4. #

The Adventist said, “But I have yet another testimony from the New Testament that clearly states Christians will observe the Sabbath until the end of the world. Christ Himself said, ‘But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day’ (Matt. 24:20).”

“How do you understand this command of Jesus Christ?” I asked.

“I understand it exactly as it is written,” my opponent replied. “That is, before the end of the world, there will be wars and turmoil. Because of these dangers, Christians will have to flee to preserve their lives and save others from death. But if this happens on the Sabbath, they must not flee. Otherwise, they would break the Sabbath. If they do not flee but stay where they are, they will be killed by their enemies. That is why Christ commanded them to pray that they do not find themselves in such an impossible situation.”

“You present Christ as being more zealous for the Sabbath than even the scribes and Pharisees,” I responded. “Among the Jews, it was permitted to flee on the Sabbath to preserve one’s life. The books of the Maccabees recount how, during the Maccabean wars, an enemy attacked a Jewish detachment on the Sabbath. The Jews, in order not to break the Sabbath, did not take up arms to defend themselves against the enemy, and the entire detachment was massacred to the last man.

“Then the high priest and the leaders of the people reasoned that if all the Jews observed the Sabbath in this way, their enemies would slaughter them all without suffering any losses. Therefore, they decided that it was permissible to fight even on the Sabbath. This was long before the birth of Christ.

“And surely you understand that during a battle, one must both pursue the enemy and retreat from them over an indefinite distance. Would Christ really have forbidden fleeing on the Sabbath even in the face of mortal danger?

“When His disciples broke the Sabbath by plucking ears of grain and rubbing them in their hands to satisfy their hunger, He not only did not condemn them but justified them, pointing to a similar violation of God’s law by the prophet David. He said, ‘The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath’ (Mark 2:23–28).

“If He justified breaking the Sabbath for the sake of hunger, how could He have forbidden fleeing on the Sabbath for the sake of preserving one’s life?

“So even if Christians did observe the Sabbath, they would have full right to flee on that day in the case of mortal danger. The Sabbath served as an external obstacle to flight—otherwise, Christ would not have mentioned it, and He would have said nothing about it at all.

“How and why was the Sabbath an external obstacle? I will explain further. But for now, let me draw your attention to the fact that if we understand Christ’s warning about fleeing on the Sabbath in the way that you do, then His words would mean this:

“‘If you, My followers, are threatened with mortal danger, but if this happens on the Sabbath, do not dare to flee, do not dare to break the Sabbath. Let you all perish. Let them torment you, crucify you on crosses, let them slaughter you all to the last man—just so long as the Sabbath is observed. Therefore, pray that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath.’”

“If that were the meaning, then truly it would not be the Sabbath for man, but man for the Sabbath. Can Christ’s instruction to His disciples about fleeing on the Sabbath really be understood in this way?”

“Then how do you believe it should be understood?” the Adventist asked.

“I believe it should be understood as I have already stated—that the Sabbath would be an external obstacle to Christ’s disciples in the same way as winter, which is why Christ mentioned them together,” I answered.

“But how could the Sabbath be an external obstacle?” my opponent asked.

I replied, “Here is how. Christ’s instruction to His disciples to pray that their flight would not happen on the Sabbath does not refer to the end times but to the destruction of Jerusalem.

“In Jerusalem, ever since the time of Nehemiah, who rebuilt the city, the city gates were shut for the entire Sabbath day (Neh. 13:19), and no one could enter or leave.

“Meanwhile, the flight of Christ’s followers was to be extremely urgent. So much so that if one was ‘on the housetop,’ which we would understand as being in the courtyard, they were to flee from that very place where they first heard the alarm. For these were to be days of vengeance and wrath upon the Jewish people.

“But if this happened on the Sabbath, they would not be able to escape from Jerusalem because its gates would be locked, and they would inevitably perish along with everyone else in the city.

“And that is exactly what happened.

