Chapter 2: Who Made and Established the Sabbath?

Jesus Christ had considerable to say and to teach about the Sabbath, and its observance.

Remember the author's remark, "considerable to say." Jesus did many "works" on the Sabbath, but they were good works. Instead of teaching about the Sabbath and its observance, He rebuked the way the religious leaders observed the Sabbath.

In Mark's Gospel we read of the beginning of His ministry, and the Gospel He taught. Repeatedly He said this Gospel came direct from God the Father—God's Message to mankind.

An examination of Mark will demonstrate this declaration concerning the Gospel of Mark is not true. Jesus did not repeatedly say the Gospel came "direct from God the Father." Nowhere in Mark is any such statement made. The only statement in Scripture even remotely related to this statement is found in John 8:28: "...I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things." Jesus does however repeatedly point out that He and the Father are One. What we see here is the author's attempt to distinguish Jesus from the Father for the purpose of diminishing Christ as little more than the "messenger" of the Gospel.

Mark 1:1: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ." The Gospel of Jesus Christ is not a gospel from men about the person of Christ. The Gospel of Christ is Christ's Gospel—the Gospel Christ preached—the Gospel God sent by Jesus for mankind!

Jesus preached the Gospel, and that Gospel concerns Him and what He would someday be doing as the King of Kings. To insist the Gospel was a message from Him, but was not about Him is to take a very narrow view of the Gospel. Read through the writings of the apostle Paul and what he put forth as being the Gospel; i.e., Rom. 1:1; Rom.1:9; Rom. 10:15; and 1 Cor. 9:18. You will see it was not so much what, but about whom. See Col. 1:28

A little later Jesus and His disciples went through the cornfields on the Sabbath day (Mark 2:23). The Pharisees accused Jesus' disciples of breaking the Sabbath by plucking ears of corn to eat.

Jesus, teaching as part of His Gospel how to observe the Sabbath said: "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath: therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27-28).

Jesus said, "The Sabbath was made." It is one of those things that was made. It had to have a Maker. Who, then, made the Sabbath?

Seeing as it was made, it therefore had a beginning. If it had a beginning, then how can it be claimed that it was part of a "spiritual law" that is eternal? Eternal means always existed and always will. Also, was this the topic being discussed (Jesus teaching adherence to the Law), or are we taking something out of context in order to "prove" something?

"For by him [Christ] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible... And he is the head of the body, the church (Col. 1:16, 18).

Very few realize it today—but the Sabbath was made by Jesus Christ! No wonder, then, He said plainly that He is Lord also of the Sabbath! (Mark 2:28.)

The issue is not whether Jesus as God made the Sabbath or not. All things were made by Him. What is the issue, is whether the Sabbath commands are enjoined upon Christians and therefore incorporated into the New (or Christian) Covenant. In the narrative of Mark 2:27, Jesus does not argue that they had not broken the Sabbath, rather He uses the example of David and his men eating the show-bread that was not lawful for him to eat, yet David was blameless. On another occasion where the Jews persecuted Jesus for healing on the Sabbath (Jn. 5:8), Jesus replied, "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." (Jn. 5:17). 

The apostle John declares that: 1) Jesus and His Father works (Jn. 5:17), and; 2) Jesus equated Himself equal to God (Jn. 5:18)—not just a "messenger" for God. Whether we are talking about Jesus as the God of Israel, or Jesus as the Savior of mankind, Jesus said, "I and my father are one." (John 10:30)

Notice Mark 2:27 again! It was not only one of those things that was made—it not only had a Maker—but it was made for someone. Now today the prevalent idea seems to be that it was made "for the Jew." But what did Christ Himself say? He said it was made "for man"!

Jesus is contrasting two things: The religious leaders had through their zeal made Sabbath observance, along with the rest of the Law, an end in itself. One had to keep the Law, and not only that, but the minutia of details concerning the Law. They made little, if any room for acts of mercy or love. They administered the Law with a tyrannical zeal. Jesus is not validating the Sabbath for Christians, He is showing how they had misunderstood and misapplied it to their lives. He did good works on the Sabbath because He was the Lord of the Sabbath.

