The Dugger-Porter Debate
THE SABBATH QUESTION
PROPOSITION
The Scriptures teach that the seventh day of the week as a Christian Sabbath is enjoined upon God’s people in this age of the world.
Dugger’s First Affirmative | Porter’s First Negative | Dugger’s Second Affirmative | Porter’s Second Negative | Dugger’s Third Affirmative | Porter’s Third Negative | Dugger’s Fourth Affirmative | Porter’s Fourth Negative |
We believe the Scriptures teach that Saturday, the seventh day of the week, is the Christian Sabbath to be observed by Christians in this age, for the following reasons:
When the Lord created the heavens and the earth in six days he did not class the seventh day with the other working days which he gave to mankind, upon which to perform his labor. We read in Genesis 2:1-3, “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the hosts of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 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.”
Here we find that the seventh day was not classed with the other days. It was sanctified. That is, it was set apart for a sacred use. It was God’s day then, while the other six days were given to man to use for days of toil and labor. The seventh day, which is Saturday, still belongs to God. We have no record where he has ever classed it with the other days, or placed it on common grounds with them. It was sanctified, that is, separated from them, for a sacred purpose. We have no record where it was ever placed back with the other six days, or ever given to man for a secular day of use. God told us to keep this day for him in many places throughout the Scriptures. The seventh day was never man’s day to use for himself, but it has always been placed where man could keep it for God, or use it for himself. And the Lord has always tested the loyalty of mankind over the way they regarded that which was not theirs, the Sabbath, which always has, and always will belong to God.
We pass now to the time when God’s people were in Egypt. We find Pharaoh complaining because Moses and Aaron made the children of Israel “rest” from their burdens. We find that this word “rest” is taken from the Hebrew “sabat,” or sabbatize. Israelites were here keeping the Sabbath day, which caused the complaint against them.
Also when God called his people out of Egypt he tested their loyalty to him on the way they regarded his day, the Sabbath. He rained the manna for forty years, but it never fell on God’s day. It fell on the six days given to man, for it required considerable labor to gather it; consequently, the Lord did not rain it on the day that belonged to him.
When the people went out on the Sabbath day to gather the manna the Lord rebuked them saying, “How long refuse you to keep my commandments and my laws” (Exodus 16:28). Hence the seventh day, Sabbath, was in the commandments and laws the Lord had given the people before Israel had reached Mount Sinai. Abraham kept these commandments and laws; hence, Abraham kept the Sabbath day for God, and did not use it for himself. It reads in Genesis 26:5 as follows, “Because that Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes and my laws.”
God’s people, whoever they have been, have always been known as such because of their separation from the world in fellowship with him, obeying his voice and keeping his commandments. When he wrote the ten commandments on tables of stone, with his own finger, he said: “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy, for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth and rested the seventh day” (Exodus 20:8, 9). This Sabbath precept was made a part of the ten commandments, and in this code of law, God said: “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God” (verse 9). He confirms the fact again of the proper ownership of this day. It is God’s day, and we only hold it in trust, and are to keep it for God by doing his work on that day, and abstaining from our own secular labor.
The seventh day can be traced down through the Scriptures with peculiar reverence. God’s people of all nationalities, whether Jew or Gentile, were duty bound to observe the Sabbath, keeping it for God, in order to enjoy the blessings of heaven and possess eternal life. In Isaiah 56:6 the Lord says: “Also the sons of the stranger (Gentile), that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant, even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer.”
The Gentiles, therefore, in olden times were tested out by the way they handled the day that was not their own, but that of another. It belonged to God, and the Gentiles must realize that divine ownership, and keep God’s day for him and for his service, and not use it for themselves.
Again we find the Lord testing Israel, and bringing rebuke upon that nation because they coveted the Sabbath day, then laid hold upon it, using it for their own secular work. He speaks thus: “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 any burden out of your houses on the Sabbath day, neither do ye any work, but hallow ye the Sabbath day as I commanded your fathers. . . And it shall come to pass if you diligently hearken unto me, saith the Lord, to bring no burdens through the gates of this city on the Sabbath day . . . this city shall remain forever” (Jeremiah 17:21-35).
Jerusalem would never have been destroyed, neither would Israel or Judah been scattered among the nations, suffering such terrible persecutions as they have been suffering, if they had kept the Sabbath as God commanded. God’s punishments upon Judah and Israel are again clearly set forth in Deuteronomy 28th chapter, and the Lord tells us it was because they broke his commandments. The Gentile nations today are suffering God’s judgments, for the same reasons as did Israel; viz., because they are breaking his commandments. The Lord speaks of the world in general in the following language: “The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof, because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, and broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate, therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men left” (Isaiah 24:5, 6). The Gentiles today who are boasting themselves against Israel, and at the same time committing the same offenses against God as Israel committed, will soon be victims of his wrath and judgments. God is no respecter of persons (Romans 2:11 and Ephesians 6:9), and he changes not (Malachi 3:6).
Coming now to the New Testament we are not disappointed in finding that God regards his day just as he did in the Old Testament age. He has not changed, and is no respecter of persons. We find Jesus keeping the Sabbath, and making it his custom to use that day especially for God (Luke 4:14, 16). It says he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day as his custom was. Then before Jerusalem was destroyed, we find Jesus instructing his disciples to “Pray that their flight would not be on the Sabbath.” He was telling them about the terrible destruction awaiting Jerusalem, and he knew as the prophet Isaiah had previously said that the city awaited her doom, because of Sabbath desecration (Jeremiah 17:21-35). When a hostile army overruns a country and the people have to flee, there is great discomfort if it is winter because of the cold; and if they flee on the Sabbath, they must labor, carrying their burdens out of their homes on the Sabbath which God forbade them doing. Hence Jesus told them to pray that their flight would not be on the Sabbath. He well knew Jerusalem would not be taken, and the land overrun until long after he died on the cross. The event did not happen until 70 A.D. as all histories affirm. Therefore, Jesus proclaimed the divine importance of that day, belonging to God nearly forty years after he was crucified. As the Sabbath was still holy, and remained God’s day, 70 years after Christ came, there is no distinction today. It is still God’s day, and not man’s day for secular labor, but we are to keep it in trust for God, doing his work, and not our own labor on that day.
The apostle Paul labored among the Jews and went into their synagogues to preach. They were observing the seventh day of the week the same as they do at this time, and they have never ceased to cherish and honor the Sabbath. When Paul went to one of their synagogues and preached to the Jews on the Sabbath the Lord says: “And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath day. . . And the next Sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God” (Acts 13:42, 44).
This was about 66 A.D. At a still later date when the Holy Spirit recorded the event, we were informed that the day these Jews met on was the Sabbath. Therefore it was the Sabbath then at least 66 years down in this gospel dispensation. The Jews were meeting on the seventh day of the week, or on Saturday as the day is now called. Hence, the Holy Spirit called Saturday the Sabbath day in this age, and surely it is the Sabbath. If the seventh day is not the Sabbath, why did the Holy Spirit deceive us by calling it the Sabbath? As it was the Sabbath then it is the Sabbath now.
Again we find in Acts 16:12-14 where Paul went out by the river side where prayer was accustomed to be made, and preached to people there. Also in Acts 17:2 we read as follows: “And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures.” It was Paul’s manner to meet with both Jews and Gentiles, as it says here, on the Sabbath day. Furthermore, in Acts 18:4-11 we read: “And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks . . . And he continued there a year and six months teaching the word of God among them.” Here we find Paul making tents during the week, and preaching to both Jews and Gentiles on the Sabbath. He remained there a year and six months; consequently, we have here 76 Sabbath days the apostle Paul preached. It could not be said that he was visiting these synagogues preaching on Saturday just because the Jews met on that day, for he was preaching to Gentiles also. Furthermore, he was an apostle to the Gentiles and not to the Jews; hence, his making it a custom to hold meetings on the Sabbath shows his regard for God’s day, and proves that he was not using it for a secular purpose as he was the other days upon which he made tents. The Sabbath which was the seventh day of the week was consequently observed by Paul and his followers, both Jews and Gentiles, at this period of the gospel age about 66 A.D. It therefore is the day for rest and worship today.
Further evidence, found in the New Testament, that God has not changed by giving another day, in the place of his day, for people to rest upon is found in the following text, “For God spake of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works” (Hebrews 4:4). In verse 8 he says: “For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterwards have spoken of another day. There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God, for he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works as God did from his” (verses 9, 10).
Some teach that we do not have any day of rest at this time, but the Sabbath still belongs to God, and not to man for secular use. Here we are told that “there remaineth,” a rest to the people of God. The word rest is here taken from the Greek word sabbatismos, which means the Sabbath day rest. The other words “rest” as found in these verses are derived from a different Greek word entirely. It is kataposus, and means rest. It may refer to a rest after fatigue, to the Eden rest, or the eternal rest, but the word sabbatismos of verse 9 does not refer to any of these rests, but to the Sabbath day, and we are told it remains for the people of God. God has not changed, the Sabbath day still belongs to him, and should not be used by man for secular work. At the beginning of the world the seventh day was “sanctified,” that is, it was set apart. Webster’s dictionary gives the definition for the word “sanctify”: “To be set apart for religious use.” This is what happened at creation with the last day of the week, the seventh day, which is Saturday. It was set apart from the other days, for God, as his holy day. Now what right has any man, or set of men, to interfere with God, and attempt to change this divine order. In Isaiah 58:13 it is spoken of as God’s day, thus, “If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight, holy unto the Lord, honorable” etc. Here the Sabbath is again said to be God’s day. It is, therefore, not ours to use for ourselves in common work. It is the day separated from the other six days at creation, and it is still thus separated. Man has made all manner of excuses, and tried in vain to alter God’s order of things regarding the Sabbath, but dear reader, this day, the seventh, is still God’s day. It does not belong to mankind to use in their common labor, but it is for our worship and service of the creator.
Should someone give you a ten-dollar bill, and tell you to keep that for them until they returned, this money would be in your hands, and in your charge just as the seventh day of the week or the holy Sabbath. You would have the ten dollars. It would be in your power, you could keep it for this person, or you could use it for yourself. God has given the Sabbath to mankind to keep for him. It is within our power, and we can be faithful and use this sacred time for God, or we can take it and perform our own common labor on this day, and use it for ourselves. Before you would take this money and use it for yourself, you would first covet it. You would break the commandment forbidding covetousness. Furthermore, if you would take this money and appropriate it for yourself you would break the commandment forbidding stealing. It is just this way with the Sabbath. This day belongs to God. It does not belong to us. When people get so busy in the things of this old world that they covet more time, and then by taking this day, which is not their own and using it for their own work, they are guilty of stealing. This is the situation of many honest people, to whom the precious truth of the Sabbath has not yet gone. God will forgive them for such action when they ask him in the precious name of Jesus. He is loving and merciful, and this precious truth of the Sabbath day, which is Saturday and not Sunday is going to all the world, and many dear people are seeing the true light and rejoicing to walk in this strait and narrow way.