“Remembering the instruction of the Savior, His followers prayed that their flight would not be in winter or on the Sabbath. And their prayer was heard. The time of their escape from Jerusalem did not occur in winter or on the Sabbath.

“All the Christians who were in the city were able to leave it freely and take refuge in safe places, so that not a single Christian perished when the Roman armies destroyed Jerusalem.

“Everyone who remained in the city, however, was utterly destroyed—many were slaughtered, many were thrown to wild beasts, and a portion was sold into slavery.

“This is why and for what purpose Christ commanded His disciples to pray that their escape before the siege of Jerusalem would not take place in winter or on the Sabbath—not to ensure that Christians observed the Sabbath or would continue to observe it until the end of the world.”

5. #

“But I have direct evidence,” the Adventist said, “that the followers of Christ observed the Sabbath. In the Gospel of Luke, it says that when the myrrh-bearing women, after Nicodemus and Joseph laid Jesus Christ in the tomb, returned to the city on Friday evening, they ‘prepared spices and ointments, and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment’ (Luke 23:56)—obviously referring to the Fourth Commandment. Isn’t it clear that the followers of the Savior observed the seventh day of the week, the Sabbath? Therefore, we are also obliged to observe it.”

I said to the Adventist, “How do you have the conscience to cite such facts as proof that we Christians are obligated to observe the Sabbath? Do you not know that this event—the myrrh-bearing women ‘resting on the Sabbath according to the commandment’—occurred before the Resurrection of Christ, when the Old Covenant was still fully in effect?

“Should the myrrh-bearing women have observed Sunday instead of the Sabbath before the Resurrection of Christ? At that time, not only the myrrh-bearing women but also the Apostles, as well as all the Jews, observed only the Sabbath. Not only did they observe the Sabbath, but they also considered the entire Mosaic Law obligatory for themselves—circumcision, new moon celebrations, purifications, blood sacrifices, all Jewish feasts, and so on.”

“Jesus Christ never observed Sunday instead of the Sabbath,” the Adventist interrupted me.

“Stop making good people laugh,” I said to him. “How could Christ have celebrated His own Resurrection before He rose from the dead? At that time, no one had the right to observe any day in place of the Sabbath.”

6. #

“I will tell you even more,” I said. “Even after Christ’s resurrection and ascension into heaven, and after the descent of the Holy Spirit, some of the Apostles and Jewish believers in Christ continued to observe the entire Mosaic Law, including circumcision, sacrifices, new moons, Sabbaths, and other rituals.

“But that is not all. Jewish Christians insisted that all Christians from among the Gentiles should also accept and observe the entire Mosaic Law. It took great effort from the Apostle Paul and his supporters to at least ensure that Gentile Christians were not required to follow the Mosaic Law. Almost all of Paul’s epistles are filled with arguments against the zealots of the Mosaic Law.

“As for Jewish Christians, there is no question about it—they were completely free to observe the Mosaic Law, and they did so. The Apostolic Council decreed only that Gentile Christians were not to be obligated to observe the Mosaic Law.

“Even after this decision, the Apostle Paul himself underwent purification according to the law and offered the prescribed sacrifice (Acts 21:20–27).

“So why do you cite the fact that the myrrh-bearing women observed the Sabbath before Christ’s resurrection as proof that we Christians must observe it, when even after the descent of the Holy Spirit, Jewish Christians continued practicing circumcision, observing the Sabbath and all other Old Testament festivals, and offering blood sacrifices for purification?

“The attitude of the earliest Christians toward the Mosaic Law was as follows: Jewish Christians observed the entire law while also following all the ordinances of the Christian Church.

“Although in the New Testament, circumcision was replaced with baptism (Col. 2:11–13), they practiced both baptism and circumcision. They had the sacrament of the Eucharist, and they also offered animal sacrifices. They observed the new moons and all the Old Testament feasts, as well as the Christian feasts—such as the Nativity of Christ and Pentecost.

“They observed both the Sabbath and Sunday: the Sabbath as Jews and Sunday as Christians.