The Sabbath was made for the man to whom it was given, and not the man to whom it was given made for the Sabbath. HWA treats the passage eisegetically.

Should the Sabbath Be Observed Today?

Let's turn back to the description of the time when man was made.

"...So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them: (Gen. 1:26-27).

Why are we looking for the answer concerning what the New Testament says by going back in the Old Testament? There were no Christians or Christianity then.

Now continue: "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" (Gen. 2:2-3).

Notice now! When "God said, Let us make man," who did the speaking? The original Hebrew word here translated "God" is Elohim. This Hebrew word for God is a uni-plural word (collective noun) meaning more than one Person, yet one God. ... God created all things by Jesus Christ! Therefore, it was Jesus who spoke! It was Jesus who said: "Let us make man." It was Jesus who did the work of creation,..

God rested on that seventh day and

God blessed and sanctified that seventh day.

Notice again! Did Jesus complete His creating on the sixth day? Does it say that on the seventh day he ceased to create? Not at all! Notice more carefully. "On the seventh day God [ended] what? Not creating! He ended "his work which he had made." ...

On the seventh day He rested! He created the Sabbath by resting.

The problem here is that the narrative in Genesis does not say Jesus/God "created" the Sabbath. It merely states that God ended His work on the sixth day. He rested the seventh day because His work of creation was complete. It represented a perfect creation, sanctified and at rest. 

He set apart this day from other days—set it apart for Holy use—for a day of physical rest, in which His people may assemble and worship God!

At this time (after God finished creating) His people consisted of two—Adam and Eve. They did not have to wait until the next seventh day in order to assemble and worship God. Also there is no mention here in the beginning of Genesis that it was a day of rest by command. In Exodus it plainly states that the Sabbath was given to Israel, not the church.  (Exodus 31:13; 31:16) It became a sign of the old covenant which God gave to Israel. Deut. 5:15 adds that Israel was to keep it because they had been delivered out of slavery from the land of Egypt. Each of these verses need to be taken into consideration in order to understand the Sabbath and how it related to Israel; not all of mankind.

Now ask yourself, and answer: does any man have authority to make future time Holy? No man is holy of himself. No man has power to make anything holy. God alone is holy—or whatever God has made holy! No group or organization of men has authority to make future time Holy!

Can any man enjoin something on other men that God did not enjoin on other men? And furthermore, can future time really be holy? That which does not exist cannot be holy. It is another rationalization being used in an attempt to make the Sabbath binding on Christians.

The Sabbath is a space of time. God set it as that space of time from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset. Whenever that time comes to us, we are in holy time! It is God's time, not ours! God made it holy—and in the Ten Commandments, as we shall see in detail a little later, He commanded us to keep it holy! Many do not realize today that it is a sin to profane that which is holy to God!

As we shall see now and later, God commanded the nation of Israel under covenant to keep the Ten commandments (including the Sabbath), not "us" (the church). David and his men ate the show bread that was holy to God, yet they were not accounted as having sinned. Jesus says they were blameless. This attempt to make everything "black and white" when God does not, is to set oneself above God. This holy time concept also can only work for one geographical place at any one time, which was the land Israel occupied. To claim that this holy time applies everywhere is to follow a "flat earth" mentality. The world is round, and the Sabbath does not occur everywhere at the same time, and at the poles it does not occur like it does elsewhere on the globe.

But does it make any difference whether we keep this very day God blessed and made holy? Must the Christian respect what God makes holy?

This holy time of the Sabbath was in relation to the nation of (and therefore the location of) Israel. In order to make the Sabbath work for other locations, a problem arises as to which day you determine is the Sabbath based upon which direction you travel from Israel. If you travel east to America, then the Sabbath would be on what Americans call Friday. If one lives in the Arctic or Antarctic, then there are times there is no sunrise or sunset for very long periods of time.