While holding meetings in London, England, a few years ago, I purchased a little book at one of the great book stores of London which was entitled “The Weekly Cycle.” In this book the “week” is traced down from one hundred years before Christ. Every change man has made in the calendar is mentioned and tables showing that the days of the week are just the same as they were in the time of Christ. This book gives tables copied from leading authorized works on astronomy, and contains copies of calendars from the time of Christ to the present day, showing beyond any question of doubt that the weekly cycle is just the same as it always was. Consequently, time has not been lost as so many affirm, and the seventh day of the week is still just as it was anciently.
As further proof that we are observing the real ancient Sabbath, the same day that God blessed and made holy, we find in Matthew 28:1 as follows: “In the end of the Sabbath as it began to dawn towards the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.” Here the Holy Spirit has told us very clearly that in the New Testament times the Sabbath was not “the first day of the week,” but it was the day just preceding it. Therefore, the Sabbath as verified by the Holy Spirit for the gospel age, was not Sunday, but the day before, which was Saturday.
Furthermore, the Sabbath is one of God’s ten commandments, and it is of just as much importance as the other nine. People who confess Jesus, and try to live right, are usually quite strict about keeping all of the other ten commandments, but some seem to believe that the keeping of a Sabbath day of rest as God commanded is not of importance. Yet to covet this time which is God’s time, and then to take it and use it for ourselves, is committing two of the prominent sins forbidden in the ten commandments. The Sabbath is just as important as any of the other nine, and should be kept for God and regarded as his day for worship and rest.
The ten commandments were formerly the standard of right and wrong. To break any one of them in the Old Testament time was such an offense against heaven that something had to die. Either the person offending, or he had to get an animal and have the priest kill it in his stead. The Lord says the blood is the life, and that “without the shedding of blood, there is no remission” (Hebrews 9:22). When any one of the ten commandments was broken under the administration of death at the time of Moses, the man or the woman was stoned to death, when two or three witnesses testified against them. They could have an animal killed in their stead or two turtle-doves (Leviticus 5:7) if the offender was too poor to furnish a lamb. This law of pardon by the blood of the animal was given by Moses to deliver people from the penalty of the ten commandment law, and now we have the new law of pardon through Jesus Christ, known in the New Testament as the “Testimonies of Jesus” (Revelation 12:17).
The entire old system of pardon with its ceremonies, bloody sacrifices, feasts on holy days, new moons, and yearly Sabbaths given to Israel, and spoken of as “Her” Sabbaths were done away with and nailed to the cross. Ephesians 2:15, and Colossians 2:14-16. Paul speaks of this law of pardon in Galatians 3:19 and says: “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgression until the seed should come.” This seed was Jesus, and this law of pardon was only to last till Jesus came when, according to God’s plan, he had provided something better. It was not the same old system of pardon by the killing of animals, but through the precious blood of Jesus, the lamb of God, slain from the foundation of the world (Revelation 5:6).
It was not the ten commandment law that was nailed to the cross and abolished through the work and death of Jesus, but it was the old sacrificial law of pardon. The Lord said of Jesus that when he came into the world, he would magnify the law and make it honorable (Isaiah 42:21). Jesus said: “Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets, I came not to destroy but to fulfill” (Matthew 5:17-19). Jesus did not destroy any law, or any prophecy. His life and work fulfilled the old law of pardon, and also fulfilled many Old Testament prophecies, and therefore finished them. But he never destroyed any law or any prophecy. His life which was our example taught us to keep the Sabbath. See Luke 4:14-16, where it says his custom was to keep the Sabbath day. We are told that “In him was life, and his life was the light of men” (John 1:4). Also: “If we follow him we will not walk in darkness but will have the light of life” (John 8:12). Jesus made it his custom to keep the Sabbath, and he also “Kept his father’s commandments,” (John 15:10), and repeatedly tells us to “Keep the commandments of God” (Revelation 14:12; also 12:17 and 22:14). He says those who are saved are the ones “keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus” (Revelation 14:12).
In the New Testament we are repeatedly told to keep the law of God, the ten commandments. Notice the following: “Whosoever therefore shall keep the whole law and yet offend in one point is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law” (James 2:10, 11). Here we have the law of ten commandments mentioned and two of them quoted. We also find that in the New Testament gospel age this law of ten commandments is still the great measuring standard of righteousness. We cannot be saved by keeping any law, neither by our own works, but when we are saved before heaven, it will be our very nature to keep all of these holy commandments including the fourth which is the seventh day Sabbath. The Lord says further that the “remnant” of the seed of the woman, or the remnant people called out during the gospel age are those who “keep the commandments of God, and have the testimonies of Jesus” (Revelation 12:17). Here we have the commandments of God as the standard just as it was in the Old Testament time, but we have the new law of pardon spoken of as “the testimonies of Jesus.” It is the New Testament. It testifies of the birth, life and death of Jesus and gives us the new law of pardon.
Jesus tells us in Matthew 24 and also in Luke 17 that when Jesus returns to earth again, there will be but very few people saved. He compares it to the time of Noah and the days of Sodom. We are now in a very wicked sinful age, as everyone knows, and the great majority of people are traveling the broad way that leads them to destruction. Jesus said that “strait is the gate and narrow is the way that leadeth to life, and but few there be that find it, because broad is the gate and wide is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there be that walk therein” (Matthew 7:13, 14). He also says: “Fear not little flock for it is your father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom” (Luke 12:32). We are living in the closing days of this age, when Jesus is soon to return and judge the world. There are but few going to be saved compared to the many. Jesus says it is going to be those who “Keep the commandments of God” (Revelation 14:12). John also says: “This is the love of God that we keep his commandments and his commandments are not grievous” (John 5:3, 4).
It gives me pleasure to enter into this discussion with my friend, A. N. Dugger, in an effort to determine by the Bible the day of religious service enjoined upon Christians. While he failed to define the terms of his proposition, I take it that the subject is easily understood, and the important thing is to test the proposition by the things said in the Bible. My friend is undertaking to prove that “the Scriptures teach that the seventh day of the week as a Christian Sabbath is enjoined upon God’s people in this age of the world.” There is no discussion between us as to whether the seventh day of the week was ever enjoined upon anybody as a Sabbath. We both agree that such is true. But the question is this: Is it a Christian Sabbath? Is it binding upon Christians? That I emphatically deny while my opponent ardently affirms. So that is the issue between us. I shall now take up the arguments in order as introduced by him and see if they sustain his proposition.
Our attention is first called to the six days of creation and the Lord’s rest on the seventh day as recorded in Genesis 2:1-3. The seventh day was certainly “classed with the other days” in that it was mentioned as one of the days of the week. I readily grant that the seventh day of the week was sanctified -- set apart to a sacred use -- and in that sense it was not like the other days; but the question that confronts us here is: When was it sanctified? Was it sanctified, set apart, at the creation? Was it sanctified at the time God rested or did the sanctification take place some time after he rested? What does the passage say? “And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested.” “Had rested” is past perfect tense of the verb and refers to an action completed sometime in the past. But if we regard it as simple past tense, the fact still remains that the day was sanctified some time following the rest. There is nothing to indicate that it was set apart at the creation. Moses wrote the record of it about 2500 years after God rested, and at the time he wrote the day was sanctified; but it is up to friend Dugger to prove that it was sanctified about 2500 years before Moses was born. Until he does this, the passage is of no value to him. Neither do I agree that “God told us to keep this day for him in many places throughout the Scriptures.” God told somebody to keep it, but Elder Dugger must give the passage that shows that God told us to do it. Nor has he “always tested the loyalty of mankind over the way they regarded the Sabbath.” The loyalty of some men has thus been tested in one age of the world; but when my friend puts “always” into his comments, I deny and call for the proof. Mere assertions are not sufficient in a discussion like this.
The argument that Israel were keeping the Sabbath day in Egypt when Moses and Aaron made them “rest from their burdens” according to Exodus 5:5, is a very weak effort on the part of my friend. The word from which “rest” comes simply means “to cause to cease.” It does not indicate that they were keeping the Sabbath. The work of Moses and Aaron had filled them with a desire to leave Egypt, and as a result they quit their work, or ceased from their burdens. This is clearly shown in verse 4 in which we are told that the king of Egypt said: “Wherefore do ye, Moses and Aaron, let the people from their works? Get you unto your burdens.” God did not make known to the people in Egypt anything about the Sabbath, but after he brought them out of Egypt and into the wilderness he gave them the Sabbath law. This is definitely told us in Ezekiel 20:10-12. There in the wilderness, God said, “I gave them my Sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them.” Then he did not give them the Sabbaths in Egypt, and my friend’s argument is all wrong.
That Israel’s loyalty to God was tested in the wilderness in connection with the manna and the Sabbath is readily granted. But I want to remind my friend that the first time the Sabbath is mentioned in all the book of God is in this connection is the sixteenth chapter of Exodus. According to verse 4 it was given to “prove them,” whether they would walk in God’s law. This is sufficient evidence that they had not been previously keeping the Sabbath; for if they had been, they would have been proven already. Also when Moses introduced the Sabbath he said: “Tomorrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord” (Exodus 16:23). This manner of introducing it shows they were unacquainted with it; and they had to be instructed in the smallest details of it. When the next day arrived Moses said: “Today is a Sabbath unto the Lord” (Exodus 16:25). All this reveals to us that the Sabbath was now being introduced for the first time; here in the wilderness in the region of Sinai it was first made known. In Nehemiah 9:13, 14 we read: “Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments: and madest known unto them thy holy Sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant.” So they did not know the Sabbath through the past years of their history -- it was made known to them in the region of Sinai -- and the argument of my friend fails. But I might grant all he claims for this incident, and it still would do him no good, for it contains no proof that Christians are required to keep it now.
Elder Dugger next assumes that Abraham kept the Sabbath, for God said: “Abraham . . . kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws” (Genesis 26:5). But he could just as well assume that Abraham was baptized and observed the Lord’s supper, for both of these are commandments of God. However, Abraham did not keep the Sabbath law, for Moses, while speaking of the covenant that contained the Sabbath commandment, said: “The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day” (Deuteronomy 5:3). Abraham was one of the fathers with whom God did not make that covenant; neither was he alive the day Moses spoke. But suppose Abraham did keep the Sabbath. Would that prove that it is binding on Christians now? Abraham kept the law of circumcision (Genesis 17:10-14) and offered animal sacrifice (Genesis 22:13); but my opponent would not be willing to take this as authority to bind such upon Christians.