“There is a reference to this in an ancient Christian document known as the Apostolic Constitutions, which, of course, was not written by the Apostles but was composed shortly after their time.

“Christians from among the Gentiles, however, did not observe the Mosaic Law at all. They did not practice circumcision, ritual purifications, sacrifices, new moons, Sabbaths, or any other Jewish festivals. They followed only the ordinances of the Christian Church: baptism, the Eucharist, Sunday observance, and so forth.

“Over time, even Jewish Christians gradually abandoned the Jewish laws of the Old Testament, especially after the destruction of Jerusalem and its central sanctuary—the Temple—when it became impossible to observe even half of the Mosaic Law. Eventually, all these laws, including Sabbath observance, completely disappeared from among Christians and from the Church of Christ.

“In the entire Church, only purely Christian ordinances, laws, and festivals remained.

“But this did not happen immediately. In ancient times, there were heretics who observed the Sabbath. They were called Sabbatians. History shows that they were an insignificant sect and existed for only a short time.

“Saint John Chrysostom (born in 347 AD, died in 407 AD) testifies that in his time, there were still Christians who practiced circumcision, observed the Sabbath, ate unleavened bread, and adhered to other Jewish customs.

“‘These things they do,’ he says, ‘cutting themselves off from grace’ (Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles), that is, from the New Covenant and from Christianity.

“Clearly, these were the remnants of Jewish Christians who were allowed to continue following the Mosaic Law.”

7. #

That Christians from among the Gentiles were not obligated to observe and did not observe the Law of Moses is evident from both the Epistles and the Acts of the Apostles. This book recounts that when disturbances and disputes arose in the Church over the question of whether Gentile Christians should observe the Law of Moses, a council was convened in Jerusalem. After lengthy and thorough deliberations, it was unanimously decided that Gentile Christians should not be bound by the Law of Moses—this “yoke,” which, as the Apostle Peter said, “neither our fathers nor we were able to bear” (Acts 15:10).

The decree of this apostolic council, which was sent to the Gentile Christians, was as follows:

“Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, ‘Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law’ (the Old Testament law, including, of course, the Sabbath), to whom we gave no such commandment: It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul… For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden (neither sacrifices, nor new moons, nor Sabbaths, nor anything else of the Mosaic Law) than these necessary things: That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication, and that ye do not unto others what ye would not have done unto yourselves. If ye keep yourselves from these, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.” (Acts 15:24–25, 28–29).

As you can see, the decision made no exceptions for anything in the Old Testament. Everything was abolished for Gentile Christians, except for what is explicitly listed in the decree; there is not a single mention of the Sabbath.

The Adventist objected: “If the decree of the apostolic council does not mention the Sabbath, then the Acts of the Apostles does. For example, the Apostle James, the chairman of this council, said: ‘For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day’ (Acts 15:21). This means that Christians observed the Sabbath, and so we must observe it as well.”

I replied: “Are you not ashamed to cite such a passage as proof that the Sabbath was observed by the apostles and must be observed by us? The Apostle James was not speaking about Christians but about Jews who did not believe in Christ, saying that they have been preaching the Law of Moses ‘from ancient generations.’ Christianity had only just appeared at that time. And the Jews read this law every Sabbath in their synagogues. But Christians had no synagogues of their own.”

If you read the excerpt from the speech of the Apostle James in connection with his preceding words, it becomes clear that he was speaking about the abrogation of the Law of Moses, including the Sabbath. He said:

“Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets… Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: but that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood, and that they do not unto others what they would not have done unto themselves. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day.” (Acts 15:14–15, 19–21).

The meaning of all this is as follows: At the conclusion of the council’s deliberations, the Apostle James, as chairman, proposed a resolution—to write to the Gentile Christians, instructing them not to observe the Law of Moses but to adhere only to what was prescribed by this very council, namely, to abstain from certain things. If the council did not adopt his resolution, James implied, then their opponents—the advocates of observing the whole Law of Moses—would prevail over them. For they had the advantage that “Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him,” and so on.

