Jehovah’s Witnesses and The Sabbath

n a recent visit to my family home, I was looking over the library and noticed that there were several study guides written by authors professing the Jehovah’s Witness faith. Though in general my family is not very religious, due to the salesmen who come by, and the diverse nature of family friends, we seem to have gathered quite a collection of books on the subject of spirituality – from the Book of Mormon to the Bhagavad-Gita.

Being a Seventh Day Adventist, I naturally wondered what the booklets I found had to say about the 4th Commandment. I have spoken in depth with J.W. missionaries before, and in general they leave having learned something new, saying, “We’ll have to read up on that and get back to you.” Sometimes they do not return, although I have found more persistent members in my online conversations. Owing to these factors, I did already know the basic reasons that the Witnesses have for rejecting the continuing validity of the 7th day Sabbath; however in these books I found what amounted to an attempt to put their position in a comprehensive form. What I noticed was that the arguments they have mounted are common to many Sundaykeeping groups, and I believe therefore that this article will be of benefit to a more general population of spiritual seekers.

Most of my references, when quoting J.W. sources, will come from the booklets 1) United in Worship of the Only True God, which was put out by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, and is copyrighted 1983 and 2) Reasoning from the Scriptures, produced by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania in 1985, and reprinted in 1989. When referring to these, I will designate the two books as UW and RS respectively; and so, for example, if I wish to cite page 69 and paragraph 4 of United in Worship, I will write it in the following way: “As Christian soldiers we are part of a large army engaging in spiritual warfare.” [UW 69:4]

* * * * * * *

The first of the two books, under the heading, “What the Mosaic Law Means to You,” rightly concedes that, “Though referred to as the Mosaic Law because Moses was the mediator of the Law covenant, that Law code actually originated with Jehovah God.” [UW 146:2] However, it then quickly and unfortunately begins to add things to the New Testament understanding of the Law, attempting to state that the Ten Commandments are no longer valid for Christian believers.

For example, it states that the law “was added [to the Abrahamic covenant] to make transgressions manifest, until the Seed should arrive to whom the promise had been made...” [UW 147:1, quoting Galatians 3:19 but adding the words “to the Abrahamic covenant”] Was this Paul’s intended meaning? To know whether or not it was, we need only look at the Scriptures themselves. Although it was the faith of Abraham being discussed in Galatians 3, this is not the only place the origins of the Law are mentioned in Paul’s writings. We are told that “by the law is the knowledge of sin,” (Romans 3:20) and we certainly know that human beings were convicted of sin before both Moses and Abraham (Genesis 39:3). In fact, in the books of Genesis and Exodus alone, we can find men expressing knowledge of sin after violating each of the 10 commandments, including the 4th which deals with the Sabbath, well before the tables of stone were given to Moses.

In Exodus 5:5, the Pharaoh accuses Moses of trying to get the people to “rest,” however what does not come through in English translations was that a very specific word for “rest” is utilized by the king of Egypt. It was not merely to take a break from work for the feast in the wilderness (verse 5:1); that would have been the expression “nuwach” (Lamentations 5:5, for example) – but Pharaoh said to Moses, “Behold, the people of the land now are many, and ye make them rest (literally: “Sabbath them”) from their burdens.” (Exo 5:5) That, by itself would not constitute strong proof, for it could always be merely contended that an “unusual word” for rest was used, for whatever reason. But of course the Word of Yah is not ambiguous; there is always more.

The Psalmist writes of the Exodus from Egypt in this way: “And [Yahweh] brought forth His people with joy, and His chosen with gladness: And gave them the lands of the heathen: and they inherited the labour of the people; That they might observe His statutes, and keep His laws. Hallelu-Yah.” (Psalms 105:43-45) Of the laws (Torah) given to Yah’s people, the only one that would be directly affected by slavery is a day of rest, and this is what makes Pharaoh’s statement such an indictment of rebellion on Moses’ part. The law and commandments were not “added” to the Abrahamic covenant, for of the patriarch himself the Almighty declares, “Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” (Genesis 26:5) Again the word “Torah” is used, the first such use in the Bible; the Law was there long before Abraham and his covenant.

