Apart from explaining the true meaning and purpose of the sabbath, our earlier article’ established three propositions which completely destroyed every argument used by Herbert W. Armstrong in his essay, “Which Day is the Christian Sabbath?” An autopsy of his matter will quickly prove this. For the information of our readers, we will state our three proven propositions, following each of them with a list of Armstrong’s misapplied quotations:
1. The sabbath was made by the angels.
This proposition cancels out Armstrong’s misuse of the following quotes:
Eph. 3. 9; John 1. 1, 3, 14, !5; Col. 1. 16, 18; Mark 2. 27, 28.
He claims that the sabbath was made by Jesus pre-existent. But Jesus did not personally pre-exist. From the point of view of sabbath keeping, these references are now shown to have nothing to do with the subject; but since the doctrine of the personal pre- existence is the basis of much of his reasoning, we intend to consider it in our next article, if the Lord will.
2. The seventh day was not sanctified until Israel left Egypt under Moses.
Thus, the following carry no weight whatever for his doctrine:
Gen. 2. 2, 3; Ex. 31. 17; 20. 11; 16. 4, 5, 9, 10, 11-13, 20, 22-29; Gen 2. 15-17; 26. 5; Matt. 28. 1; 23. 35; Ps. 119. 172; Heb. 13. 8; James 2. 10, 11; 2 Pet. 2. 5.
He claims that Abel, Noah, Abraham and the other righteous ancients kept it. His quotations to prove this do not so much as mention a sabbath: he merely assumes that righteous men must have kept the Sabbath along with the various other commandments which they obeyed. We have seen, of course, that no such law was ever given to them; and, “where there is no law, there is no transgression”3.
3. The seventh-day sabbath was never imposed on anyone but the nation of Israel under law.
These misapplied passages are now restored to their rightful place as applicable to Israel only:
Mark 1. 1, 15, 21; Luke 4. 16; Ex. 3. 2-5; Is. 58. 13, 14.
Mr. Armstrong argues that Jesus kept it. With certain reservations, we agree. But Jesus was under the law4: we’re not5. Search the Scriptures from cover to cover, and you will never once find any person or nation other than Israel under Moses commanded to keep the seventh day holy. You will not find it imposed on anyone before Israel left Egypt, and you will not find it imposed on anyone after the resurrection of Christ. In fact, The New Testament Never Once Commands Any Person Or Nation To Keep The Seventh Day Holy. It is the only one of the ten commandments not re-iterated in the New Testament.
When you consult the above quotations, you will wonder how on earth many of them apply to the subject of weekly sabbath-keeping. The answer is, of course, that they don’t. Still, that hasn’t stopped Mr. Armstrong offering them as proof.
Now, while all his “evidences” are thus summarily dismissed, our understanding of the subject may be enlarged by further consideration of some of them. For example,
“And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: therefore the Son of Man is Lord also of the sabbath” (Mark 2. 27, 28).
He adduces that Jesus is Lord of the sabbath because he made it. We have seen, however, that this is untrue. In what way, then, is he Lord of it?
The answer is supplied in the verse itself: “The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: therefore. . .(etc.). H.W.A. fastens on the word “made”, and argues that since Jesus made the sabbath, he is Lord of it. The explanation contained in the verse itself is not that he is Lord because of who the sabbath was made by but because of why it wasmade: he is its Lord because the sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath.
But how does this reason make him its Lord? Our previous article supplied the reason, because it explained the purpose: the sabbath has to do with the glory of Cod revealed in the Holy Land during the thousand years reign of Christ and his saints. In this way, the sabbath—in its true, its antitypical meaning—was made for man; and Jesus is its Lord.
This is further shown in the term which the Lord used of himself, indicating that he is the true representative Man. Various passages show that “Son of man” is a synonym for -Man”. For example, Mark’s record that “all sins and evil speaking will be forgiven the Sons Of Men” becomes in Matthew, . . . will be forgiven unto Men”. Likewise, in the parallel, “The sabbath was made for Man . . . the Son Of Man is master of the sabbath”. In the judgement scene of Matthew 25, the identification of Jesus with the universal MAN is impossible to escape: “Inasmuch as ye did it (or did it not) to one of the Least of these, ye did it (or did it not) to Me”. He is the chiefest among many righteous, and the captain of their salvation. That he who is the greatest is able to identify himself with the least means that he embraces all the righteous in the compass of his reresentation. He is The Man (Pilate’s term); and they are the constituents of his body.6
But someone might protest that, if Son of Man equals Man, then Son of God should equal God. If you take it in the same representative sense, yes! Jesus being the Son of God was representatively God; and so likewise may it be said of all mortals made sons of God by the Word of God: They Are Gods!7
Jesus, then, is the true representative of God and man; and as the Son of man, he is Lord of the sabbath because it was made For Man8.