I agree with my friend that God’s people have always been known by their keeping his commandments; but to indicate that this means the Sabbath is pure assumption. His quotation of Exodus 20:8, 9 in this connection, in which God said, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy,” with emphasis being placed by Dugger on the word “remember,” is to indicate that they had been long keeping the Sabbath, or they could not remember it. God said to Israel in Egypt: “Remember this day, in which ye came out from Egypt” (Exodus 13:3). Yet they had never before observed the day. How could they remember this? The explanation of one is the explanation of the other. I do not deny that the seventh day was the Sabbath of the Lord, but it was for the Jews in the Jewish age and not for Christians in this age.
In an effort to prove that the Sabbath commandment is binding on Gentile Christians today, my friend introduces Isaiah 56:6 in which the “sons of the stranger” (Gentiles) were mentioned as keeping the Sabbath. And relative to this Elder Dugger says: “God’s people of all nationalities, whether Jew or Gentile, were duty bound to observe the Sabbath . . . in order to enjoy the blessings of heaven.” But he could have as well said: “God’s people of all nationalities, whether Jew or Gentile, were duty bound to observe the law of circumcision” for the very same reason; for God said: “And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the Passover of the Lord, let all his males be circumcised . . . for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof” (Exodus 12:48). But what did the “sons of the stranger,” mentioned in Isaiah 56:6, have to do to be eligible for Sabbath keeping and entrance into God’s house of prayer? They had to “join themselves to the Lord”; to “love the name of the Lord”; to “be his servants”; to “take hold of God’s covenant.” But in doing this they had to be circumcised, for God said: “No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel” (Ezekiel 44:9). But when Gentiles thus “joined themselves to the Lord” they ceased to be Gentiles and became proselytes to the Jewish religion; then they kept the Sabbath, not as Gentiles, but as Jews. What my opponent needs to find is where any Gentile as such was ever commanded to keep the Sabbath. If he can produce such a passage, let us have it. And while he is looking for that, he might also tell us why, if the Sabbath was of universal application, the Gentiles were called “strangers.” Here is a task for him to undertake. And why did Paul, speaking of them during the Jewish age, say they were “strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world”? (Ephesians 2:12). And why did God, when he gave the Sabbath commandment at Sinai, make it binding only on “thy stranger that is within thy gates”? (Exodus 20:10). Let my friend find where it was binding on the stranger without their gates. All this shows the Sabbath was not of universal application; if it had been, there would have been no “strangers.”
My opponent next presents Jeremiah 17:21-25 to show that God was “testing Israel and bringing rebuke upon that nation” because of their attitude toward the Sabbath. But that is the wrong reference for my friend’s proposition; for he needs to find the passage where God “tests Christians,” not Israel, by that means. Since, as Dugger tells us, Israel and Judah were “scattered among the nations” because they failed to keep the Sabbath, why did he not, for the same reason, scatter the nations among Israel? It is right in this connection that our attention is called by my friend to Romans 2:11 and Ephesians 6:9 to prove that “God is no respecter of persons.” If the Sabbath applied to all nations, why did not God bring the Babylonians into Judean captivity for their failure to keep the Sabbath? My friend’s position makes God a respecter of persons. He sent the Jews into Babylon because they did not keep the Sabbath; but he did not send the Babylonians into Judea for the same reason. I challenge my friend to clear up this situation in the light of his position on the Sabbath. The statement of Isaiah 24:5, 6, which is introduced to prove the Sabbath of general application, has no reference to the Gentiles. “The earth,” as there mentioned, is used interchangeably with “the land” in verse 3. This refers to “the land of Judea,” “the land of Canaan,” and to punishment upon Israel, as a reading of the entire chapter will plainly disclose.
Following my friend in all the arguments he has introduced, we come now to his references in the New Testament. Luke 4:14-16 is given to show that Jesus kept the Sabbath. Many passages might be given to prove this. But Jesus also was circumcised (Luke 2:21) and kept the Passover (Matthew 26:17-25); but my opponent does not observe these because Jesus did. Why did Jesus observe the law of circumcision, the Sabbath and the Passover? Because “God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law” (Galatians 4:4). And since he lived “under the law” he kept these requirements of the law. But Paul tells us that Christians “are not under the law” (Romans 6:14). So there is the difference.
Elder Dugger thinks that the Sabbath was a holy day in A.D. 70 when Jerusalem was destroyed long after the crucifixion of Jesus because Jesus told his disciples to “pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day” (Matthew 24:20). But if this passage proves the Sabbath was a holy day in A.D. 70, it also proves “the winter” was a “holy season,” for he told them to pray that their flight be not in the winter. It was not the sacredness of the day or the season that Jesus had in mind, but the safety of his disciples. Flight in the winter time would be difficult. Also the Jews, who had not accepted Christianity, would still be keeping the Sabbath and would have the gates of Jerusalem closed on that day. Therefore, escape on that day would also be difficult; so they were to pray that they not have to flee on the Sabbath or in the winter. You will have to try it over, Elder Dugger.
Then to “the Sabbath” in the book of Acts. My friend finds where Paul went into the Jewish synagogues on the Sabbath day to preach as recorded in Acts 13:14-44. But had it ever occurred to him that the Jews who were conducting their services on the Sabbath were not Christians. There were no Christians in these places when Paul went there. But did Paul keep the Sabbath with them? Not a word said about it. He went there to preach. I have often gone to places to preach on Saturday, but I did not observe the Sabbath. And even those Gentiles who requested “the word to be preached to them the next Sabbath” were not Christians. Let Dugger find where they requested Paul to keep the Sabbath, not to preach, and where he responded. This he cannot find. The same is true of his going out to the riverside (Acts 16:13, 14) and to Corinth (Acts 18:1-11). In both these he preached -- he “spake unto the women” and “reasoned in the synagogues,” but not a word about “keeping the Sabbath.” My friend says he finds “76 Sabbath days the apostle Paul preached.” Well, he needs to find one Sabbath day that he kept holy. But Paul left the Jews and turned to the Gentiles in Acts 18:6 before the “year and six months” are mentioned. Friend Dugger skipped this point. He connected verse 4 with verse 11, ignoring this point altogether.
But “the Holy Spirit called Saturday the Sabbath day in this age” when Luke wrote the book of Acts. And don’t forget that the Holy Spirit still called a certain day “the day of Pentecost” (Acts 2:1) and the Passover week “the days of unleavened bread” (Acts 12:3). Yet Dugger does not regard this as proof that he should keep the Passover and Pentecost. Did “the Spirit deceive him” in thus designating these days in the gospel dispensation? And why does he not keep them? If this plan, on the one hand, proves the Sabbath is binding; on the other, it proves the Passover and Pentecost binding.
In Hebrews 4:9 Paul says: “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.” Elder Dugger thinks this means the Sabbath. But note that it is “a rest,” not “the Sabbath.” But he tells us that the word comes from the Greek sabbatismos, whereas the word “rest” in other connected verses is from the Greek katapausis; hence the heavenly rest, he thinks, cannot be the rest of verse 9. But the word “rested” in verse 4, referring to God’s rest on the seventh day, is from katopausin. So, according to Dugger, verse 9 cannot be the seventh day rest. Besides, the word Sabbath in our New Testament comes from sabbaton, not sabbatismos. They had entered the seventh day rest and the Canaan rest, but a rest yet remained to be entered. It is the heavenly rest, for Paul said; “Let us labor therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief” (Hebrews 4:11). This is the rest spoken of a long time after the other rests. Read Hebrews 4:7, 8.
My friend returns to his argument relative to the “sanctifying” the seventh day at creation. But since I have already noticed that, I shall not return to it here. I readily grant that God in Isaiah 58:13, referred to the Sabbath as “my holy day,” but what my friend needs to find is a reference that calls it God’s holy day in the Christian age of the world. In this particular he has failed, but it is the thing he must do to have any support for his proposition.
His effort to prove that those who do not keep the Sabbath now are guilty of covetousness and theft is a complete failure. He tries it by a “ten-dollar-bill” illustration. But for this illustration to serve his purpose he will have to find where the Lord gave mankind the Sabbath “to keep until he returns.” But such a passage cannot anywhere be found. Certainly, God commanded the Jews to keep the Sabbath, but he didn’t even command them to keep it till the Lord’s return. If my friend thinks so, let us have the passage. There is no need to argue that the Sabbath day is “not our own” but “belongs to God” unless he will give a text of Scripture that says the Sabbath is God’s holy day in this age of the world.
Elder Dugger next refers to The Weekly Cycle, a book he bought in London, England, a few years ago, to prove that no time has been lost and that we now may keep the same day that Israel did in the long ago. But, as far as this discussion is concerned, his effort on that is lost, for I can grant him all of that without giving him any support whatever for his proposition. Just grant that the days of the week are the same as they were anciently, would that prove the Sabbath binding on Christians? What my opponent must do is to find some passage in the Bible that requires Christians to keep the Sabbath. His proposition reads: “The Scriptures teach.”
His reference to Matthew 28:1, to prove that Sunday is not the Sabbath but that the Sabbath was the day before the first day of the week, is also a misspent effort. Elder Dugger has had enough debates with my brethren to know that we do not claim Sunday to be the Sabbath. We fight that idea as valiantly as my opponent. Denominational preachers are wrong when they refer to Sunday as the Sabbath; the Sabbath was the seventh day of the week (Exodus 20:10), the day which we call Saturday. On this Elder Dugger and I agree; the fight is over whether the Sabbath requirement extends to Christians today.
And now we are informed by my opponent that the Sabbath commandment is as important as the other nine of the ten commandments, and is, therefore, just as binding on Christians as the other nine. But the burden of proof is on his shoulders. We read in Exodus 31:13-16 that God told Israel to keep the Sabbath “throughout their generations.” This very expression proves the commandment to be temporary -- that it would pass away. Do you ever read of the other nine commandments being thus required? Where did God say, “Thou shalt not kill throughout your generations”? Or, “Thou shalt not commit adultery throughout your generations”? Did God say, “Thou shalt not covet, steal, bear false witness, and so on, throughout your generations”? No, but he did say to “keep the Sabbath throughout your generations.” This proves there was a difference between the fourth commandment and the other nine. Keeping the Sabbath was spoken of in the same terms that God used concerning many of the ceremonies of the Jewish law. The Passover, burnt-offerings, circumcision, the Levitical priesthood, and such like, they were told to keep and observe “throughout your generations.” Just so with the Sabbath, but not so with the other nine commandments of the ten.
And why say that “the ten commandments were formerly the standard of right and wrong”? Notice it: “The standard of right and wrong.” Friend Dugger makes this claim because he finds a death penalty attached to the violation of those commandments. But the sons of Kohath, who did service for the sanctuary, were told that they should not “touch any holy thing, lest they die” (Numbers 4:15). Was this a standard of right and wrong? It was no part of the ten commandments. Even wizards were to be put to death (Leviticus 20:27). If a man should lie with a beast, he suffered the penalty of death (Leviticus 20:15). Other commandments carried the death penalty too. Why, then, say the ten commandments were the standard of right and wrong? They were a part of the standard, but not the standard. Many things were wrong that were not forbidden in the ten commandments. The ten commandments forbade bearing “false witness against thy neighbor,” but they did not forbid bearing false witness for thy neighbor or against thy enemy. So they were not so inclusive, after all.
