One topic that is precious to the Sabbatarian (Seventh-day Sabbath) is, nevertheless,
clearly abolished in the Scriptures. I would like to
present this fact by multiple passages of Scripture which states this without the need to
twist or bend the Scriptures or read extensively between the lines.
This will require duplication in places where I may have already presented a few of
these passages in other booklets. I'm doing this in an attempt to bring the ones I
can remember into one source for this same truth. I'm sure this by no means exhausts
the places that present this in the Scriptures. It will give an idea as to how
futile it is to try to deny that it is a Scriptural truth.
[1]
Amos, who lived approximately 800 years before the crucifixion, was presented this
prophecy by God:
Amos 8:4-9 -- Hear this, you who trample the needy and do
away with the poor of the land, saying "When will the new moon be over that we may
sell grain, and the Sabbath be ended that we may market wheat?" -- skimping
the measure, boosting the price and cheating with dishonest scales . . .
"In that day," declares the
Sovereign Lord, "I will make the sun go down at noon and darken the earth in broad
daylight. I will turn your religious feasts into mourning and all your singing into
weeping."
Would just abolishment of the ceremonial feast days allow them to begin marketing wheat
on the Sabbath? No! This would require the abolishment of the fourth
commandment for God to allow this to happen without penalty. Do we have any record
in the Scriptures that met the requirements as to when this ever happened?
Mark 15:33-37 -- At the sixth hour (Noon) darkness came over
the whole land until the ninth hour (3:00 PM) and at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a
loud voice . . . "My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me?"
Vs. 37 -- With a loud
cry, Jesus breathed his last.
This would clearly indicate that they could now start marketing wheat on the Sabbath
without penalty. It is very and precisely pinpointed to the time of Christ's
crucifixion.
[2]
Approximately 700 years prior to the time of Christ, Hosea, a contemporary of Isaiah,
was instructed by the Lord about Israel's
adulterous spiritual relationship with Him. God instructed Hosea to marry an
adulterous woman (Gomer) to give him some insight as to how he felt about Israel.
The Lord revealed to Hosea some of His future plans for Israel.
Hosea 2:11 -- I will stop all her celebrations; her yearly
festivals (Passover, trumpets, tabernacles, etc.), her new moons, (monthly), her Sabbath
days (weekly appointed feasts) -- all her appointed feasts.
In case we had any possible misconception of just which festivals God was referring to,
He conveniently concluded the verse with all her (Israel's) appointed feasts. I
believe it was with the same convenience that approximately 700 years prior to Hosea that
God listed all His sacred assemblies of feast days.
Lev. 23:1,2 -- The Lord said to Moses, "Speak to the
Israelites and say to them: These are my appointed feasts, which you are to proclaim as
sacred assemblies:
Vss. 3-43 (Moses then lists in
order and describes each of these appointed feasts).
1. The Sabbath
2.
The Passover & Unleavened Bread
3.
First Fruits
4.
Feast of Weeks
5.
Feast of Trumpets
6.
Day of Atonement
7.
Feast of Tabernacles
Vs. 44 -- So Moses announced to the Israelites the appointed
feasts of the Lord.
Here in Leviticus we have God's list of all His ceremonial sacred feast days. In
Hosea, 700 years later, we are told that all her sacred feast days would be brought to an
end.
If the sacrifices associated with each of these sacred holy days came to an end,
wouldn't the sacred day also come to an end, of being a sacred day, at the same
time? All agree that the sacrificial offerings on each of these days has come to an
end at the time of the cross. All also agree that the sacred day associated with
these prescribed sacrifices has lost its holiness by its fulfillment by Christ on the
cross. Only the Sabbatarians insist on retaining the sacredness for the Sabbath,
even though agreeing that the sacrificial offering intimately associated with that day was
abolished at the cross.
It almost seems that God anticipated this ploy and made a special point that the
Sabbath was abolished in His prophecy to Amos in Amos 8:4,5, and the specific time it
would be accomplished by a description of the verifying sign as described in Mark
15:33-37.
[3]
For New Testament verification of when and where this abolishment of the Sabbath
occurred we find described in Colossians.
Col. 2:13,14 -- When you were dead in your sins and in the
uncircumcision of your sinful natures, God made you alive in Christ. He forgave us
all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us
and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. . . .