In trying to flesh out the argument, in the following paragraph the book states that “[the Law] showed up the Jews as sinners.” If it is true, however, that “by the law is the knowledge of sin,” (Romans 3:20) – and this is the only means the Bible gives us by which we may know sin, including Romans 14:23 which deals with a violation of what one knows to be “lawful” – and if it is also true that “all have sinned,” (Romans 3:23) then this cannot be correct. “... the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.” (Romans 4:15) The Law was added, not to the Abrahamic covenant, but to mankind. It was given so that we may know what sin is, both Jews and Gentiles, and see our need for coming to Christ; “the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” (Galatians 3:24)

Until an individual, Jew or Gentile, is converted, he us under the law, and in sin. The wages of sin (transgression of the law – 1John 3:4) is death, and this is exactly why all men need a Savior. However, upon accepting the Sacrifice, it is not the nature of sin that changes, but the nature of the individual. Sin remains “transgression of the law” for Jew, Gentile, Convert and Worldling... the difference between the Convert and the Worldling (both Jew and Gentile) is that Convert is in harmony with the law, is justified by faith, and is led by his new heart into the acts of righteousness. (Ezekiel 36:26; Romans 10:9,10) This is the nature of the “new Creature.” (2Corinthians 5:17) Obedience to the law becomes natural, and is not a means by which those already justified by faith may “become just.” This is the beautiful truth revealed in the book of Galatians: it is not by the Law that justification comes – yet those who are justified will, by their nature, “obey the truth,” (Galatians 3:1) will “keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” (Revelation 12:17)

* * * * * * *

The Witnesses, and many Sundaykeeping Christians, contend that “In effect, this [arguing for the continued validity of the Mosaic Law] constitutes a repudiation of faith in Jesus Christ. Why is that so? Because such a view rejects the fact that Jesus fulfilled the Law, thus paving the way for God to terminate it.” [UW 148:4, emphasis mine] There are tremendous problems with this theological position. First of all, we see in Revelation 14:12 that the last day Christians both keep the commandments of God (this expression is consistently and almost exclusively used of the 10 commandments in particular) AND have the faith of Jesus Christ. Keeping the commandments of God, rather than constituting “a repudiation of faith in Jesus Christ,” is actually the fulfillment of that faith! A true faith in Christ will lead to a knowledge of the character of the Father and Son, a knowledge of sin that comes from a knowledge of the Law, and a love for the obedience to the law that springs forth from the fellowship of the Holy Spirit. (James 2:26, 1John 5:3)

Even more obviously J.W.s, in this and many other places, set forth the teaching that Christ, by fulfilling the Law, provided a means for the Father to set it aside or “terminate” it. Nothing, nothing, could be further from the truth, and so important was the right knowledge of this matter that the Messiah interjected into His Sermon on the Mount the very statement that shows this theology to be false: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy (Greek: kataluo – to deprive of force, to abrogate, to dissolve, to do away, to set aside, to terminate), but to fulfill.” (Matthew 5:17) Witnesses and others will remove the “not” and the “but,” and claim that Christ’s fulfillment of the law led the Almighty to do the very thing that Christ said He had not come to do! (To claim that Christ and the Father had divergent purposes is, of course, not an effective argument to “save” this position.) The Savior put a clear difference between the meanings of “fulfill” and “destroy” – there’s a big “but” between them – and continued to teach the necessity of the commandments as a guide for His disciples’ behavior (Matthew 5:19, Luke 23:56), yet those who reject His teaching on this are forced to equate two contradictory terms.

In an effort to set forth a false concept of freedom in Christ, it has come upon those who seek to be free from the Law (as opposed to being free from sin and in harmony with the Law) to repudiate the statements and faith of Christ, while accusing others of doing the very thing in which they are engaged. The many leading questions in these books, such as, “By what means did Jehovah bring the Law covenant to its end?” [UW 148:3] and “Why are those who insist on obedience to the Mosaic Law really rejecting Christ?” [UW 153:3] are all both prejudicial and based on the deadly assumption that the Law was brought to “its end,” despite what the Savior said. (e.g. “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all [not just the Savior’s earthly mission] be fulfilled [or completed].” – Mat 5:18) The array of verses they provide in support of the contention serve only to show two things: 1) that the Law is not a means by which men obtain righteousness, and 2) that Christ fulfilled the law (which He Himself says is not the same thing as dissolving it). Sabbathkeepers already agree with, and teach, these ideas; it has nothing to do with the alleged destruction of an everlasting covenant.

* * * * * * *

Misquoting Romans 10:4, J.W. theological documents read, “Christ is the end of the law, so that everyone exercising faith may have righteousness.” [RS 345:3] This is not what that verse says. Reading in the King James Version, for example: “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” Though even the worst of translations expresses this idea, it is best worded in the KJV, and that this is the most accurate reading can be demonstrated by reading verse 6 of every responsible version, which describes a “righteousness based on faith” as opposed to a “righteousness based on the law.” Christ is the end of the Law “for righteousness,” but not – by any means – “the end of the Law.” Romans 10:4 does not contradict, or in any way weaken or modify, the Messiah’s statement in Matthew 5:17 and 18.