My opponent claims that the law that was done away was merely the “old system of pardon, with its ceremonies, bloody sacrifices, feasts,” etc., and not the law containing the Sabbath at all: Galatians 3:19 does not merely refer to the sacrificial system, but it was the law which was given “four hundred and thirty years after” God made the promise to Abraham concerning his seed (Galatians 3:17). The promise to Abraham is recorded in Genesis 12:1-3. Check your chronology, and you will find that 430 years brings you to Sinai and the giving of the ten commandments. It was this law that was to last “till the seed should come.” And in Colossians 2:14-16 Paul enumerates the set order of Jewish services: daily, weekly, monthly and yearly, and shows that all of them are done away, for they were nailed to the cross.
I believe, with friend Dugger, that Christ would “magnify the law” (Isaiah 42:21), and that he “came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it” (Matthew 5:17-19). But this is true regarding the whole Mosaic system; he did not dishonor any of it. Does that prove it all to be binding on Christians? But his statement made in Matthew 5:18 shows the law was to cease. He said: “One jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” This shows it would pass when it was fulfilled, and my opponent says the Lord fulfilled it. That settles it, then; it passed away. When the record tells us that Joseph knew not Mary “till she had brought forth her firstborn son” (Matthew 1:25), it does not mean that he never knew her. And when Paul’s enemies bound themselves under an oath “that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul” (Acts 23:12), they did not mean they would never eat or drink any more. So when Jesus said the law will not pass “till all be fulfilled,” he did not mean that it would never pass. One passage shows that Joseph knew Mary after she brought forth her firstborn son; another shows that Paul’s enemies planned to eat after they had killed Paul; and the other shows that the law passed after it was fulfilled.
Yes, Jesus kept his father’s commandments (John 15:10). And we are to follow him (John 8:12). But Elder Dugger does not think this means we should do all that Jesus did. Jesus was circumcised and kept the Passover; but Dugger does not regard either of these as binding on us now. As Jesus obeyed the commandments of the law under which he lived, we must obey the commandments of the law under which we live; in that way we follow him. And then a list of passages from the book of Revelation are given that show the importance of obeying “the commandments of God.” The passages given are Revelation 14:12, 12:17, 22:14. It is claimed that these mean “the ten commandments.” Who said so? Elder Dugger. Let him prove it. I demand that he answer this question: Does God have any commandments besides the ten? I predict that he will not answer the question, but if he does, he will ruin his own arguments. Please, Elder Dugger, tell us if God has any other commandments except the ten commandments. Paul said: “The things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord” (I Corinthians 14:37). I fully agree with friend Dugger that only a few will find the narrow way that leads to life (Matthew 7:13, 14), and that those who do will be those who keep God’s commandments (Revelation 14:12), and that God’s commandments are not grievous (I John 5:3, 4); but I deny that these refer to the ten commandments as such. When he has answered my question, this matter will be fully taken care of in his own answer.
My opponent thinks we must keep the Sabbath because James said: “Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all” (James 2:10). Then verse 11 quotes two of the ten commandments. So my friend says this means all of the ten must be kept. But did he ever notice that in verse 8 James quoted a commandment not found in the ten but in what Dugger would call the law of Moses. Does this mean that all of the Mosaic law is to be kept now? But James did not quote the Sabbath commandment at all. He did not say to keep it. The law he referred to was “the law of liberty” (verse 12).
The distinction which Dugger makes between “the commandments of God” and “the testimony of Jesus Christ” in Revelation 12:17 is amusing. “The commandments of God,” according to Dugger, means the ten commandments, and “the testimony of Christ” means the law of pardon through the sacrifice of Christ. Such reasoning would distinguish between “the word of God” and “the testimony of Jesus Christ” in Revelation 1:9, and would make “the testimony of Christ” no part of “the word of God.” But “the things concerning the name of Jesus Christ” and “the word of God” are used interchangeably by Luke in Acts 8:12, 14. This shows the absurdity of his whole argument.
Having replied to all the arguments introduced by the Affirmative, I now present to you some
Negative Arguments
1. The Sabbath was given to Israel only. In Deuteronomy 5:1-5 Moses addressed Israel and said: “The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.” And in Exodus 31:13 God said: “Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my Sabbaths ye shall keep.” In the same verse God said: “It is a sign between me and you throughout your generations.” How could it be a sign between God and Israel if all other nations were included too? Let my Friend answer this for me. Hence, the Sabbath was never given to Gentiles.
2. Ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was done away. In II Corinthians 3:7-11 Paul refers to that which was written and engraven in stones at the time the face of Moses shone. This refers to Sinai and the giving of the ten commandments. These commandments were placed upon “tables of stone, written with the finger of God” (Exodus 31:18). “The writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables” (Exodus 32:16). This, Paul says, was done away. We hear him say: “For if that which was done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious” (II Corinthians 3:11). This ends the Sabbath, written and engraven in stones, unless Dugger can find it re-established in the New Testament.
3. Christians are not under the law. Sabbatarians constantly refer to “the law” as meaning the ten commandments, including the Sabbath. My friend has done the same in his argument on James 2:10, 11. But if “the law” means the Sabbath, we are no longer under the Sabbath, for we are not under the law. In fact, “the law” refers to the Old Testament system, sometimes called “the law,” sometimes, “the law of God,” and sometimes, “the law of Moses.” Since the Sabbath belonged to that, we are not required to keep it longer. Note the following facts about “the law.” (a) “We are not under the law” (Romans 6:14; Galatians 5:18). (b) We are dead to the law (Romans 7:4). (c) We are delivered from the law (Romans 7:6). (d) Christ is the end of the law (Romans 10:4). (e) “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ . . . we are no longer under a schoolmaster” (Galatians 3:24, 25). (f) “The law” has been abolished (Ephesians 2:15).
4. The Sabbath is gone. In Amos 8:5 the Jews said: “When will the new moon be gone, that we may sell corn? and the Sabbath, that we may set forth wheat?” Two questions are here presented: When will the new moon be gone? And when will the Sabbath be gone? My friend says the Sabbath will never be gone, but God said it would, for in answering their question in verse 9, he declared: “And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord God, that I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth in a clear day.” This was fulfilled when Jesus died on the cross (Mark 15:33). There the sun went down at noon -- at noon darkness covered the earth and remained for three hours. At that time the feast of new moons ended. My friend will agree to this. But the Sabbath also ended, and since that time, no inspired man ever commanded anyone to keep the Sabbath holy.
5. The Sabbath blotted out at the cross. In Colossians 2:14, 16, Paul makes this statement: “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross . . . 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 days.” We are not to be judged, therefore, concerning Sabbath days, for the handwriting concerning them has been blotted out, just as it has with respect to meat, drink, holy days or new moons. All of these were blotted out when Jesus died. Not one has been re-instituted since his death.
We wish to first notice our friend’s reference to Amos 8:5-9 where he claims the prophet foresaw the time when the Sabbath would cease, but he is mistaken as the entire prophecy of Amos is given. We will begin with verse 5 and quote to verse 9 and let the reader be the judge if this shows the Sabbaths were to cease. It reads: “When will the new moons be gone that we may sell corn? and the Sabbaths that we may set forth wheat making the ephah small and the shekel great, and falsify the balances by deceit? That we may buy the poor for silver, and the needy for a pair of shoes, yea, and sell the refuse of the wheat. The Lord hath sworn by the excellency of Jacob, Surely I will never forget any of their works. Shall not the land tremble for all of this, and everyone mourn that dwelleth therein? . . . And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord that I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth in a clear day” (Amos 8:5-9).
Because Israel became corrupt and wanted the Sabbaths to end, so they could sell and cheat by making the ephah small and falsifying the balance by deceit, the Lord said the land would tremble, and everyone mourn that dwell therein, and this punishment would begin when the sun went down at noon, etc. This was the terminating point of Israel’s sins, and after the crucifixion of Jesus the nation was smitten. The Lord did not promise them that the Sabbath would end and that they could falsify the balances by deceit when the sun went down at noon, but rather that judgment would come upon the nation because of their corrupt desires of wanting the Sabbaths to end and desiring to falsify and cheat.
We next answer his second argument that the ten commandments ended according to II Corinthians 3:7-11 where it says: “The ministration of death written and engraven on stones was glorious,” but that it had no glory by reason of the ministration of the Spirit which was more glorious, and that the ministration of death passed away. We agree that the old ministration of death written and engraven on stones has ended, but this comes a long way from saying that the ten commandments ended and were abolished, as so many people would like to have it say. There is much difference between the words “ministration of death,” and “the ten commandments.” They come far short of being synonymous terms. Everyone knows that the old administration ended, and we have a new and more glorious one through Jesus Christ. This refers to the whole system back there. The ten commandments were written on tables of stone by the finger of God and also the law of pardon by the blood of the animal or the Mosaic law of blood sacrifice was written on stones. Note the following, in Joshua 8:31, 32 the Lord gave instructions for Israel to erect an altar of whole stones and to offer their burnt offerings thereon, and also to write the law of Moses on these stones. Verse 31 reads: “And he wrote there upon the stones a copy of the law of Moses, which he wrote in the presence of the children of Israel.” This was the law of Moses and not the ten commandments. God wrote the ten commandments with his own finger on tables of stone (Exodus 31:18; Deuteronomy 9:10). God also wrote the second tables (Deuteronomy 10:1-5). Moses wrote the old law of pardon through the blood of animals and this law was written in a book (Deuteronomy 31:24-26). And this is the law that was written on the stones of the altar. Then why say that II Corinthians 3:7-11 teaches that the ten commandments were abolished, when we know the old law of pardon through the bloody sacrifices ended, and that the new order of pardon through the precious blood of Jesus, took its place, which is indeed a more glorious ministration accompanied as it is by the presence of the Holy Spirit, is far more glorious. When the Republican ministration of laws gives away to the Democratic administration, it does not do away with the constitution of our nation, or the fundamental basic laws. Neither did those fundamental, organic, basic laws of heaven end, known as the ten commandments, when the old ministration which was written on stones, cease, and give place to the new and more glorious ministration of the spirit.