Vss. 16, 17 --
Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a
religious festival (yearly feast days), a new moon celebration (monthly feast days) or a
Sabbath day (weekly).
These are a shadow of the things that
were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.
Here again we have these sacred feast days coming to their ending at the time the
written code (Sinaitic Covenant) was nailed to the cross. They were all only shadows
of the reality which is found in Christ.
These holy feast days, including the Sabbath, and all coming to their end at the cross are
all identical to the timing and circumstances as listed in the two previous prophetic
descriptions.
[4]
Gal. 3:16,17 -- The promises were spoken to Abraham and to
his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but
"and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ.
What I mean is this: The law, introduced
430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do
away with the promise. . . .
This passage is very informative. This verifies that the law (Sinaitic Covenant)
was introduced 430 years after the promise was made to Abraham. This is speaking of
the time the covenant was introduced to the Israelites at Mt. Sinai. We have this
doubly confirmed by the statement of Moses to the Israelites given after their 40 years of
wandering in the wilderness.
Deut. 5:2,3 -- The Lord our God made a covenant with us at
Horeb (Sinai). It was not with our fathers that the Lord made this covenant, but
with us, with all of us who are alive here today. (Then from verse 6-22 Moses
repeats to them the ten commandments).
This is proof positive that this Ten Commandment Law originated with the Israelites
when they came out of Egypt. "It was not with our fathers that the Lord made
this covenant." Their fathers extended all the way back to Adam and this is
another nail in the coffin of that unscriptural doctrine that the Ten Commandment Law
existed from the time of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. Continuing --
Gal. 3:19 -- What then was the purpose of the law? It
was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come.
This states in irrefutable terms that the law (Sinaitic Covenant -- Ten
Commandments) was introduced or added until (and only until) the seed to whom the promise
referred had come. This assures us that this covenant was a temporary measure and
was only to last until Christ should come. Are you seeing all these passages lining
up and portraying one non-contradicting scenario?
I believe it is absolutely necessary to realize that the Sinaitic Covenant and the Ten
Commandments are interchangeable.
Deut. 4:12, 14 -- Then the Lord spoke to you out of the fire.
You heard the sound of words but saw no form; there was only a voice. He
declared to you his covenant, the Ten Commandments, which he commanded you to follow and
then wrote them on two stone tablets.
Keep this text in mind also when we study proof # 5.
[5]
Gal. 4:22-31 -- For it is written that Abraham had two sons,
one by the slave woman. His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way, but
his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise.
These things may be taken figuratively,
for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears
children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar.
Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in
Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with
her children.
But the Jerusalem that is above is free,
and she is our mother. Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise.
At that time the son born in the ordinary
way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now.
But what does the Scripture say? "Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for
the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son."
Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.
The graphic description of the Sinaitic Covenant is figuratively represented by
Abraham's slave woman, Hagar, who bore him a son. It does not tell us the time to
get rid of the Sinaitic Covenant, but it had to be prior to the time of Paul's
presentation.
Prior to the cross the Sinaitic Covenant was in force and no Israel- ite had the
permission from God to get rid of the 'slave woman.' This can only mean to get rid
of the Sinaitic Covenant -- Ten Commandment Law and associated rules and
regulations of this covenant which had held the Israelites in bondage.
The "son of the slave woman will never share in the inheritance with the free
woman's son" can only mean that those who insist on retaining any part of the
Sinaitic Covenant are under obligation to keep it all and also that they will not share in
the inheritance as promised to Abraham's free born son.
[6]
2 Cor. 3:7-11 -- Now if the ministry that brought death,
which was engraved in letters on stone, (The ten commandments -- 100% certain) came
with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of
its glory, fading though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more
glorious?
If the ministry that condemns men is
glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! . . .
And if what was fading away came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which
lasts?
Notice the characteristics of this ministry that brought death -- the Ten
Commandments.
1. It brought condemnation and death.
2. It was temporary -- fading away.
3. It was to be replaced by the ministry of the Spirit -- the ministry
that would last
Vss. 14-16 -- But their minds were made dull, for to this day
the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed,
because only in Christ is it taken away.