Moses, raised from a baby as a prince by Pharaoh's daughter, had killed an Egyptian guard, and fled to the land of Midian, near Mt. Sinai. ... There he saw a large bush burning. But Moses noticed that the bush was not consumed. It kept on burning, yet the bush itself was not burnt.

"Moses! Moses!" called God, "...put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is Holy Ground" (Ex. 3:2-5).

The ground a mile away was not holy. Why did it make any difference whether Moses took off his shoes—or where? Here is why! The ground where He then stood was holy! God's presence in that bush made the ground around it holy!

In the very same manner, God's presence is in His Sabbath. —when He came as Jesus Christ in the human flesh—He was still putting His presence in that same weekly recurring Sabbath—He went into the synagogues as His custom was!

This is a poor but interesting analogy. The ground upon Mt. Sinai was considered holy because of God's presence there at that time and location. Is that same spot holy today, right now? If you were to walk over that spot today, would you be struck dead because you were wearing footwear? Is there a sign there today to tell you where the spot is so as to avoid wearing shoes there? Does a voice come out of nowhere to tell you so? Is the burning bush still there? If this analogy worked, shouldn’t Jesus’ disciples have removed their shoes whenever they were in the presence of Jesus? If the area on Mt. Sinai is not presently holy by God’s presence not being there as it was for Moses, then an analogy of the Sabbath not being holy for Christians can also work if God has not put His presence in that day as far as Christians are concerned. Christians are not bound to a geographical location as Israel was. Christians are not a "nation," but rather a family (or children), not unlike, by analogy, Abraham and his family, and this helps to explain how a Christian is in Scripture depicted as being of Abraham’s seed (Gal. 3:29), and not Israel’s.

Jesus Christ is still the same, today, as He was yesterday, and shall be forever (Heb. 13:8). Do you believe that? Is your Bible an authority? Do you accept it as authority? Unless Jesus Christ, in Spirit, is today living in your flesh—actually living your life for you—you are none of His—you are not a Christian (Rom. 8:9). 

If we accept that Jesus is the same today, yesterday, and forever in the sense that He requires commands given to Israel to be eternal and unbending for all, then the same would have to be said for the covenant made with Abraham, which was incorporated into Israel. Circumcision therefore would still be required in the flesh. Speaking of "in your flesh," does Jesus exist in our flesh or in our mind, that nonphysical aspect that makes up who we are? If circumcision can be raised to a spiritual level, then why can't the Sabbath be, as brought out in Hebrews 3 and 4? Does not the rest today refer to a Person (Jesus) and not a day of the week?

Mankind is commanded, by the same Eternal, to take his foot off from trampling over and profaning God's holy day! God requires His children to treat that holy time with a respect not required in other time.

Where in Scripture does it say that the Sabbath and the Ten Commandments are required of all mankind? Only the nation of Israel was given these commands by covenant. The author has drawn a conclusion based upon faulty reasoning and logic. We have gone from Moses taking off his shoes in the presence of God to not trampling over the Sabbath with our feet, by analogy. But it is still an analogy, and is still flawed reasoning.

Notice a prophecy—for our time now:

"If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the Sabbath a delight [not a yoke of bondage], the holy of the Eternal, honourable; and shalt honour Him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: Then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the Eternal hath spoken it"! (Isa. 58:13-14).

There is a plain "Thus saith the Lord!"

To claim this as a prophecy for our time today is an outright deception. Isaiah wrote to those of Israel of his time. One of Israel's fathers was Jacob. Not everyone; not all mankind has Jacob as a "father." The context therefore proves who the text is referring to: Israel, at the time Isaiah lived. The little addition ["not a yoke of bondage"] that the author inserts here brings up an interesting observation. Paul in Galatians 4 and 5 refers to the old covenant as a "yoke of bondage." (Gal. 4:3-5; 4:9; 4:24-25; also see Heb. 2:15)  Is the Sabbath command a part of the old covenant or not?

We honor God by keeping holy those things that He has made holy! We dishonor Him when we speak our own words, saying, "Well, I think the ideas and ways of man—of all of this world's churches—must be right. I'd rather do as they do, and honor them, and be well thought of by them."