Our friend believes because Christians are not under the law, they do not need to keep the commandments, but it is sinners who are under the law. They are under its power, and under its penalties when they break it. Being dead to the law by the body of Christ shows that our sins have been forgiven us, and the law has no more effect upon us. Its grip of death has been released by our acceptance of Jesus Christ (Romans 6:14). Delivered from the law by the body of Christ (Romans 7:6) again shows our release or deliverance from the penalty of death hanging over us while sinners, and while breaking the law. Christ being the end of the law (Romans 10:4), for righteousness, means that the power of the law to condemn and destroy us has no more dominion over us because we have accepted Jesus Christ and his blood law of pardon. Our sins hence are forgiven and the law has no more dominion over us. Notice that Paul is careful to say that Christ is the end of the law for righteousness. If we could break the law because Christ came and was crucified, then he would be the end of the law for wickedness, and acts of violence which the law forbids. But he is the end of the law for righteousness. He has released us from the death cell in which we were bound while sinners. We were waiting our execution, just as the murderer in the death cell of our prisons. When we accepted the pardoning favor (grace) of Jesus Christ we were turned loose and set free, just as the criminal is when granted a pardon by the governor of state. That prisoner set free, by the pardon power of the governor has his freedom, to do acts of righteousness, and not violence. He is under the grace or favor of the governor, and no longer under the power of the law. Just as we who were once sinners, were bound in the death cell awaiting our sentence of judgment, but when we accepted the grace offered by the pardoning power of Jesus Christ we are made free. We are no longer under the law but under the grace or favor of heaven, and are free. Not free to break the law, any more than the prisoner is free to break the law and commit murder again, because he is pardoned by the governor, and under his grace and favor.
These foregoing scriptures, about being dead to the law by the body of Christ, and not being under the law but under grace, etc. are from Paul’s writings. Peter in speaking of Paul’s writings says they are hard to be understood, and “they that are unlearned and unstable wrest them to their own destruction” (II Peter 3:15, 16). We do not believe our friend interpreted these scriptures wrong because he is unstable, for we believe he is honest, but he has surely wrested them in such a way that people believing in them as he herein set them forth will be led to sin and destruction. Those who believe Christ is the end of the ten commandment law, so we can break it, and those who believe because we are under grace, we do not need to keep the ten commandments of God, will surely meet the doom of sinners and are in the category spoken of by Peter, who are “wresting Paul’s writings to their own destruction.”
The last one of our friend’s arguments is found in Colossians 2:14-16, where he again confuses the law of God, or the ten commandments, with the old law of pardon, or law of Moses. It reads: “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way nailing it to his cross … Let no man therefore judge you in meats or in drinks or in respect to an holy day, or the new moons, or Sabbath days which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is Christ.” Whatever this was blotted out it was something against the apostles and contrary to them. How could the ten commandments be against any good men like the apostles were? Notice this was the handwriting of ordinances that was blotted out. It was contrary to the apostles, and the ten commandments are in harmony and not against any good man. Good people with whom the Holy Spirit is dwelling are in harmony with the ten commandments, and they have no desire to commit the acts of violence which that law forbids. Hence, this law nailed to the cross was not the ten commandment law of God, but it was just as these verses say, “the law of ordinances.” It was the old law of pardon by the blood of animals which Moses wrote in a book, and placed in the side of the ark. This law contained over one hundred commandments and was only to last until Jesus came. It was a law against the beloved apostles because they had accepted Jesus, and found no virtue in killing animals and practicing all the ritual and endless ceremonies taught by the old pardoning system of the law of Moses, with its meats, drinks, and new moons, and yearly Sabbath days. In Leviticus 23rd chapter we are told about the holy days, new moons, and yearly Sabbaths, which have no connection whatever with the weekly Sabbath. On these yearly Sabbaths, of which there were many, they had to kill from 18 to 45 animals each day. The blood of these animals pointed forward to the blood of Jesus. When Jesus died upon Calvary and shed his blood, this old system ended. They had no need of these Sabbath days any more because the killing of animals was past. These days set apart for these bloody sacrifices were ended. The apostles understood all of this and that is why the law herein mentioned was against them and contrary to them. Dear reader, the Lord says: “Study to show thyself approved of God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of God” (II Timothy 2:15). The holy ten commandments were not included in what was nailed to the cross, neither was the weekly seventh day Sabbath, for it plainly says it was the law that was against the apostles and contrary to them, which was not so with the law of God’s ten commandments. They are not contrary to, or against any good man.
The ten commandments were written on tables of stone (Exodus 31:18). The law of Moses, with bloody offerings for pardon of sin was written in a book (Deuteronomy 31:24). God’s ten commandments were written with his own finger (Exodus 31:18), while the law of animal sacrifice, or the law of Moses, was written by Moses (Deuteronomy 31:9). The ten commandments were placed in the ark (Deuteronomy 10:5), while the other law that was against the apostles and contrary to them was placed in the side of the ark (Deuteronomy 31:25, 26). The ten commandment law of God was to continue forever, and not one commandment cease (Psalm 111:7, 8), but the other law, the law of pardon by the blood of animals, ended (Ephesians 2:15). This is why the law of God and the commandments of God are mentioned so often in the New Testament, and we are told to observe them in the following texts (Matthew 5:17, 19; Romans 2:13; Romans 7:1, 12, 22) also Romans 8:7 where it says “the natural or carnal mind is enmity against God and is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” We do not make void the law through faith (Romans 3:31). We are not pardoned or justified by the deeds of the ten commandments, for this law is the knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20). New Testament circumcision is keeping the commandments of God (I Corinthians 7:19). We are to keep this whole law and not offend in one point (James 2:10, 11). If we sin, we transgress the law, for “sin is the transgression of the law” (I John 3:4). “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (I John 2:4). “This is the love of God, that we keep his commandments” (I John 5:3). The remnant church against whom the dragon beast is to make war are the people keeping the commandments of God and having the testimonies of Jesus (Revelation 12:17). Those saved in the judgment are the ones keeping the commandments of God (Revelation 14:12). And those who enter the city of gold and eat of the tree of life are the obedient who keep the commandments of God (Revelation 22:14).
Furthermore, Jesus Christ, knowing that the Sabbath was going to remain, said not a jot or tittle would pass from the law, as long as heaven and earth were here (Matthew 5:17, 19), and he also told his beloved disciples to pray that their flight would not be on the Sabbath day, or in the winter time. It was not because the winter was holy that he did not want them to flee at that season as my friend says, but it was because of the hardships and suffering in the mountains during the storms, snows and rain of that season. I lived in that country myself and therefore know something about the winters in the mountains there. Another very amusing dodge my friend took of this strong text was, that the gates of Jerusalem would be closed on the Sabbath and they could not flee on that day, but if he will examine the text again, and more carefully, he will see that Jesus was telling the people of Judaea to pray that their flight would not be on the Sabbath day, and not to those just in Jerusalem, and there was no wall around the country of Judaea, or no closed gates. Surely he will have to correct this error on his part and find a better excuse for Jesus teaching the sacredness of the Sabbath down in this dispensation.
My friend has agreed that the Sabbath was sanctified, and set apart for a sacred use, by God Almighty according to Genesis 2:1-3, but he assumes that it was thus made sacred 2500 years after creation, because he says it is not mentioned until after Israel came out of Egyptian bondage. Because God says he showed Israel his judgments and gave them his Sabbaths after he had brought them out of Egypt, my friend assumes that God had never given them his judgments and Sabbaths before this time. His assumption, however, is wrong because we find that God gave his laws, statutes and judgments to Abraham long before Israel ever went into Egyptian bondage (Genesis 26:5). While God rested on the Sabbath at the creation of the world, a fact our friend admits, yet he passes this by lightly as only a trifling incident in the concourse of events. Jesus said “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27). Man was made at creation, and so was the Sabbath, which my friend admits. If his contention is true, dear reader, then God rested on the Sabbath, and the race of men he created failed to follow God’s example, and on for 2500 years they desecrated the Sabbath day until God made a special race of men for the Sabbath which he called Israel. But this is contrary to what Jesus said. He said the Sabbath was made for man, and not a special race of men for the Sabbath. Our claim is that because God set the example of resting from his creative work on the seventh day, he immediately set it apart, or sanctified it for man. Also that God’s people have so regarded it in every age of the world. As God is “no respecter of persons” (Romans 2:11; Ephesians 6:9), and as he never changes (Malachi 3:6), his divine purpose has remained the same from the beginning, and he never gave Israel any different requirements to meet from what he gave Abraham and all men created from the beginning. That his divine purpose pointed with precision to the birth of Jesus when the system of pardon was to be changed, from the blood of the animal to that of Jesus Christ, but the laws which constituted sin were never changed or altered. His commandments containing the Sabbath were to remain forever (Psalm 111:7-9).
There were more than two million of Israelites who came out of Egypt, from the bondage of slavery, where they could not worship God as they wished to do. Therefore, when God brought them out where they had the liberty to keep his holy day, he gave it to them again for he said “remember.” It was an institution previously given or he would not have said “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” Then again when he rained the manna (Exodus 16), and before they had reached Sinai, he did not rain it on the Sabbath which he said was the “rest of the holy Sabbath.” God also said: “How long refuse you to keep my Sabbaths and my laws,” showing that these had been given at some previous date, and they were not keeping them. The reason was they were in bondage, and the word “remember” in this case referred to something they had previously known about, for God said: “How long refuse you to keep my commandments and my laws” (Exodus 16:28). When they broke the Sabbath they broke a law that contained the Sabbath, for God says so. These were the same laws that Abraham kept, because Israel had not yet reached Sinai; therefore, Abraham kept the Sabbath that God blessed at creation. Abraham was chosen because he kept God’s commandments and laws (Genesis 26:5).
There is no question whatever that God has one system of salvation for all mankind. It is the same for the Gentile as it is for the Jew, for God says there is neither Jew nor Gentile, bond or free, but all are one in Christ Jesus, and “If ye be Christ’s then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:28, 29). Just as the Gentiles had to join themselves to the Lord in the Old Testament (Isaiah 56:6), and keep the Sabbath to be saved, so it is in the New Testament. The Gentiles must indeed join themselves to the Lord, as our friend says, and when they do this, they are adopted into the family of Israel, and become Jews, or Israel. No doubt my friend will object to this but it is gospel. Paul says: “He is not a Jew which is one outwardly, but he is a Jew which is one inwardly, and circumcision is not outward in the flesh, but the circumcision of the heart” (Romans 2:28, 29). Then, he further tells us that circumcision is nothing but the keeping of the commandments of God (I Corinthians 7:19). The commandments of God are to be written in the fleshly tables of the heart with the spirit of the living God, and then they will actuate our life. It is not in the letter but in the spirit that counts, for the letter killeth but the Spirit giveth life. Salvation is not won by dead works, but it is through the Spirit of God operating on the hearts of mankind through prayer that changes their lives, and they have a desire and possess power to do God’s will, and by nature to keep all of God’s commandments including his holy Sabbath day. In Romans eleventh chapter we are told clearly of how the Gentiles are broken off of the wild olive tree, and as branches they are grafted into the tame olive tree, or adopted into the family of Abraham contrary to nature (Romans 11:24). They no longer bear the fruit of the Gentiles, but resemble the fruit of the stock of Israel. If you graft buds of the peach tree onto the plum, according to nature, the peach will continue to bear the fruit of the old stock while grafted into the plum tree, but Gentiles are grafted contrary to nature (verse 24), therefore they leave off the old fruit of Gentileism and bear the fruit resembling that of the tame olive tree, or Israel, and the Lord said of the Sabbath: “It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever, for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed” (Exodus 31:17). The word Israel means an overcomer, and the Lord never intended for sinners to keep the Sabbath. It is for his people.