Paul is speaking of the unbelieving Israelites in his day. Their minds were made
dull to the point that whenever the old covenant (Ten Commandment Law) was read they
believed that it was still in effect. It had not been removed because they had
refused to accept Christ as their Savior and "only in Christ is it taken away."
Exactly so is the experience of the Sabbatarians who tenaciously hold on to a portion
of the old covenant as binding in their lives because they have refused to believe that
Christ has taken it entirely out of the way. They have steadfastly refused to
believe this in spite of the fact that this is so plainly stated in multiple places in the
Scriptures which we have been studying.
[7]
Paul, in his letter to the Gentile believers in Ephesus, reminds them that prior to the
cross they were excluded from the promises and benefits extended to the Israelites:
Eph. 2:12, 13 -- Remember that at that time you were separate
from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the
promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who
once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.
Vss. 14-16 -- For he
himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing
wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and
regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus
making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by
which he put to death their hostility.
Can there any longer be any doubt that this barrier of hostility, the ministry that
brought condemnation and death; the ministry that was engraven in letters on stone, is
speaking of the Sinaitic Covenant -- even the ten commandments.
It is just as plain that Christ destroyed this barrier -- the dividing wall of
hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments (all 10 of them) and
regulations. By this act Christ reconciled both Jew and Gentile to God through the
cross, by which He put to death their hostility. Could it have been explained any
plainer?
I believe it should be plain to all that the Sinaitic Covenant, with all its associated
rules and regulations came to its end at the cross.
There are numerous additional texts which could be given, but surely the above should
be more than sufficient.
The first response I receive from a Sabbatarian to this presentation is: Now you
must feel free to commit murder, rape, steal and curse God without penalty. The
answer to that statement is that God has not left us in doubt as to our comportment in the
era of the new covenant.
The ten commandment law came to an end at the cross, but the great moral principles
were brought into the New Covenant era through New Testament instructions. In the
New Testament every duty of the Christian in their worship to God is given. Using
the KJV we find:
The first commandment is validated — 50 times
The second, idolatry, is condemned — 12 times
The third, profanity, is condemned — 4 times
The fifth, honor mother and father — 6 times
The sixth, murder, is condemned — 6 times
The seventh, adultery, is condemned — 12 times
The eighth, theft, is condemned — 6 times
The ninth, false witness, is condemned — 4 times
The tenth, Covetousness, is condemned — 9 times.
Is it any surprise that the fourth commandment -- keep the Sabbath holy --
is never repeated?
In all of Paul's careful instructions to Gentile converts as to their Christian
duty, not one mention of Sabbath observance is given. In several long lists of the
sins that are offensive to God, Paul never mentions Sabbath breaking in any form. He
never mentions it as a requirement to keep or any adverse consequences if it is
disregarded.
If the fourth commandment is still in effect since the cross, and if it was the most
important commandment, as SDA believers have been taught, wouldn't we have received
careful instructions to this fact from the Bible? Of a certainty we have an
abundance of statements to support the present day adherence to the Sabbath from the
writings of the SDA church. Note some that even claim as being given directly from
God:
The Lord gave me the following view in 1847, while the brethren were
assembled on the Sabbath at Topsham, Me.
We felt an unusual spirit of
prayer. And as we prayed the Holy Ghost fell upon us. . . I was lost to
earthly things and was wrapped in a vision of God's glory. I saw an angel flying
swiftly to me. He quickly carried me from the earth to the holy city. . .
After viewing the glory of the holy
(place), Jesus raised the second veil and I passed into the holy of holies.
In the holiest I saw an ark. . . In
the ark was the golden pot of manna, Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of stone,
which folded together like a book. Jesus opened them, and I saw the ten commandments
written on them with the finger of God . . .
The four of the first table shone
brighter than the other six. But the fourth, the Sabbath command- ment, shone above
them all, -- The holy Sabbath looked glorious -- a halo of glory was all
around it.
I saw that the Sabbath commandment was
not nailed to the cross. If it was, the other nine commandments were; and we are at
liberty to break them all, as well as to break the fourth.
-- Early Writings, p. 32, 33.