Or we could be honest with ourselves and realize that those churches in the world that would demand Sabbath observance as a requirement for salvation are wrong, thereby avoiding honoring them or being well thought of by them. If we are truly going to honor God, then we are not going to put ourselves back under the Law. (Gal. 5:18; 4:21-31)

God commands: "Take your foot off My holy time! Quit trampling all over that which is holy and sacred to me! Quit profaning my holy things—whether it be by My name, My tithe or your income, or My holy day."

The sin is in profaning that which God made holy!

We are again faced with two choices only. Either keeping the Sabbath is right, or all the other churches are right. The author uses black and white thinking here. God does not command us to keep time holy. He commanded Israel to keep the seventh day holy as a part of the covenant between them and God. It is interesting to note how tithing has been brought in here, and the reference to "income" when it was a matter of "increase" for Israel and that increase pertained to their agricultural crops and livestock. If we are commanded to keep the Sabbath, and practice tithing, then we are required to keep all of the Law, as the apostle Paul points out in Galatians 5:2, where Paul states that if you think you are required to practice any aspect of law-keeping (deeds of the Law), you are required to keep all of it. Paul also says you fall from God's grace when you believe so (verse 4).

One other thing. Is tithing a part of the Law of Moses? Yes. Is tithing a part of the Ten Commandments? No. HWA claimed the Ten Commandments were a separate covenant, and not the "Law of Moses" which the Gentile Christians did not have to keep, so how did HWA justify teaching and requiring people to tithe (to him) contrary to Acts 15?

God has never made any other weekly day holy! Man has no authority to make a day holy. You cannot keep a day holy, unless God has first made it holy, any more than you can keep cold water hot—unless it has first been made hot! God made this space of time holy—He commands you to keep it that way!

What God has not enjoined on a man, no other man can enjoin on a man. The Christian Pharisees mentioned in Acts 15 believed that Gentiles had to be circumcised AND keep the Law of Moses, which includes the command for the Sabbath. The apostles concluded that because Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit without first doing these things, how could they be required? Would God give His Holy Spirit to one who was not keeping the Sabbath? Yet this fact is inescapable. God's Spirit was given to Gentiles without any requirement to keep the Law—any of it. As Paul points out, they were a law unto themselves. To conclude that Christians who might be Gentiles, had to now keep old covenant points of Law was to go contrary to the example put forth by Jesus (God) and the teachings of the original apostles who lived with Jesus and were taught by Him. Herbert Armstrong claimed to be an apostle, yet he wasn't there at that period of time. He was not taught personally by Jesus; (Gal. 1:12) he didn't witness the resurrected Christ; (I Cor. 9:1; 15:8) and he didn't do signs and wonders (Rom. 15:19). Those were the credentials of an apostle, even as Paul brings out in his writings. There are no apostles today. They have all died. Jesus did not appear to Herbert Armstrong and instruct him over the course of a couple of years. When the other apostles went to replace Judas, they replaced him with one who had been with them from the beginning even as they (Acts 1:21-22).

This world, and all its civilization—including its religions—consists of a system of beliefs and customs that have been derived from "the way that seems right to a man." God says that way incurs the penalty of eternal death. That way—the way that seems right—is the way of sin.

At the beginning of the New Testament Church, there were many, not a few, who believed that Gentiles should be required to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses. And this was no small dispute! They too thought the way of "doing something" was right. They believed the Law had to be kept, beginning with circumcision. Once one had been circumcised, then they became a part of Israel (or to those in Acts, Jews) and from there, now being of Israel, would be required to keep the whole Law of Moses. This common error is once again believed to be true today. Only Israel was required to keep the Law and hence the Sabbath. In their minds, a Gentile had to become an Israelite before they could be a Christian. This was proved not to be the case then, and it is not the case today.

When men reject the commandments of God, that they may hold to their traditions (see Mark 7:6-9) they must devise arguments to justify their rebellion. 