In Hebrews 4:4-9, we are plainly told that “There remaineth therefore the keeping of a Sabbath to the people of God.” In verse 4 we are told that the Sabbath spoken of here is the seventh day, and it is this Sabbath that remains for God’s people. Our friend says it is the rest in Canaan, but God says it is a Sabbath rest. The Greek word sabbatismos is the same as sabbaton, only used grammatically in the sentence to derive a different ending. It means the Sabbath day rest as anyone familiar with Greek understands, and, furthermore, all we need to do is to believe God. He plainly says here: “There remaineth therefore a rest for the people of God, and he that has entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own work, as God did from his,” and we are told that God ceased from his work on the seventh day of the week in the fourth verse of this chapter.
We are commanded many times in the New Testament to keep the commandments of God in order to be saved, but my friend says we are to keep only nine of them. I keep just one more, making ten, and that is the difference between us. If I am under the law for keeping ten, and fallen from grace, then he is nine tenths as bad off, for he claims to keep nine. The commandments of God, mentioned in the New Testament, when referring to our moral duty toward God, mean the ten commandments just as in the Old Testament. When we are told in I John 3:4 that sin is the transgression of the law, it means the ten commandment law, for sin was the transgression of that law in the Old Testament; and just because some other acts were also considered to be sin, this does not do away with the fact that breaking the commandments was sin then, and is sin today. If God gave another law to take the place of the ten commandments, surely we would have some history of the event. Anciently when he gave laws he did it with wide publicity, but no mention whatever is made of any great gathering or event in the New Testament where he gave new laws. The day of Pentecost would have been an excellent opportunity for such a noble work, but not one word is said about any new laws, but it does say that they continued steadfastly in the apostles doctrine (Acts 2:42). No new laws or new regulations were given. My friend thinks it would be absurd to think about the commandments of God mentioned in Revelation 12:17, being the ten commandments, but when he believes in keeping nine of these same commandments and claims they are binding on Christians, and we have no record of them ever being done away with, then why does he think it absurd to believe when God speaks of the commandments of God, that he means what he says. Surely the whole world knew, throughout the entire Bible period, that the commandments of God were always spoken of as the ten commandments, and vice versa. We therefore claim that when the Lord tells us to keep the commandments of God in the New Testament he refers to the ten commandments just as he did in the Old Testament. Jesus said: “If you will enter into life keep the commandments” (Matthew 19:16-19), and he meant the ten commandments, for he quotes a number of them to show what he did refer to. He did not mention the Sabbath and our friend may emphasize this point, but if he claims the Sabbath is not binding because Jesus did not expressly mention it here, then he will have to concede that the other commandments not mentioned are equally not binding, and there were several of the others not mentioned also. Jesus again meant the ten commandments when he used the expression “the commandments” in Matthew 22:35-39. Here he said the whole law hung on two commandments, love to God and love to man, and that the first and great commandment was to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, soul and mind. This takes in the first four of the ten, as they are all love to God, and the Sabbath is one of them. The last six are love to our fellowman, and embrace the second commandment as Jesus says. The whole law of ten commandments hangs on that one great principle, “love,” love to God being first, and love to man, second. Consequently, Jesus teaches us that the commandments of God mentioned in the New Testament are the ten commandments.
We have also shown previously that it was the custom of Paul to preach on the Sabbath day, and he was not preaching entirely to Jews either, for Acts 17:4 says a great company of Greeks or Gentiles believed. Then they were Christians, and Paul made it his custom to preach to them on the Sabbath. In Acts 18:4 we read how Paul reasoned every Sabbath in the synagogue persuading both Jews and Gentiles, and nothing is said about them worshiping or meeting on any other day. In verse 8 it says many of the Corinthians believed and were baptized; hence, there were Christians here, and Paul stayed a year and six months preaching in a house joining against the synagogue. Here he labored making tents (verse 3) during the week, and nothing is said about them holding meetings on any other day excepting the Sabbath. Furthermore, the Holy Spirit said the day they were meeting was the Sabbath day, and my friend admits it was the seventh day of the week; hence, this alone establishes my proposition that the seventh day is the Sabbath in this age. The Holy Spirit would not deceive us by telling us it was the Sabbath if it had ceased to be at the cross. We know that Paul speaks of the Passover and of Pentecost also in the New Testament, as my friend says. Yes, it is evident that the early Christian church observed these seasons by holding meetings, but not as the Jews observed them. Both of these are to be continued in the kingdom as we are plainly told, and so is the Sabbath to continue over there. The prophet Isaiah assures us that the Sabbath will be kept in the new heaven and the new earth (Isaiah 66:23). The Passover was to be perpetuated as an ordinance, just as Jesus introduced it, forever. It was never to end, and Jesus says he is going to eat it anew with the apostles in the kingdom. It was kept once a year, at the time, and on the day Jesus shed his blood up to 321 A.D. when Constantine put Easter or Passover on a fixed Sunday. This anyone can find in different histories and encyclopedias. Paul says: “Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us, therefore let us keep the feast” (I Corinthians 5:7, 8). They kept it once a year on the very night Jesus introduced it, on the very day Jesus shed his blood. These institutions were kept in the New Testament with the Sabbath, but they were all modified and observed according to the teachings of Jesus. Jesus taught them to keep the Sabbath by performing God’s work and doing good on that day. The old restrictions put on it by Moses in which they were forbidden to kindle fires or pick up sticks, etc., were removed by Christ. It was the same way with the Passover and Pentecost, but they both continued to be kept and observed. When Jesus through the Spirit called the seventh day the Sabbath repeatedly in the New Testament it surely is the Sabbath.
In the New Covenant dispensation, God says he writes his laws on the hearts and in the minds of his people (Hebrews 8:10), consequently God’s laws remain as a part of this covenant. The primary meaning of the word “covenant” is an agreement. This was entered into between Israel and God before Israel got to Mount Sinai. Hence, when the old covenant ended it was the covenant or agreement. See Exodus 19:1-8. In verse 8 it says all the people answered together and agreed. The agreement or covenant was on their part, they were to obey God, and keep his commandments. On God’s part the agreement was that he would make of them a great nation, and continue with them protecting them in Canaan forever. The old covenant passing away was not the ten commandments ending. The ten commandments are spoken of as a covenant, but never as the one that ended. They were what Israel were to keep and they agreed to keep them; then when they failed to keep their part of the agreement, God withdrew his power and protection and they have been scattered all over the earth and lost their Canaan land. God has made a new covenant with his people based on better promises. It is not the land of Canaan we are to possess, but it is an eternal home in his kingdom; but we have to comply with the very same terms, as did Israel. What was sin then is sin now, and all of the commandments are to be kept, for the ten commandments are declared to be a perpetual covenant. They constitute his declared covenant and were given for a thousand generations (Psalm 111:8, 9). There are more than fifty different covenants in the Old Testament and we must not confuse these in a way to do violence to such a righteous code of law as we find in the ten commandments.
Our friend has frankly admitted that the seventh day is the Sabbath; then why not keep it together for the Lord, and not substitute some other day in its place. We appreciate this admission, Elder Porter, for it is right. The seventh day was, and is the Sabbath of God. It is his holy day and does not belong to man to use for himself (Isaiah 58:13; Exodus 20:8-11). May the Lord through the power of his blessed Spirit direct us all and give power to separate from the world and walk as Jesus walked in the way of God’s commandments.
I appreciate the effort made by my opponent in his second affirmative to establish the idea that the seventh day of the week as a Christian Sabbath is enjoined upon God’s people in this age, but the farther he goes, the more apparent becomes his failure. Before replying to the things he has said in this affirmative, I want to call attention to some things he overlooked. These are things of vital importance, and the readers are going to wonder why he said nothing about them.
1. In an effort to prove that the Sabbath was of universal application -- binding on the Gentile as well as the Jew -- Dugger introduced Isaiah 56:6 in his first affirmative. I countered by asking him why the Gentiles were called strangers. He made no reply whatever to my question. Please tell us, Elder Dugger, why the Gentiles were called strangers. Are you afraid to answer?
2. I also asked him this question: “Why did not God bring the Babylonians into Judean captivity for their failure to keep the Sabbath?” My friend says it was as binding upon the Babylonians as upon the Jews. Then why send the Jews into captivity and let the Babylonians go free? Please tell us something about this.
3. In every place in the New Testament where he found “commandments of God” he said it meant the ten commandments. I asked him this: “Does God have any commandments besides the ten?” I predicted that he would not answer. And he passed the matter in complete silence. Elder Dugger, what is the matter with you? Won’t you please answer this question for me? The readers are going to see that you are evading these important matters.
4. I showed from Exodus 31:13-16 that the Sabbath was to be kept by Israel “throughout their generations.” This is the very kind of language used concerning the Passover, burnt-offerings, circumcision, their priesthood, and so on, that proves they were temporary. Such language is never used regarding the other nine commandments. I wonder why my friend said nothing about this.
These difficulties will have to be cleared up by my friend or the readers are going to see his failure. There are other things that he overlooked that I shall emphasize again as I reply to his second affirmative. And now I am ready to make that reply.
My opponent says that Amos 8:5-9 began to be fulfilled at the crucifixion of Christ, but that it refers to the punishments upon Israel and does not mean the Sabbath would be gone. I know there is punishment involved in the prophecy. And it matters not about their evil desires to cheat and defraud. The fact remains that they asked when the new moon and Sabbath would be gone. And God told them when it would be so. My friend admits that the feast of the new moon ended at the cross. Well, when the new moon was to be gone is the same time the Sabbath was to be gone. God said so. Dugger denies it.
