were disobeying a ceremonial law before His crucifixion, then Christ would have sinned in God’s sight and not been able to accomplish our perfect redemption. When Christ informs the Pharisees that He is "Lord of the Sabbath" it is not stated in order to allow Him to break the Sabbath, but rather to define what the Sabbath always was, since God Himself is the best interpreter of His own Word. If Christ had used this excuse to break the Sabbath, then the people would have had something to say when Christ stood on trial and asked them "Which of you accuses me of sinning?" No one could answer Him a word of course, because He had not broken the Sabbath law according to the scriptures. While He has broken the tradition of the Pharisees, Christ did not break the scriptures, and to claim He did is entirely against the whole tenor of the word of God. Christ is informing us in Matthew 12 that works of necessity on the Sabbath day, like nourishing yourself on the Sabbath day when you are hungry, are not sins. Some might argue that Christ is disobeying the Sabbath because it is only a ceremonial law. Nowhere does Christ argue that the Sabbath is a mere ceremonial law. Christ in no place argues that He is breaking the Sabbath to begin with, He is rather detailing what has always been lawfully and rightfully done on the Sabbath day. The oral tradition of the Pharisees held that threshing grain fell under a certain category of work, and they were effectively calling something unlawful work that God did not call unlawful work. Therefore, Christ set out in this passage to correct that errant tradition of the Pharisees and replace it with the true inspired interpretation. To thresh grain in order to nourish your body on the Sabbath day, Christ is clearly stating, is not a sin; no more than David getting the bread from the Temple. Christ also states in this passage that it is lawful for the priests or religious leaders to work on the Sabbath day, and therefore such are acquitted of any Sabbath violation when they work to preach and labour for God on that day. Christ is using examples of lawful work on the Sabbath day to justify the lawfulness of His activity with His disciples in Matthew 12. Christ is in no way advocating a violation of the law of God here. Brian Schwertley writes: "The Pharisees were the enemies of Christ; thus they were continually looking for a reason to accuse, condemn, and destroy Him. They seized the opportunity when they observed His disciples walking through a grain field, plucking the heads of grain and rubbing off the chaff between their palms to eat. Suddenly they confronted Christ, accusing Him of allowing His disciples to break the Sabbath. How were they breaking it? According to rabbinical tradition, their innocent activity was defined as reaping and threshing grain! "According to the Mishna that man is guilty of sabbath desecration who on that day ‘takes ears of gra in equal to a lamb’s mouthful.’ "They based their whole case against the Lord and His disciples on the fact that He was allowing His disciples to transgress some of the merely traditional and anti-Scriptural thirty-nine ‘Azoth’ by ‘reaping’ (plucking the ears) and ‘threshing’ (rubbing them in their hands) on the sabbath day." In the face of this false accusation based on the false legalism of the Pharisaical oral traditions, Christ set forth the true meaning of the Sabbath. His explanation of the Sabbath is an implicit condemnation of the Pharisees’ interpretation of the fourth commandment and an explicit justification of His disciples’ behavior. "Over against their restrictive traditions, He posited the perfect freedom of the authoritative Word of God." " (Schwertley, Brian "The Christian Sabbath: Examined, Approved, Applied").
There are some who argue that Paul repudiates the Sabbath day in Colossians when he states in verse 2:16 "Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration, or a Sabbath day." On the surface it would seem that Paul clearly is advocating no longer following the fourth commandment here. But is this really the case? If we look at the context we find Paul is discussing the moon days of the ceremonial law. It is in this context that we find his use of Sabbath day. This is a clear reference to the special ceremonial Sabbaths of Leviticus 23 and elsewhere. This is by no means a reference to the moral Sabbath of the Ten Commandments, which we have already demonstrated the apostles were actively observing on the first day of the week, and which Christ upheld throughout His earthly ministry. Leviticus 23 speaks of these special Sabbaths. They are special memorials and holidays where trumpets were blown. Paul clearly tells us these holy days and ceremonial feast days have been fulfilled and abrogated in numerous places throughout his epistles. NOWHERE does he state that the moral Sabbath has been done away. Leviticus 23 states in part
(KJV): "23 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 24 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. 25 Ye shall do no servile work therein: but ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD. 26 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 27 Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonement: it shall be an holy convocation unto you; and ye shall afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD. 28 And ye shall do no work in that same day: for it is a day of atonement, to make an atonement for you before the LORD y our God. 29 For whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted in that same day, he shall be cut off from among his people. 30 And whatsoever soul it be that doeth any work in that same day, the same soul will I destroy from among his people. 31 Ye shall do no manner of work: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings. 32 It shall be unto you a sabbath of rest, and ye shall afflict your souls: in the ninth day of the month at even, from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your
What this document has clearly demonstrated is the continuation of the moral law of God, and its applicability in every area of life today. While it is beyond this scope of this paper, the Bible has things to say about every area of life, from politics, to economics, to education, to slavery, to science, and to innumerable other things. The law of God and the Word of God are pervasive and are to be applied to every aspect of civilization as a guide to all of life. When Christians observe the Sabbath again, God will bless His people once more. Therefore, like Nehemiah did, I appeal to you to put down your worldly activities this coming Sunday, and observe this Sunday and every Sunday as sanctified and holy to the Lord. We worship on the Lord’s Day, not the Lord’s hour.