Mark 7:6-9 is addressing the hypocritical religious leaders of Jesus’ time, who had the Sabbath and its observance, as well as the rest of the Law. Their tradition was to alter the understanding of the Law and its application, including the Sabbath. If one teaches adherence to the Law and the Sabbath which were not commanded by Jesus and His church, is he not being rebellious? Is he not making the same error those Jewish religious leaders did?

One of the arguments is that God's Commandments did not exist until the children of Israel reached Mt. Sinai. But Abraham kept God's commandments 430 years before his descendants reached Sinai.

The assumption is that the commandments that Abraham was given were the same commandments given to Israel. Missing in this argument is a plain statement in Scripture where God commands Abraham to keep the Sabbath. What Abraham was commanded in that covenant is recorded in Scripture.

Read it in your own Bible! "Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, My commandments, my statutes, and my laws" (Gen. 26:5) God is speaking. He is explaining why He made the great promises to Abraham.

New Testament Scriptures state that the promises made to Abraham were due to his faith, not his law-keeping. (Hebrews 11) And there is no conflict in what James says concerning works and faith.

So Abraham kept God's Sabbath!

Again, this is based upon assumption—that the commands given to Israel were the same commandments given to Abraham. To word it another way; the author is trying to say that both had the same or very similar covenants with God. This line of reasoning is easily refuted though. It is found in Deuteronomy 5: 1-3: "And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them. The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day." The narrative goes on to list, among other things, the Ten Commandments with the Sabbath! The author uses implication to state Abraham kept the Sabbath. Moses states quite plainly that Abraham, and the other fathers, did not have this covenant, hence did not have these commandments, statutes, and laws, which includes the Sabbath command.

We read in the New Testament that to break any one of the commandments is sin (James 2:10-11).

HWA flagrantly misquotes and misapplies James here. James used the old covenant Law to show how the law of liberty worked, where if one showed partiality, they were guilty of the law of liberty regardless of how well he or she treated all others. James was not validating the old covenant Law for Christians. If this were the case, then what is the whole Law? It is all 613 points of Law including sacrifices and circumcision.

The Mosaic Law, which was a part of the old covenant, condemns all as lawbreakers. But the law of liberty is the law of Christ (John 13: 34; 14:15), which commands us to love one another as He loved us. (John 15:12; I John 3:23) 

Some try to argue that "perhaps time became lost. Perhaps they lost count of which day was the same seventh day of every week that God rested on."

This is a straw man argument. But something else has now been subtly thrown in: That God rests every week. From which location on the earth does God begin and end His rest? But then, Jesus said, concerning the Sabbath and God: "I work, and my Father also works" (John 5:17).

Adam was created and living when sunset came that sixth day of creation week—when God rested from His work. Adam knew which was the seventh day. Jesus called Abel "righteous" (Matt. 23:35), so Abel kept the Sabbath. Enoch "walked with God," so Enoch kept the Sabbath—and he was "translated" less than a hundred years before Noah. They knew which day was the same seventh day all through this time. Adam lived 243 years with Methuselah, and until Lamech was 56 years of age. These men knew which day was the seventh. Methuselah lived 600 years with Noah, and Lamech lived with Noah 595 years.

Of course these men knew which day of the week was which, and again, this is not the issue. Everything though is based upon assumption. Abel was called "righteous" and this is used to conclude he was righteous because he "kept the Sabbath." Yet in the New Testament, the concept of righteousness apart from the Law is introduced, based on faith. Couldn't this righteousness of Abel be based upon Abel's faith in God, or is faith at that time of no consequence, not relevant? All Abel had to do was perform the right sacrifices, keep the Sabbath, and he was righteous? This all ignores Hebrews chapter 11, especially verse 4: "By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain..." The author claims Abel was righteous because he "kept the Law and Sabbath," yet the author of Hebrews claims it was by faith. Who are you to believe, your Bible, or HWA?

Noah certainly learned from them, and others, which was the same seventh day. And Noah kept it, because Noah was a preacher of Righteousness (II Peter 2:5)—and "all thy commandments are righteousness" (Psalm 119:172)!