His effort to set aside my argument on II Corinthians 3:7-11 is amusing and absurd. This refers to the “ministration of death written and engraven in stones” being done away. My friend tells us that it was the “ministration” that was done away, not the ten commandment law. Well, whatever it was that was done away was the thing “written and engraven in stones.” Dugger, please tell us what it was that was “written and engraven in stones.” Was it the ten commandments? Now, don’t pass this question in silence like you have a number of others, but give us an answer. The thing “written and engraven in stones” was the thing that was done away. The ten commandment law was “written and engraven in stones” (Exodus 31:18; 32:16). I challenge him to find anything else written on those stones. But my friend calls attention to the law that Moses wrote in a book (Deuteronomy 31:24-26) and says: “This is the law that was written on the stones of the altar.” He had just introduced Joshua 8:30-32 to show that Joshua wrote “a copy of the law of Moses” upon the stones of the altar. And he insists that it was this law, instead of the ten commandment law, that Paul referred to in II Corinthians 3:7-11 as being done away. Yes, I know that Joshua wrote a copy of the law of Moses on the stones of the altar. But did Paul refer to that in II Corinthians 3:7-11? Did he say “the law written on the stones of the altar” was done away? What stones did Paul mention in II Corinthians 3? Let us read it in verse 7: “But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance.” Was the countenance of Moses so glorious when Joshua wrote the law on the stones of the altar that Israel could not behold his face? Is that the time when the face of Moses shone? If so, then Paul referred to that. But Moses was dead when Joshua wrote the law on the stones of the altar. This was done after they had crossed the Jordan into Canaan (Joshua 4:1; 8:30-32). But Moses died before they entered Canaan (Deuteronomy 32:5, 6). Hence, his face did not shine so glorious that Israel could not behold it when Joshua wrote the law on the stones of the altar. But when and where did that incident occur? We have the record in Exodus 34:29-35. Verse 29 says: “And it came to pass, when Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the two tables of testimony in Moses’ hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him.” The following verses show that he had to put a veil over his face while he talked with Israel because they were afraid to come nigh when they saw the glory of his face. When did this occur? When Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the two stones on which God had written the ten commandments. Paul referred to this very incident in II Corinthians 3 and declared that the “ministration of death written and engraven” in these stones was done away. My friend made a colossal blunder when he tried to switch this statement to the stones of the altar on which Joshua wrote. My friend’s illustration of the Republican and Democratic administrations does not fit, for those things are not written in that which contains our fundamental, basic laws; but the ministration Paul referred to was written in the stones.
My friend did as I expected him to do with my argument that “Christians are not under the law.” I showed this by Romans 6:14; Galatians 5:18; Romans 7:4-6; Romans 10:4 and Galatians 3:24, 25. Dugger says Christians are not under the law, and admits that the law embraces the ten commandments, but he says: “It is sinners who are under the law.” Well, that just about fixes things for him. Let us see the consequences of his position. 1. It makes Jesus a sinner. Paul tells us he was “made under the law” (Galatians 4:4). If Dugger’s position is right, the Bible is wrong when it says he did no sin, for he was “under the law.” Dugger says that means he was a violator of the law and, therefore, under its condemnation. 2. It makes Christians irresponsible. In Romans 3:19 Paul says: “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law.” According to my friend, this means that the law speaks only to sinners, to those under condemnation. Then the law says nothing to God’s people, to Christians; they are not under the law, and the law says nothing to them. In that case they would not be responsible at all if this law continues in force today. And if the Sabbath is contained in “the law,” and if Christians are not “under the law,” then the law of the Sabbath says nothing to them, inasmuch as it speaks only to them that are under the law. Later on Dugger says: “The Lord never intended for sinners to keep the Sabbath.” Then to whom does the Sabbath law speak? It speaks to them who are under the law, says Paul, but Dugger says Christians are not under the law; so it does not speak to them. Yet sinners were not to keep the Sabbath; so it does not speak to them. I ask my friend to please explain his predicament here. 3. It makes men desire condemnation. Paul said: “Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?” (Galatians 4:21). According to my friend these people were desiring to be condemned. 4. And finally, when the answer of my friend is carried to its legitimate conclusion, it condemns all Christians, for in I Corinthians 9:21 Paul said Christians are “under the law to Christ.” Does this mean all Christians are condemned by Christ? It must, according to my friend’s position. The man in the death cell who is pardoned by the governor is just as much under the law of the state after his pardon as he was before he committed his crime. The grace of the governor does not remove the restriction of the law. To be under the law means to be amenable to the law. Those who live in Oklahoma are under the law of this state; those who live in Oregon are under the law of that state; those who lived in the Mosaic dispensation were under the law of that age. But we who live in the gospel age are “no longer under the law” that governed men then (Galatians 3:24, 25). And since the Sabbath belonged to that law, we are not under the Sabbath -- it is not binding now. Any man who makes that law binding in this age is the man who is “wresting the Scriptures” to his own destruction. I do not claim, according to Romans 10:4, that “Christ is the end of the law for wickedness.” Anyone knows a man cannot break a law that has been abolished.
Now, to Colossians 2:14-16. My friend says this cannot refer to the Sabbath law but to a law that was “against the apostles and contrary to them.” This, he says, was not true with the ten commandment law. To what law, then, did Paul refer? Dugger answers: “It was the old law of pardon by the blood of animals which Moses wrote in a book.” And why was this against them? My friend says: “It was a law against the beloved apostles because they had accepted Jesus, and found no virtue in killing animals.” Furthermore, he says: “When Jesus died upon calvary and shed his blood, this old system ended.” And now, of course, since it is ended, it would be against Christians who have reached Jesus the antitype. Well, if that is what Paul had in mind, he should have made a different statement. He should have said this law “is against us and is contrary to us.” Certainly it is contrary to us since Jesus has died. But Paul did not say it is contrary to us; he said it was. That refers it to the past. While it was in force it was against us and it was contrary to us. And because it was against them, it was blotted out. And the “us” referred to Jews, not to the apostles. Paul was not an apostle while that law was in force, but he was a Jew, and he refers to the past and says “the handwriting of ordinances was against us.” This referred to the whole law system of the Jewish age. It was against them because it demanded perfect obedience (Galatians 3:13). But does Colossians 2:14-16 concern the Sabbath law? Read it for yourself. He mentions “the handwriting of ordinances” concerning meat and drink, holy days, new moons and Sabbath days. Yes, the handwriting concerning Sabbath days was blotted out, according to Paul. But Dugger denies it. I prefer to stand with Paul. My friend claims “the Sabbath days” in this passage refers to the yearly Sabbaths. That is untrue, for the yearly Sabbaths are listed as “holydays.” Note the set order of services they had daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly. Let us read I Chronicles 23:30, 31: “And to stand every morning to thank and praise the Lord, and likewise at even; and to offer all burnt sacrifices unto the Lord in the Sabbaths, in the new moons, and on the set feasts.” Note the things here specified. There was the service for morning and evening (daily), in the Sabbaths (weekly), in the new moons (monthly), and on the set feasts (yearly). This same set order of services is mentioned in II Chronicles 2:4, 8:13, 31:3; Nehemiah 10:33 and other passages. And that is exactly the same order given by Paul in Colossians 2:16. “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day or a new moon or a Sabbath day.” Revised Version. Note the order: “in meat, or in drink” (daily), “in respect of a feast day” (yearly), “of a new moon” (monthly), “or a Sabbath day” (weekly). What the King James translation calls a “holyday” the revised translation calls a “feast day.” And that means the yearly services mentioned in Leviticus 23. So the yearly Sabbaths that my friend has in mind are mentioned as feast days, or holydays, and the weekly Sabbath is shown to be abolished. The argument stands that no man has a right to judge Christians with respect to Sabbath keeping, for the handwriting concerning such has been blotted out and nailed to the cross of Christ.
The distinction which Elder Dugger makes between the law of God and the law of Moses is absurd. He calls the ten commandments the law of God and the remainder of the Old Testament system the law of Moses. Hence, he claims the law of God was written on stones (Exodus 31:18); the law of Moses was written in a book (Deuteronomy 31:24); the law of God was written with his own finger (Exodus 31:18); the law of Moses was written by Moses (Deuteronomy 31:9); the law of God was placed in the ark (Deuteronomy 10:5); the law of Moses was placed in the side of the ark (Deuteronomy 31:25, 26). And then he concludes that the law of God is to continue forever (Psalm 111:7, 8), but the law of Moses was done away (Ephesians 2:15).
I shall fully blast this argument he makes on the two laws. Did it never occur to my friend that what he calls “the law of God” was also written in the book by Moses and was placed in the side of the ark? The ten commandments in full were written twice by Moses in the book (Exodus 20:1-17; Deuteronomy 5:1-21). So if that written in the book by Moses and placed in the side of the ark was done away, that does away with the ten commandment law too. And the statement in Psalm 111:7, 8 does not specify the ten commandments, but it refers to “all his commandments.” Did God have any commandments besides the ten? But you don’t need be disappointed if Dugger does not answer this question. I predict again that he will not. Now, I want to show you that “the law of God” and “the law of Moses” were the same thing. Consider the following: 1. God gave “the law of Moses” (Ezra 7:6). And Moses gave “God’s law” (Nehemiah 10:29). This ruins my friend’s argument. He claims Moses gave the law of Moses, and God gave the law of God, and they are two separate things. 2. God gave “the book of the law of Moses” (Nehemiah 8:1). Moses gave the “book of the law of the Lord” (II Chronicles 34:14). This shows them to be exactly the same thing. 3. Some things written in “the law of Moses.” Remember that my opponent says the law of Moses refers to all that law of the Old Testament dispensation except the ten commandments. Jesus declared: “Moses said, Honor thy father and thy mother.” But this is one of the ten commandments. Again, “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?” (John 7:19). So Jesus refers to the law against murder and says Moses gave it. 4. The things contained in the law of God. Dugger says it contains only the ten commandments. But what does the Bible say? Burnt offerings are contained in “the law of the Lord” (II Chronicles 31:3). The acts of Josiah are written in the same law (II Chronicles 35:26). And Luke makes the following statement: “(As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;) and to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons” (Luke 2:23, 24). None of these things are in the ten commandments; yet they are all in “the law of the Lord.” 5. The expressions are used interchangeably in the eighth chapter of Nehemiah. The book from which Ezra read is called “the book of the law of Moses” in verse 1. Verse 2 calls it “the law.” Verse 3 calls it “the book of the law.” And verse 8 says “they read in the book of the law of God.” So “the law,” “the book of the law,” “the book of the law of Moses,” and “the law of God” are all the same thing. I challenge my opponent to explain all these things in the light of his position. His reference to Romans 2:13; 7:1, 12, 13; 3:31 and such like to prove the ten commandments binding on us is thus exploded. Yes, “sin is the transgression of the law” (I John 3:4), but this has no reference to the ten commandment law.
My friend mentions again a number of verses that speak of the necessity of keeping God’s commandments, such as I Corinthians 7:19; I John 2:4; 5:3; Revelation 14:12; 12:17; 22:14. He assumes these are the ten commandments. I am asking him again: Does God have any commandments except the ten? I asked him that before, but he wouldn’t answer. I wonder if he will leave it alone this time. If he answers, he ruins his argument.
Jesus did not say in Matthew 5:17-19 that the law would not pass “as long as heaven and earth are here.” But he said it would not pass “till all be fulfilled.” My opponent admitted that Jesus fulfilled it. So it passed away. I gave him a number of similar statements, but he silently passed them by. I call upon him to notice the argument I made on this in my first negative. Will he do it? I seriously doubt it, but we will wait and see.