* * * * * * *

They write, “Was the Mosaic Law ever meant to be binding on all mankind? (Ps. 147:19, 20; Ex. 31:12, 13)” [UW 147:4] They imply an answer of “No” from those passages, yet a useful reference to include in that list would have been Mark 2:27. Psalm 147 and Exodus 31 accurately point out that the Law was made known to Israel only, as a nation, after the great ancient apostasies that led to such heathen nations as Babylon and Egypt (Genesis 10). This is quite true; but Israel the nation was intended to spread knowledge of God’s Law and character to all the world, and to reclaim those lost peoples! (Micah 4:2) It is written: “All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto Yahweh: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.” (Psalm 22:27)

The statement that “The Law had, in fact, fenced the Jews off from the Gentiles” [UW 150:2] deliberately leaves out the reason for the fence. The Jews were fenced in from sin by the Law, and the Gentiles were invited to join them in this ark of safety – the idea that the Law made the Jews an “exclusive club” was the Pharisees’ belief and teaching on the matter, and has been sadly accepted by many in modern Christianity, including the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Hebrews were the “chosen people” for this reason, and this reason only: “because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.” (Romans 3:2) They had the light, and the commission to the world, and the power. It is only because they failed in this that the Gentiles were in a lawless state when the Messiah arrived. The foreign nations were always invited by Yah Himself to join themselves to the Holy People, and many who were not blood descendants of Abraham often did: “many of the people of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews fell upon them.” (Esther 8:17b)

This is positive proof that the Sabbath was intended as a blessing for all who would become faithful to Yahweh, not merely those who were from Abraham’s genetic stock – and these would join themselves (though Gentiles by birth) to the Israelites, thus becoming Jews. This is why the Sabbath is spoken of as a sign between Israel (specifically) and Yahweh: all who wished to be faithful to Yahweh became “of Israel,” such as Ruth, who was a Moabite by birth, Rahab of Jericho, and many among even the best men who served in King David’s army (2Samuel 11:3). In the New Testament, this teaching is even more clearly set forth. Paul writes to Gentile converts, saying: “Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.” (Eph 2:11-13) Mark 2:27 thus rightly states that “the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath,” because it is a gift given to all human beings – not merely “Jews” – not to master them, but to give them a “rest” that continues to be “a shadow of things to come.” (Col 2:17) This, and this alone, is the full picture of what it means to be a Sabbathkeeper, what it means to be an Israelite, and what it means to be a Christian.

* * * * * * *

One additional note on the idea that the Sabbath is only for the Jews. The books quote Deuteronomy 5:15, in which Yahweh states the reason for Sabbath observance as deliverance from Egypt. They give the verse, and then say, “Here Jehovah connects His giving of the Sabbath law with Israel’s deliverance from Egypt, not with events in Eden.” [RS 347:1] This, as anyone who has read Exodus 20 knows, is a re-statement of the commandment, in which the original reason WAS because of the events in Eden. (Exo 20:11) The reason for Sabbath observance was always because “Yahweh blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it (made it holy),” and in Deuteronomy the additional (not conflicting) reason is given that the Hebrews are now able to obey this commandment because they had been delivered from bondage. They were released from slavery “through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore Yahweh [...] commanded [them] to keep the Sabbath day,” which they were already told to “remember.” The writers have purposely given half the reason for the commandment, focusing only on the secondary reason, in an effort to promote the “Jews only” teaching of the Sabbath.

* * * * * * *

On page 149, UW cites Acts 15 as an occasion when the Christians got together to discuss how much of the Law the Gentiles were required to keep. They imply that this was a general assembly to consider that matter, and since Gentiles were not “told to keep the Sabbath” it is therefore somehow not considered important; however in Acts 15 the one issue truly under contention by the Judaizers was not the commandments at all, but rather the rite of circumcision. This is explained in verse 1, in which they said, “Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” Acts 15:5, which repeats this idea, is actually an improper translation, reading in the KJV, “But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses.” The “them” is in brackets, because it is added, and in actuality that verse reads directly, “that it was needful to circumcise them, to command and keep the law of Moses.” In other words, the sect was saying that in order to properly keep the Law of Moses (and there was no question about the converts doing that), they must first be circumcised. It is obvious that the Sabbath and other teachings of the Decalogue had nothing to do with the issue, for at the conclusion of the meeting James gives the immediate requirements being taught to Gentiles, and then says that they would not “trouble” them with more rules (verse 19) “For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day.” (verse 21)

The immediate issues were settled, and if there was anything else about Moses that the Gentiles needed to learn, that was an easy matter to resolve, since it was “read in the synagogues every Sabbath day.”