So we are to conclude that all righteousness in the Old Testament was based upon law and law only, of which Paul stated that "the law is not of faith" (Gal. 3:12), and that keeping the Law did not affect what was on the inside of a man—that no man will be justified before God by the deeds of the Law (Romans 3:20).

The generation of Israelites which Moses led out of Egypt had had no religious instruction or training. Probably they knew little about the Sabbath. Time could have been lost—to them. But, if so, God revealed it by amazing miracles!

Now notice! These Israelites, some three or four million in total number (600,000 men above age 20), came to the wilderness of Sin two months after leaving Egypt, and some two weeks before arriving at Mt. Sinai. Remember, this is weeks before God gave them the Ten Commandments. 

So, two whole months go by and God has yet to "remind" them about the Sabbath. If the Law and the Sabbath were eternal, spiritual laws, wouldn’t you think God would have informed them of such an important matter even before they had left Egypt? 

"Then said the Eternal unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day,"— why?—"that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no."

Read that again! This was more than two weeks before they received the Ten Commandments—before the Law of Moses. But God's Law was in force and effect. God was going to prove them, whether they would obey one of its points.

Two things to note here: (1) The Sabbath is equated with "the Law" as though the whole of the Law were embodied in the Sabbath, yet it also has to be shown to be but one point or a separate law. It gets played both ways, depending upon need. (2) An admission that the Sabbath is part of the Law of Moses. Since it can easily be proved that the Law of Moses is not binding on Christians, it becomes necessary for the author to "prove" the Sabbath was a separate covenant or a separate law. This does not work, as we shall soon see.

I will show you that God was speaking to them on a Sabbath. It is evident that the Eternal (who, in human flesh later became Christ) first preached to man on the first Sabbath. Adam was created on the sixth day of creation week. Evidently he was created in the late afternoon, since the creation of man was the last act of creation on that day. When the sun had set, immediately after Adam's creation, God preached to him, offering him the gift of eternal life (through the tree of life), and warning that the wages of sin is death (Gen. 2:15-17).

What happened to Eve? The creation of Eve would have been the last act, right? After Adam was created, what happened? God brought all the animals to Adam to see what he would name them. How long did this take? If Adam was created late in the afternoon on Friday, he would have been pretty quick in naming who knows how many animals. It wasn't until after this that Adam was put in a deep sleep, with the creation of Eve. A pretty busy Friday afternoon! As far as the "wages of sin is death", Gen. 2:16-17 merely states that if they ate of the forbidden fruit, they would die. Since Adam didn't die physically after he ate, this "death" refers to separation from God spiritually. To claim God offered Adam and Eve eternal life is not supported by the context. The author also states it was "evident" God preached to them on the Sabbath; however, there is no evident evidence to support this.

When the next morning came—the Sabbath, Moses said (verses 25-26) "Today is a Sabbath unto the Eternal: today ye shall not find it in the field. Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the Sabbath, in it there shall be none." ...

Was it not all right to go ahead and work on the seventh day, and then rest on the first day of the week? Just like most professing Christians today, some of these Israelites thought that would be better.

Where does it say some of the Israelites wanted to have Sunday (the first day) as their day of rest? And why does the author continually try to create ideas concerning what he terms "professing Christians," without clear proof that these people are indeed holding to such beliefs?

On the six weekdays God had Himself gone to the work of raining down manna. But God Himself did none of this work on His Sabbath—holy to Him! On this seventh day God Himself rested from sending them manna!

God did not rain down manna on the Sabbath because He wanted the people to rest—not work—not be out collecting manna. You can't collect it if it isn't there. If it were a case of God resting on the Sabbath because it was the Sabbath, then we live on a flat earth, not a round one. If God did no work on the Sabbath either, how did the manna manage to avoid spoiling?

Notice verses 28-29: "And the Eternal said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws? See, for that the Eternal hath given you the Sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place [to gather—to work] on the seventh day"!