The resolution proposed by Chairman James was adopted unanimously by the council, and it was in this sense that the decree was written to the Gentile Christians. It is clear that everything from the Law of Moses that was not mentioned in this decree of the apostolic council was abolished for Gentile Christians and for the New Testament Church of Christ—without exception, including sacrifices and the Sabbath.

The Adventist said, “So, according to you, even the Ten Commandments are abolished? After all, they are not mentioned in the decree of the apostolic council.”

“Yes,” I replied, “those among the Ten Commandments that are not confirmed in the books of the New Testament have been abolished and must be modified.”

“And which commandments are not confirmed in the New Testament?” my interlocutor asked.

“The second and the fourth, the one concerning the observance of the Sabbath,” I replied. “Not only are they absent from the decree of the apostolic council, but neither the Gospels nor the Epistles mention them at all.”

“But the apostles did not mention the Sabbath in their conciliar decree because it was self-evident that even Gentile Christians were to observe it,” said the Adventist.

I replied, “The Sabbath is the least ‘self-evident’ of all, even for the Jewish people. That is why no other commandment has been given such a lengthy explanation of the reason for its observance as the commandment concerning the Sabbath. For the commandments that are truly self-evident, no justification is given—only a straightforward command: ‘Thou shalt not steal,’ ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery.’ Each of these commandments consists of a single phrase. This is because even Gentiles understood that stealing, murdering, and committing fornication were sinful and shameful acts. But the commandment concerning the day of observance is not self-evident to anyone without special explanation. And if the apostles did not mention it in their conciliar decision, it means that they abolished it along with the other Old Testament festivals.”

“Do you have any other evidence from the New Testament in favor of the Sabbath?” I asked the Adventist in conclusion.

“No,” he answered, “I have nothing more.”

“Then your case is weak,” I said, “if, apart from the four passages you cited, you have nothing else. After all, these passages have no real evidentiary force to prove that Christians are obligated to observe the Sabbath.”

The Adventist countered, “But neither can you find anything in Scripture against Sabbath observance. If you can, show that the Sabbath was indeed abolished in the New Testament—that it should not be observed and that ordinary work may be done on it as on any other day of the week.”

“I am glad to show all this,” I replied. “The Gospel repeatedly states that Jesus Christ Himself broke the Sabbath.”

The Adventist objected, “But Christ broke it only to do good works, to heal the sick, which in itself was not a violation of the holiness of the Sabbath. This was merely an accusation from His enemies, driven by hatred and envy. Or, to put it another way, it was slander against Jesus Christ, who never violated the Sabbath nor commanded others to violate it.”

“Yes, in some cases, Christ’s enemies accused Him of healing the sick on the Sabbath,” I agreed with the Adventist. “For example, He healed the man born blind on the Sabbath (John 9), the man with the withered hand (Luke 6:6–11), and the woman who had been bent over for eighteen years. In these instances, the accusations against Jesus Christ for breaking the Sabbath were unjust, for even on the Sabbath one ought to do good rather than evil (Luke 6:9). That is why Christ called His accusers hypocrites. But these are not the cases I have in mind when I say that Christ broke the Sabbath. I am referring to instances where He truly broke it or commanded others to do so—which, in essence, is the same thing.”

“What cases are those?” asked the Adventist.

“These,” I replied. “On the Sabbath day, as He (Christ) was passing through the grain fields, His disciples began to pluck the ears of grain and eat, rubbing them in their hands” (Luke 6:1). “When the Pharisees saw it, they said unto Him: Behold, Thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the Sabbath day” (Matthew 12:2).

In this case, the Pharisees were in the right. Therefore, Christ did not accuse them of hypocrisy. The disciples were indeed guilty of breaking the Sabbath. And He justified them only by pointing to a similar violation of God’s Law committed by the prophet David and those with him when they ate the showbread, which was lawful only for the priests to eat.