* * * * * * *

While they write, accurately, “Our having a righteous standing with God depends on faith in Christ, not on keeping a weekly Sabbath,” [RS 345, 346] and that “the Bible contains no instruction to set aside that day of the week [Sunday] as sacred,” [RS 346:3] they quickly state that those who, because of their faith, are led to keep the Sabbath deny the teaching of justification by faith. No true Sabbathkeeper claims that his works justify him in God’s sight. We simply quote the Scriptures on this matter, as in all things, and reveal the traditions of men for what they are. (James 2:14, Revelation 2:19, etc)

* * * * * * *

One potentially damaging argument the J.W.s make against Sabbath observance is their quotation of Romans 7:6 and 7, which in their books reads, “Now we have been discharged from the law, because we have died to that by which we were being held fast...” [RS 348:4, emphasis theirs] This reading implies that Jews have been “held fast” or bound to an unpleasant ordinance, quite in opposition to the Biblical idea that the 7th day Sabbath was “a delight” to those who were pure of heart. (Isaiah 58:13) But worse than this, it gives an absolutely inaccurate depiction of the context of Romans 7. The thrust of that chapter regarding the issue of Law was to demonstrate that there were (and still are) individuals who hold that righteousness before God comes from the works, or keeping of, the Law. The problem is not the law itself (see Romans 7:12) but the false teaching that we may be justified by our works. IF we become dead to the law, in that we see we cannot be justified thereby, (7:14) we then see our need for the Savior (7:24) and may be delivered from death by a new union with Christ.

Both before and after this statement, Paul emphatically states that this does not mean we may engage in acts that violate the Law, even though we are justified by faith. (Romans 6:1, 2; 8:1-4) Only by reading that section of Romans (chapters 6-8) as a unit, and not as a series of disconnected thoughts, can the full sense of Paul’s letter to Rome be understood. Using Romans 7 as justification for concluding that we are released from obedience to the law (and not just the penalty thereof) completely destroys the author’s meaning, for he tells us exactly what “law” it is from which we are discharged: the law of the Spirit in Christ has made us free from “the law of sin and death.” (Romans 8:2) The “Law” in the sense of the commandments of God... Paul says that this Law is “holy, and just, and good.” It is, in fact, the opposite of “sin” (transgression of the Law) in which we once lived, and do no more when we are set free in Christ.

The document claims that Paul’s citing of the 10th commandment after the declaration that we have been “discharged” from the Law proves that the commandments are included in the Law from which we have been discharged. Absolutely false: Paul’s statement is that he has been convicted by the 10th commandment, and is thus guilty of the Law. This is why he rejoices in being discharged from the death that would result. (Rom 7:11) He is not free from an obligation to abstain from covetousness – that very idea should be ludicrous to even secular moralists, much more so to Christians! In addition to this, the New Testament – Paul himself – specifically tells believers to avoid covetousness, (Col 3:5) therefore it is not the obligation of the commandments from which we are “delivered.” To claim that we are “discharged” from the Law as a guide to behavior, in an attempt to show that the Sabbath is no longer necessary, leads theologians who oppose the Law to make astonishing statements such as this.

* * * * * * *

Interestingly enough, they do quote Paul saying, “Shall we commit a sin because we are not under law but under undeserved kindness? Never may that happen!” [RS 349:5, citing Romans 6:15-17] And yet, by claiming the Law is done away, they destroy the Bible’s only definition of sin! Remember, “where no law is, there is no transgression (sin),” (Romans 4:15) and “without the law, sin was dead.” (Romans 7:8) Doing away with the 10 commandments does not necessarily take away all moral restraint (Sabbathkeepers are accused of saying this [RS 349:3]), but it does do away with God’s statements regarding moral restraint. It is important to remember that it is not “moral” people who are ultimately saved, but those who are converted, those who are brought into harmony with the character and principles of the Almighty. These people naturally become moral, yes, but it is not the morality that saves them.

There are many who will have lived perfectly “moral” and upright lives, yet they have never known the God of love, the God of the commandments. They may say they have lived perfectly moral lives, declaring, “Have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works?” (Matthew 7:22) He will nevertheless say to such as these, “I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” (Matthew 7:23) Why, though they lived upright lives, does He say to them that they worked “iniquity?” It is because they lived under man’s concept of righteousness, while being transgressors (lawbreakers) of the pure principles of God’s concept of righteousness. They are not the same thing, and those who try to reason away the commandments, which were added to mankind because of sin, and to convict OF sin, place themselves firmly under man’s ideas of what true righteousness and morality entails.