As to the flight in the winter or the Sabbath day (Matthew 24:20), I am fully aware of the fact that there was no wall around the land of Judea, but it is also true that Jerusalem was not the only city that was walled, and escape on the Sabbath would be difficult because their gates would be closed. Certainly such flight on the Sabbath among Jews who were strict in their attitude toward the Sabbath would be difficult for the disciples of Christ. But my friend surrenders his argument by admitting that the statement, “pray that your flight be not in the winter,” did not make the winter holy. Then to pray that their flight be not on the Sabbath day would not make the Sabbath holy. If such a statement makes the Sabbath holy in A.D. 70, it also makes the winter a holy season, and my opponent cannot escape the conclusion here.
Elder Dugger says that I assume that the Sabbath was made sacred 2500 years after creation, but he must not forget that the laboring oars are in his hands. It is up to him to prove that it was set apart before that time. He is the man who is assuming that during the first 2500 years of the history of the world the Sabbath was kept. Let him produce one passage that mentions such [a] thing! He cannot do it. It was God who said he “gave the Sabbaths” in the wilderness (Ezekiel 20:10-12) and “made known” the Sabbath in the region of Sinai (Nehemiah 9:13, 14). If God made it known then, what right has Dugger to say he made it known 2500 years before then? His dispute is with God, not with Porter. I gave these scriptures in my first negative; why didn’t he pay some attention to them? The race of men could not “desecrate the Sabbath” during 2500 years before it was enjoined upon man; it must be enjoined before it can be desecrated. And my friend cannot find where it was enjoined on anybody during that 2500 years. I do not believe, as charged by my opponent, that God made a special race of men for the Sabbath; but I believe “the Sabbath was made for man” (Mark 2:27). However, the Sabbath was not “made for man” until it was sanctified, set apart, or enjoined upon man. In other words, it was “made for man” when God “gave” it to man, but God said: “I gave them my Sabbaths” after he brought them out of Egypt (Ezekiel 20:10-12). This was long after the race of Israel had come into existence. I called my friend’s attention to the fact that God sanctified the seventh day because in it he “had rested” (Genesis 2:1-3), which shows the sanctification of it took place after he rested, not when he rested. But he paid no attention to this fact. He contends that since God is no respecter of persons (Romans 2:11; Ephesians 6:9) and never changes (Malachi 3:6), he has had the same commandments for men in every age. This is not true, however, for God has changed his law (Hebrews 7:12) and has given commandments in this age that he never gave in any other. Did God command Abraham to be baptized? He has commanded men in this age to be. But suppose God did set it apart at creation; that would not make it binding on Christians now, and that is what my opponent is required to prove.
When God said “remember the Sabbath,” did he mean the Sabbath had been previously given? Not at all. The statement simply means “I am giving you the Sabbath; now remember to keep it.” God told Israel to remember the day they left Egypt (Exodus 13:3), but that does not mean they had been previously keeping the Passover. I have already shown that the Sabbath is first mentioned in Exodus 16:23, but my opponent thinks when God said, “How long refuse ye to keep my commandments?” (verse 28), it proves the Sabbath requirement of long standing. But one such refusal would be sufficient to bring forth such a question, especially since they had been rebellious in other matters. Besides, I have already shown that God dealt with them here to “prove them,” whether they would keep his laws. If they had the Sabbath for years before, they would have been proven already.
Reference is made to Abraham’s seed (Galatians 3:28, 29), to the “Jew which is one inwardly” (Romans 2:28, 29), to the grafting in of the Gentiles (Romans 11), and to circumcision (I Corinthians 7:19), to prove that Gentiles must become Jews, in order to make the Sabbath binding on them. But one of the references given says that in Christ “there is neither Jew nor Greek” (Galatians 3:28). Why use a passage to prove the very thing the passage says is not true. Certainly Christians are sometimes called Israel, or Jews, but this refers to spiritual Israel, not to fleshly Israel. In Exodus 31:17, the Israel to whom God gave the Sabbath was fleshly Israel. The argument of Dugger, if true, would bind upon Christians every other commandment God gave to fleshly Jews, as killing the Passover lamb (Exodus 12:6), offering other animal sacrifice (Leviticus 17:5), the burning of incense (Exodus 30:8) and so on. Will my friend make all these binding on the Gentiles who “become Jews, or Israel”? If not, his argument is worth nothing.
Again we consider Hebrews 4:4-9. In my friend’s first affirmative he said the word “rest” in all these verses except verse 9 was from the Greek katapausis and meant “rest after fatigue, the Eden rest, or the eternal rest.” Turn back and read his statement. But now he says the “rest” of verse 10 is the Sabbath rest. Yet it is from the Greek word katapausis. Now, which of these positions does Elder Dugger want; in one affirmative he says it is not the Sabbath rest; in the other, he says it is. Both statements cannot be true. Let him tell us which he wants. And he says the Greek word sabbatismos is the same as sabbaton, except the grammatical use gives a different ending. I deny this emphatically and challenge him to tell the grammatical use of the two words. But lest he will not I shall show them to be the same in grammatical use. In Hebrews 4:10, “there remaineth a rest (sabbatismos) to the people of God.” Sabbatismos is a singular noun, third person, nominative case, used as subject of the sentence. In Mark 2:27, “the Sabbath (sabbaton) was made for man,” sabbaton is a singular noun, third person, nominative case, used as subject of the sentence. Their grammatical use is the same. What is the difference? Sabbaton is of neuter gender; sabbatismos is of masculine gender. The word “Sabbath” in the New Testament always comes from sabbaton (neuter gender). The word sabbatismos (masculine gender) is used only one time in the New Testament and does not refer to the seventh day. They are two different words. The rest of Hebrews 4:10 is the eternal rest that we must labor to enter (Hebrews 4:11). And to cease from work “as God did from his” does not say “on the day God did.”
I keep nine of the ten commandments, not because they were in the ten commandments, but because they have been required in the New Testament law in an enlarged form. And if my opponent will show the commandment for keeping the Sabbath, I'll keep that too. But no one has ever been commanded to keep the Sabbath since the cross of Christ. So I am not nine-tenths fallen from grace, for I do not go to the old law for justification. And I John 3:4 does not refer to the ten commandments. The transgression of any divine law was sin. I ask Dugger to answer this: Would violation of other commandments, except the ten, be sin? Watch and see if he answers this. And it is claimed by the affirmative that no new commandment was given even on the day of Pentecost. Read Acts 2:38. This is the first time men were commanded to be baptized in the name of Christ. It was a new commandment. God means what he says when he “speaks of the commandments of God.” But when Dugger says that means only and always the ten, he says something that God neither says nor means. His claim that through the entire Bible “the commandments of God were always spoken of as the ten commandments” is not true. To set fire to Ai was a “commandment of the Lord (Joshua 8:8). To destroy Amalek, their flocks and herds, were “commandments of God” (I Samuel 15:11). Preaching the gospel was a “commandment of the everlasting God” (Romans 16:26). Not one of these is in the ten commandments. And you can find many others by checking your concordance. Dugger is wrong on this point.
Although Jesus did not mention the Sabbath when he told the rich young man to keep the commandments (Matthew 19:16-22), I gladly admit that it was included, for he was still living under the law. But we are living since the law was abolished at the cross (Colossians 2:14-16). The young man was told to “love thy neighbor as thyself.” This is not one of the ten but belonged to what Dugger calls the law of Moses. All those commandments were binding on him.
Neither did Jesus mean the ten commandments when he mentioned the two great commandments of the law in Matthew 22:35-40. The first was: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind” (verse 37). The second: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” (39). No matter if the principle of love is embraced in the ten commandments (it is embraced in all divine commandments), these are two definite, specific commandments, and neither is found in the ten. They are found in Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18, in what my friend calls “the law of Moses.” In Matthew 19, after naming five of the second group of the ten commandments, Jesus said: “And, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” Thus he shows this is not the second group of the ten commandments, but in addition to it. And Paul, in Romans 13:9, mentioned five of that second group, and then said this is “another commandment.” My friend, therefore, cannot make them the same thing. The two greatest commandments of the law were not in the ten commandments.
My friend argues that the only day on which meetings were held in Corinth for a year and half, during which time many believed and were baptized, was the Sabbath day. At first Paul preached in the Jewish synagogue on the Sabbath (Acts 18:4), but after he turned from the Jews to the Gentiles in verse 6, there is not a word said about any Sabbath meeting. Let my friend notice this. And not a word said about Paul’s keeping the Sabbath at any time. I have often preached on the seventh day, but I did not keep the Sabbath. I was a little surprised that Dugger said the Passover and Pentecost are still binding under the gospel, but he was hard pressed. The Passover was a type, and he would have it kept after the antitype, Jesus, our Passover, has been sacrificed. That reverses type and antitype. But, he says, they did not keep these feasts according to original requirements, but in modified form. If they did not keep them as the law said, they did not keep them at all. In Acts 12:3 and 20:6 it was still called “the days of unleavened bread.” That was as the law required. Does that bind it on us? Does Dugger keep it? Let him tell us. I challenge my friend to produce the proof that the Passover and Pentecost are binding on Christians. I Corinthians 5:7, 8 has to do with purging evil characters from the church, and not to a keeping of the Old Testament Passover.
If Isaiah 66:23 means the Sabbath will be binding in the new heaven and the new earth, it means the feast of the “new moon” will be binding too. Read it for yourself. Does Dugger keep the feast of the new moon?
Yes, I know, according to Hebrews 8:10, that God has laws in his new covenant. But that does not say they were the same laws of the old covenant. Verse 9 says the new covenant was “not according to” the old one. And the covenant was more than their agreement in Exodus 19:1-8. God does not refer to their agreement which they made with him, but to the covenant which he made with them. And that covenant which God made was the old covenant that was done away (Hebrews 8:13; Jeremiah 31:31-34). God said in Exodus 19:5: “If . . . ye will keep my covenant.” He did not say: “If you will keep your agreement.” He also said they broke his covenant (Jeremiah 31:32; Hebrews 8:9), not merely their agreement. So their agreement was not his covenant, but his covenant which they broke was taken away (Hebrews 8:7, 11). What was the covenant that God made? Deuteronomy 4:13 says the Lord “declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments.” The tables on which they were written were called “the tables of the covenant” (Deuteronomy 9:9). The ark in which they were placed was called “the ark of the covenant” (Deuteronomy 31:26). The ten commandments are called “the words of the covenant” (Exodus 34:27, 28). And this covenant Israel broke and God took away.
Another negative (Galatians 4:22-31). Abraham’s son by bondwoman represents covenant from Sinai. Isaac represents new covenant. Bondwoman and her son were cast out (verse 30). That ends covenant from Sinai. Children of that covenant are not heirs with son of free-woman. But Christians are not children of the covenant from Sinai (verse 31). Hence, are not under dominion of the Sabbath law.
Before giving further affirmative argument in proof th