Matthew’s account of this event is also very enlightening:
“At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungered ,and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day. But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungered, and they that were with him; how he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shrewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him? Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day” (Matt. 12. 1-8).
To the Pharisees, the Lord’s answer must have seemed like a justification of wrong doing. First, in the ‘letter of the law his disciples had transgressed the commandment.9 Yet Christ plainly says, in verse 7, that they were guiltless.
His evidence is, first, that David broke another commandment, that of eating the shrewbread which was ‘reserved for the priests alone. Let’s be quite clear on that point: His own statement in verse 3 is that it was not lawful for David and those with him to eat it.
Of the priests, likewise, Jesus clearly states that they profaned the sabbath and yet were blameless.
- The three cases are clear parallels:
- David transgressed the law ,and was justified;
- The priests profaned the sabbath and were blameless;
- The Disciples broke the commandment and were guiltless.
On what Scriptural premise could this be? On that of purpose: “The sabbath was made for man”; and any keeping of the sabbath contrary to that purpose, or overlooking that purpose, could never be a fulfilment of the commandment.
In order to see this in its proper perspective, we must bear in mind that the problem here concerned Israel under the Mosaic law—no one else.
There are no priests administering in a literal temple in Israel now—no shrewbread, no sacrifices. These typical things were ful filled in Christ, and went out with the sabbath. Even the gentile churches know that he was the sacrifice to end all sacrifices for salvation: all animal sacrifice was superseded by the death of Christ.10 And the same is true of the sabbath. As the Mosaic sacrifices typified Christ, so the Mosaic sabbath stands for the arxtitypical -sabbatismos” in Jesus: “I will give you rest (anapauo—refreshment)”. The seventh-day weekly sabbath was itself a sacrifice. Hence, “If ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless”.
“The sabbath was made for man”, therefore, Jesus, The Man, could above all other men, require the service of the sabbath—not for one day of a week, but for every day. The priests served the temple; “But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple”.
Every way we look at the subject, we are faced with the primary principles which Armstrong completely overlooks: those of purpose and fulfilment.
“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” (Is. 58. 13,14).
Armstrong’s argument here is novel, but wrong. He refers us to Moses at the bush,” where the Eternal (which he supposes to be Christ) tells Moses to “put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground”. This commandment to Moses is then applied to us, while “time” is substituted for “ground”; and Is. 58 is thus interpreted as meaning, “Take your foot off God’s holy time”.
First, we note that Moses was not told to take his foot off the holy ground: he was told to take his shoes off his feet, and thus to put his feet on God’s holy ground.
Second, Armstrong thinks that “God’s presence in that bush made the ground around it holy”. If you have not already noted the inconsistency and illogic of the argument, let me point it out. We are informed that the God who called out of the bush was Christ, and that his presence in that bush made the ground around it holy; yet when Christ did in very truth walk the earth, the people about him were permitted to wear sandals! And then, too, we find that the full extent of the Deity’s sanctifying power is limited to the area immediately around the bush! Surely, God’s presence in the bush would have sanctified the whole earth if the basis of the sanctification were simply the fact of his presence. In any case, as David shows,12 the Deity is everywhere present.
No, it was not the presence which made the ground holy: it was God’s choice which sanctified it. Holy means separate, sanctified, set apart. Moses was standing on ground which had been set apart by God. t was Mount Sinai (Horeb) in the Sinaiatic Peninsula, called also “The Mountain of God”, from whence was the giving of the law and the covenant which God made with the nation. t was part of that area promised to Abraham and his seed for ever13.