Let no man, as Paul says, judge you in these things, but the body of Christ. (Colossians 2:17) This is a passage about which some controversy has arisen, for the word “is” in that verse has been added to the phrase “but the body [is] of Christ” in most English versions. If one reads Colossians 2:16-17 with an understanding of this simple fact, Paul is NOT saying that the Sabbaths, New Moons, Feasts and proper ways of eating and drinking are set aside; on the contrary, he states: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath: Which are a shadow of things to come; but [except for] the body of Christ.” (Col 2:16,17). Note also that these things “are” a shadow of things to come, not “were” a shadow. This is one of the most common misquotations of all Scripture.

The blotting out of the ordinances against us (the “handwriting” or receipt of what we owe for lawbreaking, as the Greek makes clear) allows us to approach Yah with a clean heart, and to enter into His covenant as a child of the Kingdom. Regarding the details of that covenant, “the body of Christ,” the Church, is the only organization able to judge these things with the right Spirit. It was to the Colossians, Gentiles who had learned the way of Christianity but were being influenced by their pagan acquaintances go give up the Sabbaths and other observances (Col 2:18, 19), that Paul gave this counsel.

* * * * * * *

Another interesting statement made is, “Jehovah God proceeded to rest as to his works of material, earthly creation after preparing the earth for human habitation. This is stated at Genesis 2:1-3. But nothing in the Bible record says that God directed Adam to keep the seventh day of each week as a Sabbath.” [RS 346:7] This is not the full picture. Genesis 2:3 reads, “And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it He had rested from all His work which God created and made.” The reason for His rest is that He ceased to work, but the action of His rest is significant. He not only rested, He blessed the day, and sanctified it. The word “sanctified” there is the word “qadash,” which means “to prepare or separate for holy use.” The 7th day was consecrated, or set apart from all others, with the stated intention of making it a day for holy things. Furthermore, in Exodus 20, when the 4th commandment is set down on stone, the reason why “the seventh day” was to be remembered and kept holy is because “Yah blessed the seventh day.” From this it is abundantly clear that it was not merely the first “seventh day” that God blessed, but every one of the weekly cycle. It did indeed stem from Eden, as previously pointed out in this study; and it began amongst humans with Adam, or else he would not have used the set-apart day for its right, stated purpose.

* * * * * * *

When I meet a Sundaykeeping Christian and I explain to them I am a Sabbathkeeper, many immediately respond with, “Well, I worship God (or rest in Christ, or something like that) every day of the week.” Few realize what a sharp insult is embedded in those words. It implies that Sabbathkeepers (and not only Christians, but Jews of both the Old and New Covenants) only worship(ped) God or rest in Christ one day in seven. This was never the purpose of the Sabbath. A man who gives his wife a rose for their anniversary does not only love her the day he gives her the gift. Similarly, a man who dedicates the day that God Himself has blessed to building his relationship with the Divine does not only serve, worship and love Him on that day. Only the most narrow-minded of debaters will claim that Sabbathkeeping makes the believer less holy six days out of seven.

Even so, less striking rewordings of this idea are represented in the books I found. One states – under the heading “Sabbath” – “The ‘seventh day’ referred to in Genesis 2:2 was not merely a 24-hour day. Similarly, the “sabbath resting” that true Christians share is not limited to a 24-hour day. By exercising faith and obeying the Bible’s counsel, they can enjoy it every day, and especially will they do so in God’s new system.” [RS 350:3, emphasis mine] The statement that the 7th day of Genesis was not a literal 24-hour day is related to another gross error regarding J.W. theology, but that is another subject. What is of interest here is the idea that “true Christians” rest in Christ every day, but that Sabbathkeepers (who may or may not be “true” Christians) might not.

We see from Hebrews 4 that there is indeed a “rest” that remains for the people of God, and that rest is every day. No one who truly understands the blessing of the Sabbath will state that the rest Christ offers us is limited to a 24-hour period. However, though the spirit of the law is unlimited rest, the letter of the law is not set aside by this understanding. The Book Reasoning from The Scriptures makes a very insightful statement, when it declares that the law written in the heart is much more effective than the law written in stone. This is absolutely true, and can hardly be more eloquently stated – however, for which of the laws written on the heart (in spirit) does the letter (in stone) become inactive?