Can any knowledgeable believer of the Bible continue to believe that Jesus actually
showed her these things in vision? Who can not fail to see that every one of the
seven separate Bible passages that we have studied are diametrically contradictory to this
"vision"? In opposition to our seven Scriptural proofs, that the Sabbath,
as God's holy day, terminated at the cross, we are not shown one simple text to prove the
opposite. Certainly, if this vision was from God, then His word as given to us in
the Bible is unreliable.
While I was in the process of bringing these Scriptural passages together, refuting
the 'vision' Ellen had in 1847, I couldn't help but remember the "success" that
Albion Ballinger had in collecting a series of plain Bible texts for a similar
purpose. He was one of the church's leading ministers.
From his study of the Bible he became convinced of the explicit evidence that when Christ
entered within the veil on His return to heaven, following His crucifixion, He entered the
most holy place instead of the first apartment (holy place). This is very certain
from Scripture and generally held by most Christian denominations.
He presented EGW with eight separate but irrefutable texts that proved that
fact. The problem for the Adventist perspective was that this proof destroyed their
unique doctrine (the Investigative Judgment) which separated them from their Christian
brothers and made them special. It didn't matter that this doctrine is completely
unscriptural. Small wonder the other Christian churches have been unable to find it
in the Bible.
Ellen White writes of Ballenger's attempt to present Scriptural evidence against the
"truth."
After the passing of the time in 1844 they (the founding fathers) received
the light and walked in the light, and when the men claiming to have new light would come
in with their wonderful messages regarding various points of Scripture, we had, through
the moving of the Holy Spirit, testimonies right to the point, which cut off the influence
of such messages as Elder G. (Ballenger) has been devoting his time to presenting.
-- Selected Messages, Vol. 1, p. 160.
Those positions, no matter how buttressed by Scripture, were headed off at the pass
by "testimonies right to the point." Personal insight that God
had revealed to her in vision. You notice she doesn't say these messages were cut
off by clear Scriptural evidence. At the close of the letter Elder Ballenger wrote
to E. G. White presenting his case; he says:
Four times the Lord uses the
term "within the veil" and in every case applies it to the inner apartment four
times the Lord uses the term "without the veil" and in every instance applies it
to the outer apartment. There is thus an eight-fold "thus saith the Lord,"
testifying that "within the veil" refers to the holy of holies, and not to the
outer apartment as you assert ...
Before publishing my manuscript I sent it
to several ministers holding official positions, whose loyalty is unquestioned, and asked
them to show me from Scripture where I was in error. I promised that should they do
this I would not publish the manuscript. Not one brother attempted to show me my
error from the word of God.
One wrote: "Candor compels me to say
I can find no fault with it from a Bible standpoint."
Another said: "I have always felt
that it was safer to take the interpretation placed upon the Scriptures by the Spirit of
Prophecy as manifested through Sister E. G. White rather than to rely upon my own
judgment or interpretation."
Ballenger then goes on to say:
And now, Sister White, what
can I do? If I accept the testimony of the Scriptures, I find myself under your
condemnation; and you call me a wolf in sheep's clothing, and warn my brethren and my
family against me. But if I reject His word for yours, can you save me in the
judgment?
This letter she never replied to. She did comment more about this in her
article in Selected Messages above:
We are not to receive the
words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our
faith. They gather a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted
theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years.
And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them,
if such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these
fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the
wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages
that have come to the people of God.
Elder G's (Ballenger) proofs are not
reliable. If received, they would destroy the faith of God's people in the truth
that has made us what we are.
We must be decided on this subject; for
the points that he is trying to prove by Scripture are not sound. They do not prove
that the past experience of God's people was a fallacy.
That's exactly what it would prove and it was irrefutable Scriptural
evidence that they didn't even try to refute from the Scriptures. They had no
problem defending her claims from her writings: source they chose to believe above the
Scriptural evidence.
So, what makes me think I will succeed where Ballenger failed? We both have
irrefutable Scriptural evidence. The one advantage I have is the Internet. The
officials in the church are no longer able to suppress truth that exposes their vulnerable
doctrines
This is only one of many places where the SDA scenario trashes an important portion
of the Bible, to those who choose to believe her writings.
I, for one, prefer to trash this unscriptural scenario and continue to accept the
Biblical account as it is written. It is my prayer that the reader of this booklet
will resolve to do the same.