For the future, He declared how one ought to regard the Sabbath: “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27), meaning that each person has the right to disregard it at his own discretion. And concerning Himself, He said, “The Son of Man (that is, Christ) is Lord also of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:28). And just as any master or owner of something has the right to change, abolish, replace, or entirely eliminate it, so too could Christ abolish the Sabbath. And indeed, He did so in the following manner.

When healing the long-crippled man at the Sheep Gate pool, He said to him: “Rise, take up thy bed, and walk. And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked. And the same day was the Sabbath. The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured: It is the Sabbath day; it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed. He answered them: He that made me whole, the same said unto me, Take up thy bed, and walk. Then asked they him: What man is that which said unto thee, Take up thy bed, and walk? And he that was healed wist not who it was, for Jesus had conveyed Himself away, a multitude being in that place” (John 5:8–14).

Here, it cannot be said that the Jews were upholding the Sabbath out of envy or hatred toward Jesus, as in some other cases. For they did not know who had commanded the healed man to break the Sabbath. They were simply opposing whoever had commanded this violation of the Law, whoever he might be. In this case, there was a direct transgression of the Sabbath, a direct violation of the Fourth Commandment.

God had strictly forbidden carrying burdens on the Sabbath day. Yet Christ commanded the healed man to carry his bed.

The Adventist asked, “Where is it said that God forbade carrying burdens on the Sabbath?”

I replied, “In the book of the prophet Jeremiah it is written: ‘Thus saith the Lord: Take heed to yourselves, and bear no burden on the Sabbath day, nor bring it in by the gates of Jerusalem; neither carry forth a burden out of your houses on the Sabbath day… But if ye will not hearken unto me to hallow the Sabbath day, and not to bear a burden, entering in at the gates of Jerusalem on the Sabbath day, then will I kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched’” (Jeremiah 17:21–22, 27).

With such terrible threats, God forbade carrying burdens on the Sabbath anywhere—neither bringing them out of one’s house, nor carrying them in the streets, nor bringing them through the gates of Jerusalem.

That is why the Jews always observed this command so strictly and would not allow any burden to be carried on the Sabbath. In the book of Nehemiah, who lived after the Babylonian captivity, we read: “And I commanded my servants that they should not bring in any burden on the Sabbath day” (Nehemiah 13:19). From this, it is clear that by commanding the healed man to carry his bed on the Sabbath, Christ explicitly instructed him to break the Sabbath and to work on it in every way. For carrying a bed through the streets is not a good deed but ordinary weekday labor, a direct violation of the sanctity of the Sabbath. And by permitting this one type of work, which had been forbidden by God Himself, Christ implicitly allowed every other kind of work—even when there was no necessity for it.

There was no need for the healed man to carry his bed on the Sabbath. He could have returned for it another day, or, if he feared leaving it unattended, he could have remained nearby until evening. After all, the Sabbath ended at sunset. Christ commanded the healed man to break it so openly and without any necessity. This is self-evident.

When the Jews learned who had healed the paralytic and commanded him to take up his bed and carry it, they “persecuted Jesus, and sought to slay Him, because He had done these things on the Sabbath day” (John 5:16). Perhaps they did not succeed in killing Him then only because Adventists had not yet existed. You would surely have helped the Jews kill Christ, as a clear Sabbath-breaker, a violator of the Fourth Commandment.

“And therefore the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God” (John 5:18).

The evangelist did not place these two accusations against Jesus Christ together without reason: one, that He had broken the Sabbath, and the other, that He had made Himself equal to God the Father. This was to show that the accusation of violating the Sabbath was not slander—just as it was not slander to say that He made Himself equal to God the Father. If one were to claim that the accusation of Christ breaking the Sabbath was slander, then one would also have to claim that His making Himself equal to God the Father was slander.

All the foregoing leads to one of two conclusions:

1. If one considers the Sabbath to be inviolable, holding the Fourth Commandment regarding it to be in full force, then one must inevitably acknowledge Jesus Christ as a violator of the Sabbath, a transgressor of the Fourth Commandment of God’s Law, or a great sinner—which is a horrifying thought. In that case, we must renounce Him and cease to be Christians.