Also notice God refers to commandments and laws—plural. (Exodus 16:28) Yet a case is made by the author that the Sabbath was "in force" before the giving of the Law at Sinai (the codification and institution of the covenant; the Law of Moses) and therefore stands alone. Yet here commandments and laws are referenced. These commandments and laws cannot possibly be just the Sabbath. Yet, if we are to accept that the Sabbath stands alone because it was taught and enforced before the giving of the Law, then we would have to conclude the same for the rest of the commandments and laws! All the laws and commandments (the entire Law of Moses) would also therefore be binding on Christians, because it all existed before the formal giving of the Law at Sinai. This includes circumcision, sacrifices, new moons, Sabbath rest for the land, all 613 laws given to Israel!

And after that blazing rebuke from God, the people rested on the seventh day! 

Nothing in these verses gives the impression that they received a "blazing rebuke from God." Another thing to note is that the author totally overlooks that the manna represented Christ as the Bread of Life. 

It certainly does make a difference to God! And God is the same today as he was yesterday, and will be forever (Heb. 13:8).

The implication being God does not change covenants and laws. Circumcision therefore is still required under this interpretation. That the apostle Paul points out that the Law was added because of transgressions is completely overlooked and ignored. (Gal. 3:19) The author of Hebrews also points out in Hebrews 7:12 there was a change in the Law. How can this be if the above statement by the author is to be so interpreted? How was it that Jesus was able to alter the Passover with the wine and bread? Why, in the Old Testament is there a prophecy concerning a New Covenant if the old one was perfect, and God does not change?

Manna fell for six days—but none on the seventh day. God Himself worked by sending it the six weekdays, but He rested on the seventh day. On the first five days of the week, the manna would decay and breed worms if any was saved over, but on the eve of the Sabbath, the night after the sixth day, it did not decay but remained fresh in perfect state of preservation—and they had no refrigerators! On the sixth day God gave them twice as much. On the seventh day He gave them none.

What kept the manna from spoiling on the seventh day? If the natural event was that it would spoil if kept for any length of time, then it took "work" to prevent it from spoiling on the Sabbath! God was working on the Sabbath! He was keeping the manna from spoiling! And if God were indeed resting on the Sabbath, then what was He doing in regards to those places on the earth where it would not have been the Sabbath at that same instant? This is all clever rationalization where we are to believe God rests on the Sabbath and Christians must also. The Sabbath mentioned in Hebrews 4:3-4 refers to salvation rest; the ultimate meaning of "Sabbath" being the rest of redemption. This fact is ignored, because it is necessary under the theology of Herbert Armstrong that the rest of God be the Sabbath. They are two different rests. Israel had the Sabbath day rest, but didn't enter into God’s rest due to their faithlessness.

But God revealed by these many miracles which day is His Sabbath. God gave them blazing rebuke for not keeping His Sabbath. 

Again, there was no "blazing rebuke" to the people. God spoke to Moses, not the people. (Exodus 16:28) The author writes as if it were all the people went to gather on the Sabbath, when it was only "some of the people." (Exodus 16:27)  

Notice, too—verse 29: "The Eternal hath given you the Sabbath." Nowhere in all God's Word can you find any statement that "The Eternal hath given you Sunday." Who, then, did give the professing Christian world its Sunday? You can easily find the answer in history—carnal man gave professing "Christianity" its Sunday—pagans cut off from God—men in rebellion against God! It came out of paganism! And the world follows the custom!

The author again attempts to set up a bias against what he labels "professing Christians" in order to persuade the reader likewise. Could we conclude that if a man tries to enjoin anything, such as a certain day, upon Christianity, whether it comes from "paganism" or out of ignorance, the result is essentially the same? Examine those Scriptures that refer to false teachers—they were insistent on teaching the Law.

Is your authority preponderant human acceptance, or is God your authority, and God's Word, the Holy bible? Which?

Your Eternity hangs on your answer to that question!

The implication being that eternal life is only given if you keep the Sabbath. If you don't, you are condemned for all eternity. In other words, it's a life of Law, not a life of faith. Your faith is counted for nothing. 

Next to Chapter 3 of 8

Back to Introduction and Chapter 1

Back to Questioning HWA's Doctrines

Return to top