Moses was standing on The Holy Land and his feet were required to have direct contact with its soil. For here the Deity, iterating his covenant name, covenants to be glory in the midst of the bush burning with fire.14 Here is not the place to elaborate the meaning of this vision: the reader may obtain further literature on the subject from the ecclesial library. Suffice it to say that Israel is the bush burning yet unconsumed, while the angel in the midst is the glory of God manifested in those who are his. This will be in that future time when the place of God’s dwelling will be in Zion. t will be his Menuchah Rest concerning which we wrote in our previous article. And, with a striking allusion to this revelation Zechariah writes, “For I, saith Yahweh, will be a wall of fire round about (Jerusalem), and will be the glory in the midst of her”.15
In returning to Is. 58, we note that the phrase, “thou turn away”, translates the Hebrew word shoov, which may be translated in a very wide variety of ways. Amongst these, we note the following: Requited ( I Sam. 25. 21); Recompensed (2 Sam. 22. 1); Restore (1 Kings 20. 34); Recovered (2 Kings 13. 25); Answer (Job 32. 14); Reward (Hos. 4. 9); etc.
A glance at the A.V. will show that the second “from” is in italics, indicating that it is not in the original. According to the way in which we relate the first “from” in the original, the passage may be rendered, “If you withdraw your foot (refrain) from doing your own pleasure on the Sabbath my holy day or, “If you restore your foot (to) the sabbath from doing your pleasure on my holy day
We believe the second translation to be correct. We “set our hands” to the task: the Hebrew -lifts up his foot” to it. Their steps had strayed: they had wandered out of the way; but now they were being encouraged to walk the sabbath way, and to take hold of his holy day.”
Thus, every week, it indicated to Israel what every individual among them should be on every day of the week. t required them to cease from the works of flesh” as completely as God rested from his created works on the seventh day, so that they may enter into the rest which remains for the people of God.
Let’s note the details of the sabbath observances in verse 1 3, and note how completely Jesus fulfilled it:
- “… and shalt honour him.“
JESUS: “I honour my Father” (John 8. 49).
- “… not doing thine own ways.”
JESUS: “I seek not mine own will” (John 5. 30).
“. . . not to do mine own will” (John 6. 38);
“my Father . . doeth the works” (John 14. 10).
- “not finding thine own pleasure.”
JESUS: “I do always those things that please him” (John 8. 29).
- “… nor speaking thine own words.”
JESUS: “The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself” (John 14. 10).
“The word which ye hear is not mine” (John 14. 24).
- “… delight thyself in the Lord.”
JESUS: “I delight to do thy will, 0 my God” (Psalm 40. 8).18
“My meat is to do the will of him that
sent me . . .” (John 4. 34).
These, then, are the conditions upon which faithful Israelites may possess the blessing typified by the seventh day-their whole life was to be a rest from the corruption of flesh, in which dwells on good thine.19
Thus, nobody could call the sabbath a delight who was either ignorant of this import, or who failed to put its lessons into practice. Neither could they do so if they failed to understand the meaning embodied in the promise, “Then shat 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”.
The rejoicing of Israel will not be complete until her salvation proceeds from Zion, and the Lord brings back the captivity of his people.20 In that time, the Lord shall feed Israel with the heritage of Jacob. And what was that heritage? t was the promised land of Canaan which the Lord shall yet glorify with his presence, as it were, in the midst of the bush.21 Then Israel shall be the head of the nations, and shall be above only, and shall “ride upon the high places of the earth”.22
Whichever way we examine the subject, we are led to two primary factors: That the fulfilled rest is the glorified land of Israel where God will dwell in manifestation in the midst of his people; and that we must cease from the works of the flesh now that we may inherit the beauty of that kingdom.23
There is very much more that could be said about the subject, and all on similar lines. We will leave it for our readers to follow it further. Let these words of the Lord remain with you:
“Fear not, 0 land; be glad and rejoice: for the Lord will do great things. Be not afraid, ye beasts of the field: for the pastures of the wilderness do spring, for the tree beareth her fruit, the figtree and the vine do yield their strength. Be glad then, ye children of Zion, and rejoice in the Lord your God: for he giveth you the former rain moderately, and he will cause to come down for you the rain, the former rain, and the latter rain in the first month. And the floors shall be full of wheat, and the vats shall overflow with wine and oil. . . . And ye shall eat in plenty, and be satisfied, and praise the name of the Lord your God, that hath dealt wondrously with you: and my people shall never be ashamed. And ye shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the Lord your God, and none else: and my people shall never be ashamed.”24
Is Pentecost Happening Today? (Part 7) – Tongues Shall Cease