2. If one acknowledges Christ as the Lord God, who had the authority to break the Sabbath and to command others to do so, who had the power to abolish it as its rightful Master, then one must necessarily regard the Sabbath as non-binding for us, an unnecessary thing, and all regulations concerning it as likewise nullified.

For Christians, there is no third option regarding the Sabbath!

Those who observe the Sabbath, by that very fact, accuse and condemn Christ as a transgressor of God’s Law, as a sinner. But those who acknowledge Christ as God must reject the Sabbath, for He Himself abolished it.

9. #

One may bring further evidence from Scripture against the Sabbath. For example, even in the Old Testament, the Lord God declared: “Your new moons and your Sabbaths, your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them” (Isaiah 1:13). So even if the New Testament had required the observance of the Sabbath, and we Christians had erred in celebrating the Resurrection instead, this would not be such a grave mistake that it would condemn all Christians to damnation—millions, even billions of Christians who have lived, are living, and will live—despite their fervent faith in God, their sincere love for Him, their virtues, and all that Christ established for our salvation.

But in the New Testament, it is not the Sabbath that is to be observed, but the Resurrection, as will be made clear in our further discussion.

The Adventist objected: “Well, you certainly found something to cite against the Sabbath. But this passage does not refer to the Sabbath, the seventh day of the week, but to Sabbaths in the plural. The Jews had, in addition to the weekly Sabbath, other Sabbaths, such as the Jubilee, which was celebrated once every seven years, and another Sabbath that was observed once every fifty years. It is about these Sabbaths that God said He could not endure them. Moreover, this was not said against the Sabbaths themselves, but against the sins, lawlessness, and iniquities of the people, for they defiled the Sabbaths and all their sacred assemblies with their wicked deeds. That is why God could not endure them. This is so obvious that I am surprised you even cited this passage about the Sabbaths.”

I replied: “In part, you have spoken the truth, and in part, falsehood. You spoke the truth in saying that God did not hate the new moons, Sabbaths, and other Old Testament ordinances in themselves, but because of the evil deeds of the people.

But you spoke falsehood in claiming that this passage refers only to some seven-year Sabbaths and not to the weekly Sabbath. If we interpret God’s words according to your view, then their meaning would be as follows: ‘I cannot endure your new moons and Sabbaths because of your wicked deeds, which you commit on these holy days—except for the weekly Sabbath. On that day, no matter what iniquities you commit, I will tolerate it—or, to put it plainly, I will tolerate you.’

Thus, according to your view, God permitted evildoing on the weekly Sabbath but forbade it only on other Sabbaths. But clearly, God forbade sin on all days, and especially on feast days and the Sabbath. Therefore, by ‘Sabbath,’ He meant both the weekly Sabbaths and, most likely, primarily them. For in its proper sense, ‘Sabbath’ refers to the weekly Sabbath, while the other Sabbaths derived their name from it and are called ‘Sabbaths’ only figuratively—just as the peacemakers are called ‘sons of God’ (Matthew 5:9). That is why, wherever Scripture speaks of ’the Sabbath’ or ‘Sabbaths’ without specifying which kind, it should be understood as referring to the seventh day of the week.

In the book of Exodus, ‘Sabbaths’ is used in the plural, yet it refers to the seventh day of the week: ‘Verily my Sabbaths ye shall keep’ (saith the Lord)… ‘Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord’ (Exodus 31:13, 15). However, there are also passages where ‘Sabbath’ appears in the singular but refers not to the seventh day of the week, but to other festivals (Leviticus 23).”

Your interpretation—that if “Sabbaths” is mentioned in the plural, it must refer to certain other Sabbaths and not the seventh day of the week—is nothing more than a convenient evasion.