“Thou shalt not kill” was replaced by the spiritual injunction to not even hate your brother in your heart. (1John 3:15) The commandment against adultery was replaced by the more glorious teaching that even improper desires are a violation of the principle involved. (Matthew 5:28) And yet, may we violate the letter of the Law and murder, if we do not hate our victim? May we engage in an adulterous affair with a woman if we do not find her physically appealing? It should be obvious, on inspection of each of the 10 commandments and their spiritual expansion, that while “the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life,” (2Cor 3:16) keeping the spirit of the Law contains and includes the letter as a matter of obvious course. The letter by itself brings only death, but the spirit gives life to what has been known to be true all along. The 4th commandment is not unique among the 10 in this respect.

Hebrews 4 gives us the Spirit of the Sabbath. It is rest in Christ, every day, on every occasion. Those who rest in Christ, when they come to understand the beauty of the weekly gift, will rejoice that a day has been specifically blessed and “set aside” for holy use. It is the day on which Yahweh has provided a special blessing for growth and fellowship with the angels, the living saints, and the Divine Himself. We who have experienced this blessing can testify to the truth of the gift’s effectiveness, for “That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you.” (1John 1:3) Having never experienced something is hardly evidence against its existence, and the Bible gives us the true “why” for keeping the Sabbath. The testimony of the “cloud of witnesses” (Hebrews 12:1) merely confirms the information that the Law and the Testimony already adequately provide.

* * * * * * *

2Corinthians 3:7-11 is quoted, which I print here in full:

“But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.” (2Cor 3:7-11)

They then state, “What is this describing? Exodus 34:1, 28-30 shows that it is the giving of the Ten Commandments; these were the commandments engraved in stone. Obviously these are included in what scripture here says ‘was to be done away with.’” [RS 349:1]

But is that what the passage says? Not at all. In fact, it is the “ministration” or the covenant (specifically the “ministry of condemnation”) associated with the commandments, apart from the grace of Christ, that is under discussion. The ministry of that which is engraved in stone was glorious, but temporary, for Christ has indeed become the end of the law for righteousness. Righteousness comes by faith, and not by the works of the law; Christ’s death and resurrection caused that idea to pass away, yet in the New Testament, and in the historical records we have of the Church from the first century to the present**, we find Christians keeping the 7th day Sabbath in obedience to the commandment of the Father and Son. The Christians understood they were justified by faith, thus the ministry of death had passed away, yet “that which remaineth is glorious.”

Note the language well. It is not “that which is added,” or “that which replaces the old,” that is more glorious. Not “that which results from the passing-away of the commandment.” No ” that which remaineth is more glorious. Of the giving of the commandments, which the J.W.s rightly acknowledge is what is being described, both the Decalogue and the ceremonial system were provided on that occasion at Sinai. The priestly system, provided to keep men pure in the Law until Christ came, was indeed a “ministration of death,” for the blood of animals was required to atone for violations of the commandments. (Leviticus 5:1-9) But though that is done away in Christ (Hebrews 9:12), “that which remaineth” from that occasion is more glorious. Nothing new is given to replace the Sabbath – the “rest in Christ” (Hebrews 4) and righteousness by faith (Romans 10:6) were always available, and are cited in reference to even Abraham. (Hebrews 11) But in spite of the passing-away of the ministry of death, and the institution of the ministry of glory and grace, it is not the new thing mentioned, but “that which remaineth” that is more glorious in Paul’s discourse. The idea that the passing-away of the Decalogue can be demonstrated from this Scripture, far from being “obviously” stated, is blatantly incorrect.

* * * * * * *

The books state, “...many of the moral standards set out in the Ten Commandments were restated in the inspired books of the Christian Greek Scriptures. (There was, however, no restating of the Sabbath law).” [RS 349:1] This is manifestly untrue. The Sabbath law is the most commonly referenced article of the Decalogue in the New Testament! We are told it was given to mankind (Mark 2:27), that it is lawful to do well and be kind to others on that day (Matthew 12:12), that it is a day for fellowship – even for the Gentiles (Acts 15:21, 16:13), that it is a day for rest (Matthew 24:20)* and so on. Now, there is a commandment that is not re-stated in the New Testament, but it is the third commandment, not the fourth. The commandment against taking Yahweh’s name in vain may be correctly implied from verses such as Mark 3:28 and 2 Timothy 3:2 where the word “blasphemy” is used – but the commandment is not re-stated. May we safely assume we have no further obligation to this commandment as well?

* * * * * * *

There is an entire passage I would like to address next. It reads as follows:

(So, Jesus mixed together references to the Ten Commandments and other parts of the Law, making no distinction between them. Should we treat them differently?)

When Jesus was asked, “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” did he isolate the Ten Commandments? Instead, he replied: “‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. The second, like it, is this, ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets.” (Matt. 22:35-40) If some cling to the Ten Commandments (Deut. 5:6-21), saying that they are binding on Christians but that the rest are not, are they not actually rejecting what Jesus said (quoting Deut. 6:5; Lev. 19:18) as to which commandments are the greatest? [RS 348:2]

This is fairly typical of J.W. reasoning from the Scriptures. As with the matter of the origins of the Sabbath, it does not comment on the full picture. There, within the very Scriptures provided, is the answer to the charge that those who consider the Decalogue still applicable as the standard of Christian love and service (the word “binding” has a deliberately dark connotation) reject the words of Christ. No one can “cling to the Ten Commandments” and at the same time reject the two “greatest” commandments, for they are the same thing.

The first of the greatest commandments is to “love Jehovah your God with your whole heart, soul and mind.” Is this commandment in any way different from the 10 Commandment’s teachings? The answer is no. In fact, the first 4 commandments specifically deal with the love relationship between God and man – having no other gods before Him, avoiding idols, respecting His name, and remembering the day He has set aside for communion with us. Again, in regards to the 4th, this does not mean it is the only day on which He does so with us, or us with him, but it is the day that has been consecrated for that purpose.

Similarly, how does one love his neighbor? Is it merely to wish him well, and to have good thoughts concerning him? In the Bible, love is an action-word, and agape specifically, divine Christian love, is expressed in loving deeds. As the inspired author writes when discussing the very topic of faith and works, “If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, ‘Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled,’ notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?” (James 2:15,16) Similarly, if we do not respect those in authority over us, if we steal, lie, covet the goods of others, commit adultery and kill... do we have true love for our neighbors?

The J.W. doctrines, setting aside the obvious and stated truth that “On these two commandments the whole Law hangs,” arrive at their erroneous ideas. Christ often quoted statements that were not recorded in the Decalogue as being “the law” because that is exactly what they were – the principles of the 10 were present in many of the other teachings given to the chosen people for their spiritual and physical prosperity. Love for God and one’s fellow man (whether worded as in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 or not) is the specific and only root of each of the 10 Commandments, and rather than being an arbitrary set of rules that have nothing to do with love, obedience to the Decalogue has always been about heart-service in an attitude of Chesed or Divine Love, the Old Testament term for Agape. On the giving of the 10 Commandments to the Israelites, Yahweh said to Moses, “O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!” (Deu 5:29)

The Commandments were given, not to hedge in the Jews, not to separate them from the Gentiles, not to give them some rules to specifically make them “special” to God, but so that it would be well with them, and their children. Indeed it will be well with any who not only see the beauty of the Law (as J.W.s and others are encouraged to do [UW 150:3, 151:2]) but do the beauty of the Law. Speaking of the Gentiles, Paul writes, “For not the hearers of the Law are just before God, but the doers of the Law shall be justified.” (Romans 2:13) They are, of course, justified by faith – there is no conflict there – but the fact that they are “doers of the Law” is the measure of their justifying faith in the Messiah, for they “shew [or demonstrate] the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness.” (verse 15)

* * * * * * *

Finally, from these books I find something specific in common with similar works for which I always search. Whenever a teaching arises that is in conflict with Bible Christianity, there is always the same reason behind it, whether or not the authors realize it at the time. The reason why many in modern Christendom do not like the Law of God is quite simple: it is because the Law reveals sin. This was, as Paul says, the purpose of the Law being given to mankind. The 10 Commandments were provided as the measure of men, and it is a perfect standard. Without even knowing it, the books I read reveal disharmony with the doctrine that in Christ, we are free from sin.

They say, “Those who argue for the continuance of certain features of the Law do not fully appreciate that a righteous standing with God depends, not on one’s works of the Law, but on one’s faith in the value of Jesus’ sacrifice. (Gal 3:11, 12) They feel that a person must prove himself righteous by such works – something that is impossible for sinful humans.” [UW 148:5, emphasis mine] And again, “By setting out a perfect pattern covering the various facets of life, [the Law] showed up the Jews as sinners. It became evident that, despite any good intentions and diligent efforts, they could not measure up to its requirements.” [UW 148:2]

The conjecturing as to the motives of the obedient, the questioning their faith in Christ, all of it goes back to the same root, the belief that it impossible for humans to truly obey. It does not matter how many times a sincere Sabbathkeeper may protest that he believes and walks in justification by faith. It does not matter how many times he explains that the works are the result, and not the source, of his right standing in Yahweh because of the Sacrifice of the Messiah. It does not matter, because as long as he obeys he is a standing rebuke to those who do not – and the spirit of conflict and controversy cannot help but stir itself at these indictments. The world, and its various false prophets, is arrayed against the Bible-believing, commandment-keeping Christian.