In the passage I cited from the prophet Isaiah, both the weekly Sabbath and the monthly festival, the new moons, are mentioned in the plural. Yet there were no other kinds of new moons apart from the monthly ones. It is clear that if “new moons” refers to the monthly festival, then “Sabbaths” must refer to the weekly festival. They are both spoken of in the plural because there were many of them throughout the year—thirteen new moons and fifty-two Sabbaths.

I cited the passage from Isaiah, which states that Sabbaths, like new moons, are intolerable to God—not to prove that they were not to be observed in the Old Testament, but to show that the Sabbath should not be given the exceptional significance that you Adventists ascribe to it. You act as though without observing the Sabbath and literally fulfilling the Fourth Commandment, all Christians will perish—as if neither faith in Christ, nor love for God and neighbor, nor anything else could save them. On the contrary, if someone commits evil deeds, the Sabbath will not save him, no matter how strictly he observes it.

10. #

Scripture speaks of the Sabbath in the singular as well, showing that it is unnecessary for Christians and is on the same level as new moons and other Old Testament ordinances. The holy Apostle Paul, foreseeing that people would later arise who would insist on observing the Sabbath and even argue over whether it was mentioned in the singular or plural, wrote the following in his Epistle to the Colossians:

“Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ” (Colossians 2:16–17).

Just as a shadow cannot be eaten, cannot be used to sew clothing, and is generally useless, so too is the Sabbath unnecessary for Christians. That is why the Apostle Paul so decisively cast out the Sabbath from the Church and threw it into the same heap as the new moons, various Jewish festivals—like the feast of booths, Purim—and other Old Testament relics, recognizing them all as mere shadows, empty and useless things for Christians.

And from this heap, which after eighteen hundred years had already sufficiently rotted, Mr. Miller took only the Sabbath, treating it as an essential and most salvific observance for Christians. And you, Adventists, as his followers, cling to it as if it were the most precious relic, striving with all your might to force all Christians to accept and observe it. Otherwise, you claim, all Christians will perish.

But in doing so, you Adventists are acting inconsistently and incorrectly. If you observe the Sabbath, then you should also observe the new moons and all the other Jewish festivals, as well as fully keep the Law of Moses. After all, the Apostle Paul placed the Sabbath on the same level as all other Jewish customs. If you consider the observance of new moons and other Jewish festivals to be sinful, then you must also consider the observance of the Sabbath to be sinful.

The Adventist responded: “You misunderstand the Apostle Paul’s statement that the Sabbath is a shadow of things to come. The Apostle Paul is speaking about the ceremonial Sabbaths in the Law of rites, which were merely shadows, not about the Sabbath of the moral law—that is, not about the Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment, but about the Sabbaths mentioned in the book of Leviticus, such as the Day of Atonement, the Feast of Tabernacles, and other festivals (Leviticus 16:31; 23:3, 32). These, too, are called Sabbaths.”

I replied: “Why do you distort the clear meaning of the Apostle Paul’s teaching regarding Jewish festivals and the Sabbath, both of which he calls a shadow? If he had mentioned only the Sabbath and not the festivals, then one might, with some strain, argue that by ‘Sabbath’ he meant the various Jewish ceremonial holidays—the Day of Atonement, the Feast of Tabernacles, and so on.

But the great Apostle, as if foreseeing this very deception, mentioned Jewish festivals separately and the Sabbath separately. He wrote:

‘Let no man therefore judge you… in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ’ (Colossians 2:16–17).

How can you shamelessly interpret this passage as though ‘holy day’ refers to festivals in general, and ‘Sabbath’ refers to those same festivals? What kind of person do you take the Apostle Paul for if you attribute such nonsense to him?

Moreover, I must draw your attention to the fact that nowhere in Scripture is it said that the Old Testament Law is divided into moral and ceremonial laws, with the first being unchangeable and the second changeable. This division was invented by men, and not so long ago. You Adventists have turned it into a convenient loophole for yourselves: whatever you dislike, you call the ‘ceremonial law’ and claim it has been abolished and no longer needs to be observed. But whatever suits you, you call the ‘moral law’ and insist that God Himself requires its strict observance.”

source