It is a lie, to call sin by its right name, to say that those who argue for the continuance of the 7th day Sabbath “do not fully appreciate that a righteous standing with God depends [...] on one’s faith in the value of Jesus’ sacrifice.” It is a lie, to be frank, to claim that a Sabbathkeeper feels “that a person most prove himself righteous.” Undoubtedly there are some who feel this way, but these are sweeping condemnations of a vast and growing number of Bible-believing Christians. The reason for these statements is simply this: a love of sin, and a belief that it impossible for a human to be without sin. This is the true root of the conflict, and has been from the days of Cain and Abel.

It is quite true that “sinful humans” cannot obey the Law, but “while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8) And now, the Bible tells us, there is “no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” (Romans 8:1) Because of Christ, we are atoned, we are cured, we are saved... and we can obey! The Jews did not come up to the standard, not because it was impossible, but because they did not enter into the spiritual “rest” to which the physical Sabbath was pointing them – and to which it still points believers. (Hebrews 4:8-11) It is written: “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for His seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.” (1John 3:9) If we believe, it is possible for us; if we believe, we will endure to the very end.

We have more light now than ever before, and we have not only the Law, but the life, death and resurrection of the Messiah, the very embodiment of that Law. By our faith in Him we may testify as He did: “And He that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please Him.” (John 8:29) If this is our faith, we cannot but obey the Law of liberty – which includes the commandments (James 2:10-12), and we will stand fast in the day of judgment; “And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.” (Matthew 10:22) Salvation is a gift, it does not result in any way from works; but throughout the ages, even on this corrupt little planet, sincere, Bible believing Christians have held up the standard of Christ’s word, and the commandments that speak to our hearts of the Savior’s enduring mercy, and freedom, and love.

David.

* Some say that Matthew 24:20 should not be used as New Testament evidence for Sabbathkeeping. The argument goes that since the gates of Jerusalem were shut on Sabbaths (referencing Nehemiah 13:19) Christ was saying, “Pray that the flight will not be on the Sabbath,” because it would be difficult or impossible to leave the city during that time. However, we have no evidence from the Scripture or any historical works that Nehemiah’s practice continued beyond his reforms. In fact, from John 5:1-9 we have Christ entering Jerusalem for a feast and healing a man afflicted with an infirmity, “and on the same day was the Sabbath.” (John 5:9) Even those who propose a gap in time between verses 1 and 9 must concede that they are inventing a timeline out of thin air, and that it cannot be supported by any teaching of history – secular or sacred. Matthew 24:20 continues to be a valid statement by Christ indicating the continuing blessing of restful Sabbath days for New Testament believers.

** There are extensive records of Sabbathkeeping by believers after both the Crucifixion and Pentecost, contrary to traditional “Christian” teaching. A few examples from authors both ancient and modern:

“The primitive Christians had a great veneration for the Sabbath, and spent the day in devotion and sermons. And it is not to be doubted but they derived this practice from the Apostles themselves, as appears by several scriptures to the purpose.” [Dialogues on the Lord’s Day, p. 189. Dr. T.H. Morer, London: 1701]

“The Gentile Christians observed also the Sabbath.” [Church History, Gieseler, Vol.1, ch. 2, par. 30, 93.]

“The ancient Christians were very careful in the observance of Saturday, or the seventh day...It is plain that all the Oriental churches, and the greatest part of the world, observed the Sabbath as a festival...Athanasius likewise tells us that they held religious assembles on the Sabbath, not because they were infected with Judaism, but to worship Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath, Epiphanius says the same.” [Antiquities of the Christian Church, Vol.II Book XX, chap. 3, sec.1, 66. 1137,1138.]

“For although almost all churches throughout the world celebrated the sacred mysteries (the Lord’s Supper) on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, refuse to do this.” [Ecclestical History, Socrates, Book 5, chap. 22, p. 289. ]

“It seems to have been customary in the Celtic churches of early times [7th century A.D.], in Ireland as well as Scotland, to keep Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath, as a day of rest from labour. They obeyed the fourth commandment literally upon the seventh day of week.” [The Church in Scotland, p.140, James C. Moffatt, D.D., Professor of Church History, Princeton]

“Widespread and enduring was the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath among the believers of the Church of the East and the St. Thomas Christians of India, who never were connected with Rome. It also was maintained among those bodies which broke off from Rome after the Council of Chalcedon namely, the Abyssinians, the Jacobites, the Maronites, and the Armenians.” [The New Enclopaedia of Religious Knowledge, Schaff-Herzog, emphasis mine]